A motion was filed by attorneys for Robert Crispin - one of UNUM's Board
of Directors to allow TWO Portland, Maine attorneys to practice in
Massachusetts.  The motion was dated December 7, stamped received by
clerk's office on Dec. 9.  I recieved a copy of the front of this motion
with the following notation:

12/10/98 Allowed, Freedman, G. J. [I thought his name was Frank H.
Freedman - FHF]

Meanwhile, of course, how could I have time to file an opposition.
These attorneys not only swore they were "familiar" with the Local
Rules, but also quoted the wrong rule number and also failed to confer.

Here's the opposition I was planning to submit and will now submit with
my letter to the judge:

UNITED STATE FEDERAL COURT
    DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JUDY E. MORRIS, MD   )
      )
   Plaintiff  ) Civil Action No. CA 98-30204 FHF
      )
v.      )
      )
UNUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA,  )
 et al.    )
   Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF JUDY E. MORRIS, MD, PLAINTIFF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
WILLIAM J. KAYATTA, JR. AND GERALDINE G. SANCHEZ TO ALLOW APPEARANCE AND
PRACTICE IN A PARTICULAR CASE.

I, Judy E. Morris, MD, being a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, under pains and penalties of perjury do hereby
strongly oppose the Rule 83.5.3(b) motion of the above stated persons to
practice law in the State of Massachusetts, for permission to act in the
case of Morris v. UNUM, et. al. for the following reasons:

1) Plaintiff restates all objections as stated in previous motion of
opposition to appearance by out of state attorney Patricia Peard.
2) Attorneys Kayatta and Sanchez have sworn that they are familiar with
the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts and yet:
   a) The rule they are attempting to cite for permission to practice is
Local Rule 83.5.3 (b) not 83.2.  Local Rule 83.2(b) deals with a
different issue entirely.
    b) Local Rule 7.1 MOTION PRACTICE, clearly states that "No motion
shall be filed unless counsel certify that they have conferred and have
attempted in good faith to resolve or narrow the issue."  Plaintiff sees
no exception in this rule for the above motion and no such conference
occurred or was attempted by the above attorneys.
3) As a physician, plaintiff feels that the professional licensing
boards of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts must exist for a purpose.
Admitting unlicensed attorneys to practice law in this state just based
upon their declaration that they are competent would be similar to
allowing an unlicensed physician to practice just by claiming he/she
knew what he/she was doing.
As a matter of fact, UNUM Insurance Company seems to be of the opinion
that their physicians/medical directors, who are NOT licensed in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, are competent to diagnose and recommend
treatment of citizens of the Commonwealth even when their diagnosis is
at odds with the claimant's own LICENSED examining physicians.
4) Furthermore, the above attorneys have proven that they are NOT
familiar with the local rules of the court by misstating the appropriate
rule and failing to confer.
5) If the court grants these motions under these circumstances,
plaintiff hopes that she will be given the same deference should she
decide to play "fast and loose" with the Court Rules.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this 13  day of December, 1998.

       Judy E. Morris, MD
       PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served
by United States Postal Mail, postage prepaid upon the US District Court
of the District of Massachusetts and upon all  defendants in Morris v.
UNUM, et al.

       Judy Morris, MD
       PRO SE

 Judydoc's Home Page 


 Insurance Page 


 Uncivilization and its Discontents 


 Home Page 








Email Judy Morris


at: judydoc AT worldnet DOT att DOT net


Email me, Bill Hammel


at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us





The URL for this document is:


http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/DOCS/motop121498.html


Created: December 17, 1998


Last Updated: May 28, 2000