The Law Offices of John G. Mateus, Esq. Wins Appeal for Client in Land Court Case

The Law Offices of John G. Mateus, Esq. scored a victory for their client, Luis Martinez, in the appeals court case of Martinez v. Lynn Housing Authority, Appeals Court Docket No. 17-P-1274, ____Mass. App. Ct. ____ (2019).  The Appeals Court unanimously affirmed the Land Court’s finding of contempt and award of attorney’s fees against the … Continue reading The Law Offices of John G. Mateus, Esq. Wins Appeal for Client in Land Court Case

Law Offices of John G. Mateus, Esq. join in writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of asbestos victims in Oliver v. Met Life, No. SJC-12544

The Law Offices of John G. Mateus, Esq. are proud to announce our contribution to an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the plaintiff asbestos victims and the Massachusetts Trial Attorneys Association (MATA) in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of Oliver v. Met Life, No. SJC-12544. Our firm worked with MATA and attorneys Thomas … Continue reading Law Offices of John G. Mateus, Esq. join in writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of asbestos victims in Oliver v. Met Life, No. SJC-12544

Embarrassing, Un-American, and a Threat to Free Speech: CUNY Law students try to shut down free speech using heckler’s veto, prove they are Fake Americans

John G. Mateus, Esq.

CUNY Law students are an embarrassment to lawyers and law students everywhere. (link)

See this professor’s attempt to use free speech to say something the law student’s don’t like—and their disgusting, unethical, unAmerican response in trying to use the heckler’s veto.

Given such un-American behavior, they should be summarily expelled from law school and barred from taking any state bar exam–on the basis of their proven character. They are unfit to be lawyers because they demonstrated unfit character based on unethical behavior , and if they should become lawyers, will be a threat to undermine our basic constitutional freedom of speech.

Let me be absolutely clear: “Hate speech” is free speech.  It is protected by the First Amendment. And anyone who says otherwise is a Fake American. 

orwell-free-speech

View original post

In a Major Second Amendment Decision, the Massachusetts High Court Rules the State Ban on Stun Guns Unconstitutional

John G. Mateus, Esq.

Case nameRamirez v. Commonwealth, _____Mass.____(April 17, 2018), Docket No. SJC-12340.

SUMMARY : In a major Second Amendment decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that the Commonwealth’s statute banning members of the general public from owning stun guns was unconstitutional. This ruling completely eliminated any part of the statute banning stun guns, meaning that, if the ruling took immediate effect, there would be no restrictions on who could obtain a stun gun. Because of the breadth of the ruling, the SJC stayed the entry of the judgment for sixty (60)days  from the date of the rescript to give the  legislature time to add constitutional restrictions to ownership, if the legislature so chose.    

DECISION/VOTE/JUDGES: 6-0 (Quorum), by Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants, Frank M. Gaziano, David A. Lowy, Kimberly S. Budd, Elspeth B. Cypher, & Scott L. Kafker.

Opinion written by Chief Justice Gants.

View original post 977 more words

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Declares GPS Monitoring Strictly Illegal if Not Announced in Open Court At the Sentencing Hearing

John G. Mateus, Esq.

Ankle_Monitor_Lyman_0.JPGCase Summary for Commonwealth v. Grundman, ____Mass.___(March 22, 2018), SJC Docket No. 12264.

SUMMARY: After the defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of child rape, he was sentenced to both incarceration and probation, but it was not announced at the sentencing hearing that he would have GPS monitoring as part of his probation. Despite that, probation subjected him to GPS (global position satellite) monitoring, and when the defendant moved to have the GPS removed ten months later as illegal, the court resentenced him to probation with GPS monitoring. On appeal, the SJC found that the GPS monitoring was illegal because it was not announced in open court at the original sentencing hearing, and that the resentencing was illegal as well; it ordered reversal and for the trial court to remove the GPS monitoring.

DECISION,JUDGES, WRITER: Unanimous 4-0 (quorum), by Justices Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ…

View original post 725 more words