Bonavito v. Harvard: The Greatest Pro Se Victory in 50 Years, Part 4

See Part 3: https://www.rabcpafirm.com/videos/bonavito-v-harvard-the-greatest-pro-se-victory-in-50-years-part-3/

See full video series: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQeQ735AUyE3lyZDFqs3ktlOwb-oW4IE6

At the hearing in April 2022 at the District Court of Massachusetts it became evident that there were some issues with the judge and the defendants. After the hearing I performed an investigation and discovered that the judge was very close with Harvard and their law firm, and the judge was part of Harvard's management team.

After the improper conduct of the judge in the admittance of false and fraudulent documents I filed a formal complaint with the District Court of Massachusetts, which was promptly ignored. In addition, I appealed the case at the First Circuit Court. However, the First Circuit Court is in the same building as the District Court and once again my pleadings were completely ignored.

A summary of the Massachusetts First Circuit Court of Appeals litigation is as follows:

July 26, 2021; notice of scheduling conference was received, case is moved to Massachusetts

July 27, 2021; ECF notice filed case was assigned to The Federal District Court Judge.

August 12, 2021; I filed a notice of appearance.

November 21, 2021; Harvard filed their second notice to dismiss.

The defendant was making a motion to dismiss the case under rule Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); which meant they were claiming that I failed to state a claim which relief could be granted upon.

January 6, 2022; I filed my reply brief on the plaintiff’s opposition to Harvard’s second motion to dismiss and leave to amend complaint.

They even ventured outside the realm of the plaintiff’s complaint when they quoted Harvard’s website page 2 (“Motion to Dis.” Doc 43, at 2, ¶2 and 3) and emails from Harvard’s employees page 3 (“Motion to Dis.” Doc 43, at 3, ¶1).  It is clear that Harvard is presenting evidence within the second motion.

Some of the defendant’s outrageous claims in the Second Motion to Dismiss can be seen when they state the following: (“Motion to Dis.” Doc 43, at1, ¶3):

Among other remedies, Bonavito seeks “multimillion-dollar” compensation for unspecified “financial injury.”

However, the complaint is very specific in what damages the plaintiff is seeking and based on damage methodologies that federal courts have relied upon. (“Cplt.” P 11-12).

January 4, 2022; Harvard files reply brief. Brief contains new discovery and fraudulent documents in addition to distorting case law.

February 5, 2022; I filed a motion to file a Sur-Reply that was basically ignored by the court. I could not file server reply due to the judge’s late response to my motion.

March 6, 2022; A hearing was scheduled and later postponed a number of times,

April 27, 2022; Hearing, Federal District Court Judge turns a 12(b)(6) motion  into a summary judgment motion. Judge allowed the defendant to submit false and unauthentic documents without appropriate discovery.

April 29, 2022; I filed the complaint with District Court for judicial misconduct and disability. The Judicial Misconduct Disability Review indicated that judges could have extensive relationships and be employed by the defendant and not disclose this to pro se litigants.

October 6, 2020; First Court of Appeals denied my appeal. This meant that judges could hide their relationship with the defendant and pro se litigants and dismiss cases based on false documents presented by the defendant.

Important New Case Law Established from Bonavito v. Harvard University

1. Federal judges can dismiss cases based on fraudulent information submitted by defendants that they have relationships with.
2. Federal judges can turn Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) motion into a Summary Judgment based on new and fake evidence submitted by defendants; without any discovery.
3. Federal judges can have close relationships and management positions with the defendant and not disclose those relationships to pro se litigants.
4. Federal judges can hold pro se litigants to higher legal and pleading standards than ivy league educated attorneys.
5. Federal judges can ignore Amended Complaints filed by pro se litigants.
6. Federal judges can harass pro se litigants and delay pro se litigants’ use of the “Case Management/Electronic Case Files” (CM/ECF); Federal Electronic Filing Case Management System.
7. Federal judges can ignore pro se litigants during a hearing if they dislike their pleadings.
8. Federal judges can say that they carefully read The Complaint even when they did not