Failure Mode 1
Introduction
Some judicial errors are hard to categorize because they involve judgment, discretion, or competing interpretations. This page is not about those cases.
This page concerns a narrower and more disturbing failure: plainly false findings, material mischaracterizations of the record, and omissions so severe that an order proceeds as if a central factual dispute was never raised.
In my experience, this is not an isolated anomaly. It is common enough that the pattern is better shown through multiple examples than through abstract discussion alone. That is why this page begins with three examples from the Chief Justice in Northern California and then turns to examples from Massachusetts state courts, with more examples to be added.
Why this matters: the point is not simply that the rulings were wrong. It is that the written account itself became false in ways that undermined both due process and the basic dignity of the person being judged.
Example 1A “Clear → not clear” — the complaint was first treated as tied to a federal proceeding, then later described as not clearly tied to one.
One-sentence point: the dismissal order treated the complaint as based on conduct during a specific federal case, but reconsideration later said that federal tie was “not clear on the face of the Complaint.”
Court said
“Plaintiff has brought multiple prior actions against Defendants related to harassment, including a 2020 case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. See Waters v. Facebook Inc., No. 20-30168-MGM… Plaintiff’s claims here are based on Defendants’ conduct during the course of that litigation… [W]hile the case was pending before the First Circuit, Kearney conspired… to ‘deter or prevent [Plaintiff] from attending or testifying freely in federal court…’”
“Even if Plaintiff intends to challenge only conduct in his prior federal actions (a notion that was not clear on the face of the Complaint)…”
Record said
“On November 19th, 2021, … Kearney … conspired … in attempt to obstruct a First Circuit case, Waters v. Facebook, Inc., et al. (21-civil-01582)…”
“COUNT I: 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) — Conspiracy to deter party/witness in Federal proceeding…”
“Kearney conspired to deter or prevent me from attending or testifying freely in federal court (First Circuit 21-1582)…”
Why it matters: Once the complaint is recast as unclear, appeal shifts away from the pleaded text and toward defending a new framing the complaint itself did not use.
View the complaint (p. 3)
View claim heading (p. 20)
View ¶132 (p. 21)
View dismissal order (p. 2)
View reconsideration (p. 1)
All Case Files
More context
There were also factual allegations showing that statements by the defendants, a pattern of obstructive behavior, and the timing of actions indicated a federal-proceeding nexus. See paragraphs
Example 1B “No reason alleged” — the order says the complaint does not allege why the harassment occurred, but the opening paragraphs already state the obstruction/deterrence theory.
One-sentence point: the dismissal order says the complaint does not allege a reason for the harassment, while the complaint’s opening paragraphs directly tie the conduct to obstruction and deterrence in identified federal proceedings.
Court said
“The complaint does not allege the reasons for the harassment.”
Record said
“It can be inferred that Kearney sent the November 19th, 2021, threats, because the conspiracy happened the same day he defaulted in the First Circuit, and there is a long documented pattern of Kearney sending threats and intimidating witnesses…”
“One of Kearney’s accomplices gave me screenshots indicating that Kearney orchestrated a conspiracy… As a result of Facebook’s refusal to investigate… Kearney threatened and extorted the witness…”
Why it matters: Removing the pleaded motive turns a specific interference-with-proceedings allegation into generic online misconduct, which changes how the claim is evaluated.
Facts Supporting Inference of Intent
“On November 19th, 2021, Kearney told his inner circle that ‘he [(Rian Waters)] knows that in order to win a lawsuit against me [(Kearney)] he needs to prove I caused him to have a disorder.’ 39. On November 19th, 2021, Kearney had a member of his “inner circle” Cris Gagne, publicly identify my therapist’s new name on his weaponized public shaming Facebook profile Clarence Woods Emerson. 40. At or around 6pm on November 19th, 2021, I replied to Cris Gagne’s comment identifying my therapist, and stated that I intended to use the comment thread and any resulting threats to show the courts why Kearney’s Facebook profiles need to be unpublished. 41. I believe and allege at around 9:50 pm on November 19th, 2021, Kearney created a fake Facebook account in my name and wrote rape and death threats in my name directed at himself… FAVC ¶ 38-41 page 8 .
Defendants Stated Reasons WARNING Graphic Excerpts
On January 15th, 2022, Kearney told his followers that he found out someone was leaking messages from his group chat, and he threatened and extorted Cristina Yakimowsky on Facebook.
b. “I hope she is scared because she should be, cause did you forget who the f*** I am, and what the f*** I could do? Did you Hun? Did you? Are you sing your pants yet? Because you should be. What on earth would make you think, because you knew I was going to find out, when the screenshots came out and they’re from your perspective…”
c. “You wanted to f with me? Did you forget who the f** I am? Did you? Because I am going to remind you. Did you think [releasing screenshots] this would kill me, cause it aint”
FAVC ¶ 58 B & C page 10
On June 18th, 2022, Kearney conspired to deter by threat and intimidation, and to hamper my ability to present an effective case in federal court (U.S. 22-5133) Rian G. Waters, Petitioner V. Facebook, Inc., et al.) 155. Kearney’s June 18th threats are like a dog whistle for his followers, and with a unity of purpose and understanding Kearney intentionally sent the threats to incite his followers to cause harm and deter witnesses from participating. \
On June 18th, 2022… In the video Kearney said;
c. “…I’m not one of those people that just moves on, I’m a vindictive ****. And I’m not gonna stop, we’re just beginning here. I’m not gonna stop destroying your life, just destroying it… I want you to feel as low as I did in early January when I found out that you betrayed me. I want you to feel that pain, and you’re gonna feel it.” d. “I will not stop until you beg for mercy, and then I’m going to do it twice as much, you’re gonna feel the way I felt when I was in my garage when I wanted to kill myself.” FAVC ¶ 63 C & D page 11-12
During the June 18th video Kearney said the reason why he was shaming her was because she gave messages from their group chat to Katherine Peter who publicly published them. FAVC ¶ 64 page 12]
Example 1C “Only general awareness” — the order reduces Meta’s knowledge to generalized awareness, while the complaint alleges specific notice of the threats, notice through counsel, and failure to investigate after notice.
One-sentence point: the dismissal order characterizes Meta as alleged to know only Kearney’s activity “generally,” but the complaint alleges direct notice of the November 19 threats, notice through counsel, and a failure-to-prevent theory after notice.
Court said
“Regarding Meta’s involvement in this harassment, Plaintiff avers only that Meta was aware of Kearney’s activity on Facebook generally, that Kearney had posted content on Facebook that violated community standards, and that Kearney claimed in a book he wrote in 2018 that he had discussions with two Facebook employees about paying to have his content remain on Facebook.”
“Plaintiff has failed adequately to aver any element of his § 1985(2) claims. For example, he fails to allege that Meta was aware of Kearney’s intent to intimidate or interfere with Plaintiff’s participation in the litigation, let alone any facts showing a conspiracy to do so.”
Record said
“On November 19th, 2021, I emailed screenshots of the fake copy of my Facebook profile, and the fake threats to the lawyers that were representing Facebook in First Circuit case 21-1582, and I asked them to investigate ‘who created this account and sent these threats. I will contact US Marshalls as soon as possible.’ Facebook never responded.”
“Facebook filed an opposition to my motion for an investigation into the November 19th conspiracy when a 2-minute investigation would have uncovered the conspiracy.”
“Facebook was made legally aware of their codefendants’ toxic background and the details of the November 19th, 2021, and other 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracies through their attorneys… With reasonable diligence Facebook could have uncovered the November 19th conspiracy and stopped its effects…”
Why it matters: Treating the pleading as alleging only generalized awareness can erase allegations of specific notice, notice through counsel, and post-notice failure to investigate or prevent further harm, making the record appear thinner than the complaint actually pleads.
View dismissal order (p. 2)
View dismissal order (p. 4)
View complaint (p. 5)
View complaint (p. 6)
View ¶164–166 (p. 25)
All Case Files
Additional facts supporting Meta’s knowledge
You can add two or three short pinpoints here, such as allegations that Meta was on notice of the codefendants’ background, repeated rule-violating conduct, and the harm caused to the plaintiff and witnesses. Keep this section short and citation-heavy rather than narrative-heavy.
Section 1986 note / relevant law
Keep this section to one or two short authorities at most. The cleanest framing is that the pleading was not limited to advance agreement allegations, but also alleged notice and failure to act after notice.
Summary
What these examples show
The same pattern repeats across multiple issues—federal-proceeding nexus, motive, and notice. When a court’s summary thins or reframes pleaded facts, the case can be dismissed without engaging the merits, and review becomes an argument over the court’s new description rather than the record itself.
For the full timeline and all filings: see the case file index.
Open case file index
Tip: each exhibit above links to pinpoint pages in the PDFs.
Example 2A “No witnesses / no damages” — dismissal reasons later found incorrect on appeal
One-sentence point: the trial court dismissed the case citing “no witnesses” and inability to articulate damages; the Appeals Court later held those stated reasons were incorrect and that dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
Trial court said
“Mr. Waters indicated that he had ‘no witnesses’; and that he was unable to articulate his damages.”
Appeals Court said
“The judge’s stated reasons for the dismissal—that ‘Waters indicated that he had no witnesses’; and that he was ‘unable to articulate his damages’—were incorrect.”
“[D]efamation per se does not require proof of economic loss… In addition, the plaintiff’s affidavits set forth the testimony he could provide about the harm he allegedly suffered from the defendants’ conduct.”
Why it matters:
When a case is dismissed for reasons the appellate court later calls incorrect, the problem is not just error—it is a
record that can justify a dispositive outcome without accurately reflecting what was presented.
View dismissal order (p. 1)
View appeal finding (p. 4)
View damages standard (p. 6)
Appendix / Downloads
Additional context (optional)
During the final hearing, I explained that I would not present witnesses besides myself without protection,
and noted that I had sought witness-protection relief through higher courts.
(If you later add your witness-protection filings to the appendix, you can link them here too.)
Example 2B “No witnesses on appeal” — protective-order request denied by treating it as already decided
One-sentence point: the court denied a protective-order motion by citing that an appeal has “no witnesses” and that the issues were “previously raised,” even though the motion sought prospective protection under the court’s inherent power to prevent harassment before oral argument and protect witnesses.
Court said
“DENIED… This matter is pending an appeal. There are no witnesses who will be appearing in the appellate proceedings. The issues raised in this motion have been previously raised, considered, and ruled upon…”
Motion said
“I move for this court to use its inherent power to protect me… Without a protection order there is a clear and present danger that [Kearney] will harass me before oral arguments… and that he will harass other witnesses involved.”
“The established methods in the statutes and rules have so far failed to discourage obstructive misconduct.”
Why it matters:
A protective-order request aimed at preventing harassment before oral argument and protecting witnesses can be denied without findings by treating it as “already decided” and by invoking “no witnesses on appeal,” sidestepping the prospective relief actually requested.
View denial endorsement (PDF)
View motion (p. 2)
Affidavit facts (p. 12)
Affidavit facts (p. 20)
Appendix / Downloads
Affidavit details (optional)
The affidavit contains the supporting factual allegations. To keep this page readable, the details are cited by pinpoint pages rather than reproduced in full here.
Graphic content warning (optional)
Some underlying allegations and excerpts are graphic. Prefer using the PDF pinpoints above rather than reproducing explicit language on this page.
Example 2C “Defendant has shown good cause” — default removed without stated factual basis
One-sentence point: without giving reasoning, the court declared that the defendant had shown good cause to remove a default, even though good cause ordinarily requires both a reason for not responding and a meritorious defense, and the later record acknowledged only a conclusory defense.
Court said
The court stated that the defendant had shown good cause to remove the default.
The court later acknowledged that the defendant stated only a conclusory defense rather than a developed meritorious defense.
Record said
Evidence showed that about a month earlier, the defendant spoke with the plaintiff and said he would not respond.
The plaintiff’s motion also asked the court to subpoena the defendant to appear.
The defendant’s affidavit asserted only that he had meritorious defenses, without supplying details.
Why it matters:
It suggests the court reached a dispositive conclusion without stating the facts needed to support it. When “good cause” is found without identified facts showing an actual reason for nonresponse and an actual meritorious defense, the ruling can appear to rest on conclusion rather than analysis.
See docket (p. 17)
See call log
See police report
See affidavit
See motion (p. 6)
See defendant’s affidavit (p. 2)
Appendix / Downloads
Additional context (optional)
The record you identified supports two separate points: first, that the defendant was aware of the matter and allegedly stated he would not respond; second, that the later claim of “meritorious defenses” was stated only in conclusory form. That combination can help show why the court’s good-cause conclusion needed an explained factual basis.