Barbara,

When you say to be sure to mention the U.S. and state constitutions can you clarify some specifics:

 

 

In writing is preferable.  If you have an opportunity to also argue it, do it.  Care must be taken. Some judges are afraid, literally, when the constitution is mentioned.

You have a basic MISunderstanding.  Whether you speak or write something in the court is part of the record.

The difference is that if you only say something aloud and then do not order the tape and get a transcript, the oral mention of the fact or legal issue is NOT preserved for the record and you will then NOT be able to prove CLEANLY that it is part of the record.  This is why writing is preferable.  

DIGRESSION:  I write CLEANLY because an affidavit by you saying you said "it" will be Insufficient . . . in my book.  "Mr./Mrs. X, is, as we have seen, a manipulator, an inveterate liar, Your Honor.  If it was said, let him/her prove it by producing the transcript."  

Actually the word "liar" is a 4-letter pejorative in court.  Use "prevaricator" or "a mendacious person"  or "her/his mendacity is well known to us, Your Honor." 

One always wants to take the HIGH road in court.  A little snottiness goes a long way.  Occasionally it kicks back.  Must be very careful.  

When I use the word  "liar," I usually preface it with an "apology":  I'm sorry to use a pejorative, Your Honor, but it is apropros to the situation: He/she, as we know, is a liar.  I do not know whether it is a pathological situation or whether it is merely an example of an enhanced mendacity.  Basically your throwing down the word "liar" from high on your horse, as though he/she is far beneath you in every way and deserves the word liar.  Think drama.   Again this might kick back so be careful.
 

So it is preferable to put in writing what you want preserved in the record.  When you veer from what is CLEAN, problems can develop.  Put another way, the GAMES begin.

Further, problems can develop in regard to the transcript.  Am not going to go into this because of no time and no patience.  Lots of scenarios.  This is another reason writing is preferable. 
 

Will take a stab.  See table above.  If you do not write or argue a legal issue BELOW (meaning the LOWER COURT), you may NOT use it in the Appeals Ct or the SJC.  Put it this way, you can write or say it, but they will chide you and say they will NOT consider it because it was not :"RAISED BELOW."  The courts themselves might not know this, but opposing counsel will so inform them.

Again, another basic MISunderstanding.  You may ALWAYS mention cases, whether or not you had found them or whether or not you mentioned them in the lower court or not.   THAT WHICH YOU MUST NOT DO IS RAISE LEGAL ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE NOT RAISED IN THE LOWER COURT.  

If a case is DECIDED by the Appeals Court or the SJC or the US courts WHILE you are in the HIGHER COURTS (Blue period), you MAY use it in your brief (if not already filed), your REPLY brief (if not already filed). 

If your appellate brief and your appellate reply brief are already filed, then you may write and file a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT APPELLATE BRIEF on the grounds that the case has just been decided and therefore did not exist at the time you filed your appellate briefs.

 

Appeals courts do not make findings of fact . . . unless in highly extraordinary situations.  Appeals courts decide whether the LOWER-COURT judge applied the law correctly and/or applied the correct law correctly.

Judgments are NEVER NEVER NEVER argued.  They simply exist.  Kantian philosophy.  Read also I and Thou.

Lawyers -- pro se-ers -- argue issues of law.  NOT THE COURTS.

Judges make decisions and their opinions set out their rationale and if you are lucky set out the existing law that forms the basis of their decision.  They do not argue the law, they tell you what it is . . . according to their level of intelligence and understanding.

 

IMMUNITY. Go to my website. 

 

Too broad a statement to be any value here or anywhere else. 

 

Fed cts refuse to hear certain domestic relations cases, specifically those cases in which the plaintiff wants the fed ct to alter, amend, modify the judgment of the State court regarding marital status, child custody, child and spousal support.  Those are facts to be decided in the State court.  If the plaintiff raised BELOW in the LOWER COURT federal constitutional issues, then the plaintiff would have to go DIRECTLY to the United States Supreme Court AND NOT NOT NOT the U.S. District Court in Boston.   The Dist Ct does not have jurisdiction, i.e., it does not have the authority to correct a State court about State law.  The U.S. Dist Ct hears cases based on federal law.

You asked about the SJC, which is a State court, so my previous answer citing Rooker-Feldman was inappropriate.  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is that which the fed cts use to boot domestic relations cases described above out of fed ct.

I am unaware of the SJC not taking family-law cases.  Where you got the idea that the SJC does not hear family-law cases is a mystery to me.

 

I have no intention of writing an entire book in this email. 
Research COMITY and FEDERALISM.  Take time to read read read read.  Go to my website.  

 

Humility can be valuable at times.  He obviously is telling you, he does not know constitutional law.  He has probably forgotten what he learned in Con Law I, and has NOT read a case dealing with Con Law issues since graduating.  It probably wasn't a malicious refusal.  It was a defensive way of saying that he knows nothing about Con Law.

NEVER TAKE AN AUTOMATIC MESSAGE FOR THE FINIAL WORD FROM A JUDGE, GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT OR EMPLOYEE! COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN! and Constitution, Constitution... And add a $$$ figure to your complaint!

AS an example....
A clear violation of Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d 957, 962 (N.D. Cal. 1999). This is a note of CLEAR VIOLATION of CONSTITUTION cost the State of CA. in 1999, 15 MILLION DOLLARS!