Did the Massachusetts courts fail to address constitutional due process violations in a housing dispute involving judicial bias and tenant rights?

14 15 1. Did the Massachusetts courts fail to address violations of constitutional due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, including judicial bias and procedural irregularities, in a housing dispute involving eviction and tenant rights? 2. Did the Chicopee Housing Authority violate federal and state laws by failing to provide safe and habitable housing conditions and engaging in discriminatory practices against a tenant with disabilities? 3. Does the lack of effective judicial remedies in Massachusetts housing courts undermine the procedural guarantees afforded by the Constitution? 4. Does judicial tolerance of sleep deprivation and unsafe living conditions as evidenced by the Chicopee Housing Authority ’s negligence —including the judge ’s and CHA staff ’s mockery of the petitioner ’s need for more than an hour of sleep —amount to a violation of fundamental human rights under principles recognized by international law? 5. Did the conflict of interest between the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts and Judge Kane —who declared himself "pure of heart and soul" and dismissed all allegations of wrongdoing against him—violate due process, particularly when Judge Kane finalized the eviction without proper notice, while the case was still under review by the SJC, which knowingly ignored this procedural misconduct, refused to provide notices, defied a direct order from Judge Kane to furnish legal documents and records necessary to file an appeal, and ignored repeated requests for audio recordings for over a year, and knowingly ignored that Judge Kane ordered the eviction be finalized and took place 2 business days after the hearing that was held without notice and without notice being sent or served of said decision16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 to where an eviction was carried out on June 4th 2024 while the Appeals Court had not handed down their rescript and it was not finalized in the SJC until September 5th, 2024 where he knowingly subverted due process? 6. Did Judge Kane knowingly admit invalid evidence, including measurements conducted with non-calibrated tools belonging to the petitioner, despite repeated testimony by both the petitioner and Angel Quinones that such tools were not fit for official measurement and did not meet required standards, and further use these statements to declare that no repairs would ever be needed or performed on the petitioner ’s apartment, even if future evidence was presented and show gross negligence to choose enforce his own beliefs such as hot water not being dangerous over enforcing the building code that is there to ensure the safety of tenants? And does the Supreme court intend to allow the continued harm coming to every other tenant of that building such as the disabled children who live there who must still contend with the Issues presented by Mr. Boutin that Judge Kane ruled never needed to be fixed as well as allowing landlords to lie about repairs being done? 7. Are the courts allowed to hold hearings and make rulings with no notice to a single party to prevent them from attending hearings or objecting or providing factual evidence and allowing any party they choose to essentially win their cases by default by biasedly excluding whoever they choose? 8. Are Judges allowed to make medical decisions and rule that people must legally be forcibly exposed to things that they are allergic to, simply because of the ignorance of the Judge like in this case Judge Kane wrongfully claiming that mildew is not a mold and therefore not a health risk to a person he did not like? And are Judges allowed to make rulings based on personal beliefs such as something in the building code not being required to be followed because he personally believe it to be safe like having near boiling water touching your skin to be safe in any capacity, and not because he had an expert testify as such, despite expert testimony and an expert being present that tried to speak