Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Roderick L. Ireland
Affirmative Action Quota S.J.C. Justice takes Opportunity to Violate against White's Constitutional Rights
It is not often that a litigant ever deals with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ( S.J.C.), let alone one of its Justices on an individual basis; most citizens' experiences in the courts are locally, mostly civil, and before a local probate or District Judge. The S.J.C. is actually an Appeals Court, and it is the highest court in Massachusetts. The S.J.C. is not like those local courts, the S.J.C. never sees the underlying litigants, but if the litigant/citizen pays enough to seek alleged justice before the S.J.C. that citizen's attorney may be allowed a hearing on the issue the attorney presented to the S.J.C.
Citizen - Litigant, Michael Elbery, is a legal exception concerning the S.J.C. of Mass.; - Michael Elbery dealt with, now, Chief Justice Ireland, as a Single Justice, on two different legal cases. Once in person, on 6-28-00 at a hearing on an appeal to the Full Court of the S.J.C., after a denial by the same Single Justice Ireland of a Petition regarding an illegal restriction Judge Dan Toomey made on Michael Elbery's Motion For New Trial. This 6-28-00 hearing at the Mass. S.J.C. came a few days before Michael Elbery was falsely arrested on 7-4-00, due to a Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute him with false evidence in conjunction with, now, Attorney General Martha Coakley. The second case that Michael Elbery dealt with S.J.C. Ireland was in 2001, when Elbery Petitioned the S.J.C. to enforce his Constitutional Rights to evidentiary discovery regarding that Malicious Prosecution case A.G. Coakley orchestrated; that case resulted in Michael Elbery being denied, by S.J.C. - Ireland, all discovery in order to defend the false charges Martha Coakley was prosecuting with the approval of the Mass. S.J.C.
The Mass. SJC had already been alerted by the Mass. Commission on Judicial Conduct that Michael Elbery filed a Motion for New Trial in July of 1999 that went to Governor Cellucci and caused Judge Dan Toomey to be Blackballed in September of 1999.
More History - Why did Michael Elbery think there was a page limit to a 30b Motion for New Trial resulting in him going all the way to the Mass. S.J.C?
It was Attorney Mike Wilcox that alerted Michael Elbery in the winter of 1997 at the Main St. entrance of the old Worcester Court House that he was limited to 40 pages for his Motion for New Trial. Michael Elbery, still new to post conviction legal remedies in 1997, listened to Wilcox. That deliberate misadvise by Attorney Mike Wilcox was accompanied by a legal citation to Rule 9-A-b4 by Wilcox causing a series of legal filings/procedures by Michael Elbery and related Court Decisions that took almost 3 years and ended up being settled by a footnote on a decision rendered by the Full Bench of the S.J.C.
The Series of Events caused by the 40 page limit misadvise - the Co-conspirators were worried for good reason - they had no idea what the future held
Michael Elbery filed a motion with the presiding judge on the case, Judge Dan Toomey, to grant him an exemption from the law of 40 page limitation that Attorney Wilcox invented. Michael Elbery after filing his motion to be allowed an additional 40 pages realized there was no such law and that Wilcox was lying; the rule Wilcox cited was for civil cases and had no applicability to a criminal case. Elbery filed another motion canceling the first motion, and at the same time he informed Judge Toomey of the pertinent law (there is no page limit for a criminal motion for new trial, M.R.C.P. 30b, and that is the law). Attorney Mike Wilcox was then, and is still, a law partner of Attorney Louis P. Aloise . Their former law firm (Shumway, Giguere, Byrne, Fox, Aloise) disintegrated, ironically, after Michael Elbery got railroaded in Worcester Superior Court in 1993 with 10 years in Prison while having Attorney Louis P. Aloise for a defense attorney. Additionally, most of the senior attorneys quit the law firm of Shumway, Giguere, Byrne, Fox, Aloise (see letter head) and they broke their former office building at 19 Cedar St. into rental units for other attorneys. For many years the sole survivors, Aloise and his former junior lawyer, Wilcox, are the remaining partners.
Goldstein Case 1997 - Toomey, Wilcox watch
Oh, they were worried back in 1997 about that case that framed Michael Elbery in 1993 in Worcester Superior Court; Judge Dan Toomey waited for lunch break at the door of the courtroom of the Goldstein v. Elbery case 3 of the 4 days that case transpired. Toomey had good reason to be worried - Toomey knew that he was a documented willing participate in a Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute and Falsely Imprison Michael Elbery in 1993 and he knew that Elbery wasn't using attorneys of the Mass. Bar any longer to do his legal work. Those same bar attorneys Toomey could be assured would never raise issue, let alone document, Judge "Dirty Dan's" crime while he presided at the illegal/frame-up of Michael Elbery and then threw Elbery in prison for 10 years. Toomey heard after the first day of the Goldstein case that Michael Elbery was kicking the shit out of his former Attorney, Arthur Goldstein, in a civil case worth $90k resulting from Goldstein's claim that he was never paid by Michael Elbery for over 6 years while Goldstein was Elbery's attorney when he owned a barroom in Worcester, Mass. Goldstein lost that case and the jury found he was guilty of fraud. Judge Dan Toomey had to go out of his way to catch Michael Elbery leaving that courtroom at lunch break, so he could observe Elbery, because Toomey was hearing cases in the Criminal Superior Court section of the Worcester Courthouse which was on the other side of the building. See the trial transcript of that case Com. v. Elbery that Judge "Dirty Dan" Toomey presided over in 1993, and which caused him a heart attack in September of 1999.
Wilcox, who the last time Elbery had seen him, was hostile (helping aid Aloise in his Conspiracy), was now also paying close attention to Elbery. Wilcox would appear out of nowhere to intercept Michael Elbery at the Main St. exit of the old Worcester Courthouse in order to make close examination, like Toomey did, to see if this citizen litigant, who thought he could dual against judges and attorneys of the bar in front of a 12 man jury, was nervous/unraveled or composed/collected. But unlike Toomey, who just glared at Elbery, Wilcox initiated conversation with Elbery. Wilcox would remark, at one meeting at the back entrance of the old Worcester Superior Court, in March of 1997, during a lunch break of the 4 day Goldstein civil jury trial that, "You seem to like all this legal stuff". Wilcox made a valid observation. He then reported back to his partner, "big shot" Attorney Louis P. Aloise, that Michael Elbery knew too much and was enjoying what should have been an ordeal, after all, Michael Elbery never went to a Law School.
Toomey makes up more law
Judge Dan Toomey, instead of obeying the law and agreeing there was no limit allowed on a 30b Motion for New Trial, decided to make up his own law, just like Wilcox. Toomey mandated a 60 page limit including Appendix, Addendum, exhibits, etc., Toomey had Kangarooitis and it cost him dearly. This caused Michael Elbery to appeal Toomey's groundless legal limitation to the Mass. S.J.C., via a Petition 211 s. 3, under the S.J.C.'s power of General Superintendence of the Court. This Petition was first reviewed by a Single Justice, just coincidentally, Justice Roderick Ireland. S.J.C. Ireland denied Michael Elbery's demand that Toomey follow simple law and Massachusetts Procedure and stop denying him his right to have as many pages as required in order to include all the Violations of his Constitutional Rights at the Kangaroo Court that framed him for a conviction for an unheard of crime called "Attempted Mayhem" and a 10 year sentence in Prison.
Upon denial by Justice Ireland without a hearing and affirming Judge Toomey's illegality, Michael Elbery timely filed an appeal of Ireland's decision/denial of his rights to the full Bench of the Mass. S.J.C.
This appeal to the full bench of the S.J.C. would provide the Mass. S.J.C. with the opportunity to invite Michael Elbery to argue his case at a 6-28-00 hearing, so they could personally see him before they decided to authorize the next False Arrest and Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution against him (see below).
S.J.C. Disclaims an opinion on the 60 page Toomey page limit - claims the issue should have been appealed
Almost three years after Wilcox tried to mislead Michael Elbery that he was limited to 40 pages, via his Motion for New Trial, - the Mass. S.J.C. finalized the case with a footnote, disclaiming an opinion on the legality of Judge Toomey's page limitation by noting, but excusing Toomey, that Toomey only said the "Initial Filings" were limited to 60 pages "not later filings". The S.J.C. also stated that the issue was more properly raised, via appeal, (that would be an appeal on the Motion for New Trial to the Mass. Appeals Court), so they would not have to be bothered with the page issue limit put on Elbery's "Motion for New Trial"; it took the S.J.C. all that time to claim appeal to the Mass. Appeals Court was the place for the issue of non-existent page limits on a Mass. 30b Motion for New Trial. If Michael Elbery had used that method of appeal, instead of raising all 115 pages of the Unconstitutional Violations claims that occurred at that trial-frame up that put him in prison for 10 years, then, over half of those claims would have been forever lost; the Mass. Appeals Court would would have denied the hypothetical 60 pg. Motion for New Trial (including exhibits, appendix, addendum) and Michael Elbery would have forever legally lost many of his valuable claims that showed judicial conduct that is not supposed to happen in this here U.S.A.. In Massachusetts a criminal defendant only has the legal right to one Motion for New Trial under Rule 30b.; legal procedure is one of the favorite tricks the courts use to avoid issues of injustice caused by the Judiciary, prosecutors and cops, and want to sweep under the "Judicial Carpet".
The Judge that reviewed Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial, Timothy Hillman, in December of 2001, did not indicate he took any limitation under consideration per his review, but Hillman did make note in his footnote #2 of his decision of Toomey's 60 page limit and S.J.C. Ireland's affirmation, and noted that the moveant/defendant - Michael Elbery filed a Motion for New Trial with 115 pages. Hillman did not include in his footnote #2 that the Full Bench of the S.J.C. disclaimed an opinion (see ftnt. #1) as to the legality of Toomey's 60 page limitation but covered for Toomey indicating the 60 page limit was for the "initial submission" and did not preclude the possibility of "more submissions".
In other words, the limitation of pages had no effect - it was by-passed when Hillman finally, after 2 1/2 years from July of 1999 when Elbery filed it, decided Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial. Hillman did not enforce any limit but made note in his decision that Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial was 115 pages. Hillman had bigger falsifications of law than to attempt to end Elbery's Crusade for Justice with a phony page limit.
June 28, 2000 - the S.J.C. wanted to see Michael Elbery before they authorized another frame-up via A.G. Martha Coakley
But all was not lost for the Mass. Judiciary by the false "Wilcox Alert" of 40 pages. It ended up coming in handy for the Massachusetts S.J.C.. The Justices of the Mass. S.J.C. wanted to get a look at Michael Elbery before they authorized the execution of the latest Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute and False Arrest/Imprisonment to be carried out, by then, Middlesex D.A. Martha Coakley.
The S.J.C. received information that there was a White Man in Massachusetts, who did not agree and had filed several legal cases in the Boston Federal Court and a Motion for New Trial in Worcester Superior Court that were particularly troublesome for the corrupt Judiciary, and Mass. Bar, and the police. By the date of 6-28-00, Toomey had a heart attack because Gov. Cellucci sent the Mass. State cops to his door caused by an investigation of the irrefutable evidence Michael Elbery presented to the Governor which incorporated Elbery's Motion for New Trial. At that time, Toomey was President of the Conference of Massachusetts Judges besides being a Superior Court Judge. Michael Elbery also by this date had caused Attorney Louis P. Aloise to be blackballed by the Governor when he tried to seek a lifetime of sanctuary with an appointment of judgeship in the Spring of 1997. Aloise was conscious of his guilt and knew after, Michael Elbery kicked the shit out of his former attorney, Arthur Goldstein, in March of 1997 that he needed the lifetime protection a judgeship would provide him. Lou did not run fast enough.
Michael Elbery had already motioned to by-pass a hearing on the Appeal of Ireland's Denial of Elbery's 211 s. 3 Petition in order to expedite the case decision by the S.J.C., but once invited by the S.J.C. he casually accepted their invitation and alerted them that he would be in their Court at 9:00am on June 28, 00.
On 6-28-00, Ireland was seated with the other SJC justices on their collective bench. Ireland didn't blend in with the color scheme because he was the only Negro. When they called Michael Elbery to argue his case that morning Ireland looked at Michael Elbery made a loud grunting noise like livestock while getting out of his chair and leaving the courtroom claiming he recused himself. Ireland was prejudice against this White Man the Jews told him did not agree with the Jew World Order Social Design Policies in this here today's U.S.A.. Roderick is a Negro and an affirmative action - quota. So this Protected Class Quota Judge - Ireland doesn't get caught making obvious Errors of Law they hire clerks to do his research.
The Mass. S.J.C. thought they had a convenience before them on that morning of 6-28-00. Michael Elbery had filed a Petition under section 211 (General Superintendence of the Courts) in July of 1999 to stop an illegality that Judge Toomey had committed. Michael Elbery appealed Ireland's Denial and now they had the opportunity to have Michael Elbery argue his Petition, so they could see who they were sanctioning to be falsely arrested on 7-4-00. It allowed the S.J.C. to see the American Citizen who dared use, what they thought were their courts, to Crusade his Cause for Justice. The Mass. S.J.C. allowed Michael Elbery to argue his Petition so they could see the man their Jewish Bosses in the Shadows were targeting for an execution of a Conspiracy to Falsely Arrest/Imprison and Maliciously Prosecute.
Michael Elbery knew there was something wrong when no one from the Worcester Country D.A.'s Office showed at that 6-28-00 hearing to Oppose his 211 Petition. In fact, besides waiving the hearing, Elbery also had asked that the appellee be defaulted and to expedite the case, in addition to another letter of hearing waiver. There was never any opposition filed against Michael Elbery's Petition under C. 211 s.3 or its Appeal to the S.J.C. of Massachusetts. To make things really obvious there was no opposition/adversary to argue against Michael Elbery and his Petition. Yes Sir, the only reason they wanted Michael Elbery before them on 6-28-00 was to see who they were condemning.
The S.J.C. got the Wrong Impression and Almost got their Wish
Michael Elbery gave the SJC the wrong impression on 6-28-00 - they saw a person that morning who had, due to parole mandate, been working all night until just a few hours before at 7:00am and had been awake almost 24 hours. After he argued his case they almost got their wish; Elbery fell asleep behind the wheel of his Lincoln Town Car going through Kenmore Square taking a left on Beacon St., but woke up immediately to continue over the Mass. Pike past Fenway Park through Brookline.
"Chinese Postcard" - East is East and West is West
Several days after the hearing of 6-28-00 before the S.J.C., Michael Elbery received a post card (post marked 7-3-00) from a person naming himself Lu or Lee, who went to the extent of having a Post Office Box at the South Station in Boston, Mass. The The object of the "Chinese Post Card" was to discourage Michael Elbery from further Post - Conviction activity on his conviction for "Attempted Mayhem". Everything that Lu jammed into that post card was legally incorrect. Lu even thought that Michael Elbery was, at that a.m. hearing, with his family, a brother and brother's two daughters. Wrong again, I was by myself, I could not even remember anyone in that Courtroom that fit the description (man with two young girls/daughters) nor did I recall seeing anyone there in the audience that was Chinese. Maybe Lu was actually a Jew that, instead of Anglicizing his name, Chinesed it.
Besides from the fact that I was there by myself and I have no brother that even has a daughter, let alone two daughters, why did "they" go to such an extent? Did they really think such a tactic would have any affect on me other than to reassure that "these people" were worried about my Legal Crusade and that "they" had something to hide (a frame-up in a U.S. Court). But it was way too Big to Hide because the Three Stooges ( Judge Dan Toomey, Attorney Louis P. Aloise, A.D.A. Mike Ball ) made it all too obvious. Now they use Cyanide Gas - these people are more worried and I ain't quitin' - its only going to get worse for you. I am over 60 years old, and like all who are over 60, most of my life is behind me. A soldier over 60 has an advantage, he has less to lose; most over 60 years old just dry up and fade away.
Michael Elbery started to reply and only partially finished his letter to Lee or Lu when he was falsely arrested by Mass. Parole on 7-6-00 resulting from a false criminal complaint by the Jewish Manchurian Candidate. This was the false arrest that had been authorized by the Mass. S.J.C. on 6-28-00.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gets to see the Target - Now the Hunter is once Again the Prey
That was 6-28-00 at the Mass. S.J.C., and then a few days later on 7-4-00 Michael Elbery was the target of a new conspiracy to falsely arrest, Maliciously Prosecute and Imprison him using a Jewish Manchurian Candidate and the aid of the non-whites on the Framingham Police Dept., and Middlesex District Attorney - Martha Coakley.
June 28 is significant in World History - It was the day in 1914 when the "Black Hand" Serbian - Gavrilo (Joseph) Princip shot Austro - Hungarian Arch Duke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, Bosnia triggering World War I, or as it was called before 1939 "The Great War". The Great War was the climax to the inventions produced by the Industrial Revolution that was started circa 1800 by a Scotsman and scientist/inventor named James Watt. Such is history on this Planet Earth; the Arch Duke had earlier on the same day of June 28, 1914 defended against a hand grenade attack by Princip's group of assassins only to have he and his entourage take a wrong turn and while turning around in obscure side street was sighted by Princip who was coming out of sandwich shop. Princip finished what he and his "Black Hand" assassins had failed to do just hours before and Princip shot the Arch Duke and his wife while they were seated in their chauffeur driven car.
June 28 was also Michael Elbery's ex-wife's birthday. She was a school teacher, who in 1979 confided in Michael Elbery, that she was being terrified by a recurring dream that included Michael Elbery being imprisoned by a group of men. Those same men would release him only to regret their action when he did something that killed one of them. She knew that they had framed Michael Elbery, but not why they decided to let him out only to regret it. She was sure Michael Elbery did not use physical force (gun etc) to kill one of them; she was frustrated that she could not "see" how Michael Elbery killed one of the men that falsely imprisoned him. She would repeat, "you did something to cause the death of one of the men" that threw you in prison, but she could not "see" what that something was. She knew they wanted to get even for the death, but she could "see" no more. Her dream did not tell her how it would end. But another seer did in 1983. Strange, that a person like Michael Elbery, who still avoids the occult or seers or reasonable facsimile, would attract these seers. He did not know the one in 1983; the seers would see Michael Elbery and their Geiger counter would go off.
In the year 2000, Michael Elbery called her from a pay phone and told her now she knows the part of the 1979 dream and who died and how. The TRUTH KILLED Judge Dan Toomey.
No Evidentiary Discovery for the Defense - Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Mass. SJC Conspires in Violating a White Man's Constitutional Rights
On 7-4-00 the Jewish Manchurian Candidate caused Michael Elbery to be falsely arrested and started a brand new Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute lead, by then, Middlesex D.A. Martha Coakley and authorized by the Massachusetts S.J.C., after the S.J.C.'s band of Left Wing Totalitarians had the advantage of seeing Michael Elbery in their Court on 6-28-00. The Mass. S.J.C. used the 6-28-00 hearing in their Courtroom to facilitate their need to see Michael Elbery in person before the S.J.C. authorized the next Conspiracy. Executions require a personal ingredient, so they know they got the right man.
The Conspiracy that was authorized by the S.J.C. on 6-28-00 and put into action on 7-4-00 became a Framingham District Court Case featuring Michael Elbery as the criminal defendant. The Massachusetts authorities were not using Cyanide Chloride gas to kill Michael Elbery. No, they thought Michael Elbery could never defeat them in their yard, their rules, their referee and they were going to put him away for what would have been 5 years just on the assault charges they had initially fabricated. If Martha Coakley and her Co-conspirators had been successful falsely convicting Michael Elbery they would have got Elbery off the streets for another 5 years and then charged him with "Hate Crimes" ( the new laws the Jews thought up to "protect" the Jews and Coloreds from the White Man) in Superior Court. Yes sir, according to the Jew, the white man is the danger not the colored that have decimated every urban area in the U.S.A., making those urban areas kill zones by colored against whites in the streets of the U.S.A. The day is coming when the politically correct hypocrites in the U.S.A. won't be able to run to their white suburban neighborhoods to escape the terror of the boogie man.
Michael Elbery would go on to represent himself on those phony charges and win the jury's vote of 6-0 - "Not Guilty" of both charges. But first Michael Elbery needed evidence to defend himself against the charges, and the way that a litigant gets evidence is through evidentiary discovery in the U.S.A.
Elbery needed evidence in order to defend against Martha Coakley's false charges, so he filed dozens of motions to acquire evidence that he knew existed and that would be exculpatory. The discovery requests/motions (see pages 6-10 below, series of hyperlinks) where produced, as itemized below, over a period of about 10 months. All the Discovery Request Motions on pages 6-10 are for evidence that was required "as a matter of law". Some of it was what they call "Automatic Discovery". Elbery actually got some of the police reports and police logs and police tapes only because it was so "automatic" in nature (all police reports, logs, tapes are automatic) and because he had an attorney at the beginning of the discovery process. But once Attorney Brekka quit, Elbery got nothing in terms of evidence that he requested through dozens of discovery motions he filed during and after Brekka's representation ended. Keep in mind Brekka was given the automatic police discovery without a motion, but upon his visit to the Framingham Police Station in August of 2000. It would have been difficult for the police and prosecutor to deny the "Automatic Discovery" because they have to produce certain documents in order to make an arrest and to prosecute a criminal case; but the Framingham cops refused to produce the booking video of Peter Gear's arrest by the Framingham Cops and the judge did nothing about it. Justice Roderick Ireland also denied Elbery that police video booking tape.
All those discovery motions (see the 4 pages of hyperlinks below) filed by defendant-Michael Elbery and what did it yield? Nothing!
Oh! Martha Coakley and her team of Prosecution were ordered to produce discovery evidence by Judge Stoddart, but Coakley ignored those judge's orders. Hey, the Judge- Stoddart didn't care - Elbery would motion to compel the various discovery orders made by Judge Stoddart and Elbery got the same result - Nothing.
Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Roderick L. Ireland - Violates the Constitution of the U.S.A.
So Michael Elbery went to the highest court in Massachusetts and petitioned the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court via a Petition under M.G.L. C. 211 s. 3. Coincidentally, Justice Ireland took jurisdiction of the 211 s. 3 Petition filed by Elbery and the two Amendments ( 211 s. 3 Amendment filed on 4-5-01 and the second Amendment to that 211 s. 3 Petition) that Elbery filed to the original 211 s.3 Petition . Attorney Mo Bergman and the Jewish Secret Police had made sure, over a year before, that Ireland knew who Elbery was and Ireland ignored Elbery's rights and decided against Elbery's petition for the S.J.C. to enforce the Constitutional Rights of a white citizen. This was the same grunting S.J.C. Justice who a year earlier, on 6-28-00, recused himself from Elbery's case.
Gov. Deval Patrick would later appoint Ireland to Chief Justice of the S.J.C.
Both Ireland and Deval Patrick are Negroes. See what happens when a society promotes based on affirmative action and racial quotas. It's only going to get worse Americans.
Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Roderick LeRoy Ireland - Continues the Unconstitutional Conspiracy
The conspiracy that had been approved on 6-28-00 and acted on, on 7-4-00, was continued by S.J.C. Justice Roderick L. Ireland when he denied Michael Elbery any and all his U.S. Constitutional Rights to evidentiary discovery, so that Michael Elbery could defend himself on the phony charges that Ireland had authorized on 6-28-00, along with his fellow S.J.C. Justices of Massachusetts.
Elbery's Petition to the S.J.C. in order to stop the injustice that was preventing him from getting a Fair Trial and Violating his Constitutional Rights was DENIED. And Chief Justice Ireland was nice enough to sit on Elbery's Petition until the day before trial. I got the message Ireland. Now the rest of the World can see what you did. No "Judicial Carpet" for you to hide under this time.
List of Discovery Motions Filed:
8-15-00 Notice of Appearance - Attorney Ken Brekka
8-22-01 Motion for Court Order to Take Custody of Evidence (Video Tape)
8-31-00 Motion for Discovery Evidence and Hearing for Crucial Evidence Known by Mary Floyd and Dolly Olecki & Maximum Security
9-13-00 Motion To Preserve Evidence
9-15-00 Motion for Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence/Request for Hearing
9-5-00 Motion for Criminal Records
9-8-00 Motion for Library Time
10-22-00 Motion For Court Order To Gain Entrance to the Mobil Premises Where Alleged Crime Occurred In Order to Test Video Surveillance System and Gain Evidence
10-23-00 Defendant's Motion For Additional Discovery
10-24-00 Motion For Evidentiary Hearing of Peter H. Gear (Alleged Victim) and Owners, Residents 58 Clinton St., Framingham, Mass.
10-26-00 Defendant's Motion for Court Order For Attorney Ken Brekka to Produce Documentary Evidence, Etc.
10-26-00 Defendant's Motion for Court Order and Related Subpoenas In Order To Produce Exculpatory Evidence and Have a Fair Trial
10-31-00 Defendant's Motion For Transcript, Review and Testing of Police Tape and Defendant's Review of 7-3-00 Mobil Video
11-15-00 Defendant's Written Objection To Judge Grecco's Ruling and Allowance of Defendant's Attorney to Withdraw
11-3-00 Defendant's Motion For Supplemental Discovery and Related Court Orders
11-5-00 Mark-Up for Hearing On 11-14-00 Five Motions
11-9-00 Motion To Withdraw, Motion To Continue, Motion To Preserve Video Surveillance Equipment (Filed by Attorney Brekka)
11-9-00 Defendant's Pretrial Conference Report - Cancelled by Attorney Brekka
11-9-00 Motion to Continue (Pretrial Hearing) (Filed by Attorney Brekka)
11-9-00 Motion To Preserve Video Surveillance Equipment (Filed by Attorney Brekka)
11-9-00 Motion To Withdraw (Filed by Attorney Brekka)
1-29-00 Defendant's Motion To Preserve/Impound By Court and Compel For Production and Inspection of Prosecution Controlled Evidence
1-29-00 Defendant's Motion To Preserve/Impound By Court and Compel For Production and Inspection of Prosecution Controlled Evidence (2d filing)
1-31-00 Another Letter to Attorney Robertson - Fired
1-31-01 Letter to Attorney Robertson - Fired
1-31-01 Defendant's Motion/Notice To Continue Representation Pro Se
1-31-01 Attorney Robertson Fired Letter #3
2-10-01 Attorney Robertson Fired Letter - Last of 4
2-14-01 Mark Up for 3-8-01 Hearing Defendant's Motion For Bill of Particulars and Defendant's Omnibus Discovery Motion
2-14-01 Defendant's Motion For Bill of Particulars
2-14-01 Defendant's Omnibus Discovery Motion
2-14-01 Letter Of Request to Massachusetts Forensic Services Director
2-15-01 Letter to Clerk Correct Docket Entries and Mark Up For Hearing - Defendant's Notice That Defendant Elbery Continues to Represent Himself - Attorney Robertson Fired
2-2-01 Another Attorney Robertson Fired Letter
2-2-01 Notice That Defendant Elbery Continues To Represent Himself - Attorney Robertson Fired
2-23-01 Mark Up for 3-8-01 Hearing - Defendant's Motion to Compel Mobil Oil to Produce Documents Summoned Under M.R.C.P. 17a2
2-3-01 Letter to Clerk Requesting Docket Entries of the Case
2-4-01 Motion for Discovery
2-9-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel and Issue Court Order For Hospital Records at M.C.I. Concord H.S.U.
2-9-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel and Issue Court Order for Defendant's Hospital Records
2-9-01 Pro Se Defendant's Objection to Court's Refusal to Docket and Acknowledge 6 Defendant's Discovery Motions & Resubmission of the 6 Discovery Motions for Filing & Docketing
3-11-01 Defendant Hand Delivers 5 Motions at 3-8-01 Hearing
3-11-01 Defendant's Motion To Compel Attorney Brekka to Release Exculpatory Evidence to Defendant & Expose This Case as Fraud
3-11-01 Defendant's Motion for Prosecution's Expert Witnesses & Credentials and Substance of Opinion
3-11-01 Defendant's Motion To Stay 3-08-01 Hearing Until M.G.L.A. C. 211 s. 3 Petition Decided by Mass. S.J.C.
3-11-01 Defendant's Motion for Jury Pool Selection Information & Require Jurors to Submit "Confidential Information Questionnaire"
3-11-01 Defendant Motions Court to Serve Defense Witness Summons
3-13-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel Prosecutor to Produce Discovery Evidence as Requested by Defendant's Discovery Motions
3-13-01 Defendant's Objection to Case Proceedings etc. and Defendant's Motion to Compel Mandatory Exculpatory Evidence
3-15-01 Defendant's Motion for Stenographer at The 4-4-01 Hearing and All Future Hearings of this Case and The Jury Trial of this Case
3-15-01 Defendant's Motion To Suppress Illegally Recorded Sanchez Call
3-16-01 Defendant's Motion for Docket Entries
3-17-01 Mark-Up for 4-4-01 Scheduled Hearing - Defendant's Motion for Court Order for Glover-Deaconess Hospital to Produce Defendant's Hospital Records
3-5-01 Defendant Motions Court to Serve Defense Witness Summons
3-8-01 Attorney Robertson - Motion To Withdraw
4-19-01 Defendant's Motion for Clarification Regarding Discovery & Related Court Orders of Case & Memorial of 3-08-01 Discovery Court Order
4-21-01 Defendant's Motion for Prosecution to Produce Certified Copies of Police 911 Tapes, Turret Tapes, Photos, Reports, Dispatch Reports etc., For Evidence at Trial and Discovery
5-11-01 Defendant's Motion To Sequester & Exclude Any Police Officers From Sitting At Counsel Table with A.D.A.
5-11-01 Motion For Sequestration of Witnesses
5-12-01 Combined Defendant's Motion For Continuance & Inquiry as to Trial Date
5-13-01 Defendant's Motion To Suppress Defendant's Prior Convictions
5-22-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel Alleged Victim's Medical Records From Emergency Room and Past Primary Care Provider As Exposed by Dr. Tamara Martin
5-27-01 Combined Defendant's Motion for Clarification & Motion for Pre-Trial Conference Report
5-29-01 Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and Allow Defendant's Motion for Peter H. Gear's Therapist Records
5-4-01 Defendant's Ex-Parte Motion/Application For Court To Serve Witness Summons
6-12-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel 2 F.P.D. Pictures of Alleged Victim Peter H. Gear "Bloody Head Wound" & "Massive Side Bruise"
6-19-01 Defendant's Motion To Compel Prosecution To Produce Evidence Requested By Defendant's Omnibus Motion & Ordered by the Court
6-21-01 Mark - Up for 7-10-01 Hearing All The Defendant's Motions Not Yet Heard and Find for Filing and Review 3 Motions also to be Heard 7-10-01
6-27-01 Corrected - "Defendant's Combined Motion to Compel Bill of Particulars, Pre-Trial Conference Report, and Testing of Mobil's Video Surveillance System"
6-6-01 Defendant's Motion for Clarification Regarding Defendant's Discovery Request for Telephone & Dispatch Evidence & Related Court Order
6-6-01 Defendant's Letter to Clerk and Affidavit in Support of Requirements under M.G.L. C. 233 s. 79G (Service to Court and D.A. - Defendant's Medical Records)
6-6-01 Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Defendant's "Omnibus Discovery Motion" Requests
7-16-01 Defendant's Motion for Continuance of Trial (without Gear's medical records)
7-17-01 Defendant's Affidavits Service of Witnesses' Summons Under M.R.C.P. 17b1, 17c, 17d-1
7-18-01 Defendant's Motion and Notice Regarding His Prior Convictions Under Mass. C. 233 s. 21