Attorney Ann S. Kennedy of John Conte's D.A.'s Office Admits Knowingly Used Perjury to Convict
Attorney Ann S. Kennedy wrote the Worcester District Attorney's Office Brief/Opposition to Michael Elbery's Appeal to the Denial of his Motion for New Trial. According to her brief in response to Michael Elbery's Appeal, Attorney Ann S. Kennedy admits that the most important evidence at the trial, which caused Michael Elbery to be convicted of "attempted mayhem" and sentenced to 10 years in prison, was perjury by the prosecution's witness-in-chief, Tom King and King's friends, who testified at trial. Additionally, Kennedy confirms per her Brief p. 40 (1st paragraph) that Judge Dan Toomey, the prosecutor A.D.A. Mike Ball and Elbery's defense attorney - Louis P. Aloise knew that the trial evidence pertaining to cause and extent of King's eye injuries was a documented lie.
Appellant/Defendant, Michael Elbery, argued that he was convicted by perjury. That the witnesses at the Probable Cause Hearing changed their testimony at trial concerning the alleged victim, Tom King's, eye injury. Per his Appeal argument II, Elbery documents irrefutable evidence, via the alleged victim's medical record, that proves his conviction for "attempted mayhem" was a frame-up. Elbery argues, per Appeal Argument II, that the jury was never allowed to know the content of King's medical record which discloses the truth about King's lack of eye injury and that King admitted to the physician he merely "caught a finger in the eye".
So what Admissions of Perjury by the Prosecution does Kennedy's make on her Brief?
According to Kennedy on page 41 of her brief, Dr. Hull's affidavit would have been cumulative of the evidence in King's medical report, which was an exhibit at trial. Cumulative means that the evidence is the same. Kennedy, as a result, admits on that same page 41 of her brief that the evidence on Dr. Hull's affidavit and King's medical report, which was written by King's treating physician and nurse, are the same. Specifically, Kennedy admits on page 41 of her brief that Dr. Hull's affidavit reveals that the prosecution's victim and witness-in-chief, Tom King, had merely a "superficial abrasion to his eye lid" and a "conjunctiva laceration" and that there was no bleeding and that the injuries were consistent with being poked in the eye. Dr. Hull goes on to explain (see page 3 #1) the "conjunctiva laceration" was a red eye or moderate inflammation. The conjunctiva is not the eyeball and is the outermost mucous membrane covering the eye.
After Michael Elbery was convicted, Dr. Hull was hired by Elbery's appellate attorney, as an expert witness to read and explain the medical jargon on the alleged victim's medical record. Neither the attorney or Dr. Hull could read King's medical report which was an exhibit at the trial that convicted Michael Elbery. First, an investigator was sent to alleged victim-King's treating physician's office to get King's medical record deciphered, all so Dr. Hull and Elbery's appellate attorney could first read and then learn the cause and extent of King's eye injuries. There was no medical witness at trial and no testimony as to what King's medical record disclosed, although it was submitted as an exhibit at trial. The jury was led to believe that King's medical record was the same as the prosecution testimony at trial regarding the cause and extent of damage to King's eye because Elbery's defense attorney, Aloise, never allowed the jury to know the truth about King's eye injury through cross-examination. The jury was never allowed to know the content of King's medical record and Elbery's trial defense attorney, Louis P. Aloise, never challenged the prosecution's trial evidence concerning King's eye injury, but he helped conceal the exculpatory evidence on King's medical record.
So why does that make Dr. Hull's Report/Affidavit so important?
Compare Hull's affidavit as a result of reviewing King's medical record after an investigator went to Dr. Arinell's office and got it deciphered, as compared to King's and his friends testimonies at trial.
At trial the prosecution's alleged victim and witness-in-chief, off duty Westboro police officer, Tom King, testified to the cause and extent of injuries to his eye totally different than what his medical report documented. Officer King, who had been drinking in the bar for hours before he and his "gang of six" pursued Michael Elbery 100 yards down Shrewsbury St. from the bar, testified at trial that Michael Elbery repeatedly thumb gouged his eye causing it to drip blood, leak vitreous fluid (fluid between brain and eye), requiring sutures/stitches because King testified that Michael Elbery's repeated thumb gougings cut his eyeball and lacerated his eyeball. Oh, King was graphic, he testified that Michael Elbery's thumb gougings were jammed almost behind his eye, harder and harder with the thumb nail. The prosecution's victim, Tom King, testified he was caused permanent eye damage and that he almost lost his eye from Michael Elbery's repeated thumb gougings 100 yards down the street from the bar at about 2:00am on 9-29-92. King further testified his eyesight was permanently damaged. See Argument II p. 15-16 of Elbery's Appeal Brief for transcript citations or excerpt of 3 claims from the Motion for New Trial by defendant-Michael Elbery concerning false evidence at trial surrounding King's eye injury. See also King's trial testimony.
And Manzello-Kennedy's cover-up, the trial lies embarrass Kennedy - "on his eyeball"
In feeble defense and further cover-up of the prosecution's trial perjury, Kennedy claims, per her Brief p. 27, that her victim-King testified as to injuries that he "felt blood and vitreous fluid coming from his left eye after the defendant twice jammed his thumbnail into King's eye." No, King didn't say that at trial, see the above paragraph and stop your lying Manzello-Kennedy!
Further, recognizing the magnitude of King's lying at trial regarding his "eye injury," on page 28 of her brief , Kennedy cutely claims that "King testified that as a result he received a cut or laceration on his eyeball". Very smooth like the rest of your brief that just blends all your lies together for such nice reading. But your brief is just lies just like the trial and conviction you support regardless of the documented irrefutable truth. As above, King claimed his eyeball was cut and his eyeball was lacerated, that he had bleeding from his eyeball, he had vitreous fluid leeking out of his eyeball, repeatedly he claimed he almost lost his eye.
Kennedy has a guilty conscience because she knows, as a result of reading Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial, and Appeal Brief, that King's treating physician documents, per irrefutable medical record, that King had a conjunctiva laceration which amounts to no more than moderate inflammation or bloodshot "on his eye" caused by the conjunctiva being poked with a finger as King admitted to the physician when he went to the E.R. immediately after the incident.
What did King's medical report disclose?
After being convicted of "attempted mayhem" (the Worcester D.A.'s Office claimed that Elbery tried to gouge out King's eyeball) Michael Elbery hired an appellate attorney. This appeals attorney, after reviewing the trial documents sent him by the Clerk in Worcester Superior Court, wanted to know what King's medical record said. Elbery's appeal attorney said he could not read it because it was totally illegible. Michael Elbery told his appellate attorney, Robert Sheketoff of Boston, Mass., that he agreed that Dr. Arinella's report was unreadable "hen-scratch" and that he never knew what was on King's medical record and that he left that up to his trial defense attorney, Louis P. Aloise. Sheketoff hired an investigator, A.I.S., to get King's medical record deciphered by the treating physician's office in Worcester, Mass.. Once King's medical record was deciphered then Dr. Hull was hired to read that same medical report and explain its meaning; the medical report contained medical terminology that required a physician to read and explain to the attorney, Sheketoff, and Michael Elbery.
King's medical record as prepared by the treating physician and nurse disclosed the following:
Per interview section Tom King told the treating physician, Dr. Arinella, (see "history and subject") that his eye injury was caused when he "patient chased person and got a finger in his left eye".
The treating physician disclosed that King had a "superficial abrasion to his eyelid" and a "small conjunctiva laceration causing a red eye".
King's treatment lasted 20 minutes, although he waited in the ER for about an hour before being seen by the physician and discharged at 3:35am.
Dr. Hull, per affidavit, further states that King had no bleeding or vitreous fluid leaking from his eye, that the eyeball was not penetrated, that the treating physician applied ointment as treatment to King's eye, that King had a "superficial injury" consistent with being poked in the eye. Dr. Hull per letter dated 3-12-94 (scroll down 3rd page) explains further that King's conjunctiva was moderately inflamed and the concern was bacteria. Dr. Hull makes several statements/explanations of Arinella's report that King's eye was "quiet and formed", no damage.
What if King told the Jury the Truth? Kennedy claims Truth would not Make Any Difference!
Hey, what if King got up on the witness stand and testified truthfully as to the cause of his "injury", as he did instantly in the emergency room to the treating physician and nurse as documented by these two medical people in their interview sections ("history and subjective" at top of the two sections) of King's medical report, that he "caught a finger in the eye while chasing a bar patron down the street". And if he disclosed the real truth about his extent of eye injury as the treating physician documents, per King's medical report, due to treating King, that King only had a "superficial abrasion to his eye lid" and a "blood shot eye".
Kennedy per her Brief on page 40 (see last paragraph) claims that that evidence which was produced on King's medical record would not have been "dispositive" of the prosecution's claim that Michael Elbery tried to "gouge out King's eyeball" for the specific intent charge of "attempted mayhem". Yes, the prosecution needed to show evidence that Michael Elbery "specifically intened" to gouge out King's eye and they did it with all King's perjury about a cut, lacerated, bleeding eye ball along with his dripping vitreous fluid all caused by his perjury about repeated thumb gougings to his eye.
Sorry, Manzello-Kennedy, no fair jury would have found Michael Elbery guilty of specifically trying to gouge out King's eye (attempted mayhem), if the jury knew the medically documented evidence was that King got a "bump in his eye" causing red inflammation. In fact, no prosecutor, even John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office, would go to trial with that charge of "attempted mayhem" if they thought the real evidence per King's medical record would be presented to the jury. But A.D.A. Ann S. Kennedy thinks it wouldn't make any difference or be "dispositive".
Kennedy Confesses Perjury used by D.A. John Conte's Office
Compare the prosecution's witness-in-chief and victim, Tom King's, trial testimony concerning the cause and extent of his eye "injury", as above. It is the opposite of his medical report and Dr. Hull's Affidavit. Even John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office, A.D.A. Ann S. Kennedy, admits, per her brief p.41, that Dr. Hull's Affidavit and King's medical report are the same (cumulative, as Kennedy admits). Kennedy walked right into it and documented, as a result, that their precious "victim" and cop, Tom King, did nothing, but Lie, Lie, Lie, or commit perjury with the prosecution's knowledge, approval and aid of Judge Dan Toomey and Attorney Louis P. Aloise.
Attorney Sheketoff Learns why King didn't Sue
It was no secret that Michael Elbery had assets/money. Sheketoff knew Elbery had just handed over a handsome fee to Attorney Louis P. Aloise to allegedly defend him at trial. Sheketoff was also paid a handsome fee to write the Direct Appeal of the conviction that Aloise conspired in. Sheketoff would also learn that Elbery was a C.P.A. and Babson College M.B.A. and business owner. Attorney Sheketoff, during one of the first conversations with his new client, Michael Elbery, wanted to know why this "victim" (Tom King) wasn't suing him. Sheketoff would exclaim that cops are notorious for suing because they know lawyers and the courts are friendly to them.
When Sheketoff finished the investigation using A.I.S. and Dr. Hull he learned why "big shot" - Westboro Police Officer and alleged victim, Tom King, didn't sue Michael Elbery for all his claimed (phony) eye injuries. King didn't have any injuries and admitted to the treating physician about an hour after the incident that he merely "caught a finger in his eye while chasing a bar patron". Sheketoff would remark, "only a bloodshot eye from catching a finger in his left eye while he was illegally chasing someone down the street doesn't make for a good lawsuit". Sheketoff would continue that, ""they" didn't want King filing a lawsuit because "they" knew you would get another attorney and maybe he would actually do his job and defend you and it would be discovered that all the evidence that convicted you was a total lie".
Sheketoff wanted to know where the rest of King's medical records were because the alleged victim, King, claimed all these injuries and permanent eye sight damage. Sheketoff would point out that if King had the injuries he claimed at trial, including permanent eyesight damage, a cut-lacerated eyeball causing blood and vitreous fluid to leak, then he would have required additional medical care, if not surgery. Certainly, Sheketoff rightly pointed out, King would have needed more than the 20 minutes he saw Dr. Arinella in the ER, as per his one medical report. Sheketoff would state, "these cops get the best medical insurance paid courtesy of the taxpayers - this guy (King) is too much"!
Sheketoff kept on asking, "Where was your lawyer", "I've never seen anything like this".
Michael Elbery asked Sheketoff, is that the only medical record of King's that the Worcester Superior Court Clerk sent you. Sheketoff assured Michael Elbery that according to the trial exhibit list and trial transcripts there was only one medical report for King at trial.
Sheketoff was a great advocate and had the reputation as the BEST criminal defense appellate attorney in the State of Massachusetts, at least back in 1994 when Michael Elbery hired him to write his Direct Appeal and all post conviction remedies as the law allows in Massachusetts. Sheketoff was even a nice guy, good guy to talk to, but it didn't last long. Sheketoff became attorney of record and then Jewish Bergman and Secret Jewish League got to Sheketoff and Sheketoff chose his loyalty to his race and railroaded Michael Elbery. Before Bergman's contamination Sheketoff would remark, after reading the trial transcripts of Elbery's trial, that he had never seen "them" do something like this to anybody and he said that there is a 90% chance he could get the conviction overturned. No, Sheketoff is never going to admit to this. Due to his racial contamination, he produced a piece of junk as a Direct Appeal and then proposed another junk in the form of an alleged Motion for New Trial and Michael Elbery was forced to be a lawyer.
And More ... Kennedy Documents that Judge Toomey, Prosecutor Mike Ball and Elbery's attorney - Aloise Knew and Conspired in the Perjury
Kennedy goes on per page 39 - 40 of her brief to admit that Judge Dan Toomey, A.D.A. Mike Ball, and Michael Elbery's defense attorney, Louis P. Aloise, knew exactly what was on King's medical record. Kennedy, per her Brief p. 39-40, cites trial transcript lines that recorded a trial sidebar (a sidebar is out of the jury's hearing) where the three co-conspirators confirm they could read King's medical record. And Kennedy should know they could read King's medical record because she, like the trial prosecutor Mike Ball, was also from D.A. John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office. They all knew that King's medical record disclosed that King had no injuries, other than a bump in the eye that caused red inflammation, that constituted anything close to mayhem and that their alleged victim-witness "caught a finger in the eye after chasing a bar patron down the street".
And Kennedy is right - Judge Toomey, Prosecutor Mike Ball, and defense Attorney Louis P. Aloise knew what the truth was per King's medical record. Then the three coconspirators sponsored King to lie under oath to the jury in order to frame Michael Elbery for a crime called "attempted mayhem". They made sure no one else knew the truth, especially the jury.
You ask how the 3 co-conspirators could read Dr. Arinella's scribble? The prosecutor called his office.
But these co-conspirators let King lie to the jury because they wanted one thing and that was to convict Michael Elbery and throw him in prison for 10 years and it took a Conspiracy to Knowingly Use Perjury at trial to do it. Their conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and imprison Michael Elbery required the cooperation of Elbery's defense attorney, Louis P. Aloise. Michael Elbery was a critic of the Worcester Police Dept. and John Conte's - Worcester D.A.'s Office for years while he owned a bar in the Webster Sq. section of Worcester, Mass.. They had arrested him a dozen times over a period of 9 years when he owned Mulcahy's Bar and never got a conviction, just dismissals and not guilties because the charges were so obviously groundless. Michael Elbery used an Attorney named Arthur Goldstein during those years, but never bothered to sue the cops for their false arrests even though Goldstein urged him to. Each legal case handled by an attorney takes a lot out of the litigant (attorney's client). Things changed once Michael Elbery learned how to handle the law himself - see this Web Site.
Kennedy documents/states that witness Joe Hayes testimony same as Dr. Hull's Affidavit - Further Kennedy confirmation of the prosecution's knowing use of perjury
Kennedy, per page 41 of her appellee Brief, claims that Dr. Hull's affidavit is also cumulative evidence of John Hayes trial testimony. Hayes testified that he was a bar patron and exited the bar in time to see King before he went to the hospital. Hayes testified that King stated that "he must have got poked in the eye", see Kennedy's Appellee Brief p. 41. Further, Hayes observed only that King was rubbing his eye and that there was no visible damage to King's eye. Kennedy, per pg. 41 of her Brief, cites John Hayes trial testimony as Hayes saying he saw King and there was no blood or vitreous fluid coming out of King's eye and that King did not have a serious injury. John Hayes testimony was the opposite of the prosecution's bloody, cut eye ball testimony that they claimed was caused by repeated thumb gougings. But Kennedy is right, John Hayes trial testimony (see p.857 for Hayes testimony) agrees with Dr. Hull's affidavit and therefore also King's medical report.
Once again, Kennedy is admitting that the prosecution's evidence presented to the jury at trial regarding King's eye injury was perjury. Dr. Hull's affidavit, as above, discloses that King, as documented by King's treating physician, per King's medical report, had no injury but only a blood shot eye that was caused, according to King during instant interview at the E.R., by "catching a finger in the eye".
Looks like John Hayes was telling the truth because Dr. Hull's affidavit is the same as King's medical report. And as Kennedy confirms, the prosecution testimony was perjury because it is the opposite of Hayes trial testimony and Dr. Hull's Affidavit and King's medical record.
Hayes was the only trial witness to testify King had no injuries and got bumped in the eye in agreement with Dr. Hull's Affidavit and King's medical report. Michael Elbery testified he never saw King because there were several men on top of him in the middle of Shrewsbury Street. And the Worcester Police agree per the instant police report that Michael Elbery was in the street under several men.
What was Manzello - Kennedy's Answer? Perjury!
A.D.A. Ann S. Manzello-Kennedy had the answer to defendant/appellant's undisputable documented claim that the Worcester D.A.'s Office/prosecution knowingly used perjury to convict Michael Elbery. Kennedy states per her brief on page 41 that the jury could sort out the perjury. On her Appellee Brief p. 27-28, Kennedy claims, (see p. 28 line13 - "fact finding function of the jury"), that the jury had King's medical record and John Hayes testimony vs. the various prosecution testimony regarding King's eye injury, and it was up to the "fact finding function of the jury" to sort it out.
Wrong! Knowing use of perjury by the prosecution is Unconstitutional, and nothing else is to be considered, including her claim that the jury had the medical record and could read it and could decide which was true. And that is the law of the land via U.S. Constitution.
Further, Kennedy does not recognize the law that says because the prosecution's witness-in-chief testified totally different than what he told the E.R. treating medical people was the cause his "eye bump" and totally contradicted the extent of his eye injuries per the treating physician's medical report, then King, as a matter of law, committed PERJURY.
What jury would find that King was testifying truthfully when his medical record said something totally different?
What prosecutor would allow his case to continue against Michael Elbery, if he knew the jury would learn that alleged victim's medical report contained evidence that was the opposite of the cause and resultant injury evidence his prosecution witnesses would testify to? None, especially trial prosecutor - Mike Ball, that is why he concealed the evidence on King's medical record from the jury.
The jury never even looked at the unreadable medical record with all the medical terminology to reach their verdict, even if it was snuck in as an exhibit at trial!
More Unconscionable Lies by Kennedy - medical report is readable
And more bold prosecutorial misconduct, Kennedy ducks the whole issue by lying, per p. 38 of her brief, that King's medical record was legible.
Let the World Court of Public Opinion, via the World Free Internet, be the judge Kennedy and they will decide whether King's medical record was readable. And if someone can read it, they also better be a medical person to understand it.
How could a jury read that document - there was not one word of testimony at trial that explained what was documented on that medical record; no medical witness testified as to the content of King's medical record. Additionally, the jury would not have been able to understand the medical jargon, even if, by some miracle they could have deciphered King's medical record in the 30 minutes it took them to reach a verdict. 30 minutes including round trip travel time to the jury room and pit stop. It required a physician to understand the deciphering of King's medical record.
Hey, guess who else knew what was documented on alleged victim-Tom King's medical record and Dr. Hull's affidavit?
That's right, Attorney Ann S. Manzello-Kennedy!
A.D.A. Ann S. Manzello-Kennedy had all the irrefutable medical evidence that proved beyond any argument by the prosecution that Michael Elbery got framed with the Worcester District Attorney's Office knowing and planned use of perjury. Attorney Ann S. Manzello-Kennedy continued that planned knowing use of perjury in order to maintain that illegal conviction when she wrote her Brief representing Conte's Office when Elbery appealed the denial of his Motion for New Trial.
Ann S. Kennedy Guilty of Continuing the Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute and Imprison Michael Elbery with False Evidence
Ann S. Kennedy escaped justice, she was not fired for the same conspiracy like Attorney and former A.D.A. Mo Bergman, or former prosecutors A.D.A. Mike Ball and Todd Mathieson. Ann S. Kennedy did not have a heart attack like Toomey, King, and Schlener. Kennedy was not even blackballed like former prosecutor Attorney Louis P. Aloise. Now she can join Judge Mark Wolf (Wolf was forced to resign as Chief Justice) and Attorney bobby Sheketoff (two of the most popular hits on this Web Site) for all of the World Free Internet to know her mockery of justice and criminal conspiracy.
Don't go away more judicial scandal below!
PART II. Ann S. Kennedy's - Witnesses' Testimonies "Discrepancies" Don't Exist! More Manzello-Kennedy Cover-Up
Worcester D.A. John Conte's A.D.A. - Ann S. Kennedy acknowledges that appellant/defendant - Michael Elbery raised issues in both his Motion for New Trial and its Appeal that the witnesses who testified at the Probable Cause Hearing changed their testimonies at trial. A.D.A. Kennedy per p. 25 of her Brief says that the defendant (Elbery) cites "discrepancies" between the Probable Cause Hearing testimonies and Grand Jury testimony and Trial testimonies and she states that Elbery asserts that these "discrepancies" constitute "Knowing Use by the Prosecution of Perjury" in violation of U.S. Constitution. On page 26 of her Brief ,she states that the defendant - Elbery asserts that his trial counsel, Louis P. Aloise, was ineffective because he failed to alert the jury to these "discrepancies".
Kennedy still on p.26 of her Brief quickly concludes without analysis, that "the defendant provided no evidence to demonstrate that the prosecutor deliberately withheld evidence and knowingly allowed perjured testimony at trial".
Wonderful! Is that so.
Before going any further having fun with Manzello-Kennedy's cover-up conspiracy, the "Discrepancies" Kennedy is talking about are, in the world of legaldom, actually termed "Prior Inconsistent Statements". Kennedy is using the underplay tactic of mere "discrepancies" because of the magnitude of Michael Elbery's claims of Prior Inconsistent Statements between the Probable Cause Hearing and Grand Jury and Trial Testimonies. Which will all amount to massive knowing Use of Perjury by John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office to falsely convict Michael Elbery.
A.D.A Ann S. Kennedy had a big problem on her hands when her job with Worcester D.A. John Conte required her to Oppose Michael Elbery's Appeal. Of course they weren't going to admit lying or framing Michael Elbery. But Elbery used/cited trial transcripts in his Appeal Argument VI and his Motion for New Trial claim X to show that the witnesses, all friends of King's, went to the Probable Cause Hearing and testified that, amongst other things, that King was the drunken trouble maker that 9-29-92. The witnesses testimonies at the Probable Cause Hearing contributed to the presiding judge, Milton Raphaelson, finding that there was NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST Michael Elbery on the same charges he would end up doing 10 years in prison for because those witnesses changed their testimonies at trial.
The Probable Cause Hearing was extensive, it lasted 5 hours. Michael Elbery never testified. He was represented by Attorney Louis P. Aloise. Almost all the witnesses' testimonies at the Probable Cause Hearing was exculpatory or favorable for Michael Elbery, but at trial those same witnesses changed their testimonies and said the opposite
A.D.A. Kennedy and all the resources of the government, via John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office, could not beat documented evidence provided by certified Court Transcripts as per the Probable Cause Hearing, Grand Jury, and Trial. So what did Ann S. Kennedy do? She simply lied and said that Michael Elbery didn't show any evidence that the prosecutor acted illegally (by withholding evidence and knowingly using perjury to convict), see her Brief p. 26. This was the same tactic Judge Timothy Hillman used when he reviewed and decided Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial. That is the only thing she could do because it is impossible to counter the transcript citings provided in Count X of Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial and Appeal Argument VI. In fact, she should have ignored that appeal argument altogether (a favorite tactic of Judge Timothy Hillman when he reviewed Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial), but she never knew that her lies would be publicized on the World Free Internet. Lying was part of the job, if you worked for John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office.
The evidence of "Prior Inconsistent Statements" as raised by defendant/moveant - Michael Elbery in his Motion for New Trial and its Appeal was almost never ending, not as Kennedy claims "didn't show any evidence of discrepancies". Appellant/moveant, Michael Elbery, dedicated his Motion Claim X and related Appeal Argument VI to "Prior Inconsistent Statements" that occurred at the trial that convicted him with knowing false evidence by the prosecutor and with the aid and agreement of Louis P. Aloise. Additionally, Elbery dedicated certain motion claims to specific issues of evidence in his Motion for New Trial and Arguments in its Appeal that also include "Prior Inconsistent Statements" and which A.D.A. Kennedy calls "discrepancies", including, Motion claims I-III and corresponding Appeal Argument II (as above, knowing use of perjury by the prosecutor with the conspiracy of Aloise concerning King's eye injury at trial), the Grand Jury Impairment which was Motion Claim VIII, the Assault Broken Bottle Charge which was Motion Claim VI and corresponding Appeal Argument IV, Man's Cut Face, per Motion Claim IV, and included in Appeal Argument III.
Kennedy, on p. 30 of her Brief, calls these "Prior Inconsistent Statements" that Michael Elbery included in his various motion claims and appeal argument as "miniscule". No Kennedy, they are Knowing Use of Perjury by the Prosecutor with the full cooperation and conspiracy of Louis P. Aloise they were concealed from the jury.
Kennedy claims, p. 27 of her Brief, that all the discrepancies were dutifully placed before the jury by both the prosecutor and Elbery's defense attorney, Louis P. Aloise. If you look at the motion claims and corresponding Appeal Arguments that Michael Elbery raised you will see irrefutable documented evidence that both the prosecutor, Mike Ball and defense attorney, Aloise, planned and conspired together to knowingly present the jury nothing but perjury/False Evidence. Contrary to what Kennedy states on her Brief p. 29, lines 5, 6, 7, the last thing the prosecutor and Defense Attorney Louis P. Aloise did at Elbery's trial was to alert or "highlight" to the jury the changes in the witnesses trial testimony as compared to their Probable Cause Hearing testimonies and medical and police documents.
When the current transcripts were uploaded to this Web Site, via the Internet Server, in September of 2011 a bolt of lightning and load thunder came out of the sky. There was no storm. The World could see irrefutable truth.
By the Way - No Probable Cause Hearing witnesses testified to seeing any gougings or injury to their friend and alleged victim Tom King's eye.
Judge Timothy Hillman was no help to A.D.A. Ann S. Kennedy - he took the easy way out and pretended the claim of Prior Inconsistent Statements did not exist - he never addressed Claim X which documented scores of Prior Inconsistent Statements made by the witnesses at the Probable Cause Hearing and then changed to Elbery's disfavor at trial.
Grand Jury - Kennedy brings up more "Discrepancies"
Strange, Kennedy would bring up the Grand Jury "Discrepancies" in her Brief p. 25 because Appellant - Michael Elbery did not raise that issue (Count VIII - Motion for New Trial) on Appeal due to page limits. Must have been more guilty conscience. Elbery did raise on his Motion for New Trial Claim VIII that John Conte's D.A.'s Office impaired the Grand Jury Process. What else would you expect from Conte and his band of lying cut throats? They just had a NO PROBABLE CAUSE decision pinned on them after trying to bury Michael Elbery with 40 years worth of phony criminal charges with the cooperation of the Worcester Police Dept. and an out-of-jurisdiction Westboro cop who was drinking in bar, Tom King.
The witnesses at the Probable Cause Hearing started telling the truth, so Conte's Office had the answer. They got rid of all the truthful witnesses and got Michael Elbery indicted on the sole testimony of the one witness at the Probable Cause Hearing who was lying. Yes, that's right, Conte's Office indicted Elbery with one lousy witness - lying cop, Tom King. King really had a bias at this point because this fat boy got demoted after the headlines hit the Worcester newspaper of the NO PROBABLE CAUSE DECISION. King looked real bad and wanted to get even, so he continued his lies and got the quickest indictment in American Judicial History. 7 pages double spaced to indict on charges that would carry a maximum sentence of over 20 years if convicted. No legal instructions were given to the Grand Jurors.
Legal Tricks - not Justice
Some of you are puzzled; how did they get an indictment when Judge Raphaelson found there was No Probable Cause on the same criminal charges? Well, the way it is done is kind of like waiving the magic wand and presto a different jurisdiction. The District Attorney's Office uses law to violate peoples rights and enforce "their" brand of injustice. A Probable Cause Hearing is held in a Massachusetts District Court, so the trick was D.A. John Conte simply transferred the case to the Grand Jury which is in Superior Court jurisdiction. Some of you say, so what? As ridiculous and illogical as it sounds, they define District Court and Superior Court as two different jurisdictions, so by Massachusetts law, the No Probable Cause Decision can be ignored, and they can indict a citizen on the same criminal charges because the Grand Jury is in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. So much for justice, they have jurisdiction.
However, that has never happened in Massachusetts (No P.C. followed by an indictment), except once according to the Massachusetts law books. But that exception was different because years later the cops would find new evidence to get the indictment. The case against Michael Elbery did not involve new evidence, but Conti's Office concealed all the evidence produced at the Probable Cause Hearing. Ya, Conte excluded all the witnesses, except for the lying cop, Tom King, who claimed to be the big fat cry baby victim.
The nonsense about different jurisdictions might sound counter-intuitive and wrong, but citizen's reading this Chapter of MassInjustice instinctively understand that you can't hide all the exculpatory evidence (exculpatory is evidence showing innocence) from the Grand Jury, so that the District Attorney can get an indictment.
That's right Worcester D.A. John "controlled by local mafia" Conte impaired the Grand Jury to get an Indictment on Michael Elbery.
Kennedy's Broken Bottle "Discrepancy"
This Broken Beer Bottle "Discrepancy" is bigger than a Prior Inconsistent Statement, it involves admissions that the victims were lying. The charge of "Assault Dangerous Weapon - A Broken Beer Bottle" was found to have "No Probable Cause" and Dismissed, after King and Schlener (the bartender) admitted it didn't happen. It was actually Jeff Schlener that made this one up (lie about a beer bottle assault) when the cops arrived, as per the reporting Worcester Police instant report.
Michael Elbery asked his alleged attorney, Louis P. Aloise, how can they get an indictment on this "Assault Dangerous Weapon" charge when the "victims" admitted it didn't happen. Lou claimed he would file a motion and get that indictment charge dismissed, but Aloise never did.
Oh sure, the charge of "Assault Dangerous Weapon- Broken Beer Bottle" was dismissed by trial Judge, Dan Toomey, after the prosecution presented its case, but that was too late as the damaging false evidence of Michael Elbery threatening everyone in the bar with a broken beer bottle was already given by Tom King at trial. The jury was only told that the "assault dangerous weapon charge" was no longer before them; the jury was never allowed to know that it was dismissed by Judge Toomey. "Assault" was a favorite of John Conte's D.A.'s Office because it only required an alleged victim's testimony, no physical evidence. That's right, "assault and battery" requires contact, whereas, an "assault" charge by itself requires only a "menacing gesture". So the prosecutor can more easily lie because no physical evidence (such as an injury) will be required to be produced, all they need is the pointing finger of a lying witness.
Kind of like a criminal charge of "attempt" that was used frequently against citizens by D.A. John Conte, and when they really wanted to screw a citizen they would charge "attempted mayhem" or "attempted murder" in Worcester County. It is an "attempt" because they say so, and they have a lying witness (victim) to testify; that is all the evidence they need in a Court by a D.A. like John Conte to get a conviction.
The "Assault Deadly Weapon - Broken Bottle" Charge was raised as a claim on Michael Elbery's Count VI of his Motion for New Trial and related Appeal Argument IV.
As documented by defendant - Michael Elbery in his Motion Claim VI and Appeal Argument IV, the original prosecutor handling the Probable Cause Hearing, Michael Salloum, indicates that the witnesses (both the victims of the phony Bottle Assault), King and Schlener, had already admitted that Schlener, the bartender, fabricated the bottle assault when the cops arrived. Evidently, Salloum was talking too much truth because he was replaced and the Probable Cause Hearing was handled and lost by A.D.A.- Attorney Todd Mathieson. To make this felony charge that carries 10 years even more ridiculous is the fact that at the Probable Cause Hearing Schlener "the bartender" admitted under oath he lied about the "Broken Bottle Assault" to the reporting Worcester Cop that arrived at the scene of the bar fight 100 yards down the street. See Motion Claim VI.
But Worcester D.A. John Conte and staff needed King to lie before the Grand Jury and at trial about this "Broken Bottle Assault," so they could produce Probable Cause of a felony, via indictment, in order to try to justify King's alleged citizen's arrest of Michael Elbery when King and his "gang of six" pursued Elbery 100 yards down the street.
Per p. 29 of her brief, A.D.A. Kennedy addresses the "Assault Broken Bottle Charge" and claims "there was no evidence to show that the prosecutor knew King's trial testimony was false and the prosecutor was not required to independently asses King's credibility on that score". Who cares if the trial Judge finally dismissed this charge of "Assault Deadly Weapon" because the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to fulfill the elements of the crime; the damage was done because the jury heard all kinds of outrageous fabricated evidence from their alleged victim, Tom King, that Elbery threatened an entire bar with a broken beer bottle. A.D.A. Ann S. Kennedy won't tell you the rest of the trial witnesses didn't testify about the phony "Broken Bottle Assault" because they were deliberately not asked about it at trial by defense attorney, Aloise and the prosecutor, Ball. The evidence that Tom King lied at trial about regarding this "Broken Bottle Attack" is documented forever in the Probable Cause and Trial Transcripts as summarized in Elbery's Motion VI of his Motion for New Trial.
Both Aloise and Ball had the Probable Cause Transcripts and Aloise represented Michael Elbery at the Probable Cause Hearing, they have no excuse. Nor does A.D.A. Kennedy have excuse for deliberately lying about the irrefutable documented evidence provided by the transcripts. Both the alleged victims to the Bottle Assault, Jeff Shlener and cop-King, had already admitted before trial that they fabricated that crime, and its all documented in Motion Count VI and the Probable Cause Hearing Transcript.
Part III - A Legal Issue - King's Illegal Citizens' Arrest - Conte's Office Deceives the Jury
King's Citizen's Arrest - Kennedy finds Probable Cause regardless of the fraud
In response and opposition to appellant - Michael Elbery's Appeal Argument III - "Citizen's Arrest", A.D.A. Kennedy dedicates 6 pages of her Brief (pgs. 33-38) to the defense of off-duty and out-of-jurisdiction - Westboro Police Officer, Tom King, pursuing Michael Elbery 100 yards down the street. Kennedy claims Officer King made a valid and perfectly legal citizen's arrest of Michael Elbery on 9-29-92 on Shrewsbury St., Worcester, Mass.
Kennedy claims, per p. 33 of her Brief, that Michael Elbery in Appeal Argument III argued that his defense counsel, Louis P. Aloise, was ineffective in his assistance of counsel because he should have requested a citizen's arrest instruction. No, that's wrong Kennedy. The gravamen/substance/essence of Appeal Argument III is in the next paragraph; Aloise's handling of the citizen's arrest instruction is a minor part of that Argument III and Motion Count V. Regarding citizen's arrest, Michael Elbery claimed, per his Appeal Argument III p.33, that Aloise should have motioned to dismiss the entire case because there was no "Citizen's Arrest" but an assault by King and all the prosecution's alleged assault evidence should have been Suppressed.
The defendant/appellant, Michael Elbery, raised claim in both his Motion for New Trial, Count V, and Appeal, Argument III, that the Prosecution's claim that their victim, Tom King, made a citizen's arrest was, as a matter of law, incorrect and that King's pursuit and admitted attack of Michael Elbery was an assault and false imprisonment by King. Elbery further argued per his Motion Claim V and Appeal Argument III that in order to have a valid citizen's arrest King had to pass the "in fact test"; the "in fact test" in Massachusetts requires that the citizen making the arrest point to a felony committed before making his arrest and there must be a conviction in a court of law ("in fact") on that same felony. Elbery further claimed that, because King made a false arrest and assault when he illegally pursued Elbery down the street, the law requires all the alleged assault evidence that prosecution claimed occurred in the street, while King was making his illegal citizen's arrest, must be suppressed. Elbery further argued, as Judge Raphaelson decided at the Probable Cause Hearing, that King can not illegally pursue someone (Elbery) down the street and then claim he (Elbery) assaulted King; Raphaelson, as Elbery also argued, decided that he, Michael Elbery, committed no felony prior to King's pursuit.
Judge Raphaelson knew this citizen's arrest law at the probable cause hearing, as per Appeal Brief p. 30, PC 265-266.
P.C. 265-8 (Judge Raphaelson) Mr. King went to stop a person who he had no right to stop.
P.C. 266-2 (Judge Raphaelson) and there was no felony committed by Elbery in the bar.
See also RA 135, Ex. G of motion, the Worcester T&G of 1-21-93.
After first claiming that King did not make a citizen's arrest, p. 33 of her Brief, Kennedy claims, per her brief p. 36, that King was not required to meet the criterion of the "in fact test" for a citizen's arrest, but because King was an out-of -jurisdiction police officer King only had to pass the more "relaxed standard" of "probable cause of a felony committed" in order to legally justify his citizen's arrest. Kennedy claims, per p. 36, that the evidence clearly established that King had probable cause to arrest Michael Elbery for either of two felonies she claims occurred in the bar prior to King's pursuit 100 yards down the street.
Ann S. Kennedy makes more Errors of Fact and Law or Was it just Continued Prosecutorial Deception
Kennedy then goes on per her Brief on pgs. 36-37 to claim that King had probable cause of two felonies, in order to legally make his citizen's arrest, because Michael Elbery waived a broken beer bottle causing an "Assault Dangerous Weapon" and that Elbery had caused a girl's face to be cut and lacerated.
There was a Probable Cause Hearing held in Worcester District Court before Judge Milton Raphaelson on the charges made against Michael Elbery by the Worcester Police and claiming Tom King to be the victim of crimes carrying 40 years worth of Prison. Raphaelson decided there was No Probable Cause to arrest/charge defendant, Michael Elbery, with an "Assault Dangerous Weapon - Broken Bottle". In Raphaelson's court both the alleged victims, King and Schlener, admitted it (assault with a beer bottle - see Motion Claim VI) never happened. In fact, those same two witnesses and alleged victim's of the bottle assault admitted to the original prosecutor on the case, A.D.A. Michael Salloum, that there was no bottle assault, all before the Probable Cause Hearing was even held. A.D.A. Michael Salloum documents that the crime by Michael Elbery in the bar that justified King's citizen's arrest of Elbery was that Michael Elbery was "disorderly" in the bar. Sorry, Salloum, Disorderly Conduct is not a felony but the most minor misdemeanor and does not qualify for the illegal conduct required to satisfy the more "relaxed standard" to justify an off-duty police officer to make a citizen's arrest.
As far as Kennedy's second claimed felony for King's requirement of Probable Cause to make his citizen's arrest of Michael Elbery, under the "relaxed standard" of Probable Cause, there is the legal nullset regarding Kennedy's accusation that Michael Elbery cut and lacerated a "girls" face. To make Kennedy's case even worse the second alleged felony Kennedy claims, the facial laceration of the "girl" in the bar by Michael Elbery, was never subject of arrest or criminal charge or prosecution. Michael Elbery was never charged with a crime for cutting any "girl's" face because it never happened. If it had happened the Worcester D.A.'s Office would have been all to happy to tack on another charge worth 10 years in prison. This "cut face felony", as claimed by Kennedy as probable cause for King's citizen's arrest, was so phony that it was never subject to a Probable Cause decision at either the Probable Cause Hearing or Grand Jury. Probable Cause must be decided by a court of law not some cop in a bar's say-so or drug addict bartender's quick lies made to cover for his friends.
The alleged "cut faced girl" that testified at Elbery's trial told the prosecutor, A.D.A. Mike Ball, in the corridor outside the courtroom, that she "didn't want to do this" (testify at trial) and Ball told her he would arrest her if she didn't. The girl's, Christiana Mann's, boyfriend left the courthouse but Mann lied on the witness stand rather than be arrested. Her testimony was contradictory; at one point she testified, "it was nothing", "I thought I saw some blood", "a guy came over and said your fine". As opposed to other points in her testimony where she said "her face was stitched above and below her eye". At trial, King and some of his friends claimed the blood was dripping down her face; King's friends didn't say that at the Probable Cause Hearing. False charges weren't a problem for D.A. John Conte; Conte did not file false charges against Michael Elbery for this "girl" and their claim of facial cutting because Mann was a reluctant witness. The 8 months the prosecution claims it took to identify and locate the "girl", Christiana Mann, that Kennedy uses, per p. 33 of her brief (see ftnt. 6), as an excuse for not charging Michael Elbery with a charge of "Assault Deadly Weapon" on Mann is meaningless, as a matter of law. Back then, in 1992, the statute of limitations on such a charge was a minimum of 5 years. To convict on false charges the prosecutor needs a willing and vindictive victim, not one that can't remember how to lie correctly because she wants to go home to her ma ma. If Worcester D.A., John Conte, had another chance to convict Michael Elbery on more phony charges, it would have been no problem, but Mann never went to a hospital, had no medical corroboration/medical documents to prove her fabricated cut and lacerated/stitched face. Mann had no scares on her face, see Claim IV of Motion for New Trial.
Kennedy highlights the fabrication of Mann's cut face in her footnote 6 on page 33 of her Brief. Kennedy makes note that the Worcester Police and Worcester D.A.'s Office did not find the "girl" until a month before trial or 8 months after the underlying incident on 9-29-92. The trial was at the end of June and into July 1993 or 9 months after the underlying incident of 9-29-92; Kennedy and Conte's Office made claim of the "girl's" facial cutting as reason at trial for King's pursuit of Michael Elbery. Why did it take 8 months to find this "girl" who the bartender, Jeffrey Schlener, claimed he knew worked down the street at Ground Round in Shrewsbury on Route 9? It was Shlener the bartender who told the reporting Worcester cops on 9-29-92 that "glass from Bottle - struck a girl in the eye cutting victim". The cops document they went to all area hospitals and could find no such girl. Strange, at trial the "cut faced girl", Christiana Mann, testified she went to U. Mass. Hospital which is about a half mile from the bar and also where the alleged victim, Tom King, went to have the bump on his eye examined by medical people to make sure he did not have bacteria. The cops went to U. Mass. to interview King that night, how did they miss Mann?
It was also Jeff Schlener, the bartender, that lied to the reporting Worcester cops on 9-29-92 that Michael Elbery threatened the entire bar with a broken beer bottle. Why not? Schlener, the cowardly bartender, that started the entire incident (made the snow balls) but he let his barroom buddies (King and gang of six) do the dirty work (throw the snowballs). "Jeff the Harvard bartender" didn't graduate from Harvard University '71 for no reason, he learned to be quick on his toes. Schlener the bartender is a good liar.
No Special treatment for off-duty barroom cops - the citizen's arrest "in fact test" applies to King as a matter of law
Another problem with Kennedy's legal work and Opposition to Elbery's citizen's arrest Appeal argument III is that King, as a matter of law, was not allowed the more "relaxed standard of Probable Cause" given to an out-of-jurisdiction cop. To qualify for the more "relaxed standard of Probable Cause" of a felony King would have had to identify himself as a police officer and also been on duty. The high court made it law that every cop in Massachusetts is not given 24 hour vigilantism via this "relaxed standard" for citizen's arrest for an out-of-jurisdiction cop. See Appellant- Elbery's Reply Brief (Reply II p. 7-8). King was clear per his testimony at trial and the Probable Cause Hearing - he never identified himself as a cop or even a "police officer". Of course not, King was violating the law having a drunken brawl with his "gang of six"; the last thing King wanted Michael Elbery to know was that he was an "officer of the law" . In cases were the "relaxed standard" was allowed under Mass. law, the police officer was following a motorist out of his jurisdiction into another town or municipality and he identified himself as a police officer when he stopped the motorist's car and made his citizen's arrest. The Mass. S.J.C. did not allow the "relaxed standard of probable cause" for an out of jurisdiction cop who is drinking off duty in a bar and who wanted to conceal his identity as a Westboro cop (because King was causing trouble in the bar - read the Probable Cause Transcript). By the time King started trouble in the bar he was no longer on duty, but when he got there that night he was on duty and he got demoted for that (Count VII of Motion for New Trial).
Initially ,per her Brief p. 33-36, Kennedy's argument was that there was no citizen's arrest by King. That King didn't use force and never intended to use force but just follow Michael Elbery down the street. Kennedy further argued, p.35, that King's actions after exiting the bar and pursuing Michael Elbery 100 yards down the street was not a citizen's arrest but "simply the initiator of combat"; this is one the few honest accounts of evidence by Kennedy in her Opposition/Brief. King, as per evidence cited here in this article of MassInjustice.Org and in Elbery's Appeal and Motion for New Trial, was indisputably the "initiator of combat" between he and Michael Elbery, as admitted and stipulated by A.D.A. Kennedy. So much for Michael Elbery's right to self-defense!
And that is part of the reason why Judge Raphaelson found that there was no Probable Cause to Arrest for these same charges Michael Elbery would get a 10 year State Prison Sentence for.
The trial judge, Dan Toomey, the alleged victim, Tom King, and prosecutor were sure that there was an arrest by a citizen not a police officer.
TR 199-24, (King) I said, "you're not going anywhere. You're going to stay here until the Worcester Police arrive.
TR 199-8,(King) I advised him he hurt an individual in the bar, a young lady in the bar and he's not going anywhere until the police arrived.
The U.S. Supreme Court defines such a restraint on a citizen's movement or freedom to walk away as an arrest. (See Reply Brief p. 11 for legal citation Terry v. Ohio).
The prosecution's "best light evidence" was that King initiated more force/assault and battery after King claimed he forced Michael Elbery to stop all before the defendant reacted.
TR 401-6, (King) I said, I had my arms out to the side, with my arms open and facing him.
TR 401-16,(King) I knocked him to the ground. I grabbed him around the arms and knocked him to the ground.
King further confirmed during trial questioning that he was just another citizen drinking in a bar with no police powers when he made his "citizen's arrest".
Tr. 386-4 Out of jurisdiction as a police officer. Tr. 368-8 No police arrest powers. (King) That's Correct. Tr. 395-22 (King) I was a private citizen.
Other prosecution witnesses and "friends of King" also testified it was King that stopped and initiated assault on the defendant. See Motion Count V p. 39-40 and Appeal Argument III p.27.
The prosecutor, A.D.A. Mike Ball, agreed at trial sidebar that King made a citizen's arrest, Tr. 1072-22 thru Tr. 1073-1, He (King) had justification (to make a citizen's arrest). A felony was committed, and apparently the felon was leaving the area, and he was acting as a citizen. Tr. 1075 a felony, justifying King's action, giving him authority to make a citizen's arrest and what he did. This is a judicial admission made by Ball that is binding on the prosecution. See Appeal Argument III p. 28.
And again in his closing statement the prosecutor insists that there was a citizen's arrest made by King. Tr. 1242-18, I'm telling you a citizen has just as much right as anybody to go after someone that has caused injury to another person like they did. Mr. King should be commended. (Ball also admitting King (they) acted in a gang).
The judge agreed there was no cop and only a citizen - King. Tr. 218-17 (Judge Toomey), his status as a police officer and state of mind is immaterial. see Reply Brief p. 7.
The Jury remained deceived and were never instructed that King acted illegally and Kennedy continues to support the injustice.
I didn't go to Law School
What Kennedy should have argued was that the Grand Jury indictment gave King probable cause for his citizen's arrest when they indicted Michael Elbery for "Assault Dangerous Weapon - Broken Beer Bottle". However, the law says that because the Grand Jury was impaired (lied to) by Worcester D.A. John Conte's Office, then there can be no probable cause for that charge because the indictment was gained by Worcester D.A. John Conte's fraud.
But even if you overlook D.A. John Conte's Fraudulent Indictment, via the "Broken Bottle Assault", King was still off-duty and admitted he never identified himself as a cop. An out of jurisdiction cop, like King, does not get special treatment, via the "Relaxed Standard" of Probable Cause, to make a citizen's arrest in Massachusetts unless he is on duty and identifies himself as a police officer. Got it Kennedy? The "Relaxed Standard" for an out of jurisdiction police officer in Massachusetts to make a citizen's arrest requires that he be on duty and identify himself as a police officer in addition to having adjudicated Probable Cause.
Massachusetts case law on "citizen's arrest" mandates, just as King admitted, He was just a citizen. King did not pass the "in fact test" required for a citizen to make a citizen's arrest, therefore, King committed a false arrest and an assault and battery on Michael Elbery. Mass. law also mandates that all the prosecution's alleged evidence of assault by Elbery after King (and his "gang of 6") pursued Michael Elbery must be Suppressed. The 2 Assault convictions must also be reversed because there, as a matter of law, was no evidence of Assault by Elbery, after King falsely arrested him.
Judge Timothy Hillman ,again, is no help to fellow coconspirator, Ann S. Kennedy - without analysis or citation of authoritative law he simply says, per his decision p. 10, there was no illegal citizen's arrest by King. Nice effort Judge Hillman. Judge Timothy Hillman is a jackass of a man!
Part IV. The "Waiver Rule" - and Kennedy gives herself special dispensation from law
Kennedy writes off many of Michael Elbery's Appeal Arguments by claiming they are waived because of the Massachusetts "waiver rule". Not true, even per Massachusetts "waiver rule," none of Elbery's motion claims or appeal arguments are waived. The rule of law is justice and that is what the "waiver rule" says. But read it all in Michael Elbery's Appeal Argument I.
The point of this Chapter of MassInjustice.Org is not to correct Kennedy's errors of law, maybe she would appear to know the law, including the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, if she had a better case to work with. She had nothing to work with when Opposing Elbery's Appeal and had to resume the lies that Worcester District Attorney John Conte's Office delivered to her from a Kangaroo trial in Worcester Superior Court in 1993. The point of this Chapter on Kennedy is that she continued, via her appellee Brief, the same conspiracy that Worcester District Attorney John Conte and A.D.A. Mike Ball, of her Office, started.
But you could not expect the unscrupulous Ann S. Kennedy to do otherwise, after all she had a job to keep and big investment in law school and big future in law telling more lies.
And Lastly, More Kennedy's Error's of Law, lies, and Continued Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute
Fact of the matter is that Kennedy could have said anything she wanted to in her Appeal Brief for Worcester D.A. John Conte's Office. The Post-Conviction decisions had been decided on Michael Elbery's criminal convictions of July 2, 1993 years before he had ever filed his Motion for New Trial in July of 1999 or its Appeal that Kennedy lied about in Opposition in order to keep her job. As a casual reader can observe from this Web Site "they" were never going to allow Michael Elbery justice or a fair trial. The more Elbery tried to use the legal system to get justice and the more legal suits he filed, the more adamant the authorities became; after all Michael Elbery had caught the most sacred cows in the state of Massachusetts committing crimes in Courts of Law. But the authorities bit off more than they could chew and the story they caused got bigger and bigger and continues to get more unbelievable. But it is all documented, it ain't supposed to happen in this here U.S.A., but it did happen and they are so worried about it they need Michael Elbery DEAD.
Ginzo Culture does not belong in the Courts of Justice of the Great Founding Anglo - Saxons
Kennedy is an Italian, Ann S. Manzello-Kennedy, and was culturally committed to advocate the lies of Elbery's defense Attorney Louis P. Aloise and Worcester D.A. John Conte and their Mafia culture that is allowed to infest so much of the Northeastern part of the United States, including Massachusetts and controls Worcester, Mass.. Can't expect more from a Court that is controlled by Ginzos.
The issues here are different - "Kennedy Escapes Justice". The Reply Brief addresses other issues.