Mass. Superior Court Judge - Lemire
Denies the June 19, 2013 Re-file of Motion for New Trial & 2 timely Amendments
"Just Following Orders" - Decision of Injustice
Judge Lemire of the Worcester Superior Court made a decision of Injustice on 6-6-14 on Michael Elbery's Re-file of his Motion for New Trial and on Michael Elbery's Amendment #2 - "Dr. Dennis Arinella's Testimony that Prosecution's Medical Evidence Fabricated", and Amendment #3 - "Jury Riggers," filed with the Re-file of his Motion for New Trial.
Will this Web Site condemn Judge Lemire?
Judge Lemire is not responsible, he had no choice but to deny Michael Elbery Justice.
Denial of Re-file of Motion for New Trial
That's right, the Re-file of Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial on 6-19-13 was exactly the same as the Motion for New Trial he filed on July 6, 1999 in Worcester Superior Court. That Motion for New Trial contains 115 pages of Illegal conduct, at the trial that convicted Michael Elbery of "Attempted Mayhem," by the Prosecution in conspiracy with Elbery's Defense Attorney, Louis P. Aloise, including over 30 Violations of Elbery's Constitutional Rights.
Judge Lemire decided that because Michael Elbery's June 19, 2013 Re-file of his Motion for New Trial had already been denied by a previous judge over 10 years earlier that he would not contradict that 12 year old decision.
Judge Lemire made his decision on Michael Elbery's Re-file of his Motion for New Trial, regardless, that the law, M.R.C.P. Rule 30b , allows a defendant wrongly or unjustly convicted to file multiple Motions for New Trial. Rule 30b is clear "upon motion the judge may grant a new trial at any time if it appears Justice may not have been done".
Michael Elbery thought the Mass. Judiciary might take advantage of the opportunity provided by Elbery's Re - file of that Motion for New Trial and 2 Amendments filed under Rule 30b of M.R.C.P. to stop the highly publicized Scandal the Mass. Judiciary has suffered as a result of this Web Sites' exposure of their Illegalities.
The State of Massachusetts pays lips service, via M.R.C.P. - Rule 30b, to overriding Justice. In other words, the law in Massachusetts is that if a citizen is convicted in a Massachusetts Court in Violation of Law, then the resulting Injustice should be corrected regardless of any waiver or timing rules. And that is what you would expect, Justice is the law, see Massachusetts Law Rule 30b of the M.R.C.P., "upon motion the judge may grant a new trial at any time if it appears Justice may not have been done."
Judge's Decision "Incorrect as a matter of Law" on the 2 Amendments
The Two Amendments ( "Victim's Doctor Testifies Alleged Victim's Medical Evidence all Fake" & "Jury Rigging") were not Re-files because at July of 1999 when Elbery filed his Original Motion for New Trial he didn't have the information/evidence contained in Amendment #2 or Amendment #3. It took over 15 years from the underlying trial of July 1993 for Michael Elbery to uncover the evidence in those two timely filed Amendments. It is only limited to one's imagination what other evidence has been successfully concealed regarding the underlying trial for Attempted Mayhem, by the Co-Conspirators Attorney Lou Aloise and company.
Judge Lemire used rule 30c2 of the M.R.C.P. to deny Elbery's latest filing of the 2 Amendments. Lemire writes, per his decision of Denial on Elbery's 2 Amendments (See also Amendment #3 Decision of Denial by Judge Lemire), that defendant/moveant - Michael Elbery has "filed a number of Rule 30(b) motions and has failed to raise this issue (Rule 30 (c)(2) as such this issue is Waived."
In other words, Judge Lemire decided that the 2 Amendments are waived under Rule 30c of M.R.C.P.., but Lemire is wrong "as a matter of law."
M.R.C.P. - Rule 30c2 can be used for reason of denial of a Motion for New Trial or Amendments, if they are not the original filings. In other words, Rule 30c2 says " all grounds for relief shall be raised by the defendant in his original or Amended Motion."
However, those two Amendments to Michael Elbery's Re-file Motion for New Trial in June of 2013 had never been filed before and, as above, Michael Elbery did not have the evidence contained in those two Amendments until 15 years after the illegal and Unconstitutional Trial in Worcester Superior Court that convicted him in July of 1993 and 9 years after he filed his Original Motion for New Trial in 1999.
The Law in Massachusetts, under Rule 30c2 mandates that Judge Lemire's decision on Michael Elbery's 2 Amendments filed with the Re-file of his Motion for New Trial must be reviewed by Judge Lemire; failure by Judge Lemire to review those two Amendments is incorrect "as a matter of law". Massachusetts law is that there is no waiver when the grounds for New Trial could not have been raised in the Original Motion for New Trial. See Rule 30c2 which states (see last clause of last sentence of Rule 30c2) "or unless such grounds could not have been raised on the original filing of the Original or Amended Motion for New Trial."
Amendment #2 included Dr. Dennis Arinella's Testimony obtained in Elbery's Federal Civil Sklut Case (Elbery v. Sklut et al.) in May of 2002. Dr. Dennis Arinella testified in the Federal Court - Boston that the evidence that the Prosecution convicted Michael Elbery with, in July 1993 in Worcester Superior Court, was to a medical certainty, perjury, regarding their victim - Cop Tom King, and the cause, extent and treatment of King's alleged eye injury which got Michael Elbery convicted of "Attempted Mayhem" and 10 years in Prison.
The fact is, that since he was convicted on a pile of fabricated evidence at Worcester Superior Court in July of 1993, Michael Elbery filed the same Motions for New Trial twice (once in July of 1999 and again in 2013), and in 2014 he filed 2 Amended Claims. The 2 Amended Claims were impossible to file in 1999 because Michael Elbery did not have and could not have possibly had the evidence he produced in those two Amended Claims until many years after 1999, the original filing date of his Motion for New Trial. Because it was impossible to file those two Amended Claims, then Rule 30c-2 (waiver rule) cannot apply and is not an excuse for denying Michael Elbery's two Amended Claims of "Jury Rigging" and the "Testimony of the alleged Victim, Cop Tom King's, physician, Dr. Arinella," showing that all the evidence at the trial that convicted Elbery of "Attempted Mayhem" concerning King's eye injuries was a medically documented lie. The issue at that trial was the prosecution's claim that Michael Elbery "Attempted Mayhem" by attempting to take out Off-Duty Westboro Cop's eye. Cop Tom King, one of the fattest and biggest cry babies of all time, was having a toot at the Winner's Circle Bar in Worcester, on 9-29-92, where the underlying event giving rise to the Charges of "Attempted Mayhem" against Elbery precipitated.
Lemire makes wise Decision of Evasion on 2 Amendments - Can't Beat 'em then Run!
Judge Lemire knew he had to review the 2 Amendments, but he also knew he could not defeat Michael Elbery's Amendment #2. How do you beat a trial transcript where the Prosecution's Alleged victim's, Westboro Cop - Tom King's, treating physician swears under oath that all the evidence that put Michael Elbery in Prison for 10 Years was a Complete lie. Lemire's best avenue of defense was to avoid that Motion for New Trial - Amendment #2 at all costs. And that is what he did. Lemire broke the law.
This Web Site recognizes that Judge Lemire avoided having to fabricate evidence and facts to defeat those 2 Amended Claims, but instead minimized the Judicial Scandal by making only a deliberate Error of Law, so that he could Evade Elbery's 2 Amendments.
Lemire acted unlike Judge Timothy Hillman, who made a documented jackass out of himself in 2001, when he denied Michael Elbery's first filing of his Motion for New Trial.
NO PROBABLE CAUSE = 10 (TEN) YEARS IN PRISON
Not to Mention that originally there was found by a Massachusetts District Judge NO PROBABLE CAUSE for the charges that Worcester D.A. John "mafia" Conte's Office convicted Elbery on with the help of Elbery's Italian Defense Attorney - Louis P. Aloise.
Also note well, Big Fat Irish Cop Tom King, the alleged victim with the bloodshot eye that was treated for bacteria by Dr. Dennis Arinella, was demoted to flat foot patrolman from his former rank as Detective on the Westboro Police Dept. after 20 years of service (taking taxpayer's money for doing nothing). That's right, after the Probable Cause Hearing that disclosed Cop Tom King as a big fat liar and there was found No Probable Cause for the Malicious Prosecution Charges against Michael Elbery, the finding made headlines in the local Newspaper and King was crying, again, because he was demoted to a gumshoe. King remedied that demotion and claimed a heart attack which allowed him a full pension for the rest of his lousy living days at the expense of the rest of society. Westboro, Mass. Cop Tom King is a Social Parasite.
"Just Following Orders" - Michael Elbery Insulted the Judicial Dictators
Judge Lemire had no choice but deny Michael Elbery's Re-file Motion for New Trial and its 2 Amended Claims that were before Lemire in 2014. By 2014, Michael Elbery had made bigger and worse and more enemies than he already had in July 1999, when he filed his original Motion for New Trial. Prior to Michael Elbery publishing this Web Site to the World Free Internet his enemies were merely attacking him for his legal work and crusade for Justice with false arrests and malicious prosecutions in order to falsely imprison him. But once Michael Elbery published this Web Site, the resulting Judicial Scandal that was exposed to the World Free Internet's Court of Public Opinion caused the Authorities in Mass. to Attempt to Murder Michael Elbery.
Don't forget the Jews. The Jews through the efforts of Attorney Morris Bergman representing the Secret Jewish Leagues also participated in that malicious prosecution of Michael Elbery for "Attempted Mayhem" that brought 10 years of False Imprisonment. The Jews don't allow Justice. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon, who brought the World Justice, the Jew has a culture that cannot comprehend Justice. The Jew deals in Agenda, the "End Justifies Means" for the Benefit and Aggrandizement of the Self - Anointed "Chosen People". The Jews now run the Mass. Judicial System, and, if Judge Lemire was to find that Michael Elbery was convicted in violation of law, he would be in deep doo-doo.
Few in Massachusetts will stand up against the United Jewish Front, and Secret Jewish Leagues that are on our land, and Jewish Agenda. Bergman was a Worcester D.A.'s Office prosecutor and along with his accomplices was fired from his job with the Worcester District Attorney's Office when he was caught red handed lying under oath.
This Web Site recognizes that Judge Lemire had no choice, but to deny Michael Elbery Justice, and that he was merely following orders.
Dendant's/Moveant's Right to Appeal Judge Lemire's Denial of Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial
All criminal defendants have a right under M.R.C.P. - Rule 30b to Appeal a denial of a Motion for New Trial by a Mass. Superior Court Judge. And Michael Elbery did Appeal the original denial of his Motion for New Trial made by Superior Court Judge Hillman in December of 2001 of his original filing of Elbery's Motion for New Trial in July of 1999.
The Massachusetts Court of Appeals even alerted Michael Elbery to his right to Appeal the denial of his Re-File of his Motion for New Trial. However, there would have been no Justice to be Gained from the hierarchy of the Massachusetts Judiciary by filing another Appeal. The Mass. Judiciary would have had a good laugh on Michael Elbery had he went to all the work effort and expense and requirements of an Appeal because they have no intention of Admitting that Michael Elbery was framed in one of their Massachusetts Courts. They have no intention of overturning Elbery's illegal conviction in Worcester Superior Court even if such reversal was grounded on a benign legal issue that would not embarrass the Mass. Judiciary that their Courts are used to frame citizens with Kangaroo trials.
Michael Elbery submitted no Appeal or related briefs that the Appeals Court requires. Why? Those People that run the Mass. Judiciary don't act according to the law, their Decisions are based on their Agenda, Politics, Bias, Hate, and protecting their Police State and friends who have corrupted the Judicial System. I got the message, a Re-File of the same Motion that I had a hard copy of for over 14 years caused little work or use of resources. An Appeal would have been a WASTE OF TIME.
My efforts are used more efficiently by alerting the World Court of Opinion via the World Free Internet to the Scandal and Injustice that is the Massachusetts Judiciary and its Courts.