Mass. G.L. C. 258E Restraining Order Provides Weapon for Mass. Courts to Dispose of its Enemies

Judge Sangria Vega of Chicopee District Court Delights in Issuing 258E Restraining Orders in Violation of Mass. Law

 

Do you have an Axe to Grind with someone? 

Do you want to cause trouble for someone?

Are you the Government wanting to get even and dispose of a citizen who has exercised his Constitutional Rights against your Authority?

 

Well rejoice, because if you are in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Legislature has provided you with a new law, C. 258E, passed in 2010, that allows anyone to claim they are in fear of a another person, and presto, the Court's in Massachusetts will issue a Restraining Order against your adversary/enemy. If you have a gripe or a dislike for someone, the Court's in Massachusetts will issue a Restraining Order at your command by simply listing in an Affidavit 3 acts by your enemy/victim that you claim is harassing and causes you to feel abused, or, put in fear or intimidated. The problem of injustice with this 258E Statute is that almost anything the plaintiff (person seeking the Restraining Order) says is harassing will cause the Court in Massachusetts to issue a Restraining Order, as long as they say they feel they have been put in fear, or intimidated or abused by another person.

Not only is the original version of the 258E Mass. Statute ambiguous, but the hearing to determine if a 258E R.O. will be issued has been legally defined by the Mass. Legislature as "civil in nature", thus not requiring the Constitutional Protection the Bill of Rights provides for American Citizens facing criminal charges. So what is "civil nature" about the Court Hearing before a District Judge to determine if a 258E Restraining Order will be issued against you? Yes, a hearing is held to determine whether a 258E Restraining Order will be issued, but because the Mass. Legislature defines that 258E hearing as "civil in nature" you are not entitled to a jury or an attorney! The decision as to whether a 258E Restraining Order will be issued against you is made by a Mass. District Judge ( Superior Court also has Jurisdiction ), and is strictly a "Judicial Decision" ( a single judge), no jury allowed; you can hire a lawyer to represent you, but no lawyer will be appointed by the Court to represent you. However, a Restraining Order puts a restraint on your Liberty, therefore, the defendant (person restrained) is entitled to the full protection of Due Process of Law per the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, but the Bill of Rights ruins all the Authority (illegal) the Judges in Massachusetts delight in. In other words, the hearing held to determine if a 258E Restraining Order will be issued is a "mockery of justice".

A Restraining Order for Committing a Criminal Violation?

The Mass. 258E statute has two parts, simply indicated by ( i ) and ( ii which in turn has parts A and B ). This article for the American Scene Magazine does not address the second part ( ii ) of the 258E Statute because all those laws/statutes in part ii of the 258E statute are criminal statutes and a violation of any of those criminal statutes is a crime and there would be no reason to wait for 3 such violations so to claim harassment under 258E because the obvious course of action would be to call the cops and an arrest or indictment would be made/issued resulting in a criminal trial. Further, a judge would set bail and make conditions of bail to stay away from the alleged victim, if bail is allowed. A judge in Mass. can also issue a temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the M.R.C.P. Therefore, the second part ( ii) of the 258E is legally non-functional legal procedure and void of legal reality.

-1-

 

258E issued for "Colloquial Harassment" and a claim of abuse or intimidation or fear

This article does address section ( i ) of the 258E statute which allows a Restraining Order, as the Mass. S.J.C. ( Supreme Judicial Court ) points out in the O' Brien Case, for "colloquial harassment" and Constitutionally Protected 1st Amendment language, see also the AR v. LC, p. 2 case where the Mass. Court of Appeals makes the same legal point and cites the O' Brien Case. There is one clause of section ( i ) of the 258E that is also a violation of criminal law and that is 3 acts that causes "damage to property"; once again the obvious action would be to call the cops when the first act of property damage is committed rather than wait for 2 more acts of "property damage" so to get a Restraining Order under 258E. The balance of section ( i ) of the 258E statute -"3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse and does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse" -  is where the "Unconstitutionally Ambiguity" exits and has resulted in issuance of 258E Restraining Orders because the belligerent/complainant claims "colloquial harassment" putting them in fear, or being intimidated or abused.

It can't be emphasized enough that to get a 258E Restraining Order under the original statute the target (defendant) did not have to commit a crime against the person seeking the Restraining Order, see above paragraph's reproduction of section ( i ). If the target of the Restraining Order committed a crime against this person seeking the Restraining Order then there would be no need for a Restraining Order because this target would be arrested and put on trial.  Under section ( i ) the original 258E statute you didn't need to threaten anyone with a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence or commit a crime (as per section 2 of 258E) to be slapped with a 258E Restraining Order, all that was needed was an unhappy or vindictive complainant/plaintiff who doesn't like someone's presence and then they claim they were being "harassed" and they are therefore abused. Then they find a Mass. Judge eager to grind the complainant's axe so to enforce the Unjust Power of the Court via an ambiguous 258E R. O..

Objective of 258E - Purge the Enemies of the State

So what was the point of the Mass. Legislature writing such an ambiguous statute which is the original 258E statute? The answer is to purge certain citizens with the Unconstitutional ambiguity of the first part ( i ) of the 258E Statute, whereby, those unpopular citizens are slapped with a 258E R. O. and then jailed for violation of the Restraining Order conditions because the complainant, or operative, took opportunity to go to a Mass. Court and claim they were put in fear or abused or intimidated by any and all actions of this unpopular citizen-target of the Restraining Order. The Original part ( i ) of the 258E statute is so ambiguous and vague that any claims of "colloquial harassment" by a complainant which the complainant alleges caused them to be put in fear, abused or intimidated would result in a 258E R.O. being issued by a biased Judge. 

258E Hearing is "Civil" in nature - Resulting in a Restriction of Liberty

Oh, there is nothing "civil in nature" about a 258E Restraining Order. Once the complaining person, (usually a female), is granted their wish of a Restraining Order by Judicial Decision of the District Judge, then, the Judge sets down a series of conditions (not crimes) that if violated will result in a criminal charge/arrest, and depending on the politics, a jail sentence of up to 2 1/2 years with an "on and after" probation. The "on and after" probation provides for a jail sentence that never ends because you are subject to more conditions (not violations of law) that can get you thrown back in jail.

-2-

Once a  Mass. C. 258E Restraining Order is slapped on a citizen (usually the victim of vengeance) by a Mass. Judge  at the request of the person allegedly needing protection, then, the circumstances are subject to even greater Injustice. All the complaining person has to do is make claim that a Restraining Order Condition was violated and the police will make an arrest and throw the citizen/defendant in jail to appear the next day in court for arraignment and a bail to be set.

What are the usual conditions a Mass. Judge will issue with a 258E Restraining Order? The most popular condition is that the Restrained doesn't come within a certain distance, usually about 50 yards, of the person the Mass. Court is allegedly protecting. In one case in Chicopee District Court, Mass. the defendant was ordered not to come within 10 feet of the plaintiff, however, the two neighbors (complaining plaintiff and target-defendant) lived in a old converted motor hotel (small studio apartments) next door to each other; the plaintiff and defendant were separated by a 4 inch wall and their apartment doors were hinged on that same wall. When the restrained defendant opened his door and stepped outside he was automatically in violation of the Restraining Order because he was within 10 feet of the plaintiff; actually he was always in violation of the conditions of the Restraining Order when he was inside his apartment because he was only separated by a 4 inch thick wall. It is pretty obvious that a person willing to use the Court and police to "grind their axe" would have no problem lying about violations of these protective limits or other conditions contained in a 258E Restraining Order; a condition limit of 50 yards becomes about 10 yards for such people of such poor character, who want revenge. If in public, the Restrained defendant is required to run away in order to comply with the Orders of the Court, via a 258E Restraining Order, so that he might be spared the pointing finger of the belligerent/plaintiff and arrested.

A 258E Restraining Order is usually slapped on a defendant for 1 year and can then be extended by the Court, at the demand of the Plaintiff/Complainant, indefinitely.

What chance does the person subjected to the Restraining Order have against the pointing finger of the belligerent (plaintiff seeking R.O.) claiming the Restraining Order conditions were violated? Not much, because that is the person/complainant who wanted him disposed of in the first place. 

Is it easy to win a 258E Restraining Order violation in a Massachusetts Court? No, the violation of a condition of a 258E Restraining Order is criminal ( 258E no longer civil once a Judge issues a R.O.) and the only issue is whether you disobeyed one of the Judge's conditions of the Restraining Order, such as being within 50 yards of the belligerent. At the trial for violating a condition of the R.O., the Restrained defendant can no longer argue  that the Restraining Order should never have been slapped on him in the first place. The belligerent does not like you and will delight, as planned, and lie in Court about your proximity or other convenient violations of the R.O. conditions, in order to fulfill her plan of jail for you, just as planned.

-3-

 

Does a 258E Restraining Order Work?

Does a Restraining Order work or prevent anybody from assaulting or otherwise committing a crime against the alleged protected citizen who wanted the Restraining Order? No, if the the Restrained is going to commit a crime, obviously the 258E Restraining Order isn't going to stop him. In other words, if the person subject to the Restraining Order is going to assault the person that is allegedly protected by the Restraining Order, why would a 258E Restraining Order make any difference; it is just another crime. The only thing a 258E Restraining Order does is violate the citizen's Due Process of Law at the District Court Hearing when a District Judge determines if a Restraining Order will be issued and calling the process "civil in nature" while restricting the Restrained defendant's Liberty when issuing a R.O.. Further, a 258E Restraining Order, once issued, makes the Restrained citizen high side for more lies, and vindictiveness by the person who planned to use the legal system to get the Restrained disposed of by having the Authorities do their dirty work. The 258E Restraining Order functions as an Injustice against the accused/Restrained citizen, who has to live in fear of arrest, prosecution, and jail at the end of the pointing finger, and say-so of this adversary who wanted him disposed of by the Authority of the Mass. Courts.

 

The Mass. S.J.C. thinks they stopped the Injustice of a 258E Restraining Order!

Think Again! The Mass. S.J.C. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts or highest Court in Mass.) and Mass. Appeals Court became deluged by appeals concerning District Courts issuing Restraining Orders under original 258E statute. The grounds (reason) for the appeals to the S.J.C. and Mass. Appeals Court concerning the issuance of 258E Restraining Orders was ambiguity of section (i) of the Mass. Statute C. 258E as written by the Mass. Legislature and gladly enforced by Mass. District Judges with the Authority of Law. In other words, just like as above, 258E Restraining Orders were being issued by Mass. District Court Judges when anyone (usually a woman) had a "belly ache" against a person (usually a man) and decided they would claim they were in fear of that person, not that the person (usually a man) committed a crime or did anything illegal; the 258E Restraining Order was issued based on what the belligerent/plaintiff claimed was her "state of mind." or what the Mass. Appeals Court calls "colloquial harassment" (see page 2 of the A. R. vs. L.C. case). It is easy to see why innocent people ended up in jail for violation of these fraudulent Restraining Orders at the groundless demands of a belligerent. The same person who asked the Mass. District Court to "grind their axe" based on their alleged fear without giving any grounds but "colloquial harassment" by the defendant for that fear would likely finish the job and dispose of their enemy with lies that the defendant disobeyed the conditions of the R.O., and have the restrained thrown in jail. And many Mass. District Judges are willing to do so, Justice is an unknown to these Judges, the power of Authority is their avocation.

 

Here is a typical 258E Restraining Order case in Massachusetts

The Newton District Judge issued a Restraining Order against a female's former roommate, who moved down the street, because he was still using the same street and she saw him. This is another case were Mass. C. 258E and a Mass. District Court Judge were used to "grind an axe" by a disgruntled female roommate who did not want to be reminded of her former roommate's existence. The Mass. S. J. C. overturned that 258E Restraining Order issued in the Newton District Court.

-4-

The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court's "O' Brien case" of 2020 "Narrows" C. 258E

In 2012 the Mass. S.J.C., via their O' Brien case , (see A.R. v. L.C. p. 2 marked "B") found that section (i) of Mass. C. 258E needed to be changed, or as they put it, the statute's "construction had to be narrowed" (so it would no longer be "Unconstitutionally Ambiguous"). In short, the S.J.C. held in the O' Brien case that the defendant must have committed 3 harassing acts and those 3 acts have be "true threats" or "fighting words" (see O'Brien case marked "C" page 4-5). It was no longer sufficient that a 258E Restraining Order be issued under section ( i ) of that statute because someone says they are just generally being 'harassed" by someone else or they were upset by someone else's presence ("colloquial harassment") without evidence, per the Mass. S.J.C. in the O' Brien case, that the defendant/accused target "threatened them with a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence," (S.J.C.'s definition of "true threat"), which would amount to a threat to cause fear of physical harm or physical property damage. This section (i) of the 258E statute, even in its "narrowed construction" by the Mass. S.J.C., is still dealing with mere "words" as grounds to get a Restraining Order slapped on a citizen; but it should be noted that "threatening bodily harm or damage to property", or threatening to commit any crime is already a crime in Massachusetts, per Mass. C. 275 s. 2, so why is there need for a Restraining Order? The cops in Mass. will enthusiastically make an arrest for threatening to commit any kind of crime including, just one count of "threatening bodily harm"; it is against the law in Mass. to "threaten to commit any kind of a crime," per Mass. G.L. C. 275 s. 2, even if you are just blowing off steam or make a slip of the tongue.

If a 258E R.O. is issued based on acts which are words only, there must be 3 incidents of the defendant making "threats of serious bodily harm or damage to property" or 3 incidents of using "fighting words" to constitute harassment under the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of 258E and also protect 1st Amendment Constitutionally protected language, see the O' Brien case p. 1 and pgs. 4 & 5 respectively. The Mass. S.J.C. in O' Brien, (see pg. 6 of O' Brien), defines 1st Amendment Constitutionally protected language as being broad and includes "giving a cop the middle finger and telling the cop to go fuck himself" (all cops in Mass. would arrest for exercising that 1st Amendment Protected language and the Mass. Courts would back up the cops up with an illegal conviction).

Mass. District Judges resort to bad habits of Injustice - "Don't go by the Mass. S.J.C. Law"

Sounds like the S.J.C. of Massachusetts did their job and everything is on the course to Justice, right? No, not even close, there are many District Judges in Massachusetts, including Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega in the Chicopee District Court, ( although she is well apprised of the S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of the original 258E statute, via the O' Brien case), who still go ahead and issue a 258E Restraining Order based on someone's gripe, and of course, claim they are being "harassed" (usually bothered by some one's existence) without showing any evidence that the defendant "threatened her with bodily harm or damage to her property" or used "fighting words," as now required by law, as per the Mass. S.J.C. in O' Brien (see O' Brien case p. 4-5). In other words, Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega does not make her decisions of issuing a 258E R.O. based on the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of 258E, via O' Brien, but she issues those 258E Restraining Orders from her Chicopee District Court illegally grounded on "Unconstitutional Ambiguity", of the original 258E statute, at best. Actually, Vega slaps innocent citizens with Restraining Orders based on her bias and whim and politics.

In other words, Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega, the presiding judge at the Chicopee District Court, "does not go by the law".

-5-

It should be noted, again, that the Mass. S.J.C.'s new definition of acts of harassment required for issuance of a 258E Restraining Order are still just "words" ("threatening to do bodily harm to another individual or property damage" or "fighting words"), but is no longer ambiguous and are much more "Just" than the original ambiguous 258E statute which allowed the Mass. District Judge to slap a Restraining Order on a Massachusetts resident for any reason including "say-so," "finger pointing" of a belligerent or any "colloquial harassment". It should again be pointed out that, although only "words," threatening to commit a serious act of unlawful violence such as "threatening to do bodily harm to another individual" is already a crime in Massachusetts, per Mass. G.L. C. 275 s. 2; years ago the Authorities/Courts would not bother anyone for a slip of the tongue or blowing off steam during a conflict, but now we have a "New World Order" and the citizenry is the enemy. 

 

Delete C. 258E Redundancy

Throw out and delete Mass. G.L. C. 258E because with the S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" all the acts that constitute grounds for issuance of  a Restraining Order in both sections (i) and ( ii ) are already crimes. The alleged victim would and should instead call the cops and would never wait for 3 crimes to be committed against them in order to qualify for a C. 258E Restraining Order to be issued against the alleged violator.

 

Mass. Legislature Fails Again with C. 258E

It should also be noted that the Mass. Legislature never re-wrote the original 258E statute to reflect the Mass. S. J. C.'s "narrowing construction," so that the 258E statute would no longer be Unconstitutionally ambiguous; this is very confusing to a citizen (and some attorneys who don't research law) who reads a statute as provided by the Mass. Legislature and that 258E statute is actually void. The citizen must read the O' Brien case, and more, to understand the law of a 258E Restraining Order.

And if you are not able to research law like almost all citizens, then you find that the Mass.gov instructions (alleged help) on the 258E Restraining Order is totally obsolete and written as if the new law of 258E due to the Mass. S. J. C. 's "narrowing construction" of that statute does not exist. That Mass.gov instruction provided on the Internet is all wrong and will just mislead a citizen to believe a 258E Restraining Order can be issued by a Judge for any ambiguous reason, as per the original 258E statute. There is nothing on the Mass.gov "help" concerning a 258E R.O. that informs the reader that the 258E Statute was changed by the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of that statute, and that the plaintiff/complainant is required to allege at least 3 acts (usually words but could be deeds) by the defendant that amount to "threatening to cause serious bodily harm or property damage", or "fighting words" to qualify as harassment under section ( i ) of the C. 258E statute in order to get a R.O. issued against that defendant/citizen. Other alleged help published by a State of Massachusetts Agency is not updated to reflect the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of the C. 258E statute and is therefore misleading and wrong. But what would you expect? This Internet help is provided by the Mass.gov ( State of Massachusetts ) the same government whose Legislature wrote the original 258E statute and refuses to re-write that 258E statute by incorporating the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction", so that Mass. Judges can have excuse to issue Restraining Orders based on ambiguous "colloquial harassment" so to purge and railroad innocent citizens in a U.S. courtroom.

 

The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court has final Authority on Law

The Mass. S. J. C. has the last word and final authority over Mass. Law! In other words, even though the Mass. Legislature originally writes the Mass. statutes like C. 258E, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court determines if the law is Constitutional or otherwise illegal. But the Mass. S.J.C. cannot make the Mass. Legislature re-write the 258E statute.

What is the solution to the Kangaroo Judges who want to throw people in jail illegally because those Judges refuse to acknowledge the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of C. 258E? More appeals to the Mass. S.J.C., but by the time the appellant's ( wrongly convicted of violating an illegally issued Restraining Order) appeal is heard and decided by the Mass. Appeals Court, or Mass. S.J.C., they are out of prison. The solution, herein, is to expose the Injustice of the enforcement of Mass. G.L. C. 258E and make an example of Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega's illegal handling of 258E in the Chicopee District Court.

-6-

 

Chicopee District Court of Presiding Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega - 258E Case Example - Jasmine Ferreira v. Michael Elbery

The Mass. Judiciary and Mass. Police have wanted Michael Elbery off the streets for the last 20 years. They could not kill him, or convict him of more false charges, or trick and entrap him, or load his truck up with drugs (or other contraband); they injected him with disease only to have Michael Elbery learn to treat and defeat that disease. Even the Jews failed to kill Michael Elbery when they had their opportunities. The police recruited certain auto repair shops to destroy Elbery's motor vehicles, but they never stopped Michael Elbery, let alone kill him. Michael Elbery cannot successfully sue because the Courts are on the side of the lawless cops and their agents the auto repair shops.

Since 2010 the Authorities in Mass. have had their wish come true through the Unconstitutional "Bill of Attainder" that was created for them by the Mass. Legislature's C. 258E Restraining Order statute; not to be confused with a Mass. 209A Domestic Restraining Order for feuding husbands and wives and other domestic relationships. The Mass. S. J. C. stopped most of the injustice surrounding the 258E statute and "narrowed the construction" of that statute in 2012, via the O' Brien case, but that didn't stop Mass. District Judges from ignoring the real law, per the S. J. C.'s "narrowing construction", and continue to slap innocent citizens with a 258E Restraining Order because their existence is bothering someone and then dispose of them with lies about them violating the conditions of the Restraining Order.

Of course, those 258E Restraining Orders are selectively enforced by the Mass. Courts depending on politics and "political correctness" of the parties.

But 2010 was over a decade ago, at May of 2021, so what took them so long to get at Michael Elbery with this custom made "Bill of Attainder" in the name of Mass. G.L. C. 258E? The reason is they did not have an operative/stooge to do their "dirty work" to apply for a 258E Restraining Order. The Mass. Authorities had to get a stooge/operative in position to take advantage of the the Injustice of the Mass. 258E R.O. statute.

The Mass. Authorities better hurry up because Michael Elbery is 70 years old and he might die of old age before they can railroad him again with false charges, false imprisonment or kill him.

By 2021, Michael Elbery lived in Chicopee, Mass. at an apartment complex conveniently located about 1/4 mile from the Mass. Pike, and in the middle of a massive shopping district. By 2021, he had lived there since July of 2017. Finally, the Mass. Authorities had Michael Elbery where they wanted him; Elbery could not understand why he was not evicted after his original 6 month lease ended, as he knew the landlord is a Jew. The Jews, who control the Mass. Judiciary and caused the original 258E Restraining Order statute to be passed by the Mass. Legislature, in 2010 (see pg. 8 ftnt. 2), knew exactly where Michael Elbery was living. They didn't want Elbery evicted, they wanted him right where he was so they could put a stooge next door to him to facilitate the phony 258E Restraining Order Process and have Michael Elbery falsely thrown in jail for violations of that Restraining Order. The plan depended on the injustice of the "Affirmative Action product", Judge S. Vega, of the Chicopee District Court to act in violation of law, and slap a fraudulent Restraining Order on Elbery, and on the same day throw Michael Elbery in jail for violating a condition of a 258E Restraining Order.

-7-

Their plan was initiated when the 6 month vacant apartment, next to Elbery's apartment, was occupied on February 15, 2021 by a 20 year old fat-girl, Jasmine Ferreira and her green haired live-in, named, Adam Abely (a special needs high school student). The first night of their occupancy was spent making excessive noise and banging the wall that is in common with the apartment Michael Elbery lives in. The noise was excessive every night after that, sometimes disturbing Elbery's attempt to sleep five times a night. The excessive noise would frequently not stop until 5am. and at the earliest at 2am.. Michael Elbery had had bad tenants living next door but nothing even remotely like this new noise starting February 15, 2021. As a result, Michael Elbery knew there was something wrong and he refused to talk to these two miscreants and avoided them.

First, Elbery asked the management of the Apartment Complex for help with the new noise problem coming from the next apartment; the apartment manager was actually laughing and was entertained by some of the noise descriptions Elbery gave of these new neighbors and old neighbors, including Ferreira's 20 minute orgasm that was ended by Elbery yelling through the wall, "here she comes." However, the manager ended up doing nothing, although she claimed to have sent an email to all tenants reminding them that there was a noise curfew at the Apartment Complex after 10:00pm.,. However, no tenants received such a notice. The manager did advise to bang on the wall and if that did not work to call the police. Notwithstanding, that that is one of the few reasons the cops will decline action (tenants making noise), would you invite the cops in and have them wait for the noise? The noisy tenants would probably be first alerted the cops had been called and had arrived and the noise would stop before the cops heard anything.

Michael Elbery did send two letters via U.S. mail telling these two new tenants next doors that they were making excess noise and to stop. Elbery pointed out that they were violating both the Apartment Complex "House Rules" against noise (curfew) after 10:00pm. and Mass. Tort law of "Nuisance" by causing excessive noise into his apartment for the last four months. What could be a more civilized way of dealing with the noise problem from Fatty Ferreira and her roommate than sending a letter?

 

Fatty Ferreira files a legally Groundless Application for a 258E R.O. & the Chicopee Ct. Conspires

This new next door tenant, Jasmine Ferreira, replied to Michael Elbery's letter by going to the Chicopee District Court and applying for a Restraining Order. Ferreira submitted alleged affidavits in support of her 258E Restraining Order she was applying for and asked the Court for numerous restraints and criminal charges on Michael Elbery. The affidavits stated that the reason a 258E Restraining Order should be issued against Michael Elbery is because "he looked out his apartment window, did not speak to her, and sent her two letters complaining about her and the boy's noise all night long"

Odd and highly unusual, there were NO POLICE CALLED by Ferreira, who claimed she needed a Restraining Order against the 70 year old Michael Elbery. Customarily, the police are called regarding the acts or incidents that a complainant/plaintiff demanding a Restraining Order claims give reason/grounds for the Restraining Order. Not even Ferreira would want to look so stupid as to call the cops about Michael Elbery looking out his picture window when Ferreira was yelling outside in the parking lot at 11:00pm.. Stupidity of her grounds for a 258E Restraining Order did not stop Ferreira from going to the Chicopee District Court where she was welcomed to file her application for a Restraining Order, although even the dumbest Court employee would know you can't issue a 258E Restraining Order because the next door neighbor looked out the window and chose not to speak to the complainant - Ferreira and had the civility to send two letters telling Ferreira to stop making so much noise because it is impossible to sleep.

-8-

 

Chicopee District Court Conspired Instead of doing its legally required job of insuring a "Prima Fascia Case"

That's correct, the Chicopee Court is supposed to review the complainant's Affidavits used in support of her Application for a Restraining Order in order to determine if the Applicant presents evidence ( a prima fascia case) that rise to the legal requirements (elements of 258E) set out by 258E, so that a 258E Restraining Order can be legally issued. In other words, the Chicopee Court Clerk's Office was supposed to insure that Ferreira's Affidavits fulfilled the elements required of the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" for a C. 258E R.O. which means that Ferreira's Affidavit should have included evidence of 3 incidents where she was "threatened with bodily harm or damage to her property" or that "fighting words" were used in her direction, or as in parts A and B of part ii of the 258E statute evidence one of the listed crimes was committed against her on three separate occasions. The Chicopee District Court did the opposite, and instead the Chicopee District Court conspired to railroad Michael Elbery by knowingly allowing Ferreira to submit a set of Affidavits in support of her Application for a 258E R. O. against Elbery that were totally groundless. Next time the Jews will get a stooge who will tell bigger lies.

Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega's plans foiled

Judge Vega of the Chicopee District planned to have Michael Elbery walk in to her courtroom and represent himself as he had been doing for over twenty years. Further enhancing Vega's plan is that the Mass. Trial Court Law Libraries were closed due to the Covid-19 Scare, so Michael Elbery could not research the law of 258E in order to prepare his defense. However, Michael Elbery used the Internet and found all the required law surrounding a 258E R.O., including a legal treatise that alerted and explained the S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of C. 258E via the O' Brien case; this legal research instantly informed Michael Elbery that Ferreira's affidavits were groundless nonsense and could never legally result in a R.O. being issued. . Michael Elbery knew that a decision to issue a R.O. under 258E is strictly a "Judicial Decision" (decision made by a Judge, no jury allowed) and that he could never have a chance of Justice when it depends on a "Judicial Decision" in Massachusetts Courts, even worse when the Judge is Chicopee District Judge S. Vega. Presiding Judge at the Chicopee District Court, Judge S. Vega ( Hispanic, not Spanish), hates that White Man/Boston Yankee/Teuton, Michael Elbery. Michael Elbery spoiled Judge Vega's fun of injustice by hiring an out-of-town attorney to represent him on the obviously legally groundless claims filed against him by Ferreira

As soon as Michael Elbery hired an attorney who signed his name to the case as representing Michael Elbery, then the case ended; Fat Jasmine Ferreira immediately told the Court she was canceling and would not pursue a Restraining Order. Actually, she was contacted by the Chicopee District Court and told to cancel because Elbery had an attorney and Judge Vega would not embarrass herself in front of an out-of-town attorney by issuing a 258E Restraining Order on the groundless reasons Ferreira, per in her Affidavits, used to apply for a Restraining Order. Ferreira's default allowed Judge Vega to avoid the unpleasant situation of having to find in favor of Michael Elbery based on the merits. However, Vega looked more pissy-assed at that June 10, 2021 hearing than usual when she had to declare no prosecution witness (Ferreira) and the case dismissed; Judge Vega spoke uncharacteristically in low volume from her judge's bench and avoided eye contact with Michael Elbery. Yes, Michael Elbery and his attorney had to show for the 6-10-21 hearing at the Chicopee District Court, even though the Chicopee District Court had disclosed that Ferreira would not be present and would no longer pursue the Restraining Order, otherwise the Chicopee Court would have called Ferreira and the R.O. would be issued with no defense present (a judge's trick).

-9-

Note: that the Chicopee Court Clerk's Office can't get anything right, as that disposition of Ferreira's application for a 258E R.O. against Michael Elbery is wrong and indicates "she didn't want to extend the order" ( see bottom of second page which is the only information on that  2 page disposition mailed to Michael Elbery after Fat Jasmine Ferreira defaulted.) The Clerk at the Chicopee District Court deliberately fabricated that Ferreira "did not want to extend the order"; there was no R.O. outstanding, only a new Application for Restraining Order, so there could not be an extension of a R.O.. The Application for the 258E Restraining Order EXPIRED because Ferreira defaulted once she learned the Chicopee District Court of Judge Vega could no longer violate the law and slap a R.O. on Michael Elbery grounded on the foolish and groundless Affidavits filed by Ferreira.

Also Note: that the final 2 page disposition of Ferreira aborted R.O. application, should be 3 pages (see top of each page it says  Page 1 of 3 and Page 2 of 3) but the Chicopee District Court would never produce the third page, or the docket entries of that docketed case Ferreira v. Elbery.

 

Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega already gunning for Michael Elbery

Why was Michael Elbery so informed as to the habits of Injustice of the Court of Mass. District Judge Bethzaida Sanabria Vega? Michael Elbery was already well familiar with the legal atrocities of presiding Chicopee District Judge, Bethzaida Sanabria Vega because he filed a lawsuit in Chicopee District Court against an auto repair garage. Elbery filed a civil lawsuit in the Chicopee District Court in 2018 knowing that he was high side for arrest for any fabricated reasons by the Authorities, if he even went into any Massachusetts Court house. However, Elbery could not let this particular underlying incident (vandalism to his truck) go, and sued with the inherent risk of Injustice. Elbery knew he could not win his meritorious civil lawsuit in a Mass. Court but Elbery planned to make the defendant pay his legal defenses, which he the defendant did pay. Michael Elbery represented himself free of charge.

        What did Michael Elbery experience in the Chicopee District Court during his lawsuit in the Chicopee Court?

Judge S. Vega, on May 29, 2019, used her courtroom as an interrogation parlor, while cowardly using the defendant's attorney to make a series of accusations instead of having the courage to do her own dirty work. The courtroom was empty, as all the day's motions had been heard. During the pendency of the entire case of Elbery's lawsuit in the Chicopee District Court his motions and hearings were always scheduled to be heard last, so that there would be no witnesses to see the Injustice and Kangaroo Court of Judge S. Vega. Judge Vega arranged to have an additional 4 bailiffs (six in total) present in the empty courtroom during the May 29, 2019 interrogation. The interrogation was directed at Michael Elbery's web site, www. MassInjustice.Org., and was void of anything to do with Elbery's lawsuit in the Chicopee District Court. In particular during this courtroom interrogation, Elbery was accused of causing Chief Justice of the Federal District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark Wolf, to have to resign (all true) because Elbery published the illegalities committed by Judge Mark Wolf during the federal lawsuit Elbery filed against the Shrewsbury Police, Elbery v. Sklut, in 1997. Vega was hoping that Elbery would tell his interrogators that his Web Site, and all the hyperlinks (legal, social and political), are irrelevant to the instant civil suit, and just walked out of her courtroom, so she could dismiss his case claiming that Elbery walked out of the motion hearing, or have him arrested for not talking.

-10-

The defendant's first attorney quit after the first hearing of the same above case of vandalism when she lost a "Motion to Dismiss" Elbery's lawsuit. The defendant's owner, then, filed an illegal motion (the owner cannot represent his corporation because a Corporation is a separate legal entity) for extra time to get another attorney to represent his corporation against Elbery's lawsuit. Judge Vega of the Chicopee District Court allowed the defendant's owner 6 months to find a new cheap lawyer; evidently he needed 6 months to get the money to pay a second defense attorney against Michael Elbery's case. But the real Kangaroo issue was that during this hearing at the Chicopee District Court over a dozen Chicopee Police barreled into the courtroom just after the second to last motion of the day was heard by Vega ( Elbery's case motions are always called last so there are no witnesses to the Kangaroo Court) and packed one half of the court seating. When the defendant's motion was called Michael Elbery was made to stand to the far left of the wooden rail that separates the audience from the litigants and attorneys while facing Judge Vega as is customary location for a criminal defendant; a plaintiff in a civil case is always allowed to sit at one of the two tables inside the wooden rails of the courtroom that separate the audience from the litigants. Michael Elbery took advantage of the incident and turned around and laughed at the seated cops as Judge Vega remained with her head and eyes looking down at paper work on her desk ( the bench ) at the front of the courtroom; Vega wanted to "wash her hands" of the whole incident, but it didn't work and Elbery had good laugh ( 1st Amendment Constitutionally Protected Expression ) at her and the dumb cops, including their leader - sergeant, who was pissed-off, as per his facial expressions, but just sat there getting madder as Michael Elbery laughed at him. It took Vega 15 minutes, while looking down at her desk, pretending to be attending to business, in order to avoid eye contact with the scurrilous activities she had planned in her courtroom, to give the defendant 6 months to find a cheap lawyer.

Judge S. Vega does not allow the FTR recording system in her Chicopee District Court because then she could not have control over the evidence and not be able to order the lackeys in the Courthouse to cover-up/delete parts of tape recording otherwise provided by the Court. The FTR recording system is a third party service provided and controlled by an independent contractor and is way better and honest than the old tape recording system in Mass. Courts, which is still in use by the Chicopee District Court. The old tape recording system in the Mass. Courts produced a tape recording which was generally not even audible and no record transcript of the relevant evidence could be created, or the tape was erased by "the forces of evil" in the courthouse. The FTR system would expose the Fraud, Illegalities and Injustice and spoil the brat antics of "Affirmative Action - Judge S. Vega" and would produce a perfect voice recording and transcript all by a third party without crooked Court employees involved, so Judge Vega keeps the FTR system out of her courthouse. Michael Elbery has used the FTR system in the Mass. Land Court and found the FTR system accurate and what should be expected in a court in these here United States.

The Defense held a Deposition and the  Court Sealed the transcript of that Deposition from the Free World, so the evidence of crime by the Authorities caused by issues on Elbery's website www.MassInjustice.Org could never be revealed. Michael Elbery is prohibited by a Judge's Order from publishing that Deposition transcript or the Authorities will gladly throw him in jail for contempt of Court. Whatever evidence did that deposition disclose which caused the defendant's attorney to panic and change the line of questioning and the deposition transcript sealed?

-11-

During case discovery the defendant was not required by Judge S. Vega to name the other employees of the defendant working during the day of the underlying incident of vandalism to Elbery's truck that caused the lawsuit, so to protect the guilty.

On July 29, 2019, Michael Elbery was "put on trial" because he did not show for the defendant's attorney's deposition that she scheduled illegally after the date set for evidentiary discovery had expired. The defendant's attorney demanded that Michael Elbery pay the Court Reporter (stenographer) the fee she incurred by late scheduling her deposition in the amount of $1,500.00. The S.J.C. of Massachusetts sent a deputy (white male, light colored hair, Oxford shoes) who sat in the reserved benches to the Judge's left; that S.J.C. deputy was there to make sure Judge S. Vega did not do anything illegal and provided Vega with necessary adult supervision. Judge S. Vega reluctantly was forced "to go by the law" and find that Michael Elbery was correct and that the defendant's attorney was wrong. Judge Vega was particularly enraged because Michael Elbery called the defendant's attorney a liar several times; the documented evidence was irrefutable and the defendant's attorney, again, got caught lying because her friend Judge Sabrina Vega found against her. 

Michael Elbery blocked the defendant's attorney from sending him emails. Judge S. Vega issued a "Protective Order" preventing the reason for Michael Elbery blocking the defendant's attorney's emails from being disclosed; a cover-up provided by the "Judicial Carpet.".

 

***Best of all, Judge S. Vega proclaimed after the case was 2 years old that she had a "conflict of interest" regarding Elbery's civil lawsuit because she had known the defendant's attorney for years and they were friends, because they both worked for the District Attorney's Office together; Judge S. Vega declared in open court she had "lack of independence" as to the defendant's attorney. It was more than obvious that Judge S. Vega had a "conflict of interest," or more accurately a bias against Michael Elbery and should have immediately, at the beginning of the case, recused herself on those grounds, but you can't expect Judge Vega to be honest. The defendant's attorney (actually the defendant's second attorney, first attorney quit due to a strange case of Blood Cancer that came on without notice after getting kicked around by Michael Elbery at the first hearing of the case) had been on the case for about 18 months. In true character, Judge S. Vega made no written notation of her recusal from Elbery's civil case on the docket entries, or any record of her "lack of independence" for 18 months on Elbery's case, in order to cover-up her illegalities of injustice and flagrant violations of the law. The defendant's second attorney was defending her client for 18 months while Judge S. Vega was making numerous decisions on the case and knowingly had a "conflict of interest" because Vega admitted in open court she had a "lack of independence" because she was buddy, buddy with the defendant's second attorney. That's 18 months of illegal judicial conduct by Judge S. Vega, no wonder she thumbs her nose at the Mass. S.J.C.'s law on 258E R.O.'s via the O'bien case.

The above civil case (lawsuit) that Michael Elbery filed in 2018 in the Chicopee District Court has been deliberately unnamed, at this time, because the defendant's attorney wants to protect her client/defendant from his illegalities and has threatened Michael Elbery that any publication of the case in this Web Site will result in a lawsuit for defamation. Of course, the defamation suit will be filed in Vega's Chicopee District Court and Michael Elbery will automatically lose. The law of defamation allows freedom of the press by publishing the case documents and events as per the docket. The laws of defamation allow a "conditional privilege" to publish judicial activity and make "Fair Comment" about those judicial activities and decisions, and as always, there is a right to "pure opinion" based on disclosed facts of those judicial proceedings. The law of defamation does allow for the public to be alerted to activity in the Courts, regardless of who is embarrassed. But law would not be followed in Vega's court and Michael Elbery would be automatically be found liable of defamation. Win or lose, the defendant in that civil case had to pay two different attorneys over a period of 2 years of litigation plus expenses while Elbery represented himself for free.

-12-

"A pair that would beat a full house any day of the week", Vega and the defendant's attorney.

Judge Vega Fails - No Restraining Order on Michael Elbery - Elbery wins but Groundless Re-files for R.O.'s are Encouraged

The complainant, a big fat girl -Jasmine Ferreira, defaulted and never showed for the scheduled July 10, 2021 hearing at Chicopee District Court before Judge S. Vega. Michael Elbery robbed Judge S. Vega of her predetermined plan to issue, in violation of law, a 258E Restraining Order against Michael Elbery; Ferreira did not show because Michael Elbery decided he could not represent himself in Vega's Court because of Judge S. Vega's racial hated/bias against him. Instead of representing himself, as customary for the last 20 years, Michael Elbery hired an out-of-town attorney. All Judge Vega's, and Bailiff 209's, fun to issue conditions on the Restraining Order, so Fatty Ferreira could immediately make claim that Elbery exited his front door and violated the distance conditions, so to have Elbery put in jail on that same day of July 10, vaporized.

But the 258E statute allows Jasmine Ferreira to, again, re-file for a Restraining Order. Mass. Statute 258E does not limit the number times a complainant can file for a 258E Restraining Order against the Target/citizen. There is no limit to the amount of groundless applications for a Restraining Order Ferreira can file because the Chicopee District Court will welcome any and all groundless accusations against Michael Elbery; the Clerk is required, by law, to review the reasons/grounds for Ferreira's demand for a 258E Restraining Order to insure that those grounds satisfy the Mass. S.J.C.'s "narrowing construction" of 258E, namely, was there were 3 occurrences of "serious threats of bodily injury" or crime committed against Ferreira, but that will never happen. Ferreira and her boyfriend have not lived next door to Michael Elbery in unit #239 since June 16, 2021 but they still have a video camera recording through the blinds that have been parted since May 25, 2021. No doubt, the Chicopee District Court and the Police are working with Ferreira encouraging her to continue to return every day, as she has been, to unit #239 and review the video recording of the past 24 hours. On July 18, 2021 Fatty Ferreira and her ugly green haired boy friend moved out, only to be re-located by the Jew landlord to another one of his five apartment complexes, according to the Puerto Rican Apartment Complex maintenance man "Mark," who also said that "anybody would have to be crazy to live in this place."

 

Mass. G/L C. 258E is a Legal Nullset - Serves No Purpose but to Railroad Innocent Citizens in Kangaroo Courts

A 258E Restraining Order can only be issued if the defendant is accused of Committing 3 Crimes! And the Judge must decide that the defendant is guilty of those criminal accusations before a 258E Restraining Order can be issued! So, why is the hearing held to determine a 258E Restraining Order called "civil in nature"? The Judge is determining criminal guilt as accused without the defendant having his rights to Due Process under the U.S. Constitution!

That's right, after the Mass. S.J.C. "narrowed the construction" of the Mass. Statute C. 258E, so that section ( i ) of the Original Statute is no longer the law, ( although the Mass. Legislature has never re-written the statute), the target/citizen of a 258E Restraining Order must have threatened, on 3 separate occasions, to commit a violent crime against the person seeking the Restraining Order, or have committed three criminal violations as itemized in the still valid part ( 2 ) of the Original 258E statute. The 258E Statute, even as "narrowly constructed by the Mass. S. J. C., requires that there be three violations of these criminal offenses before a 258E Restraining Order can be issued against the target/citizen. Threatening to commit a violent crime is a crime in Massachusetts.

So why would any alleged victim wait for 3 criminal violations against them before they seek to be rescued by a Mass. Court via the issuance of a Restraining Order under C. 258E? They would not, but they would instead call the cops at the first criminal violation against them!

The only function the Mass. C. 258E statute now serves, and has served since 2012, and still serves after the Mass. S.J.C. "narrowed the construction" of the first section ( i ) of that statute in 2014 in the O' Brien case, is to provide a means for Mass. Judges to railroad citizens in a U.S. court of law, "true Kangaroos". The Mass. Judges excuse themselves by claiming they didn't know that the Mass. S.J.C. changed ( "narrowed the construction" ) the original Constitutionally Ambiguous 258E statute by deleting part ( i ) of the Original C. 258E Restraining Order Statute.

-13-