Attorney Robert "bobby" Sheketoff
for more on Sheketoff see the Chapter on Judge Mark Wolf
Attorney Robert Sheketoff of Boston, Mass. was paid $15,000.00 in 1994 to write and file Michael Elbery's Direct Appeal on the July 1993 conviction in Worcester Superior Court. Michael Elbery had not, at this time, been imprisoned long enough to learn law in Prison libraries. Sheketoff's Direct Appeal was a "real piece of work" and missed the most important issues that could have been raised in the Direct Appeal. Question is, why did Sheketoff produce such a poor piece of work via Elbery's Direct Appeal? Sheketoff is/was known as the best and most sophisticated appellate attorney in Mass.
The $15,000.00 Sheketoff fee didn't stop at a Direct Appeal. The deal with Elbery included all post-conviction remedies available in Massachusetts Courts. This would include a Motion for New Trial. Yes, Bobby Sheketoff produced another "piece of work" in 1996 that was so bad that he could not trick Elbery into signing the supporting affidavits so Sheketoff could file the Motion for New Trial. Elbery totally rejected Sheketoff's Motion for New Trial and told Sheketoff that his work would result in certain defeat. Elbery showed Sheketoff the issues that he should raise in the Motion for New Trial, but Sheketoff refused, only wanting to submit his babble ("Bobby Babble").
If there is any debate, compare the Motion for New Trial that Michael Elbery produced and filed in Worcester Superior Court, as in this Web Site Home Page, to the Motion for New Trial Sheketoff produced. True, the three stooges (Toomey, Aloise and Ball) made their frame-up/malicious prosecution at Elbery's trial so obvious/stupid that it was easy for Elbery to find over 30 violations of his Constitutional Rights during the Kangaroo Court the three stooges used to frame him for 10 years in prison.
Bobby did admit he was wrong on one issue that was grounds to be raised in client - Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial. Can you imagine that, an esteemed attorney of the bar Admitting he was wrong? But Michael Elbery, first, had to argue until Sheketoff refused to any further debate the issue of Citizen's Arrest. Then, Michael Elbery put in writing and stuck the legal research in Sheketoff's face, whereupon, the Toffster had to Capitulate. Did the Great Sheketoff make an error of law, or was he trying to trick his client?
Michael Elbery had to raise the issue of Citizen's Arrest, correctly, in his Motion for New Trial, see Claim V.
Bobby Refused to present Elbery's Gun License, instead advised Elbery to Go to Jail!
Maybe there is a clue, via Sheketoff's representation of Michael Elbery regarding 6 gun Possession charges by the Shrewsbury Police Dept. in conjunction with the Worcester D.A.'s Office, to Attorney Sheketoff's performance surrounding the "attempted mayhem" post-conviction remedies.
After conviction for "attempted mayhem" in July 1993, Elbery was released on a controversial "Stay of Sentence Pending Appeal". Yes, Elbery was free, two weeks later, after being sentenced to 10 years in State Prison for "attempted mayhem". But some did not like the idea of Elbery not in prison; Elbery was arrested by the Shrewsbury Police on 8-5-94 for 6 counts of gun possession after the police broke into Elbery's garage style E-Z Mini Storage unit during the E-Z Mini Storage Arson Fire of 8-4-94 through 8-5-94. E-Z Mini Storage is on Route 20 Shrewsbury, Mass. and became the site of Shrewsbury's biggest fire ever. A fire undisputedly caused by arson. At the time of gun arrest, Attorney Sheketoff represented Elbery as a result of Elbery hiring Sheketoff to produce the Direct Appeal regarding the "attempted mayhem" conviction.
Elbery called Sheketoff on the day of arrest, 8-5-94, from the Shrewsbury Police Dept. - Michael Elbery's one call. Sheketoff would ask Elbery if he had an F.I.D. card, or license for the guns. Elbery explained to Sheketoff during that phone call and subsequent conversations that the guns were Elbery's, were all registered to him and that he, Elbery, had the proper license or F.I.D. card and that it had not been revoked. Sheketoff, like a true advocate, exclaimed that the cops had no right to arrest on the 6 10h charges because Michael Elbery had an F.I.D. card and that they had no right to search Elbery's E-z garage. At this day of arrest Sheketoff was indignant that the cops had made a false arrest and illegal search and seizure because his client, Michael Elbery, had an Absolute Defense to the criminal gun possession charges - Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card.
Sheketoff Still Positive @ 8-10-94 that Michael Elbery had an "Absolute Defense" of Valid Mass. License to Defeat 6 gun charges
On August 10, 1994 during the "Revocation Hearing" of the "Stay of Sentence Pending Appeal", ( see 7-15-93 entry) Attorney Sheketoff was sure that the only issue was an F.I.D. card and that Michael Elbery had, on 8-4-94 and even at the date of the Bail Revocation Hearing, a valid F.I.D. card. See page 6-8 of the Stay of Sentence Revocation Hearing Transcript. And Sheketoff was correct - Michael Elbery had a perfectly legal and valid FID card that made the six gun possession charges all false, and the Shrewsbury cops knew it because in addition to Elbery telling them so, they were the ones that issued the FID card.
See pages 5-6 of the same transcript, A.D.A. Mike Ball had no problem lying. Ball stated in open court that the FID card had been revoked. Not only does Mike Ball lie about that fact but deliberately misconstrues law on the issue. No wonder Mike Ball got fired!
Ball claimed/lied during that hearing that the "attempted mayhem" conviction caused the FID/license to be revoked. A.D.A. Mike Ball knew this was not true and not the law. See pages 5-6 of the transcript.
Even though Judge Dan Toomey was alerted by Sheketoff that the arrest was illegal because Elbery had a valid license for the guns, Judge Dan Toomey revoked Elbery's "Stay of Sentence" based on A.D.A. Mike Ball's false claim that Michael Elbery did not have a valid license for the guns causing his arrest.
Documented Evidence the original Charges were all 10h possession gun charges
Note, there was not one word at this "Stay Revocation Hearing" by A.D.A. Mike Ball, Judge Dan Toomey or Attorney Robert Sheketoff about a C. 269 s. 10a carrying charge. That is because at 8-10-94, date of that hearing the C. 269 s. 10a gun carrying charge had not been fabricated. It was Sheketoff that fabricated the C. 269 s. 10a carrying charge, (see Sheketoff's Affidavits #15-20 for his fabricated creation of C. 269 s. 10a), and the Worcester D.A.'s Office and S.P.D. James Hurley crossed out one of the 10h charges and added the phony 10a charge about the first week of September, 1994 because Sheketoff could not convince Elbery that he was guilty of the 6 10h gun possession charges. Sheketoff invented the new meaning of gun carrying under C. 269 s. 10a and the prosecution added the new 10a charge. Then, Sheketoff further advised his client, Michael Elbery, to plead guilty because he does not have a license in defense of the carrying charge. Of course, Michael Elbery knew there was no carrying of guns for a 10a charge because all the guns were in storage.
Attorney Sheketoff Fails to Follow Michael Elbery's Orders to Present Absolute Defense of License
Sheketoff told Michael Elbery the F.I.D. was good against the six 10h charges when Elbery called Sheketoff on 8-5-94, so Sheketoff could get the job of defense. Attorney Bobby Sheketoff crusaded Elbery's cause of innocence at the Revocation Hearing at Worcester Superior Court on 8-10-94 stating that Michael Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card in defense of the six 10h charges by the Shrewsbury cops.
Attorney Bobby Sheketoff vigilantly defended Michael Elbery's cause in Worcester Superior Court at the "Stay Revocation Hearing" before Judge Dan Toomey on 8-10-94; Attorney Sheketoff crusaded Elbery's cause claiming Absolute Defense of Valid License in the form of Elbery's F.I.D. card that was not revoked and that Sheketoff exclaimed in open court that he had personally seen Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card. But Sheketoff knew that his defense of Elbery in Worcester Superior Court was legally meaningless because the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over the gun charges, the District Court had jurisdiction. Sheketoff wanted to trick and confuse Elbery. Sheketoff offered his vigilant defense in this court of "No Jurisdiction" because he wanted to trick his client into believing that he, Attorney Robert Sheketoff, was an advocate and was looking out for his client's best interests.
Although Bobby Sheketoff knew the answer on 8-5-94 (day cops arrested Michael Elbery on 6 10h gun charges) and five days later when Sheketoff represented Michael Elbery at the "Stay Revocation Hearing" of 8-10-94 before Superior Court Judge Dan Toomey, Sheketoff absolutely refused to present proof of Michael Elbery's Absolute Defense of License (as per Sheketoff, vigilantly crusaded at the "Stay Revocation Hearing") to the court of jurisdiction.
But it wasn't a hard thing to do for Sheketoff. As above, Sheketoff knew the charges were false. But it was even easier because all Attorney Robert Sheketoff had to do was follow the Orders of his client, Michael Elbery, and the six gun charges would have been immediately dismissed. Even Sheketoff admits per Affidavit# 14, 31, 32 that his client, Elbery, ordered him to present Elbery's F.I.D. card/Absolute Defense via license to the six false gun charges and Motion to Dismiss the Charges. Sheketoff would not and made one excuse after another to avoid Elbery's orders. The orders and avoidance would be short episodes because they would have Michael Elbery in handcuffs and allow him little time to talk to his alleged attorney - Sheketoff before throwing him back in a prison.
See Deposition of Attorney Robert Sheketoff taken by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery - starting at page 131 Sheketoff is questioned about Michael Elbery's repeated orders for Sheketoff to present the Absolute Defense of License and tell the Judge/Court of Jurisdiction that the 6 gun charges were illegal/false/groundless and Michael Elbery had the right to possess the guns in his E-z Storage because of his F.I.D. card, and Motion to Dismiss the charges. See page 135 of that Sheketoff Deposition where Sheketoff finally, under oath, admits to Michael Elbery making these orders. It was Sheketoff's undated "Little Epistles Letter" that made him admit the truth, otherwise he would have continued his lying/falsificationns, as he does about the Mass. carrying laws C. 269 s10a in that same letter.
6 10h gun possession charges didn't do the trick - so the Authorities do a Cross-Out Job
Note that the Shrewsbury cops (James Hurley and company) and John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office were running into problems with these 6 gun possession charges because they knew the charges were false, as Michael Elbery insisted that he had a valid F.I.D. license for the guns stored in his E-Z garage on 8-4-94. So the police in conjunction with A.D.A. Mike Ball simply crossed out one of the 10h gun possession charges and wrote in a 269-10a gun carrying charge about a month after the arrest at E-Z. Right where it is written in "UZI handgun" is where John Conte's District Attorney's Office crossed out the first 10h possession charge and wrote in a 10a carrying charge. They added this new C. 269 s.10a gun carrying charge about 30 days after the original charges of 8-5-94 and Attorney Robert Sheketoff jumped on the band wagon and agreed with their new false charge, as per his Affidavits. Attorney Robert Sheketoff then tried to convince Michael Elbery that the new gun carrying charge was valid, but it didn't do Sheketoff and his Co-conspirators any good because Michael Elbery refused to plead guilty to the charges as Sheketoff advised him to do. Sheketoff then refused to talk to his client, Michael Elbery.
At that date of arrest, August 5, 1994 it was legally impossible to be "carrying" a firearm/gun in Massachusetts if the guns were located in your private garage. And Attorney Bobby Sheketoff knew all this, per his statements on 8-10-94 in Worcester Superior Court during the "Stay Revocation Hearing", but Sheketoff did nothing for the defense of his client, Michael Elbery. When Sheketoff could not get Michael Elbery to plead guilty to the 10h charges Sheketoff would run and tell his Co-conspirators, including A.D.A. John Revelli, and John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office crossed out one the 10h possession charges and added the legally baseless "10a gun carrying charge" on about the first week of September 1994.
Sheketoff Silent at Suppression Hearing
In order to make it look like he was earning his new fee of $5,000.00 for the alleged defense of the 6 gun possession charges, Sheketoff motioned for an Evidentiary Suppression Hearing which was held on 10-21-94.
During the Suppression Hearing Attorney Bobby Sheketoff did not utter one word about Michael Elbery having a valid license for his guns he was arrested for on 8-5-94. If he had then Judge McCann would have been forced to release Elbery because there would have been no probable cause for the arrest. Only Lt. Wayne Sampson of the Shrewsbury Police Dept., during questioning at that hearing by Sheketoff, made any mention about a license - see page 90 (lines 5-8) of the Suppression Hearing Transcript Lt. Sampson makes claim that the Worcester Police reported to him that Michael Elbery's "license to possess guns had been revoked"!
Strange even for a dummy like Sampson to say this, when you look at one of the Shrewsbury Police Dept. official cop documents, The S.P.D Master Card Detail Listing, that recorded Sampson's arrest for guns on 8-5-94 of Michael Elbery. That "Master Detail Record" records that Michael Elbery lived in Shrewsbury for over a decade and that the Shrewsbury Police issued him an FID card (license to posses in 1983). If you look at that same document, they changed Michael Elbery's address on their S.P.D. records on 8-5-94; they knew exactly where Michael Elbery lived for the last decade. That same police document that they kept on Michael Elbery, as they do for any citizen who entered their records for any event/circumstance, shows the S.P.D. was hunting Michael Elbery for years, but all those arrests resulted in either Not Guilties or Dismissals. The police don't like to record that their arrests resulted in Not Guilties or Dismissals (False Arrests).
And what did Attorney Bobby Sheketoff say about Elbery's F.I.D. card (license to posses firearms) at that point or during the entire Suppression Hearing? Nothing, Absolutely Zero. How could this be after his statements at the "Stay Revocation Hearing" that Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card? Sheketoff was a Co-conspirator that is how.
The Shrewsbury cops (Lt. Sampson and company) according to Sampson testimony called the Worcester cops to learn the status of an F.I.D. license that the Shrewsbury police issued?? This is not very good lying by soon to be Chief of the Shrewsbury Police - Sampson; it is not believable that even a dull normal like Sampson or Johnson would call the Worcester Police to inquire about an FID card/license that the Shrewsbury cops issued years earlier. And to make things more unbelievable the Worcester Police would have had no record of the FID card because they did not issue it. Years later at Sampson's deposition (see page 16 line 23) Sampson claimed he could not remember who he spoke to at the Worcester Police Dept.
Sampson was deposed because he was a defendant in Elbery's federal case, Elbery v. Sklut. that resulted because of the Shrewsbury cops' false arrest and 8 month malicious prosecution on the 6 gun charges against Michael Elbery.
At that date, 1994, the Mass. Dept. of Safety and the Massachusetts State Police had record of all F.I.D. cards/licenses, in addition to the copy kept in custody by the issuing Police Department (this case Shrewsbury Police Dept.).
Sheketoff files legal document telling presiding Judge John S. McCann that Elbery has valid license against charges and search and seizure - McCann Conspires
And where was "big shot" District Judge McCann during the Evidence Suppression Hearing concerning the arrest and Search and Seizure of Michael Elbery's E-z Garage on 8-5-94? It was Judge McCann's duty, in order to insure justice via Mass. law, to ask if Elbery had a license for the guns. There was not one word out of Judge John S. McCann concerning "license" for the guns. This is the first question that is automatically raised in any case involving guns, - "Is there a License". Was Judge McCann that incompetent; No, it was just the continued and obvious conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute and Falsely Imprison Michael Elbery.
Like so many people involved in railroading Michael Elbery, Judge John S. McCann would be quickly promoted - McCann was promoted to a Mass. Superior Court Judge.
See Attorney Bobby Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress that Sheketoff filed on 10-27-94, a few days after the Suppression Hearing (see Aff. # 4 of that amended motion to suppress) - Sheketoff is telling Judge John S. McCann, in writing, that Elbery has a valid license and that the cops and prosecution agree that it has not been revoked. Oh, Sheketoff isn't going to do any more than that; he is required to raise the issue of Absolute Defense of License via a Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Robert Sheketoff was also still pretending along with Judge John S. McCann that the Worcester D.A.'s Office and Shrewsbury cops' new C. 269 s. 10a gun carrying charges were law not a fabrication of Co-conspirators. It was that easy for the conspirators, all the legal people on the case, all they had to do was to "cross-out".
By 9-20-94, per Compliance requirement date on the Pre-trial Conference Report, Sheketoff knew the Shrewsbury cops were not any longer claiming that Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card was revoked. Sheketoff had the documentation before 10-21-94, date of Suppression Hearing, he included in his Amended Motion to Suppress. So why didn't Sheketoff speak up and advocate his client's, Michael Elbery's, rights at the Suppression Hearing (or before as ordered by Michael Elbery) like he did on 8-10-94 at the Stay Revocation Hearing in Worcester Superior Court when it did not count. He remained silent because Attorney Robert Sheketoff was obviously aiding in the conspiracy with A.D.A. John Revelli, the Shrewsbury Police, and John Conte's D.A. Office to maliciously prosecute and falsely imprison Sheketoff's client, Michael Elbery.
Judge John S. McCann maintained and continued the conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute Michael Elbery on the gun charges and violate his 4th Amendment Rights against illegal seizure of the guns in his E-z garage unit, and decided on 12-7-94 against Michael Elbery and in favor of the Shrewsbury Police. Judge McCann's decision of 12-7-94 was made weeks after Sheketoff alerted Judge McCann, via Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress that Michael Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card (Absolute Defense to the gun charges and Search and Seizure). It was all swept under the "Judicial Carpet" and the Co-conspirators went about their Conspiracy. Michael Elbery remained in prison and had 8 months of malicious prosecution because of Judge McCann and Sheketoff and the rest of the Co-conspirators pretending that Michael Elbery's guns were illegal.
Attorney Sheketoff gets fired and Michael Elbery gets found Not Guilty
Bobby Sheketoff defended, "allegedly", the gun charges for Elbery for seven months. During the seven months of representation on the gun charges Sheketoff insisted that Elbery was guilty of the gun charges and that he could get Elbery, through plea bargin, an additional 1 year in prison for the gun charges, after he did the 10 years for the "attempted mayhem" conviction. Sheketoff stated that he had spoken to the Worcester D.A.'s Office and that they already agreed to one year prison time for the 6 gun charges pending against Elbery. See Sheketoff Affidavits #'s 22,23, 33. In the interim, Sheketoff filed Elbery's Direct Appeal and that Direct Appeal was immediately lost/Denied in early 1995. Elbery then fired Sheketoff regarding his representation of Elbery on the gun charges.
From a pay phone in Gardner Prison (Mass. N.E.C.C.), about mid-March of 1994, Michael Elbery interviewed an attorney, Ken Brekka; the attorney's first question was did Elbery have a valid F.I.D. card/license when the Shrewsbury cops arrested him at E-Z for the guns. Elbery told the new attorney that he had a valid F.I.D. card on 8-5-94 and that the Shrewsbury Police issued it to him, as he lived in Shrewsbury for over 10 years. Within 3 days, and also receiving his fee of $5000.00, Elbery's new defense attorney, Ken Brekka, contacted Elbery at Mass. State Prison at Gardner and informed Elbery that the Shrewsbury Police immediately capitulated, as did the Worcester D.A.'s Office and that they wanted to dismiss all 6 gun charges and forget about the whole incident.
Michael Elbery told his new attorney, Ken Brekka, that he would not allow a dismissal, but wanted a trial because the Worcester D.A.'s Office has a habit of resurrecting old cases that are dismissed on those terms (by the agreement of both the defendant and prosecutor), as is legally allowed. The trial was on April 3, of 1995. The Shrewsbury Cops, although obviously knowing the trial was being held and being notified of such, did not have the courage to show for trial, not even arresting cops James Hurley and Lt. Wayne Sampson. Unbelievably, the gun charges were so bogus/illegal that no prosecutor from the Worcester D.A.'s Office showed for trial. And yes, they were alerted to the trial, if not the judge would have continued it so there could have been the customary prosecution. John Conti's Worcester D.A.'s Office left word, according to Elbery's attorney and Judge Zide, that they would not be attending the embarrassing trial. The arresting Shrewsbury cops and Worcester D.A.'s Office did not have Attorney Robert Sheketoff to maintain the malicious prosecution so they headed for the hills.
The six gun charges were so illegal that once Elbery got an attorney on his side the Shrewsbury Police, including Gus Johnson, Shrewsbury Chief of Police Wayne Sampson, and James Hurley were scared to even show up for trial. The cowards from John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office were equally scared and did not show. Elbery made Judicial history, again, by these bizarre trial circumstances, but you'll only hear about it on this Web Site because "they" don't want the truth known.
At the 5 minute trial, Mass. District Court Judge Zide asked for proof of Elbery's F.I.D. card and quickly found Elbery "NOT GUILTY" on all 6 gun charges.
Two of the A.D.A.'s that acted as prosecutors on these gun charges, Chris White and Dave Johnson, were later excluded from continued employment at the Worcester County D.A.'s Office.
But Attorney Robert Sheketoff, during 7 months of representation, insisted Elbery was guilty, and told Elbery to plead guilty to the gun charges and do another year in prison after Elbery finished the 10 years for the frame-up for "attempted mayhem".
Michael Elbery Sues Sheketoff for Violating his Constitutional Rights in Conspiracy with the Shrewsbury Cops and Worcester D.A.
Michael Elbery sued Attorney Robert Sheketoff in 1998 in the U.S. Federal Court - Boston, Mass. for violations of Elbery's Constitutional Rights, including conspiracy to falsely arrest, imprison, and maliciously prosecute Elbery. See law suit. All Attorney Sheketoff had to do was tell the court at Elbery's arraignment of those gun charges that his client, Elbery, had a valid F.I.D. card/license for those guns and the case would have been over. Sheketoff, although being fully alerted by Elbery that Elbery had a valid license for the guns and seeing the F.I.D. card himself (see Toff Aff. # 8 ), refused to mention it at any time in the Court of Jurisdiction of the gun charges, including the arraignment, the Suppression Hearing, or during the following 7 months that he allegedly represented Elbery as defense attorney concerning the gun charges. And yes, Sheketoff would have been required to point out that the newly added 10a carrying charge that replaced the old crossed out 10h possession charge was an impossibility because all the guns at issue where in Elbery's E-z garage which was under his "sole and exclusive control". Instead Sheketoff pretended the newly fabricated C. 269 s. 10a charge by the Shrewsbury cops and Worcester D.A.'s Office, via a "cross-out" was real law, and he remained a silent Co-conspirator refusing to raise the Absolute Defense of F.I.D./License. Of course, the Suppression Hearing Judge, McCann, was also corrupt - he never asked the obvious question, "Is there a license?".
And to make it worse, Judge John S. McCann was well informed in writing that Elbery had an Absolute Defense to the gun charges and also causing the S.P.D. Seach and Seizure to be illegal, but McCann remained silent on the issue like Sheketoff and the other Co-conspirators.
This case/law suit against Sheketoff was merged with the law suit Elbery filed against his Co-conspirators, the Shrewsbury Police, for the false arrest and malicious prosecution of the 6 gun charges.
Michael Elbery had no chance of winning any lawsuit in the Federal Court. His enemies were waiting for him. Federal Judge Patti Saris initiated the first attack against Elbery. She ordered the Clerk at that court to forward all lawsuits filed by Michael Elbery to her. Judge Patti Saris would grab all Elbery's Federal law suits until she got scared and distributed some of those law suits to friendly (to Saris and her Agenda) Federal Judges when Elbery made issue about Saris illegally monopolizing all his lawsuits. Saris distributed some of the lawsuits to Federal Judge Mark Wolf. Wolf could be relied on to snuff, illegally, all Elbery's lawsuits, including the Sheketoff and Shrewsbury Police/Sklut lawsuit.
Elbery was warned not to say anything about Mark Wolf or be subject to reprisal - in your face Wolf, more is coming on you. My ancestors did not fight the American Revolution to have the U.S.A. ruled by the likes of you and for me to fear petty tyrants.
In order to defeat Elbery in the Sheketoff case, Judge Mark Wolf took the liberty to change the Mass. gun laws and illegally released both Attorney Robert Sheketoff and the Shrewsbury Police from Elbery's lawsuits, and allowed them to get away with their illegalities. Wolf documents, via his decision on Summary Judgment, that he took it upon himself to illegally change Mass. gun law C. 269 s. 10a, so that he could fabricate legal reason to snuff Elbery's lawsuits and in doing so Wolf violated Elbery's Constitutional Rights.
Summary Judgment (Aka Summary Corruption Process) was Judge Mark Wolf's tool to relieve Sheketoff of Elbery's lawsuit without ever going on trial. In doing so, Wolf changed Massachusetts gun laws; not the Mass. Legislature. Judge Wolf fabricated Mass. C. 269 s. 10a "gun carrying" law in his Summary Judgment Decision that made Elbery civilly guilty of carrying a gun regardless that, as a matter of real Mass. law, it was impossible to have a carrying charge against Elbery when the Shrewsbury Cops got the six guns in Elbery's E-z storage container. In so doing, Federal Judge Mark Wolf contradicted Worcester District Judge Zide, who found Elbery Not Guilty of the gun charges at the underlying criminal trial at Worcester District Court on April 3 of 1995, as above. And of course, Wolf violated the law like all small time tyrants.
Oh!!! The Federal District Judges claim they will make law. Watch out they have an Agenda and it is your liberty and culture and your descendant's liberties and cultures that they intend to destroy.