Chief Judge of the Federal District of Mass. - Mark Wolf Falsifies/Steals Mass. Law - Cheats American Citizen(s)
Mark Wolf is "Misbehaving"
Attention World Free Internet Readers: It has been necessary to release this Chapter of MassInjustice on Federal Judge Mark Wolf's illegalities progressively in rough draft form sections. I have, now at 10-8-2012, updated a majority of this Wolf chapter to final form. Since I started developing/writing this chapter on Wolf, I have, again, been the target of more toxic gas attacks and have lost use of my feet. Since I started developing the documentary of this Chapter featuring Federal Judge Mark Wolf, the police interference has increased, including contamination of local merchants that I do sundry business with. I will finish this Chapter on Federal Judge Mark Wolf before the police can arrest me on more false charges, or murder. There is a cost to liberty, freedom and free speech. But read below and see why Wolf engages his secret police to stop me from alerting the people via the World Free Internet to the documented events that aren't supposed to happen in this here U.S.A.
Wolf Alert - As a result of this Chapter of MassInjustice.Org Mark Wolf has resigned his post as Chief Judge in the Federal District of Massachusetts.
Summary: Federal Judge Mark Wolf falsifies Massachusetts gun carrying law, C. 269 s.10a, invades the province of the jury by deciding fact and credibility at Summary Judgment, Resulting in a Finding of Probable Cause for the Police Defendants, then Holds a Trial on the Police Defendants, in order to defeat the Plaintiff - Michael Elbery.
The Federal case of Michael Elbery v. Sklut et al., was bigger than simply the Shrewsbury, Mass. Police burning E-z mini Storage on August 4, 1994 in order to falsely arrest Michael Elbery because they wanted Elbery off the streets when his Direct Appeal of the "Attempted Mayhem" conviction came before the Mass. Appeals Court. The case is a documented example of the Jewish Judicial System that has been allowed to conquer and overrun the American Society and Justice System. It is what the once great Americans can expect unless they wake-up and take back their country from the Jew and all the useful idiots and peripheral groups the Jews have learned to exploit in their social war against the white man in the U.S.A.
The case of Elbery v. Sklut was filed in 1997 and continued for 5 years until the plaintiff, Michael Elbery, walked out of a federal Courtroom in Boston, Mass. in front of the civil trial jury in order to foil the scheme of federal Judge Mark Wolf. Elbery's case would go to demonstrate the extent that the Jews control the Federal Judiciary and their dictatorial/totalitarian practices. The Jew Judges in the U.S.A., including Patti Saris and Chief District Judge - Mark Wolf, know the American citizenry do not understand law. They know that what goes on in their courtrooms will be swept under the "judicial carpet" and nobody will dare question because, in part, of the confusion caused by the complexity of law in this here U.S.A. - The Jews do as they please in the Courts and nobody says anything; the Federal Jew Judges act illegally in the U.S. courts with impunity.
The Federal Courtrooms have become an arena used to enforce the Jewish Agenda.
While the Jews control thought through the media (television, radio, movies, movie theatres, music recordings) and dictate the policies of the American educational system in order to insure brain washing of the young with indoctrination to implement the Jewish Social Design Policies that are aimed at destroying what was once the Great United States of America, Chief Federal Judge of the District of Massachusetts- Mark Wolf uses law to enforce policies of Jewish dominated America.
The Jews control even more in the U.S. and Western World; including the financial markets/stock markets. Enemies are "short squeezed" out of their stock positions while the "Jews in the Shadows" use "LIFO reversals" in order to limit losses on their conspiring squeezes. But even the "Big Jew" gets caught. The Jewish "market makers", like Knight Capital and Bernie Madoff, with the use of computerized trading know the identity of every person's stock trading, whether its buying or selling stocks.
Big shot Federal Judge - Mark Wolf in all his self-indulgence and pomp had no idea that he would be exposed to the World for his illegalities, arrogance and mockery of justice in a federal court via the World Free Internet. Neither did Attorney Robert "Bobby" Sheketoff (see below) whose law partner would desert Sheketoff due to Elbery suing him for his participation with the Shrewsbury police, fellow Jews, and Worcester D.A.'s Office to frame Elbery for the phony gun charges at E-Z mini Storage. Sheketoff now answers his own phone; Sheketoff claims he lost his malpractice insurance because of Elbery's lawsuit. Sheketoff's insurance company knew he was guilty of blatant legal malpractice concerning defense of Elbery on the gun charges at E-z Mini Storage. The suit against Sheketoff, Elbery v. Sheketoff et al. was joined with the federal complaint against his Co-conspirators the Shrewsbury Police defendants.
Federal Judge Patti Saris originally had both the above cases, Elbery v. Sklut and Elbery v. Sheketoff, but distributed them to her Jewish ally Judge Mark Wolf when Elbery submitted a written objection protesting her intercepting all Elbery's federal cases via her order to the overpaid obedient agents in the Federal clerk's Office. Judge Patti Saris wanted to make sure Elbery's cases did not go to a white judge like Judge Young. Mark Wolf is Anti-American; he advocates his race "the chosen people" and their New World Order Agenda of Internationalism that wants to destroy American Nationalists like Michael Elbery. Mark Wolf is a Zionist and he mistakenly thinks the U.S.A. is the "promise land".
Federal Judge Young is no longer a threat to the Jews, as he is now retired. Judge Young wrote an article warning the American people that the Judiciary wanted to void the jury system and replace it with a panel of jurists (judges) who would decide fact and fate in the courts. Guess who is behind the attack on the American jury system? That's right, the Jews want total control. They want the Americans to be obedient and polite and have no say in anything of social, legal or cultural importance. The Jew controls those two worthless political parties in the U.S. and the primaries that result in the two choices for your vote, so don't think the answer is your vote.
As per many of the articles in this Web site, this Wolf Chapter of MassInjustice.Org starts with the burning of the E-Z Mini Storage Facility on Route 9, Shrewsbury, Mass. on August 4-5, 1994. Michael Elbery had been convicted a year earlier, July 1993, of "attempted mayhem" in Worcester Superior Court and given a 10 year State Prison Sentence and allowed a "Stay of Sentence Pending Appeal" resulting in Elbery walking out the front door of the Worcester Courthouse and remaining on the street for over a year until the Shrewsbury Police torched E-z Mini Storage in order to falsely arrest Elbery for possession of guns.
In the winter of 1994 Elbery had hired Attorney Robert Sheketoff of Boston, Mass. to write his Direct Appeal in order to overturn the "attempted mayhem" conviction. When Elbery was falsely arrested by the Shrewsbury Police on August 5, 1994 he had one attorney retained and that was Attorney Robert Sheketoff. As a result, Elbery's one call from the Shrewsbury Police Dept. on 8-5-94 was to his attorney, Robert Sheketoff. Elbery described the arrest/circumstances over the phone and then Sheketoff represented Elbery on the gun charges. Sheketoff's big question was, "do you have an F.I.D. card/license?". The answer was "yes". Sheketoff, at the point in time, exclaimed that the police had no right to arrest Elbery for gun charges because all he needed under the circumstances was an F.I.D. card!
Elbery's Stay of Sentence on the "attempted mayhem" conviction was revoked by Mass. Superior Court Judge Dan "Dirty Dan" Toomey a few days later in August 1994. Toomey agreed with former prosecutor A.D.A. Mike Ball that the "Stay" should be revoked due to the gun arrest at E-z Mini Storage by the Shrewsbury cops a few days earlier. A.D. A. Michael Ball, during the revocation hearing, claimed that Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card was revoked therefore acknowledging that Michael Elbery had an F.I.D. card/license . At that same hearing before Judge Dan Toomey, Attorney Robert Sheketoff stated during that revocation hearing before Judge Toomey, p. 8 lines 10-17, "it's not a crime Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card". Sheketoff also stated at that same hearing, p. 7 lines 10-20, "Elbery's F.I.D. is valid it is not revoked". Unfortunately for Sheketoff's client, Michael Elbery, the gun charges were filed by the arresting Shrewsbury Police in Westboro District Court and Judge Dan Toomey, in Worcester Superior Court, had absolutely no jurisdiction over the gun charges and Sheketoff knew it. But Sheketoff, as per this chapter of MassInjustice, would never utter those words again "there is no crime because my client, Michael Elbery, has a valid F.I.D. card," and if he had, and also stopped his capacity as a co-conspirator to falsely convict Michael Elbery, the case/charges by the Shrewsbury cops would have immediately ended. See below, that's all Attorney Brekka did - present proof of Elbery's F.I.D. card and Absolute Defense to the 6 gun charges and the case was over.
Yes, Sheketoff got his $5,000.00 up front from Elbery's wife and she showed him Elbery's F.I.D. card.
But then Sheketoff changed his tune.
Eight Months of Malicious Prosecution
Over the next several months, via a legal visit to Concord Prison, conversations during hearings at Westboro and Worcester District Courts, a series of letters, and a phone call on Christmas Day of 1994, Sheketoff tried to convince Michael Elbery that he was guilty of the gun possession charges, and then, the newly created, by Worcester D.A. John Conte's Office and S.P.D. James Hurley's, phony - C. 269 10a gun carrying charge. Sheketoff tried to convince Michael Elbery to plead guilty to the gun charges and to take the offer by D.A. John Conte of ONE YEAR PRISON SENTENCE on and after the current 10 years Elbery was doing for the "attempted mayhem" charge; Sheketoff opined that it was a good deal on the gun charges and that Elbery should agree. But Michael Elbery did not agree, nor does he now or will he ever AGREE.
Elbery had been insistent throughout the prosecution of the gun charges that there was a false arrest because he had a valid F.I.D. card on August 5, 1994 and that all that was required was an F.I.D. card because it was undisputed by Worcester D.A. John Conte's Office and the Shrewsbury Police that all the guns causing their arrest were in Elbery's leased E-z Storage container. Sheketoff would run to the prosecutor and police and tell them that Michael Elbery was adamant that he was not guilty of any gun crimes because he was legally licensed. The police, Shrewsbury cop - James Hurley, and John Conte's D.A.'s Office had what they thought was the answer, they added (fabricated) a new charge of 1 count of carrying a hand gun which is a violation of C. 269 10a.. D.A. John Conte's prosecution team simply crossed out one of the 10h possession charges and wrote in/fabricated a C. 269 10a carrying charge. That's right the trusted men in our society that are the "heroes" and can do no wrong changed (more falsifications) the original charges to pressure Michael Elbery into capitulation but it did not work. See all the documented original 10h possession charges and later added 10a carrying charge charge.
The phony gun carrying charge (C. 269 s. 10a) was written in by, then, Sgt. James Hurly of the Shrewsbury Police Dept. and John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office, about 30 days after the original charges of 8-5-94. Ya, the law enforcement authorities just scratched out one of the original gun possession 10h charges and wrote in the 10a charge.
In the interim, Sheketoff filed and deliberately blew the Direct Appeal on Elbery's "attempted mayhem" conviction. In early 1995 the Massachusetts Appeals Court Denied the Direct Appeal on the "attempted mayhem" conviction that Jewish Bobby Sheketoff deliberately scuttled. There were scores of issues Sheketoff could have raised on that Direct Appeal that would have been, at least, of consequence, but look at the 3 crappy issues Sheketoff raised instead. Those issues could not reverse a parking ticket let alone a conviction for a major felony that came with a 10 year prison sentence. Compare Sheketoff's Direct Appeal to Michael Elbery's Motion for New Trial, looks like Sheketoff missed something. See all Sheketoff's work/junk. The Shrewsbury cops didn't need to burn the E-z Mini Storage Complex because the Direct Appeal Sheketoff wrote was a piece of garbage; the decision of which would not have been effected by Elbery's "Stay of Sentence Pending Appeal".
Only legal issues of the record can be raised on a Direct Appeal. Look at Elbery's Motion for New Trial and you will see many that Sheketoff ignored.
Attorney Bobby "the Toff" Sheketoff is Fired from Gun Case
Michael Elbery quickly realized after retaining Sheketoff for the defense of the gun charges that Sheketoff was, at minimum, worthless as his defense attorney. At that point in time, 1994-1995, Elbery was not sophisticated enough in law to self-represent, but Sheketoff was contradicting himself about the gun law and the facts concerning Elbery and E-z Mini Storage. Nothing made sense with this little Jew, who originally was quick to make the simple legal point that under the circumstances ("simple gun possession") at E-z Mini Storage in August of 1994 all Michael Elbery legally needed was a valid F.I.D. card. And Michael Elbery, as a gun owner, knew this already and told the cops that when they threw him in jail on the gun charges. Once the Direct Appeal was lost, Elbery immediately fired Sheketoff from his defense of the gun charges and the Toffster had to comply. Sheketoff would talk to Elbery in 1995 and kept expressing (big phony act) his amazement that Elbery won (found not guilty) the gun charges. Sheketoff would refer to himself as a "pig". Bob the right word is not "pig" but Jew.
Bobby Sheketoff would ask how the second attorney Elbery had to hire after firing Sheketoff was able to get a not guilty verdict on all 6 gun charges. Elbery told Robert Sheketoff that it was as simple as alerting the authorities there is a license and presenting proof of the F.I.D. which Sheketoff knew Elbery had and which the police later admitted was valid on the date of arrest. Sheketoff also received documentation in September of 1994 during discovery of the criminal case that the Shrewsbury Police and Worcester D.A.'s Office were secretly admitting to their Co-conspirator, Bobby Sheketoff, that Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card was not revoked; this was only one month into the malicious prosecution that lasted 8 months.
Of course the C. 269 10a gun carrying charge was impossible because all the guns in question were stored in Elbery's leased E-z storage garage. This constitutes only "possession" of guns not "carrying." In 1994 all you needed to possess guns in Massachusetts was an F.I.D. card. In Massachusetts in August of 1994, if the guns, either handguns or long barrels, where in a location under your "sole and exclusive control" all you needed was an F.I.D. card (license); because sole and exclusive control constituted possession. Here is a legal treatise on the subject by the plaintiff with relevant fact and Massachusetts law cited; that treatise was written in 2002 for the benefit and at the request, before the Sklut trial, of Federal Judge Mark Wolf.
Lucky for Michael Elbery that the Shrewsbury cops (Sampson, Johnson, Hurley) didn't follow Massachusetts law and allow Elbery to get his F.I.D. card on 8-5-94; the cops would have destroyed Elbery's F.I.D. card and denied that they had ever issued the F.I.D. card to Elbery when Elbery lived in Shrewsbury, Mass. The State of Massachusetts' Department of Safety had a duplicate copy, but they are the government and can be relied on to support the police in their lies.
Attorney Ken Brekka makes the scene - new lawyer defending Elbery on E-z Mini Storage gun charges
In March of 1995, from a pay phone at Gardner State Prison ( N.E.C.C. - Mass. State Prison), Elbery hired Attorney Ken Brekka to defend him on the phony gun charges. The first question Brekka asked was "do you have a valid F.I.D. card"? The answer was "yes" and the case of 6 gun charges against Elbery was over. All bobby Sheketoff had to do was the same and Elbery would have been freed in August of 1994 and on the streets during review of his Direct Appeal by the Mass. Appeals Court (assuming the cops and Worcester D.A. John Conte did not falsify more arrests and malicious prosecutions).
Within a few weeks after hiring Attorney Brekka, Elbery was found NOT GUILTY OF ALL SIX GUN CHARGES by Worcester District Judge Eliot Zide at a jury waived trial on April 3, 1995 at Worcester District Court. The arresting Shrewsbury Police, Lt. Wayne Sampson and Lt. James Hurley, refused to show for that trial and D.A. John Conte declined to even send a prosecutor. They knew what they had done and they got caught so bad that they fled in fear hoping it would all go away under the "Judicial Carpet" like all the other false arrests and imprisonments that they were guilty of.
They were not able to corrupt Attorney Ken Brekka, after all it was primarily the locals ("Worcester County Home Rule Gangsters") and at that point in time the Jews were not the main force, but that would all change.
This Web Site believes that Attorney Brekka suffered retaliation from the "Worcester Home Rule Gangsters"/Authorities, including judges like Dan Toomey, Attorney Louis P. Aloise, and Worcester D.A. John Conte. Brekka did not want anything to do with a lawsuit against the Shrewsbury Police, although he firmly declared there was a false arrest and malicious prosecution by the Shrewsbury cops regarding Michael Elbery's arrest/imprisonment for the guns stored at E-z. Years later, while on parole, Michael Elbery would see Attorney Brekka on the streets of downtown Worcester while visiting his intelligence expert (spy) Robert McKeown; Brekka wanted to be as brief as possible and appeared worried that someone might see the association. Strange Brekka would later take the Gear case.
.... Know everything but Where the Spies Are
Without Bob McKeown, Michael Elbery would never have been alerted to Aloise and Toomey applying for judgeships, so that Michael Elbery could destroy any chance that Aloise would ever be a judge or that Judge Toomey would ever be appointed to the S.J.C. of Mass.. Bob McKeown (a.k.a. "Brookfield Bob," a.k.a. "the Alpiner") religiously read the Worcester T & G newspaper and during the 1990's would inform Michael Elbery, via the relevant news clippings or also by phone, if Elbery was on parole, of the information that would help defeat his enemies. Robert McKeown fought the Japs in the Pacific and was an electrical engineer who worked for NSA/General Electric during the 1950's thru 1960's ( Director Werner Von Braun's Space agency). Some of those news clippings from the Worcester T&G on this Web Site have his hand written notations.
More New World Order Justice - the cops cause the crime
Robert McKeown was a bar owner - a few miles from Michael Elbery's barroom. The police spent years sending in under cover cops to try and convince his bartenders to sell drugs to them. Finally, after years of trying to put McKeown out of business, the cops convinced a bartender to sell them cocaine; the bartender borrowed another bartender's car and drove down the street to get the undercover cops some cocaine which the cops paid handsomely for. If the cops had spent the same time and resources, they could have accomplished the same drug purchase at a McDonald's or Friendly's Restaurant. It is counter to what was once the American Justice System that the cops are allowed to initiate crime to get at their targeted enemies. After 20 years of doing business, the cops, via the local license board, revoked McKeown's liquor license and put him out of business; all because, after years of attempts, they finally bribed a part time bartender with a quick fat profit to make a quick drug sale because she needed the money. And that's what is now justice in this here U.S.A.
Federal Lawsuits (Elbery v. Sklut et al., Elbery v. Sheketoff et al.) - Court of Federal Judge Mark Wolf
As a result of the false arrest for guns at E-z and malicious prosecution by the Shrewsbury Police, Elbery filed the lawsuit Elbery v. Sklut et al. in the Federal District Court in Boston Mass. in 1997. That case would end in May of 2002 when it became obvious to Michael Elbery that to continue any further with the trial of the case would be walking into the unlawful trap that Judge Mark Wolf had designed and used fabricated law to implement. On the third day of trial, Elbery walked out of the Federal Courtroom in Boston, Mass. after trying to inform the federal jury (12 citizens) why the Proceedings (trial and Wolf's fabricated Mass. gun law) were fraud that could not result in any justice, but only Judge Wolf's illegal objective. Wolf would realize that Michael Elbery was trying to inform the jury of "Wolf's plot" while Plaintiff-Elbery was on the witness stand. Wolf yelled urgently to his lackey guards "get the jurors out of here". Wolf did not want the jury to be informed as to why Elbery was walking out on his case, and Wolf did not want Michael Elbery telling the jury how Wolf was falsifying Massachusetts gun laws in order to get a federal civil jury to find that Michael Elbery was guilty of the underlying gun charge of carrying, even though Elbery had been found NOT GUILTY of the same charge in the Massachusetts Court of jurisdiction.
Had Elbery not walked out, Federal judge Mark Wolf had already made (falsified Mass. gun law) law of the case. Wolf had already falsified Mass. law ( C. 269 s. 10a "gun carrying") during the Sheketoff case in Summary Judgment; Wolf documented, via his Sheketoff summary judgment decision, that a hand gun in Elbery's E-z storage garage constituted "carrying" (violation of M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a) under Massachusetts law and that the police had Probable Cause to arrest Elbery for guns as a result. The same fabricated law would be used by Wolf later in summary judgment decision of the Sklut case . The federal civil jury would have been instructed the same "phony Mark Wolf gun laws" and the jury would have been required to follow and apply the "fabricated Mark Wolf gun law" to find that Elbery was guilty of carrying guns as arrested. No, the federal court had no criminal jurisdiction and Wolf could not jail Elbery, nor levy any penalty at all. But Wolf wanted to undermine and discredit Michael Elbery with a guilty verdict by Elbery's, who would have been mislead by Judge Wolf, fellow citizens of the jury.
No Wonder the Citizenry Beg to Pay in Order to Know Their Own Law
It is hard to believe that a federal civil case could result in the jury finding that Elbery was guilty of Massachusetts criminal violations when Elbery had already been found not guilty of those criminal charges (Mass. gun violations) in a Massachusetts Court of jurisdiction and by a Massachusetts judge. No wonder the citizenry does not understand law. Presto! with one end of the pencil they erase law and with the other end of the pencil they write new laws! How convenient!
When Michael Elbery walked out of the Federal Courtroom - Judge Mark Wolf pleaded from the bench, "Don't Leave", "Come Back". Michael Elbery walked out the courtroom door while exclaiming that "the courts are corrupt". Wolf was powerless. A courtroom bailiff, sheepishly, followed behind Michael Elbery at about 30 yards as he walked through corridors and down stairs and exited the Boston Federal Courthouse out to the street.
5 year case - followed by "Economic Winter"
The Sklut case (See case docket) before Wolf would take years of discovery, including over a dozen depositions/motions, case status hearings, and numerous hearings regarding discovery disputes and the Summary Judgment Process. The Sklut defendants (Shrewsbury Police) during that 5 year case would have 3 different defense attorneys (including now Mass. Superior Ct. Judge - Elizabeth Fahey and Attorney "Bad Brad" Louison) and incur legal fees in excess of $100,000.00 all paid by the insurance company that insured the Shrewsbury Police against their deliberate illegalities. The insurance policy was paid by the taxpayers of the Town of Shrewsbury, as is the case in all municipalities in Mass. - the Municipal governments want to make sure their cops get away with their violations of law and violations of citizen's constitutional rights. Sadly, most people want to believe that the U.S.A. is not a "police state" and that the police never do anything illegal. It will only get worse with that kind of thinking. When U.S. government's fiscal and monetary policies finally fail and "Economic Winter" sets in there will be no utility for the American People to continue kidding themselves as to the state of their culture, society and government. If the Marxist (New American Communist) Obama is elected to a second term, which is a default because the white man is the minority vote in the U.S. now, a hyper-inflationary depression should materialize by 2014. Many that have lived in comfort and luxury will experience a new life style which they are incapable of sustaining.
Summary Judgment Process Sklut and Sheketoff cases
Elbery uses the "Summary Judgment" to Document Evidence and Failed Conspiracy to Falsely Imprison him
Long before the summary judgment decisions by Wolf on the Sheketoff and Sklut cases, Michael Elbery knew that he would get nowhere in the federal court; the same federal court that he, years earlier, thought was the solution and a place that would enforce justice via the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. After observing Federal Judge Patti Saris and her obnoxious decisions and biased attitude on Elbery's Hester case, Elbery knew he would never get a fair trial or any money for any case in the Federal Court, so he used the Summary Judgment Motion under Rule 56 of the F.R.C.P. to document how the Shrewsbury Police and Attorney Robert Sheketoff violated his Constitutional Rights while making their illegal search, false arrest, aborted malicious prosecution, all in conspiracy. There is nothing like using documents produced by the adversaries/enemies to prove your case and that is what Michael Elbery has done throughout every chapter of this Web Site - MassInjustice.
Elbery wanted to make use of the Summary Judgment Process to officially docket the documentation that proves the injustice he experienced to World Free Internet . The same Summary Judgment Process that is a tool the judges use to railroad civil cases by, amongst others, unpopular citizens with non - politically correct issues. The Summary Judgment Process is also called the "Summary Corruption Process". So named by Michael Elbery because the judges at both the state and federal court levels totally abuse Rule 56 of Civil Procedures to make sure certain civil cases or law suits never get before a jury (the judge shakes the basket of potatoes around and abuses the law and then dismisses a case like Michael Elbery's). After the Goldstein and Gear cases, the judiciary at the state and federal levels made sure that Michael Elbery never got another opportunity to crusade his cause before a jury. "They" have a good system of communications.
In the Sklut case, Elbery detailed in his Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, the evidence about his false arrest and illegalities at the E-z Mini Storage in Shrewsbury, Mass. on 8-5-94 and the injustice, via malicious prosecution, that followed for eight months . That "Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment", as written by Michael Elbery, documents the illegalities of the participating Shrewsbury, Mass. Police Dept., and documents reasons/irrefutable facts why the cops and Worcester D.A.'s Office were guilty of conspiring to knowingly maliciously prosecute Michael Elbery after they falsely arrested him for violations of the Mass. gun laws. That documentary, via his Memorandum, was evidence he would have presented at trial and went far beyond the documentation/proof required by Rule 56 of F.R.C.P that governs the Summary Judgment Process. Elbery also wrote that Memorandum to disclose to the World, via the Internet, the injustice in Massachusetts. The documentation must be docketed through a Court of Law to prove the Injustice is the Official Policy of the Government.
The list of documents itemized below comprise Michael Elbery's "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" in the Sklut case. The heart of the Motion for Summary Judgment is the Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment which contains all the evidence/documents and supporting affidavits, via hyperlinks, that proves the Shrewsbury Police Defendants' illegal activity as charged by Michael Elbery's lawsuit. The Motion For Summary Judgment is used as an introduction and leads into Memo in Support of Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Motion for Summary Judgment & Supporting Memorandum and Documents - Elbery v. Sklut et al.
Document 1 motion summary judgment
Document 2 List of documents/attachments summary judgment
Document 3 Affs in Support of summary judgment
Document 4 Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment
Document 5 Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment with Defendant's Statement of Material Facts
Document 6 Plaintiff's Reply to def. Opp. to Summary Judgment
Affidavits in Support of Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Summary Judgment
Document 7 Plaintiff's Reply Part II to Opp. to Sum Judgment
This was a relatively lengthy undertaking, (as per the list of Sklut documents listed and hyper linked above), and would have been impossible to have produced on a computer/(Microsoft Word) in a state prison where it was filed from, but Elbery anticipated being, again, pulled off the streets from parole in the Spring of 2000, so he wrote his "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment", as above, in the Spring of 2000 before the Jews fabricated their false charges against him. Elbery simply packaged the Sklut summary judgment motion and had it mailed to him at S.E.C.C. Prison where, in turn, Elbery mailed it to the Federal Clerk to be docketed to the Sklut case and start the summary judgment process.
And Michael Elbery did the same for the Sheketoff case which had been consolidated/joined with the Sklut case as below:
Summary Judgment Documents, Elbery v. Sheketoff et al., with supporting documents is as follows:
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Document Listing - Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Affidavits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Supplement in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (this document will be typed for easier reading - soon)
Defendant - Attorney Robert Sheketoff's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (See Doniger's cover letter - no list of Attachments or other documents)
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (this document will be typed for easier reading - soon)
Defendant - Attorney Robert Sheketoff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant - Attorney Sheketoff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Sheketoff's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment
Defendant Sheketoff's Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment
Defendant Sheketoff's Undisputed Facts in Support of Summary Judgment
Attorney Karen MacNutt's Affidavit
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Opposition to Defendant Sheketoff's Motion for Summary Judgment - 52 handwritten pages written in S.E.C.C. Prison (to be also typed soon)
Exhibit 1 in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition
Document Listing for Exhibit 1
Affidavits in Support of Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2 in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition
Document Listing for Exhibit 2
Affidavits in Support of Exhibit 2
Mark Wolf Falsifies Massachusetts Gun Law - Conspires with Attorney Bobby Sheketoff
During Summary Judgment of the case Elbery v. Sheketoff, Judge Mark Wolf would let Sheketoff "off the hook" by ruling that Elbery needed a Massachusetts "License to Carry Firearms" in order to have had a firearm in his rented E-Z storage garage. That's right, Elbery had six guns that were registered to him in his locked and leased Storage garage and Wolf claimed that Elbery's F.I.D. card was not legally sufficient under Mass. law, per p. 40-1st paragraph of Wolf decision. These were the same 6 guns as charged by the Shrewsbury Police at E-z on 8-5-94 and resulted in the Court of Criminal Jurisdiction finding, on 4-3-95, Elbery NOT GUILTY on all 6 charges. See Wolf's decision on the summary judgment of the Sheketoff case; pages 39-41 will give you Wolf's biased/falsification of the Mass. gun laws that were relevant to the arrest of Michael Elbery and the central issue of the Sheketoff case.
These fabrications by Wolf of the Mass. gun laws caused not only Sheketoff to be dismissed, but Judge Mark Wolf to falsely find the Shrewsbury police to have PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THEIR ARREST OF MICHAEL ELBERY. Because Wolf found PROBABLE CAUSE for the Sklut defendants' arrest THE CASE AGAINST THE SHREWSBURY COPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. But Wolf had other plans - he didn't follow the law during the Sheketoff case, and he had no intentions of following the law while continuing Elbery's case against the Shrewsbury cops in the Sklut case to trial. Wolf wanted to make Elbery guilty of those gun charges regardless of Mass. law and the legal decision made by Mass. Judge Zide, in the underlying criminal case in Worcester District Court; that in Mass. you only needed an F.I.D. card to have possession of guns in a storage unit that was under your "sole and exclusive control" (same as your house).
Wolf's 52 page decision of the Sheketoff Summary Judgment (summary corruption process) is loaded with factual misrepresentations which this Web Site will take time to unravel. It gets tiring untying the lying knots that these people have tied as disclosed in this Web Site. It takes years to document the truth when the government goes on for years trying to destroy a citizen with one false accusation/arrest after another as per this Web Site. The government (any and all levels of government) have exponentially more resources than any citizen; in Michael Elbery's case all government levels were and are still working against him. Their power is reckless and lazy and they get caught as you see in this Web Site.
All plaintiff - Michael Elbery's claims per his lawsuit against the Shrewsbury cops required that the cops had NO PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest.
Along Comes Attorney Robert "Bobby" Sheketoff - fellow Jew; Elbery v. Sheketoff et al
The Sklut case was joined with Elbery's federal s. 1983 case against Attorney Robert Sheketoff. because of the same underlying facts (the false arrest of Michael Elbery at the E-Z arson of 1994) - doom for Elbery and his quest for justice and monetary reward that should have been worth a fortune, if presented before an unbiased court. But Sheketoff is a Jew and Wolf was never going to allow Bobby "another Jew" Sheketoff to be found liable to Michael Elbery for anything, let alone conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Elbery, who was Sheketoff's client for the first 7 months of the gun charges.
Federal Judge Mark Wolf Starts his Conspiracy to Falsify Massachusetts Gun Law M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a
The case/lawsuit against Attorney Sheketoff was grounded on strictly a Legal Issue (Elbery had an F.I.D. card/license and Sheketoff had a duty to alert the court to that "Absolute Defense of License" to the gun arrest by the Shrewsbury Police). There was no dispute as to the Underlying Facts of the Arrest pertaining to the 6 criminal gun charges by the Shrewsbury cops against Michael Elbery, not even Sheketoff or his legal representation tried to create disputed facts regarding the arrest at E-z. Sheketoff via presentation by his defense attorney, Tony "the Tiger" Doniger did try to malign the legal issues concerning that arrest and Judge Mark Wolf made sure they succeeded. It was Sheketoff, see his Affidavit # 17 and 22, that invented the fabrication of Mass. G.L. C. 269 s. 10 a ( outside home or residence is carrying a firearm and a violation of C. 269 s. 10a "gun carrying" statute) that Judge Mark Wolf would use in his participation of Conspiracy. Sheketoff's attorney, Tony Doniger, was smart enough during the Summary Judgment of the case to simply forward to the court of Judge Mark Wolf, via his Motion for Summary Judgment in the Sheketoff case, Sheketoff's fabricated version of Mass. C. 269 s. 10a, so that Wolf could adopt it in his decision on the Sheketoff decision.
Federal Judge Mark Wolf would be quick to adopt Sheketoff's, See Sheketoff's Affidavits #17-22, fabricated version of Mass. G.L. C. 269 s. 10a in his Summary Judgment decisions in the Sklut and Sheketoff cases in order to defeat Plaintiff - Michael Elbery and falsely find that the Shrewsbury Police had Probable Cause to arrest Michael Elbery at E-z Mini storage on 8-5-94, although Worcester District Judge Eliot Zide, years earlier in 1995, had already, in the criminal court of jurisdiction of those 6 gun charges, found Elbery Not Guilty. Of course, Judge Zide used the real law of Mass. C. 269 s.10a (gun carrying law), which is that if the guns are in a "location under the sole and exclusive control" of a citizen then there could not be "carrying" in Mass. at 1994. And then all that would be needed would be a valid F.I.D. card.
The same exact Legal Issue that caused Attorney Brekka to let the authorities (cops, Worcester D.A., and Court) know Elbery had a valid license to possess the guns in E-z Storage and caused Worcester District Judge Zide to make his decision of Not Guilty on all gun charges without any testimony or additional evidence was the same Legal Issue that was the grounds for all the claims in the lawsuit against Sheketoff. All Brekka did to get the Not Guilty Verdicts in Judge Zide's court was to raise the "Absolute Defense of License" and present Judge Zide with proof that Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card/license was valid on 8-5-94. The gun charges were decided by Judge Zide as a "matter of law" - the "Absolute Defense" to the gun charges was Elbery's F.I.D. license. And that's all Sheketoff had to do, but he refused - Sheketoff remained silent on the issue of License at the Search Warrant Suppression Hearing before Judge John S. McCann at Westboro District Court and during his entire 7 months of representation. Not one word or question about license/F.I.D card or "Absolute Defense" at the Suppression Hearing and there was a defense attorney (Bob Sheketoff), a lawyer/prosecutor from the Worcester D.A.'s Office (one - John Revelli ), Judge John S. McCann of the Westboro District Court, and several Shrewsbury cops/law enforcement officers ( "law enforcement" means they are supposed to know law in order to enforce it). The Legal Issue before Judge Mark Wolf, via Elbery's Summary Judgment Motion, against Sheketoff was the same - "Sheketoff had to raise the "Absolute Defense of License" (Elbery's valid F.I.D. card)", but instead refused and told Elbery to plead guilty to all the charges and take a year on and after the 10 years he was doing for the phony "attempted mayhem" charges. But Wolf would not let it (Sheketoff had to present Elbery's F.I.D. card/license the "Absolute Defense" to the gun charges) be a legal issue because a Legal Issue is decided by the Court (the judge on the case - Federal Judge Mark Wolf) and worse for Wolf that same issue of law had been decided by Judge Zide when he found Elbery not guilty of all 6 gun charges because Elbery was licensed to possess those same 6 guns at E-z and Wolf was required by Law of Legal Malpractice to follow that same legal decision made by Judge Zide in the underlying criminal case/court of jurisdiction.
Want More Silence/Conspiracy by Attorney Sheketoff?
Sheketoff's Motion to Suppress E-z Search Warrant, Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress Search Warrant, Sheketoff's Post Hearing Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion to Suppress
Sheketoff admitted, per his "Amended Motion to Suppress" he saw Elbery's F.I.D. card ,( see Affidavit #4), and submitted this document amongst his Co-conspirators who ignored it; at the same time Sheketoff tried to convince Elbery that his F.I.D. license was not an "Absolute Defense" because the Shrewsbury Police added a new gun carrying charge/violation of Mass. G.L. C. 269 s.10a. In this same Amended Motion to Suppress Sheketoff states in Affidavit #4 that the police have produced no evidence that Elbery's F.I.D. card was anything but valid on the date of arrest, 8-5-94.
Also see the Transcript of the Suppression Hearing where there is not one word uttered by Sheketoff, the presiding Judge - John S. McCann, the A.D.A. John Revelli, or the testifying Shrewsbury cops about the issue of License which would have been an "Absolute Defense" against the Search and Seizure of the guns the cops took at E-z Mini storage and caused Elbery's false arrest. How could such silence have occurred during a judicial hearing in a U.S. court that is supposed to be justice? No wonder Plaintiff - Michael Elbery sued, per his complaints/lawsuits against Attorney Sheketoff and the Shrewsbury cops, that there was a conspiracy to violate his U.S. Constitutional Rights and to falsely arrest, maliciously prosecute and imprison Michael Elbery.
Federal Judge Mark Wolf's Summary Judgment Decision - Elbery v. Sheketoff
Federal Judge Mark Wolf Evades Biggest Issue of the Sheketoff Case - Sheketoff's "Standard of Care" was an Issue of Law already Decided by Judge Zide 4-3-95 - No Expert Witness Required!
The "Standard of Care" that Defendant - Sheketoff should have taken in defense of the gun charges by the Shrewsbury cops against Michael Elbery was an "Issue of Law" already determined by Judge Zide in Worcester District Court when Zide made a purely Legal Decision ( the underlying facts of the arrest of Michael Elbery by the Shrewsbury Police at E-z mini storage were undisputed) in finding Michael Elbery Not Guilty of all 6 gun charges. This was one of several exceptions that Plaintiff - Michael Elbery raised in his Memorandum to counter the need for an expert witness in the Legal Malpractice Case against Attorney Robert Sheketoff (Count V of Plaintiff - Elbery's Complaint). Plaintiff - Elbery also raised, per his Memorandum, legal issues/law that required Judge Mark Wolf to decide in Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's favor, as a matter of law, on 3 of the remaining 4 elements of Legal Malpractice Count by Plaintiff - Elbery against Sheketoff. Only the element of damages would have gone before the jury if Judge Mark Wolf acted according to law and in an honest manner.
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery attempted to hire an attorney of the bar to act as his expert witness to testify as to the "standard of care" Sheketoff should have taken in defense of the gun charges but the attorneys were intimidated. The Jews went right after Attorney Karen MacNutt who was known to be expert witness or attorney that testified regarding the Mass. gun laws in legal malpractice cases. Since Plaintiff - Elbery was prevented by Jewish shakedown of expert witnesses for his case, Elbery used law that states there are exceptions in Legal Malpractice cases for the need for an expert witness to testify to the "Standard of Care" Sheketoff should have taken in defense of the 6 gun charges by the Shrewsbury cops against Elbery.
Judge Mark Wolf tried to conceal the most important issue of the Sheketoff Case. That issue is that Attorney Robert Sheketoff had a duty, as a matter of law, to present the "Absolute Defense of License" to the Court of Jurisdiction (not Judge Toomey at the Stay Revocation Hearing - that Worcester Superior Court did not have the gun charges - the District Court in Westboro did at that time) in defense of the gun charges against his client - Michael Elbery. The "Standard of Care" that Sheketoff had to take, as a matter of law, in defense of the gun charges against Michael Elbery was to simply present the "Absolute Defense of License" (Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card). You don't need to be a lawyer, judge or Michael Elbery to understand this simple law - every American citizen knows that the Defense Attorney - Sheketoff should have immediately alerted the police, prosecutor and court that his client had an "Absolute Defense" to the gun charges against him!
Not Instead, as Attorney Bobby Sheketoff did, let Elbery be falsely arrested and remain that way while being falsely imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted on the 6 phony Shrewsbury Police Dept. gun charges for eight months.
The biggest and most important issue raised by Michael Elbery in his Summary Judgment is that Sheketoff's malpractice and the "Standard of Care" Sheketoff should have taken in defense of the 6 gun charges against Michael Elbery had already been decided by the underlying Court/District Judge Zide as a "matter of law". See Plaintiff - Elbery's Supplement and Memorandum (see pg. 7 last sentence 3d paragraph, pg. 9 5th and 6th paragraphs, pg. 10 3d paragraph, pg. 13 last paragraph). The underlying criminal case decides issues of law in a Legal Malpractice case, see p. 4 of Plaintiff's Supplement for law cited in Mallen & Smith, Legal Malpractice, Vol. 4 p. 182, 1996. As ordered by Michael Elbery, Sheketoff had to present the F.I.D. card/"Absolute Defense of License".
The 6 gun charges against Michael Elbery were decided by Worcester District Judge Eliot Zide as a "matter of law". There were no disputed facts concerning the underlying arrest of Michael Elbery by the Shrewsbury Police at E-z Mini Storage on 8-5-94. Elbery's second defense attorney, Ken Brekka, simply presented Elbery's F.I.D. card that, after 7 months and Sheketoff was fired, the cops admitted and Worcester D.A.'s Office admitted was valid on 8-5-94 and Judge Zide applied Massachusetts gun laws to the case and found Michael Elbery was NOT GUILTY of any of the 6 gun charges as a "matter of law". Judge Zide found that the 6 guns that were in Elbery's E-z Mini Storage garage constituted SIMPLE POSSESSION (No Carrying of guns - a violation of M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a) and that Michael Elbery presented an ABSOLUTE DEFENSE to the 6 gun charges before Zide because Elbery had a valid License to Possess guns on 8-5-94. The Shrewsbury Police, and the Worcester D.A.'s Office admitted (over 7 months after their false arrest and malicious prosecution of Elbery for guns at E-z and after Michael Elbery fired Sheketoff) that the F.I.D./license was valid against their false charges and 8 months of malicious prosecution.
There was absolutely nothing new about the law that controlled the guns that Michael Elbery had stored in dead storage at E-z Mini Storage on 8-5-94; the guns were not in a "public place" but in place that was "under the sole and exclusive control" of Michael Elbery. Therefore, Judge Zide applied what was simple law that everybody knew (including 1,000,000 licensed gun owners/citizens in Massachusetts) except the Co - conspirators whose main link in the conspiracy to imprison/falsely convict Michael Elbery was Attorney Bobby Sheketoff of Boston, Mass.
Here's Why Federal Judge Mark Wolf evaded this Legal Issue raised by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery
Here's why Judge Mark Wolf evaded this issue raised by Michael Elbery in his Plaintiff's Memorandum and Supplement to his Motion for Summary Judgment on the Sheketoff lawsuit. The law states that the Underlying Criminal Case determines if an issue in the resulting legal Malpractice lawsuit is an issue of fact or law and that classification of fact or law must be maintained in the civil case/resulting lawsuit. See Memorandum (see pg. 7 last sentence 3d paragraph, pg. 9 5th and 6th paragraphs, pg. 10 3d paragraph, pg. 13 last paragraph) and Supplement p. 4 for this and citations of law.
As a result, raising the "Absolute Defense" by presenting proof of Elbery's F.I.D. card to the Court of Jurisdiction was the "Standard of Care" that Attorney Robert Sheketoff was required to take as a "matter of law" concerning his defense of Michael Elbery against the 6 gun charges by the Shrewsbury cops on 8-5-94. In other words, the "Standard of Care" was the same for Sheketoff as it was for Brekka - present the "Absolute Defense" which caused the charges to be decided not guilty. There has never in Judicial History of this here United States been a more simple "Standard of Care" in a legal case, criminal or civil! Just tell the court of jurisdiction that the citizen who got arrested is Not Guilty because he has a License/F.I.D. card which is an "Absolute Defense" to all the charges.
Here's were Wolf comes in. Questions of Law are decided by the Court (Wolf in the Sheketoff case). In the Summary Judgment of the Sheketoff case the Court is the Judge - Mark Wolf. Wolf had no choice but to follow what had been established by Massachusetts Judge Eliot Zide when Zide made a purely legal ruling on a purely Legal Issue and as a Matter of Massachusetts Law found Michael Elbery Not Guilty of all 6 gun charges by presentation to the Court, Zide, of Elbery's License/"Absolute Defense". Wolf was restrained by this same Issue of Law already established in Zide's court in determining Sheketoff's "Standard of Care" that Sheketoff was required to take in defense of his client - Michael Elbery against the phony 6 gun charges.
In his deliberately misleading, inaccurate, and convoluted 52 pages that Wolf calls a decision on the Summary Judgment of the Sheketoff case, Wolf never recognizes this legal issue raised by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery in Elbery's Memorandum (see pg. 7 last sentence 3d paragraph, pg. 9 5th and 6th paragraphs, pg. 10 3d paragraph, pg. 13 last paragraph), Opposition and Supplement and for good reason because the law says Judge Mark Wolf was mandated to follow the law as had been decided 5 years earlier in Judge Eliot Zide's court when Zide made a verdict decision based on an "Issue of Law" and as a "Matter of Massachusetts Law" found Elbery not guilty all because an "Absolute Defense" was presented to Zide by Michael Elbery's second defense attorney, Ken Brekka, in the form of License to Possess Firearms or Elbery's F.I.D. card. This is exactly the "Standard of Care" Sheketoff, as a matter of law, had to take. Yes Sir, the "Standard of Care" Sheketoff should have taken was the same as Attorney Brekka took and Judge Zide made it law for Wolf to follow. See Plaintiff's Memorandum (see pg. 7 last sentence 3d paragraph, pg. 9 5th and 6th paragraphs, pg. 10 3d paragraph, pg. 13 last paragraph) and Plaintiff's Supplement in the Sheketoff Summary Judgment.
Wolf there was no need for an expert witness to establish "Standard of Care" because all Sheketoff was mandated to do, according to Massachusetts law, was present the "Absolute Defense of License" and that was the law of the Malpractice case by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery against Sheketoff. Wolf had no choice but to follow the law established in the underlying court of Judge Zide and acknowledge he was required to maintain the issue of law and acknowledge the Exception for Need of an Expert Witness to testify as to the "Standard of Care" against Sheketoff and then find, as required by law, that Sheketoff violated that "Standard of Care". "Standard of Care" would not have been an issue to be resolved by the jury at trial because it should have been decided, as above, in Elbery's favor by Wolf as a "matter of law".
See p. 36 of Wolf Decision - Wolf notes that Elbery raised the issue but conceals it by treating it as part of the "Plain and Obvious Exception" (one of several exceptions recognized by Federal law to the need for an Expert Witness in a Legal Malpractice Case) for needing an expert witness to testify against Sheketoff. The "Plain and Obvious Exception" for need for an expert witness to testify in a Legal Malpractice case or lawsuit is distinctly different.
Why did Wolf ignore/evade the law raised in Elbery's Memorandum and Supplement that required Judge Mark Wolf to make a "purely legal decision" on Sheketoff's "Standard of Care" that was a simple issue of law? The Supplement is docketed (see docket entries of 1-8-01 and 1-10-01). Wolf never denies the Supplement - No Wolf pretends the law Elbery raised in his Memorandum (see pg. 7 last sentence 3d paragraph, pg. 9 5th and 6th paragraphs, pg. 10 3d paragraph, pg. 13 last paragraph) and Supplement that required Wolf to make a strictly legal decision concerning the "Standard of Care" Sheketoff should have exercised in defense of the 6 gun charges did not exist; Wolf simply EVADED that issue that required that as a "matter of law" he had to find not only that there was no need for an expert witness against Sheketoff but also that Wolf had to find as a "matter of law" that Sheketoff violated his "Standard of Care" in defense of the 6 gun charges against Elbery. That Defendant - Attorney Robert Sheketoff was required, as a matter of law, to present The "Absolute Defense" to the gun charges which was the License (Elbery's Valid F.I.D. card) in order to be in compliance concerning his "Standard of Care".
And could it be more Simple? Everybody in the World can understand that, License = Not Guilty and Co-conspirators lose.
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery then raised the Issue again in his Reply to Defendant's Opposition to his Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment p.2-4, but also presented law that defeated Sheketoff's argument about the timing of the "Standard of Care". See pages 2-4 of Elbery's Reply, it discloses that Massachusetts law requires an attorney to present the Defense of License to the Court of Jurisdiction at the earliest time. Only the Court of Judge Mark "the Maniac" Wolf would anybody have to state such obvious law. Mark "the maniac" stated per his decision (see p. 43) that it was correct and good strategy for Attorney Sheketoff to deliberately refuse to present Elbery's F.I.D. card/"Absolute Defense" and let Elbery suffer the damages of a False arrest and Malicious Prosecution for 8 months while imprisoned. Wolf further stated per p. 43 of his decision that Sheketoff's conduct was a "wise view" of "professional judgment". Wolf per that same page "validates" Sheketoff's defense of Michael Elbery.
Sheketoff admitted during deposition testimony (See p. 13 - 1st paragraph of Wolf's decision confirming this Sheketoff statement via affidavit #4 of Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress and Sheketoff's Statement #32) that he knew Elbery's F.I.D. card existed due to seeing it, and that the Shrewsbury police and John Conte's Office finally admitted (See Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress Affidavit #4) in writing they had no evidence that Elbery's F.I.D. card was revoked, therefore, they admitted it was valid. Sheketoff admitted, via these Affidavits, (See Wolf decision pg. 12 last paragraph & p.13 first paragraph - confirming this Sheketoff Testimony) that he knew all this but refused to even attempt to get the gun charges dismissed. Instead, Sheketoff tried to convince his client - Michael Elbery that he was guilty and plead guilty to all 6 gun charges and take Worcester D.A. John Conte's D.A.'s Office offer of one year sentence to be served after the 10 years Elbery was doing on the phony "attempted mayhem" charges.
Judge Mark Wolf points to Irrefutable Evidence that Judge John S. McCann was a knowing Co-conspirator
Judge Mark Wolf also is quick to point out, per his Sheketoff decision p. 13 - 1st paragraph, that Mass. District Judge John S. McCann went along with the conspiracy, after seeing Affidavit #4 of Sheketoff Amended Motion to Suppress and found, per Judge John S. McCann's decision, that the Search and Seizure by the Shrewsbury cops of Elbery's E-z garage was perfectly legal. Of course, Judge McCann never mentioned that he knew that he was alerted by Sheketoff's "Amended Motion to Suppress" that Michael Elbery had a valid F.I.D. license and "Absolute Defense" to the search and gun charges and that the Shrewsbury cops and John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office admitted that the F.I.D. was not revoked. But that was the plan and they made McCann a Superior Court Judge for his good work (a.k.a. conspiracy to violate Michael Elbery's U.S. Constitutional Rights).
Elbery Raises Another Exception to Need for An Expert Witness in Order to Prove Sheketoff's Standard of Care - Federal "Gross and Obvious Standard"
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery also raised the "Gross and Obvious" Standard in his Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, per Pgs. 14-16. This "Gross and Obvious Standard" allows a plaintiff in a Legal Malpractice case, like Elbery's against Sheketoff, to prosecute his case against an attorney without an expert witness; an expert witness in a Legal Malpractice case testifies as to what the defendant attorney, like Sheketoff, should have done (his "standard of care") in defense of his client Michael Elbery concerning the defense of the gun charges.
The legal theory behind the "Gross and Obvious Standard" is that a plaintiff should not need an expert witness (an expert witness in a Legal Malpractice case is always an "Attorney of the Bar") to produce evidence as to the "Standard of Care" the defense attorney should have taken in the underlying criminal case when the plaintiff is suing the criminal defense attorney for Negligence (count IV of Elbery's lawsuit against Sheketoff) because the facts are so simple and the offending conduct by the defense attorney was so outrageous that any juror could understand the "standard of care" without some expert attorney telling them, via testimony, what the Defendant - Attorney should have done. The case against Sheketoff did not need an expert witness because any juror could understand that Sheketoff should have done the same thing Attorney Ken Brekka did (after Elbery fired Sheketoff) which was simply to raise the "Absolute Defense of License"/F.I.D. card. And Judge Zide made it law that Wolf was required to follow, see Memorandum p. 7 last sentence 3d paragraph, pg. 9 5th and 6th paragraphs, pg. 10 3d paragraph, pg. 13 last paragraph and Plaintiff Elbery's Supplement to Memorandum, that the "standard of care" that should have been taken by the defense attorney on the underlying 6 criminal gun charges against Michael Elbery was to simply raise the "Absolute Defense of License" and present proof of Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card.
Citizens/gun owners are expected to know the gun laws in Massachusetts, see this issue raised in Plaintiff - Elbery's Reply pgs. 9-10. This once again makes it not just "Gross and Obvious" but law that any juror could understand that Attorney Sheketoff should have presented the "Absolute Defense of License" (Elbery's F.I.D. card). Yes, that would be his "Standard of Care" that he obviously by any man's standard should have taken in defense of the 6 gun charges against his client - Michael Elbery.
The seminal case in the U.S. First Circuit that is used for the "Gross and Obvious Standard" is the Wagenmann case as pointed out by Plaintiff - Elbery in his Memorandum pgs. 14-16. Amongst other things the jury in Wagenmann would have had to guess what a psychiatrist would have found regarding Wagenmann's sanity and decided what the judge would have decided regarding Wagenmann's sanity had the psychiatrist testified in a hearing . This would have required the jury to probe Judge Luby's mental process which is strictly forbidden according to law. See Glen v. Aiken, 409 Mass. 699, 569 N.E. 2d 783 ('91) as cited per Plaintiff - Elbery's Reply on page 13. There were no orders by Wagenmann as there was by Elbery to Sheketoff when Elbery ordered Sheketoff to tell the presiding judge or court of jurisdiction that Elbery had a license/F.I.D. card that was an "Absolute Defense" to all the gun charges. In other words the "standard of care" that Attorney Robert Sheketoff should have taken in his defense of Michael Elbery was much more "Gross and Obvious" than what Attorney Healy should have done (his "standard of care") in his defense of Wagenmann; all Sheketoff had to do was tell the judge "Absolute Defense of F.I.D. License".
Wolf falsely claims that the psychiatrist already found that Wagenmann was sane before the Worcester District Judge Luby threw Wagenmann in the insane asylum see p. 34 of Wolf decision. (Ironically, Judge Luby was the Chief Worcester District Judge and anyone who observed Luby would agree that he needed mental treatment and that is today's Judiciary in Mass.).
An "Absolute Defense" is a complete defeat of the criminal charges. There is no middle ground when a criminal defendant has an "Absolute Defense" against the gun charges - the law says the criminal charges are Groundless and must cease (either by Dismissal or Not Guilty). In fact, a criminal defendant that raises a successful Absolute Defense such as License should never have been a criminal defendant at all. Makes you wonder how Michael Elbery was maliciously prosecuted for 8 months on those gun charges and needed a new, for $5K, lawyer (Brekka) to simply tell the court there is a license/valid F.I.D. Only Conspiracy is the answer because, as is, and will be documented in this Chapter of MassInjustice.Org not only did 6 Shrewsbury cops know Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card when they arrested him at E-z on 8-5-94, but the prosecutors on the case, including A.D.A. Chris White and A.D.A. John Revelli and District Attorney John Conte, knew as did Judge John S. McCann; and they all knowingly allowed and participated in an 8 month malicious prosecution of Elbery until Brekka got hired. Oh, and of course, Attorney Robert Sheketoff knew Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card but was determined to imprison Elbery on the charges and help prosecute him.
Attempted Indictment of Gun Charges - Paul Bolton, Chris White, D.A. John Conte "chicken out"
These same co-conspirators, Worcester District Court A.D.A. Chris White and John Revelli with the Conspiracy of Elbery's defense Attorney - Robert Sheketoff, tried to get the Grand Jury to indict Michael Elbery on the same 6 gun charges, in order to get Elbery more prison time that was carried on those gun charges under Superior Court Jurisdiction, but the Assistant District Attorneys (Paul Bolton) in the Superior Court Division got cold feet and bounced back the charges to the Worcester District Court Division (Chris White and company). Attorney Paul Bolton got scared with these new phony gun charges against Michael Elbery; Bolton had already violated the law and impaired the Grand Jury ,once, when he concealed all the evidence produced at the Probable Cause Hearing on the "attempted mayhem" charges. Bolton realized that it was not as easy as he had been told regarding the framing of Michael Elbery and thought that like every other defendant that got screwed by Conte's D.A.'s Office that Michael Elbery would just lay down and accept his fate. Paul Bolton would later flee John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office when Michael Elbery filed his Appeal of his Motion for New Trial on the "attempted mayhem" conviction. Attorney Louis P. Aloise conveyed to the Worcester D.A.'s Office that Michael Elbery could never had made any money while owning Mulcahy's Bar. Lou is a "pay check guy" and has no idea how to stand on his own two feet. Get those court appointments Lou, otherwise you won't get fed your bowl of spaghetti and spicy meatballs.
So What Did Federal Judge Mark Wolf Decide concerning the Need for an Expert Witness and the "Gross and Obvious Standard"?
Well, Wolf couldn't be honest and act according to the law. If he did then Michael Elbery would have won the case. No, Wolf did not find per his decision pg. 34 that Elbery's case against Sheketoff concerning Sheketoff's defense of the 6 gun charges were far more Gross and Obvious (simple) than what the jury would hear compared to the Wagenmann case, but that the two cases (Elbery's case against Sheketoff as compared to Wagenmann) were distinguishable. No kidding Wolf, of course the facts of the 2 cases were different (distinguishable) - that does nothing for your goal of "bailing out" Bobby Sheketoff. Wolf does not tell you that the "Standard of Care" that Sheketoff should have taken in defense of the 6 gun charges against his client Michael Elbery was to immediately inform the authorities (cops and court of jurisdiction) that Michael Elbery was legally licensed when the cops arrested him at E-z Mini Storage on 8-5-94. Never before in Judicial History has there been an easier "Standard of Care" for a defense attorney to perform and a civil jury to understand. Wolf knew the issue was the jury's ability to understand what Sheketoff should have done ("Standard of Care") in defense of the 6 gun charges, but he was trying to be tricky by avoiding the issue and claiming distinguishable.
Wolf instead distinguishes Wagenmann case from Elbery's case against Sheketoff as follows:
P. 35 of Wolf decision - that conduct Elbery complains concerning Sheketoff's alleged defense/representation were not so "Gross and Obvious" that an expert witness was not necessary for a jury to decide and understand the "Standard of Care" that Sheketoff should have taken in defense of Elbery.
p. 35 of Wolf decision - that Sheketoff, unlike the attorney in Wagenmann, appeared at an arraignment, Sheketoff appeared at Worcester Superior Court on 8-10-94 when they revoked Elbery's Stay of Sentence Pending Appeal.
p. 36 of Wolf decision - Wolf goes on to praise Sheketoff because he filed a "Motion to Suppress" and even attended a Suppression Hearing on that Motion, in addition to filing a "Post-Motion Brief" and "Amended Motion to Suppress"
.p. 36 of Wolf decision - Wolf further states that Sheketoff requested "Discovery" on the gun case against Elbery. And most outrageous, Federal Judge Mark Wolf in support of Attorney Robert Sheketoff states that Sheketoff formulated a trial strategy.
p. 36 of Wolf decision - Lastly, Wolf cites Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Ex. E in support of his Memorandum (Sheketoff's filing of the Pre-Trial Conference Report) where Sheketoff offers a "partial defense of license" and requested from the Worcester D.A. and Shrewsbury cops all documentation/evidence that Elbery's F.I.D. card was revoked.
Federal Judge Mark Wolf missed the point and the law - Sheketoff did not need to do anything but raise the "Absolute Defense of License". Wolf's list of Sheketoff's superficial engagement of legal procedures while being attorney of record for Elbery's defense of the 6 gun charges was evidence that Sheketoff was furthering the conspiracy, as complained by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery, per his lawsuit.
Based on Wolf's above list of futile Procedural Exercises by Attorney Sheketoff, Judge Mark Wolf found per his decision that the "Gross and Obvious Standard" in Wagenmann did not apply to the malpractice count of Elbery's lawsuit and that Plaintiff - Elbery would be required to provide an expert witness to testify as to the "Standard of Care" Sheketoff should have taken in defense of Michael Elbery against the 6 gun charges.
Here's what Judge Mark Wolf did not include/state per his Summary Judgment Decision on the Sheketoff case.
The Wagenmann case didn't last a day and Wagenmann was rescued from an overnight stay at the Worcester County House (jail) for the Insane, but Sheketoff continued his non representation of Michael Elbery for almost 8 months. What Wolf does not want to talk about/disclose per his 52 page Decision is that Sheketoff refused to do what Elbery's second attorney, Ken Brekka, did immediately once he got the $5K fee; Attorney Ken Brekka alerted the Shrewsbury cops and John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office that his new client, that they had been prosecuting for over 7 months, had a valid license/F.I.D. card and that the 6 gun charges were Bogus. The cops and Conte's office knew Brekka was not a Co-conspirator and they realized they got caught and ran for the hills never to been seen again on the criminal case. Further, Wolf does not want it to be known that once Worcester District Judge Eliot Zide found Elbery not guilty of all 6 gun charges upon presentation by Brekka of proof of Elbery's F.I.D. card, then Zide, who made a "legal decision" via his verdict, made the "Standard of Care" for the defense attorney's representing Elbery on the 6 gun charges an ISSUE OF LAW, all according to Legal Malpractice Law, required to be followed by Judge Mark Wolf in the Legal Malpractice case by Elbery against Attorney Sheketoff. Sheketoff had over 7 months to do the most simple legal procedure and that was present the "Absolute Defense of License" in defense of the 6 gun charges and get the charges dismissed.
"Standard of Care" is Grossly Obvious & Causing an Exception to Expert Witness Requirement
Under the "Gross and Obvious Standard" all the plaintiff, Michael Elbery, would have had to do was present evidence to the federal civil jury that all Sheketoff had to do was alert the authorities that his client, Michael Elbery, had an "Absolute Defense of License" to the 6 gun charges and that would have caused an immediate verdict of dismissal/Not Guilty. And this would establish the "Standard of Care" without an Attorney of the Bar testifying as an expert witness.
Nor does Mark Wolf, per his decision, allow you to know what Michael Elbery disclosed repeatedly in his Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Documents that at the Evidence Suppression Hearing there is not one word about an F.I.D. card or License that would have, as a matter of Mass. law, been an "Absolute Defense" to the 6 gun charges and made the Search of Elbery's E-z garage illegal, regardless of which story you choose that the 6 searching Shrewsbury cops told regarding their justification for Search of that E-z unit. Because Elbery had an F.I.D. card the search and seizure of Elbery's E-z garage was illegal, but Sheketoff did nothing. Instead, Sheketoff remained deliberately silent on the issue of License at that Suppression Hearing along with his Co-conspirators Attorney/A.D.A. John Revelli, Judge John S. McCann, and all the 6 cops. Hard to believe that there would be silence on the issue of License amongst so many legal professionals in a court in the U.S.A.. The first question that a judge would ask regarding a search and seizure of guns in Massachusetts at an Evidence Suppression Hearing is "Is there a License?"
And it's all documented with irrefutable evidence - see the transcript.
Likewise for Ex. E supporting Elbery's Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum that Wolf highlights as a selling point for Sheketoff. Sure in the privacy of fellow conspirator A.D.A. Attorney John Revelli and the other co-conspirators in Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office Sheketoff notes, via a hand written notation, "defense in part based on license". But Sheketoff does nothing about the partial defense. The law requires an attorney, see Elbery's Reply p. 2, "to raise a defense or objection which is capable of determination without trial of the general issue as soon as is feasible or immediately and not wait to file a Motion to Dismiss any charges that would be defended/dismissed by license". This is exactly what Michael Elbery told Sheketoff when there were 5 possession (269 -10h charges) and Elbery continued ordering Sheketoff to Motion to Dismiss even after the cops and John Conte's D.A. 's Office scratched out a 10h charge and added a 269 s. 10a "gun carrying" charge because Sheketoff could not convince Elbery that he was guilty of possession (10h charges). The law is that Sheketoff should have immediately motioned for a dismissal of the gun charges, not written stupid little meaningless notations to his fellow Co-conspirators (A.D.A. John Revelli) in the Worcester D.A.'s Office.
But the C. 269 s. 10a charge that the cops fabricated (scratched out one 10h and added phony 269 s. 10a) didn't work because even though Sheketoff tried to convince Elbery he was then also guilty of the 269 s.10a "gun carrying charge", Elbery didn't buy it and insisted that his F.I.D. card was license to have possession of the guns in his E-z garage and that the "carrying charge" was more bullshit.
Wolf does not want you to know that Sheketoff could have walked up the hill from his office that was on State St., Boston, Mass. to the Dept. of Safety at One Ashburton Place and got all the duplicate copies of Elbery's F.I.D. and requisite records that proved to a scientific certainty that Elbery's F.I.D. was valid at 8-5-94 and as it was during Sheketoff's entire 7+ months of alleged representation of Elbery against the gun charges. It was awfully difficult for the Dept. of Safety to tell the truth, see answer to last question/#4 of the subpoena sent by Plaintiff - Elbery during the Sklut case, they won't admit that Michael Elbery's F.I.D. was valid on 8-5-94, but only that it had been revoked in March of 1995. Had the cops or Sheketoff ever got a hold of Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card not only would he never had seen it again but this Mass. Dept of Safety would have had NO PROBLEM lying about the existence of an F.I.D. card issued to Michael Elbery. Instead, Sheketoff tried to convince Michael Elbery that if he (Sheketoff) followed Elbery's orders to raise the "Absolute Defense of License" and Motion to Dismiss the 6 gun charges the Shrewsbury Cops would back date a fabricated letter of revocation of Elbery's F.I.D. card.
Wolf does not want it to be known, and hid the fact, that after submitting his Pre-Trial Conference Report, which is Ex. E in support of Elbery's Motion, Sheketoff was given undisputed evidence/documentation that Elbery's F.I.D. card/license had not been revoked, see Sheketoff's Affidavit #4 of that "Amended Motion to Suppress". Wolf does not want it known that Sheketoff kept it a secret from Elbery during his 7 months of representation that the cops and prosecution admitted that, not only did Elbery have an F.I.D. card that was issued by the Shrewsbury cops over a decade prior to the E-z fire and arrest of Elbery on 8-5-94, but that they admitted the F.I.D. was not revoked, therefore they confirmed it was Valid, see Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress - Affidavit #4. Wolf does not want it known that Sheketoff was trying to convince Elbery that if discovery was made demanding proof of revocation of the F.I.D. license that the cops would back date a revocation letter and that the Mass. Dept of Safety would back up the cops no matter what lies they told.
Wolf found in favor of Sheketoff because Sheketoff formulated a trial strategy and that Sheketoff preferred a trial instead of immediately raising an "Absolute Defense of License" against the gun charges and getting the charges immediately dismissed, see pg. 43 of Wolf's decision. What Wolf does not indicate is that as a "matter of law" there was no need for a trial or 8 months of malicious prosecution, but instead Co-conspirator, Robert Sheketoff, wanted Elbery to plead guilty and do a year after the 10 years he was already doing on the "attempted mayhem" case. Wolf refuses to disclose that as a "matter of law" established by Judge Zide on 4-3-95 Sheketoff had a legal duty to at the earliest time possible to present the "Absolute Defense"/F.I.D. card and get the arrest charges dismissed. The underlying criminal case decides issues of fact or law and those legal issues must be maintained by the judge in the resulting Legal Malpractice case.
But Sheketoff, under oath per his Affidavits #22-30 describes his "trial strategy" for the defense of the 6 gun charges against Michael Elbery. Sheketoff as per those Affidavits and as he told Michael Elbery, in part back in 1994, would not Motion to Dismiss the gun charges because he was afraid that the inexperienced and unsophisticated Worcester District Prosecutor on the case might run to the Federal B.A.T.F. and Michael Elbery would be up on Federal gun violations. Sheketoff was counting on the trial prosecutor to be stupid and the District Judge to be so "busy" that after the Governments case/prosecution was presented that Sheketoff could convince them, at that point, that there wasn't enough evidence presented to support their case?! Is this guy a complete stupid idiot? He doesn't believe that would ever happen. Sheketoff was going to trial as a co-conspirator and was going to raise a dismissal motion after presentation of the prosecution's evidence and then he would have had a good laugh with Judge Tommy Sullivan or Patrick Fox and watch Michael Elbery get convicted of the 6 gun charges because Sheketoff refused to defend the charges based on simple law ("Absolute Defense of License" - the undisputed facts were guns were in a location "under sole and exclusive control" of Elbery only requiring an F.I.D. for simple gun possession).
Sheketoff's fear of Federal B.A.T.F. more lies under oath
The Federal B.A.T.F. already had full knowledge of the guns in Michael Elbery's E-z garage. The Federal B.A.T.F. was at the E-z arson scene of 8-4-94 through 8-5-94 because there was an arson fire that was ignited/caused by gasoline. Sheketoff did not need to worry about the Worcester D.A.'s Office reporting Elbery. Per the B.A.T.F. report of the incident they were not interested in federal gun charges against Michael Elbery because they indicate on their report that he was LICENSED and that his guns were even registered.
Elbery Raises a Third Exception for Need for an Expert Witness - Conclusiveness or "Michael Elbery Orders" were the "Standard of Care"
Throughout the more than 7 months of representation by Sheketoff, Elbery repeatedly ordered Sheketoff to alert the various judges presiding at the Westboro District Court and then to the transferred Worcester District Court - Six Man Jury Session that his client, Michael Elbery, had an "Absolute Defense" because Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card. Elbery emphasized that the Police and Prosecutors at John Conte's Worcester D.A.'s Office were not claiming that Elbery did not have an F.I.D. card/license but they claimed it was revoked. And Robert Sheketoff admits this as Wolf confirms per his Decision p. 13. See also pgs. 4-7 of Plaintiff - Elbery's Memorandum for citations of defendant Attorney Robert Sheketoff admitting, via his deposition testimony, that he received various orders from his client, Michael Elbery, including, "present the F.I.D. card". See also, page 10 of Plaintiff Elbery's Memorandum for more on Orders Elbery gave Sheketoff including, "present the F.I.D. card/license."
The Plaintiff - Michael Elbery raised, per his Motion Memorandum, p. 17, also see p. 4-7 for more legal authority, a series of current legal rulings/cases involving Malpractice law that cites/state that failures of Attorney Robert Sheketoff to follow orders, particularly when the client orders would have exonerated the criminal defendant, is an exception for the need for an expert witness in a Legal malpractice case. Further, Wolf confirms, p. 38 of decision, that Defendant - Attorney Robert Sheketoff confessed, both at a deposition and via affidavit that Michael Elbery did order him to alert the court/judges that Elbery had a license which is an "Absolute Defense" to all 6 gun charges and therefore should be freed from further malicious prosecution. And as Attorney Brekka demonstrated, and Worcester District Judge Eliot Zide adjudicated, and the Mass. gun laws mandated, Michael Elbery's order to his first attorney on the gun charges, Attorney Robert Sheketoff, was right. See Plaintiff's Memorandum p. 19 under "Admissions and Concessions by Sheketoff" & p. 10 4th paragraph, for Sheketoff's admissions under oath that his client, Michael Elbery, gave him orders to present the "Absolute Defense of License" and immediately Motion to Dismiss the phony S.P.D. gun charges and more.
By the way, Brekka did not need to be told, let alone repeatedly ordered, to initiate this most simple legal procedure - Raise the "Absolute Defense of License"/Valid F.I.D. (a.k.a. - the "standard of care").
More Wolf Falsifications of Law - An attorney doesn't have to take orders that would result in exoneration
Wolf, instead of following Malpractice Law as cited in a 1/2 dozen cases presented by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery in his Memorandum (p. 6 last paragraph - p. 7), lied about the law and per his decision p. 37 claims that the attorney (in this case Sheketoff) did not agree to the orders, so therefore it does not count. Wolf cites 2 cases, one from 1811 and the other 1906, to support his lies and more falsification of law.
Wolf further comments, per his decision p. 37, (to rebut Elbery's claim that all Sheketoff had to do was follow his orders and the malicious prosecution was ended), that "an attorney is not obligated to to blindly accept every instruction given by a client.
Per p. 38 of Wolf's decision, Wolf claims that the answer to Sheketoff's honest disagreement was for Michael Elbery to hire a new attorney who will agree with him.
Per p. 38 of his decision, Wolf goes on to state that malpractice cannot be established by the mere disagreement between his attorney and client. Wolf states further, per p. 38 of his decision that if malpractice could be established by a disagreement between the trained and educated attorney and the client/"layperson" the proper standard would be dictated by a person like Michael Elbery. So much for being legally correct - ha Wolf!!
Per p. 42 -43 of Wolf's decision, Wolf claims Attorney Sheketoff did not ignore his duties but rather Sheketoff, according to Wolf, exercised sound professional judgment by not taking Elbery's orders to alert the authorities/court that Elbery had an F.I.D. card to possess firearns in Mass. so he was not in violation of any of the 6 gun charges that caused arrest and 8 months of malicious prosecution.
Wolf finds, per p. 43 of his decision, that Elbery was not harmed and suffered no damages because Sheketoff refused to present the "Absolute Defense of License" (F. I.D. card) at the earliest possible time but rather allowed Elbery to be tortured with 8 months of malicious prosecution while Sheketoff kept on trying to convince Elbery that he was guilty of the gun charges and plead guilty to another year in prison.
Toff's Trial Strategy
Here's what Sheketoff wanted to do - have a trial before Worcester District Judge Patrick Fox or Tom Sullivan and present a Motion to Dismiss after the prosecution's evidence and of course those two bum judges would deny the motion and Elbery would end up getting 8 more years in prison. Attorney Louis P. Aloise told Michael Elbery, years earlier, that Judge Fox wanted to put Elbery in jail. Aloise claimed that, although Judge Patrick Fox didn't know Elbery, the cops and others got to him. See Sheketoff's Affidavits #27 through #32 - he states that he was depending on a A.D.A. on the case to be stupid and the District Judge to be to "busy" to want to be bothered with another phony prosecution and imprisonment of Michael Elbery. "They" (the Worcester Home Rule Gangsters featuring "Big Shot" Attorney Louis P. Aloise & Judge "Dirty Dan" Toomey) needed another criminal prosecution in order to help defend themselves against Elbery's claims he got framed for 10 years on the "Attempted Mayhem" Charges. In this country the authorities are quick to use the simpleton reasoning that if he got convicted again then he must be guilty of the "attempted mayhem" charges that caused a 10 year prison sentence. Michael Elbery has from his date of birth of 2-8-1952 to the date of this writing of September 2012 has been criminally convicted in only the one case.
p. 43 of his Wolf decision, Wolf found that instead of following his client's Michael Elbery's orders to raise the "Absolute Defense of License" and get the charges immediately dismissed or at least at the earliest possible time (not after 8 months of malicious prosecution) Sheketoff exercised sound professional judgment and declined to file a motion to dismiss while expressing a strategic preference for addressing certain issues at trial. Wolf goes on per page 43 of his decision to state that the fact the gun case against Elbery was dismissed when called to trial tends to validate the wisdom of that view.
Wolf is wrong again - the 6 gun charges against Elbery were not dismissed; Elbery allowed his jury demand to be waived and there was a trial before Worcester District Judge Zide. Elbery's second attorney, Ken Brekka, immediately raised evidence of the "Absolute Defense of License" and Judge Zide found Michael Elbery NOT GUILTY of all charges. That was the "Standard of Care" that the defense attorney should have taken at the earliest time as a "matter of law" due to Judge Zide's legal decision that Elbery's F.I.D. card was an "absolute defense" to the 6 gun charges. And that is what Sheketoff had to do, as a "matter of law" that Wolf had no choice but to follow in the civil suit by Michael Elbery against Sheketoff.
p. 49 of Wolf's decision - Wolf ignores all evidence produced by Elbery in summary judgment (some of it undisputed by Sheketoff and confirmed by Wolf in his decision) and finds no evidence to prove that Attorney Sheketoff 's representation of Michael Elbery was not candid, competent, and industrious. Federal Judge Mark Wolf thinks he is a jury; a judge is prohibited by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the rule or law the controls the summary judgment process) from making decisions about factual disputes by the litigating parties in Summary Judgment. Only the jury at trial can make decisions regarding factual disputes by the litigating parties. Wolf not only made factually disputed issues via his decision on the Summary Judgment of the Sheketoff case, but also went one step further and made credibility issues; both determinations by a judge during summary judgment is forbidden by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure - 56.
Attorney Robert Sheketoff Confesses Under Oath to Legal Malpractice - Another Exception to Expert Witness Requirement in a Legal Malpractice case.
The last exception raised by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery, per p. 18 of his Memo, as to the requirement of having an expert witness testify as to his defense attorney's (Sheketoff's) "Standard of Care" that Sheketoff should have taken in defense of the 6 gun charges was another legal issue; it was Confession by Attorney Robert Sheketoff, as to his "Standard of Care" that he should have taken. There was no dispute of facts concerning Sheketoff's confession because at the Stay Revocation Hearing on 8-10-12 in Worcester Superior Court, before Judge Dan Toomey, Sheketoff admitted that his client, Michael Elbery, had valid F.I.D. card and it was never revoked. Sheketoff exclaims at that same hearing that Elbery has a valid F.I.D. that is not revoked and that it is not a crime if he had a valid F.I.D. card (license), See Plaintiff's Memorandum p. 19 - 2d paragraph, or read it next 4 lines in bold.
Sheketoff Deposition. p. 116, 2-7, "I have seen the defendant's firearm identification card and have been provided no discovery by the commonwealth showing that said card has been revoked" - quoting Ex. F ¶ 4 in support of Plaintiff's Memo. See also Ex. D - the Revocation of Stay Hearing Transcript p. 7, 10-20 , "As a matter of law, a license is not revoked when there is a conviction in the Superior Court. The licensing authority has to send notice and actually notice the individual. That was not done in this case. So he has had and has a firearm identification card. It is a valid card because it has not been revoked.", p. 8, 10-12 "its not a crime if he had his FID card, and he does", p. 10, 9-16 "he did have a license. I have seen it with my own eyes".
Attorney Bobby Sheketoff thought he was real tricky declaring in Judge Toomey's Worcester Superior Court that his client - Michael Elbery, who was seated in the courtroom, was totally innocent because he had a valid F.I.D. card that was not revoked. Sheketoff knew all to well that jurisdiction for the 6 gun charges was in a Massachusetts District Court in Westboro at that date of 8-10-94. But Sheketoff was tricking his client into believing that he, Sheketoff, was crusading his cause and was a true advocate. When Sheketoff got to the courts of jurisdiction over the next 7 months he remained silent like a good Co-conspirator.
As in the above paragraphs, Sheketoff admitted his "Standard of Care" was the "Absolute Defense of License" and that Elbery was not guilty due to the fact that his F.I.D. was valid. There is no dispute of facts by the plaintiff and defendant, and there was as a result an "issue of law" that must be decided by the court (Wolf in this legal malpractice case against Sheketoff) in order to determine Sheketoff's "Standard of Care". Wolf would be required to find just as Sheketoff stated in Worcester Superior Court on 8-10-94, that the "Standard of Care" Sheketoff should have taken in defense of the 6 gun charges was to present the "Absolute Defense of License"/valid F.I.D. "because it's not a crime if there is a valid F.I.D. card". And then the issue of Sheketoff's "Standard of Care" is settled as a "matter of law" by Judge Wolf and that issue is resolved in the plaintiff's favor without it being any longer an issue in the case or trial before the jury. Wolf would be required to instruct the jury that Sheketoff violated his "Standard of Care" and that issue (one of the 5 elements of legal malpractice) was found in favor of the Plaintiff- Michael Elbery.
In his decision, Federal Judge Mark Wolf would not recognize this exception of "Confession" by Sheketoff" as raised by Plaintiff-Michael Elbery and ignored Sheketoff's Confessions that the "Standard of Care" was to present evidence of the "Absolute Defense of License' because as Attorney Bobby Sheketoff stated before Judge Dan Toomey at the Stay Revocation Hearing, "Elbery has a license an F.I.D. card and it has not been revoked" and "he has a valid F.I.D. license then he is legally in possession of the guns at E-z".
Federal Judge Mark Wolf Documents his Falsification of Massachusetts Gun Law C. 269 s. 10a
Wolf Follows Up with his Falsification of the Mass. Gun Law C. 269 s.10a
Wolf recognizes in his Summary Judgment decision of the Sheketoff case ( see excerpt pages 39-41) Attorney Robert Sheketoff's invented/falsified Mass. law C. 269 s. 10a.. Wolf was quick to adopt the falsification. Wolf claims that Sheketoff was right in believing that Michael Elbery was guilty of carrying under M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a. because Elbery's E-z storage unit was "not his home or residence". See last paragraph of page 40 of Wolf's decision, Federal Judge Mark Wolf claims Sheketoff's "interpretation of M.G.L. C. 269 -10a was not only reasonable but right".
See Attorney Robert Sheketoff's Affidavits (affidavits 14-22) that Sheketoff prepared for Judge Mark Wolf's decisions in the Sheketoff and Sklut cases Summary Judgment decisions. Attorney Robert Sheketoff, although the defendant, was allowed by malpractice law to function as an expert witness. But Federal Judge Mark Wolf has no excuse because he is supposed to know the law not lie about it. After all, Judge Zide, Attorney Brekka, and Michael Elbery knew the law, M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a and that was 5 years before Wolf used Sheketoff's falsified version of that law.
Judge Mark Wolf Bails Out fellow Jew - Attorney Robert Sheketoff by Falsifying Massachusetts Gun Law C. 269 s. 10a
A house is not a home - that's true, but Michael Elbery never claimed, as Wolf implied per his decision on the Sheketoff Summary Judgment, that he lived in his E-z storage unit. Michael Elbery claimed, per page 11-12 of his Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, that because the guns he was arrested for by the Shrewsbury cops were in an area (Elbery's E-z Mini Storage garage) under his "sole and exclusive control" then it was a legal impossibility at the date of arrest, 8-5-94, for Elbery to be in violation or be arrested/charged with a count of gun carrying which was a violation of Mass. C. 269 s. 10a.
Mark Wolf exercised unlimited tyranny and unlawful conduct and took the unauthorized liberty of falsifying Mass. C. 269 s. 10a in order to Bail Out Defendant - Attorney Robert Sheketoff. Judge Mark Wolf did something very stupid he created a document which memorializes his unlawful conduct while on the Federal Bench - Boston, Mass.. Per p. 39-41 of his decision on the Sheketoff Summary Judgment, Wolf falsified that a violation of the gun carrying law, M.G.L. C. 269 s.10a, occurs when a "firearm is outside a person's Residence or Place of Business". Plaintiff - Michael Elbery had already in the Sheketoff Summary Judgment alerted Wolf to the real law of carrying at 8-5-94. See Plaintiff's Memo in Support of Summary Judgment - Sheketoff case p. 11-12.
Judge Mark Wolf was stupid to document this falsification of Massachusetts law, C. 269 s. 10a - "carrying", because he already, through his illegal/biased rulings on Elbery's exceptions for the need for an expert legal witness, rigged the case for Sheketoff. By falsifying Mass. gun law C 269 s. 10a Wolf went further than he needed to. But then again, Wolf needed to falsify C. 269 s. 10a so that he could find Michael Elbery guilty of carrying guns via a Federal Civil jury on the Sklut case (as below).
CONSPIRACY COUNTS OF PLAINTIFF ELBERY'S COMPLAINT - COUNTS I, II, III, IV of the SHEKETOFF LAW SUIT
Wolf Finds there is No Evidence that a Jury Could Find Sheketoff Conspired to violate Michael Elbery's Constitutional Rights
An expert witness is not required as evidence to support Elbery's Lawsuit Counts of Sheketoff's Violations of Michael Elbery's Constitutional Rights via Conspiracy, see Plaintiff's Memorandum p. 18 at section "d" for supporting law. Had Judge Mark Wolf complied with law, he would have allowed Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Conspiracy Counts against Sheketoff to proceed to a jury for trial. Look at what Sheketoff did as exposed in this document and the documents filed during the case, Elbery v. Sheketoff,, it is impossible that such events occurred without a conspiracy. Ever since the T.V. networks filmed the parade watchers and Dallas Police run to the "Grassy Knoll" that overlooked the New parade route John Kennedy took that 11-22-63, Conspiracy is a ludicrous word. Why? Do you know what it means? The governments hate the word because they (government employees & officials) do it constantly, conspire. The definition is simple - two or more people agreeing (the agreement can be implicit or explicit) to do an illegality. A civil conspiracy requires an act to fulfill the conspiracy, a criminal conspiracy does not even need that much in the U.S.A.
The Plaintiff's - Opposition to Sheketoff's Motion for Summary Judgment, see p. 14-16, contains pages of conspiracy evidence, but it was hand written by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery in S.E.C.C. Prison and all that was available was 14" paper. Wolf denied Elbery's motion for extra time to type the 52 page Opposition. See also Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment Motion and its supporting Exhibits and Affidavits for more conspiracy evidence.
Oh the Jewish authorities in today's U.S. pooh-pooh conspiracy, as if it is some kind of impossibility or extraordinary event. They don't want anybody to suggest that the Jews act as a group against the interests of the unorganized majority or the interests of the nation/society. Hey, whatever happened to the 3 Hobos those same Dallas cops pulled out of the box cars that were in the railroad yard behind the "Grassy Knoll" . The picture of the Hobos was famous back then in 1963 when the Hobos were captured by the cops on T.V. . The Dallas police admitted questioning the Hobos but said they were told to release them by the Secret Service. When asked what the Hobos said or who they were the Dallas cops said "we don't know", "we didn't keep any notes of the questioning". The rail yard controller, Lee Bowers, who worked in the tower that controlled the rail yard where the Hobos were found by the Dallas cops, after running over the "Grassy Knoll", came forward like a good citizen and told the authorities what he saw. Lee Bowers signed his death certificate - Bowers was dead shortly after, as were about 60 other witness that gave evidence to the authorities they witnessed that day in Dallas. The "Babushka Lady" lived because she, like Garrison, received to much publicity/public attention.
Do you think Federal Judge Mark Wolf was going to allow Michael Elbery to get before a civil trial jury and hammer fellow Jew - Attorney Bobby Sheketoff with the outrageous evidence that you read in this Chapter of MassInjustice.Org? NOT IN A BILLION YEARS!! Let me tell you, Michael Elbery is good at hammering people on the witness stand with evidence that he can turn a whole courthouse on its head, and Wolf and his federal cohorts were well informed of it. Elbery is also capable of writing about evidence of the same kind that can kill a judge and cause sacred cows to be "blackballed" and others fired from their government jobs and the Big Jew to resign from his appointed position as Chief Federal Judge for the District of Massachusetts.
The need for expert witness which Sheketoff and his attorney, Tony Doniger, relied on to escape justice was not there for them concerning the several counts of Conspiracy raised by Michael Elbery against Attorney Robert Sheketoff, so Wolf came to the rescue at full speed. Wolf declared per his decision , (see pgs. 24-30) there is "No Evidence of Conspiracy". Wolf, you can't fool all the people. And some will actually speak out against you, Wolf. Some don't care what you try to do about it, because you can't argue with the evidence in this Chapter of MassInjustice.org - Wolf is a liar.
Per First 5 pages (pgs. 24-30) of his "Discussion" section of Wolf's Decision, Wolf found/decided that there was absolutely No Evidence produced by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery that would possibly allow a jury to find that Attorney Robert Sheketoff Conspired (See Counts I, II, III, IV of the plaintiff's complaint) to Violate his client's, Michael Elbery's, Constitutional Rights or that Sheketoff aided the Shrewsbury Police and Worcester D.A.'s Office in their Conspiracy to Falsely Arrest, Maliciously Prosecutor and Falsely Imprison Michael Elbery. Federal Judge Mark Wolf found per his decision, p. 43, that Defendant - Attorney Sheketoff was right not to get the gun charges dropped/dismissed against his Client Michael Elbery (at the earliest possible date). Wolf found there was nothing wrong with Sheketoff refusing to utter one word at the Evidence Suppression Hearing at Westboro District Court before Judge McCann that there was an "Absolute Defense" to not just the illegal Search and Seizure of Elbery's E-z storage garage unit but also to all 6 gun charges. Wolf did not mention it was odd that during the entire Evidence Suppression Hearing concerning the legality of the cops search of Elbery's E-z unit there was not one word concerning LICENSE by the Judge - John S. McCann , the Worcester prosecutor - "big shot" Attorney John Revelli, the several Shrewsbury cops that testified and of course Michael Elbery's defense attorney who filed a motion that caused the Suppression Hearing, one - Attorney Robert Sheketoff.
See Shrewsbury Police Dept. Application for Search Warrant of Michael Elbery's E-z Mini Storage Unit.
See Shrewsbury Police Dept. Search Warrant for Michael Elbery's E-z Mini Storage Unit.
See Attorney Robert Sheketoff's Motion to Suppress S.P.D. E-z Search Warrant.
See Attorney Robert Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress Search Warrant.
See Attorney Robert Sheketoff's Post Hearing Memo in Support of Amended Motion to Suppress Seach Warrant (not dated by Sheketoff).
See Evidence Suppression Hearing Transcript of 10-21-94 at Westboro District before Judge John S. McCann.
See Judge John S. McCann's Decision on the E-z Search.
Instead, Wolf found, p. 43 of his decision, that (his friend and fellow Jew), Defendant - Attorney Robert Sheketoff, made a wise strategic decision in leaving Michael Elbery in jail and allowing him not to be just falsely arrested, but Maliciously Prosecuted by the Shrewsbury Police and Worcester D.A. John Conte's Office for 8 months; until Elbery's second attorney (another 5K fee) simply alerted the cops and prosecutor that Elbery had an "Absolute Defense of License" (F.I.D. Card). and they capitulated, immediately, knowing that Attorney Brekka was not a co-conspirator like Robert Sheketoff, but was actually defending Michael Elbery. The cops and D.A. John Conte's Office wanted to immediately forget the case and get Elbery to AGREE to a dismissal, so that all their unlawful conduct could not come back and haunt them. Elbery opted for a trial which was scheduled on 4-3-95, a few days after Elbery hired Attorney Ken Brekka.
Wolf per his decision, p. 20 - 1st paragraph, claims that Michael Elbery refused an offer of dismissal by the Worcester D.A.'s office regarding the 6 gun charges. What Wolf does not want you to know is that offer of dismissal came in March of 1995 once Elbery hired a new attorney, Ken Brekka. Michael Elbery would have taken a dismissal immediately after being arrested or some timely proximity thereafter, had Sheketoff acted as a defense attorney and demanded Elbery be freed from the charges because of his F.I.D. card/license to possess the guns at E-z. Wolf does not want you to know that the offer of dismissal came 8 months after the arrest and after 8 months of malicious prosecution. Further, the trial was already scheduled for 4-3-95 which was a few days away and a Not Guilty on all charges would end the charges forever without further retaliation by John Conte's D.A.'s Office. The Shrewsbury Police wanted Elbery to agree to a dismissal so they would not have to pay for their deliberate unlawful conduct and violations of Michael Elbery's Constitutional Rights via a lawsuit. If you agree to a dismissal of criminal charge, then you can't claim the final and favorable determination required of the underlying criminal charges in order to raise the counts, as per Michael Elbery's lawsuits, against the Shrewsbury cops and Attorney Bobby Sheketoff. In other words, agreeing to a dismissal causes the citizen who is falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted to lose his right to sue the cops.
The reason the cops and D.A.'s Office did not immediately drop/dismiss the charges once Elbery hired a real defense attorney and fired the Co-conspirator Bobby Sheketoff is because the cops knew they could be sued under those circumstances (a unilateral dismissal of the criminal charges by the prosecution is considered a final and favorable outcome for the arrested citizen).
What Wolf does not want you know is that, not only,as above, if Elbery had AGREED to a dismissal then the law is that Elbery could not sue the cops for their blatant violations of Michael Elbery's rights as per his complaint. But worse they could resurrect the case/gun charges within the statute of limitations of 6 years. Elbery wasn't going anywhere due to a dismissal in March of 1995, contrary to Wolf and his decision p. 20 - 1st paragraph - last sentence, because he was already 8 months into a 10 year State Prison Sentence for the "Attempted Mayhem" conviction.
Wolf was never going to allow a jury to hear the Conspiracy evidence Michael Elbery had/presented in his Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, Supplement, and Reply, or the Plaintiff's Opposition to Sheketoff's Summary Judgment - a fair jury would skin Sheketoff alive. In particular, Federal Judge Mark Wolf was never going to allow a jury to hear the conspiracy evidence as presented in this Chapter of MassInjustice.Org.
Michael Elbery's Count III of his complaint - Sheketoff Violated 6th Amendment
Wolf never addresses Count III, Violation of 6th Amendment Assistance of Counsel, of Plaintiff - Elbery's Complaint.
What else Did Federal Judge Mark Wolf Find per his Decision on the Sheketoff Case?
p. 23-24 Wolf found that there is no evidence that Sheketoff failed to act in a competent, diligent, and zealous manner.
p. 24 Wolf found there is no evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for Elbery in his lawsuit against Sheketoff. That Elbery has presented no evidence to support his theory that defendant - Sheketoff conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights.
p. 28 Wolf claims that Elbery's counts of Conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights by Sheketoff was just a "conclusion".
p. 29 Wolf claims that Elbery's counts per his lawsuit of Sheketoff's Conspiracy with the state actors (Shrewsbury Police and Worcester D.A.'s Office) were nothing more than conjecture and that Elbery has offered no evidence that Sheketoff engaged in any violation of Elbery's Constitutional Rights
p. 29 Wolf claims that the evidence that Elbery presents per his Summary Judgment Motion is "gossamer thread of whimsy, speculation and conjecture". Wolf adds that 'Elbery is crying conspiracy in attempt to throw him on the jury's mercy".
Federal Judge Mark Wolf Admits Law of Conspiracy Cases - Proved by "Circumstantial Evidence" - Or "Implicit Evidence"
What Wolf does not want you to know is that conspiracies are almost always proved by circumstantial evidence - that is what the law is and that is what Plaintiff - Michael Elbery reminded Wolf per Elbery's Memorandum. Wait a minute, Wolf documents per his decision that he knows that a conspiracy is proved by circumstantial evidence, see page 25 of his decision. On that page 25 of his decision Wolf admits that the agreement to commit conspiracy between the conspirators can be "Implicit". Wolf also recognizes on that same page of his decision that the conspirators are guilty if "the parties decide to act interdependently, each actor deciding to act only because he was aware that the others would act similarly". Look at the evidence Plaintiff - Michael Elbery produces in his Summary Judgment documents filed in the Sheketoff and Sklut cases of the evidence of a "single plan of conspiracy". And the conspiracy included A.D.A. John Revelli and Judge John S. McCann. Just look at the evidence as produced in this chapter of MassInjustice.Org as taken from Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Summary Judgment documents and you will agree, unless you are biased like Judge Mark Wolf, who made sure this overpowering evidence never got before a jury. Hey, that makes Federal Judge Mark Wolf a co-conspirator in the subsequent and continuing Cover-Up.
During a hearing of the Sklut case, Wolf demanded to know if Elbery sued Robert Sheketoff and Attorney Bradford "bad Brad" Louison. Wolf expressed his outrage in open court over Michael Elbery's lawsuits against these Jewish lawyers. Wolf acts like there has been a newly established class system in the U.S.A. where the Jews are the New Royalty.
Royalty is gone - Who will protect the people? No, there are no more great leaders because the culture of the past that created leaders has been destroyed.
PART II. - SKLUT CASE
Sklut Summary Judgment Decision by Federal Judge Mark Wolf
Judge Mark Wolf signs his Name to his Fabrication of Massachusetts State Law - Uses the fabricated law to find Probable Cause for Cop Defendants- then Goes to Trial
Federal Judge Mark Wolf like Aloise, Ball, Toomey, A.G. Coakley etc., (see their criminal actions this Web Site) signed his name to a crime via his 2 Summary Judgment Decisions of the Sklut and Sheketoff cases. Wolf's fabrication of the Mass. state gun laws was planned not a mistake.
Federal Judge Mark Wolf would be consistent in his fraud and falsification of the Mass. gun laws. A few months after the Sheketoff summary judgment, the summary judgment of the Sklut case proceeded. Wolf made the same unlawful decision in the Sklut Summary Judgment - Wolf again, via his decision of the Sklut summary judgment fabricated Massachusetts gun law. Wolf found the Shrewsbury Police had PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST (see pgs. 17-20 of that Wolf decision) Michael Elbery on 8-5-94 for violations of the Massachusetts gun law C. 269 s. 10a (carrying a firearm/handgun) at E-z Mini Storage. But Wolf did not dismiss the Sklut case. Once there was found to be PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, then, Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's entire lawsuit against the Shrewsbury Police via Sklut was void. If there was PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST for just one of the six charges at E-z Mini Storage on 8-5-94, as Judge Mark Wolf found by fabricating the Massachusetts gun carrying law - G.L. C. 269 s. 10a, then the entire lawsuit was void/ended and it had to be DISMISSED. Due to Wolf's illegal finding of Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury Police Defendants, if Wolf followed federal law, the case against the Shrewsbury cops should have ended, but Federal Judge Mark Wolf did not follow federal law.
Never again, Never before, a court finds the police defendants had Probable Cause for their arrests as complained in the plaintiff's lawsuit, and the case still goes to trial!! A case of Michael Elbery's, once again, makes Judicial History.
See Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Sklut lawsuit against the Shrewsbury Police, all counts of that complaint required that there be No Probable Cause for their conduct at E-z Mini Storage, in order to go to trial.
Judge Wolf's Fabrication of Mass. Carrying law - M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a
See page 17 of Wolf's Summary Judgment decision in the Sklut case - Wolf fabricates that because the firearms were "outside of Michael Elbery's business or residence" then there was "carrying of firearms" and a violation of Mass. G.L. C. 269 s. 10a.. Federal Judge Mark Wolf falsely redefined the Massachusetts "gun carrying" law, M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a, by stating, in both his Sklut and Sheketoff Summary Judgment decisions, that if a citizen has a handgun "outside his business of residence" then he is in violation of the "gun carrying" law, C. 269 s.10a. This fabrication of the gun carrying law, as per Mark Wolf, is not just Wrong but deliberately wrong. The Massachusetts District Attorneys' Law Manual documents that the issue is " an area of sole and exclusive possession" as did Michael Elbery's citation of Mass. legal cases in his Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment p. 5 in the Sklut case, and again Elbery, at Wolf's request wrote a legal treatise on the issue of Probable Cause concerning the Sklut case which included the controlling Mass. law that stated over and over that "if the guns are in a location which is under a person's "sole and exclusive control" then there cannot be a violation of "carrying'/M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a."
Judge Mark Wolf didn't Need to do any Heavy Thinking
Wolf deliberately falsified Mass. G.L. C. 269 s.10a ("carrying"), but if Wolf needed help understanding that statute he should have asked Worcester District Judge Eliot Zide for help; Zide and Brekka and, after Sheketoff got fired, the Worcester D.A.'s Office and the Shrewsbury cops had no trouble understanding the law, nor did Michael Elbery when the cops arrested him. Elbery told the cops that their Search Warrant was no good and they were making a false arrest because he had an F.I.D. card for license of simple gun possession; and that all happened in 1994 through 1995. Wolf made his summary judgment decisions on the Sklut and Sheketoff cases in the year 2001, over 6 years later. All the underlying judicial decisions and admissions were completely documented in Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Memorandums and related legal papers ( see above, pgs. 8 - 10 and this entire Chapter of MassInjustice.Org ) of those two cases, so Judge Mark Wolf had no excuse - the legal issues of the Sklut and Sheketoff cases were all prepared for him long in advance.
The real Mass. gun carrying law - Mass. C. 269 s.10a
Wolf decided to totally ignore the controlling law of the case. In Massachusetts in 1994 (date Michael Elbery arrested by Shrewsbury cops @ E-z), if the guns (handguns or long barrels) were in a location under the "sole and exclusive control of an individual" then that constituted possession of firearms, only, and all that was required was an F.I.D. card. An F.I.D. card is/was in 1994 a license to possess firearms in Massachusetts. But Judge Wolf had no excuse for his fabrication of Mass. law because Michael Elbery alerted Wolf in writing, via Elbery's Motion for Summary Judgment, see p. 4 of the Memorandum, that the issue was that the E-Z unit where the guns were found were under the "sole and exclusive control" of Michael Elbery, and therefore, only an F.I.D. card/license was required. Plaintiff - Michael Elbery also alerted Judge Wolf via his Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, see p. 4-5, that "carrying" was a legal impossibility because the guns that caused the false arrest were all in a location under the "sole and exclusive control" of Michael Elbery in his E-z unit.
Since the location of Elbery's guns at E-z Mini Storage created a legal impossibility for there to be a violation of Mass. G.L. C. 269 s.10a., then it was equally impossible for the cops arrest/charge of C. 269 s. 10a (carrying guns) to have Probable Cause, even if Mark Wolf years later fabricates a brand knew phony version of that statute.
No Dispute as to Facts at E-z Search and Seizure and arrest by Shrewsbury Police
Neither the Shrewsbury cops, the Worcester D.A.'s Office, Sheketoff or Judge Mark Wolf ever disputed that all the guns causing the false arrest of Michael Elbery were in Elbery's E-z storage garage. Just goes to show you that the simpletons should have been better prepared in making their lies of conspiracy and cover-up surrounding that arrest.
Wolf "Creates" Grounds of Probable Cause for Arrest on the "5 Gun Possession Charges" (M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10h) and Search of Elbery's E-z unit - Wolf Ignores cops Admission that Elbery had Valid F.I.D. card/license
Wolf then invaded the jurisdiction of the jury and created, per his Summary Judgment Decision on the Sklut case, facts/grounds that PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED for the Shrewsbury Police defendants to arrest Michael Elbery for the 5 counts of gun possession (M. G. L. C. 269 s. 10h) and search Elbery's E-z garage unit. Wolf grounded his decision of Probable Cause regarding the gun possession charges and search as follows:
p. 15 - 16 of Wolf decision - Wolf concludes, based on affidavits of Shrewsbury cop defendants, Hanson and Faucher, that Michael Elbery asked these two cops to search his E-z Mini Storage garage unit for fire damage. Wolf cites law that no search warrant is required if the search is consensual.
p. 16 of Wolf decision - Wolf states that due to the affidavit of defendant - Sgt. Gus Chester Johnson that there was no need for a search warrant because Johnson entered Elbery's E-z Mini Storage garage to do an "arson investigation". Wolf cites law stating that an arson investigation needs no search warrant.
p.16 -17 of Wolf decision - Wolf finds that Hanson, Faucher and Johnson all saw guns in either Elbery's ZR-1 Corvette or other parts of his E-z Mini Storage garage unit.
p. 17 of Wolf decision - Wolf finds that Sgt. James Hurley checked the Shrewsbury Police Dept. computer system for a record of Elbery's F.I.D. card which records indicated, according to Sgt. Hurley, that Elbery had no F.I.D. card.
p. 17 of Wolf decision - Wolf finds that defendant - Lt. Wayne Sampson checked with the Worcester Police Dept and Sampson was told by the Worcester Police that Elbery did not have an F.I.D. card and that Elbery's License to Possess was revoked. (license to possess and F.I.D. are the same thing - did Wolf mean "License to Carry"?).
For the record Wolf does not say that the fire was put out 12 hours prior to Sgt. Johnson arriving at E-z on 8-5-94; therefore any exception, due to Arson Investigation, for the need by Sgt. Johnson for a Search Warrant to search Elbery's E-z unit is lost. After 12 hours there are no exigent circumstances that would allow for exception for a Search Warrant. But even if Wolf gave Sgt. Johnson 12 hours to be exigent it did not make any difference because the guns were perfectly legal due to Elbery's License/F.I.D. card.
Disputed Facts are not to be Decided by Wolf's Invasion of the Jury's Province
A quick review of Michael Elbery's Affidavits in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, see Affidavit #21, shows that he produced evidence to the opposite of what Hanson and Faucher claimed about Elbery asking them to search his E-z unit. Michael Elbery said the opposite. Wolf is required to send this evidence of disputed facts to the jury for a decision as to what they believe. But Mark Wolf took it upon himself and invaded the jurisdiction of the Federal jury and made a credibility decision in favor of the cops on these disputed issues of fact. As is documented in this Chapter of MassInjustice, Federal Judge Mark Wolf, again, acted totally in violation of the Federal Law - Rule 56 which governs the Summary Judgment Process.
Even if, Federal Judge Mark Wolf believed that Plaintiff- Michael Elbery consented to his E-z garage being searched, and even if, Wolf believed that the Shrewsbury Police could not find their own records of the F.I.D. card/license they issued to Michael Elbery in 1983, Wolf missed the issue of Probable Cause to arrest on the five 10h gun possession charges and search of Michael Elbery's E-z garage. Wolf totally ignored that the cops would later admit (once Attorney Sheketoff fired by Elbery) that Michael Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card/license and that they (Shrewsbury cops) issued the license. Wolf totally ignores that Constitutional law requires NO PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest under these circumstances because the police are liable for what they "should have known". But Plaintiff - Michael Elbery via his motion for Summary Judgment (See pg. 15 Plaintiff's Memorandum - Sklut case) raised this issue just so Wolf would know, but of course Wolf knew that the cops were responsible for their own actions and records of Elbery's F.I.D - Wolf chose to ignore U.S. Constitutional law.
U.S. Constitutional law requires that the police are responsible for what they "should have known" and the Police are responsible for "gross negligence". Further, U.S. Constitutional case law via the U.S. Supreme Court dictates that the standard for deciding Probable Cause for the arrest by a police officer in this here United States is the "Reasonable Officer Test". As per Plaintiff Michael Elbery's Memorandum p. 16-18, all "Reasonable Officers" would know the content of their own records and are liable/responsible for their own records of the Shrewsbury Police Dept. Just as the same Sklut defendants admitted they knew once their fellow co-conspirator Attorney Robert Sheketoff got fired from the defense of Michael Elbery.
If a cop doesn't know the content of his own records then the U.S. Supreme Court has made it Constitutional law that such lack of knowledge of police records is gross negligence causing NO PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest made by James Hurley and Wayne Sampson of the Shrewsbury P.D.; even though they claim they did not know the content of their own Shrewsbury Police Dept. records on 8-5-94 when they arrested Michael Elbery.
Wolf claims per his decision that the Shrewsbury cops did not know Michael Elbery
In part, Wolf bases his decision of Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury cops' arrest of Michael Elbery on the 5 C. 269 s. 10h charges on the pretense that the arresting Shrewsbury cops did not know Michael Elbery. Wayne Sampson, while attempting to trick his way into probable cause for Elbery's arrest, and search and seizure of Elbery's E-z garage unit, claims he called the Worcester P.D. when all the pertinent police records that undisputedly proved that Elbery was legally licensed was with the Shrewsbury Police. Hurley, as usual lying, claimed he searched his S.P.D. computer for record of Elbery's license/F.I.D. card and that there was no such record. Strangely, Wolf in his decision quotes defendant - Sgt. James Hurley as admitting he knew Michael Elbery. The affidavits of Hurley as cited by Wolf on p. 7 of Wolf's decision indicate that Hurley knew Michael Elbery for years. Defendant Sgt. Gus Chester Johnson testified that he knew Michael Elbery, see the Suppression Hearing Transcript p. 13, lines 19-23, p. 28 lines 20-24, 29 line 1, p. 58 line 1-14; See also the Johnson Deposition p. 30 lines 16-24. Both Sgt. James Hurley and Sgt. Chester Johnson admitted repeatedly under oath at both Suppression Hearing and, via testimony of depositions Plaintiff - Michael Elbery held during discovery of the case, that they knew Michael Elbery for years and they knew where he lived for 10 years while living on Oak St., Shrewsbury, Mass., See Plaintiff's Memorandum p.10 last paragraph through page 13 last paragraph.
At E-z, James Hurley of the S.P.D. knew Michael Elbery had an F.I.D. card, but Hurley's lie that day was that the F.I.D. card was revoked. See answer to interrogatory 3 exhibit G of Plaintiff Elbery's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Under U.S. Constitutional law, as cited by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery in his Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (see p. 15) there should have been NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST on the five C. 269 s. 10h "gun possession charges" because the Shrewsbury Police should have known what was contained in their own records - Elbery's F.I.D. card/license.
Cops document they had a dossier on U.S. citizen - Michael Elbery & Federal Judge Wolf makes citation
The Shrewsbury Police claim, as cited by Wolf on p.17 of his decision and above listed, that defendant - Sampson called the Worcester Police Dept. to obtain information as to whether Elbery had an F.I.D. card while Hurley claimed he searched his Shrewsbury Police Dept. Computer for a record of Elbery's F.I.D card. and found nothing. Wolf then, per p. 4-5 of his decision, cites various arrests and incidents that the Shrewsbury Police had recorded about Michael Elbery for over 15 years; as per Wolf on p. 5 of his decision, this dossier on Elbery was called his "Master Card Detail Record". Wolf does not mention that none of those arrests by the Shrewsbury cops resulted in convictions (certainly the definition of more false arrests and malicious prosecutions that Elbery won ). So why, as they document they were so familiar with Michael Elbery, were they calling Worcester for information about him? The Shrewsbury Police were well acquainted with Michael Elbery - they were watching him for years. And Federal Judge Mark Wolf had that information/irrefutable evidence stuck right in his face via Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Sklut Memorandum p. 10-14.
In fact if you scroll down to p. 2 of that Shrewsbury Police Dept. "Master Card Detail Listing" that the Shrewsbury cop defendants kept on Michael Elbery it indicates that the Shrewsbury Police issued Elbery's F.I.D. card on 3-14-1983. Just below that on page 2 is a dated recording of Michael Elbery's residential addresses over the previous 15 years all kept on that same "Master Card Detail Listing" that Judge Mark Wolf refers to on p. 4-5 of his decision. The arresting Shrewsbury cops didn't change the address they had for Michael Elbery to Worcester from Shrewsbury until 8-5-94, the day of the arrest. But Plaintiff - Michael Elbery documented all this in his Summary Judgment Memorandum - p. 11 and p. 13-14.
Wolf Invades Jurisdiction/Province of the Jury - Another Violation of Law by Wolf
What Wolf believed is not important at the Summary Judgment stage of the civil judicial proceedings! Wolf had no right making credibility decisions at the Summary Judgment Process/Decision of the Sklut case. Michael Elbery presented contrary evidence/facts (most supported by irrefutable legal documents) to every alleged fact that the Shrewsbury Police Defendants presented at Summary Judgment and those disputed facts should have been decided by a jury and that is what the law (Federal Summary Judgment - Rule 56 of F.R.C.P.) says! First, Wolf fabricates Massachusetts gun laws and then he invades the jurisdiction of the Jury.
Federal Judge Mark Wolf Finds No Time Limit to the Shrewsbury Police Defendants Unconstitutional Conspiracy
Per p. 17 of the Wolf decision, the time frame of Wolf's decision of Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury Police defendants' arrest is the day of arrest, only, or when Hurley claims he could not find record of Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card on their computer (the S.P.D. issued it to Elbery in 1983). Wolf does not say how long the police are allowed to know absolutely nothing about their most obvious records they have on file (Elbery's F.I.D. card) which they, over 7 months later admitted in writing was valid and issued by them (the Shrewsbury Police Dept.).
Wolf finds, per his decision, the Sklut defendants can know nothing about their own records forever !
How on Earth could Federal Judge Mark Wolf justify finding the cops had Probable Cause regarding Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's count, per his lawsuit, of Malicious Prosecution? Wolf refused to address this issue. But Mass. law requires, per the Couture and Jones case as cited by Elbery in his Memo. p. 7-8, and p. 13, respectively, that the cops allow the gun owner to get his license, if he does not have it on him. If you combine that law with the fact that Shrewsbury cop defendants admitted that Elbery had a license/F.I.D. card to possess guns, it is inescapable that Wolf should have found, instead, NO PROBABLE CAUSE on that count and counts related to search/seizure and arrest of Elbery's lawsuit. But Mark Wolf was not unbiased - he didn't think he would have to answer to anyone for his illegalities on the Sklut and Sheketoff cases, just as he, no doubt, had gotten away with in the past and since he illegally scuttled Elbery's cases. Now, Federal Judge Mark Wolf has to answer to the World Court of Public Opinion via the Internet. And even though, at 10-1-12, this Chapter of Mass. Injustice is not near complete - this boy, Federal Judge Mark Wolf, draws more readers, according to the "web stats" produced by the web host, "Host Gator," than all the other critters featured on this Web Site for their illegalities.
Wolf refused to address the issue of time regarding his finding that the Shrewsbury Police defendants had Probable Cause to arrest Michael Elbery at E-z and search his E-z garage. Since Wolf found that the Shrewsbury Police were not responsible for knowing the information that was listed on numerous documents at the Shrewsbury Police Dept. including the "Master Card Detail Listing" the cops kept on citizen- Michael Elbery, then how long does this special dispensation by his highness go on before the cops are responsible?
As above, Massachusetts law, see Couture case in Plaintiff's Memorandum p. 8, the police must ask a citizen if he has a license regarding the guns in question; the Mass. S.J.C. made it law that it is presumed that if a citizen (Elbery) has a license legally entitling him to possession of the guns in question that he will make claim of license affirmatively and there can be no arrest because Elbery had a license. Wolf excuses the cops and allows them to wait 8 months before they admit (when a new defense attorney - Brekka is hired) that they knew Michael Elbery had a valid license for the guns they arrested him for and maliciously prosecuted him for 8 months.
Wolf refused to address that important issue of time. Evidently, according to Judge Mark Wolf's decision, the Shrewsbury Police defendants had no time limit regarding their claim that they did not know the content of their Police Records. Wolf found per p. 15 of his decision that "the Shrewsbury Cop Defendants were legally correct when they admitted that Michael Elbery had a valid F.I.D. card and they offered, along with D.A. John Conte's Office, to agree to dismiss the all 6 gun charges". But what that clever Judge, Mark Wolf, left out of his decision is that offer of dismissal came EIGHT MONTHS after the Cops arrested and maliciously prosecuted Michael Elbery.
Wolf's decision of Probable Cause allowed the Shrewsbury Police no time limit as to their lack of knowledge of their own records. Wolf in essence found the cops could be reckless and unlawful Co-Conspirators and could lie about their own Shrewsbury Police Department records. Because Wolf found they had Probable Cause for their actions - Wolf determined that the Shrewsbury Police could go on maliciously prosecuting Michael Elbery for 8 months, even though their records showed that Elbery had a valid license, with impunity. Now that's "police advocacy" and a continuation of the same conspiracy that Plaintiff Elbery was suing the Shrewsbury Police for.
Co-Conspirator Sheketoff Blames the cops
Co-conspirator, Attorney Bobby Sheketoff, via his attorney - Tony "the tiger" Doniger, thought that they were scoring big points when they disclosed in the Sheketoff summary judgment motion that the cops and the Worcester D.A.'s office admitted in September of 1994 that Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card/license was not revoked at 8-5-94. This disclosure of no-revocation of Elbery's F.I.D. card was a little more than a month after the arrest at E-z on 8-5-94 and malicious prosecution started. On September 8, 1994 Sheketoff requested the information because of the constant bullying of his client, Michael Elbery. When Sheketoff got the answer he kept it secret from Elbery and of course, Sheketoff refused to Motion to Dismiss (also see Sheketoff Affidavit. # 31 - confirms he refused to Motion to Dismiss any of the charges). Sheketoff does not disclose when he actually received the documented confirmation by the S.P.D. and Worcester D.A.'s Office that Elbery's F.I.D. card was valid and not revoked on 8-5-94, but it appears on or before the September 20, 1994 "Compliance Date", as per the Pre-Trial Conference case Document guidelines. That document, Sheketoff's "Amended Motion to Suppress" was kept secret from Michael Elbery until his second attorney, Ken Brekka, disclosed it to him just a few weeks before the trial of 4-3-95. What Sheketoff's Attorney, Tony Doniger, intended was to blame the cops and Worcester D.A.'s Office for the arrest and malicious prosecution. But that document is also sworn testimony by Attorney Robert Sheketoff that he conspired to maliciously prosecute his client, Michael Elbery.
Attorney Sheketoff Implicates Judge John S. McCann
Sheketoff knew Elbery was Not Guilty due to a valid F.I.D. license and did nothing about it. He submitted the Amended Motion to Suppress to Judge John S. McCann, but that was it; Judge McCann was just as much a co-conspirator as Sheketoff and the Shrewsbury cops and Worcester D.A.'s Office. Judge John S. McCann received absolute proof via this Amended Motion to Suppress that Michael Elbery was not guilty of the gun charges because his F.I.D. was valid and the search and seizure of his E-z garage was illegal but Judge John S. McCann like Elbery's defense attorney, Bobby Sheketoff, let Elbery remain under arrest and be maliciously prosecuted until April, 1995. And Sheketoff admits per his Affidavits (see Aff. #33) that he advised Elbery to plead guilty and take a year in jail.
Although Sheketoff's Amended Motion to Suppress alerted Judge John S. McCann that Michael Elbery's F.I.D. card was not revoked but valid, Judge McCann failed to even make note on his Judge John S. McCann's decision of the Suppression Hearing of the "Absolute Defense of License" to both the E-z Search and 6 gun charges by the Shrewsbury cops. But what would you expect? This is the same Suppression Hearing Judge that failed to ask if there was a license held by the defendant - Michael Elbery for the guns that caused the search and seizure and arrest at E-z Mini Storage. In fact, McCann deliberately never used the word "license" through the entire Suppression Hearing that lasted almost an entire day's worth of testimony and evidence on October 21, 1994.
Sheketoff, instead, was also trying to convince his client, Michael Elbery, that if Sheketoff filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the F.I.D. card/license the Shrewsbury cops would fabricate and back date a letter of revocation of Elbery's F.I.D. card. So much for the duplicate record system kept by the Mass. Dept. of Safety that Michael Elbery ordered Sheketoff to obtain along with any records of revocation that would also be required to be filed with the Dept. of Safety.
The cops get more help from Wolf
p. 12 (See 2d paragraph) of Wolf's decision - Wolf Aides the Cops in denying they made the arrest; Wolf spends pgs. 12 through 13 attempting to remove and resolve the various Sklut defendants of the Shrewsbury Police Dept. from proximity and/or responsibility of the arrest of Michael Elbery on 8-5-94 at E-z Mini Storage. However, Wolf on the same page 12 of his decision confirms that Sgt. James Hurley squealed on his Boss - Lt. Wayne Sampson as a person who participated in the arrest. See the Arrest Incident Report or see all the arrest/incident documents - Hurley and Sampson signed their names to the phony arrest conspiracy just like Judge Mark Wolf signed his name to a fabrication of the Mass. gun carrying law - C. 269 s. 10a. See Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Exhibit C the Sklut defendants put there names all over the arrest and search/seizure documents. At deposition (p. 34 line 14) Hurley claimed he heard Lt. Sampson arrest Elbery. See Plaintiff's Memorandum p. 19 through 21 that cites this evidence that all defendants participated in the arrest.
King of the Kangaroos - Federal Judge Mark Wolf Trapped
The die was cast first in the Toff and then Sklut case; Federal Judge Mark Wolf went far beyond anything any Kangaroo Judge had dared do in any of Elbery's cases, not even Mass. Superior Court Judge Dan Toomey would screw with falsely re-writing statutory law (Mass. G.L. C. 269 s. 10a, "gun carrying") of another sovereignty (the other sovereignty being the State of Massachusetts). Wolf never allowed a hearing on Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Motion for Summary Judgment. But how could this be, no hearing? Federal law provides that a hearing is required particularly where Plaintiff - Michael Elbery requested a hearing on the Summary Judgment of the Sklut case before Judge Wolf. Wolf got carried away while he was Kangaroo-jumping all over the Boston Federal Courthouse. Wolf got caught in a Kangaroo Trap by Michael Elbery. By Falsifying Massachusetts gun law and invading the province of the federal jury, Wolf found that there was Probable Cause for the Sklut defendants to arrest Michael Elbery and search and seize his E-z garage unit, then he had a trial on all those same counts of Elbery's lawsuit that Wolf found were to be with Probable Cause for the defendants. This is unbelievable.
In fact, Federal Judge Mark Wolf found Probable Cause for all conduct by the Shrewsbury Police defendants, as complained per Michael Elbery, in his lawsuit against them. Then, Wolf went and made the cops stand trial on the entire lawsuit regardless of the law that mandates that the case must be dismissed when the cops are found to have had Probable Cause for the conduct complained per lawsuit.
Wolf Outsmarts himself - his Probable Cause Decision for the cops Required a dismissal of the charges against them
Mark Wolf outsmarted himself with his Summary Judgment decision in the Sklut case - he trapped himself with his decision of Probable Cause (see pgs. 17-20 of Wolf's Decision finding Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury cops' arrest of Michael Elbery on 8-5-94 at E-z) for the Shrewsbury Police defendants because, if there was Probable Cause for the cops arrest of Michael Elbery for guns at E-z, then Elbery's lawsuit must be dismissed. All Elbery's claims against the Shrewsbury cops required/depended on there being NO PROBABLE CAUSE for the cops arrest of Michael Elbery.
But instead of dismissing Michael Elbery's case against the cops, Federal Judge Mark Wolf had a Kangaroo Trial.
And then Elbery gave Wolf a chance to redeem himself after Wolf made his deliberately unlawful and Unconstitutional decision in the Sklut case - Elbery filed a Combined 3 Motions that addressed the very narrow issue of Probable Cause for the gun arrest at E-z and highlighted that Massachusetts law was totally different than what Wolf had fabricated via his decision to cause Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury cops to arrest. Wolf would not allow a hearing on these motions although the law entitled Michael Elbery to a hearing.
Post Summary Judgment - the motions filed by Plaintiff - Michael Elbery
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery gives Federal Mark Wolf a Chance to redeem himself! And Stop Violating the U.S. Constitution!
What does a litigant/citizen do? Plaintiff - Michael Elbery had a judge - Federal Mark Wolf that found the cop - defendants had Probable Cause where there was NO PROBABLE CAUSE by falsifying Mass. gun carrying law 269 s.10a and invaded the federal jury's province to decide facts and credibility concerning the five 10h gun possession charges and the cops Search and Seizure. Plaintiff - Michael Elbery had a judge (Federal Mark Wolf) who decided the cop - defendants had Probable Cause for all complained conduct of Michael Elbery's lawsuit, but in violation of Federal law (Rule 56 - Summary Judgment) and the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment Wolf continues the case against the cops for trial!? A judge, Mark Wolf, who did not follow the U.S. Constitution or Federal Procedural Law and fabricates Massachusetts law, what does Plaintiff - Elbery do? Michael Elbery sticks it in Wolf's face, so Michael Elbery can have more Federally docketed documents to prove his case to the World of Public Opinion, via the World Free Internet, so he can prove how corrupt the Judiciary is. More documented proof that Mark Wolf should not be a judge at any level in this here U.S.A., let alone Chief Justice at Federal District of Boston, Massachusetts.
Plaintiff- Michael Elbery files a Combined 3 motions - Elbery Instructs Judge Wolf to Correct his Error of Law and stop fabricating Mass. gun laws
After receiving Federal Judge Mark Wolf's decision on the Sklut summary judgment, Plaintiff Michael Elbery filed 3 motions . This Combined Motion demanded that Judge Wolf take 3 different actions.
First, the motion instructed Wolf to correct his misrepresentation/fabrication of the Massachusetts gun laws. Elbery's motion included the pertinent case law that documented/instructed that there could be NO CARRYING of guns in Massachusetts because the guns in question were located in a place under the "sole and exclusive control" of Michael Elbery and that constituted "simple gun possession" which required only a valid F.I.D. card/license. That Wolf should have found NO PROBABLE CAUSE on that 269 s. 10a charge, all 5 10h charges, and Search and Seizure counts of Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's lawsuit against the Shrewsbury cop defendants.
Second, the motion requested that Federal Judge Mark Wolf correct his "error of law" (M.G.L. C. 269 -10a) and recognize that a C. 269-10a "gun carrying charge" was impossible because Elbery's guns at E-z Mini Storage were under his "sole and exclusive control", a non- public place, in Elbery's leased storage garage.
Third, Plaintiff - Elbery, alternatively, in the 3rd paragraph of the "Wherefore Clause" of that motion, motioned Federal Judge Mark Wolf to go to the Mass. S.J.C. and have them instruct Wolf on the proper law of the case. To quote Elbery in the "Wherefore Clause" of that motion, "In the alternative, this plaintiff motions the Court to apply for certification to the Mass. S.J.C. under S.J.C. Rule 1:03 regarding this M.G.L. C. 269 s. 10a "question of law" (Carrying and Exclusive Control) as applied to the facts of this case. The Court-Judge Mark Wolf had stated in the Sheketoff decision, p. 39, that the 1991 amendments to C. 269 –10a has not been interpreted by the Mass. courts (which is far from the truth - See Plaintiff's Memorandum and this Chapter of MassInjustice.org. - the law as to carrying violation and "sole and exclusive possession" was and continues to this day in Mass. to be well - seasoned law).
Michael Elbery wanted to get the Mass. S.J.C. involved because he knew that they would back up Wolf regarding any lie he was telling, even about Mass. statutory law. But Wolf had to initiate the certification and Wolf denied the motion.
Wolf was wrong - Judge Zide knew what the law (M.G.L. C. 269 s.10 "carrying") was in 1994 when he found Elbery not guilty; Wolf had the same law in his Court of the Sklut case in 2002 (8 years later - Wolf had plenty of time to get the law right, after the hard work was already done). Wolf ignored the irrefutable admission by the cop defendants that Elbery had a valid F.I.D. license on 8-5-94 date of arrest and Search/Seizure) and then Wolf acted in the capacity of a jury by making credibility decisions on facts concerning the 5 10h charges, so Wolf could find that the Shrewsbury cops had Probable Cause to arrest on those "possession charges". A judge during Summary Judgment is forbidden from acting as only a jury is allowed at trial - deciding factual disputes and making credibility issues. This Chapter of MassInjustice shows the Federal Judge Mark Wolf is not credible.
Wolf of course denied all 3 parts of Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Combined motion and never allowed a hearing.
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery motions/challenges Judge Mark Wolf to follow Federal Law and dismiss his Sklut case - "The Ministerial Act"
Federal Judge Mark Wolf found, via his decision on the Summary Judgment , (see p. 17-20 on Wolf's Sklut S. J. decision on the Sklut case), that the defendants, Shrewsbury Police, had PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST Michael Elbery. So why was Plaintiff - Elbery's Sklut case going to trial? Only this could happen in the Court of Mark Wolf! Well, not really, these deliberate violations of law and conspiracies are omnipresent in the Court of Massachusetts, both and Federal and State. Yes sir, in Massachusetts where the judges, both Federal and State, are appointed for life any type of Judicial Tyranny does occur.
If the Shrewsbury Police Defendants had Probable Cause for the arrest of Michael Elbery and Search and Seizure of his E-z garage unit, then his Sklut case had to end - it had to be dismissed. But Judge Mark Wolf didn't follow law, he fabricated new law; after all he is a federal judge! Wolf had an Agenda - the law of the United States, via the U.S. Constitution got in his way.
All claims of Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's lawsuit against the Shrewsbury Police hinged on there being found No PROBABLE CAUSE. According to the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, you have No Grounds for suit against cops for their arrest or search, if they have Probable Cause (or if a Judge like Wolf invents/fabricates law in order to find Probable Cause to bail the cops out).
Wolf's Agenda was simple - he falsified Mass. G.L. C. 269 s. 10a because, he not only used the 10a gun law falsification to find Probable Cause for the cops, but he wanted to instruct the federal civil jury on the Sklut case with his newly fabricated Mass. gun law, so the jury would find that Plaintiff - Michael Elbery was actually GUILTY of carrying guns at E-z Mini Storage when the Shrewsbury cops arrested him.
So what did Plaintiff - Michael Elbery do? He knew what Wolf was doing and that it was illegal and that he was the object of Wolf's scheme. Michael Elbery did what would make Wolf look worst to the World Court of Public Opinion. Michael Elbery told Judge Mark Wolf that Wolf decided the cops acted legally with probable cause for their arrest of Michael Elbery at E-z on 8-5-94, so the law is there can be no trial. You can't put the cops on trial when you found that they acted legally!!
Elbery motioned Wolf telling Wolf that he had a duty under Federal Law to Dismiss the Sklut case because he found that the cops/defendants had Probable Cause (see p. 17-20 of Wolf S.J. decision on Sklut) to arrest Elbery for carrying guns at E-z Mini Storage on 8-5-94. Like the other motions concerning the Summary Judgment there was NO HEARING allowed by Judge Wolf on this motion, although Elbery requested a hearing, as he did with every motion he filed, and was legally entitled to a hearing on this motion and the other motions concerning the Summary Judgment. Wolf denied this Motion for Ministerial Act.
Michael Elbery was quite clear via his Motion for Ministerial Act that Wolf's ruling of Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury Cop defendants was wrong because Wolf falsified Mass. gun carrying law C. 269 s.10a.
Wolf refused to follow the law and dismiss the Sklut case even though he found the defendants/Shrewsbury cops had Probable Cause to arrest Michael Elbery and search and seize his E-z garage unit..
Michael Elbery goes to the United State First District Court of Appeals to get Wolf to stop Violating the law - Petition for Mandamus
How can Wolf justify his violation of Federal Law? He could not and did not. So Plaintiff - Michael Elbery filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals instructing that high court that Federal District Judge Mark Wolf found Probable Cause for the defendants and that there should not be a trial as a matter of federal law via the U.S. Constitution. As a matter of federal law a trial is prohibited because of Judge Mark Wolf's finding of Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury Cop Defendants. Plaintiff - Michael Elbery was quit clear, via his Petition for Mandamus, that Wolf's decision on Mass. gun carrying statute C. 269 s. 10a was wrong.
Elbery knew the value of going to the highest authority - it helps him to make a point just how corrupt the Courts are; he knew at this point in time that he would take his legal cases and broadcast them to the World Free Internet (not to be confused with Radio Free Europe) via a Web Site called www.MassInjustice on the Internet.
Michael Elbery as a plaintiff/moveant filed over a dozen appeals on just the various cases he had filed at the Federal Court - Boston, Mass.
Elbery also knew that Federal Judge Mark Wolf was not just wrong, via his summary judgment decision of PROBABLE CAUSE on the Sklut case, but that Wolf was deliberately falsifying Mass. law gun law C. 269 s.10a in order to get a federal civil jury to find Elbery guilty of carrying guns.
So to make a point and produce even more evidence of injustice and how Courts violate the law, Elbery filed his Petition for Mandamus and Supplement to that Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
As usual the U.S. First Circuit was a waste of time - Judge Campbell was gone, so there was no one left but Jewish dominated New World Order judges. The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals denied (see docket #248 dated 12-21-01) Plaintiff/Appellant Michael Elbery's Petition for Mandumus.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Approves of Wolf's Planned Kangaroo Court/Trial and Violation of Federal and State Law
The effect of the Denial of Michael Elbery's Petition for Mandamus by the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals was to show the injustice/corruption of the Judiciary. The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and consented to Judge Mark Wolf having a Kangaroo Court. They were alerted that Federal District Judge Mark Wolf was having a trial, after Wolf found the Shrewsbury Police Defendants had Probable Cause for their Search/Siezure and Arrest of Michael Elbery on 8-5-94. The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals condoned and authorized the Kangaroo Court of Federal Judge Mark Wolf, via their Denial of Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's Petition for Mandamus.
Wolf Wants No Witnesses to his Unconstitutional Conduct - No Hearings on Summary Judgment and Post-Summary Judgment Motions
Judge Wolf makes his decision (only denials by Wolf against Plaintiff - Michael Elbery) on the Combined 3 motions further bolstering and documenting Wolf's fabrication of Mass. gun laws. Wolf refused to follow the real Massachusetts Gun Laws but instead maintained his falsifications of the Massachusetts State gun laws. Wolf can't complain both Plaintiff - Elbery's Memorandum and 3 Combined Motions instructed Wolf to the real law, but Wolf chose to lie via his decision on Elbery's Summary Judgment and then lie again when he made his decision of the 3 Combined Motions. Of course there was no hearing on these motions.
There is never a hearing on this 3 Combined Motions or the Summary Judgment Motion or Motion to Perform Ministerial Act; Federal Judge Mark Wolf did not want Michael Elbery alerting anybody, including courtroom personnel, that Federal Judge Mark Wolf was violating the law.
There was a hearing during the Summary Judgment Process of the Sheketoff case on 2-26-01, (see docket entry @ 2-20-01 which indicates habeas corpus ordered for that hearing), but Michael Elbery was not invited and was not allowed to attend (and it was Michael Elbery's case).
Wolf Violates U.S. Constitutional Law - Gets Caught with his Pants Down - Still Goes to Trial - Wolf Exposed to the World Wide Internet
Federal Judge Mark Wolf got to Big for His Britches and we don't mean just the 60" waste line on the ugly little runts 5'-5" frame.
Judge Mark Wolf found that the cops had Probable Cause to arrest Michael Elbery and search his E-z garage. All Elbery's lawsuit counts required that there was No Probable Cause! So why wasn't Elbery's case/lawsuit immediately Dismissed by Judge Mark Wolf as the law requires? Why did Elbery's case against the cops/Sklut defendants continue to trial?
As above, you have seen the documented evidence, per Wolf's decision, that he found PROBABLE CAUSE for the Sklut defendants' arrest of Michael Elbery by fabricating Mass. gun carrying law and invading the province of the federal jury to find Probable Cause on the 5 10h possession charges and Search and Seizure. You don't believe the case then continued to trial? See the last 2 pages of Wolf's decision via Summary Judgment.
No wonder Attorney Gerald Fabiano didn't file a motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of his Shrewsbury Police defendants - there was an arrangement. Fabiano got a Probable Cause for his police defendants without submitting a motion for summary judgment, and then got paid by the cops insurance company to defend his Shrewsbury Police clients at trial knowing Federal Judge Mark Wolf was using fabricated Mass. carrying gun laws, so Fabiano could not lose.
Cops & their Insurance Company get schemed by their Defense Attorney, Gerald Fabiano & Federal Judge Mark Wolf
No wonder the S.P.D. defendants' Attorney, Gerald Fabiano, didn't file a Motion for Summary Judgment, it was all pre-arranged/rigged. How did Attorney Fabiano handle this issue of Wolf finding his Shrewsbury Police Defendants had Probable Cause for their arrest., yet they still had to go to trial? Defendant Sampson was supposedly an attorney, in addition to a Lieutenant on the Shrewsbury P.D.. All the Sklut defendants were front and center in the Federal Court - Boston, Mass. for 3 days which consisted of a partial trial and jury selection, and the Sklut defendants brought their witnesses and their insurance company paid for all these legal services required for a trial that was legally impossible!! Did Gerry Fabiano tell his clients' insurance company of the Judge Wolf "Probable Cause" finding for the arrest by the Shrewsbury cops of Michael Elbery on 8-5-94 at E-z? Was the insurance company stupid? Didn't they question why they were paying for defense of the 6 Sklut defendants for trial that was being held in Wolf's court even though Wolf found that there was Probable Cause for all the Sklut defendants' arrest?
The, usually surly, insolent, belligerent Shrewsbury Cop Sklut defendants were pissing themselves those three days in the Boston Federal Court House; they had no idea that their Arrest and Search was already found to be "with Probable Cause" (because Wolf falsified the Mass. gun carrying law C. 269 s.10a and Wolf played the jury deciding credibility issues and factual disputes via his Summary Judgment Decision), and that they should not even have been in the Boston - Federal Courthouse those 3 days, if Wolf followed federal law. The cops can't be put on trial for actions that the presiding civil judge (Wolf) finds that they acted with Probable Cause. But Wolf had a Kangaroo Trial, or he tried to, until Michael Elbery walked out of the Boston Federal Courthouse on day 3 of the trial proceedings, all so that Wolf could attempt to cloud the underlying Not Guilty verdicts by Judge Zide with a finding of Guilty by a Federal Civil Jury.
Federal Judge Wolf's Motive for Kangaroo Trial with Co-Conspirator, Attorney Gerald Fabiano
Wolf 's Motive for having a trial on the Sklut case after finding Probable Cause for the Shrewsbury cop defendants - was to find Michael Elbery guilty via the federal civil jury. Yes, the federal civil jury can find that a valid defense to the false arrest charges etc. constituting Elbery's lawsuit is that Michael Elbery was actually guilty of those 6 gun charges. And Judge Mark Wolf already falsified, in both the Sheketoff and Sklut cases, Massachusetts gun law C. 269 s. 10a to make sure the jury followed Wolf's illegal law and found Michael Elbery guilty. A jury is required to follow the law as given them by the judge.
Yes sir, Federal Judge Mark Wolf was going to instruct the jury with his fabricated law that "if the firearm causing the Shrewsbury Police defendants to charge Michael Elbery with a violation of Mass. G.L. C. 269 s. 10a. was "not in his residence or place of business" then the law is guilty". In fact, Wolf could have found at the scheduled trial on the Sklut case that as a matter of his fabricated Mass. law on C. 269 s. 10a "gun carrying" that Elbery was guilty because the underlying facts of the arrest were not disputed by Michael Elbery or the Sklut defendants; both the defendants and the plaintiff agreed that Elbery's E-z garage was not his home or place of business. The Judge presiding in that case has a duty to apply law to the undisputed facts, Or Guilty by the presiding judge Mark Wolf on the C. 269 s. 10a gun carrying charge. But Wolf was lying about what was really C. 269 s. 10a , Wolf fabricated his own false version of C. 269 s. 10a.
Really a petty objective considering Judge Mark Wolf could not assess Michael Elbery a penalty, if the federal civil jury found that Michael Elbery was actually civilly Guilty of the charges. Even the most bellicose Judge would have been satisfied by using the Summary Judgment Process to dismiss Elbery's lawsuit. Not Wolf, as documented in this Chapter of MassInjustice on Wolf, Wolf again went one step further. This Federal Judge Wolf has been allowed to do any illegality he so desires on that Federal Bench in a Courtroom that belongs the American People. Wolf is the Jewish Agenda of Hate and enslavement of the human race by the greedy Jew for their exploitation. The next step is the Jewish Takeover - then they will murder in this U.S.A., or so they think. The Jews that are reading this are saying they already have murdered in the U.S. and used toxic gases on their enemies. Who ordered the cyanide gas attacks on Michael Elbery in the summers of 2008 through 2012?
Wolf tries to be Clever - Now they have something to remember - Chief Justice of the District of Mass. - Federal Judge Mark Wolf
Very clever of Federal Judge Mark Wolf - he only has to falsify Massachusetts' law ( C 269 s. 10a), once, and the falsification gets both his buddy, Attorney "Little Bobby" Sheketoff and the Shrewsbury cops out of any liability for their Unconstitutional Conspiracy via a Wolf dismissal. But Federal Judge Mark Wolf got stupid with his "authority" and had a trial after finding the Shrewsbury cops had Probable Cause for their Arrest/Search & Seizure. If Michael Elbery had not walked out on Wolf's court, after exposing Wolf's illegal plan in open court, the federal civil jury that was selected for the Sklut case would have been misdirected with Wolf's deliberate falsification of Mass. gun laws and required to find Plaintiff - Michael Elbery civilly guilty of gun violations.
But Wolf can't fool all the people all the time. Michael Elbery isn't a member of the Mass. Bar; he can't be intimidated by disbarment for exposing Federal Judge Mark Wolf to the World via the Free Internet. Wolf thought Elbery would just go away like all the rest and everything would be swept under the "Judicial Carpet". You got too clever Wolf, you got caught, and I ain't going to stop. This case isn't in the law books (the judiciary decides which cases are published in the law books not the printer/publisher); it is on magnetic disks all over the World, as people have been downloading this Chapter and this entire Web Site so that it will be around for centuries.
Even law schools and justice leagues like the U.N.'s Amnesty International have taken interest in this Web Site. They like the transcripts and documentation produced by the cops and judges that cause irrefutable proof as to what tyrants/dummies like Judge Mark Wolf are doing in the Courts of the United States of America. Federal Judge Mark Wolf isn't supposed to happen in the U.S.A. (land of freedom and justice - a free society ran for the rights of the individual).
Below are notes and in process items.
Document 1 motion summary judgment
Document 2 List of documents/attachments summary judgment
Document 3 Affs in Support of summary judgment
Document 4 Memo in Support of Summary Judgment (docs hyperlinked)
Document 5 Defendants' Opp. Summary Judgment
Document 6 Defendants Facts in Opp. Sum Judgment (Combined with Opp above)
Document 7 Reply to def. Opp. to Summary Judgment (docs hyperlinked)
Affidavits in Support of Reply to Defendants' Opp.
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C -
Document 8 Reply Part II to Opp. to Sum Judgment
Document 9 3 Motions C. 269 10a
Document 9a Defendants Opp. to combined 3 Motions C. 269 10a
Document 10 Motion Court Perform Ministerial Act
Document 11 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Document 11a Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Supplement
Document 12 Plaintiff's Motion Find No PC for Mass. C. 269 10a (hyperlink Statham case which is Exhibit)
Document 12a Defendants Memo on Insufficiency Firearm ....
Document 13 Reply to Defendants Memo on Insufficiency
Document 14 Plaintiff's Post-Mortem Memo
Document 15 Defendants Opp to Post-Mortem Memo.
Document 16 Plaintiff's Reply to Opp. Post-Mortem Memo.
Attorney Geraldine Fabiano (Shrewsbury P.D. attorney) claimed at the Social Law Library that he beat me in the Sklut case. Elbery told him it was Wolf and theft that beat me not you. Fabiano would admit that the jury selection by Wolf was "unusual". Gerry had a female witness hiding at the Law Library, listening.
And th lawyers (Brad Louison and Liz Fahey etc.) did great they could make money off the insurance companies and Wolf attempting to find Elbery guilty via his fabrication of Mass. law.
Attorney Liz Fahey and the courtroom seating - mixed messages and puking in the courtroom. Fahey upset by use of 3rd person to describe ones self.
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery was required to sit in front of Attorney Liz Fahey and then her successor, Gerald Fabiano during hearings of the Sklut case, Michael Elbery caught Liz Fahey giving one of the Hearing Judge signals in order to cheat Michael Elbery of Due Process of Law. That's right Fahey was communicating with hearing judges and Wolf behind Plaintiff - Michael Elbery's back because Wolf allowed Fahey to sit in the table behind Elbery. No wonder Fahey was made Superior Court Judge.
Elbery was warned not to say anything about "that Federal Judge". All the more reason that the tyranny of his highness, Federal Judge Mark Wolf, must be exposed during the case of Elbery v. Attorney Bobby Sheketoff and Elbery v. Sklut and 6 other members of the Shrewsbury Police Dept.
This Chapter of MassInjustice is a threat to national security - but the nation is Israel and the New Promise Land of North America formerly the U.S.A.
Michael Elbery was falsely arrested in July of 2000 and unable to finish completion of his Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the Sheketoff case. Elbery was not alerted that Judge Mark Wolf had initiated the Summary Judgment Process until he (Elbery) received Sheketoff Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at S.E.C.C. Prison on about 11-1-00.
Plaintiff - Michael Elbery upon learning that Wolf had allowed the Summary Judgment Process to begin by receiving a Motion for Summary Judgment from Sheketoff's lawyer had one Supplement to make to his (Elbery's) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the Sheketoff case. Elbery had almost completed the entire Sheketoff Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum before he was falsely arrested on July 6, 2000.
Plaintiff Elbery motioned Judge Wolf to allow Elbery more time to type that Supplement and Elbery's Opposition to Defendant Sheketoff's Motion for Summary Judgment, but was denied. As a result the Supplement and Elbery's Opposition to Sheketoff's Motion for Summary Judgment were hand written. At that time an inmate/prisoner at Mass. State Prison - S.E.C.C. had about 2 hours a week to type these documents on manual typewriters that were destroyed/partially working. Elbery later bought an electric typewriter through the prison canteen but the prison guards prevented him from carrying the typewriter to the prison library; Elbery was in barracks not the customary jail cell, so typing was impossible.
Also keep in mind Massachusetts law says Judge Zide was right in finding N.G. and everybody knew it and agreed including the Shrewsbury cops, Worcester D.A. John Conti's Office. The cops and prosecutor knew they were stopped in their conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Michael Elbery causing them to not even show up for trial. Lt. James Hurley of the Shrewsbury Police Dept. took a sick day pledging that his next pack of lies would be better and that he would not get caught again. Shrewsbury Chief of Police Wayne Sampson had Sgt. Gus-Chester "sparky" Johnson buff his pattern leather shoes.