Martha Coakley & The Jewish Manchurian Candidate

or

Jewish Conspiracy to, Again, Imprison Michael Elbery with Lies

Coconspirators - A.G. Martha Coakley, ExxonMobil Corp., the Insane Jewish drug addict- Peter Gear, New World Order Police, the Jews in the Shadows, and Federal Judge Lasker, too!

 

HOME PAGE

 

3 Framingham Police 911 call recordings hyperlinked !

Listen to the 911 calls made to the F.P.D from the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00, including Michael Elbery's 911 call.

Listen to the 911 calls made by Peter Gear at 7:20am later that 7-4-00

Listen to the illegally recorded Sgt. Sanchez call 

Also incorporated in this chapter, below

 

Introduction:

This chapter of injustice starts in September of 1999 when Michael Elbery succeeded in getting his  "Motion for New Trial" to Governor Cellucci in time to stop Judge Dan Toomey from becoming a member of the Mass. SJC (highest court in Mass.). Elbery's enemies would retaliate causing him more imprisonment and more fabricated criminal charges resulting from an incident on July 4, 2000 when a Jew named Peter Gear claimed that Elbery gave him a "racially motivated beating". The events were finalized in July of 2001 when a jury found Elbery not guilty of all criminal charges.

Background

It was September of 1999, Judge "Dirty Dan" Toomey had just had a heart attack because Michael Elbery was successful in getting his "Motion for New Trial" to Massachusetts Governor - Paul Cellucci. Instead of appointing Toomey an S.J.C. Justice, Cellucci initiated a State Police investigation against Toomey, due to Elbery's documented evidence that Toomey was the "lynch pin" in the conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and imprison Elbery for "attempted mayhem," in order that Cellucci cover himself and his political future. Toomey would die of complications from that heart attack. The exposure in the Boston Globe (see second page) and Worcester T&G newspapers of the Governor's ordered Mass. State Police investigation and Toomey being blackballed by Cellucci/Mass. Executive Branch, all as a result of Elbery's "Motion for New Trial," was more than Toomey could handle. Mass. Superior Court Judge Dan Toomey got justice.

-1-

In September of 1999, the Jews and their government (judiciary and police) had a problem - they had to get Elbery out of circulation where he could do less damage. If Elbery could cause a Judge to have a heart attack with his legal writing , could he expose the Jews for falsely imprisoning Elbery for 10 years? The Jews needed to make Elbery less credible. After all, it was Jewish leader Mo Bergman that worked for years to fabricate a malicious prosecution against Elbery. At that date, September of 1999, Elbery was on parole and still had several years left on the 10 years for "attempted mayhem" they framed him for in 1993. The Jewish solution was to fabricate another incident of crime against Elbery and falsely prosecute him, for a second time, in a Massachusetts Court. Another criminal conviction in our society makes a citizen, who complains about a malicious prosecution/frame-up, non-credible. They will say "he must be guilty because he got convicted of another crime"! The American citizenry want to believe in the Judiciary and its alleged justice system; they don't want to believe that their children will have to live in a society where the courts are used to railroad people because someone does not like you. The citizenry do not want to believe that one of the foundations of its society is poison/corrupt.

The Jews were afraid Elbery would alert the Free World to Jewish injustice, but in 1999 the Jews had no idea Elbery would crusade his cause of justice over the World Free Internet. In 1993, (date of the original frame-up for "attempted mayhem") the Internet was unknown to Attorney Louis P. Aloise and his buddies, including Jewish leader - Attorney Mo Bergman. In 1993 the Bergman/Aloise/Toomey Co-conspirators assumed their conspiracy to falsely imprison Michael Elbery would be buried under the "Judicial Carpet" like all the rest of the cases where innocent people are noosed/railroaded in the Massachusetts courts.

The Jews had ready allies, as there are always police that can be counted on to fabricate evidence and engage in false convictions, especially when their target is someone they hate or they imagine is the enemy. Most people in our society do not want to be police; most know the danger of police even if they won't say-so out loud. The police need an enemy. The police like the habitual criminal who repeatedly engages in conduct that causes arrests and convictions; the petty habitual criminal/drug addict gives the police arrest statistics to justify their police budget. The greatest enemy to the police is the citizen who speaks out against the police and exposes their crimes. It is a crime when the police falsely arrest, fabricate evidence, and maliciously imprison their targets, even in today's U.S.A.; but there is no one to prosecute the crimes of police in a police state.

The Jews had another valuable ally - The Jewish controlled Massachusetts Judiciary (the courts). The Jews could be sure that their scheme to frame Elbery, again, with phony evidence would be enforced by the Mass. Jewdiciary. After all, Chief Justice of the Mass. SJC - Margaret Marshall wanted to make sure her Jewish masters were happy. Margaret would be assured favor.

-2-

Michael Elbery was a marked man once the publicity about Judge Dan Toomey got into the "Boston Globe" in September of 1999 (see page 2). Elbery's parole status gave the Jews and their allies an advantage in their new plot to falsely imprison him. Parole makes dictates to parolees. This web site would have been prevented had Elbery attempted to create it in 1999. 

 

Act One - The Norfolk County Law Library

The first step of this Jewish Conspiracy was to have a "useful idiot" named Andrea Rasmussen (at the time a Norfolk County Law Librarian) and well-known lesbian advocate bear false witness against Elbery, in November of 1999. Elbery had been using the Norfolk Law Library to do his legal research while on parole. The library was located in Norwood, Mass. (it has since been relocated to Dedham Center) and is owned and run by the Mass. Judiciary and paid for by your tax dollars. Rasmussen would make claim, in written statement, that Elbery had "accosted her" while she was on duty at the front desk of the law library. Specifically, Rasmussen documented that Elbery asked her "how her vacation to California was". Yes, that's right - that was enough to get Elbery thrown in Concord Prison the day before Thanksgiving of 1999. This claim of "accosting" (asking how her vacation to Calf. was) by Rasmussen gave the Mass. Parole fabricated reason to throw Elbery in Concord Prison. Mass. Parole claimed that Elbery had committed a parole violation by asking Rasmussen how her vacation was. After four months in Concord State Prison, the Mass. Parole Board released Elbery back on parole in March of 2000  because not even those people would  find that asking someone "how their vacation was" is a crime and cause for permanent imprisonment. But their plan/scheme was successful because the Mass. Parole Board issued new conditions to Elbery's parole that included that he be employed full-time; previously the Parole Board acknowledged that Elbery was financially independent and allowed him to work on his legal cases, some on this website. The parole cops found it impossible for all parolees to get jobs due to the high unemployment and were happy not to have to enforce such impossible requirements as full time employment. Then, and up until 2006, an employer (or any of the public) could not get access to an individual's criminal record in Mass. via the C.O.R.I. That has now changed and parolee's criminal records as held by C.O.R.I. in Massachusetts are now public record. Any criminal conviction carrying a 5 year sentence or more is also, now, a public record via C.O.R.I.. With all the computerized background checks done by today's employers, it must be almost impossible for all parolees to comply with employment conditions. 

 The Jews' plot was facilitated. This new condition, a job, put Elbery in a place that the Jews could manipulate for another scheme of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. In the U.S. it only takes one lying witness to put you away.

The Jewish authorities know where their strength is and they have been using the former social splinter groups like dykes/lesbians very effectively as allies in order to implement their social agenda/design in New World Order U.S.A.

-3-

Regardless of Parole and their new sanctions, Michael Elbery would continue his legal crusade and needed the days free for the law and legal research at law libraries. Michael Elbery had already caused a great deal of trouble (worry/concern that they would be further exposed in their illegalities) for the authorities due to his legal work and they wanted to stop his legal research. He was now banned from the premises of the Norfolk County Law library, but there were other law libraries, including the Social Law Library in Boston where he was a member. 

Elbery had several major federal lawsuits pending on the docket in the Massachusetts District Court - Boston by 2000. (See Home Page of this Web Site). These would include the Sklut, Attorney Bobby Sheketoff, and Hester cases amongst others. The Sklut case was particularly troublesome to the Mass. authorities because Elbery had irrefutable evidence that 5 Shrewsbury cops (including the Chief) were not only guilty of falsely arresting him via an illegal search and seizure, but that the cops started the fire at E-Z Mini storage in order to attempt to evade 4th Amendment protection under the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In April of 2000, Elbery took a night job at an Exxon/Mobil in Framingham, Mass. Elbery would work the midnight shift at that self-service gas station/convenience store in order to get the parole goons off his back. Michael Elbery continued his legal research and writing during daytime hours to defeat parole's plans to stop him. Not even parole dares tell a parolee that he can't engage in legal work, although they would have preferred to make that a condition of Elbery's parole - No more law. Even those tyrants have their limits.

 

In addition to lesbian-Rassmussen, other librarians at the Norfolk County Law Library would also make false statements to the Mass. State Police-Steve McDonald in order to help frame Elbery, including head librarians, Carol Ewing and Agnes Leathe; these are good decent church woman who can be relied on when they know the butter on their bread depends on it. Gone are the days in the U.S.A. when the pillars of society were people who would stand up to the authorities and speak out against injustice. Today, if you disagree you are ostracized, attacked by the authorities and corporate employers and branded at least anti-social, if not criminal. Carol and Agnes had easy jobs and nice pay checks to worry about; Carol Ewing and Agnes are "politically correct" or is it "politically corrupt". Steve McDonald was the punk Mass. State Police cop that was assigned to Elbery by the authorities (in addition to the parole cops). Why were the Mass. authorities so worried that they needed to assign a state cop-detective to spy on Michael Elbery? They knew they got caught and wanted to get Michael Elbery disposed of. And every time they retaliated they got caught again - See this Web Site's Home Page for conspiracies to maliciously prosecute and imprison and Michael Elbery's resultant Federal lawsuits.

McDonald would follow Elbery and learn where Elbery stopped during the day. One example was a coffee shop, another was an auto repair facility. McDonald would enter these business establishments and ask the employees about Elbery, and then state that he, McDonald, was investigating Elbery for various illegalities. McDonald would show these employees a picture of Elbery for identification. This tactic by State cop detective punk - McDonald was very effective and caused Elbery a lot of inconvenience. But then again, what goes around comes around and Elbery would counter attack, but not in the petty manner that was "big shot" State Trooper Detective McDonald's. No, there would be blackballings, firings, careers ruined, heart attacks, and so far, one death.

-4-

Currently, members of the Mass. Bar refer to the bums that Elbery got blackballed, as per, this Web Site as "The Blackballed 7". Not to be confused with the "Magnificent Seven".

 

Act Two - forced labor at Exxon-Mobil

The stage was set in the Spring of 2000 - Elbery was working 11:00pm to 7:00am at the Exxon-Mobil station on Route 30 in Framingham, Mass. There was only one employee/cashier on duty during that shift. Now the Jews knew where he would be and could plan from that point. Oh, they are ever so clever when all the variables are under their Jewish Control. But like most Jewish plots they screwed up (see the assassinations in Sweden of the Prime Minister and Secretary of State). The Jews don't do well when you fight back - they don't function well even when they stack the deck in their favor. Elbery started that job in April of 2000 within 2 weeks after being released from Concord Prison.

 

                Prelude events- not normal events for a generic convenience store

There was foreshadowing of what was to come. There was an incident where a Mass. State cop tried to force Michael Elbery, now cashier at the gas station-convenience store, to give two drunk Hispanics their claim they were owed change. The Hispanics had no money to even make their purchase, let alone be entitled to change. Elbery quickly called the local cops before the state cop could enforce the robbery; the two responding Framingham cops were evidently not part of the scheme and disbanded the two Hispanics only to leave the state cop, who maintained his right to loiter, until he was alerted he was on video camera.

There was also a yelling woman one night at 4:00 a.m., she was hiding across the street/Route 30 and came speeding in her car through Mobil lot/pumps. She was screaming out of her car window in a rage. The only words that Elbery could decipher from the incoherent tirade were the words "you racist"...."Nazi". Just when Elbery thought the Nazi's were all dead and defeated in 1945. And of course, if you disagree with Jewish social design policies you are a racist subject to a screaming woman. She looked like a bug.

Who would care that the "enemy within" attempts to defame you? It is folly and counter to the natural order to support social policies whose objectives are to defeat you and reduce your social status.

-5-

Act Three - July 4, 2000@2:00am

It was almost tranquil at the ExxonMobil that 7-4-00 at 2:00am, but then a person who would later be identified as Peter Gear pulled into that self-service gas station and began pumping gas into his 1988 Monte Carlo. Exxon/Mobil used a post-pay system (even at night) at that location. Gear pumped $23.60 of gas into his car and then entered the convenience store. Elbery assumed Gear was at the counter to pay for his gas - Elbery realized very quickly that he was wrong. 

Gear's sale rung-up at 2:17am that 7-4-2000

Gear was there to provoke an incident which he and his Jewish co-conspirators would claim was a racially motivated assault. Gear was obviously inebriated on something and started making contorted faces, screaming irrational four letter words, while deliberately knocking the store's inventory on the floor as well as dropping his credit cards; at one point, Gear, standing in front of the cash register, pretended to fall asleep while extending his arm out straight. Elbery ordered him to pay and reminded Gear that Gear was driving drunk and that he would call the cops, if he didn't pay for the gas and be on his way. Gear refused to pay but continued making a mess and disturbance, so Elbery, following ExxonMobil policies, dialed 911 at 2:22am. Gear ran out door while Elbery requested 911 help with a thief who refused to pay for $23.60 worth of gas (Gear even grabbed a snack on his way out). Elbery cut the 911 call short and told the cop to hold the line because he needed to get the thief's license plate number. According to F.P.D. records Elbery was on the phone to the dispatcher for 41 seconds. Just coincidentally, Sgt. Hector Sanchez was the 911 dispatcher at the FPD that night; Sanchez would become a key player in fabricating a crime against Elbery and get caught at trial. Sgt. Hector Sanchez would be the stupidest "tuff guy cop" ever to take the witness stand. 

Elbery ran out the door after putting the phone down - Gear was starting to flee in his car, but realizing Elbery got his license plate number Gear stopped his car and attacked Elbery. Michael Elbery knew there something more going on than just a $23.60 gas theft and that Mass. Parole would use any excuse to put him back in prison, (even an argument can be used as a violation of Parole, if deemed convenient), so Elbery retreated trying to get in the front door of the store so he could lock it and keep the thief out; after all the police should be there at any second. Gear was kicking and had a club in his hand, and while in a state of rage, smashed Elbery over the head while Elbery was trying to release and pull the door of the store closed in order to lock it. Elbery locked the door while pushing Gear on his ass just outside the entrance into the parking lot. But Gear wasn't so easily stopped. Gear gabbed a plastic gallon jug of water that was on a display stand outside the convenience store - he threw the plastic jug full force against the window. The window is the same dimension as the front of the building (big picture window). But the window didn't break, just the plastic water jug smashed causing its water contents to run down the window and into the parking lot. Who would have known that Exxon/Mobil would have enough smarts to have windows made of lexian - Lexian is layered plastic that does not shatter or break. Gear didn't have success breaking the window with the first jug, so he rapidly threw 3 more jugs that smashed against the unbreakable window.

Like better evidence of this "Gear Incident" at the Mobil as described above - Listen to the tape of the 911 call Elbery made to the F.P.D. If you pay attention you can hear Peter Gear say "see you buddy" when Elbery initiated his conversation/911 call with F.P.D. dispatcher - Sanchez.

-6-

Why did Gear stop throwing water jugs at the windows? It wasn't the cashier who should have stopped him - Elbery was hoping the glass would break in order to produce physical evidence that the authorities could not lie about. It was three young males who were next door at Dunkin Donuts. Gear fled as they ran across the parking lot yelling at him. They would later ask Elbery why he would allow this thief to steal and then vandalize. These 3 Dunkin Donut customers had no idea what was really going on or what they were getting involved in, but Elbery knew that a gas thief didn't act this way and that they were closing in on him. That's right "they"!

The Framingham Police Arrive - alleged investigation

According to F.P.D. records as reviewed and recorded by Attorney Ken Brekka, the Framingham Police arrived at the ExxonMobil at 2:28 (4 cops in 4 different cop cars - complete with flashing blue gumballs) seconds after Gear fled the "3 Dunkin Donut Witnesses". Elbery made the 911 call at 2:22am and put the phone on the counter after 41 seconds in order to record Gear's license plate #; it took 5 minutes for the cops to arrive at 2:28am according to F.P.D. logs and 911 tapes (as recorded by Attorney Brekka at the F.P.D.). The responding police were immediately instructed that they just passed the thief in the Monte Carlo going the opposite direction. The cops were not interested, even though both the cashier (Elbery) who called them via 911, and 3 "Donut Witnesses", immediately reported the theft and the license plate and direction the thief in the Monte Carlo was headed. Is that how 4 cops would handle a theft? Not even a radio call to head off the thief further down Route 30. And of course, none of the cops gave chase to the Monte Carlo/thief that they just passed on Route 30. A responding police officer, Galvani, did radio that the thief was "going west on Route 30"; this recording was on the F.P.D. tapes ( also hyper linked above on the same tape as Elbery's 911 call) obtained by Elbery through evidentiary discovery caused by the criminal charges that would result against him. But "going west on Route 30" does not offer enough description so a responding cop could identify the thief, Peter Gear. At least a description of the car and the license plate # should have been radioed in by FPD.

As per notes taken by Elbery's defense attorney, Ken Brekka, one of the responding cops radioed in at 2:29:13am that "an assault took place ". 

You can also hear that comment "assault took place" on the same tape that contains Elbery's 911 call to the F.P.D. and Vizikas 911 call/Espinoza's radio call to the F.P.D. at 2:37am.

That same F.P.D. dispatch tape of the incident records that Dones knew of Elbery, per Dones comments on that tape.

-7-

The police questioned both the cashier-Elbery and the 3 "Donut Witnesses" but the cops (the non-white cops) were not interested in pursuing Gear's crime. One of the responding white cops, Vizikas, did run the plate number given him by Elbery and the "3 Donut Witnesses" off the thief's Monte Carlo. Vizikas, who was not hostile but helpful, radioed the FPD from the ExxonMobil phone to trace the owner of the license plate number which was taken by the witnesses off the thief's car. Vizikas told Elbery the car was register to a guy named "Peter Gear" whose address is Chicago, Illinois. Vizikas was puzzled and asked the other cops how a guy from Chicago could get a Mass. registration.  At 2:37am Vizikas followed up with a phone call from the ExxonMobil to the F.P.D.  using the same phone Elbery had used at 2:22am (Listen to the same tape with "911 call" Elbery made - Vizikas call follows on that police tape) and found that Gear also had an address in Brighton. Vizikas left right after that never to be heard from again, just like the other white cops that responded. Vizikas gave Elbery Gear's information/identity so that ExxonMobil could collect the money that Gear owed for the gas. Vizikas expressed his disgust/astonishment that the convenience store was open to the public at that late hour, rather than using the security window. The security window had been long abandoned/discontinued at that ExxonMobil location in favor of ExxonMobil's "friendly service". Vizikas was equally puzzled that a "post pay system" (pump gas first self-serve then pay inside for cash customers) would be used for gasoline at 2:00am in that area; just more of ExxonMobil's "friendly service".

 

New World Order - Officer Dones takes over

The white cops left in short time, and a Puerto Rican/female cop named Dones took over the alleged investigation. Dones was irritated and hostile to both Elbery and the 3 "Donut Witnesses" - she was not happy with the account of facts and tried to get Elbery give a different story by suggesting different facts that never occurred. It appeared there was something wrong for Cop - Dones.

Elbery suggested that Dones take notes but she refused saying she would not write down anything and that she was not going to write a report of the incident. Dones became increasingly hostile, adverse and nasty to the point it was impossible to deal with her belligerence. At one point, Dones countered that the wounds on Elbery and the damaged property (4 water jugs and water running down the window onto the parking lot) were not evidence. Dones also made claim that Elbery didn't say anything when he made his 911 call!!! Why were the cops there if Elbery did not say anything? Elbery would disagree and recite the pertinent facts and Dones would get mad. Elbery really got to Dones when he stated that Gear had not only committed a theft, but because he used force with a weapon it was an "armed robbery" in addition to assault and battery and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Listen to Elbery's 911 tape and it is irrefutable that Elbery alerted the F.P.D. via his 911 call that he was requesting police assistance because a disorderly thief was stealing gas, not even Officer Jeanette Dones should still make claim that Elbery "said nothing" or that he "hung up" the phone without saying anything. But then again, Martha Coakley's style is to "claim up is down" and "left is right" and she needs good liars like Jeanette Dones to make such testimony in a Court of Law.

Elbery told Dones that if she didn't believe him, for whatever reason, that there are 6 (six) video cameras and they recorded the entire episode. Dones wanted to look at the video tape. Elbery told her that the Manager (Dolly Olecki) was the only one with a key to the locked box that contained the recording equipment/VCR.

-8-

The police, Dones and her male Puerto Rican cop partner- Galvani, would both leave after a 1/2 hour. The "Donut Witnesses" exclaimed their surprise at the cops attitude. They would state that Dones was against you (Elbery). They could not understand why - nor should they have understood. The Jewish Conspiracy had been planned but things were not going perfect for the Jews and their Hispanic allies.

After the cops left, the 3 "Donut Witnesses," in disbelief, asked why he (Elbery) let the thief get away with stealing the gas and vandalizing the convenience store? They didn't know what was going on - they had no idea what they had run into. But they were good men and did what most would not, then and later, when 2 of them testified at trial a year later helping Elbery free himself from the malicious prosecution of Martha Coakley's District Attorney's Office. These 3 "Donut Witnesses" did not know Michael Elbery.

 

Elbery knew that the "required" job he was forced to take by the State of Massachusetts Parole Board  was about to end and that the police would be arresting him on more false criminal charges. Elbery knew the incident was planned and that the cops were in on it. Since Elbery was on parole there would be no bail, just wait in prison. Elbery had seen Dones making observations several times in the past weeks, Dones seemed curious about the ExxonMobil when he was on duty. 

But more would go wrong for the Jews and their plan of conspiracy. Amongst other things, Peter Gear would have several conversations later that 7-4-00 that would cause Middlesex D.A. Martha Coakley and her Middlesex County prosecution team complications they could not solve even with their liberal use of lies/fabrications. Even Martha gets caught when there is too much lying.

 

 

 

Dones files a "paper"- a feeble attempt at fabrication of evidence - "911 CALL AFTER INCIDENT"

Dones was not a witness to the actual incident other than "spontaneous utterances" by Elbery and the "3 Donut Witnesses" (a hearsay evidentiary exception at trial) and her viewing of certain pieces of evidence such as the 4 broken water jugs and water rolling down the windows into the parking lot, and the traffic cone Gear used as a club (allowed as trial evidence under "complete occurrence"). She saw no blood, other than scratches on Elbery, and did not see the "water display" disturbed (Gear would claim that the water jugs broke because of he and Elbery were rolling/wrestling into the water jug display outside the store). Dones observed 4 witness - Elbery and the 3 "Donut Witnesses".

-9-

Contrary to her refusal on 7-4-00 to even take notes and claim she would not write an incident report, Dones did a "write-up"  - a one page plain 81/2 x 11 paper dated 7-7-00. Dones police "Write-up" of the "Gear Incident" at the ExxonMobil was a feeble effort to fabricate evidence in order to falsely charge Elbery with a crime. Dones produced her "Write-Up" in order to help corroborate the lies Sgt. Sanchez wrote on his official F.P.D. police report of the "Gear Incident" at the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00. Sanchez simply attached Dones' "write-up" to his official police report of the incident. See below for more on Sgt. Sanchez and his official FPD Incident Report.

Note - the deliberate continued use of 2 rr's used to incorrectly spell Elbery's name. This spelling was encouraged and started by Attorney Louse P. Aloise, who knew that spelling was an annoyance to Elbery. But here in Dones' report and throughout this Web Site you see this deliberate misspelling. They were sending me a message - they were organized and they knew who I was. Read it all on the Internet Lou the Whole World is watching. They love a scandal!

 

According to her "write-up", Dones claims Elbery would not give her any identification - but the FPD - dispatcher (Sgt. O'Keefe) knew Elbery's identity when Gear called a few hours after the "Gear Incident" (listen to the Gear 911 calls - also hyperlinked above). Not only did Elbery give Dones his name, but the Framingham Police knew that Elbery was working at that gas station long before 7-4-00. It was Elbery that got disgusted with Dones when it became pointless to state the facts and disclose the events that took place that night, as above. As far as the formal charges only the ExxonMobil manager could do that according to ExxonMobil policy, but that 7-4-00 Dones had no desire to press charges against the gas thief (Gear). Dones was on their side - she was a Puerto Rican woman who could be relied on to lie against a white man. They hate the white man. Dones could have filed criminal charges against Gear at that point and had a legal duty to do so - a felony had been reported by Elbery and Elbery would have been a mere witness. But Dones, who refused to even take notes and argued against the physical evidence, didn't want to charge Peter Gear; the plan was to arrest Michael Elbery.

 

911 CALL AFTER THE INCIDENT ?

The most important lie for Martha's Coakley's prosecution team that  Dones would write/produce via her paper was that Elbery stated he made his 911 call after he went out to get Gear's license plate #. Dones would state in her report that Elbery made his 911 call to the F.P.D. after the incident was over, not as in actuality, and as Elbery stated to Dones during her instant investigation, before he went out to get the thief's/Gear's license plate #. 

This issue of whether Elbery made his 911 call before or after the "incident with Gear" outside the store may seem petty, but the prosecutors in Massachusetts will take a piece of evidence and blow it up and accentuate it (with aid of their tone of voice and stern look/disapproving facial grimaces from the bench), as if by itself the timing of the 911 call was crime; the jury, novices in the jurisprudence game, look to the authority of the state/prosecutor for integrity and truth. In other words, the prosecutor pins his own meaning on evidence and can make a big deal out of nothing. It is a rare criminal defendant that can defeat the District Attorney's prosecution team and their well seasoned tricks and unlimited resources as funded by the taxpayers.

-10-

It was important that the prosecution fabricate that Elbery did not make the 911 call when Gear refused to pay and before the physical confrontation with Gear as a result of Elbery going out to get Gear's license plate #. If Elbery made the call before going outside to get Gear's plate, then Michael Elbery would look too much like an employee doing his job and being mindful of proper procedure while dealing with a thief - not someone that wanted to give a Jew a "racially motivated beating". But even more importantly, if Elbery made the 911 call before he went outside to get Gear's license plate number, then Gear would appear to be nothing but a fleeing thief and D.A. Martha Coakley and her police co-conspirators would have a more difficult job of fabricating their case against Elbery. D.A. Martha Coakley and her team of prosecution would try and prevent the jury from knowing that Elbery made the call before he went out to get Gear's license plate # and before the physical confrontation.

The F.P.D. document only 2 calls made from the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00am.

The Framingham Police and Martha Coakley were claiming that Elbery made his 911 call at 2:37am in order to corroborate their fabricated call after evidence. However, they had problems because the F.P.D. 911 computerized printout report indicated the first 911 call from the ExxonMobil was at 2:22am; Sgt. Sanchez of the FPD and the prosecution were claiming that not only did Elbery make his 911 call at 2:37am., but that he hung the phone up without saying anything. Sanchez was "masterminding" this fabrication by typing in on the F.P.D. log that the call from the ExxonMobil at 2:37am. was a "hang up call". The write-in fabrication ("911 HANG-UP") by Sanchez was easily defeated by defendant-Elbery because the F.P.D. logs besides having Sanchez' phony "911 HANG-UP" notation, also indicates that Officers Vizikas and Espinoza were making the call from the Mobil at 2:37am. and 911 turret tapes documented (without Sanchez' write-ins) that the F.P.D. responding to Elbery's 911 call arrived at the ExxonMobil at 2:28am (this hand written timing sequence of events at the Mobil was recorded by, none other than, Attorney Ken Brekka when he listened to all relevant tapes at the F.P.D. on 8-24-00). This is a classic case of too much information on the part of Sgt. Sanchez and the bumbling F.P.D., if they are going to claim that Elbery made the call after the incident at 2:37am don't produce F.P.D. documents that positively show 2 calls were made from the Mobil Gas Station and that the last call at 2:37am. was made by the cops after they arrived at 2:28am. and after the first call was made at 2:22am by Elbery (listen to the 911 tapes).

Another problem caused for Martha Coakley's Middlesex District Attorney's Office was that if Elbery called the cops AFTER the incident, at 2:37am, the cops were already there (per FPD 911 log by Attorney Brekka at 2:28)! There were two 911 calls made from that ExxonMobil on 7-4-00, obviously the first call had to be made by Elbery asking for assistance or the cops never would have had reason to be there. Listen to the tapes.

Listen to the 911 calls, via the tape as hyperlinked above, that contain both Elbery's and F.P.D. - Officer Vizika's call from the Mobil that 7-4-00. Obviously Elbery made his 911 call first or the FPD would have had no reason to be there. And just as simple, Vizikas made his call from the Mobil after the F.P.D.  responded to Elbery's 911 call. So Vizikas call was made at 2:37am and was the second call. That's right, F.P.D. document 2 calls from the Mobil that 7-4-00 (one at 2:22am and one at 2:37am). And most importantly Dones, Sanchez and the F.P.D. got caught documenting lies (After) on a police report; they never thought Elbery would defeat Martha Coakley and the F.P.D. or get control of the irrefutable F.P.D. 911 tapes that are now part of this Web Site. But then again, Dones and her cop co-conspirators knew that nobody does anything about the cops and their constant lying in court and fabrication of evidence. The cops lie about evidence and commit perjury in the Courts with impunity because they are part of the "prosecution team".

-11-

Another problem for Coakley's prosecution team was that Elbery irrefutably says to the F.P.D. dispatcher (and it is recorded on the 911 F.P.D. tapes) that he has to put the phone down to get the thief's license plate # off his car. That should be enough to end this issue as when Elbery made his 911 call relative to his physical encounter with Gear outside. But would Elbery have been that quick to plan such detail if he, hypothetically, made the 911 call after the incident with Gear in order to make it look like he made the call before going outside to get Gear's license plate #? According to the  F.P.D. printout Elbery's 911 call was made at 2:22 and Gear's gas was rung up at 2:17am,; would Elbery have been that fast to plan to fabricate that he was putting the phone down to get the thief's license plate number before the incident in order to cover-up that the call was made after? Would it have occurred to him that it was even important, especially in such quick time?

The police logs/documents and tapes and ExxonMobil register tape irrefutably disclose that the entire incident from the time Elbery rang up Gear's sale at 2:17am until Elbery made the 911 call at 2:22am was a meager 5 minutes. If Elbery made the call after, then the activity to be accounted for in 5 minutes included Gear at the counter, some kind of flight-fight as per the prosecution, and then Gear getting away, if you use the prosecutions account of the incident. And then there would be some time needed before Elbery went back in to the store and made the call. Could the prosecution convince a jury that Elbery made a B-line to the phone after Gear fled in order to cram the entire incident into this 5 minute time period required by the "CALL AFTER" claim. And as per the above paragraph decide in such rapid time to word his 911 call to make it look like he made the call before the incident with Gear? 

The F.P.D.  911 calls made from the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00am  would be all that would be necessary to void/neutralize the fabrication that Elbery made the call at 2:37am after the incident and after Gear drove off. If you listen closely to the tape you can hear Gear in the background saying, "see you buddy" while Elbery was talking to F.P.D. dispatcher via his 911 call.

                                                                                     

 

 

Gear left immediately after incident - how did he know Elbery called cops?

According to Sanchez police report of the incident (more on the "Sanchez report" below), Gear claims he left immediately after the incident (Gear leaving

-12-

 immediately is, as a result, undisputed evidence because that is what Elbery and the "3 Donut Witnesses" immediately told the responding F.P.D.. at 2:28am, and exactly what the 3 "Donut Witnesses" would tell Attorney Ken Brekka per his notes go to pages 11-19). Gear confirmed to Dolly-the Mobil Mgr. on 7-4-00, per Brekka notes - see page 1, that the "Donut Witnesses" came at the "end of the incident". 

 

 Because Gear admitted per the Sanchez Report, he left immediately after the incident and Gear confirmed to Dolly on the afternoon of 7-4-00 that witnesses (the "Donut Witnesses") came at the end of the "incident" it would have been impossible for Elbery to have made his call "AFTER the Incident" without the "3 Donut Witnesses" seeing Elbery make the call.

As per Brekka investigative notes, the 3 independent "Donut Witnesses (see pgs. 10-18)" stated, in agreement with Elbery's account of the facts, that Gear fled the ExxonMobil as the cops were approaching and that Gear drove right by the cops on Route 30 going the opposite direction. These same witnesses also stated, per Brekka notes (see pgs. 10-18), that they saw Elbery inside and that he opened the door and exited the store as they came running over from Dunkin Donuts yelling at Gear. These 3 Donut Witnesses did not see, per statements to the police and Attorney Brekka  (see pgs. 10-18 of Brekka notes) or later at trial, Elbery make any call and they saw everything from the point where Gear was smashing water jugs off the window. Most importantly, the "3 Donut Witnesses" stated repeatedly that the cops arrived seconds after they ran over from Dunkin Donuts. The reason the cops arrived seconds after the "3 Donut Witnesses" and as Gear was fleeing down Route 30 is because Elbery had to have made the call at 2:22, or before going out to get Gear's license plate #. So there was no call made by Elbery  after the incident as Dones fabricates per her "write-up".

 

Another problem Gear caused for Martha Coakley and her prosecution team is that in the 911 tapes of Gear's calls made to the F.P.D. after the incident at the ExxonMobil - Gear stated that he "knew Elbery called the cops". Gear asked Dispatcher - Officer Keif "if they had received his (Elbery's) call" and Keif responded affirmatively. How could Gear know Elbery called cops, if Elbery called "After the Incident?" Did Gear hang around after he stole the gas and had a fight? No, per the police report he left immediately and further the 3 "Donut Witnesses" chased him and Gear actually ran away and sped out onto Route 30 according to those 3 "Donut Witnesses". The reason Gear knew Elbery called the cops is because he called 911 while Gear was causing trouble refusing to pay and then Gear left while Elbery was on the phone - Listen to the tape you hear Gear say, "See you buddy".

 

-13-

 "Call After" fabrication Fails - exposing the prosecution's account of the incident to be fraud

Gear's entire fabricated account of the incident is based on the fact that Elbery made the call AFTER the incident. Gear, per the Sanchez official FPD police report that supported the phony criminal charges against Elbery, would claim that Elbery immediately chased Gear down, not that Elbery first called 911.

 

The 911 tape records no "Racial Slurs"

According to the Sanchez Report, Gear claimed that Elbery yelled at him and chased him down while calling him "racial slurs ". Because Elbery was on the phone making his 911 call for police assistance with a the gas thief-Peter Gear, none of Gear's claim of running him down were possible. Listen to the 911 tape of Elbery's call to the F.P.D. - Do you hear Elbery yelling "racial slurs" on that tape? Elbery told the F.P.D. dispatcher, per that 911 recording, that he was putting the phone down to get the thief's (Peter Gear) license plate # - at that point everything was being recorded but you don't hear anybody yelling "racial slurs"; in fact there is no noise (at least no voices or yelling) at all and physical evidence is the best evidence. That's because the Jew - Peter Gear and his fellow co-conspirators, Sgt. Sanchez and company, were playing the racial card, as usual in this here U.S.A.

Gear was in his car by the time Elbery got outside the store to copy Gear's license plate number.

If Elbery called the police before rather than after the incident, then Gear's claims of "racial slurs" and Elbery chasing him down are all fabricated. You will see below that Gear would make claim to ExxonMobil Mgr. - Dolly Olecki that Elbery pulled Gear out of his car and then gave Gear his "beating". These two fabrications (police report v. Gear's statement to Dolly per Brekka interview - see page 1) by Gear conflict, if Elbery went out and pulled Gear out of his car, then Elbery could not also have immediately chased Gear down inside the store while calling him slurs. Actually, the alleged victim-witness (Peter Gear) and prosecution's case in chief told at least 5 different versions of the event/incident.

 

"More Fabrications per Dones Report"

Dones falsified her write-up of the incident in order to corroborate Gear's false story, as per the police report that Sgt. Sanchez wrote. Dones deliberately misquoted Elbery in her "write-up" in order to facilitate their objective to produce false evidence that Elbery had committed a crime.

Elbery never said "Customer came into pay for gas". Elbery said he "assumed" that the customer was there to pay for the gas. (listen to Elbery's 911 tape - he says Gear won't pay for the tank of gas.)

-14-

Elbery never told Dones, "Customer took to long to pay". Elbery told Dones that "customer (Gear) refused to pay" (listen to Elbery's 911 tape).

Elbery never told Dones, "Gear left when told to hurry-up". Elbery told Dones that Gear fled when Elbery finally called 911 ( listen to the tape of Elbery's 911 call).

Dones wrote her "write-up" on 7-7-10 a day after Sgt. Sanchez wrote his falsified report of the incident. Neither reports are stamped and time dated by the official police validation machine/stamp that every police department is required to use. Compare the Sanchez Report to the S.P.D. reports. This makes it questionable as to when these police documents were actually written. [ The S.P.D. is used as a comparative example, only. The S.P.D. was not involved in the "Gear Incident" because the "Authorities" who were conspiring against Michael Elbery, this time, knew not to give the likes of James Hurley and company another opportunity to screw up.]

 

Not only could Dones fabrications per her write-up be easily defeated, but there was still plenty of evidence in the "Dones Write-Up" that was beneficial/exculpatory to Elbery's defense. Dones documents that Elbery had scratches on his arms and Dones gave some of Elbery's instant or spontaneous account of the incident.

 

No Cops - No Problem

Dones pathetic attempt to fabricate evidence against Elbery and the "Dones Write-Up" was a problem that D.A. Martha  Coakley solved very easily; D.A. Martha Coakley  and her prosecution team voided Dones as a witness, as well as, all the other police that responded to the ExxonMobil that 7-4-00. Although Elbery subpoenaed Dones as a defense witness, she never showed for trial, nor did any of the other police that Elbery subpoenaed. D.A. Coakley's problems caused by Dones and her fabrications, as above, and the responding F.P.D. team of police were, as a result, eliminated. None of the police that responded to the incident were allowed to testify at trial, although subpoenaed by Elbery for his defense. The trial judge would not allow Elbery to enter the Dones "Write-up" into evidence, although "Mass. Rules of Evidence" (police reports are self-authenticating) allow its admission without Dones as a witness. Regardless of the fabrications in Dones "Write-up" of the "Gear Incident", there was a plethora of evidence in her report that was exculpatory for Elbery. The falsifications in the Dones "Write-up" would be easily disproved at trial; Coakley and her team of deviants must have seen it coming, so they rid themselves of the problem and all the witness-cops, including Dones, that responded to the ExxonMobil that 7-4-00.

Elbery was prepared to defend against this "timing falsification" by Martha Coakley and her team of prosecution, but the issue barely came up at trial and was quickly defeated by the defense with presentation to the jury of official police documentation/Logs, as included in this Chapter of MassInjustice, and testimony of 2 "Donut Witnesses". 

The two 911 tapes that are now part of this Web Site were prevented by Martha Coakley, as being used as evidence at trial; the jury was never allowed to hear them.

-15-

 

"Donut Witnesses" Purged (Stalinesque)

 D.A. Martha Coakley had even more consuming problems than just Dones documented screw-up because the 3 unbiased and independent "Donut Witnesses" did not report Gear as a victim who was dripping blood from a racial beating, instead they reported him as a thief who vandalized the ExxonMobil and then fled because Gear was "conscious of his guilt" (see Attorney Brekka's interview notes Page 10 of the 3 "Donut Witnesses"). They also ordered the cops to chase Gear while pointing to his direction and reporting his registration plate #. In fact, everything the "3 Donut Witnesses" reported that instant incident on 7-4-00 was a problem for Martha Coakley's prosecution and Dones and the police tried to avoid it. Everything the "3 Donut Witnesses" told the cops (instant evidence of the incident) killed the prosecution's phony case against Elbery.  Dones "Write-up" (incident report) was void of any mention of the 3 "Donut Witnesses" that she and her cohorts interrogated for 1/2 hour - they never even got their names or mentioned their existence, let alone made record of their statements/evidence. The official F.P.D. incident report written by Sgt. Sanchez was also void of any mention of the 3 "Donut Witnesses". 

These cops aren't that stupid, it was deliberate.

 

ACT -IV - Peter Gear - the 4th of July Aftermath, Gear's Arrest and Gear's initiation of 2 phony crimes against Elbery

At that point, 2:30am on 7-4-00, Gear's actions demonstrated things weren't going well for him; even a junkie like Peter Gear must have understood that you can't steal a tank of gas and drive drunk. Gear had fled down Route 30 in his 1988 Monte Carlo while passing all the flashing blue cop lights on the 4 responding Framingham Cop cars that July 4 shortly before 2:30am. Gear passed the next door "all night" Dunkin Donuts and the Natick Mall in his flight from the scene of his crime; both these locations could have yielded a "poor innocent victim" help even at that hour. Gear would call the Framingham police  hours later from his mother's house which was also in Framingham, Mass.. Gear would go into a rage and make statements that were all recorded on 911 F.P.D. police tapes. Gear was invited by the F.P.D. police dispatcher (Sgt. Keefe) that answered his call to come down to the police station, but Gear declined. The same Framingham 911 dispatcher, Keefe, then offered to send a Framingham police officer to Gear at his mother's house, but Gear declined. Like the F.P.D. tapes of the 911 calls made by Elbery and Officer Vizikas earlier on 7-4-00 from the ExxonMobil, as above, D.A. Martha Coakley would make sure these tapes of Gear's 911 calls would never be disclosed to a jury regarding the phony charges that she would be levy against Michael Elbery. The tapes reveal that Gear admitted he attacked Elbery when Elbery was trying to close the door of the convenience store, Gear disclosed that he knew Elbery had made a call to the cops -911 (therefore before the incident outside the store); Gear went into a rage and couldn't remember what he had told the F.P.D. dispatcher only a minute prior, Gear didn't want the cops at his house because if you listen to his recording - Gear is inebriated.  And the list of damming evidence per Gear's 911 tape is yours to dissect. Gear was so stupid that 4th of July he must have been a co-conspirator of Attorney Mo Bergman.

-16-

 

The 911 tapes obstructed by Martha Coakley

Michael Elbery did get possession of  all the F.P.D. police tapes of the incident, including his 911 call at 2:22am and Officer Vizikas' call from the ExxonMobil at 2:37am, as above, and the two 911 phone calls by Peter Gear later that July 4th at 7:20am., and one other recorded phone conversation (Sgt. Sanchez of the F.P.D. calling Elbery on 7-6-00) through his attorney, Ken Brekka. None of  the police tapes would be allowed to be played/disclosed to the jury during the trial caused by the phony charges against Elbery, for the same reasons  (prosecution did not admit them into evidence - Elbery was not allowed to bring his tapes to Court from S.E.C.C. Prison). In fact the prosecutor denied the existence of such tapes and the trial judge agreed that the prosecutor had no duty to produce the exculpatory evidence presented on those tapes that you can now hear on this Web Site. Concealment of those tapes (exculpatory evidence for the defendant/Elbery) by Martha Coakley and her band of prosecution at Elbery's trial is, of course, a Violation of the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights; a.k.a. - a "Brady Violation".

It is hard to believe when you have people like Martha Coakley running what is supposed to be the Justice System, but a prosecutor is not supposed to advocate perjury and concealment of exculpatory evidence for the defendant! No, although hard to believe by today's example in Massachusetts, the prosecutor's job is theoretically justice for all. Since Martha Coakley has demonstrated she can't comprehend what justice is (probably due to the culture she was brought up in - same as Toomey) , it means the courts are not to be used to railroad citizens and that the prosecutor is not supposed to advocate concealment of evidence and perjury by police testimony. Martha Coakley got where she is today by doing a lot of dirty work.

Yes, Martha Coakley violated The U.S. Constitution's Due Process Clause when she deliberately engaged in a conspiratorial scheme to maliciously prosecute Michael Elbery in a Massachusetts court via concealment of evidence and production of fabricated evidence. She lost the case against Michael Elbery, but she got away with criminal violations of the U.S. Constitution. They don't want you to know this, but the U.S. Constitution is still the law of the land in this here United States. The Bill of Rights (1st Ten Amendments to the Constitution) are a real inconvenience to the Mass. Judiciary and people like Martha Coakley.

Hey, Michael Elbery got found in contempt of court, twice, during the trial by Judge Stoddart for objecting to violations of his  Constitutional Rights. Judge Stoddart, after Michael Elbery was found Not Guilty by the jury on both charges purged/voided those 2 contempt charges. See more on the trial below.

 

D.A. Martha Coakley had already granted Gear immunity - More "Coakley Conspiracy"

What was Peter Gear supposed to have accomplished at the ExxonMobil that 7-4-00? Was Gear led to believe by Attorney Mo Bergman and his Jewish gang and the "Worcester Home Rule Gangsters" that the slightest provocation would result in him being attacked by Elbery? That was one of the tactics the Worcester Police and company used to justify their injustice via Elbery's malicious prosecution for "attempted mayhem" - they went around lying to citizens and the Worcester legal community who knew Elbery got lynched in Worcester Superior Court; the police in Worcester claimed Elbery to be a dangerous monster and irrational in order to justify their obvious frame-up. How's this Web Site? Is it irrational? The Worcester Police and Attorney Louis P. Aloise never thought there would be this Web Site to expose the truth about their frame-up conviction of Michael Elbery in July of 1993 and to show documented truth that the cops and Worcester D.A.'s Office were the documented liars.

-17-

In the police state still known as the U.S.A., it is the police who are the evil and monsters. In history the greatest crimes, by an exponential factor, have been committed by the governments. Many in the Worcester Community knew Elbery was a CPA - MBA/Babson '77 and affluent local business man and that he had no use for cops and government. Elbery believed in a U.S.A. that used to be run for the people, a.k.a. the Americans. The masses - what will they do when Economic Winter descends on the U.S.A.? The Federal Reserve has been flooding the U.S. economy with Trillions of Dollars through "Money Creation" ( legally allowed to create money out of thin air via accounting entries to the Fed's reserve accounts with banks). A hyper - inflationary depression is just around  the corner.

Did it make any difference if Gear's actions went as planned that 7-4-00? Not really, because Gear was obviously protected (read on). He had already arranged a "Deal" and immunity with D.A. Martha Coakley. But his lack of discipline, and control at the ExxonMobil that 7-4-00 would cause irreparable problems for the "Jews in the Shadows" and D.A. Martha Coakley's conspiracy to fabricate an incident against Michael Elbery in order to, again, falsely convict and imprison him. There was evidence produced/caused by Gear on 7-4-00 that not even D.A. Martha Coakley could conceal from a jury. Yes sir, Martha Coakley was using her elected authority and the alleged courts of justice to frame Michael Elbery -  a court in Massachusetts would again be used by a lynch mob for a Kangaroo Trial.

No, Gear didn't deal with Coakley directly! There were many co-conspirators (people) involved; some were the "Big Jews in the Shadows", as well as, Chiefs of Police and Judges. So much resources and alleged brains and they got such poor results for their lies/conspiracy and Kangarooism. Elbery was found Not Guilty on All Counts. Try again, the World is watching and waiting.

They agree and use intermediaries.

Read on, the conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and falsely imprison Michael Elbery is proved by them - they got caught.

Dolly Olecki - ExxonMobil Manager Arrives to Work @ 7:00am

Dolly Olecki was a woman in her 50's who needed a job. It obviously wasn't much of a job, even though she was the ExxonMobil manager, since she had to show up on a major holiday at 7:00am and report for work at a convenience store/gas station. Dolly Olecki would do a lot of lying in the next few months, so that she could keep her job with ExxonMobil and satisfy that corporation's New World Order Social Design Policies, see below.

At 7:00am that July 4, 2000, Elbery would inform Olecki of the incident with Peter Gear and that the Framingham Police wanted to view the video of the incident. Elbery gave Olecki the information about Gear's unpaid sale and the information that was provided by Officer Vizikas and told Olecki that she should review the video tape and confirm his side of the story. Olecki was puzzled but also reacted with caution; Dolly Olecki's primary interest was making sure she kept her job. The register detail tape showing the amount Gear's gas theft would be used by Olecki to collect from Gear later that afternoon. Olecki said, "I'll pull the video tape and put it aside". Elbery had also put the 4 broken water jugs on Olecki's desk to be preserved as evidence (wishful evidence on Elbery's part).

-18-

Dolly could be relied on (by the cops) to throw the broken water jugs away and be forever lost as evidence.

 

Dolly stated that the windows won't break.

 

Later in the day Elbery would call Olecki and she would confirm that she reviewed the video tape of the incident, as is required by ExxonMobil policy. Olecki expressed anger at Michael Elbery that he had allowed Gear to vandalize the premises. She told Elbery that he should have stopped Gear from smashing the jugs of water against the window and stealing; Olecki told Elbery that he should not have locked in the store and allowed Gear to vandalize the premises. Michael Elbery silently agreed, but did not explain what Olecki was to learn in the near future. Dolly told Elbery that she put the video tape in the safe. By this time Gear had already made his formal complaint to Dolly at about 1:00pm and she would tell Elbery that Gear disclosed his latest version of the "Gear Incident".

 

Gear complains to Dolly the ExxonMobil Mgr. @ 1:00pm 7-4-00

Peter Gear entered the ExxonMobil station at about 1:00am and reported to Mgr. Dolly Olecki. According to Olecki, Gear claimed he did not pay for his gas and snack because "the attendant (Michael Elbery) would not let him pay and that he had to get away from Mike". Gear claimed that Elbery went out to Gear's car and pulled Gear out of the car and gave Gear "a beating". Dolly would claim that she saw only  "minor marks" on Gear's knuckles. When Olecki asked Gear how the water jugs got broken, Gear claimed that they broke when he was wrestling with Elbery after Elbery pulled him out of his car. Gear claimed that he and Elbery were rolling on the water jugs and they burst. According to Olecki, Gear claimed that the wrestling on the water jugs caused his "marks".

So much for Gear's claim that Elbery "ran him down" as per the Sanchez Report  and the prosecution's case at trial. The above version by Gear of "Elbery pulling him out of his car" contradicts Gear's "running him down while calling him "racial slurs". Want another conflicting version? Listen to the tape of the 911 call Gear made to the F.P.D. 

Dolly didn't bother to tell Gear that she saw him on the ExxonMobil video tape of the incident smashing the water jugs against the windows.

Gear would pay Dolly Olecki the amount recorded on the register tape that Elbery gave her at the 7:00am shift break.

-19-

Olecki told Gear that there were three witnesses from the next door Dunkin Donuts that saw the incident which Gear confirmed, according to Olecki. Gear admitted to Dolly Olecki that the "Donut Witnesses" came "at the end of the incident".

Olecki was sure that Gear had only "minor marks" and nothing that would indicate a "brutal beating". 

Gear told Olecki that he was going to the police to file charges and to a Hospital for Emergency Room care. Dr. Docken ( a physician who examined Gear months later), per Gear's medical records which were obtained through evidentiary discovery, confirmed that Gear reported to him, months after the incident, that he went to the Emergency Room at the Metro West Hospital in Framingham, Mass.; Coakley and her prosecution team made sure Elbery never got a hold of those ER records, although Elbery made repeated requests for those medical ER documents of Gear's. If Gear actually was admitted to that ER, the ER records would have revealed something detrimental to the prosecution's case - such as known drug addict, or a blood test indicating inebriation, and at a minimum no injuries. Gear was most likely known (see Gear historically elongated medical history below) to that ER at Metro West Hospital and they probably did not put up with his nonsense. But see the discovery section starting around p. 48 - Defendant Michael Elbery made numerous requests/motions for Gear's medical records and documentation including the items mentioned in this paragraph.

 

According to Olecki, Geer claimed he was an important local wealthy person from Wellesley Hills. According to Olecki, Gear never claimed that Elbery was motivated by any racial element. This is particularly hard to believe - possibly Dolly wanted to avoid this "Jewish race issue" in fear that she would be penalized for even repeating such claims by Gear. In the New Totalitarian U.S.A. the ruling class demands compliance with thought control and speech. Dolly being Polish knew the experience with Jewish rule in that part of Europe in the past centuries. 

 

Gear paid for his gas and left the Exxon telling Olecki that he was going to the Framingham Police to report that he had been brutally assaulted and beaten by Michael Elbery earlier that day.

Dolly would state to both Elbery by phone that afternoon and to Attorney Ken Brekka during his investigation, see below, that she treated Gear in a "friendly manor" "because that is the only way ExxonMobil will let me treat him" - "friendly". Dolly would claim that she was happy to get the money from Gear.

This information was relayed to Elbery by Dolly during a phone conversation on the afternoon of 7-4-00 when Elbery called Olecki stating, amongst other things, that he quit. This account of facts to Elbery was substantially the same as Olecki's 8-10-00 first account of facts to Attorney Ken Brekka (Elbery's ephemeral defense attorney) regarding the "Gear Incident".

-20-

 

Gear goes to the Framingham police station and Gets arrested - "The Jewish Manchurian Candidate"

Gear made another serious mistake that July 4, 2000 by going to the Framingham Police station because the "wrong cops" were on duty. Gear's phony complaint to the F.P.D. that July 4th afternoon would cause the most irrefutable pieces of evidence, and Elbery's best defense evidence at trial, that not even D.A. Martha Coakley could successfully lie about to a jury. Gear attempted to register his false claim of assault against Elbery only to be arrested by two cops who weren't  involved in the conspiracy to falsely imprison Elbery. Sanchez and Dones had gone home; D.A. Martha Coakley was sunning herself on Wollaston Beach, Quincy while barbecuing spud potatoes. Gear gave his name in order to press charges against Elbery and was immediately arrested at 1:18pm because he had an outstanding warrant issued by the Bristol County D.A.'s Office 6 years earlier. Peter Gear had been on the run for 6 years due to that outstanding warrant against him for larceny via a fraudulent check scam. Peter Gear was a junkie who made a living fraudulently cashing checks. It would later be learned through evidentiary discovery, via Gear's medical records, that Gear was at a minimum, nothing but a life long drug addict with long history of medically documented insanity. 

That's right, "A Jewish Manchurian Candidate".

The police followed arrest procedures and booked Peter Gear. The booking procedure included a mug shot (picture) and "video taping" of the arrest. The mug pictures disclosed that Peter Gear had no injuries as he would later complain/fabricate via the Sanchez report causing criminal assault charges against Elbery. No injuries and no emergency room treatment? What kind of brutal beating did this alleged Jewish victim get? Is Gear another one of the 6 million that didn't happen? Martha Coakley's - Middlesex D.A.'s office thrived on phony victims; Coakley's office had a reputation of getting away with producing prosecution evidence to juries that are physically impossible, and only allowed to occur because the defense attorneys could have cared less. Hatchet faced Coakley and her "bitter lips" has no use for justice but only for her power/position, and of course, favor. 

 

Peter Gear gets Rewarded - Contacts Proper Authorities

Peter Gear was important to the Mass. Authorities - Gear was in the process of doing them an important service - falsifying evidence and  criminal charges against Michael Elbery, so they could throw Elbery in prison where he would have less opportunity to expose them in their conspiracies/illegalities. Peter Gear was released a few hours later from the Framingham Police Dept. jail once Gear made his phone call and the right cops (Sgt. Sanchez et al.) got involved. The outstanding charges for felony check larceny were dropped/dismissed. How could another County's charges result in Gear being immediately released on Personal Recognizance on the 4th of July after Gear fled the charges for 6 years? These charges were serious felonies and 6 years old. The answer is that Gear had made a deal for his lies against Michael Elbery before July 4, 2000. This incident with Gear at the ExxonMobil was planned long before 7-4-00 and this accommodating treatment by the Framingham Police and 2 Massachusetts County Prosecution Offices (District Attorney's Office) is part of the proof (more proof below). Martha Coakley's Office (then Coakley was Middlesex D.A.) was willing to go to any corrupt extent to imprison Michael Elbery; Gear's release was pre-arranged. Gear was granted immunity by D.A. Martha Coakley in exchange for his perjury long before 7-4-00, and in so doing, she pleased her Jewish Masters and would be given future consideration/favor (Mass. District Attorney and U.S. Senator- oops she missed Senator - now trying for Governor). Coakley will try for Massachusetts Governor.

-21-

Will Coakley make it the "Blackballed 8"? Only if the truth is known.

Gear was immediately released on personal recognizance. Under such conditions (Gear on the run for 6 years avoiding the felony check fraud charges) a defendant would never get bail on the day of arrest, let alone personal recognizance.

 

Who initiated the deal with Gear in order to get Michael Elbery?

The big question is who initiated the arrangements for Gear's deal of immunity? The Framingham cops sure as hell were not the ones that initiated this arrangement for Gear in order to get Elbery. It wasn't D.A. Martha Coakley and her office of legal school boys either; they only took orders. Coakley and Middlesex County had no dealings/motive with Elbery prior to the year 2000. The answer lies with the danger in this here U.S.A. - the new power - the people no one is allowed to mention, especially on the U.S. media. Yes, the plot to get Elbery that featured Jewish Gear and his fabricated "racial beating" was produced by the "Jews in the Shadows". Some of them come out of the Shadows to be on the U.S. Supreme Court or run the Federal Reserve or sit on former President Bill Clinton's "Bagel Cabinet". Some sail off the coast of Southern France in huge yachts planning "World Control" while arranging to meet at the Bilderberger Hotel. They tier of waiting for their Messiah they believed will conquer the World for them.

No doubt, Attorney Louis P. Aloise and the remaining living "Blackballed 7" were readily available with advisory services in order to supplement the Conspiracy led by Martha Coakley.

 

Martha Coakley lies about immunity for Gear - Coakley got caught!

D.A. Martha Coakley claimed that it was all a coincidence (immediate bail on the 4th of July after being on the run for 6 years from felony charges and then the felony charges were immediately dismissed - not to mention Coakley passed on Gear's robbery at the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00) and that no deals were made with their star victim witness and prosecution witness - in - chief, Felony Check scammer - Peter Gear. Just what Michael Elbery likes to see - documented evidence produced and signed by the adversaries that irrefutably proves that Martha Coakley is a liar and Co-conspirator. Martha you signed your name to a crime - you must have gone to the same law school as Attorney Louis P. Aloise.

-22-

You got caught Coakley

Coakley and the Mass. authorities in conspiracy with the Jews planned Gear's actions at the Mobil on 7-4-00. A Crime. But the Jews run the U.S.A. now and nothing will happen when one of them or their operatives, like Coakley, get caught using the courts illegally to enforce the Jewish Agenda (reduction of the social status of the white man).

Obviously, Michael Elbery has a lot of enemies - he must be doing something right. And the Scribes and Pharisees sought to trick and deceive him as they put him to the test. They would flee from the Temple of Justice as they are exposed to the World Free Internet.

 

ACT V - Attorney Ken Brekka's Investigation 

Michael Elbery called Attorney Ken Brekka on 7-5-00 because he anticipated being falsely arrested. Brekka thought Elbery was overreacting and that the police and court would never arrest him for assault under the conditions. Brekka thought Elbery was jumping to extreme conclusions that would never happen. Brekka would make claim that, if this guy, Gear, stole the gas and fled when the police were coming, the cops would never charge Elbery with a crime. Brekka said the cops have to give weight to the fact that you (Elbery) were the custodian/cashier at 2:00am. Brekka was even more insistent that a judge would never issue an arrest warrant on such facts and that no prosecutor's office would try and convict an American citizen in this country on such grounds. Brekka simply had no idea what was really going on, but he would find out and then flee. Brekka would learn about the "New World Order" that was fermenting in the U.S.A. 

Brekka was wrong about the arrest being impossible, but what he would learn quickly, while representing Elbery for approximately 4 months on the case, was that there was a Jewish Race element and that Gear and his co-conspirators were adding a claim that Gear received "a beating" because Gear was a Jew. 

 

Attorney Ken Brekka would comment to Michael Elbery that he-Brekka had done years of criminal defense cases, but he never saw cases like the ones against Elbery. But Brekka was familiar with only a very few of the phony criminal cases against Michael Elbery. While Michael Elbery owned Mulcahy's Bar, '83-'92, the Worcester and Shrewsbury cops arrested Michael Elbery over 12 times hoping to convict him of a felony in order to get his liquor license voided (a convicted felon not eligible to have a liquor license); all those charges resulted in Not Guilties or Dismissals. So many arrests with no convictions is an absolutely positive sign the police were engaging in a deliberate and calculated plan of one false arrest after another. Arthur Goldstein was Elbery's attorney while he owned that bar in Webster Square, Worcester, Mass.

Brekka was the same attorney that Elbery used to represent him (after he fired Boston - Attorney Robert "Bobby" Sheketoff) on the malicious gun case prosecution that resulted from the Shrewsbury police setting an arson fire and the resultant illegal police search at E-Z mini Storage in Shrewsbury, Mass., 8-4/5-94. All Brekka had to do was present Elbery's F.I.D. card (gun license) and the phony gun charges became not guilties. This new case would offer a little bit more resistance because now Elbery's enemies had time to re-group and organize. Elbery had done too much damage to their system and authority. What they didn't know in 1994 or 2000 was the worst damage was to come far in the future  via the Internet to the World and they could re-group til the cows come home but it ain't going to do them any good. The Mass. Jewdiciary lost - the documented records have been made and they are forever with today's technology. Every one of you that dares will be isolated and systematically scandalized by this medium of communication. Go ahead make history!

-23-

Michael Elbery was arrested by Mass. Parole cops on 7-7-00 because of the "Gear Incident" at the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00. Elbery had a difficult time getting in touch with Attorney Brekka from Concord Prison, but after several days he was able to contact Brekka's office by a prison pay phone. Brekka would make the biggest mistake of his legal career and accept the case. Attorney Ken Brekka would "represent" Elbery for approximately 4 months which turned out to be the investigation phase of the case. Elbery, being thrown in Concord Prison, had a tough job to defend a criminal charge, let alone do an investigation in order to acquire needed evidence. That was part of their plan - if Elbery was in prison he could not get evidence he needed to defend himself ( no bail while waiting for the outcome of an alleged parole violation). After Brekka quit in November of 2000 the investigation phase of the case for the defense/defendant-Michael Elbery would end. Elbery took over the case and handled the discovery phase from inside of various Massachusetts State Prisons from November 2000 thru July 2001. What you can accomplish in an hour on the streets may take weeks from behind prison walls.

 During that first contact with Brekka from Concord Prison, after the 7-7-00 arrest, Brekka was instructed by Elbery to get the video tape of the incident as taken by the video cameras ExxonMobil had operating 24 hours/365 days a year. Elbery told Brekka that Olecki, the ExxonMobil manager, had already confirmed to him that she viewed  the video tape and had put the video tape aside. Brekka went on a vacation. But Attorney Ken Brekka returned from his untimely vacation on about 8-1-00 to start his tardy investigation. Besides his vacation stopping the investigation, Brekka had still not been forwarded a retainer check in the amount of $10,000.00 from Elbery until 8-9-00. It took Elbery several weeks to convince his family to mail Brekka one of several checks that Elbery had signed in anticipation of being arrested; Elbery's family thought the $10,000.00 was extortionate. Most of the $10,000.00 would go to Attorney Ken Brekka's travel time which was billed at his usual hourly rate of $150.00.

Brekka did send the ExxonMobil Mgr. - Dolly Olecki a letter in July, after first sending Elbery a "Draft" of that letter for his approval. Brekka's secretary, Maureen, also called the ExxonMobil during the second week of July '00 and told ExxonMobil Ast. Mgr. - James Regal to save the video tape of 7-4-00 and James Regal confirmed (see Secretary-Maureen's note at bottom left) that Mgr. Dolly Olecki put the tape in the safe. Meanwhile the police led by Sgt. Sanchez of the Framingham Police Dept. had already, on 7-5-00, taken the video tape of the "Gear Incident" and returned it "blank", so nobody would ever see the truth. Elbery tried to get the evidence first, but the cops were way ahead of Attorney Ken Brekka while Brekka vacationed in Acapulco.

Brekka's "vacation" made any time advantage Elbery might have had, due to his anticipation of false arrest, worthless.

Was it really required to waste all that precious time sending Elbery a draft to Concord Prison? Such a compact letter which Elbery had already specified/dictated over the phone, so as to attempt to get a jump on the cops regarding the perfect evidence - the video tape of the "Gear Incident". It appeared that Attorney Brekka was using any excuse to slow Elbery and his quest/struggle for evidence.

-24-

 

 

Dolly Olecki and Attorney Ken Brekka's Investigation

First, on 8-9-00, Brekka made a futile call to the F.P.D. looking for Sgt. Sanchez. Elbery identified Sanchez as the cop who was leading the alleged investigation on the case even though Sanchez was never present at the ExxonMobil the day of the underlying "Gear Incident". Sanchez would never talk to Brekka. Sanchez had called Elbery at his home on 7-6-00 informing Elbery that he, Sgt. Hector Sanchez, was running the police investigation (police corruption). During that 7-6-00 taped conversation, Sanchez would state that he was going to arrest Elbery because Elbery would not give Sanchez the names of the "3 Donut Witnesses". That tape should appear on this Web Site soon (it is here)!

The 7-6-00 "Sanchez Tape" had to be downloaded from S. Cayugar, Canada.

Next, on the same 8-9-00 Brekka was able to make phone contact with a female cashier at the ExxonMobil named Mary Floyd in attempt to learn the names of the "3 Donut Witnesses". Elbery did not get their names, but knew one of the "Donut Witnesses" named "Dave" was driving a private police security car with the company name "Maximum Security". Brekka got nothing but misleading nonsense and absolutely no cooperation from this reject - Mary Floyd. See Brekka notes on Mary Floyd 8-9-00.

Then, Brekka on the next day, 8-10-00, called the ExxonMobil and spoke to the Manager-Dolly Olecki. Brekka was supposedly attempting to find the "3 Donut Witnesses". Dolly would load Brekka up with all kinds of misleading irrelevant foolishness about security cops at the Natick Mall and the security at the next door Dunkin Donuts and about kids that hung out in the area. This misleading nonsense orchestrated by Dolly and documented per Brekka's notes of 8-10-00 were as a result of Brekka's questions regarding the "Donut Witnesses" identification, one of which was a security cop named "Dave" from "Maximum Security". Dolly had no intention of putting Brekka on the right track because by this late date the cops, ExxonMobil, and the Middlesex D.A.'s Office had been busy. 

It is hard to believe that Brekka didn't just call "Maximum Security"  FIRST and inquire about an employee in his 20's named "Dave". Michael Elbery gave Brekka that important information during the first conversation with Brekka, after his arrest by phone from Concord Prison. Elbery would plead with Brekka for months to stop asking idiots like Floyd and Olecki about the "Donut Witnesses" and just contact Maximum Security. Elbery was right that "Maximum Security" should be listed in the phone book. A casual observer would think that Brekka was deliberately allowing himself to be misled with the nonsense Mary Floyd and Dolly Olecki repeatedly were feeding Attorney Ken Brekka, see Brekka notes of 8-9-00.

-25-

Brekka produced some of his case investigatory notes to Elbery, but would never produce to Elbery the most important notes he took - the notes Attorney Brekka took when interviewing/getting information from his client, Michael Elbery. Also see final Brekka notes.

 

Dolly reveals that there was a Video Tape of the "Gear Incident" that 7-4-00

There was some value resulting from that 8-9-00 Brekka investigatory call to Dolly; Dolly would state as documented in Brekka's notes (see page 2 at 8-10-00) that "Police took the video tape- Police said the tape shut down- Not Recorded - stopped at 3:30pm- Unknown Reason" (for video not recording and shutting down)- "No one could have shut it off because it was in a locked box".

Dolly would also tell Brekka, per that phone interview on 8-9-00, that "Guy (Gear) came in-cuts and bruises on his face and arm and side - said that Mike came outside -dragged him out of car". This is documented per Brekka investigatory notes (see page 2 @ 8-10-00).

 

Ken Brekka to get erased tape examined by expert.

The Framingham Police Dept. and Martha Coakley's D.A.'s Office had a new problem with their not so clever evidence tampering. Brekka now knew that the police returned the tape of the Gear Incident blank. Elbery through his then attorney, Ken Brekka, would be relayed this information about the video tape being brought back "blank". Elbery demanded that Brekka, have an expert examine the tape to prove that the cops erased it. This caused a star prosecution witness, Dolly Olecki, to change her story regarding the tape being brought back "blank" by the Framingham cops. But it wasn't easy and one lie led to another lie and Dolly got caught and the cops, and D.A.'s Office new it ( as you will see below). 

 

Brekka Goes to the Framingham Police Dept on 8-24-00

Attorney Ken Brekka's next move via his investigation for evidence was to contact the Framingham Police Dept.. Brekka's liaison man at the F.P.D. was a Sgt. Trask. On 8-24-00 Brekka arrived at the F.P.D. and Trask had  recorded tapes for Brekka of "allegedly" all relevant items of the F.P.D. communication documentation. It became apparent to Brekka that Sgt. Trask missed some important evidence that Brekka found per his review of these F.P.D. communications on or about 7-4-00. Attorney Brekka, dutifully, requested Trask to let him listen to all the original "turret tape" of all 911 calls, all incoming calls, all outgoing calls, and all radio communications at that same time period. Brekka then made his own recordings on his cassette of everything that was relevant to the defense. Eventually, after Brekka withdrew from the case, he forwarded these tapes to Michael Elbery in SECC Prison. Brekka also claimed he made a complete independent review of F.P.D. police documents, logs, incident reports etc.

-26-

 

It almost looked like Attorney Brekka was crusading Elbery's cause (as opposed to curiosity) at that not-so early date of 8-24-00. At that 8-24-00 visit to the F.P.D. Brekka reviewed and in some cases took copies of various pieces of irrefutable police produced documentary evidence. The police documentation included the following:

a. the tape  recording of Elbery's 911 call  to the F.P.D. which lasted 41 seconds. This 911 call by ExxonMobil cashier Michael Elbery at 2:22am asking for assistance with a gas thief.

b. the FPD 911 tape recording at 2:37am of Officer Vizikas calling from the same ExxonMobil phone (that Elbery used for his 911 call) to get information on Gear. Brekka made a copy of these two 911 calls in full and eventually would send it to Elbery in S.E.C.C. Prison, after his withdrawal. See the tape in "a" for Vizikas phone call - it is on the same tape as the 911 call Michael Elbery made.

c. two taped calls to the Framingham Police made by Peter Gear to the F.P.D. that 7-4-00 hours after, @7:21am, he fled the ExxonMobil. Gear was in a drunken rage and admitted that he knew Elbery called the cops on him and that he/Gear attacked Elbery. Gear inquired to the F.P.D. dispatcher, if Elbery was injured from Gear's club.

d. all F.P.D. logs and incident reports of days at issue (7-4-00 thru 7-7-00). These F.P.D. documents have all been incorporated into this Web Site. 

e. 6 photos that were taken by Sgt. Sanchez and relatives of Peter Gear some time after 7-4-00 showing Gear with "massive bloody head and body and leg wounds" allegedly sustained via an unmerciful and racially motivated "beating" by Michael Elbery because Gear is a Jew. (Brekka is cryptic per his notes  concerning these "massive bloody pictures". (see page 3 of 8-9-00 Brekka notes). These are the 6 fabricated pictures of Gear taken by the F.P.D. and Gear's family showing Peter Gear with "massive bloody  head and body injuries". The trial jury would learn that Sgt. Sanchez and alleged racial beating victim- Peter Gear used a lot of ketchup to make those photos. Or was it actors makeup/paint?

Brekka would, after Brekka withdrew from the case, send Elbery Xerox copies of the 6 pictures that were deliberately made so dark they disclosed nothing.

f. viewed what the police were telling Brekka was ExxonMobil video tape given to them by ExxonMobil Mgr. Dolly Olecki (this tape was the day before or "wrong day tape"). At this point Brekka claimed he was not allowed a copy of the Video tape, but after he was allowed to withdraw from the case he sent Elbery a copy of the "Wrong Day Video Tape". The Framingham Police had already learned that Brekka wanted the "real video tape" that the Framingham Police took on 7-5-00 and returned blank on 7-6-00, so that he could have an expert test the tape for evidence tampering (erased by the cops). As a result, Dolly Olecki had to change her story - at one point she claimed the VCR was not working on 7-4-00 and then Olecki managed to get the Framingham cops a video tape of the "wrong day" (a.k.a. the "Wrong Day Tape" - tape of 7-3-00). Note the tape of 7-3-00 was recorded and not erased. Remember Dolly, per Brekka interview, stated the cops brought the tape of the "Gear Incident" back Blank (Not Recorded). See Brekka interview notes  (see page 2 entry on 8-10-00) of Mobil Mgr. Dolly Olecki - she states she gave the cops the tape of the "Gear Incident" and they brought it back blank - the cops according to Olecki claimed it "did not record". Dolly would state, during that 8-10-00 phone interview, to Brekka that the cops were claiming for some "Unknown Reason" the tape of 7-4-00 containing the "Gear Incident" did not record. Dolly also claimed during that same interview that "nobody could have shut it off (the VCR recording the video of the incident on video tape) because it was in a "locked box".

-27-

The various changes by Dolly Olecki regarding the video tape are documented by Brekka in his interview notes. See Brekka notes, part I and part II. See also part III which gives more evidence about the cops and the video tape via interview with James J. Regal.

It should be highlighted that it is very strange that Attorney Brekka did not, per his notes or elsewhere, make more of an issue out of this new "Wrong Day Video Tape". After all, per page 2 of his notes, Brekka is quit clear that Dolly Olecki stated the video tape was brought back "BLANK" by the cops. Also, his client, Michael Elbery, told Brekka, instantly during their first phone conversation about the case, that Dolly the Mobil Mgr. told him that she reviewed the tape on 7-4-00, as was ExxonMobil's policy once the Manager is alerted to an incident like the one with Peter Gear.

g. a tape of a call made by Sgt. Sanchez of F.P.D. to Michael Elbery on 7-6-00. (This tape is a monument to what has become the "New American Police State" and will be loaded onto this Web Site, soon! It is now here.)

h. The F.P.D. mug shot of Peter Gear taken on the afternoon of 7-4-00 about 12 hours after the "Gear Incident" at the ExxonMobil. This "mug shot" showed that Gear had no injuries, but probably had a serious hangover. It also proved to a scientific certainty that the 6 pictures of Peter Gear, as in item e above, showing him with "massive bloody wounds" from a "racially motivated beating" was a fraud/fabricated evidence by the police, Martha Coakley and the Jews. Brekka saw this mug shot and was well aware that Gear had been arrested as he sent Elbery Gear's arrest documents. But Brekka never mentioned one word about the fabrication of evidence via the 6 "Massive Bloody Gear Pictures" as compared with the mug shot that showed no injuries. Brekka did make a comment to Elbery at the lone legal visit to S.E.C.C. Prison on 10-13-00 that he saw Gear's mug shot and he looked o.k.. But Brekka was not going to let his client know more - Brekka refused to elaborate and showed Elbery, only, the fake pictures of Gear with all the "massive bloody wounds". Brekka was not going to let Elbery know that the two sets of pictures conflicted and that the police mug shot showed Coakley's prosecution team was engaging in fraud. Brekka then took the 6 phony pictures, as above in item "e", with him during that legal visit of 10-13-00 and said he had to give them back to the cops. Brekka was trying to get Elbery to give up his defense with presentation of overpowering phony evidence/pictures which Brekka pretended to believe.

The trial jurors would see, at the trial of  July 19th -20th of  2001, the two sets of pictures - one set presented by Coakley's prosecution showed "massive bloody wounds" vs. the defense/Elbery presenting the mug shots which showed Gear was not injured - no wounds or blood.

It wasn't all that easy because, as above, Brekka would not give his client a copy of the mug shots or even show him a copy. Brekka acknowledged they existed and would tell Elbery that he should "get it yourself". Brekka knew the pictures the cops took 12 hours after they arrested Gear were perfect evidence that killed Coakley's case, but Brekka was scared to be the one to give the evidence/mug shot to Michael Elbery. Hard to believe isn't it? Well, Elbery knew the pictures/mug shots existed because Gear was arrested and he knew Gear left the ExxonMobil without any dripping blood or massive cuts. So Michael Elbery spent months trying to get those mug shots that he was automatically entitled to via evidentiary discovery. As you can imagine, since his Attorney was afraid to give Michael Elbery a copy of the mug shots, or even describe them to the effect that "hey, the mug shots prove the prosecution/cops/Gear and Martha Coakley are liars", then it was a real "ball busting" affair to get those mug shots. Brekka showed Elbery the 6 phony pictures of Gear's fabricated bloody  wounds, but not the mug shot.

-28-

In order to obtain F.P.D. mug shot of Peter Gear, Michael Elbery would file motion after motion that were ignored by Martha Coakley and the 3 different judges, Greco, Healy and Stoddart, that presided over the discovery period of the criminal case against Elbery. At one point Judge Stoddart actually granted Elbery's request for the mug shots of Gear's arrest taken by the FPD only 12 hours after the incident, but Elbery never got the pictures. Coakley and her team of prosecution were not forwarding the pictures that the U.S. Constitution mandates (Another violation of the U.S. Constitution by Coakley). Coakley and her prosecution team ignored the order to produce the mug shot of Gear that had to result from the cops arresting Gear, but Stoddart didn't care if his order to produce the mug shot was ignored.

So what did Elbery do about it - He went to the highest authority in order to make them responsible. Yes, Michael Elbery filed a Petition for Mandamus (also see the 1st Amendment to the Mandamus and the Second Amendment) with the S.J.C. - Justice Ireland took the case because he knew of Michael Elbery and Ireland wanted to get even with a white man. Ireland showed his racial hatred and denied Elbery's right to the Constitutionally mandated evidence (mug shots). But Justice Ireland is a particularly racist/hater, he sent his denial of Elbery's Mandamus after the trial started. Tuff luck Ireland I won the case anyway and was found not guilty by a jury on both phony charges.

Oh, if you hadn't figured it out, Ireland is a Negro. Hey, my favorite lawyer was "the lawyer Calhoun" on the "Amos and Andy show". That show included Safire who was Amos's wife. The New World Order was fermenting back in 1957 and had that show was banned and it has never been allowed on T.V. again (no re-runs of the "Amos and Andy Show"). Superman went off the air the same year - my two favorite shows when I was 5 years old.

Brekka, after withdrawing from the case of Elbery's defense, sent Elbery the above police documents including the cassette recordings of the 911 calls in items a, b, and c above. Brekka did not send Elbery the Gear "Mug shot" taken by the F.P.D. in item h. Brekka also forwarded to Michael Elbery deliberately dark copies of the falsified 6 massive bloody Gear Pictures.

 

But how Did Michael Elbery get the Gear Mug Shot Pictures?

I received the Gear mug shots in prison mail at S.E.C.C. Prison about a month before the trial which was started on July 19, 2001. I do not know who is responsible for sending me those pictures/mug shots in standard envelope via U.S. mail to S.E.C.C. Prison that took me almost a year to get and which I was legally/Constitutionally mandated to receive. You never know what is watching you or what you don't know - the underdog that fights injustice against overwhelming odds is favored by power far greater than an affirmative action quota inferior like, now, Chief Justice Ireland.

 

 

Brekka not allowed a copy of the "F.P.D. Booking Video"

 Attorney Brekka also viewed the entire "booking video" of Peter Gear's arrest by the F.P.D. on 7-4-00 due to a 6 year outstanding warrant for  larceny by check. Brekka was, allegedly, not allowed a copy of this F.P.D. arrest booking video that must have had some very revealing evidence that Martha Coakley's prosecution team did not want Elbery to see. And Elbery was never allowed it through almost a year of discovery demands (see 1c). The Mass. Jewdiciary won that battle. Gear was probably still drunk in that video besides having no "wounds", especially of the "massive bloody head wound" variety.

Brekka did not elaborate in his notes (see p. 3- dated 8-24-00) as to what he saw on that F.P.D. Booking Video of Peter Gear. Very Strange (see also - Brekka Notes of 11-8-00 pg. 9) excuse for an investigation by a well seasoned professional!

Yes, every arrest booking, now and in 2000, is mandated to be video taped in Massachusetts. The F.P.D. arrest video of Peter Gear exists. Defendant - Michael Elbery repeatedly motioned for that F.P.D. Arrest Booking Video of Gear (see 1c), but Elbery was prevented from seeing it, as were the trial jurors.

-29-

 

 

 The 911 tapes in items a - b-c-g were allowed to be kept in a locked cabinet in the S.E.C.C. Prison Law Library, so Michael Elbery could listen to those police tapes in order to prepare for trial. Those tapes were never allowed to be heard by the trial jury at Framingham District Court; the prison authorities would not let Elbery have the tapes in his possession, even for trial, and the prosecution declined to present those tapes at trial. In other words, Elbery wasn't allowed by the prison guards to physically bring his copy of the tapes to court for trial, and the last thing D.A. Martha Coakley wanted in the court for the jury to hear were the F.P.D. 911 tapes. Michael Elbery, after a successful trial defense in July '01 did manage to smuggle those tapes out of S.E.C.C. Prison and has those tapes in a safety deposit box in N.H. - eventually ( if the cops, Jews, and Mass. Judiciary do not succeed in getting Michael Elbery first) those tapes will be converted to digital so the World can listen. 

All 3 of the F.P.D. 911 tapes are now recorded on this Web Site. Yes, you can hear the 911 calls made by Michael Elbery, Officer Vizikas and Pete H. Gear that 7-4-00, and the illegally recorded call made by F.P.D. Sgt. Hector Sanchez, as above - 1st page of this Web Site and throughout.

 

 

 

 

Brekka visits the "scene of the crime" 8-24-00

While he was in the neighborhood, Brekka visited the scene of the alleged crime on that 8-24-00. Brekka would stop at the ExxonMobil station on Route 30 and speak to Mgr. Dolly Olecki. Dolly would state per Brekka investigatory notes the following:

a. that Gear came in next morning (7-4-00) to pay his bill and complained to Dolly about his "beating" and said he was  going to the police.

b. Dolly stated per Brekka notes (see page 4 of 8-24-00 entries) a different set of facts from the 8-10-00 phone conversation/interview (see page 2 of 8-10-00 Brekka interview notes) regarding the video tape and the F.P.D. - Dolly now stated, per Brekka notes, that "cop came in to get tape -she unlocked video recorder and handed it over to cops". Dolly was now claiming, per Brekka notes, that "she had not removed the tape from the VCR after the Gear incident on7-4-00". According to Brekka notes she stated that "she sometimes forgets to change tape".

                                                                                          

  -30-

 

This new lying story by Dolly the Mobil Mgr. would support the new cover-up story that she did not give the cops the "real tape" which recorded the entire "Gear Incident" on 7-4-00, but a tape of another day (7-3-00) which was the "Wrong Day Tape". Of course, and contrary to Dolly's first interview with Brekka, this "Wrong Day Tape" was still fully recorded not the "Blank" video tape as returned by the cops on 7-6-00 according to Dolly on 8-10-00 Brekka interview (pg. 2). See part "f", above, of "Brekka Goes to the Framingham Police Station on 8-24-00". Dolly was covering up to help the cops try and escape getting caught erasing the ExxonMobil video tape of the "Gear Incident" on 7-4-00.

 

c. Dolly would also newly fabricate that the VCR that recorded everything caught on the ExxonMobil video cameras was not "Auto Rewind" (see 9-13-00 Brekka notes p. 7). This amateur lie by Dolly, the ExxonMobil Mgr., would cause Brekka, at Elbery's direction, all kinds of expenditure of investigative resources. Brekka would eventually, after conversation with the ExxonMobil attorney and threatening to get a Court Order, get the Make, Model and Serial # of the VCR (see page 6 and note on page 7 that Brekka notes Dolly is claiming that the VCR not Auto Rewind) that was at the ExxonMobil that 7-4-00. 

Dolly was cooperating with the Police and Martha Coakley's Office at this point and they needed her to make claim the VCR was not "Auto Rewind" in order to cover-up what really happened to the video tape of the "Gear Incident". In other words, Dolly was now falsely claiming that the VCR stopped and never recorded the "Gear Incident" because she forgot to change the tape. Of course, this new feeble cover-up story all depended on the VCR not being Auto-Rewind.

Dolly originally admitted that "no one could have shut it (the VCR) off because it was in a locked box". See p. 2 of Brekka notes of 8-10-00  interview of Dolly Olecki the ExxonMobil manager. In addition to her original statement to Brekka that for some "unknown reason" the cops returned the tape of the "Gear Incident" "NOT RECORDED".

Although ExxonMobil would claim through their outside Attorney Homsey that they were on the same side as Michael Elbery, ExxonMobil would refuse to aid their employee, Michael Elbery. ExxonMobil acted as an adversary refusing to forward any evidence requested by Brekka in order to prepare a defense. 

As in "c" above, Attorney Brekka requested that ExxonMobil provide information regarding the VCR that recorded the Gear Incident. After Court Order, ExxonMobil produced the evidentiary information needed to identify the VCR in order to prove it was an "Auto Rewind". Once ExxonMobil was forced to give the serial number and model number and manufacturer  (see 9-13-00 -  page 6 ), it was easily documented by SONY that the VCR was Auto Rewind.  As a result it would not have made any difference what happened on 7-3-00 and Dolly's new story/lies about not removing the VCR were defeated. Dolly got caught lying, not only about this "Auto Rewind" issue, but also about several other major pieces of evidence. She was lying to help the cops cover up the truth which Dolly initially stated to Brekka by phone, as above, "that cops returned the video tape blank" and that "the cops claimed the tape did not record" and Dolly would exclaim "for some Unknown Reason". In other words, at that point 8-10-00, Dolly had been claiming (her original story about the ExxonMobil video tape of the "Gear Incident") that the tape was brought back "blank" by Sgt. Sanchez; she claimed then that it was "blank" after the cops returned it to the ExxonMobil on 7-6-00 for some "Unknown Reason" because she was afraid to say anything stronger against the police. Something stronger and more to the point, like the police erased the video tape that contained the "Gear Incident". Dolly, initially, on 8-10-00, per Brekka investigative notes, (see pages 2 & 3) made no claim that the VCR did not work or would not have recorded the "Gear Incident" because it was not "Auto Rewind" or because "she did not work that day" or because "she forgot to put the tape in on 7-4-00". 

ExxonMobil would also prevent Brekka from entering the part of the gas station/convenience store where the VCR was located. They would not let Brekka in that VCR/video room, nor would ExxonMobil allow him to view the VCR which recorded the "Gear Incident" via the video cameras. ExxonMobil refused to give Attorney Brekka documentary evidence, so Elbery could prove Dolly Olecki was lying about the video tape, and the VCR's auto-rewind feature. 

                                                                                                                                         -31-

And of course, Elbery knew that the video and VCR recording system were always working at that ExxonMobil and enforced this on Attorney Brekka. It is obviously in ExxonMobil's interest and is their policy to have a video surveillance system on and recording constantly (24hours/365days a year). Otherwise, why would they have it?

Now, 2011, ExxonMobil probably records to a remote location via the Internet.

Dolly would admit to Brekka and under oath at the 10-17-10 evidentiary hearing that if alerted to a robbery, theft or assault issue that she was required by ExxonMobil policy to pull the video tape produced by the VCR.

But Dolly "the Mobil Mgr." would never admit to Brekka that she had viewed the 7-4-00 tape of the Gear Incident, after Michael Elbery alerted her to Gear stealing the gas and having to call the cops to get his identification. The cops had beat Brekka by a month and by that time Dolly knew the cops erased the video tape that they took from her and viewed at the Framingham Police Dept. and returned to her "Blank"/"NOT RECORDED". Not only did Michael Elbery alert her to the incident, but Gear told his story of Assault to Dolly all long before the 24 hours (or even 12 hours) elapsed from the time of the "Gear Incident" on 7-4-00; that gives even more reason why Dolly would have been required by ExxonMobil policy to pull and view the video tape of the Gear Incident of 7-4-00.

Return of Attorney Ken Brekka 9-13-00

On 9-13-00, Attorney Ken Brekka returned to the ExxonMobil to further interview Mgr. Dolly Olecki. It was by appointment because Olecki now had an attorney provided for her by ExxonMobil. Olecki would no longer speak to Brekka, unless her ExxonMobil attorney was present. Why would the ExxonMobil Mgr., who was merely a potential witness, need an attorney? The reason is that she got caught lying too many times and she couldn't handle it. And ExxonMobil had already made Michael Elbery the enemy and sided with the police, Martha Coakley and her team of Prosecution, and the Jews.

But who put Dolly up to the lies? Was it just the cops? No, ExxonMobil encouraged and instructed her to lie. ExxonMobil is part of the New World Order and supports Jewish Social Design Policies which seek to reduce the social standing of the White Man. Even a company as large as ExxonMobil has to comply with New World Order Social Design Policies or they will be attacked and their bottom line will reflect it. This compliance with New World Order Policies by major corporations has been going on for decades and getting stronger every year. The objective is the Reduction of the Social Standing of the White Man, so the Jewish Bilderbergers can have World Control.

 

According to Brekka's investigatory notes, Olecki's interview responses on that 9-13-00 concerned, mostly, statements made by Gear to her/,Olecki, on 7-4-00 about 10 hours after the incident. Per Brekka notes Dolly Olecki stated in presence of the ExxonMobil Attorney the following:

a. Gear came in about 2:00pm on 7-4-00 to the ExxonMobil station and paid for his gas taken after 2:00am by Gear.

 

                                                                                                                                         -32-

 

b. Gear claimed he didn't pay for the gasoline because "he needed to get away from Mike".

c. Gear claimed "Mike went out after him and beat him up". Gear showed Dolly some scrapes but "minor scrapes nothing major," per Dolly. Gear went to the extent of pulling up his blouse to display his alleged bruises.

d. Gear said he was going to the hospital and then the police.

 

e. During this subsequent interview with Attorney Ken Brekka on 9-13-00 Dolly Olecki would state that "she did not change the tape on 7-3-00 because she was not working". This is yet another Dolly Olecki change of story. This is the same cover-up lies by Dolly as explained above in section b of Brekka Visits the "Scene of the Crime"  on 8-24-00.

 

f.. Gear claimed, according to Dolly, the water jugs were broken when Gear was wrestling around out front (with Mike). According to Dolly, Gear did not say Mike threw him on the jugs.

g. Lastly, (and another big Lie to help the cops and Martha Coakley), Dolly now stated that "Mike never told her anything about the altercation that morning".

If Mike never told Dolly about the "Gear incident" then how did she know what to charge Gear when he came in later that afternoon and how did Dolly get the Gear information that came from Officer Vizikas? The only person that could have given Dolly this information is Mike and if he gave her that information then he informed her of the "Gear Incident". In fact, a few months later Dolly would change her story; Dolly admits on 10-17-00 (p. 1-2) "the original register slip had information provided by Mike written on it". She made this admission in order to avoid another subpoena.

Dolly would claim (change of testimony/evidence) Elbery never said anything to her about the incident with Gear when she arrived for work at 7:00am on 7-4-00 to make it look like Elbery was hiding something or was guilty. Additionally, this was easily defeated by Elbery should she have made such false testimony at trial because Elbery made a workman's comp. claim that day due to getting hit over the head with Gear's club. Dolly was the person that he had to go to get that workman's compensation claim number. Michael Elbery went to the Glover Hospital in Needham on the evening of 7-4-00 with his Workman's compensation claim; he also told Dolly, via their phone call the afternoon of 7-4-00, that he quit. Another bit of evidence that proves Dolly's claim of Elbery remaining silent about the "Gear Incident" that instant shift break at 7:00am on 7-4-00 is false, is that she would repeatedly admit that the water jugs (see page 2 of  9-13-00 entry with Dolly) that Gear broke were put on her desk or in her office that 7-4-00am. Who was the only one who could have put the 4 broken water jugs on Olecki's desk? And if Elbery wanted to keep it quiet why would he put the broken water jugs in her office lined up so she could not miss them?

-33-

 

Dolly would also produce, during evidentiary discovery of the case, the register slip and documentation written by F.P.D. Officer Vizikas and given to Elbery that Elbery gave her that 7-4-00 shift break. This is absolute proof that Elbery wasn't keeping anything quiet. The only person that could have forwarded the Gear information as obtained by Officer Vizikas, just after the Gear incident, was Michael Elbery. Vizikas gave Gear's identification information to Elbery because Elbery was the only ExxonMobil employee present. That's how Dolly knew how much to collect from Gear - the register tape that recorded the $24.60 worth of gas Gear stole was given to Olecki by Elbery on 7-4-00 at 7:00am.   The possession by Dolly of this register tape and F.P.D. officer - Vizika's handwritten memo was irrefutable evidence that Elbery told Dolly about the Gear incident earlier that day at approximately 2:30am. Without this information Dolly would not have known how much to charge Gear when he showed at 1:00pm later that 7-4-00, but Dolly would through Evidentiary Discovery finally produce this documentation, so she knew about the "Gear Incident" because she could only have received that documentation from Elbery.

 

 

Brekka's Irrational Search for the 3 Donut Witnesses

By the late date of 9-14-00, Attorney Brekka was still asking Mary Floyd for information, allegedly, so that he could locate the "Donut Witnesses", in particular the one that was driving the "Maximum Security" car. Why? It makes no sense because Michael Elbery had originally, back in July, given Brekka enough information about a 24 year old man that drove over from Dunkin Donuts in a "Maximum Security" car that 7-4-00 and his first name was "Dave", so that Brekka could easily find "Dave the Donut Witness". It was all so simple - Maximum Security was naturally in the phone book for starts.  Elbery would point out that Maximum Security is probably not hiding since they are in business (no company can make much money if  they are secret). All Mary Floyd, via two Brekka interviews in August 8-9-00 & 9-14-00, would give an already beleaguered Brekka was a lot of obvious misleading bullshit that Brekka would use as an excuse to be discouraged and stop his search for the "3 Donut Witnesses". Michael Elbery would have to write and/or phone from prison to try to convince Brekka that Floyd was not on his/Elbery's side and to void what she said. Floyd witnessed nothing and could not provide any evidence at trial.

If you read Brekka's notes at the late date of 9-14-00 thru 9-15-00 (see pgs 9-10), you might think that it was Mary Floyd that gave Brekka the information needed to find "Dave the Donut Witness". That would be the same Mary Floyd that gave Brekka nothing but foolishness on previous interviews of 8-9-00; in fact Brekka notes that she was "uncooperative" regarding information leading to the location of "Dave the Donut Witness"  and Brekka notes on 8-9-00 that Floyd would not produce any information leading to Dave.

But read Brekka's notes of 9-7-00 (see p. 5) Brekka already found Dave's name and address through "Maximum Security", all as a result of Brekka being bullied by his client, Michael Elbery, to go to the best source of information about "Dave the Donut Witness" which would be "Maximum Security". Brekka, in turn, had to threaten Maximum Security with a subpoena to get the information about "Dave the Donut Witness". "Maximum Security" was not cooperative and had to be threatened with legal action via the subpoena in order to get the identity of "Dave the Donut Witness". Once the subpoena was sent to Maximum Security, they gave Brekka the identification and location of "Dave the Donut Witness". Per Brekka's letter, Maximum Security would not provide Dave's phone number. All this occurred prior to the needless/redundant interview with Floyd on 9-14-00.

 Brekka would claim that he had to call night maintenance at an apartment complex in Framingham, Mass. in order to get to the  owner of  "Maximum Security". How Brekka determined that Edgewater Apts. in Framingham, Mass. would lead to Mark Epstein, who was owner of Maximum Security, is not disclosed by Brekka; probably because Brekka found Maximum Security in the phone book months before that.

                                                                                                                                     -34-

Brekka finally made contact with "Dave from Maximum Security" (aka "Dave the Donut Witness") on about 9-15-00 due to Michael Elbery pleading/badgering with Brekka (for months at this point) to please do the simple thing and locate "Maximum Security". If Brekka had to rely on those ExxonMobil employees, he would still be chasing his tail talking about the negative security at next door Dunkin Donuts, as per Brekka notes, via interview with Dolly Olecki and Mary Floyd.

 

Brekka forgot to hide the evidence he already knew the location of Maximum Security on 8-24-00

Although Dolly gave Brekka worthless information when he asked her about the "Donut Witnesses", she did give him one piece of information that he put in small print in his notes. See Brekka notes of 8-24-00 on page 4 and Brekka indicates in tiny printing that Dolly took the location of Maximum Security of a credit card that company had used at the ExxxonMobil. Evidently, Maximum Security was a regular customer. And Brekka had all the information he needed by 8-24-00 to locate Maximum Security and in turn their employee "Dave the Donut Witness". But Brekka could have found the location of Maximum Security in the phone book or called the local cops, or Massachusetts Licensing Authorities for Security Police, instead of all his deliberate tail chasing, as above, because he wanted to avoid finding the "Donut Witnesses" that D.A. Martha Coakley, the Framingham cops, and  the Jews wished didn't exist.

 

Once Brekka made contact with "Dave", Dave willingly got the other 2 "Donut Witnesses" in touch with Brekka. See Brekka Notes Pages 10 - end.

The 3 "Donut Witnesses" would confirm Michael Elbery's account of the incident. See Brekka notes pages 10 - end and Brekka letter of 9-15-00.

 

More Documented Nonsense - Brekka Documents how he allegedly found Maximum Security

More needs to be explained about Brekka's alleged procedures that Brekka claims to have taken that finally led to "Dave the Donut Witness" being located. And this is the good part because it is so  unbelievably stupid no one would believe it, even after reading Attorney Brekka's documentation of his search for Maximum Security in order to locate "Dave the Donut Witness". 

Did Brekka do the obvious and simple thing in order to contact Maximum Security? No way, at least according to his notes and according to conversations he had with Michael Elbery during those months of trying to find "Dave the Donut Witness".

About the first week of September '00 (2 months after the 7-4-00 incident) Brekka told Elbery that he had to contact the night maintenance man (janitor) at a place called Edgewater Apts. in Framingham, Mass. to get in touch with the owner of Maximum Security. Not believable is  it? Well, how would you like to be in prison and listen to an attorney (by prison pay phone), who you paid $10,000.00 to, tell you that kind of absolute illogical garbage? Look at Brekka's note on the right hand side - this  note about "night maintenance" the  owner of Maximum Security (Mark Epstein) and a note to get to Epstein, via  the night  maintenance at Edgewater Apts., is complete with phone numbers. To the left he also has a note about Waterview Apts..

Brekka wasn't stupid, but very intelligent, almost a 131 I.Q.! Attorney Brekka had a big investment to protect (college, law school, a legal practice) and he was feeling the heat from the racism that he feared. Brekka knew how to find Dave of the "3 Donut Witnesses" back in July of '00, if for no other reason Michael Elbery told him "just find Maximum Security and Dave is found". Brekka didn't want to find Dave and the "Donut Witnesses," neither did alleged bearer of justice in our society - D.A. Martha Coakley. There is absolutely no mention of the "3 Donut Witnesses" in any prosecution documents of the case, including the 2 police reports (see Dones report/paper), even though the responding 4 Framingham cops that 7-4-00 interviewed them for  1/2 an hour.

Just because Attorney Brekka confirmed his claim to Elbery about having to call night maintenance at an apartment building in order to contact the owner of Maximum Security with a few scribbled notes does not mean it really happened the way Brekka claims. The telephone number on those scribble notes of Brekka is to Maximum Security not an apartment complex. Attorney Brekka sent those notes to Elbery in attempt to get Elbery to believe there was good reason for his delay in finding "Dave the Donut Witness" and that he/Brekka actually had a difficult task that took a justified 2 1/2 months to find Dave.

Why was Brekka also implying in his interview notes of 9-15-00 that Mary Floyd was responsible for Brekka finding "Dave the Donut Witness"? Guess Brekka got tripped up in his own minor league tricks or wanted it to be believed that, coincidentally, Mary Floyd decided, after months of avoiding to help Brekka's investigation, she made an about face and made contact between Brekka and Dave Corriera aka "Dave the Donut Witness" all possible. What changed Floyd's mind and why all of a sudden was she so cooperative? Maybe Floyd believed Brekka really called "night maintenance" at Edgewater Apts. in order to locate Dave's employer - Maximum Security and Floyd felt bad for Attorney Brekka and decided to help him find Dave. Or maybe not.

 

3 Donuts' Confirmation not Indigestion

Attorney Brekka would document per his investigatory  notes   (See pages 10- end) that the 3 witnesses confirmed Michael Elbery's account of evidence. In brief,  they saw Gear throwing water jugs at the plate glass of the convenience store and the water jugs burst. The 3 witnesses confirmed that Gear fled when they ran over from Dunkin Donuts to stop Gear from further vandalism. The 3 witnesses also confirmed that the ExxonMobil attendant (Elbery) was locked inside the store when they first observed the situation and that he unlocked the door when they arrived. They confirmed the cops passed Gear as Gear fled with the stolen gas down Route 30. 

Why would a "victim" flee when the flashing blue cop lights were passing him? The same reason that D.A. Martha Coakley's Office and the police wanted the jury to believe that Elbery called the cops-911 AFTER the incident. "A victim" does not flee the cops, nor does he run when the cops are being called, but a drugged-up, drunk-driving thief does.

                                                                                                                                    -35-

Attorney Ken Brekka probably got indigestion as a result of the truth from the "3 Donut Witnesses" that he tried so hard to avoid. While Brekka was getting sick over the truth, Sgt. Sanchez was eating a plate of "Mexican Jumping Beans" while Martha Coakley was having a warm Stout with baked potato. Coakley is still puzzled by the writings of the Scottish Kings and English Princes at Runnemede in 1215, as well as, Descartes, Voltaire, Locke, Patrick Henry, and Jefferson on the rights of the individual in a free society. These ideas/concepts, liberty and justice, confuse Coakley's  "one man one vote for corruption culture". Coakley simply understands FAVOR.

The ancient Greek Thinkers, who are unparalleled even by the best of modern political commentators and revolutionaries, had no use for their native Democracy because they observed that Democracy depended on the people and the people were always tricked by the evil ones who preyed on Democracy by making promises to the lazy and gullible people that were never kept. From out of nowhere came Democracy in ancient Greece.

 

 

 

Ass. Mgr. James J. Regal "Spills the Beans"

He wasn't the Ast. Mgr. of a gas station for nothing. No sir, - James J. Regal was one sharp cookie, even on a Tuesday. On 10-16-00 Brekka would show up at the ExxonMobil on Dolly's day off. Dolly and her Jewish masters have to learn that when you conspire to put a white man in prison with fabricated evidence you have to make sure everybody has their story straight.

James J. Regal wasn't clued in. On 10-16-00 Regal disclosed some simple evidence and Attorney Brekka even wrote it down. This tidbit of information would allow Elbery to untie the knot that D.A. Martha Coakley and F.P.D., with the assistance of ExxonMobil, were tying in order to conceal the most powerful and scientifically exact/certain evidence of the "Gear Incident"; that would be the video tape of the incident.

Regal told Brekka that the police returned the tape on 7-6-00 and later took the tape back. (that would be the tape the cops erased and brought back "Blank" according to Dolly's original statements to Brekka on 8-10-00.)

 

During this 10-16-00 interview with Attorney Ken Brekka, Regal reconfirmed what he told Maureen (see note made by Brekka's secretary on lower left of draft letter) on 7-13-00 - that the video tape the Framingham cops returned on 7-6-00 was in the ExxonMobil safe. According to Regal, it was not until he spoke to Dolly when she returned from vacation that he learned the cops took the video tape back and had possession of it.

 

As per 10-16-00 Brekka interview notes, Regal would disclose the cops now have the tape. 

That's right, after the 3 F.P.D. cops, led by Sgt. Hector Sanchez, originally took the tape from Dolly on 7-5-00 they returned it "Unrecorded" (Blank) on 7-6-00 and Dolly put it back in the safe; some time later the cops would take the "Unrecorded"/(Blank) tape back. Yes that's right, the cops took back the "Blank Tape" (the one they erased because it recorded the entire "Gear Incident") that they had returned on 7-6-00. Regal was quick to point out that Dolly handled all tapes, nobody else.

 

                                                                                                                                          -36-

This makes 2 video tapes, the "Wrong Day Tape" and the "Blank Tape". The "Wrong Day Tape" was the tape that Brekka reviewed at the F.P.D. on 8-24-00; it was the irrelevant tape of 7-3-00. Not only did the cops take back the "Blank Tape" (the tape of the "Gear Incident of 7-4-00 at the ExxonMobil that they erased) but they also arranged to have Dolly give them a different tape ("Wrong Day Tape of 7-3-00") and have her claim that she forgot to put a tape in the VCR on 7-4-00 (a documented change of story by Olecki - Also compare Brekka notes of the 2 Olecki interviews of 8-24-00 and 9-13-00 vs. the telephone interview notes of 8-10-00.)

The reason the cops took back the tape they returned was because Brekka was making noise about obtaining the "blank tape" for review by an expert for erasing and possibly reconstruction. This idea of an expert review of the "blank tape" originated from Michael Elbery.

Regal would also tell Brekka that he spoke to Gear that early afternoon on 7-4-00 and that he saw no indications/evidence that Gear had received a "beating". See Brekka interview note with Regal. 

Regal also agreed, quite readily, that the VCR recorded the last 24 hours of activity as filmed by the video cameras at that ExxonMobil. Regal disclosed that the video cameras and VCR were always on, as one would expect. Regal was sure that the auto-rewind VCR recorded the entire incident with Gear on that 7-4-00. Regal told Attorney Brekka that the VCR must be on 365 days a year and 24 hours a day (as a reasonable man would expect). Regal explained that there are always 24 hours of video on the tape, in other words, the last 24 hours of activity recorded via the cameras at that ExxonMobil are on the video tape of that VCR. (See Brekka notes of Regal interview of 10-16-00).

Why would the Framingham cops take the video tape (the video tape they erased) back after returning it to Dolly at the ExxonMobil on 7-6-00 in "blank" condition. The answer is they knew they made a mistake and were getting caught because Brekka and his secretary unwittingly managed to get some valuable evidence from Dolly (see page 2, 8-10-00 interview) and James Regal, "that the cops brought the tape back blank". And Elbery was ordering Brekka to get the tape through a court order and have it examined by an expert in order to prove it was "ERASED" and possibly determine what was on the tape before it was erased.

The cops never anticipated that an inmate/parolee in Concord Prison could get a lawyer, let alone get any kind of an investigation. The cops panicked and got caught at their own game. The Hunter became the Prey. Just like the "Blackballed 7".

What the stupid cops didn't understand is that Michael Elbery was bluffing. Elbery never thought that he could ever get Brekka to find such an "expert" to examine the erased (Blank) ExxonMobil video tape. Elbery really didn't believe there was such a test to determine if a video tape had been erased. The idea came from Elbery remembering the T.V. news claims that President Nixon's secretary, Woods, had erased tape recordings back in the Watergate exaggeration. 

Are you kidding! Brekka get some remote "expert" to review a video tape to determine if  it was erased by the cops? Brekka couldn't even open the Yellow  Pages to "Maximum Security" in order to locate "Donut Witness" - Dave.

 

Where did the Wrong Day Video Tape Come from?

There may be a question as to why Dolly had the video tape of 7-3-00 (Wrong Day Tape) available to facilitate the cops fraud. Dolly as manager would remove the VCR tape whenever she wanted to review some activity on the 24 hours of tape. According to Brekka's notes (see page 3) he was reviewing the "wrong day tape" of 7-3-00 at the F.P.D.. Dolly may have pulled the 7-3-00 tape because there had been an incident with her former Ast. Mgr. who resumed employment there on a part time basis; he went into another cashier's (Elbery) register and the draw was short $20.00. He needed a few quick bucks on that 7-3-00 and the cashier, Michael Elbery, complained to Dolly about the incident after telling this new employee to stay out of his register in the future. Brekka did, after badgering by Michael Elbery, admit that he was shown the Wrong Day Tape per a motion that requests the real Mobil video tape of 7-4-00. 

                                                                              

                                                                                                                                           -37-

 

Attorney Brekka Visits client - Michael Elbery at S.E.C.C. Prison on 10-13-00

Attorney Ken Brekka made one legal visit to his client, Michael Elbery, on 10-13-00 while Elbery was in S.E.C.C. Prison.

At that legal visit, Brekka was insistent that Michael Elbery made his 911 call from the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00 after the incident with Gear or at 2:37am. As explained above in detail ( see p. 10 "911 Call After the Incident"), 2:37am was the time that police officer Vizikas called the F.P.D. using the ExxonMobil phone in order to get more information about Gear. 

Why was Attorney Brekka so easily swayed by this police fabrication which claimed Elbery made the call after the incident? Brekka had already reviewed the F.P.D. 911 tapes that were timed and he noted that his client-Elbery made the 911 call at 2:22am which was the first of two calls made to the F.P.D. from the ExxonMobil that night per the police logs and tapes that Brekka viewed/listened to.

At this same legal visit Brekka produced 6 photos that were clear and vivid and they showed the alleged victim-witness, Peter Gear, with a massive bleeding head wound, and leg wound that looked like an axe got him. Additionally, these pictures the cops gave Brekka, showed a 6" diameter bruise on Gear's shoulder and scattering of large bruises on Gear. Brekka claimed these 6 photos were the evidence of the "beating" Gear got at the ExxonMobil on 7-4-00. Attorney Brekka acted like he was totally convinced and appalled by the evidence presented in these 6 photos - Brekka acted like Elbery had committed irrefutable and inexcusable brutality against this "victim" - Peter Gear. Brekka claimed he had to return the 6 photos of Gear with "massive bloody wounds" to the Framingham Police; Michael Elbery was never allowed copies that were of any value because the copies Brekka and Martha Coakley's D.A.'s Office sent him were deliberately so dark that they were not discernable. 

 

 Brekka knew Better but wasn't tellin'

Why was Brekka trying to convince his client, Michael Elbery, that he was guilty? Why was Brekka trying to convince Elbery that the prosecution's fabricated evidence was true? Brekka was presenting and promoting an impossible case for Michael Elbery to beat. Because Elbery was behind bars he was depending on his well paid legal counsel to advocate his cause, not help frame him. But Ken Brekka was, at a minimum, presenting an attitude/opinion that this little Jew - Peter Gear received, as per police/Gear pictures, a horrid and cruel racially motivated "beating". Brekka appeared to bite the police bait "hook line and sinker".

The reason Brekka was advocating the prosecution phony evidence was to get Michael Elbery to give up and take the prosecution's offer of one year in prison in return for a guilty plea. But it didn't do co-conspirator, Attorney Ken Brekka, any good because Michael Elbery insisted upon what he already knew and witnessed on 7-4-00. Elbery insisted that the evidence Brekka was presenting to him was false. 

 

                                                                                                                                       -38-

 

It wasn't a case of Brekka being tricked by phony pictures and phony police claims. Brekka knew the truth! Brekka saw the truth via the mug shots and arrest booking video tape he viewed on 8-24-00 at the F.P.D.; that mug shot and booking video of Peter Gear's arrest alerted Brekka that Gear had no injuries on 7-4-00 and that the cops and Martha Coakley were framing Michael Elbery with the phony 6 pictures depicting Gear with "massive bloody head wounds". Brekka also knew that Elbery made his 911 call before the incident with Gear outside the store because he indicated so on his notes, as a result of his review of F.P.D. documents and tapes, but during that legal visit to S.E.C.C. Prison on 10-13-00 Brekka was trying to convince Elbery that the evidence was that he/Elbery made the 911 call after the incident and that the fabricated bloody pictures of Gear represented truth.

But Brekka wasn't telling Elbery that he knew the truth via his review of police documentation at the F.P.D. on 8-24-00!

 

 Brekka would, after withdrawing from Elbery's defense, send Elbery bad copies (very dark) of the 6 pictures of the phony "massive bloody Gear Wounds" and later deny he had the original pictures provided him by the F.P.D. (duplicates of the 6 Gear wound pictures Martha Coakley's team presented as exhibit evidence before the trial jury on 7-19-00) - Brekka also saw the F.P.D.- "Gear arrest booking video" which would have looked exactly the same as the Gear mug shots, but with more exculpatory detail. And of course, Brekka had seen the Gear mug shot at the F.P.D. and probably had a copy, but he wasn't letting his client - Michael Elbery know about it at that 10-13-00 legal visit because it showed Gear had no injuries and the cops were now fabricating evidence. 

Shortly after 10-13-00 Brekka was allowed by the Court to withdraw from the case and as Elbery's defense attorney. Brekka would release his notes and some of the other exculpatory evidence he obtained from the police (those documents are presented herein) to Elbery months after Brekka withdrew from the case. Brekka claimed that the F.P.D. would not allow him a copy  Gear's booking video.

Strangely, Brekka would tell Elbery at that 10-13-00 legal visit that he had viewed Gear's mug shot and Brekka stated, "that it looked o.k.". Brekka refused to make any further comments about that contradictory statement. Brekka squirmed in his seat and exhibited an uncomfortable appearance when he said this.

Brekka told Michael Elbery that there was a police mug shot taken of Gear on 7-4-00 when Gear was arrested at the F.P.D. and Brekka instructed Elbery that he should obtain that mug shot of Gear through evidentiary discovery. Brekka claimed that he could not get that mug shot for him.

No wonder people hate attorneys of the bar. 

                                                                                                                                         -39-                                    

Elbery was successful in getting the "Gear mug shots" a few days before trial in the Summer of '01. Maybe, Elbery succeeded in getting the mug shot because he implicated the Mass. S.J.C.'s - Ireland through a Petition for Mandamus (see also the 1st Amendment to the Mandamus and 2cnd Amendment for the "mug shot" issue). The Petition for Mandamus is the procedure under Mass. law used by Elbery because the prosecutor and court would not produce Constitutionally required evidence (the 6 pictures/mug shots, etc.) as required through evidentiary discovery (Mass. law). But that Petition for Mandamus was denied by Justice Ireland a day before trial. Elbery received a copy of the Gear mug shot via U.S. mail at S.E.C.C. Prison through an unidentified sources. And you have that same mug shot on this web site.

Sound like a contradiction? Maybe Elbery's tactic of pulling the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court into the case, via Petition for Mandamus, in order to expose injustice had nothing to do with Elbery finally getting the crucial evidence (Gear's mug shots by the police) that proved Martha Coakley, the Middlesex prosecution team and the Framingham Police were lying in order to frame him. However, it was awfully coincidental, after all that time and effort by Elbery to get those same mug shots and resultant denial by the prosecution to produce the mug shots and the court to enforce law of evidentiary discovery, that Elbery received the mug shots in an anonymous mailing to S.E.C.C. Prison, after filing the Mandamus.

One thing for sure, Ireland did not mail Gear's mug shot to Elbery. Ireland denied all evidence and Constitutional Rights to Elbery.

Chief Justice Ireland is now saying, "I'm not a hater, I did not deny a citizen justice based on race. The Petition for Mandamus was "moot" because Elbery admits he received the pictures." Everything is "moot" when these people get caught. Ireland, you denied me justice and documented it. I bet you would not have denied the same petition, if it were a Negro filing the petition. No, you would have contacted the Federal Court (Judges Mark Wolf and Patti Saris) to call out the federal troops because a Negro's civil rights were being violated. 

 

Brekka-Olecki Interview at Framingham District Court on 10-17-00

On 10-17-00 (see last page of docket entries for evidentiary hearing) Attorney Ken Brekka would be present at the Framingham District Court to represent his client, Michael Elbery, for the last time. It was an evidentiary hearing (very rare to have an evidentiary hearing for a Mass. District Court criminal case). Before the hearing started Brekka, again,  interviewed Dolly Olecki the ExxonMobil gas station manager; Dolly's ExxonMobil attorney was present during this interview, as well. Dolly at this point would admit, in contradiction to previous statement to Brekka,  that it was "Mike" that gave her the original register slip "with the information written on it" (info. on Gear as written by Officer Vizikas resulting from his famous 2:37am call from the ExxonMobil). Dolly had previously claimed the slip that memorialized Gear's late payment at about 2:00pm on the afternoon of 7-4-00 was thrown away because they don't keep such slips (here's the slip - obviously Dolly had to stop lying about that when she produced the slip months later). See Brekka Notes of 10-17-00 with Dolly Olecki.

For some reason Dolly was not willing to lie about Gear's injuries. Dolly, under oath at the evidentiary hearing, stuck to the truth she observed that 7-4-00 at the ExxonMobil - Gear had "minor scrapes" and some yellow paint on his watch that scraped from the parking lot stripes (big deal who cares about Gear's petty yellow paint). This would be a serious problem for D.A. Martha Coakley and her prosecution team because Sgt.Sanchez had gone to the trouble of fabricating  6 pictures of Gear with "massive bloody wounds" (same ones the cops gave Brekka to show Michael Elbery on 10-13-00 at S.E.C.C. Prison) on his head and massive bruises on his body and a giant gash on his leg. 

Yet, Dolly maintained her lies about the video tape that recorded the entire Gear Incident at the Mobil on 7-4-00. Guess Dolly was afraid of the cops! That's common in this here today's U.S. police state.

At the evidentiary hearing of 10-17-00 Dolly stuck to her newly fabricated story about her knowledge of evidence surrounding the "Gear Incident" and now it was sworn testimony. Dolly lied/testified about the ExxonMobil video tape that recorded the "Gear Incident" and aided the Framingham cops in their conspiracy to conceal that they confiscated and erased the video tape of the incident. Dolly testified that the VCR was not Auto-Rewind even though at this point Brekka had the SONY manual for the VCR that documented exactly the opposite (Elbery has the tape of that hearing and will eventually incorporate that long tape into this Web Site). Dolly claimed/lied that Elbery never told her about the "Gear Incident" and that he had to call the cops and told her to hold the video tape. But she did testify that she saw Gear that 7-4-00 at 2:00pm and he only had the "minor scrapes on his hands and elbows, nothing major". 

Those scrapes were from Gear getting shoved on his ass twice when Gear was trying to force his way through the ExxonMobil's front door when Elbery was pulling it closed. Your lucky you didn't get what should have got Gear. Dolly never stated, or testified to anyone at anytime, that Gear claimed to her that there was a "Racial Issue or Motive" for Gear's claim of Beating.

                                                                                                                                        -40-                                     

Dolly would admit to Brekka and under oath at the 10-17-10 evidentiary hearing that if alerted to a robbery, theft or assault issue that she was required by ExxonMobil policy to pull the video tape produced by the VCR.

 

Strangely, Dolly was the only witness allowed to testify at that 10-17-00 evidentiary hearing at the Framingham District Court; the "3 Donut Witnesses" were subpoenaed by Brekka and showed up, but they were not allowed to testify. An evidentiary hearing is procedurally allowed, but it never happens, especially in a District Court criminal case. The reason Judge Robert V. Greco allowed the evidentiary hearing was not for the benefit of Elbery's defense, but so D.A. Martha Coakley could evaluate Dolly's testimony and interview the "3 Donut Witnesses". Another reason Judge Greco allowed this rare evidentiary hearing was for the benefit of Attorney Brekka who could now document that Dolly, under sworn testimony, changed her testimony from the original statement she gave to Brekka (see 8-10-00 entry on page 2) regarding the "Gear Incident".

Judge Greco would at a later hearing threaten Elbery that he would not get a trial by a jury, then he chickened out and stated in open court that "we won't do that to you". Judge Greco was of the opinion that "they" could railroad Michael Elbery in a Kangaroo Court without depriving him of his right to trial by jury.

 

Another Witness Bites the Dust - "Hatchet Lady Coakley Does it Again"

Dolly would never be allowed to be a witnesses at the trial on July 19, 20 of 2001 - she could stop lying for the ExxonMobil and the "Jews in the Shadows". Dolly was a problem for D.A. Martha Coakley because Dolly got caught lying about the video tape, the "Auto Rewind VCR", and Elbery alerting her about the "Gear Incident" on 7-4-00. For some reason, Dolly would not budge on the truth about Gear's "minor injuries". She changed her original story and lied about everything to Elbery's detriment, except the Gear injuries that would all create a serious problem for the unscrupulous prosecution team of Middlesex D.A. Martha Coakley.

At the 10-17-00 evidentiary hearing, Brekka's questioning was so awkward that Dolly evaded the issue and never committed herself regarding the ExxonMobil video tape of the "Gear Incident". Brekka refused, over Elbery's bullying, to remind Dolly via cross-examination that originally on 8-10-00 she told Brekka that the cops brought the recorded tape back "blank". Brekka had no intention of letting the World (or anyone) know the cops erased the video tape of the incident because it disclosed Elbery's account of the incident and that Gear committed a robbery. And Brekka's future depended on it!

The answer to all the problems with this witness Dolly Olecki was easy (Hatchet Faced Coakley gave Dolly Olecki the hatchet just like the other witnesses). Dolly never showed for trial on 7-19-01, although subpoenaed by Michael Elbery. Compulsory Process is meaningless in this Country because the courts won't enforce it for defendants. But Oh Boy! that judge will arrest a witness for the prosecution, if there is even a hint that witness won't show up for the prosecution's case. And the prosecution witness doesn't testify the right way there is a perjury prosecution for that witness.

                                                                                                                                         -41-

 

The question is who told Dolly Olecki what to say and what changes to make to her observations/evidence regarding the Gear incident? At a minimum, it came from her Bosses at ExxonMobil suggesting a fictitious/perjurious account of facts/events that 7-4-00. Who had such influence to get ExxonMobil to make its employee-Dolly lie in order to attempt to falsely convict Michael Elbery; the world's greatest influence peddlers - the "Jews in the Shadows".

 

Grounds to Purge Brekka & Brekka's Chance to Escape

But not all was lost for D.A. Martha Coakley and the F.P.D., their prosecution witnesses were dropping like flies, but they finally had legal grounds to purge Elbery's $10,000.00 defense attorney. Yes, Martha Coakley thought her problems were solved because the changes about evidence, per Dolly Olecki, via Brekka interviews, caused Brekka to claim he was a witness. Brekka had legal grounds to withdraw as Elbery's defense attorney, and then, Elbery would do what he did so effectively and that is be a lawyer and crusade his cause in what is supposed to be the Forum of Justice in this here U.S.A.. It would be a sad day for Martha Coakley's Middlesex D.A.'s Office, but she didn't know it. But she would find out - read on.

 

Attorney Ken Brekka gets out when the gettin' out was good (wished he never got involved)

Brekka knew all to well that his career/legal practice was in jeopardy and that he had to get out and get away from Michael Elbery, forever. His plan was simple - he became a witness due to witness Dolly Olecki changing her account of facts, per Brekka's investigation, as to what she observed after the incident regarding the video tape and the Framingham police. Attorney Ken Brekka motioned the court to withdraw on grounds he was a witness and the Framingham Court - Judge Robert V. Greco was glad to allow Brekka to say goodbye to the defense of Michael Elbery. Brekka's reluctant investigation had also ended and he would no longer have to take orders/bullying, via telephoning Michael Elbery from a prison. Brekka's representation of Elbery lasted from July '00 to November 9, '00 or about 4 months of a case that lasted a little longer than a year.

But most of all Brekka wanted to avoid the wrath of the Jewish controlled Mass. bar and Judiciary. How much did Brekka's 4 months of representation hurt him is not known. But if it was not for Brekka's reluctant investigation - Elbery would not have had some valuable evidence at trial that resulted in not only getting not guilties on both charges against him but some of the evidence shocked the jury causing them to make exclamatory noises upon presentation.

 

Reluctantly yours,

To make it clear - the evidence Brekka produced was through a reluctant effort, as per this chapter of MassInjustice.org. Some of the evidence was automatic as per the rules of criminal evidentiary discovery (an example of automatic discovery are the police documents/911tapes/mug shots etc.,). Brekka did everything he could to prevent Elbery from getting the easily obtained (legally automatic) exculpatory evidence. As above, Brekka would not give Michael Elbery Gears's mug shot or arrest video tape taken by the police on 7-4-00. Brekka caused the copies of the 6 bloody Gear pictures with all the Ketchup and massive phony wounds that he sent Elbery to be  so dark that the fabricated evidence is covered-up. The big question is what other exculpatory evidence did Brekka find (probably without trying) that he has to this day kept from his client, Michael Elbery?

                                                                                                                                       -42-

During attempted discovery while Brekka still represented Elbery, Brekka would absolutely refuse to ask some questions that Elbery wanted answered regarding Gear and his claim of being a Jew. If Brekka asked what Elbery wanted concerning Gear's race claim of Jew, via discovery, he would be driving an ice cream truck in Norway on cold winter day. But Elbery didn't care about the Jews and their "New World Order" rule - the Jews had already decided to make Elbery the enemy; he continued representing himself sparing no questions or discovery requests that were required due to this newly fabricated motive of race. The Jews now claim that they are not a race of people but just a religion. If you intermarry for thousands of years as instructed by your Bible (see Leviticus) then you, the Jews, are the ultimate definition/example of race on this planet Earth. Why were the Jews claiming a "racially motivated" beating if a Jew is not a race?

Even though the Roman Emperors Hadrian and Constantine fulfilled the prophecies, the Jews would maintain their race while the "Wandering People" were scattered by the Roman Legions to the far corners of the known world. Throughout it all, thousands of years of history, this Jewish race of people maintain that they are the "Chosen People" by God and that God put them on the planet Earth to exploit the other men, animals for their gain. Read the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) - the Jews believe in this and slavery according to their Bible. They also call you the Goyem and the Negro is the Schlatza.

Brekka claimed he would show as a witness for trial at Framingham District Court, but when he was called by Elbery to produce evidence that he had due to his $10,000.00 investigation - Brekka was not there. Lucky Brekka did as he was told or the Jews would destroy his legal practice. Not only did defendant-Elbery subpoena his former attorney, Ken Brekka, but also Brekka's nasty secretary, Maureen (scroll down to the second subpoena). Maureen had evidence due to phone calls she unwittingly made to Ast. Mgr. James Regal. She never showed either. Brekka did send a letter to Elbery after Elbery kicked D.A. Martha Coakley's prosecution office in the ass for two days of trial at Framingham District Court on 7-19-00 thru 7-20-00. Coakley and her right hand man, Attorney Matthew Hurley, could be heard from their office in Communist Cambridge whaling every time Elbery kicked their prosecution team between the legs with documentary evidence that not even the biggest liar on Earth, D.A. Martha Coakley, could counter. It was a sad day for the corrupt Co-conspirators that are the Mass. Judiciary and their lackey dogs the Prosecutors (or is it the reverse?). When ailing Judge Dan Toomey heard the impossible news of Elbery's victory in their Kangaroo Court he finally died of heart complications that Elbery caused him via a heart attack a year earlier. And there is some justice, but not enough.

 

Act VI - ExxonMobil Corp. - takes the Profitable Course of Action and Joins the Jewish Conspiracy

 

ExxonMobil - conceals evidence in attempt to help convict its employee

ExxonMobil did everything they could to help convict Michael Elbery of charges they had to know were false. Dolly Olecki, the ExxonMobil Mgr.,  reviewed the video tape of the "Gear Incident" later that 7-4-00. That was the same video tape the Framingham cops would confiscate with Olecki's cooperation and then those 3 Framingham Police Officers would view the video tape and erase it before returning it to Olecki at the ExxonMobil a day later. The cops erased the video because it showed the cops and prosecution were engaging in a malicious prosecution and nothing they (Coakley's prosecution and the Framingham cops) were charging Michael Elbery with was true.

                                                                                                                                   -43-

On 7-4-00 Michael Elbery told Mobil Mgr., Dolly Olecki, to pull the 7-4-00 video tape the contained the incident with Peter Gear. Olecki later the same day by phone confirmed to Michael Elbery that, as per ExxonMobil policy, she pulled the video tape and reviewed it. Elbery's attorney followed up with a letter of request to secure that same video tape; Brekka's letter requesting the video tape of the incident didn't help because ExxonMobil Mgr. - Olecki already gave that video tape to the Framingham cops on 7-5-00 and the cops (led by Sgt. Hector Sanchez of the Framingham Police Dept.) erased it in order to make sure the perfect evidence was forever destroyed.

Of course, ExxonMobil knew the truth via the video tape of the 7-4-0 "Gear Incident"; Peter Gear was in to see ExxonMobil Mgr. Dolly Olecki within 12 hours of his claim of Assault Beating. ExxonMobil policy required Mgr. Dolly Olecki to pull the 24 hour video tape and review the activity as lied about by Peter Gear.

 

ExxonMobil Admits 7-4-00 Video Tape of Gear Incident No Longer Exits

Since he got nowhere asking ExxonMobil to save the video tape evidence, Attorney Brekka filed a motion in tardy attempt to protect the video tape and tried to attempt to get the names and locations of the three "Donut Witnesses". This feeble attempt for perfect evidence for defense of his client was a waste of time. According to Attorney Ken Brekka, ExxonMobil's attorney, Ken Homsey, stated that ExxonMobil was claiming (see paragraph #5 where Brekka notes Homsey's "does not exist" comment) that the video tape and perfect evidence of the criminal case against Michael Elbery did not exist (see item #5). That's right the same video tape of  7-4-00 that recorded, via 6 video cameras, the entire alleged criminal episode against Michael Elbery.

Attorney Brekka never got the video tape of  the incident but he did, after 2 1/2 months of barking up a tree, find the names and locations of the 3 "Donut Witnesses," and, as was required by the Court (Judge Robert Greco) , to turn over to D.A. Martha Coakley's Prosecutor's Office and the cops the names locations and related information of those three witnesses. The prosecutor and cops did not want these witnesses to be found and went so far as to purge any mention on their police reports of the fact that 3 young men witnessed the entire incident and  were interviewed by the responding cops minutes after alleged victim-witness, Peter Geer, fled the Mobil gas station on that same 7-4-00. And of course, Brekka was still demanding the video tape that recorded the entire incident of  7-4-00 at the Mobil that resulted in Michael Elbery being framed with a false arrest and malicious prosecution.

Actually, ExxonMobil's attorney, Ken Homsey, was right (see #5) when Attorney Homsey said the video tape did not exist. Within 48 hours after the incident of 7-4-00 at the ExxonMobil, the video tape of the incident involving alleged victim, Peter Geer, had been confiscated by Framingham Police, Sgt. Hector Sanchez and his gang of cops, and erased at the Framinham Police Station. This evidence or erasing was officially confirmed by Sgt. Hector Sanchez under oath during the trial of the underlying charges against Elbery. Sanchez claimed that one of the other cops erased it, not him. Remember, ExxonMobil Mgr., Dolly Olecki, originally told Attorney Ken Brekka, on 8-10-00, that the cops brought the video tape of the incident back BLANK or "not recorded". 

Michael Elbery was doing his job as required by ExxonMobil policies; ExxonMobil helped frame and produce false evidence against Elbery. 

 

Exxon claims cooperative - continues cover-up

Through their attorney, ExxonMobil claimed they would provide any information they could for the defense regarding the underlying incident that caused the criminal charges against Michael Elbery. But this was only after Attorney Brekka had spent over 3 months of investigation, including a series of interviews with Mobil employees that resulted in zero documents or evidence that he requested from the Exxon Mobil. Prior to this claim, on about 10-10-00, by ExxonMobil's attorney (Attorney Kenneth Homsey) that ExxonMobil would provide the evidence and information being sought by defendant and their former employee, Michael Elbery, Brekka had already issued subpoena's to ExxonMobil because they refused to produce any evidence needed by Brekka to prepare a defense.

Brekka, due to a total lack of  cooperation by ExxonMobil and its employees regarding the evidence/information he sought and requested issued subpoenas to Mobil employee, Mary Floyd, Dolly Olecki requiring them to be present for questioning under oath at an an evidentiary hearing at Framingham District Court on 9-13-00 in order that defense attorney, Brekka, could acquire the most basic evidence as requested per the subpoenas.

                                                                                                                                   -44-

Not only did ExxonMobil instruct their employees not to produce any evidence as requested by Attorney Brekka, but ExxonMobil instructed them to stop even talking to Brekka. Brekka had to, again, subpoena ExxonMobil manager Dolly Olecki for another hearing in order to  acquire evidence that ExxonMobil had at their disposal, but wanted to create an obstacle to defense evidence for their former employee, Michael Elbery, rather than, as ExxonMobil claimed, be helpful in providing evidence.

ExxonMobil decided they were fighting a losing battle and produced, through their attorney, the documents Brekka had requested via his subpoena to ExxonMobil manager - Dolly Olecki. This production of documents by ExxonMobil, via their attorney, Homsey, was in lieu of having Dolly Olecki going to court and having to produce them. At this point in the case, Elbery, through his attorney, would be allowed by the Court in Framingham to get this most simple evidence, so Homsey had cause to advise his client, ExxonMobil, to avoid the inevitable.

Once Attorney Brekka quit the case in November '00 the court refused Elbery any and all discovery. The court gave some pretense to the defense's discovery of evidence while Brekka represented Elbery because as an "attorney of the bar" and "officer of the court" Brekka had to be given some gestures of respect. But it was all an act, they knew back in September of '00 that  Brekka would withdraw due to Dolly Olecki changing her interview statements to Brekka concerning the video tape. Brekka claimed that Olecki's change in testimony made him a witness causing him to withdraw.

In the interim, on about November 2, 2000, Attorney Brekka would make request to ExxonMobil's attorney, Kenneth Homsey, that Brekka be allowed to make certain observations and take pictures at the ExxonMobil station at 696 Cochituate Rd., Framingham, Mass. in order that he acquire necessary evidence and defense preparation for trial. The big issue with this 11-2-00 request by Attorney Brekka was that he wanted to gain entrance to the office/backroom of that Mobil gas station to examine the video tape security system. Attorney Brekka had been refused any observation at that Mobil gas station other than what the public ( a customer ) could see or observe.

ExxonMobil corporate office refused this request by Attorney Brekka to gain entrance to the backroom/office at the Mobil Station so that Brekka could make observations and examine the the video surveillance system that his then client, Michael Elbery, was claiming had been on and recorded the entire underlying incident involving Peter Geer on 7-4-00 which the F.P.D. and Matha Coakley's Middlesex D.A.'s Office was prosecuting Elbery. Brekka responded on about 11-8-00 making note of ExxonMobil's adversarial position regarding their former employee, Michael Elbery, and ExxonMobil's documented effort to prevent Elbery from obtaining evidence for his defense. New World Order ExxonMobil Corporation was going to do, and had been doing everything possible, to help convict Elbery of charges they knew were fabricated.

ExxonMobil knew the video system at their gas station at 696 Cochituate Rd., Framingham, Mass. was, as a matter of corporate policy and mandate required to always be running. ExxonMobil knew that the entire incident on 7-4-00 involving Peter Geer that caused the fabricated charges against Michael Elbery was recorded on video. Further they knew that their Mobil manager - Dolly Olecki - gave the Framingham cops (Sgt. Sanchez and company) the tape of that same Gear Incident and that those cops erased it and returned it BLANK to Dolly Olecki.

Per interview with ExxonMobil Ast. Mgr. James J. Regal, Brekka learned that ExxonMobil was going to put in brand new video surveillance system and ditch the video system that existed on 7-4-00 and recorded the entire Gear Incident. 

ExxonMobil became so desperate to help the Jews and the police and Martha Coakley's prosecutor's office convict their employee, Michael Elbery, by concealing evidence and covering-up the conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Elbery that they had decided to trash the video surveillance system at their gas station at 696 Cochituate Rd., Framingham, Mass. and replace it with a new video surveillance system in attempt to hide the evidence. When Michael Elbery learned, on about 10-16-00, of this plan by ExxonMobil to trash the video system, he insisted that Attorney Brekka motion the court for an order to preserve or stop ExxonMobil from their conspiracy to destroy evidence that would aid Elbery in his defense. Brekka did not act, so Michael Elbery filed a motion himself on 10-22-00. Elbery also filed another motion with the prosecuting court, Framingham District Court, while represented by Attorney Brekka, on about 10-26-00 in order to gain documents Elbery knew Brekka had in his possession but would not allow Elbery to have. 

                                                                                                                                     -45-

No doubt, this plan of evidence concealment would be in a spirit of cooperation with government authorities - one D.A. Martha Coakley.

And who comes to the rescue but Martha Coakley's Middlesex D.A.'s office and confiscates Elbery's motions in order that they never even appeared on the docket entries of the case; in fact, they never appeared on the first set of docket entries they used before they changed the original charges and gave the case against Michael Elbery a new docket number. Yes, this handy work was done by Martha Coakley's "wonder dog" - Special Assistant District Attorney Matthew Hurley. Hurley intercepted Elbery's three motions and turned them over to Attorney Brekka.

Attorney Brekka must have been embarrassed that his client filed relevant motions on evidentiary matters because Brekka immediately, upon receiving the intercepted motions by Hurley, filed a motion with the Framingham District Court to "Preserve the Video Surveillance Equipment". Although the motion was allowed by Judge Greco, it was all academic because Brekka would quit the case at the same time. 

Once Attorney Brekka quit the case the motion became meaningless because there was no one to view the surveillance equipment even though ExxonMobil was ordered to preserve their surveillance system that recorded the entire incident of 7-4-00 with Peter Gear.

That wasn't the end of the cover-up conspiracy by ExxonMobil regarding evidence Michael Elbery needed to  defend himself against the fabricated Jewish criminal charges.

Even before Attorney Brekka quit the defense of his client, Michael Elbery, he quit doing any further discovery and told Elbery to do the discovery himself. So Elbery continued the discovery requests immediately and did not quit his pursuit of his legally entitled evidentiary discovered until the day of trial.

Elbery would file dozens of evidentiary discovery motions and get nothing. Elbery would even file a Petition under M.G.L. C. 211 s.3 in order to enforce his Constitutional Rights so that he could get a fair trial. Justice Ireland got word to Elbery a day before his trial in Framingham District Court that, as S.J.C. Justice, he, Ireland, decided Michael Elbery would receive no evidentiary discovery. The same evidentiary discovery that Elbery was entitled to under both the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Massachusetts Constitution.

The next attempt to get evidence in possession of ExxonMobil through discovery was done by Michael Elbery. He mailed, via U.S. certified mail, a proposed motion with a accompanying summons for documents; this summons itemized 8 categories of evidence that Mobil was not producing to Elbery, so that he could build a defense against the phony charges. Remember the best evidence is physical or documentary evidence and the worst evidence is testimony unsupported by physical or documentary evidence. In typical fashion ExxonMobil refused to even acknowledge Elbery's request for evidence in their possession. Elbery then, on about 3-8-01, filed the motion with the Framingham District Court not just because of ExxonMobil 's refusal to be cooperative, but rather ExxonMobil was an adversary.

On about 6-10-01 Elbery sent a request for certification of the register tape of 7-4-00 to ExxonMobil, via their Attorney Homsey, by Mobil Mgr. - Dolly Olecki . After some debate Attorney Homsey gave lip service to agree to advise that the manager, Dolly  Olecki, to sign as custodian as required by Mass. statute to introduce business records into evidence.

 

Mobil represented by 4 attorneys prior to trial - 2 for Dolly Olecki. Why the need for all the legal representation, if they did not take an adversarial position against Elbery?

ExxonMobil would go so far as to hire 2 attorney's for Dolly Olecki; an attorney named Michael T. Henry and another named Toma. This attorney Toma was present during the follow-up Brekka investigation on September 13, '00 and October and was with Olecki when she testified at the evidentiary hearing. Dolly needed that attorney because she appeared very uncomfortable, and nervous when she testified/committed perjury at the Evidentiary Hearing on 10-17-10. Martha Coakley had the solution that Dolly was causing for her phony prosecution of Michael Elbery; Coakley never used Dolly as a witness so that the problems, as above, with Dolly Olecki's changes in testimony and lies would go away and not be a problem for the Middlesex D.A.'s Office.

                                                                                                                             -46-

Michael Elbery, representing himself at trial, subpoenaed Dolly Olecki and other ExxonMobil employees but her bosses made sure she never showed or witnessed at the trial.

After Michael Elbery, representing himself at trial, won not guilty verdicts on both charges against him he demanded that ExxonMobil pay his legal fees that he had paid Attorney Brekka regarding Brekka's representation for approximately 3 months of  alleged investigation. Elbery in that letter of demand also requested that ExxonMobil pay witnesses fees he paid various Mobil employees via subpoena in the amount $175.00. It seems the case became overwhelming for Homsey the Attorney after Michael Elbery was found  "not guilty" by a jury and after Attorney Homsey and his client did so much to help convict Elbery that he quit the case. ExxonMobil had one of their "in house attorneys," a Shultz, handle a response to Elbery's monetary requests. Attorney Shultz told Elbery to go screw himself. Elbery sent another letter to ExxonMobil and Attorney Dutch Schultz again refused to pay

None of the ExxonMobil witnesses that Elbery subpoenaed (scroll down to Regal, Mohamed Amatah, Regal) showed for trial. But neither did Elbery's attorney turned witness, Attorney Ken Brekka. Yes, Elbery paid Brekka $10k and got a lot of nonsense for 3 months while he tried to coax/convince, via prison pay phones and letters, Brekka to do the most remedial actions in order to get the most rudimentary evidence. Brekka was adjudicated a witness in the case by Judge Robert Greco. But Brekka didn't have the common decency to show up for trial. Oh! Elbery made sure Attorney Brekka and his crabby secretary, Maureen Ferguson, (scroll down to second subpoena) had no excuses so he subpoenaed them with corresponding fees. What waste of money. Elbery asked for a return by Brekka and his secretary of the fees he paid them to show up for trial.

Defendant - Michael Elbery exercising his right under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights to Compulsory Process subpoenaed 17 witnesses in order to present testimonial and introduce documentary evidence at trial; ExxonMobil employees were subpoenaed, Framingham Police, Elbery's attorney turned witness - Ken Brekka and his secretary who got caught up in the investigation, and none of these witnesses showed for trial and the judge could have cared less even over Elbery's objection. 

Two of the "3 Donut Witnesses appeared for trial and testified corroborating Elbery's account of facts.

Elbery filed a federal lawsuit against numerous defendants, including ExxonMobil, due to the malicious prosecution conspiracy, false arrest and violation of his Constitutional Rights. Another Jew presided over that federal lawsuit for violations of his Constitutional Rights brought under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 - One Judge Morris E. Lasker. Lasker had no hearings on that case and never let the American, Michael Elbery, in his courtroom. That case ended in ONE BIG KANGAROO dismissal. After all these defendants did good work for the Jewish Agenda and Judge Morris E. Lasker saw to it  they were taken care of.

Lansker was a safe bet for the Jews to blatantly violate an American Citizen's Constitutional Rights because he was 92 years old and died shortly after secretly dismissing Michael Elbery's Sanchez case.

 

VII. No Evidentiary Discovery for the Defense - Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the  Mass. SJC  Conspires in Violating a White Man's Constitutional Rights

A very small part of  the case evidentiary discovery activity is itemized in the 46 pages above. It includes the discovery sought from ExxonMobil by Michael Elbery and his temporary attorney, Ken Brekka, and the "automatic discovery" that the Framingham Police decided to give Attorney Brekka. Defendant - Michael Elbery at least received in automatic discovery what Brekka was willing to forward to his client, Michael Elbery, after withdrawing from the case.

Elbery needed more evidence in order to defend against Martha Coakley's false charges, so he filed dozens of motions to acquire evidence that he knew existed and that would be exculpatory. The  discovery requests on pages 48-52 where produced as itemized below  (series of hyperlinks) of this Chapter of MassInjustice.org. over a period of about 10 months. A very small percentage of that almost one year's worth of Discovery Motions/Requests are reviewed/itemized above. All the Discovery Request Motions on pages 48-52 are for evidence that was required as a "matter of law". Some of it was what they call "Automatic Discovery". Elbery actually got some of the police reports and police logs and tapes only because it was so "automatic" in nature (all police reports, logs, tapes are automatic) and because he had an attorney at the beginning of the discovery process. But once Brekka quit Elbery got nothing in terms of evidence that he requested through dozens of discovery motions he filed during and after Brekka's representation. Keep in mind Brekka was given the automatic police discovery without a motion, but upon his visit to the Framingham Police Station in August of 2000. It would have been difficult for the police and prosecutor to deny the Automatic Discovery because they have to produce certain documents in order to make an arrest and to prosecute a criminal case; but the Framingham cops refused to produce the booking video of Peter Gear's arrest by the Framingham Cops and the judge did nothing about it, even though there was proper evidentiary motion made by the defendant.

All those discovery motions filed by defendant-Michael Elbery and what did it yield? Nothing!

                                                                                                                                  -47-

There was one small exception to a void or no discovery being produced due to discovery motions filed during the case. That was in response to Attorney Brekka's first sundry motion for Gear's criminal record. Not only was that motion allowed by the judge but the defense actually received Gear's Cori which disclosed the 6 year old warrant for check larceny, which caused Peter Gear to be on the run for 6 years, was immediately dismissed.

The Brekka letter of 9-26-00 discloses that "Gear went to court on the 6 year old outstanding warrant for check larceny" but Brekka was scared to make the important point and say that the charge for check larceny  was immediately dismissed after Gear was arrested on 7-4-00. Brekka knew that D.A. Coakley and others had arranged to have that check larceny charge dismissed in exchange for Gear's planned fabricated charges/perjury testimony against Michael Elbery.

 

D.A. Martha Coakley "Conscious of her Guilt" - Fabricated Wounds/Ketchup Blood - 6 Pictures Concealed

Martha Coakley's D.A.'s Office produced no more discovery evidence to Michael Elbery so that he could defend himself at trial than the discovery evidence that Attorney Brekka was originally given in August of 2000 by the police. Here is the discovery produced by the prosecution to Elbery; a very brief and uninformative Bill of Particulars accompanied with evasive response to Elbery's Omnibus Motion, and a "Commonwealth's Notice of Discovery" which was nothing except for a few documents Elbery had received already through automatic discovery when Brekka went to the Framingham Police Dept. in Aug. of '00. Yes, it amounts to no evidentiary discovery.

Note that D.A.'s Office does acknowledge the 6 pictures of Gear  (See item 3a on that "Notice of  Discovery") with the "big bloody head wound," but like Attorney Brekka the pictures they sent were deliberately dark copies., that blacked out the phony bloody head wounds. The reason why Coakley and her prosecution team made the copies of Gear's wounds so dark was because they knew they were committing Perjury and Fabricating False Evidence against Michael Elbery. They had nice clear pictures for presentation to the jury on 7-19-00, but they didn't want Michael Elbery having possession of their Illegal work product. Maybe at 2000 they thought Michael Elbery would publish a Web Site?

And of course, Attorney Ken Brekka followed orders and also sent his client copies of "Gear's phony massive bloody wounds" that were so dark they didn't not reveal the fabrication by Coakley in order that she could carry out her malicious prosecution. But at the legal visit of 10-13-00, Brekka had nice clear phony photographs that depicted Peter Gear with "thick dripping bloody wounds" on his head and an assortment of other "massive wounds", all fake. Brekka claimed he had to return the 6 photos of Gear with all the "massive bloody wounds" to the Framingham Police.

Compare Gear's mug shot of 7-4-00 by the F.P.D. to what you see on the deliberately dark copies of Coakley's 6 fabricated photos of Gear's "massive bloody wounds". It is possible to detect on the picture labeled 5 (middle left - side view of Gear's head) that there is "thick dark stuff" running down the side of his head along his hair line. In the photos the jury saw "thick red stuff" which was fake blood/ketchup. Coakley falsely fabricated to the jury that her victim had these "massive bloody wounds" from the "Gear Incident" at 2:30am. on 7-4-00 when the Framingham police recorded that he was just "hung over", per their arrest mug shot of Gear 12 hours after the "Gear Incident" at the ExxonMobil.

And Coakley's D.A.'s Office had the crust to demand discovery from Elbery via their "Motion for Reciprocal Discovery". 

 Oh! Martha Coakley and her team of Prosecution were ordered to produce discovery evidence by Judge Stoddart, but Coakley ignored those judge's orders. Hey, the judge- Stoddart didn't care - Elbery would motion to compel the various discovery orders made by Judge Stoddart and Elbery got the same result - Nothing.

 

Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Roderick L. Ireland - Violates the Constitution of the U.S.A.

So Michael Elbery went to the highest court in Massachusetts and petitioned the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court via a Petition under M.G.L. C. 211 s. 3. Justice Ireland took jurisdiction of the 211 s. 3 Petition filed by Elbery and the two Amendments ( 211 s. 3 Amendment filed on 4-5-01 and the second Amendment to that 211 s. 3 Petition) that Elbery filed to the original 211 s.3 Petition . Attorney Mo Bergman and the Jewish Secret Police would make sure Ireland knew who Elbery was and Ireland ignored Elbery's rights and decided against Elbery's petition for the S.J.C. to enforce the Constitutional Rights of a white citizen.

Gov. Deval Patrick would later appoint Ireland Chief Justice of the S.J.C.

Both Ireland and Deval Patrick are Negroes.  See what happens when a society promotes based on affirmative action and racial quotas. It's only going to get worse Americans. You can't kill ill will.

Elbery's Petition to the S.J.C. in order to stop the injustice that was preventing him from getting a fair trial, via evidentiary discovery, and was Violating his Constitutional Rights was DENIED. And Chief Justice Ireland was nice enough to sit on Elbery's Petition until the day before trial before making his Decision of Denial. I got the message Ireland. Now the rest of the World can see what you did. No "judicial carpet" for you to hide under this time.

The discovery Michael Elbery motioned for was all legally required. Some of the discovery evidence was finally allowed by Judge Stoddart on the original date set for trial, 5-17-00, but D.A. Coakley refused to produce even the minimal discovery allowed by the Judge, even after being compelled. Only a few motions, listed below, were filed by Attorney Brekka but those filed by Brekka resulted in nothing because he knew he was quitting. Most of Brekka's motions that were allowed required that he perform observations of the Mobil Station's video system. So when Brekka quit the court knew the allowance of Brekka's motions were academic because Elbery, being in prison, was unable to  gather the evidence at the Mobil. The motions filed for the defense were extensive as follows:

8-15-00 Notice of Appearance - Attorney Ken Brekka

8-22-01  Motion for Court Order to Take Custody of Evidence (Video Tape)

8-31-00 Motion for Discovery Evidence and Hearing for Crucial Evidence Known by Mary Floyd and Dolly Olecki & Maximum Security

9-13-00 Motion To Preserve Evidence

9-15-00 Motion for Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence/Request for Hearing 

9-5-00 Motion for Criminal Records

9-8-00 Motion for Library Time 

10-22-00 Motion For Court Order To Gain Entrance to the Mobil Premises Where Alleged Crime Occurred In Order to Test Video Surveillance System and Gain Evidence 

10-23-00 Defendant's Motion For Additional Discovery

                                                                                                                                   -48-

10-24-00 Motion For Evidentiary Hearing of Peter H. Gear (Alleged Victim) and Owners, Residents 58 Clinton St., Framingham, Mass.

10-26-00 Defendant's Motion for Court Order For Attorney Ken Brekka to  Produce Documentary Evidence, Etc.

10-26-00 Defendant's Motion for Court Order and Related Subpoenas In Order To Produce Exculpatory Evidence and Have a Fair Trial

10-31-00 Defendant's Motion For Transcript, Review and Testing of Police Tape and Defendant's Review of 7-3-00 Mobil Video

11-3-00   Defendant's Motion For Supplemental Discovery and Related Court Orders

11-5-00 Mark-Up for Hearing On 11-14-00 Five Motions

11-9-00 Motion To Withdraw, Motion To Continue, Motion To Preserve Video Surveillance Equipment (Filed by Attorney Brekka)

11-9-00 Defendant's Pretrial Conference Report - Cancelled by Attorney Brekka

11-9-00 Motion to Continue (Pretrial Hearing) (Filed by Attorney Brekka)

11-9-00 Motion To Preserve Video Surveillance Equipment (Filed by Attorney Brekka)

11-9-00 Motion To Withdraw (Filed by Attorney Brekka)

11-15-00 Defendant's Written Objection To Judge Grecco's Ruling and Allowance of Defendant's Attorney to Withdraw

1-29-00 Defendant's Motion To Preserve/Impound By Court and Compel For Production and Inspection of Prosecution Controlled Evidence

1-29-00 Defendant's Motion To Preserve/Impound By Court and Compel For Production and  Inspection of Prosecution Controlled Evidence (2d filing)

1-31-00 Another Letter to Attorney Robertson - Fired

1-31-01 Letter to Attorney Robertson - Fired

1-31-01 Defendant's Motion/Notice To Continue Representation Pro Se

1-31-01 Attorney Robertson Fired Letter #3

                                                                                                                                  -49-

2-10-01 Attorney Robertson Fired Letter - Last of 4

2-14-01 Mark Up for 3-8-01 Hearing Defendant's Motion For Bill of Particulars and Defendant's Omnibus Discovery Motion

2-14-01 Defendant's Motion For Bill of Particulars

2-14-01 Defendant's Omnibus Discovery Motion

2-14-01 Letter Of Request to Massachusetts Forensic Services Director

2-15-01 Letter to Clerk Correct Docket Entries and Mark Up For Hearing - Defendant's Notice That Defendant Elbery Continues to Represent Himself  - Attorney Robertson Fired

2-2-01  Another Attorney Robertson Fired Letter

2-2-01 Notice That Defendant Elbery Continues To Represent Himself - Attorney Robertson Fired

2-23-01 Mark Up for 3-8-01 Hearing - Defendant's Motion to Compel Mobil Oil to Produce Documents Summoned Under M.R.C.P. 17a2

2-3-01 Letter to Clerk Requesting Docket Entries of the Case

2-4-01 Motion for Discovery

2-9-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel and Issue Court Order For Hospital Records at M.C.I. Concord H.S.U.

2-9-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel and Issue Court Order for Defendant's Hospital Records

2-9-01 Pro Se Defendant's Objection to Court's Refusal to Docket and Acknowledge 6 Defendant's Discovery Motions & Resubmission of the 6 Discovery Motions for Filing & Docketing

3-11-01 Defendant Hand Delivers 5 Motions at 3-8-01 Hearing

3-11-01 Defendant's Motion To Compel Attorney Brekka to Release Exculpatory Evidence to Defendant & Expose This Case as Fraud

3-11-01 Defendant's Motion for Prosecution's Expert Witnesses & Credentials and Substance of Opinion

3-11-01 Defendant's Motion To Stay 3-08-01 Hearing Until M.G.L.A. C. 211 s. 3 Petition Decided by Mass. S.J.C.

3-11-01 Defendant's Motion for Jury Pool Selection Information & Require Jurors to Submit "Confidential Information Questionnaire"

                                                                                                                                   -50-

3-11-01 Defendant's Motions Court to Serve Defense Witness Summons

3-13-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel Prosecutor to Produce Discovery Evidence as Requested by Defendant's Discovery Motions

3-13-01 Defendant's Objection to Case Proceedings etc. and Defendant's Motion to Compel Mandatory Exculpatory Evidence

3-15-01 Defendant's Motion for Stenographer at The 4-4-01 Hearing and All Future Hearings of this Case and The Jury Trial of this Case

3-15-01 Defendant's Motion To Suppress Illegally Recorded Sanchez Call

3-16-01 Defendant's Motion for Docket Entries

3-17-01 Mark-Up for 4-4-01 Scheduled Hearing - Defendant's Motion for  Court Order for Glover-Deaconess Hospital to Produce Defendant's Hospital Records

3-5-01 Defendant Motions Court to  Serve Defense Witness Summons

3-8-01 Attorney Robertson - Motion To Withdraw

4-19-01 Defendant's Motion for Clarification Regarding Discovery & Related Court Orders of Case & Memorial of 3-08-01 Discovery Court Order

4-21-01 Defendant's Motion for Prosecution to Produce Certified Copies of Police 911 Tapes, Turret Tapes, Photos, Reports, Dispatch Reports etc., For Evidence at Trial and Discovery

5-11-01 Defendant's Motion To Sequester & Exclude Any Police Officers From Sitting At Counsel Table with A.D.A.

5-11-01 Motion For Sequestration of Witnesses

5-12-01 Combined Defendant's Motion For Continuance & Inquiry as to Trial Date

5-13-01 Defendant's Motion To Suppress Defendant's Prior Convictions

5-22-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel Alleged Victim's Medical Records From Emergency Room and Past Primary Care Provider As Exposed by Dr. Tamara Martin

5-27-01 Combined Defendant's Motion for Clarification & Motion for Pre-Trial Conference Report

5-29-01 Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and Allow Defendant's Motion for Peter H. Gear's Therapist Records

                                                                                                                                    -51-

5-4-01 Defendant's Ex-Parte Motion/Application For Court To Serve Witness Summons

6-12-01 Defendant's Motion to Compel 2 F.P.D. Pictures of Alleged Victim Peter H. Gear "Bloody Head Wound" & "Massive Side Bruise"

6-19-01 Defendant's Motion To Compel Prosecution To Produce Evidence Requested By Defendant's Omnibus Motion & Ordered by the Court

6-21-01 Mark - Up for 7-10-01 Hearing All The Defendant's Motions Not Yet Heard and Find for Filing and Review 3 Motions also to be Heard 7-10-01

6-27-01 Corrected - "Defendant's  Combined Motion to Compel Bill of Particulars, Pre-Trial Conference Report, and Testing of Mobil's Video Surveillance System"

6-6-01 Defendant's Motion for Clarification Regarding Defendant's Discovery Request for Telephone & Dispatch Evidence & Related Court Order

6-6-01 Defendant's Letter to Clerk and Affidavit in Support of Requirements under M.G.L. C. 233 s. 79G (Service to Court and D.A. - Defendant's Medical Records)

6-6-01 Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Defendant's "Omnibus Discovery Motion" Requests

7-16-01 Defendant's Motion for Continuance of Trial (without Gear's medical records)

7-17-01 Defendant's Affidavits Service of Witnesses' Summons Under M.R.C.P. 17b1, 17c, 17d-1

7-18-01 Defendant's Motion and Notice Regarding His Prior Convictions Under Mass. C. 233 s. 21

                                                                                                                                       -52-

 

XIII. The Hearings of the Case - Preview to the Kangaroo Trial - (Bug Women & a Cryin' Judge)

There was no Pre-Trial Hearing/Conference but there were several hearings after Brekka quit in November of 2000.

 

At one of these hearings Judge -Robert Greco presided and Greco originally said he was going to deny Elbery his right to a jury trial, then Greco chickened out saying "we won't do that to you". We'll you did everything else to violate the Constitutional Rights of the American - Michael Elbery, and you failed. Imagine a judge in this U.S.A. saying that he was going to deny a criminal defendant's right to a jury trial!

At the last hearing presided by Judge Greco, there were "female bugs" loaded into Framingham District Court hearing to see Michael Elbery. Is he the first white man they had ever seen? They wanted a pound of flesh or maybe they wanted to see which white man was getting crucified. All these women had dark hair, dark eyes and looked alike; it was a week day in the morning and the courtroom was packed with these "bugs". These "bug women" highlighted the abnormalities that was that alleged judicial proceeding. Who were these "bug woman" and what was their Agenda?

 At one of the more memorable pre-trial hearings of the case at Framingham District Court, Judge Healy broke down in tears while seated at his bench and then recused himself because Elbery wrote the Boston newspapers and disclosed that Healy was violating Michael Elbery's Constitutional Rights. During the motion hearing Healy yelled at Elbery, "Did you tell the press the I was violating your Constitutional Rights?" Elbery replied, "yes I did". Amazing - this mean/lousy shouting judge/tyrant was actually crying. And there were reporters from the Boston newspapers present that  witnessed Judge Healy breakdown; there were over a dozen non-government spectators, including the press, at that hearing.

 This Judge Healy presided over the case for a few months. Elbery filed several discovery motions during Healy's reign as judge on his case, but Healy refused to review any motions that were on the docket filed by the defense. Had Healy been the trial judge, Michael Elbery would never had won the jury's verdict - this Judge Healy wasn't just biased but he didn't try to hide his hatred for Michael Elbery. This big fat old ugly Judge Healy would sit on the bench during the hearings he presided over of the case against Elbery yelling and screaming. What a nasty looking old lousy judge; somebody that looked that bad in 2000 must be dead by now. Had Healy been the trial judge he would not have allowed Elbery to say anything or introduce any evidence; during the hearings that Healy presided at Elbery was not  allowed to say anything. The trial and pre-trial, as documented in this Chapter of MassInjustice.Org were nothing but one continuous violation of  Elbery's U.S. Constitutional Rights; had Healy been the trial judge the Constitutional Violations would have been so bad that Michael Elbery would have been prevented from presenting any evidence at trial. This judge - Healy is a typical example of what sits on the bench in Massachusetts Courts, particularly in criminal cases. Appointing judges for life causes big problems because these judges no longer have to account to the citizenry; they are tyrants in an alleged free society. What a joke (a free society). All the other states in the U.S.A. elect judges after their original appointment by the Executive. The only other place were judges have life time appointed terms in this U.S.A. are the Federal Courts; and that is why the illicit conduct by Federal judges occurs, as per Judge Mark Wolf  and Patti Saris, and is documented in the website.

The first hearing with Judge Healy resulted in Judge Healy threatening Michael Elbery with contempt of court because Elbery said the Massachusetts Judiciary was "government". Elbery stated that the judges were government and were biased in their decisions concerning the charges against him. Healy acted in outrage, as if he didn't know it already.

Add this victory of a Judge breaking down on the bench in the front of a courtroom audience to Elbery's list of victories, along with the Blackballings, firings, death, heart attacks. Will this Web site's exposure of S.J.C. Chief Justice - Roderick L. Ireland's documented Unconstitutional conduct result in similar victory? See Ireland violation of a Law and Michael Elbery's Constitutional Rights on pages 47 through page 48 (above) of this Chapter of Mass. Injustice.Org 

-53-

 

 

Act IX  - Trial and Not Guilty Verdict on all Counts

Middlesex County D.A. Martha Coakley and her prosecution team had a "plan of prosecution" in order remove Michael Elbery from society. Their trial plan was simple and one they use frequently in Massachusetts courts; swift conviction saturated with prosecutorial perjury/evidentiary fabrications. The D.A./prosecutor only presented 2 witnesses at trial - the alleged victim/witness - Peter H. Gear, and of course a police officer, F.P.D. Hector Sanchez. 

Originally, D.A. Martha Coakley disclosed in the prosecution's "Notice of  Discovery" the prosecutor's proposed witness list. See item #5 of that "Notice of Discovery" that listed Peter Gear and 3 Framingham cops. Only one cop, Sanchez, showed for trial. Part "5-e" allowed the the prosecution to, additionally, call as a witness anyone they chose. Elbery was also notified that Gear's treating physician, Scott Lewis Schissel M.D. would testify for the prosecution, but Dr. Schissel declined to show for trial and never testified. Maybe the reason Schissel never showed is that he disclosed, via medical records subpoenaed by Michael Elbery, that he, Schissel found no injury to Peter Gear from any altercation on 7-4-00. Schissel played Gear's game until November of 2000 and then palmed Gear off to another doctor who disclosed that Gear was a drug addict and psycho case and that physician also found, per medical records, no injury to Gear from a 7-4-00 assault incident. That doctor also disclosed that Gear went to an Emergency Room at a hospital in Framingham on 7-4-00 regarding his alleged injuries, but Gear would not allow this treating physician to see those instant ER records. Elbery tried repeatedly to get those ER records but the judge and prosecution would not allow it, although it was required as it would have produced direct evidence. Of course, "they" didn't want Elbery to get direct evidence only their false evidence. The ER evidence remained concealed from Elbery and the jury.

Gear's sister, Marjorie Kaplan, showed up  at the court room on the first day of trial to testify for the prosecution, but chickened out when she heard Michael Elbery argue motions before the trial started and defeat the "school boy" prosecutor. Gear testified his sister , Marjorie, took the 6 phony pictures of Gear; the same pictures with all the phony injuries. Marjorie may have learned that Elbery got hold of Peter Gear's mug shot taken 12 hours after the incident that showed only that Gear was "hung over" and proved that she was in conspiracy to falsify evidence. 

The prosecution's final trial plan was to present only two witnesses. They would rely on the testimony of the alleged victim witness and political correctness to persuade the jury to convict after Peter Gear alleged that he received a "good beating" because he is a Jew. Then the prosecution relied on more social conformity and presented one of  "today's hero's", Framingham P.D. - Hector Sanchez, to attempt to corroborate the lies Gear was telling. Problem is that Sanchez was only a witness to Elbery's 911 call at 2:22am and Officer Vizika's call at 2:37am. because Sanchez was "coincidentally" the dispatcher at the F.P.D. that July 4, '00. D.A. Martha Coakley and her band of traitors to the U.S. Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, presumed that Elbery (representing himself) would not even be able to distinguish and understand the overwhelming pieces of exculpatory evidence, let alone properly present the exculpatory evidence to a jury. D.A. Martha Coakley presumed that Elbery could not defeat their lies as presented by drug addict and psycho case Peter Gear and the Mexican cop, both who came across at trial as hating the white man, not just hating Michael Elbery.

 

The trick that backfired

The trial took two days, July 18-19 of 2001. But neither day was anything close to 8 hours. Judge Stoddart would continually apologize during trial to the jury that the case  would take and did take longer than one day. Judge Stoddart, like D.A. Coakley, wanted a "rush job" trial. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say a fair trial equals a one day trial? The Constitution says the opposite, and for a man facing prison time it is unlikely that any criminal trial should be completed in one day. In Massachusetts "One Day Trial" is the custom/policy, especially in District Court. A one day "rush job," so the authorities are happy and don't have to work to hard, including the defense attorney. The quicker the trial the less evidence can be presented in coherent fashion to the trial jurors. If the trial takes more than a day the judge and prosecutor know that the jurors may have time to think and make sense of the evidence. Instead a one day trial puts the  jurors in a position that they make a quick deliberation/verdict because they will want to avoid returning the next day and go home. 

-54-

None of the "bugs" showed up for the trial; the "bugs" that filled the courtroom of Judge Greco's last hearing of the case. Those 'bug people" were confident that Michael Elbery would receive more injustice and more prison and that he faced overwhelming odds that he could not defeat. But Pontius Pilot lost this time and the Jews did not get their pound of flesh.

Instead of the "bug people/women", there was only a "grinning male Negro", in his twenties, in the trial audience the first day, but he didn't return  after watching Elbery kick the shit out of Martha Coakley's Prosecution on day one of trial. The other person in the trial audience was a young female who claimed to be a law school student - she seemed to have a personal interest (jingoism), but like the only other audience she didn't return the second day to see Michael Elbery defeat the prosecution.

The Mass. judiciary and prosecution were successful with a few of their tricks. Hey, it was their yard, their game, their rules and they even had their own referee. They succeeded in confusing Elbery regarding the seating of  the jury. Elbery fell for their trick and had recorded the names of the jurors with the incorrect seating number. Elbery realized, via examination of the juror questionaire forms, that one of the empanelled jurors was on the Framingham police Dept., so he naturally didn't want him seated on the jury. But Michael Elbery challenged the wrong "juror number" due to the court's trick and F.P.D. Officer Kelly remained on the jury. But their trick jury pool numbering backfired because officer Kelly like the other 5 deliberating jurors found Michael Elbery, not guilty of both counts against him.

 

Mass. D.O.C. helps out Martha's prosecution

Elbery had to be transported by Mass. DOC (Dept. of Corrections) to Framingham, Mass from S.E.C.C. Prison in Bridgewater, Mass. on each of those two trial days. The prison process for first day of trial started at about 5a.m. for Michael Elbery, when he was told by prison guards to be ready for court. You wait for hours in holding tanks in the prison until the appropriate personnel and vehicles show up to provide transportation to court. These people are slow and stupid, if they rush they will screw up and there will be escapes. Each step taken by the prison guards and transportation people is "stop action," in order that there are multi-levels of checking. None of these people are actually relied on. It is the system, including steel and reinforced concrete, and policies that are relied on. By the time Elbery arrived at Framingham District Court on 7-18-01 it was after 10:00am. Judge Stoddart was not happy that Elbery was "late". Elbery advised the Court Bailiffs and the judge that he really had no control over his arrival. 

But the prison officials/guards didn't fail the Massachusetts Judiciary, the guards woke Michael Elbery up at 3:00am for the second/last day of trial on 7-19-01. The guard was firm - don't go back to sleep you have to be in court today. They thought this "no-sleep tactic" would help them defeat Michael Elbery on the second day of trial. The first day of trial was a disaster for Martha Coakley's prosecution team and witnesses and they knew they were losing. Their sleep deprivation tactic didn't seem to be detrimental at all, but maybe helped Elbery be even more prepared for both days of trial.

 

 

They expected, with the help of the prison authorities and judge, that Michael Elbery could never present a defense before a jury. They never expected that a criminal defendant could be versed in law and prepared with fact in a coherent manner to win a jury's verdict. They refused to believe, at least before trial, that Elbery was much more competent before a jury than their best prosecutor that ran the trial for the Middlesex  Prosecutor's Office. Maybe Elbery's success during that trial had something to do with Elbery presenting evidence that showed irrefutable evidence to the jurors that the prosecutors and police and Peter Gear were liars (Elbery had a much better case than his adversary the prosecutor); maybe it was because Elbery said and did things the prosecutor never had seen before - the prosecutor was used to dealing with mostly "court appointed" bar attorney's who had to be user friendly to the prosecution or the court would not appoint them again, so they could make a cheap living. Maybe the reason Michael Elbery ran wild over the prosecution is that you are your best advocate. Many will say only a fool is his own lawyer, but they are wrong, if the criminal defendant knows the law and learns how to present a case/evidence to a jury he will say and do what is required to win a winnable case. You are your best advocate, but don't be shy or you will get destroyed by the authorities and their illegal judicial tactics which vanish under the "judicial carpet".

-55-

 

But in all fairness to the "School boy prosecutor" that D.A. Martha Coakley selected to prosecute Elbery, it should be said that the evidence was not just on Michael Elbery's side, but it turned out to be a theatre of the absurd. It would have been a comedy, if it wasn't for the fact that the government people were using an alleged court of justice to frame an innocent man. Worse the comedy is a tragedy because the government people are working for the "Jews in the Shadows" who control them. But I hope, now years later, that some of the Internet get a laugh out of this outrageous chapter of injustice, as I do. He who laughs last, laughs best.

Judge Stoddart presided at the trial, as he did through several months of the case's discovery prior to trial, and after Judge Healy quit because Michael Elbery wrote the newspapers from S.E.C.C. Prison and documented how Judge Healy was violating Elbery's Constitutional Rights.

 

 Judge's illegal limits and Bailiff's try to earn their pay

Judge Stoddart must have been warned/briefed on Elbery's use, at Elbery's victory against plaintiff-Attorney Arthur Goldstein, of the opening and closing statements because Judge Stoddart limited Elbery's opening statement to the jury to a non-functional 5 minutes. Stoddart made the same 5 minute limitation on Elbery's closing statement to the jury. This is violation of the U.S. Constitution via the 6th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Elbery objected and was found in contempt of court. Stoddart must have had a guilty conscience because he, after Elbery was found not guilty by the jury, expunged the two foolish contempt charges.

Elbery had learned the power of the opening and closing statements during his victory in March of 1997 against his former attorney - Arthur Goldstein. The outrageous evidence (phony ketchup pictures and erased video tape etc.,) that Elbery told the jury he would present during trial caused bewildered looks on the faces of the jurors during his opening statement. The jury was not disappointed.

 

I was the cashier not an armed robber

The first thing Michael Elbery did during his "opening statement" was to inform the jury that he was working as the cashier at the ExxonMobil, and that he, as cashier, is an undisputed fact even by the prosecution. Elbery heard the jurors during jury selection mention that the case was a robbery case. No wonder they looked so distastefully at Elbery while being empanelled from their jury pool. The jurors seemed ever so shocked when Michael Elbery introduced himself as the ExxonMobil cashier - the bailiffs, prosecutor and judge seemed so disappointed their jaws dropped. What is common in Massachusetts courts is that the Court Bailiff's (the lazy asses in the white cop shirts and big-ugg looks) make comments to each other in front of jury pools and in front of the empanelled trial jury during the proceedings; the Bailiff's give a fabricated "preview" of the case to the jurors. The Bailiff's escort the jury back and forth from the courtroom to the jury room, and while no one is looking or listening, they make their damaging comments in front of the jury (deliberately as planned). This Bailiff's "mouth tactic" is particularly useful before the trial begins. so the jurors are immediately put in a prejudicial state of mind against an innocent defendant, and so the jurors have  a more difficult time unscrambling the evidence. Elbery knew from experience that those Bailiff's (well paid for bums who never did a day's work in their life - most fat slobs and steroid users) could be relied on and did far worse than just prejudicial lies for the jury's ears. During the Goldstein case the Bailiff's falsified the juror questionnaire forms; those bailiffs made sure that they confiscated those juror questionnaire forms from Elbery as soon as the jury was impaneled. 

All the more reason why Judge Stoddart and the prosecution wanted a one day trial; the jury gets the bum's rush complete with force fed government sponsored lies (from the prosecutor, bailiffs, etc., including the judge who thinks it is his job to get a conviction in his court) and the jury does not have time to think, even if the defense is competent.

-56-

 

 

Another Prosecutor's Tactic - Racism

The prosecution also played the racism card. Gear would claim during his testimony that he was assaulted by Michael Elbery because Gear is a Jew. Gear claimed that Elbery repeatedly called him a "Jew Bag" and used other racial slurs while "beating" poor Jewish - Peter H. Gear. These Jews are so good at being "victims". The same Jews whose motto is "the end justifies the means". Watch out Americans the "Jewish Take Over" is coming (actually it has been in process for decades in the U.S.A.).

Gear claimed he could identify Michael Elbery because of Elbery's "steely blue" eyes! Talk about racism, as usual it is the Jew (self-anointed "Chosen People") that are the biggest racist and sneakiest racists of all. The jury could see Michael Elbery did not have even blue eyes, let alone "steely blue" colored eyes. Did the jury understand the significance of Gear's use of describing Elbery as having "steely blue" eyes? - hate for the "white man".

Gear used this term " his steely blue eyes" several times during his trial testimony while making reference to Michael Elbery.  The jurors had the evidence looking at them and the credibility issue surrounding Gear was underscored for them through their instant courtroom observation. Gear was lying.

Judge Stoddart looked particularly shaken up with this "steely blue eyes" racism by Gear; Judge Stoddart was the one with the blue eyes. Maybe Stoddart is worried about the Jews and their plan of "Take over" of this  here U.S.A. - Young Jews that Michael Elbery bumped into in the 1970's spoke of the "Jewish Take Over"; they would complain the Old Jews said it was to early and were still afraid. Many in the U.S.A. know of the plans and activities of the Jew, but have too much to lose. The Jew controls the U.S.A., just like they control Europe. 

 

Coakley's Office gets caught presenting jury false evidence

D.A. Martha Coakley's prosecution team came out of the gate swinging with their hardest piece of false evidence. Ya, the 6 pictures taken by the police and Gear's sister showing  the "massive bloody wounds" that Peter Gear testified he received at the hands of defendant-Michael Elbery. The jury was in a state of shock - the jury was horrified at these bloody wounds in these pictures. The bailiffs nodded with satisfaction, the judge looked at Elbery as if to say, "what are you going to do about that", the middle-aged female courtroom clerk gave a smug look. Some of the women jurors lost their breadth while and after viewing the phony pictures of Gear with all the dripping blood and massive dark bruises on his face and shoulders in addition to to the gash on his leg. The government employees gloated and the jurors had no choice, but to accept the phony evidence produced by the elected official's office of D.A. Martha Coakley.

Peter Gear told a new story during direct examination about his "beating". It was at variance to the story he told the Mobil Mgr.- Dolly Olecki, and the facts he gave the F.P.D. dispatcher, as recorded on the 911 tapes a few hours after the alleged "beating". It was different from the Official Police Report Sanchez produced as a result of facts allegedly given Sanchez by Gear. In fact, every time Gear told his story about his racial beating it was a different story. At trial he kept his story as simple as possible and said that in a few seconds after entering the Mobil store he was at the counter getting his credit card and the cashier/defendant started calling him a "Jew Bag". The same cashier that he claimed had the "steely blue" eyes. Gear claimed the cashier then beat him for no reason other than that Gear is a Jew. Gear claimed he was able to finally escape and fled in fear. 

The Massachusetts employees (Judge, prosecutor, belligerent court bailiffs, and smug middle-aged lady courtroom clerk), thought it was all over. Peter Gear even had a cane claiming he was permanently lame because of this horrific "beating". He was allowed to testify that "he felt lucky to be alive".

The jury had no choice, they were aghast, after all, they only knew what the prosecutor was falsely presenting to them.  

-57-

 

Cross-Exam of Peter H. Gear - prosecution's victim and witness-in-chief

Defendant Elbery, representing himself at trial, asked Gear what he did later that same July 4th '00. Gear was asked if he went to the Framingham Police Dept. in attempt to file criminal charges against the Mobil cashier - Michael Elbery. As above, in this chapter of MassInjustice.org, Gear reluctantly had to admit he was arrested by the F.P.D. that July 4th because the cops discovered he had a 6 year outstanding warrant for larceny by check. The jury learned, via Elbery's cross-examination of Gear, that Gear had been on the run from the outstanding warrant for six years due to these larceny charges. Peter Gear attempted to deny he was arrested and had been on the run for 6 years, but even this liar, Gear, could not dispute the police and court documents Elbery stuck in Gear's face showing Gear had been arrested after being on the run for 6 years due to a check larceny scam.

Gear would not admit the cops took his mug shot when they arrested him. So, Michael Elbery refreshed Gear's memory by showing him the picture or mug shot the Framingham cops took of him only a few hours after he alleged to have received his racially motivated "beating". Gear reluctantly was forced by the evidence to admit the truth; he was arrested and the mug shot was him only a few hours after his claim of "beating" in the a.m. of 7-4-00. When Elbery asked Gear why there were no injuries showing on the mug shot - Gear looked sadly down at the floor with his head bowed in front of Michael Elbery.

Elbery then held up the six pictures showing Gear with all the bloody wounds and compared those pictures to the police mug shot taken a few hours after the alleged beating supposedly took place. 

Elbery asked Gear whether the red blood in the 6 pictures was ketchup or actors paint; the jurors let out a chorus of exclamatory noise.

The jury was temporarily confused when they were allowed to view and compare the pictures, both the real pictures/police mug shot as compared to the 6 phony pictures presented by D.A. Martha Coakley's Office. Then the heads of the jurors started moving back and forth as they looked at each other and the puzzlement on their faces turned to attention for the defense. The bum's rush the government was attempting to give the jury had come to a halt.

Next time they will make sure they have a rigged jury - that way Coakley and her team of government prosecution can lie with impunity.

Elbery was quite clear - he yelled while questioning Gear informing the jury that Gear was deliberately lying and that the mug shots are irrefutable evidence because the mug shots were taken by the police. Elbery, yelling, informed the jury that Gear, the police and the prosecutor were knowingly presenting the jury with false evidence (the 6 phony pictures complete with ketchup for blood) in order to convict Michael Elbery with lies about a bloody "beating".

Elbery also made sure that Gear told the jury that the larceny charges were immediately dismissed by the cooperating Bristol County D.A.'s Office. Gear denied the dismissal of those charges were in exchange to frame Michael Elbery with the phony criminal charges. The law (Supreme Court Case Law - 5th Amendment) allows the jury to decide, based on the trial evidence, whether the prosecution witness testimony was in exchange for favor (immunity from prosecution) by the prosecutor (D.A. Martha Coakley). See item #7 of D.A. Martha Coakley's written denial of a deal of immunity for Gear's testimony; the jury didn't believe Gear wasn't given immunity for his lying testimony against Michael Elbery anymore than they believed ketchup was blood.

Elbery also asked Gear who paid the stores down in Bristol County that were victimized by his check scam. Gear refused to answer and the Judge refused to make him answer. The court documents Elbery received during discovery indicated that restitution was made immediately after the 7-4-00 arrest of Gear by the F.P.D.

During cross-examination Gear got caught lying so many times about these huge/overpowering evidentiary issues that he quit answering Elbery's cross-examination. Because Gear refused to answer the cross-exam questions Elbery had to repeatedly ask the judge to make Gear answer or there would  be no evidence produced for the jury to make their decision. Every time Gear refused to answer, Elbery would make the point larger by repeating his question and then answering it with another leading question.

At a minimum, Gear presented himself, as not just an insane drug addict, but a belligerent, arrogant Jew who thought that all others were to be at service of the Jews' authority.

-58-

 

Manchurian Candidates are usually Drug Addicts - Judge Stoddart Aids Drug Addict's Perjury

During cross-examination of Gear by Elbery it was disclosed to the jury that Gear had been receiving psychiatric care, including prescription drugs, for over a decade. Elbery made such a fool out of the prosecution's witness-in-chief, Peter Gear, that Judge Stoddart had to step in and help the state's case against Michael Elbery. Twenty minutes into Elbery's cross-examination of Gear, Stoddart stopped the trial for lunch, and then limited Michael Elbery's cross-examination of Peter H. Gear to 45 minutes to be completed when the trial re-convened after lunch hour break. 

It was learned at trial from Gear's physicians, that Gear had been on a "variety of drugs" for years. It was also learned from Gear's physician that  Gear is a bonafide board certified nut case. Gears medical records are not included in this web site due to law that prohibits it.

Gear also revealed/admitted at trial, during cross-examination, that he was a life long drug addict and was currently (during trial) under supervision and physician's treatment for his drug addictions. Gear's various physicians ( here's another physician and yet another physician who indulged for months in Gear's phony injuries) were helpful in providing Elbery 100's of pages of medical notes and documentation as requested by Elbery during evidentiary discovery of the case. The prosecution witness, Dr. Scott Schissel never showed for trial, but Dr. Docken and Dr. Tamara Martin did show for trial as defense witnesses resulting from Elbery's subpoena of those Gear physicians. These physicians sent Elbery more discovery (Gear's medical records) than Elbery received from D.A. Martha Coakley's prosecution and the cops.

Gear's physicians all documented that there was no injury from any incident at ExxonMobil on 7-4-00. One physician called Gear a "difficult management case"  and discontinued Gear as a patient because he found Gear had no injury. In fact, all the doctors that had to deal with Gear discontinued him as a patient.

Elbery crossed-examined Gear about the "3 Donut Witnesses" observing him, and asked why Gear fled from them and responding 4 F.P.D. cop cars. Elbery asked, "didn't you see blue lights flashing when you drove right past them".  Elbery asked Gear why he, "didn't stop for help at one of the local merchants that are open all night". 

Gear claimed he was a scared "victim", who needed to get away.

An insane drug addict who is trading his testimony in order to be freed from serious felony charges does not make a credible witness.  

 

Gear would admit during trial that he had never seen Michael Elbery before the underlying incident at the Mobil on 7-4-00. Gear could never explain how Elbery came to the conclusion that Gear was/is a Jew in the few seconds Gear claimed to be visible to Elbery at the Mobil register/counter. Gear admitted that he did not have a "Jewish beanie" on  his head and admitted he was not wearing a Jewish star. Gear would testify that in the few short minutes he was in the Mobil convenience store that there was nothing that showed Gear to be a Jew. Elbery was of the belief that Jews don't drink. Gear's inebriation combined with the fact he was driving an old car would lead most, including Elbery, to believe Gear was not Jewish.

Framingham, Mass. has a large population of Jews and many patronized that Mobil gas station/convenience store on Route 30.

-59-

 

F.P.D. Hector Sanchez of Tijuana, Mexico

The prosecution's second witness got up on the witness stand that first day of trial - he was a Mexican and was proud of it. Seems that with all the political correctness in Framingham, Mass. that Patroleman Hector Sanchez of the F.P.D. lost track of the fact that he was still in the U.S.A. and that the jurors were Americans. Officer Hector Sanchez got up on the witness stand and stuck his chest out with head high and proclaimed in a proud booming voice that he was Officer Hector Sanchez born in Tijuana, Mexico. The jury looked sick, not even the judge and bailiffs looked happy that their homeland has been allowed to be invaded by the historic enemy. Some of the jurors remembered a different America before their culture was stolen from them by Jewish propaganda. Some were taught of the Glory of Davy Crocket at the Alamo fighting off the entire Mexican army in a place called Texas. Unfortunately, Crocket and his brave defenders of what the jurors remember as being Americana, did not kill all the Mexicans. In 1845 Sam Houston and U.S. General Scott would conquer Mexico only to decide they didn't want it - too many Mexicans, so they gave it back, glad to get away from Mexicans.

Sanchez actually thought the jury would be impressed with his proclamation of Mexican. The jury looked disgusted.

Sanchez' big claim was that he took the police report from Peter Gear. Sanchez recited, via trial testimony, the facts that Gear allegedly gave him (one of Gear's 5 different accounts of facts of the underlying "beating") in order to make the jury think that he was actually a witness to the alleged beating and underlying incident. The prosecutor tried to facilitate this misrepresentation by Sanchez.

X-Exam of Mexican cop Hector Sanchez & the "Mexican Jumpin' Bean Testimony"

Martha Coakley and her team of prosecution thought they were smart by eliminating all the cops and other witnesses of the underlying case. They would have been better served, if they also gave the axe to Sanchez and his bag of "Mexican jumping beans". F.P.D.  Sanchez wanted to play "Hard Ball" (listen to his call to Michael Elbery on 7-6-00); Sanchez had his chance as a prosecution witness. It was his yard (a Kangaroo Court/Framingham District Court) and his referee ( a biased judge and courtroom clerk), but Officer Sanchez is an inferior and demonstrated that he was a mental incompetent during his cross-examination by Michael Elbery. American Courts are for Americans not invaders who make a living from Jewish Social Design Programs.

One of the first questions Elbery asked Sanchez during cross-examination was where Sanchez was during the underlying incident on July 4, '00. Sanchez was made to be clear and truthful - he stated that he was not at the ExxonMobil that 7-4-00 and witnessed nothing. Sanchez did admit that as dispatcher at the Framingham P.D. he received the 911 call from the Mobil cashier that 7-4-00 at about 2:30am. - Sanchez admitted he was just (coincidentally) filling in as dispatcher that night.

Then at trial, Elbery asked for the 911 tapes and was denied by Judge Stoddart who said it was not the prosecution's job to bring the tapes. The jury never heard those Framingham Police Dept. 911 tapes. As above, Elbery was not allowed by the prison guards to bring his copy of the 911 tapes to court. The jury was not allowed this valuable evidence but you can hear those tapes - they are hyperlinked all over this Web Site. So what is the illegality here? Stoddart in conspiracy with Martha Coakley violated the U.S. Constitution, again! In the U.S.A. the prosecution can't sit on exculpatory evidence for the defendant who they are trying to put in jail (railroad). This type of illegality by "State Actors" is usually referred to as a "Brady Violation" and is a violation of the 6th Amendment to U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. 

I hate to tell you Judge Stoddart, but it is the prosecution's job to present those tapes and I even motioned Judge Stoddart and Martha Coakley's prosecution team to have them for trial to present to the jury just, so those state workers wouldn't forget!

Elbery asked if Sanchez received a 911 call from Peter Gear and he admitted that the alleged victim-witness did not call the Framingham Police until later that day and Sanchez admitted that he was not the dispatcher when Gear called hours later.

Elbery showed Sanchez the Gear booking pictures/mug shot which clearly showed that Gear was perfectly fine 11 hours after the incident at the ExxonMobil, and he had not even a "mark" on his face. Elbery then handed  Officer Sanchez the, now trial exhibit, as produced by the prosecution, showing pictures of Gear with ketchup on his head imitating 'bloody brutal head wounds" that Gear and the prosecution would claim were caused by Elbery giving Gear a "brutal racial beating".

Officer Sanchez was made to exam both sets of pictures and compare the "mug shot that showed Gear had no injuries v. 6 bloody pictures falsified by the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses. Sanchez admitted that the "mug shot" was true, but claimed he had nothing to do with the "6 bloody pictures". Sanchez claimed he did not even know the 6 pictures of Gear with all the bloody wounds even existed until he was just shown the pictures. Sanchez was sure that Gear, as per the "mug shot", had no injuries. Sanchez then reluctantly admitted that Gear had no injuries apparent to him when he took Gear's statements that constituted the "Sanchez report".

-60-

 

Hector Sanchez of the Framingham P.D. admits to erasing the video tape

Sanchez helped Michael Elbery lay down a nice foundation for the evidence that he would present that would absolutely kill Coakley's case, again.

Hey, Hector Sanchez may have hurt Coakley's case, but he was a big help to Michael Elbery's defense. Elbery got Sanchez, a police officer testifying he was trained in security and crime prevention, to admit that he was familiar with security systems used by companies like ExxonMobil. Sanchez during x-exam was happy to show, via his testimony, that the video systems like the one at the ExxonMobil where used to insure that an incident could be captured on video tape and maintained long enough so that management could retrieve the video for their information/use. Sanchez instructed the jury that he personally observed the 6 video cameras at the ExxonMobil and the locked box that contained the automatically recording VCR. Sanchez testified that all 6 video cameras worked 24 hours/365 days at the ExxonMobil.

Sanchez was a useful expert police witness for the defense, but he didn't realize it.

Sanchez further testified that the he and 2 other cops asked for and were given the ExxonMobil video tape of the incident with Gear. Sanchez testified that the manager, Dolly Olecki, produced the tape of 7-4-00 and voluntarily handed it over to the 3 cops. Sanchez admitted under oath that the 3 cops brought the tape back to the Framingham Police Station and played the tape on a VCR at the Framingham Police Dept.

Elbery, leading, asked, "and now that tape is blank?" Elbery leading again, "you erased the tape because it showed exactly my account of the facts and that Gear's and the prosecution's case is nothing but false evidence?"

Sanchez would admit on the witness stand that he and his fellow officers did view the video tape of the incident but he was not the one that erased it! There was an even bigger juror outburst/exclamation than when they heard Sanchez testify there were 6 video cameras recording 24 hours a day - 365 days a year at the Mobil.

The young blond haired female juror nearly leaped out her seat as she made an exclamatory scream when Sanchez admitted the cops erased the tape of the incident.

Elbery asked which cop erased it and Sanchez would not answer and the judge refused, at Elbery's demand, to make him answer.

 Elbery tried to obtain the trial tape but the authorities were not receptive. Elbery has the tape of the 11-17-00 evidentiary hearing at Framingham District Court and that lengthy 45 minute tape is not audible and not worth adding to this Web Site. The point is that the tapes from Mass. District Courts are worthless (you can't understand the tape), so not having the tape probably did not result in a loss.

 

Cheating Court and Jesters - Woman Court Clerk does illegal Hat Trick

There were 7 jurors empanelled for that 6 man Framingham District Court Jury, as is custom in case one of the jurors can't make it through to the completion of the trial. All 7 jurors heard the trial evidence, but only 6 could render a verdict on the outrageous evidence they heard. At the end of the trial the court room bailiffs and woman court clerk (middle aged woman and jingoistic advocate/ bread well buttered  for little work at taxpayers' expense) put 7 pieces of paper, allegedly, with each of the 7 jurors' names in a hat. The woman clerk selected one of those pieces of paper from the hat at the front of the courtroom, so all could see. Sure enough, she selected the one male juror who demonstrated during trial's length through body language and expression outraged support, due to the outrageous evidence, for the defendant, Michael Elbery. The problem with the selection was that the woman clerk was allowed to look into the hat. So that nasty bitch of a woman courtroom clerk knew which pieces of paper and corresponding juror she was bumping from the jury verdict. The paper was easily folded/marked.

As a result Michael Elbery's favorite juror never participated in the decision of the jury verdict. But the evidence at trial was so clear that Middlesex D.A. - Martha Coakley was attempting to maliciously prosecute Michael Elbery with false evidence that the remaining six jurors had no choice but to find Elbery not guilty of all charges.

There is no tape of the trial - but there were 7 unbiased witnesses in the courtroom those 2 days of trial at Framingham District Court; they were the 7 jurors. If you don't put them in fear of losing their jobs or damaging their children's futures for remembering the testimonies of the trial they will corroborate these testimonies and evidence heard that were so overpowering that they unanimously voted "Not Guilty" on all charges against Michael Elbery. 

 

And once again Michael Elbery makes JUDICIAL HISTORY!

 

-61-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'