Mass. Superior Ct. Judge John Agostini Subjects U.S. Citizen - Michael Elbery to Marshal Law
Michael Elbery Ordered to Appear for Court - No notice - No written Court Order - No Motion
Is Michael Elbery Joseph K. ?
Like Joseph K.(by Franz Joseph Kafka), Michael Elbery is ordered to Court without reason.
Is an American Citizen required to appear before a Judge in an American Court in this U.S. by verbal order of a court clerk, who demands that the citizen appear that day, or first thing next day, and gives no reason for the Court appearance?
Is an American Citizen/plaintiff in a civil case required to obey the command of a Mass. Superior Court Judge and appear for a hearing when there is no motion by any litigants of the case to initiate such command?
Isn't a plaintiff in a civil case entitled to written notice and written order, so that he can be informed and prepared to argue his case before a judge?
In this country a Judge is limited by the power given him by the law. He cannot command a citizen to appear in his Court without reason or notice just because the citizen has a docketed case in the Court.
Not the Case with Judge John Agostini of the Mass. Superior Court in Berkshire County, Mass., according to Clerk Deborah Schilling. Schilling sent a phone message to Michael Elbery Monday a.m. on 11-17-08. Elbery returned the call at about 1:00pm. and was required to talk to a teenage boy that works at the Clerk's Office of the Berkshire Superior Court. The boy commanded Elbery to be in Court for hearing at 2:00pm that same day (next hour) "because Judge John Agostini wants to speak to you regarding your case".
Elbery, who is one of 3 plaintiffs in the Berkshire Superior Court Case Elbery v. Becket Wood Prudential Committee #08-267, asked the boy what the reason was for this split second judicial command/hearing. The boy mumbled something about the documents that Elbery had motioned for. Elbery responded that he received the documents, "Secret Exhibit G", Friday, as Elbery's motion for the Secret documents was allowed by Judge John Agostini. The boy then told Elbery, "you have to get up here at 2:00pm." He then told Elbery that, "Clerk - Deborah Schilling wants to talk to you".
Schilling commanded that, "Judge Agostini wants you in court for hearing either this afternoon or tomorrow", Tuesday 11-18-08 at 9:00am. There was no please or thank you just, "You have to be here before Judge Agostini regarding your case". Elbery asked why there was a need for a hearing. Schilling simply replied she could not give him that information. Elbery demanded that Schilling FAX him a court order or notice with the reason for the hearing - Schilling said, "there is not a motion filed by the defendants or anyone". Elbery insisted there has to be a motion to initiate such a hearing. She repeated, "there is no documentation, motion, or notice just this verbal order".
Elbery again demanded that there had to be a motion by the defendants and Elbery demanded a copy. Schilling said, "there is no motion". Schilling repeated that, "Agostini is a judge and is ordering you to court." Elbery replied a Judge in this country cannot do that - the judge is limited in the U.S.A. by law and has no power to command the citizenry to do anything without legal jurisdiction and grounds. Elbery insisted that he had the right to be timely notified of the issue for hearing so that he could be prepared to argue his case and not be subjected to Marshal law and a police state. Elbery said he would have more rights in Red China. Schilling said, "I'll tell the judge you said that". Elbery responded, "please do" , "I'll tell him myself".
Another Hearing already scheduled for Thursday 11-20-08
Elbery further questioned why the issue, whatever it was, could not be taken up by the Agostini on Thursday 11-20-08, since there is a hearing scheduled on the case for that day. Schilling said that Judge Agostini could not wait and he wants you in his Court for hearing by tomorrow 9:00am.
Schilling added don't post any of the documents ( "Secret Exhibit G" - vote cards) that were sent you by the clerk's office to a Web Site, the judge doesn't want you to do that. Elbery said, "you mean the "Secret Exhibit G" documents that I motioned for and Agostini allowed." Schilling affirmed. Elbery insisted that would be a violation of his First Amendment Rights under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights and that a judge has no authority to tell him what he can do with those "Public records". Elbery pointed out that he told Judge Agostini, via Affidavit attached to Elbery's motion, in advance, that all documents of the case would be posted to the Web Site www.becketwoodswatch.net
Secret Exhibits to Complaint answer not allowed to plaintiffs.
Michael Elbery is a plaintiff in the case Elbery v. Becket Woods Prudential Committee. The defendants, including the Committee Chairman, John Amato, through their Attorneys - the Law Firm of Harris N. Aaronson of Pittsfield, Mass. answered the complaint and attached an exhibit marked "Exhibit G". However, Aaronson and his subordinate, Attorney Paul B. Sherr, refused to give Elbery, or the other plaintiffs, a copy of the "Secret Exhibit G". In fact they instructed the Clerk's Office at the Berkshire Superior Court not to give Elbery and his fellow plaintiffs the "Secret Exhibit G".
Elbery motioned the Court - Judge John Agostini for the "Secret Exhibit G" and Elbery's motion was immediately allowed. The Clerk at the Berkshire Superior Court sent Elbery the copies of "Secret Exhibit G" which were alleged copies of the voting cards and proxies of the the 8-31-08 Special Election at the Becket Woods Road and Maintenance District in Becket, Mass. Most of the copies were unreadable because the vote cards were blue and copies of copies of blue index cards come out black on a copy machine, unless extra care is given, via adjustment, of the copy machine. Elbery on Friday 11-14-08 immediately called the Berkshire Superior Court Clerk's Office and complained that the alleged copies of the voting cards were not readable because they came out too dark. The Clerk's office said, "that's too bad we can't do any better". Elbery responded that he would again motion Judge Agostini for the same vote cards but in readable form.
See the Web Site www.becketwoodswatch.net it documents how Michael Elbery caught John Amato and Attorney Nancy Svirida and the rest of the Prudential Committee at the Becket Woods Road District tampering with and rigging the District Special Election of 8-31-08 which resulted in an increase in District Road Taxes to the 162 lot owners. Go to that Web Site and click on "John Amato votes 7 times owns one lot", it shows some of the illegal proxies voted by John Amato that were part of "Secret Exhibit G". Also see Headline Story, "Extra -8-31-08 Election Rigged - Becket Woods Owners Cheated...."
It appears from the little information donated by clerk - Schilling that Amato does not want his crime exposed, via the documented evidence which "Secret Exhibit G" discloses. That is why Amato's law firm, Harris N. Aaronson, ordered that the Becket Woods District Voting records, which are public records, not be given to the plaintiffs even though they were attached to the defendants' answer to Elbery's and fellow plaintiff's complaint. Now they want the documents back from what it could be garnered from Clerk Schilling's information leaks during the above conversation. Why did the idiots include the "Secret Exhibt G" voting documents in the first place? See www.becketwoodswatch.net and find out, Click on "John Amato Votes 7 times owns 1 lot".
So they will know next time, Aaronson and his subordinate attorney - Paul B. Sherr should have filed a motion to impound (see Superior Ct. Rule VIII) the "Secret Exhibit G" documents at the same time they filed the answer to the complaint, instead of giving the Clerk's office orders (illegal procedure) to conceal "Secret Exhibit G" which provides evidence that John "Salminio" Amato, Attorney Nancy Svirida rigged the District Special Election of 8-31-08. Amazing how some people think that such lousy lawyers are actually the best, just because they put on a sanctimonious act. Attorney Harris Aaronson produced voting documents with the court that documented that John Amato - Chairman of the Becket Woods Road and Maintenance District committed a crime (tampering with and rigging an election). Their, Aaronson and Amato, point of filing the voting records (voting cards and proxies) was to get the Judge to "waive a magic wand" and decree the election was legally held; although the issue was not before the judge via the plaintiff's complaint and the judge would have no clue regarding such issue by looking at a bunch of documents he knew nothing about.
Noteworthy: Those voting documents are public records according to the Becket Woods District Founding Act C. 351 Acts of 2000. Even if Aaronson handled the situation correctly by utilizing proper procedure, they should have been required to produce the "Secret Exhibit G" to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to exhibits attached to the answer as a matter of law, especially when the exhibits are documents the plaintiffs were entitled to see regardless of the lawsuit. Of course in Becket Woods John Amato and the Prudential Committee conceal all records regardless of the District law which mandate the opposite.
Motive for the Caprice Hearing by Judge John Agostini??
Is the law firm of Harris N. Aaronson (a droopy faced tax attorney), who got his ass kicked by Michael Elbery at an Attorney General's hearing on 11-14-08 regarding violations of low bid laws at Becket Woods, retaliating via this hearing of whim by Judge Agostini?
Will Judge John Agostini be subjected to influence peddling of small town U.S.A., Berkshire County, and order Elbery to return all "Secret Exhibit G" that Agostini correctly, as a matter law, granted Elbery? This would be a violation of Elbery's rights in order to appease John Amato and his Tax Attorney - Harris N. Aaronson and Aaronson's subordinate, Attorney Paul B. Sherr. This in order to protect the criminal activity of John Amato, via election rigging.
Will Judge Agostini violate Elbery's Constitutional Rights under the First Amendment by attempting to tamper with Web Sites that disclose criminal conduct of John Amato via Amato's election rigging and election fraud. Those Web sites are incorporated watch dog organizations - the web host computer is in Saskatchewan, Canada. Maybe Aaronson and Sherr and Amato can influence Dudley Do-Right to help them out!
Illegal conduct by a Court means you should expect more illegal conduct by that Court and all their well paid attack dogs/cowards. It's their game, their rules, their referee, their ball, their yard - only a fool walks into an ambush! More degrading treatment should be expected as well as more Violation of Constitutional Rights and False Imprisonment.