Christopher Baker went to law school, served four years in the Navy's Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps and as of May, 2012 has a little more than one year's experience in the Middlesex DA's office.

On April 12, 2012 in a meeting in court, the assistant DA Christopher Baker seriously attempted to shake me down. In essence, he tried extortion.

I was sitting outside Courtroom 3 in the Middlesex District Courthouse in Framingham with Jim Rizoli waiting for trial. Baker came up to me and said he wanted to talk to me alone (so Jim Rizoli could not be a witness to his extortion attempt). He first stated to me that the state had a strong case and presented me with a list of all the damage that had ever been done to the car since she bought it . He stated that it would be in my best interests if I paid for all her damages. I see it as damage assessment report. He calls it restitution papers.

I examined the list for about 15 seconds and scoffed at this extortion attempt and told him I would not. I pointed out to him that the police report only talked about damage to the driver side door so this list made no sense whatsover. Baker than decided to backpedal and stated that he had just received this list and had not examined it. I examined it in 15 seconds, so I considered his backpedalling as an attempt to cover up his extortion attempt.

The clear implications of this is that either he had not bothered to read the police report just before court time, he is malicious in nature, or DA stands for Dumb Ass. Since he had stated that the state had a strong case, I presume that he had at least read the police report.

When a police officer makes a claim to damage on a car, this assistant DA does not need any shred of evidence of such damage other than the officer's word. The notion that the officer got his information from another individual (hearsay) is not important That's extraordinarily stupid.

Extortion (also called blackmail, shakedown, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.

In this case, he is using his position as Assistant DA to coerce me into paying her for her damage.

This type behaviour shows us clearly that Christopher Baker is one ambitious little brat. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of justice.

I also noted that he strongly believes in procedural matters. The Rules Of Evidence are more important than any evidence that would exonerate someone. He spent most of his efforts trying to suppress evidence.

Actual evidence is not that important to him. He is judged as a DA more on his prosecution rate. If he fails to prosecute anyone, he may be fired.

I had sent him pictures of Mrs. Hodge's door which showed no damage. On April 12, 2012 and May 25, 2012, he had the opportunity to examine her car door but failed to do so, This is malfeasance or incompetence on a scale that may be difficult to measure. My incompetence meter only goes down to 10%.

Not taking pictures is not merely malfeasance, it is maliciousness and malevolence and constitutes suppression of evidence.

In a game of Jeapordy between Christopher Baker and two special needs or retarded ants, the ants would dominate.

Do not be fooled by this man. He struck me to be mostly stupid and evil (evil is defined as knowing better but doing worse). It is said that incompetence trumps malice and it may be his problem. He also does not understand the meaning of the word compassion.

The notion that evidence that would exonerate a defendant may not be introduced because of the court's rules of evidence greatly diminishes the appearance of intelligence in the judicial system.

The notion that neither the complainant or the police cannot provide any hard evidence of damage in a crime against property in an era when digital cameras are ubiquitous is staggering and breathtaking.

From: 	"Baker, Christopher (DAA)" 
To: 	hgwolfe@gmail.com , hjw2001@gmail.com 
Subject: 	RE: Docket 1149CR2236
Date: 	Fri, 11 May 2012 16:52:46 -0400

Mr. Wolfe:

I am emailing you in response to the letter that I rcvd today from you.
In it you indicate that I had not emailed you as discussed. Please seeq
the below email that I sent to the address you provided. I note your
new letter has a new email address, so now I am sending to both. I note
you still have not provided to me copies of photographs that you may seek
to introduce at trial.

I also mailed you restitution paperwork on 4/13/12. Please advise if you did not receive.

R/

Chris Baker
        

Send comments to: hjw2001@gmail.com