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.