Harold J. Wolfe
65 Delmar Avenue
Framingham, MA 01701
508-561-8452 (C)

Court: Middlesex District Court, Framingham

Case: Wolfe vs Commonwealth

Docket Number: 1149CR2236

Date of misconduct: October 5, 2012

Has an appeal been filed? No

A Summary of the general nature of my complaint


District Court Department Mission Statement

As the gateway to justice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the District Court is dedicated to the administration of justice in a fair, impartial and timely manner in accordance with the rule of law. In fulfilling this role, the District Court shall provide the communities it serves with an environment that is safe, accessible and respectful to all. The District Court shall conduct its business with integrity, competence and a commitment to excellence in order to promote public trust and confidence in the judicial system.

This is about a 90 second incident between myself and an angry black woman. She made claims that I damaged her car but everyone involved (Framingham police included) went to great lengths to make sure that there was no photographic evidence (because there was no damage). In a woman's state, she expanded her claims wildly.

The notion that the court accepted a case of vandalism on a car without any photographic evidence in an era when digital cameras are ubiquitous is stunning. Any photographic evidence would have shown that the door had no damage. This lack of photographic evidence shows clearly how stupid or malicious the judge and the assistant DA was.

The pre-trial conference on December 14, 2011, before a magistrate never occured. The pre-trial conference is supposed to get the parties together to see if there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. I remember that Judge Douglas W. Stoddart just told me to meet with the assistant DA, Amanda Ravan and she just asked me what discovery evidence I wanted. In essence, the pre-trial conference was side-tracked or scuttled by the DA's office. I did not understand why they did this.

I chose a bench trial hoping I could find more intelligence in a judge than one can expect from a jury, but I was sadly disappointed in the thinking process of Judge David W. Cunis. I represented myself (pro se).

David W. Cunis states...
The Commonwealth bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (Page 11, line 15)

David W. Cunis states near the end of the trial that I could only be found guilty if it was beyond a reasonable doubt (Page 107, line 17).

The burden of proof rests exclusively with the Commonwealth to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden. The burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge stated that I kicked her car several times and caused dents and scratches. With each reference to the kicks, she states that she was really scared. This plays well with a woman DA and the perversion of the assault law.

He kept kicking my car, kicking my car.... (Page 19, line 16).
He was kicking my car with his feet... (Page 21, line 5)

The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge stated
I see he dented the driver's side door and lot of dent marks on it and a lot of scratches onto the driver side of the car. (Page 21, line 23)

The DA Jessica Hogan asks...(Page 22, line 4)

Did those dents or scratches, were they there before the defendant approached your car?

The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge replies No! No!

Now the DA, Jessica Hogan has acknowledged that she discussed the dents and scratches.

Two weeks after I get released from prison, November 16, 2012, the judge admits he had not seen any damage at all on her car door.

Under normal circumstances, when you can show the court the other side lied under oath about a material fact, your chances for a favorable judgment are substantially improved, but not with the DA, Jessica Hogan and the judge David W. Cunis. This act of perjury went way over their heads.

I had asked the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge whether she had any repairs done to the door of her car since the incident and she stated that she had not (Page 23, line 21).

The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge testified that I had caused all the damage in the damage assessment report or the Restitution papers as described by one DA, (included) but could not tell me how I managed to damage all fifty-seven (57) items listed in 90 seconds. (Page 25, lines 16-21)

The judge David W. Cunis and the DA, Jessica Hogan did not bother to examine the damage assessment report and neither of them bothered to raise their eyebrows.

Why would Stephanie Harris-Hodge even need this damage assessment report when a few photographs of the alleged damage would do quite well? Perhaps because there was no damage at all.

Question: Do they not have any legal obligations to ask questions of the complainant and provide exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) ?

Neither of them showed the least amount of interest in this damage assessment report.

This did not plant any seeds of doubt :-)

The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden... blah, blah, blah :-).

The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge states that the car in the picture given to the court (photograph was marked Exhibit No. 2, Page 87, line 10) is not her car (Page 37, line 11). At this point, the court has available to it, this picture of her car with a readable license plate (669-GV6).

The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge states that the license plate 669-GV6 is indeed her license plate (Page 38, line 20).

The failure of the DA to provide the 911 call on a CD or as part of the evidence is denying me exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) (Page 41 mostly). Actually, this is more like suppression of evidence. The 911 call has the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge twice saying No! when asked if the male had damaged her car.

The DA, Jessica Hogan objects to even listening to the 911 call saying that it is hearsay (Page 43, line 7).

I would still object and say that it's hearsay to play the 911 call.

The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge states to me....
You kicked my door. Several, three to four times, you kicked my car.
(Page 44, line 5)

The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden... blah, blah, blah :-).

I suggest that we examine the car parked in the courthouse parking lot. The judge does not object.

The DA, Jessica Hogan actually objects to viewing the car (Page 52, line 12)

I would object, your Honor. She's testified to what the damages are to her car and she actually went and turned over the paperwork from the collision expert.

Imagine if you can, a DA not wanting to see actual evidence. This is suppression of evidence.

The complainant, the judge, the DA and myself had inspected the alleged damage on her car door parked in the court parking lot (Page 55, line 8). We were out there for about 4 minutes.

Neither the judge or the DA compared the license plate in the picture provided to the court earlier with the license plate on the car we examined. This point is important because the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge testified that the car in the picture was not her car (Page 37, line 11 ), so the car we examined that had the same license plate was in fact not her car. This was another one of the Twilight Zone moments in this trial. (failure to provide exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) ?)

Neither the judge, David W. Cunis or the DA, Jessica Hogan made any statements of the non-existent damage. Conspiracy? Collective stupidity? Malice? The judge and the DA, David W. Cunis and Jessica Hogan, on return from the examinaton of the car door, should have stated to the complainant that she had committed perjury, but instead decided to commit silent perjury themselves by not saying anything about the lack of damage.

This represents outstanding behaviour by two people operating under the color of law.

Then we returned to have the police officer Robert F. Tibor testify. In his police report, he states in the first person,

Complainant's vehicle suffer minor scuff / imprint damage to paint under drivers side door lock. Damage appears to be under $250.00 at this time.

when in fact he has no idea whether any damage occured at all during the incident. He is taking her hearsay and stating in the first person as a police officer that I caused the damage. I was later charged with felony vandalism which says the damage was over $250.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Bear in mind that I am a vociferous critic of the Framingham Police Department.

Robert F. Tibor failed to submit any photographic evidence of damage. He claimed that his camera's flash failed (Page 80, line 10).
Question: Does this constitute suppression of evidence or failure to provide exculpatory evidence?

During the trial on 10/05/2012, ( Page 74 mostly) Robert F. Tibor describes alleged felony vandalism that is barely discernible to the human eye (Page 74). This description was created in his mind.

I also observed some minor damage to the driver's door. The damage I saw, you'd have to look at it. It was -- I would consider it minute damage. Just around the locking area there was a small chip of paint missing and there was a small dimple, like I mean, you can actually get that by putting a little pressure on her car.

It was nothing -- I couldn't -- I'm not a mechanic. I would consider it nothing major. There was a faint outline of what appeared to be a shoe imprint, a partial outline. It looked like a sole. It was very light. You'd have to look real tight at that to observe it.

I was fascinated by the terms shoe imprint and sole. He uses these terms only because the complainant, Stephanie Harris-Hodge claimed I kicked the car. Had she told him that I might have hit her car with a chicken, he might have testified that he had seen the light imprint of a chicken head.

In essence, all the evidence Robert F. Tibor testified about was fabricated verbal evidence based on her statements and constitutes hearsay. Robert F. Tibor has no independent knowledge of what transpired. Photographic evidence would have been trivial to acquire and would have made his case but strangely enough, none was presented. The lack of photographic evidence makes it trivial for police to lie like this.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. The judge fails to recognize this hearsay and does not want to recognize it.

This is also a classic case Police Memory Syndrone (PMS). When an alleged crime occured a long time ago (14 months in this case), a police under the spell of PMS (Police Memory Syndrone) will be able to magically fill in all the gaps in the prosecution's case.

Robert F. Tibor had over a year to take photos of her door. While waiting for my trial, Robert F. Tibor was paid for some 20 hours of court time, but did not spend one hour taking photos to substantiate his claim. I took a number of pictures of her car door. None showed any damage. Since none of the close ups of her door had her license plate, she claimed that none of them were pictures of her car.

This felony vandalism (over $250) description by the police officer Robert F. Tibor is very different from the damage description (Page 21, line 23) of the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge (not to mention the 57 items of damage in the damage assessment report and should have been noted by the judge David W. Cunis and DA, Jessica Hogan.

It wasn't.

The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden... blah, blah, blah :-).

I attempt to get the police officer, Robert F. Tibor to draw the damage on paper and it's location on the door (since there was no photographic evidence of damage). My next step was to ask to visually inspect the damage claimed by the police officer.

The judge, David W. Cunis blocks me by stating his certainty about the damage (Page 87, line 19)...

Sir, it's been described. It's been -- we've gone out. We've seen the vehicle. We've described the damage. He's described the damage. Mrs. Harris has described the damage. I don't think we need to draw pictures of it now at this point. I get -- I get -- understand. I have a clear understanding of the damage of the vehicle and what was seen and what happened, so next question.

This constitutes blatant judicial interference and judical impropriety. This also prevents me from getting a real shred of evidence from the police officer. Judge David W. Cunis is in essence shielding the police officer Robert F. Tibor from possible legal harm. This made me think it was all staged from the beginning.

Robert F. Tibor states that there is only one scratch on the door (Page 91, line 14). In fact, there were about 40-50 key scratches around her door lock. I have photographic proof. My photos can be compared to her car door (on the assumption that she has not repainted the door).

The judge, David W. Cunis states that the police report is hearsay and cannot be placed in evidence.

The judge, David W. Cunis admits that the statements from the police officer Robert F. Tibor come from his discussions with the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge. In essence, all information he presents is really hearsay from her. He is parroting her. (Page 96, line 12)

And I thought hearsay was not allowed in courtrooms.

Robert F. Tibor testifies that this event might have been kept out of the system but only if I talked to him. So, basically, the officer is saying that had I talked to him he would not charge me with felony vandalism and misdemeanor assault. (Page 98, line 23)

Seems rather unusual and vindictive. A definitive sign of malicious prosecution given that the police officer showed up in court at least five times during this case. The inference is that if you refuse to talk to the police they will label you as guilty.

The judge David W. Cunis once again clearly understands the damage description (Page 99, line 12)

He has described the damage several times over now. I get -- I get his testimony about the damage.

David W. Cunis states near the end of the trial that I could only be found guilty if it was beyond a reasonable doubt (Page 107, line 17).

The burden of proof rests exclusively with the Commonwealth to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden. The burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The DA, Jessica Hogan states (Page 110, line 5)

The Commonwealth does believe that they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did cause an assault, placing the complaining witness in fear of imminent bodily damage and as well as vandalizing the property which is her car.

Question: Exactly how has the Commonwealth proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complaining witness was in fear of imminent bodily damage?

Is a mere statement from a woman stating she is in fear constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault was committed? This is the strict and heavy burden of proof?

It's discouraging to realize that Jessica Hogan was actually hired as an assistant district attorney.

The judge David W. Cunis convicts me on felony vandalism and misdemeanor assault and I spend 25 days in prison.

On 11/16/2012, two weeks after the prison sentence ends, David W. Cunis still maintains that the complainant's testimony is credible (November 16, 2012 report,Page 2, line 13).

On 11/16/2012, two weeks after the prison sentence ends, David W. Cunis uses Rule 25: MOTION REQUIRED FOR FINDING OF NOT GUILTY to reverse his felony vandalism conviction and now admits he had seen no damage but claims that any and all dents may have popped out. I guess her dents and scratches (Page 21, line 23) also fixed themselves. Not to mention all the damage she testified about in her damage assessment report. (Page 25, lines 16-21)

This is truly a miracle in physics. A self-healing car! This also constitutes very odd behaviour for sheet metal. The actual quote from David W. Cunis was (November 16, 2012 report, Page 2, line 15):

As I reflected upon it and what was somewhat nagging to me was the fact we went out and actually looked at the car. There was no damage. Now, the officer's credibly testified to seeing a dimple in the vehicle which may have been the case and those things can sort of fix themselves, so I don't know.

Apparently, David W. Cunis uses his judicial immunity to prosecute me, and says Oops, my bad!.

This is far beyond incompetence. This is malicious behaviour. Not to mention the fact that he makes any and all damage disappear legally which is convenient since there never was any damage to begin with.

The DA, Jessica Hogan does not discuss the fact that she saw exactly what the judge saw..... no damage.

This constitutes a clear conspiracy (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights) between two individuals acting under the color of law to violate my rights to exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) by failing to state that they saw no damage to the car door, and using the testimony of a perjuring witness. Where are her dents and scratches (Page 21, line 23), and all the 57 items of damage listed in the damage assessment report (Page 25, lines 16-21)?

Remember that previous quote....

The burden of proof rests exclusively with the Commonwealth to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden. The burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

All the damage the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge claimed on Page 21, line 23 and all the damage claimed by the complainant in the damage assessment report on Page 25, lines 16-21 disappears and the judge David W. Cunis merely talks about the alleged damage fabricated and described by the police officer Robert F. Tibor, which also disappeared (November 16, Page 2).

It seems that the judge David W. Cunis recognizes the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge is a perjuring witness.

Does the Commision on Judicial Conduct know of any other incidences of a car suffering from felony vandalism, having many dents and scratches (Page 21 line 23) and 57 items of damage in the damage assessment report healing itself? I'd certainly like to know of other such miracles in physics.

Question: If the felony vandalism is vacated, what exactly did I go to prison for? Arguing with someone in a parking lot?

He never once considers the notion that the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge lied across the board. His intent during the trial was to convict me.

In reading the trial transcript, one can tell David W. Cunis was in a hurry to convict me, even if October 5, 2012 was a Friday of a three day weekend. He seemed to be a mighty big hurry.

  • Page 32, line 4
  • Page 32, line 11
  • Page 33, line 22
  • Page 43, line 12
  • Page 59, line 4
  • Page 51, line 2
  • Page 61, line 11
  • Page 62, line 11
  • Page 63, line 1
  • Page 63, line 10
  • Page 68, line 16
  • Page 76, line 4
  • Page 86, line 24
  • Page 88, line 3
  • Page 89, line 16
  • Page 92, line 3
  • Page 94, line 22
  • Page 96, line 22
  • Page 96, line 24
  • Page 97, line 1
  • Page 97, line 18
  • Page 97, line 23
  • Page 100, line 15
  • Page 101, line 8
  • Page 102, line 10
  • Page 103, line 22
  • Page 104, line 8
  • Page 104, line 16
  • Page 105, line 23
  • Page 106, line 1

This must be what you folks call a speedy trial.

Question:Where did David W. Cunis go after handling my trial?

I may add that judge David W. Cunis sent me to jail without warning and without compassion. He never even considered asking me whether I had anyone under my care.

Question: What penalty does David W. Cunis suffer for sending someone to jail inappropriately for his own mistake in judgement? I also lost my driver's license for seven weeks.

Question: How does Rule 25 absolve him of his own errors in judgement?

Question: How many times can a judge make a mistake in judgement of this magnitude and get away with it without any penalties in pay or retaining his job, or is it the case that only defendants suffer?

Question: Why did it conveniently take him six weeks to admit that his visual observation was incorrect? Perhaps, the commission can ask him when he finally saw the light and was I still in prison? (10/05/2012 - 10/30/2012).

Question:Why did he only vacate the felony vandalism but not the misdemeanor assault charge. In reviewing Stephanie Harris-Hodge's testimony, the kicking of her car door was the assault, but the kicking (3-4 times according to her) produced no damage at all (Pages 19-21)....so how did the assault occur. The two charges against me are both from the same action, the alleged kicking. In essence, the two charges are integrated.

Question What was the nature of the assault? Words not covered by the First Amendment (calling her stupid)?

His failure to correlate the assault with the vandalism also surprised me and made me wonder whether he was in the courtroom the day of the trial. This was another case of poor judgement or malicious prosecution.

Of course, the fact that I was convicted of assault (a crime against a person) based on the notion that a woman stated that she was afraid is merely a perversion of the assault law in Massachusetts. I'm confident it does not work as well for men.

Meanwhile, the DA, Jessica Hogan actually objects to the reversal (November 16, 2012, Page 4, line 2) still believing that she saw the non-existent damage. I find it humorous that the judge did not criticize the DA for claiming that she saw any damage. There doesn't seem to be a shred of integrity or decency in his court.

On November 16, 2012, David W. Cunis went off on a rant against me in court. It caught me off guard considering that David W. Cunis was reversing his own visual observations.

I have included the audio files and PDF transcripts. The November 16, 2012 audio should be heard, not read.

My friends who heard it told me "that judge really hates you!".

Question: Why does he hate me? What is his primary motivation for hate. What did I do to him?

Question: Did David W. Cunis know of my web sites criticizing religion and the Framingham police and had he viewed them?

Question: Can I get a written explanation as to why it took David W. Cunis six weeks to determine in his mind, that he had not seen any damage? If David W. Cunis had been a surgeon, this error in judgement is like removing the patient's right kidney when it was the left kidney that was failing.

Question: I would be interested in the Commission on Judicial Conduct's reasoning as to why he should be retained as a judge in the future? David W. Cunis gets paid $129,694.00 a year to make judgements and he cannot even judge what he sees.

Question: Did the judge David W. Cunis have any conversations with the police officer Robert F. Tibor outside any court proceedings?

In summary,

In general, this trial has taught me that judges and DAs do not seem to have any desire, requirements or responsibiities to provide any exculpatory evidence on behalf of defendants. Both the judge David W. Cunis and the DA Jessica Hogan merely wanted to prosecute, prosecute, prosecute.

  • The DA's office sidetracked the pre-trial conference.

  • No one made any attempt to provide photographic evidence. Any photographic evidence of her door would have shown her to be a perjurer.

    Robert F. Tibor had plenty of opportunities over the course of an entire year to take pictures of her car and the alleged damage but failed to do so.

  • Five DAs (count them, five) never bothered to ask the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge how I managed to create all the 57 items of damage in the damage assessment report. (Page 25, lines 16-21). The judge was also not interested or even inquisitive.

  • The DA did not want to have the 911 call as evidence because the complainant stated twice that the male did not damage her car.

  • No proof of the complainant's (Stephanie Harris-Hodge) alleged fear was submitted. Apparently, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of assault is merely any statement by a woman that she was in fear.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict and heavy burden.


  • The judge David W. Cunis and the DA Jessica Hogan both came back from viewing the car door and neither of them stated for the record that there was no damage on the door, and thus convicted me of felony vandalism and misdemeanor assault and sent me to prison without compassion.


  • The DA, Jessica Hogan clearly committed perjury by stating that she had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that I had committed vandalism because she did not see any damage on the car door. (Page 110, line 5)

  • The judge David W. Cunis clearly committed perjury by agreeing with the DA that I was guilty and then sentenced me to prison.

  • The judge David W. Cunis vacates the felony vandalism charge after my prison sentence.

  • The judge David W. Cunis makes all the damage claimed by the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge (Page 21, line 23 amd Page 25, line 16-21) disappear and all the damage claimed by the police officer (Page 74) go away.

  • The judge David W. Cunis fails to drop the misdemeanor assault knowing full well that he is dealing with a perjuring witness, the complainant, Stephanie Harris-Hodge. The judge knows that the misdemeanor assault charge is integrated with the alleged felony vandalism charge as claimed by the perjuring witness, the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge (Pages 19-21). This constitutes malicious prosecution.

  • The judge David W. Cunis seemed to be in a mighty big hurry to go somewhere after my trial. What was so important to him?

  • This was a sham trial.

  • Perhaps, a new trial is in order without David W. Cunis and his religion, or dropping all charges against me.

On the issue of religion, I run a web site called:


It has had over one half million hits this year, which is pretty neat.

Judge David W. Cunis is described as a devout orthodox catholic by his friend Domenico Bettinelli on this web page:


That page has now been purged but I saved some information about it. .

It seems that David W. Cunis is embarassed to be seen as a devout orthodox catholic. I had sent this complaint to several lawyers as I was searching for legal assistance. One of them submitted my complaint back to David W. Cunis who then contacted his friend Domenico Bettinelli and asked him to purge all the pages. So much for ethics in lawyers. I have a list of lawyers if you so wish to have it.

On the issue of separation of church and state, how does one separate the church, the state and the corrupting influence of power in the mind of a judge. David W. Cunis is the type of judge that sentenced thousands of people to a good burning at the stake during the Crusades and the Holy Inquisition , and as an atheist, I can testify that the Crusades and Inquiition never really ended. I bring up the issue of religion simply because religion poisons everything. For the Commission on Judical Conduct to ignore religious hatred is to ignore reality.

Why does the Commonwealth still have it's Blasphemy law (MGL-272 Section 36) as a classic example of that religious hatred?

Any religion that demands earthly vengeance and retribution for any reason is not a religion at all, but a mental illness and should be treated as such.

The possibility that his religion had a role in convicting me cannot be eliminated.

Knowing full well that religion poisons everything, I believe that in the interest of impartial justice, the judge should state his/her religious affiliation at the beginning. This allows the defendant to perhaps request a change of judges.

Personally, I find it offensive that the Massachusetts judiciary has a member of the American Christian Taliban and a creationist on it's staff that actually rejects evolution as a scientific fact. That's astonishing in this day and age.

Please show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that David W. Cunis's god exists.

Sent to:

Commission on Judicial Conduct
Executive Director
11 Beacon Street, Suite 525
Boston, MA 02108

Send comments to: hjw2001@gmail.com