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.
Indeed!
- 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.
Conspiracy!
- 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:
http://the-militant-atheist.org
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:
http://www.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/good_judicial_news/
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