Probable Cause Hearing (Assault and Battery), June 30, 2009

Ken Ferguson and I both know exactly what happened in the incident on February 3, 2009. I simply reported on it as I saw it. The vast majority of rational people do not really consider this to be assault and battery but sadly enough, Massachusetts law does. The problem that Ferguson had, was that unwanted intentional touching constitutes assault and battery under Massachusetts law. In the probable cause hearing on June 30, 2009, when he arrived with a taxpayer funded lawyer, he denied that he had grabbed my wrist and stated that he simply put his hand on my shoulder and asked me the question.

Ken Ferguson commited perjury simply because he is a spineless, snivelling coward in the Framingham police department. By the way, he's also a hypocrite because according to his web page, he teaches ethics in policing .

The other nasty surprise I got in the hearing is having Brian Kearney as the clerk magistrate.

I can just imagine the conversation at the courthouse the day before my scheduled appearance.

"Some neerdowell is charging one of our fine outstanding police officers with a crime. Let's bring Brian Kearney in as the clerk magistgrate for the day. As a former police officer, he'll ignore any evidence and throw out the charge."

I had previously thought that Ken Ferguson had integrity, but alas, I was wrong again. Sigh!

Some Lessons Learned on June 30, 2009

If you mistakenly received true justice in a Massachusetts state court room, it may have happened by accident or the Screw Up Fairy visited the state judicial system again.

How can you tell whether a Framingham deputy police chief is lying in court? Simple. If his lips are moving, he's lying.

If you are expecting honesty from anyone on the Framingham police force, you are expecting way too much in life.

He basically failed to tell the truth even when bound by oath and affirmation. This was committing perjury to save his own hide but there's no reason to believe that he would not commit perjury to convict you in court. It's easy to do and the courts accept what they say. Accept the fact that police have no ethics.

It's very disheartening and discouraging to go through this process. The only conclusion one can reach is that the police are dishonest and will commit perjury at will. One should never trust a police officer to tell the truth.

This is the second time I have witnessed Ferguson commit perjury. The first time is when he testified in the Pranzo case. I saw him pull Pranzo off Joe Rizoli with both hands but Ferguson stated that he merely placed his hand on Pranzo's shoulder and led him off.

I do not know what his parents taught him when he grew up to become a police officer but one key lesson was Honesty is the not the best policy.

If police officers actually told the truth under oath, more than half of them would be incarcerated.

As you know, in court, you are required to swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in court. If you swear on a Bible and you are an honest God fearing man, this might work. But a better strategy would be to record everything said by those who have taken an oath to tell the truth.

There is no rational reason to not record all court transactions where you are supposed to tell the truth. In general, this is done with the exception of court room 4 where the Clerk Magistrates work.

The Middlesex Court does not make recordings in this particular court room for a good reason. This will allow the clerk magistrates to lie and allow police officers to lie without fear of being recorded and a record kept. As long as it is known that no recordings occur, the incentive to lie is there.

In those courtrooms where a recording is made, court visitors (called defendants in legalese) can pay $55.00 for a CD that provides them with an audio recording of the court's transaction for their case. This is actually very useful to have to remind people what they had previously said in case they were thinking of saying something different to better suit their legal liability.

I then wrote a letter to the court to get an appeal on the decision by Brian Kearney.

                                               65 Delmar Avenue
                                               Framingham, MA 01701
                                               July 13, 2009

        Dear sir/madam, 

        I had requested a probable cause hearing on an assault and battery
        charge   (copy of complaint included) and received a hearing in
        front of clerk magistrate Brian Kearney on June 30, 2009. The hearing
        was over in about three minutes because Kearney stated explicitly
        that he "did not have to" listen to a CD I brought along that
        has an audio recording of Framingham's Deputy Police Chief Ken Ferguson
        admitting that he grabbed my arm in trying to restrict my access to
        court room 4 on February 3, 2009. Judge Douglas Stoddart stated
        that this in itself was assault in this recording.  Ken Ferguson
        was himself a witness at the February 3rd hearing but he tried to
        block another witness (myself) from testifying.

        During the June 30 hearing, Ken Ferguson denied he grabbed my arm but
        the clerk magistrate's courtroom is not recorded as evidence of

        I strongly felt that clerk magistrate Brian Kearney did not want to
        hear my complaint and was very blunt and rude.  This would have been
        evident if the clerk magistrate's courtroom was recorded for
        posterity.  I do not understand why it is not.  There is no better
        way to seek truth than by recording what is said under oath to tell
        the truth.

        In addition, I intend to subpeona a witness who was relunctant to
        testify in fear of retribution from the police.

        I would like to request a hearing from a judge on the matter.

        In addition, I would like to file a complaint against clerk magistrate
        Brian Kearney.  I do not believe that I should be treated like this
        by any public employee, especially one making over $110,000.

                                               Sincerely yours,

                                               Harold J. Wolfe


Send comments to: