If the only point of the letter was to grab the judge’s attention, then Massachusetts law student Ray Wolfe was certainly successful.  But if he hoped to persuade the judge, not so much. 

The underlying problem was rather typical, a couple of traffic tickets in Missouri returnable while a student was out of state, creating appearance issues that happen with some regularity.  The solution is to write the court a letter seeking an adjournment to a date when the student will be back in Missouri.  No big deal, unless the student takes an overly aggressive tone. 

To let you know I use the word “Judge” lightly in your case. Your asshole (traffic cop) wrote me that ticket, committing constructive treason, and perjury of his oath, as you are about to do. If I come down there you damn sure won’t want me in your courtroom. I know you have people in the courthouse guarding your sorry “Communist” ass. I told you I am currently “Out OF STATE” and I demand a continuance. This is no longer a request!
…
I left that State to get the education so I to be able to fight on there playing field. (In the courtroom) instead of where I have been trained to fight (On the Battlefield) which may be where this winds up if you keep your shit up.

The State of Missouri has failed to provide me with justice, with the securities provided in the Missouri, and United States Constitution, and I will not pay for any injustice in Missouri “Unless it is in BLOOD.” So the question is? Do you want to meet me on my turf “The battlefield” —JUDGE. You best leave me out of that State until I get ready to return.

A bit hyperbolic?  It almost makes one reconsider the efficacy of starting a motion with a paragraph consisting solely of the word “oh”.  Without explanation, this letter apparently failed to accomplish the goal of obtaining an adjournment, prompting Ray Wolfe to take a second shot.

I would refer to you as Judge but you already proved that you are not interested in justice by the warrant you issued. What do you want BLOOD, because that may be what you get.… Injustice breeds contempt, and with judges like you I am really surprised that people have not got together and started a revolution to hang communists like you, the prosecutor and of course your butt buddies that keep you busy.
…
I know you really do not want me in your courtroom now that you have violated my rights. You have better be glad that no officer stopped me while I was on vacation from college. As I am sure it would have made the headline news. As you might be able to ascertain by now that [sic] I am tired of your shit, and the city of Springfield’s shit! If I pay the city of Springfield anything – it will be in BLOOD. Your lying no-good officer started this shit, I will try to make him pay the ultimate price for his lies since you do not have the integrity to do what is just, fair and proper.
…
[Y]ou are doing nothing more than committing usurpation and tyranny. “Tyranny and usurpation are illegal, and they may be resisted by force, and governments founded thereon may be dissolved in the same manner that people may resist robbers or pirates” (Second treatise of a civil government, p. 170, 174, 177). There is nothing I would like to see more in this country than a good old-fashioned bloody revolution where the people can take the trash out of government and hold them accountable for the tyranny and treason that they have committed. We could once again install a people in government that is for the people and by the people, instead of the communist greedy bastards that are currently serving themselves and their masters.

With this being said and forwarded to various agencies, you can take that arrest warrant and shove it up your communist ass!

What could possibly go wrong?  The judge did not find the second letter nearly as amusing as the first, and pressed charges against Wolfe for tampering with a judicial officer.  He went to trial.  He lost.

From the appellate decision affirming the conviction, we not only get a glimpse at Wolfe’s idea of how to write a letter designed to convince a judge to go along with him, but, based on the closing argument, Wolfe had in mind when carefully choosing his words.

In its closing argument, the defense openly conceded that Wolfe was trying to “shock” the judges into taking a judicial action that Wolfe wanted: The words of this letter is [sic] inspiring. These are words, that Jeffersonian style words which have been used to inspire people. However, this was not the purpose. This is for shock. It was for shock value to get the attention of a judge, get the attention of the Court and look at this and take a look and let this man have a continuance, getting past his days where he’s on vacation from law school, where he’s going to be home. Don’t make him travel 3,000 miles, you know, each time for multiple conferences, accommodate him. It’s not that hard, they do it every day.

…

It’s the same language that we’re using today to get the attention of an overloaded municipal judge to look at the case and do the right thing. [our emphasis]

Naturally, the snarky prosecutor responded,

I might have missed some days in history class in high school, but I don’t remember Thomas Jefferson ever telling you, “You can take that arrest warrant and shove it up your Communist ass.”

At Above the Law, Elie Mystal, himself a graduate of a Massachusetts law school (coincidence? Hmmm.) attributes Wolfe’s strategy to a personal failing, calling Wolfe “dangerous and unhinged.”  But can this “deranged” behavior be so easily brushed aside?  Was there no hint of Wolfe’s somewhat unorthodox approach in his law school discussion?  Or perhaps this is what he was taught to do by his law professors.

Putting aside, for the moment, that the Massachusetts law school brand just took a major hit in my office, some might question whether Wolfe sought to threaten the judge with harm or, as his attorney argued, employ “Jeffersonian style words” to “inspire” an “overloaded municipal judge” to “do the right thing.” 

Wolfe’s purpose. to obtain an adjournment to a date when he would be back from law school and physically in the court’s jurisdiction, was unremarkable.  The opinion purposefully omits any discussion of why the judge set the case down for dates when Wolfe was unavailable, and it may well be that the judge was particularly cavalier in his lack of concern for the viability of a student in Massachusetts appearing in a court in Missouri to answer some tickets. 

Judges can be rather demanding that way, you know.  After all, some are more concerned with moving their calendar along than with the cost and burden it imposes on a defendant.  While they could easily accommodate a reasonable request for an adjournment, some prefer to flex their judicial muscles by holding fast to their schedule, no matter how difficult they make it on others.

But even if the judge was less than reasonably accommodating, Wolfe’s approach, to grab him by the collar of his robe and shake him as hard as he could, was unavailing.  There’s a lesson here in both picking battles and persuading others to do as we want.  Don’t make threats against someone whose power far exceeds your own, and upon which you can’t deliver.

There has been a growing sense amongst law students, and even newer members of the bar, that we are all relative equals in the law.  It’s given rise to the prominence of libertarian values on the internet, the expectations of the Slackoisie that they will be ushered into their very own corner office on the first day of their job, the arguments for compliance with their wishes (not requests, but demands).  What’s optimistically seen as a war of words, heated rhetoric, a right too many ascribe to themselves no matter what the circumstances, comes out as a bizarre, indeed deranged, string of threats.

Maybe Ray Wolfe meant what he said, and was ready to spill blood on the courthouse steps if he was forced to return to Missouri to answer the bench warrant.  One can never be sure.  But if that wasn’t really his intention, and he sent those letters with the hope that he would influence the judge to see things his way and grant an adjournment, then he did a very poor job of it.

And this is who fills a seat at a Massachusetts law school?  The most important questions unanswered are whether the school knew they were taking tuition money from a nutjob, or whether this is the mind they molded.  Either way, it should be clear to all that this is not the way to influence a judge.