Audra Toop <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.

com>

Re: Docket #1601CR6216/Branded as a material witness on Mass Most

Wanted.
Audra Toop <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com> Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:13 AM
To: "Bradford R. Stanton" <bstanton@genslawoffices.com>

As you can see, Det Dave Cataldo says I wiretapped a Federal Agent, Steven Rand, which is who brought
the complaint.

But according to the US Attorney's Office, he's a security guard who impersonated various agents. Says
the DATE OF CRIME is 10/21/16. I didn't commit a crime of Wiretapping on 10/21/16, the same day Judge
Michael Coyne MAY OR MAY NOT have signed off on a warrant for my arrest claiming I failed to appear.

So, I asked you to address the service, which includes the WARRANT Judge Coyne MAY OR MAY NOT
have signed. But you refuse to.

https://www.massmostwanted.org/case/caseId-18319

Print it, I'll send you a PDF of what Bob Solomon said about my alerting Judge Sinnot I'm a material
witness being retaliated against, and get a hearing BACK IN FRONT OF JUDGE ELEANOR SINNOTT.

Service and my being branded as a material witness go hand in hand.

Get back to me today. Oh, this is exactly what my friends and family will be testifying on my behalf about.
How I was so desperate for law enforcement to help me, but shitbag ambulance chasers, who can be
bought for a fucking nickel kept setting me up.

On Wed, May 23, 2018, 7:23 AM Audra Toop <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com> wrote:

Two things remain unaddressed. Since you're continuing to move forward, refusing to address the
service AND THE WARRANT, obviously NOT done by 6 others....

Bob Solomon told the BBO I told Judge Eleanor Sinnott I am a material witness. I also told him to get the
same paperwork I told you to get.

Bob's excuse is...I refused to meet with him, that's why he never addressed it. Maybe he should have
addressed it before he showed up in court on 2/6/18.

What's your excuse Attorney Stanton for refusing to address the same information, since I DID MEET
WITH YOU??

On Wed, May 2, 2018, 9:39 PM Bradford Stanton <bstanton@genslawoffices.com> wrote:

Ms. Toop,

I’ve been in court all afternoon and I haven’t had an opportunity to turn my attention to your emails. I
should have some time tomorrow afternoon and I will review them and get the discovery motion over
to you via email. If you would like to come by my office next week either Tuesday or Wednesday
afternoon I would be happy to discuss each of your concerns and explain my pretrial and potential trial
strategy with you. I could do anytime after 1 p.m. either day. Please let me know if either day works for
your schedule.

Sincerely,

Bradford R. Stanton
Sent from my iPhone

On May 2, 2018, at 9:01 PM, Audra Toop <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com> wrote:

What's the status on the motions you filed? I've never seen Attorneys just submit motions
without showing their client what they're saying in these motions.

On Wed, May 2, 2018, 10:54 AM Audra Toop <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com> wrote:

By no means take this as anything more than me providing you with information that's
already been provided to the Suffolk County DAs Office.

If you don't feel it's "relevant," that's fine. I don't want you to think I'm being a "difficult
client." I trust your judgment.

On May 2, 2018 10:43 AM, "Audra Toop" <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com> wrote:

NHere's some more information. Emails with Attorney Noone. So you can get a
sense of why I've had so many attorneys.

Attorney Noone tells me the Commonwealth doesn't have to prove whether Steven
Rand is a Federal Agent or a police officer.

But they already ID'd Steven Rand. It's on the 3/23/17 Conditions of Release. So,
I'm still not sure why Steven Rand hasn't been arrested YET.

Let me know if you need anything further.

Thank you

On May 2, 2018 8:42 AM, "Audra Toop" <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's some information for your review.

I couldn't understand why Attorney Stanley was admitting my defense is...2

unidentified men went looking for me, IMPERSONATED various law enforcement,
and threatened my life.

I was confused about what Meg was telling me because she was addressing the
Conditions of Release at the time she emailed me reiterating I my defense, and
before she mailed me all those other law enforcement titles & FPS report.

I have more documents from Meg. She said the ADA disclosed a Fabricated FPS
report. I'll get that to you. That is definitely going to put Steven Rand in prison. As
well as his emails. Maybe you can work on identifying Steven Rand before you
ask me for information on my family and friends.

Let me know if the DA discloses any information contradictory to what Meg

Stanley mailed to me. If she or the ADA didn't do anything wrong, I don't see the
problem with having Steven Rand produce his ID.

I could have been done with this case a year ago. Steven Rand's ID is
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. My case is solid.

On May 2, 2018 8:12 AM, "Audra Toop" <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com>

wrote:
Can we please also get a trial date, I'm entitled to a speedy trial. Here's one of
my witnesses.
On Tue, May 1, 2018, 5:33 PM Bradford R. Stanton
<bstanton@genslawoffices.com> wrote:

Ms. Toop,

I just got back to my office now and I am in receipt of your most recent
emails. I had an opportunity to speak with the assigned prosecutor today and
I was informed that he has taken over the case from another prosecutor that
is no longer with the office. As a result, he was not familiar with the case and
he assured me that he would review it and get back to me by the end of next
week. It is my understanding based on my prior conversation with you that
the original offer had been a continuance without a finding with a mental
health evaluation and treatment as necessary. Given your lack of a board of
probation record together with the facts of this case I don’t see any reason
that this offer would be off the table. Having said this, the terms are
negotiable and it may be possible to achieve a better result. At this point
given that there is a newly assigned prosecutor no formal offer has been
presented to me. I will reach out to you as soon as I have had a substantive
conversation with the assigned prosecutor.

I think it would be worthwhile to put together a formal request for pretrial

probation because it could result in a resolution that would not require any
admission to sufficient facts for a finding of guilt. Meaning that you could
resolve the case while still denying culpability for the underlying charges.
The availability of this type of disposition is at the discretion of the District
Attorney’s Office. If you could please shoot me an email detailing as much
as you can about your background I would greatly appreciate it. (i.e.
education, employment history, family history, military, etc.). I can put it all
together into a formal request to the government to resolve the case short of
trial.

As we discussed this morning, I have filed a formal request for discovery

pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P., Rule 14. I anticipate having the requested
discovery on or before our next date of June 26, 2018.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Bradford R. Stanton, Esq. | Partner

ci
d:i
Gens, Stanton & Florek
P.C.
 Phone: 617-936-4591 Ext.4590

Fax: 617-249-0405

Email: bstanton@genslawoffices.com

Website: www.genslawoffices.com

Address: 12 Ericsson Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02122

* * * The information contained in this communication may be

confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above,
and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the
original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This
email alone does not create an attorney-client relationship.* * *

From: Audra Toop <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com>

Date: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 1:22 PM
To: "Bradford R. Stanton" <bstanton@genslawoffices.com>
Subject: Re: Docket #1601CR6216

I will not agree to mental health treatment, prison time and I will not agree to
check into probation. Maybe a phone call, but I'm not going into Probation.
What exactly are they looking for? What outcome do they hope to
accomplish?

On May 1, 2018 1:17 PM, "Audra Toop" <mynameisaudratoop@gmail.com>

wrote:

Attorney Stanton, what's the DA offering?

I really don't want this guy identified. I would rather just get rid of this case.
And move on with my life.
3 attachments

Screenshot_20180523-080344.png
228K

IMG_20180519_113028395.jpg
1944K

IMG_20180519_130100965.jpg
1960K