This isn't the first example of the discretionary use by Texas officials of public 'valuables.' Earlier this month, Gary Tuchman found another abuse of forfeiture laws in this town of Tenaha.
Big salary bonuses are not only for Wall Street bankers. You too can get a big bonus if you work for your government! Well, put it this way, we now know there is precedent for it. A former District Attorney in Texas has acknowledged to us that he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of eight years to three of his secretaries. He calls it a “stipend,” but for secretaries who made between $40,000 – $50,000 in base salary each year, the former DA acknowledges it might have amounted to a doubling or even more of their salaries. Joe Frank Garza told me they deserved the money because “they were loyal…my eyes and ears in the community..(and they) watched my back.” And he is very comfortable with what he did. But lots of other people, including the District Attorney who beat Garza in his re-election battle, are stunned by the admission. You see, the money comes from criminals and accused criminals. Texas, like many other states, has forfeiture laws. Police are allowed to seize certain valuables, like money and drugs, from people who are suspected of serious crimes. The idea is not to let criminals profit from their crimes. Ultimately, police can use money for “law enforcement purposes. The district attorney’s office also gets a cut; and can use the money for “official purposes.”But what the heck are official purposes?
The former DA tells me it’s very ambiguous; so he felt free to make those determinations. What particularly bothers his critics is that the hundreds of thousands paid in “stipends” could have been spent on things like more police cars, bulletproof vests, and computers. But Garza tells us he spent the money on those things too. He says he had plenty to spend. Which raises this question: does it all increase temptation to seize valuables from citizens who are not suspected of serious crimes? Garza says absolutely not; and so does the longtime sheriff in the county. But Texas’ confusing forfeiture laws have led to many police seizures that are controversial and have resulted in lawsuits. So what’s the solution? Perhaps clearer and more stringent forfeiture laws. The Texas legislature is considering such a bill right now. The Senate has passed it; the House is considering it. But Wednesday of this week is the last day for legislators to consider bills for this year’s session. So unless it’s taken up very quickly, change may still be at least a year away.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Jail For Criticizing Federal Prosecutors
A federal judge has sent a Kansas man to prison for criticizing federal prosecutors, claiming that the man posed a threat of “continued criminal defamation of government counsel and witnesses.” The man (Guy Neighbors) in the northwest Kansas college town of Lawrence has been accused of selling stolen goods in the popular secondhand store he has owned for two decades and has been free on bond pending trial in October. For more than four years federal prosecutors and local police have tried shutting down Neighbors’ store (the Yellow House) but the charges have been dropped once by a federal judge and the trial date has been moved more than a dozen times. This week U.S. Magistrate Judge James O’Hara revoked the man’s bond (effectively sending him to prison) because federal prosecutors pointed out that in late April he made statements in electronic mails that accused them and police of corruption in the stolen-goods case against him. The email that landed Neighbors in jail said prosecutors and police officers have acted “in a pattern of conspiracy and cover-up.” Neighbors had previously posted blogs that were similarly critical of authorities, including officers at two local police departments and the federal prosecutor handling his case. A web site dedicated to following the case posts all the federal documents, including the judge’s order to revoke bail and official transcripts of lengthy court hearings almost entirely devoted to Neighbors’ internet blogging on the matter. It also includes Neighbors’ request for a change of venue alleging he can’t get a fair trial in Kansas.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wichita court records altered
Three indicted for alleged scheme to alter Wichita Municipal Court bond documents.
By The Capital-Journal
Created May 15, 2009 at 11:13am
Updated May 15, 2009 at 11:29am
WICHITA— Three Wichita women have been indicted in connection with an alleged scheme to alter Wichita Municipal Court bond records used to defraud bonding companies. The eight-count indictment unsealed Friday alleges court employee Kaylene Pottorff took bribes to change city court records for bondsman agents Alicia Bell, 35, and Jessie Garland, 41. Pottorff, 53, worked as a collections officer in the court from March 2004 to April 2008. She is charged with two counts each of conspiracy, impairing computer data and bribery. Bell and Garland each face a single counts of conspiracy impairing computer data and bribery. All three women have been arrested.
It was not immediately clear if Pottorff and Garland had attorneys. Attorney Mike Hepperly, who is representing Bell, did not immediately return a call for comment. The indictment alleges Pottorff altered the court's computerized records systems on multiple occasions between March 2004 and April 2008. Bell and Garland then allegedly used the altered lists of active bonds to create false jail booking forms that corresponded with names of bonded defendants. The indictment charges Bell defrauded her biological mother, Pearl Neal, AAA Bonding Co., and others. It charges Garland defrauded Larry Hiebert and B&J Enterprises, which were the bondsman and surety on Garland's bonds. If convicted, the women face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 on the conspiracy charge. The computer fraud and bribery counts carry penalties of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, according to the U.S. attorney's office. Pottorff and Bell have an initial court appearance Friday in U.S. District Court in Wichita. Garland is in custody in Arkansas, and her court date has not yet been set.
By The Capital-Journal
Created May 15, 2009 at 11:13am
Updated May 15, 2009 at 11:29am
WICHITA— Three Wichita women have been indicted in connection with an alleged scheme to alter Wichita Municipal Court bond records used to defraud bonding companies. The eight-count indictment unsealed Friday alleges court employee Kaylene Pottorff took bribes to change city court records for bondsman agents Alicia Bell, 35, and Jessie Garland, 41. Pottorff, 53, worked as a collections officer in the court from March 2004 to April 2008. She is charged with two counts each of conspiracy, impairing computer data and bribery. Bell and Garland each face a single counts of conspiracy impairing computer data and bribery. All three women have been arrested.
It was not immediately clear if Pottorff and Garland had attorneys. Attorney Mike Hepperly, who is representing Bell, did not immediately return a call for comment. The indictment alleges Pottorff altered the court's computerized records systems on multiple occasions between March 2004 and April 2008. Bell and Garland then allegedly used the altered lists of active bonds to create false jail booking forms that corresponded with names of bonded defendants. The indictment charges Bell defrauded her biological mother, Pearl Neal, AAA Bonding Co., and others. It charges Garland defrauded Larry Hiebert and B&J Enterprises, which were the bondsman and surety on Garland's bonds. If convicted, the women face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 on the conspiracy charge. The computer fraud and bribery counts carry penalties of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, according to the U.S. attorney's office. Pottorff and Bell have an initial court appearance Friday in U.S. District Court in Wichita. Garland is in custody in Arkansas, and her court date has not yet been set.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Military Justice
Embroiled in a hotly-contested divorce Marine Corps Sgt. Brian Foster was awarded custody of their children in California. Then his wife, Heather, fled to Colorado with the boys and sought the help of a feminist attorney specializing in women's rights. The California judge issued a kidnapping warrant for Heather Foster. She then claimed she fled her husband's abuse.
Colorado, being a ³safe haven² state, Heather was neither arrested nor charged.
Marine Sgt. Foster was then forced to negotiate once again for custody of his children. When those negotiations broke down Sgt. Foster found himself charged by his wife¹s attorney with assaulting, raping and threatening his wife. As a result of false allegations of marital rape and domestic violence, Sgt. Foster was convicted by a general court martial in December 1999 of all charges and sentenced to 17 years confinement, stripped of his rank, all pay and allowances, and given a dishonorable discharge. He served nine years, two months and 17 days of that sentence, most of it at the maximum security United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, before being released and his rank restored on March 14, 2009, after a court of appeals vacated all findings of the trial court.
Prosecuting marital rape ‹ radical feminist rules
Sgt. Foster¹s prison ordeal began when a military jury at Camp Pendleton, California, convicted him of spousal rape and related charges on December 3, 1999. A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted Sgt. Foster, contrary to his pleas, of rape, two specifications of aggravated assault, and wrongfully communicating a threat in violation of Articles 120, 128 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 928, and 934. He was then sentenced to confinement for seventeen years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction in rank to private (pay grade E-1), and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority (CA), Commanding General, 1st Force Service Support Group, Marine Forces Pacific, Camp Pendleton, California, approved the sentence as adjudged. And there it lay for over nine years.
What was the evidence for such a draconian sentence?
The following observations are based on the findings of the court of appeals.
Heather and Brian Foster were married in 1993. In 1998 Sgt. Foster hired an attorney and filed for divorce in California and was given custody of their children. Heather then kidnapped the children and fled to Colorado. Following completion of requisite residency requirements she then filed for divorce against Brian in Colorado despite the pendency of the divorce case in California. The California judge issued a kidnapping warrant for Heather Foster. She then claimed she fled to Colorado to escape her husband's abuse. Because of her unproven and unsubstantiated claim of domestic violence the warrant was never enforced. Over the course of several months the estranged couple engaged in civil discovery and custody-related settlement discussions in California and Colorado. The primary issues pending in both jurisdictions related to the conditions by which Brian and Heather would share legal and physical custody of their two minor children. The civil litigation between the parties was ultimately consolidated under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act with a judge from each state joining in pretrial settlement efforts. Indeed, following mediation of the matter, the parties agreed to a provisional agreement on custody in which Heather consented to Brian¹s joint legal and partial physical custody of their two children. The record is opaque as to the reasons for the collapse of this agreement, aside from references to lapses of communication between the two civil attorneys. Almost certainly this breakdown was a deliberate manipulation of the situation by Heather¹s radical feminist (redfem) attorney. It is no surprise then that Heather's attorney in Colorado reported the alleged misconduct to prosecutorial officials at Camp Pendleton, which led to the charges against him.
Inventing a spousal rape charge
Rape charge based primarily on redfem attorney¹s report
The key witness against Sgt. Foster was his spouse and alleged ³victim,² Heather Foster. Based largely on the report of Heather¹s Colorado attorney, prosecutors alleged myriad instances of spousal abuse and one incident of rape over the course of the marriage. The record shows that Sgt. Foster was convicted of rape solely upon the testimony of his estranged wife, nearly five years after the alleged incident occurred, and corroborated only by the victim's own statements to her friend nearly two years after the alleged incident. In the time between the alleged act and her sworn testimony, Heather Foster, by her own admission, had voluntarily participated in several instances of intimate sexual contact with Brian, including the willing production of a sexually-explicit video.
Further, no forensically related evidence was introduced at trial and no official report to any authority was made after the alleged rape took place. Indeed, the alleged rape was only ³reported² to Marine Corps authorities by the alleged victim's divorce attorney in the midst of a complicated and contentious custody battle with Sgt. Foster when the couple¹s settlement agreement broke down. Without any official report or forensic evidence of the alleged rape the prosecution called on two of Heather Foster¹s drinking buddies for supporting testimony.
Drinking buddy one Mrs. Kolstee testified that she was one of the Fosters' neighbors during the period when they lived in Hawaii and that she and Heather shared baby sitting duty for each other, shopped, and otherwise socialized together. Mrs. Kolstee testified that they became ³very² close during their time in Hawaii. Despite their close proximity and regular contact Mrs. Kolstee testified that Heather never told her about any instances of abuse at the hands of her husband while they were stationed in Hawaii. Mrs. Kolstee did offer some corroboration as to the charge of aggravated assault with a rifle, asserting that she saw what she believed was the end of a rifle barrel through the slot in the door at the Foster residence. Unfortunately, Mrs. Kolstee identified the ³weapon² as a pistol in her statement to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service before the trial. Her credibility was also hindered by her discussion of the case with the alleged ³victim² the evening before testifying at the UCMJ Article 32 Investigation. As a result the appeals court found that this witness' testimony was extremely general, at times confusing, and contained factually unsupported opinion. More importantly, throughout her testimony no reference was made to any knowledge of the alleged rape. Obviously Sgt. Foster¹s defense attorneys were incompetent, which is confirmed in the following episodes.
Drinking buddy two
Ms. Kossen on the other hand, testified that Heather Foster had reported the alleged ³rape² to her approximately two years after it supposedly occurred. This rather significant delay seriously undermined the materiality, if not the credibility, of the victim's statement to her friend and that friend's testimony. Moreover, the testimony was admitted at trial as a prior consistent statement per Military Rule of Evidence 801, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1998 ed.), not as an excited utterance, or other statement contemporaneous with the alleged rape. Additionally, Ms. Kossen offered testimony regarding her frequenting night clubs and drinking with Heather, and testimony pertaining to yet another allegation of aggravated assault with a weapon in California. However, she told investigators this was an incident that took place in Hawaii. In summary, the evidence as to his culpability for rape was anemic at best.
What the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals found
The court of appeals found that within the four corners of this case:
Heather Foster made no report to medical or law enforcement authorities of the rape,
She engaged in long-standing intimate contact with her ³rapist² for years following the incident, including a home video in which she plays a starring role. Prosecutors presented no forensic or contemporaneous testimonial evidence that corroborated Heather¹s rape allegations. As a result the appeals court concluded that the prosecution attempted to bootstrap a rape conviction atop several instances of alleged assault conduct for which there was also little substantiation. In short, the Government's evidence of rape in this case, aside from Heather's testimony, consisted of statements by her to her friends and her mother. None of these statements were made proximal to the alleged rape.
The appeals court was also significantly disturbed by the fact that the allegations of rape were made in the midst of a hotly-contested divorce and custody battle, after failed attempts at settlement, under the terms of which the ³victim² was prepared to surrender partial custody of her children to the man she later accused as an abusive rapist
Considered in the light most favorable to the Government, a reasonable member of the trial court could choose to believe the ³victim,² and to disbelieve evidence inconsistent with guilt. However, under the facts presented, the appeals court was unable to conclude that Sgt. Foster is guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. To the contrary, the court found that his conviction for rape was factually insufficient, and was obtained as the result of other errors, discussed below. Therefore, the rape conviction was not allowed to stand.
Admission of improper expert testimony ‹ otherwise known as redfem ideology and dogma
The appeals court began by reviewing the manner in which expert testimony was admitted during this litigation with the proposition that ³the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.²They also considered the plenary understanding in military law that expert testimony is not permitted to replace the decision-making process of the fact finder or, more specifically, to advance the expert witness' opinion as to the ³believability or credibility of victims or other witnesses² in a case dealing with sexual assault The appeals court restated that ³expert testimony is admissible if it is relevant..., if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value..., and if the testimony will assist the trier of fact...² In determining if a military judge has properly admitted expert testimony, they then tested his decision for an abuse of discretion.
Testimony of pediatrician Dr. Mary Dully
The trial judge permitted the prosecution to call Dr. Mary Dully, a pediatrician, who testified as to the general subject area of domestic violence as dictated by her ideology. One might reasonably ask how the hell a pediatrician is qualified as an expert witness on adult rape? It should be noted that the universe of Dr. Mary Dully's experience is defined by her work in the Camp Pendleton emergency room and her service with the San Diego Police Academy's Primary Aggressor Course, where she taught officers how to identify the person who ³may have exerted power and control and been the winner in a physical altercation and helping officers on scene who is likingly [sic] the primary aggressor and who is actually the looser [sic] in the physical altercation.² So the bias and dogma of her training and background are obvious from the outset. After reciting her professional qualifications, Dr. Dully went on to outline her vision of what domestic violence was based upon her ³training and experience.² What followed was an extensive colloquy with trial counsel that involved this pediatrician's personal view of how domestic violence presents itself, and how both the aggressor and victim are likely to act according to the DV industry playbook. This discussion included offering the members of the trial court an ideological basis for why a victim might take certain action, such as remaining with her abuser over a long period of time, all in line with redfem DV dogma. Notably, defense counsel did not voir dire the witness at trial. Further, a review of the record reveals that the trial counsel's questions and Dr. Dully's responses substantially mirrored the factual theory of the case presented by the Government. Yet the record is clear that the Dr. Dully reviewed no materials specific to this case and certainly did not conduct an examination of either Sgt. Foster or his estranged wife, Heather, in preparation for trial. In short, dogma and ideology were introduced unchallenged as evidence in this criminal case.This outline of what constitutes abuse by this expert witness, and the close factual nexus between the call of those questions and the Government's position at trial, brings Dr. Dully¹s testimony very close to the nature of profile evidence of an offender, which is forbidden under military law. While the appeals court did not hold that Dr. Dully¹s ³evidence² strayed over the permissible line, having drawn so very close to it, the Government's admission of Dr. Rusher's testimony immediately thereafter, exacerbates the dangerous nature of Dr. Mary Dully's unrestricted testimony.
Testimony of Lieutenant Commander Mary Rusher, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy
Regarding the testimony of Lieutenant Commander Mary Rusher, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy, the court of appeals held that the military judge abdicated his role as impartial gatekeeper, and erroneously admitted testimony which compromised the credibility of this trial in its entirety. [emphasis added] While the record indicates that Dr. Rusher was a physician, board certified in neurology and psychology, her testimony was that she was, in fact, a psychiatrist, who conducted a single interview with the alleged victim in this matter. Therefore, the military judge erred in permitting the members to consider Dr. Rusher's testimony. In preparing their case for litigation, the prosecution arranged for Heather Foster to meet once with Dr. Rusher for an evaluation on November 10, 1999. The examination took two hours. Dr. Rusher testified that she took a history from Mrs. Foster, including a review of past substance abuse, history of abuse, social history, medical history, conducted a mental status evaluation, and developed an assessment. Importantly, Dr. Rusher does not simply explain to the members of the court what Mrs. Foster claims. In sharp contrast to the fundamentals of admissible expert testimony, Dr. Rusher delivered the factual assertions of the victim as a medical diagnosis.
The pertinent exchange with trial counsel follows:
Q: What did you observe during the interview?
A: I observed that Mrs. Foster did indeed have the symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder.
Q: And what are those symptoms that you observed?
A: The symptoms that I observed in her was [sic] that she did experience a traumatic - actually, multiple traumatic incidents where her life was threatened and the life [sic] of her children were threatened; and she re-experienced this trauma through nightmares.
She would have nightmares of her husband placing a gun to her head for several hours. She had intrusive memories of the abuse where her life was threatened and the lives of her children were threatened. She had graphic memories where she was told she would be chopped up, and her children would be chopped up in small little pieces; and they would have a slow painful death...She also had avoidance symptoms where she had difficulty going places that reminded her of the abuse. For example, it was very difficult for her to come to California, because in California was one of the places where the abuse occurred. She had a numbing of responsiveness where her effect at times or her expression were somewhat flat and emotionless, which again is more -- one of the very common symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder order [sic]. As set forth above, Dr. Rusher went well-beyond a medical analysis of the facts before her. In short, she adopted the facts as advanced by the alleged ³victim² and cloaked them in a physician's white coat, presenting them as scientific findings to the members of the trial court. It is well established that ³...to put Œan impressively qualified expert's stamp of truthfulness on a witness' story goes too far.' An expert should not be allowed to Œgo so far as to usurp the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine credibility.'² However, this is a standard tactic of ³expert² witnesses introduced by radical feminists in domestic violence trials for the reason, as here, that it frequently works to condemn a male defendant. In reviewing Sgt. Foster¹s case, the court noted that the military judge took no action to correct the tone and content of Dr. Rusher¹s testimony during the tenure of her recitation to the court martial officers. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) has stated that: ³...it is [dangerous] for judges to receive uncritically just anything an expert wants to say. The evaluation of expert testimony does not end with a recitation of academic degrees. Everything the expert says has to be relevant, reliable, and helpful to the fact finder. A rational and demonstrable basis is the sine qua non of expert opinion.² United States v. King, 35 M.J. 337, 342 (C.M.A. 1992). As a result to appeals court concluded the testimony of Dr. Rusher was plain and obvious error. Though the military judge failed to recognize this and take action to prevent the improper testimony, he ultimately recognized the threat it posed to the neutrality of his members, albeit not until the expert witness had concluded her testimony. At the close of her testimony, the military judge, without defense prompting, provided the members a curative instruction. The law is clear that such a curative instruction is the ³preferred² remedy for correcting error when the court members have heard inadmissible evidence, as long as the instruction is adequate to avoid prejudice to the accused. Generally courts assume that members are able to comport themselves with a curative instruction in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise and apparently in Sgt. Foster¹s case the members made an honest effort to comport themselves with the trial judge's instruction. However, the appeals court decided that in view of the testimony in conjunction with the entire trial, they were left convinced that the military judge was unable to ³unring the bell.² They further concluded that the error did ³substantially sway² the members in their decision to convict Sgt. Foster, and to impose a punitive discharge and substantial confinement in his case. Thus, this error materially prejudiced Sgt. Foster¹s substantial rights.
Now allow an incompetent witness who wasn¹t even born when the ³rape² occurred
Adding injury to insult the trial judge permitted the members to hear the testimony of an incompetent witness in the form of Jacob Foster, the six-year-old son of the ³victim.² The child¹s testimony was permitted without the military judge conducting an Article 39(a), UCMJ, session so as to make an assessment of the child's competence and probity. After the child, who was coached and alienated from Sgt. Foster by his mother, began testifying the trial court found that the boy had not been born at the time of one of the charges about which he was testifying. Further, he was approximately two years old at the time of the most recent alleged act. When that was discovered the military judge excused the members of the trial court. After consultation with counsel, the judge ordered the testimony to be stricken and instructed the members to disregard it. One can only wonder why defense counsel didn¹t demand a mistrial at this point? But when it is noted that the Judge Advocate General (JAG) defense attorney for Sgt. Foster was Lt. Kathleen Kadlec, USN, the picture of the ³incompetent defense² becomes a bit clearer. Were this the only error, the appeal judges felt they could rely on the members of the trial court to assiduously abide by their instructions to mitigate the error. But this testimony amounted to at least the third retelling of the victim's story, including one retelling by a physician as a matter of medical fact, and another who recited dogma as proven in every case of abuse.
Cumulative error
In view of all these errors the appeals court found that the accumulation of errors described above required them to evaluate the fairness of the appellant's trial using the cumulative error doctrine. The scope of their evaluation of the errors in the case was made: ³,,,against the background of the case as a whole, paying particular weight to factors such as the nature and number of the errors committed; their interrelationship, if any, and combined effect; how the [trial] court dealt with the errors as they arose (including the efficacy ‹ or lack of efficacy ‹ of any remedial efforts); and the strength of the government's case.² Considering the improper testimony of Dr. Rusher, combined with the dogma of Dr. Dully, and the stricken testimony of the boy, the appeals court concluded that these errors called into question the basic fairness of Sgt. Foster¹s trial. They also questioned the efficacy of the trial courts curative instructions in that the military judge acted late with regard to both Dr. Rusher's improper testimony and the child's coached recitation. The appeals court also noted that the Government¹s case was not strong, being based almost entirely on the statements of the ³victim² and some testimony that Sgt. Foster was an abusive husband. They stated that but for the cloaking of the victim's statements in the physician's lab coat of Dr. Rusher they were unable to discern whether the members of the trial court would have convicted Sgt. Foster on any charge. They characterized the entire case as muddled and hearsay based. As a result they vacated all the findings of the trial court.
Unreasonable delay for review The tremendous time lapse in having Sgt. Foster¹s conviction reviewed ‹ about nine years ‹ caught the attention of the appellate court and outside experts in military law. ³I¹ve never bumped into something like this in 30 years of practicing law,² said attorney Kevin Barry McDermott, who represented Foster for eight months between late 2000 and early 2001. ³From all the feedback I¹ve gotten, no one can remember a case that took this long to get to a preliminary review.² Sgt. Foster¹s case came at a bad time, said Michelle Lindo McCluer, executive director of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C. The Navy and Marine Corps¹ appeals system faced such a backlog of cases, she said, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces eventually told those services to add staffing. ³It is a black eye for the military justice system,² said Tom Umberg, an Army Reserve colonel called to active duty in 2004 to prosecute detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ³This injustice should have been resolved in 18 months,² Umberg said. ³This was not the world¹s most complicated case.²
Regarding prejudice the appeal judges found that this case is one in which the post-trial delay is so extreme as to ³...give rise to a strong presumption of evidentiary prejudice.² They then concluded that Sgt. Foster was clearly prejudiced by the post-trial delay after his general court-martial, and considered that as weighing heavily in his favor. The primary factor in their evaluation was the determination that the Government failed to prove Sgt. Foster guilty of rape by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court also concluded that had just one of the seven previous lead judges in this matter conducted a thorough assessment of the record of trial in a timely fashion the extensive errors embracing this case would have been discovered and Sgt. Foster would have faced, at worst, the prospect of a new trial on all but the rape charge. In short, nearly ten years of delay makes a difference in a case where the alleged instances of misconduct took place years before the actual trial. As a result of all the factors cited they determined that Sergeant Foster's conviction for rape was improper as the Government did not and could not establish his guilt. Therefore, he served nearly ten years of confinement in large measure for an alleged offense of which he should not have been convicted and that likely never happened.The appeals court then considered the egregious delay in the reviews of Sgt. Foster¹s case and concluded that there was a due process violation resulting from the post-trial delay in processing this case. They found the delay ³...is so egregious that tolerating it would adversely effect the public's perception of the fairness and integrity of the military justice system.² Further, they concluded that the error created by the unreasonable delay is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it was harmless, the court was also aware of their authority to grant relief under Article 66, UCMJ, and stated that in this case, irrespective of the due process violation, they would have chosen to exercise that authority because of the unique circumstances. As to an appropriate remedy the judges considered dismissing all charges and specifications with prejudice. However, they found that Sgt. Foster would be able to defend himself against any remaining charges. So as to compensate Sgt. Foster for the actual prejudice discerned from ten years of confinement served in large measure for an offense which they dismissed, they limited Sgt. Foster¹s further exposure to any adjudged sentence to nothing more than a punitive discharge. Should the rehearing result in conviction, court of appeals believed that limiting Sgt. Foster¹s possible sentence will serve as adequate relief for the deprivation of his right to speedy post-trial review. The Equal Justice Foundation most emphatically disagrees. The injustice of nearly ten years confinement at Fort Leavenworth on trumped up, vindictive, self-serving false allegations should free this Marine without question or reservation.
Findings
The charge of rape was dismissed with prejudice and cannot be retried. The remaining findings and the sentence were set aside. The record was returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to an appropriate Convening Authority with a rehearing authorized. Sgt. Foster was ordered to be released from confinement forthwith and that was done on March 14, 2009. He is now back in the Marine Corps with his rank restored. He is still trying to collect back pay for nearly 10 years of confinement. This is by no means the only case the Equal Justice Foundation has seen where members of America's Armed Forces have been falsely convicted based on perjury, false allegations, radical feminist (redfem) dogma and ideology, incompetent defense counsel, and biased and dysfunctional courts. But Sgt. Brian Foster's case well illustrates the need for the Foundation and why your support is needed.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
Former Marine and Father
of a disabled Marine veteran
Colorado, being a ³safe haven² state, Heather was neither arrested nor charged.
Marine Sgt. Foster was then forced to negotiate once again for custody of his children. When those negotiations broke down Sgt. Foster found himself charged by his wife¹s attorney with assaulting, raping and threatening his wife. As a result of false allegations of marital rape and domestic violence, Sgt. Foster was convicted by a general court martial in December 1999 of all charges and sentenced to 17 years confinement, stripped of his rank, all pay and allowances, and given a dishonorable discharge. He served nine years, two months and 17 days of that sentence, most of it at the maximum security United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, before being released and his rank restored on March 14, 2009, after a court of appeals vacated all findings of the trial court.
Prosecuting marital rape ‹ radical feminist rules
Sgt. Foster¹s prison ordeal began when a military jury at Camp Pendleton, California, convicted him of spousal rape and related charges on December 3, 1999. A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted Sgt. Foster, contrary to his pleas, of rape, two specifications of aggravated assault, and wrongfully communicating a threat in violation of Articles 120, 128 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 928, and 934. He was then sentenced to confinement for seventeen years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction in rank to private (pay grade E-1), and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority (CA), Commanding General, 1st Force Service Support Group, Marine Forces Pacific, Camp Pendleton, California, approved the sentence as adjudged. And there it lay for over nine years.
What was the evidence for such a draconian sentence?
The following observations are based on the findings of the court of appeals.
Heather and Brian Foster were married in 1993. In 1998 Sgt. Foster hired an attorney and filed for divorce in California and was given custody of their children. Heather then kidnapped the children and fled to Colorado. Following completion of requisite residency requirements she then filed for divorce against Brian in Colorado despite the pendency of the divorce case in California. The California judge issued a kidnapping warrant for Heather Foster. She then claimed she fled to Colorado to escape her husband's abuse. Because of her unproven and unsubstantiated claim of domestic violence the warrant was never enforced. Over the course of several months the estranged couple engaged in civil discovery and custody-related settlement discussions in California and Colorado. The primary issues pending in both jurisdictions related to the conditions by which Brian and Heather would share legal and physical custody of their two minor children. The civil litigation between the parties was ultimately consolidated under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act with a judge from each state joining in pretrial settlement efforts. Indeed, following mediation of the matter, the parties agreed to a provisional agreement on custody in which Heather consented to Brian¹s joint legal and partial physical custody of their two children. The record is opaque as to the reasons for the collapse of this agreement, aside from references to lapses of communication between the two civil attorneys. Almost certainly this breakdown was a deliberate manipulation of the situation by Heather¹s radical feminist (redfem) attorney. It is no surprise then that Heather's attorney in Colorado reported the alleged misconduct to prosecutorial officials at Camp Pendleton, which led to the charges against him.
Inventing a spousal rape charge
Rape charge based primarily on redfem attorney¹s report
The key witness against Sgt. Foster was his spouse and alleged ³victim,² Heather Foster. Based largely on the report of Heather¹s Colorado attorney, prosecutors alleged myriad instances of spousal abuse and one incident of rape over the course of the marriage. The record shows that Sgt. Foster was convicted of rape solely upon the testimony of his estranged wife, nearly five years after the alleged incident occurred, and corroborated only by the victim's own statements to her friend nearly two years after the alleged incident. In the time between the alleged act and her sworn testimony, Heather Foster, by her own admission, had voluntarily participated in several instances of intimate sexual contact with Brian, including the willing production of a sexually-explicit video.
Further, no forensically related evidence was introduced at trial and no official report to any authority was made after the alleged rape took place. Indeed, the alleged rape was only ³reported² to Marine Corps authorities by the alleged victim's divorce attorney in the midst of a complicated and contentious custody battle with Sgt. Foster when the couple¹s settlement agreement broke down. Without any official report or forensic evidence of the alleged rape the prosecution called on two of Heather Foster¹s drinking buddies for supporting testimony.
Drinking buddy one Mrs. Kolstee testified that she was one of the Fosters' neighbors during the period when they lived in Hawaii and that she and Heather shared baby sitting duty for each other, shopped, and otherwise socialized together. Mrs. Kolstee testified that they became ³very² close during their time in Hawaii. Despite their close proximity and regular contact Mrs. Kolstee testified that Heather never told her about any instances of abuse at the hands of her husband while they were stationed in Hawaii. Mrs. Kolstee did offer some corroboration as to the charge of aggravated assault with a rifle, asserting that she saw what she believed was the end of a rifle barrel through the slot in the door at the Foster residence. Unfortunately, Mrs. Kolstee identified the ³weapon² as a pistol in her statement to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service before the trial. Her credibility was also hindered by her discussion of the case with the alleged ³victim² the evening before testifying at the UCMJ Article 32 Investigation. As a result the appeals court found that this witness' testimony was extremely general, at times confusing, and contained factually unsupported opinion. More importantly, throughout her testimony no reference was made to any knowledge of the alleged rape. Obviously Sgt. Foster¹s defense attorneys were incompetent, which is confirmed in the following episodes.
Drinking buddy two
Ms. Kossen on the other hand, testified that Heather Foster had reported the alleged ³rape² to her approximately two years after it supposedly occurred. This rather significant delay seriously undermined the materiality, if not the credibility, of the victim's statement to her friend and that friend's testimony. Moreover, the testimony was admitted at trial as a prior consistent statement per Military Rule of Evidence 801, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1998 ed.), not as an excited utterance, or other statement contemporaneous with the alleged rape. Additionally, Ms. Kossen offered testimony regarding her frequenting night clubs and drinking with Heather, and testimony pertaining to yet another allegation of aggravated assault with a weapon in California. However, she told investigators this was an incident that took place in Hawaii. In summary, the evidence as to his culpability for rape was anemic at best.
What the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals found
The court of appeals found that within the four corners of this case:
Heather Foster made no report to medical or law enforcement authorities of the rape,
She engaged in long-standing intimate contact with her ³rapist² for years following the incident, including a home video in which she plays a starring role. Prosecutors presented no forensic or contemporaneous testimonial evidence that corroborated Heather¹s rape allegations. As a result the appeals court concluded that the prosecution attempted to bootstrap a rape conviction atop several instances of alleged assault conduct for which there was also little substantiation. In short, the Government's evidence of rape in this case, aside from Heather's testimony, consisted of statements by her to her friends and her mother. None of these statements were made proximal to the alleged rape.
The appeals court was also significantly disturbed by the fact that the allegations of rape were made in the midst of a hotly-contested divorce and custody battle, after failed attempts at settlement, under the terms of which the ³victim² was prepared to surrender partial custody of her children to the man she later accused as an abusive rapist
Considered in the light most favorable to the Government, a reasonable member of the trial court could choose to believe the ³victim,² and to disbelieve evidence inconsistent with guilt. However, under the facts presented, the appeals court was unable to conclude that Sgt. Foster is guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. To the contrary, the court found that his conviction for rape was factually insufficient, and was obtained as the result of other errors, discussed below. Therefore, the rape conviction was not allowed to stand.
Admission of improper expert testimony ‹ otherwise known as redfem ideology and dogma
The appeals court began by reviewing the manner in which expert testimony was admitted during this litigation with the proposition that ³the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.²They also considered the plenary understanding in military law that expert testimony is not permitted to replace the decision-making process of the fact finder or, more specifically, to advance the expert witness' opinion as to the ³believability or credibility of victims or other witnesses² in a case dealing with sexual assault The appeals court restated that ³expert testimony is admissible if it is relevant..., if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value..., and if the testimony will assist the trier of fact...² In determining if a military judge has properly admitted expert testimony, they then tested his decision for an abuse of discretion.
Testimony of pediatrician Dr. Mary Dully
The trial judge permitted the prosecution to call Dr. Mary Dully, a pediatrician, who testified as to the general subject area of domestic violence as dictated by her ideology. One might reasonably ask how the hell a pediatrician is qualified as an expert witness on adult rape? It should be noted that the universe of Dr. Mary Dully's experience is defined by her work in the Camp Pendleton emergency room and her service with the San Diego Police Academy's Primary Aggressor Course, where she taught officers how to identify the person who ³may have exerted power and control and been the winner in a physical altercation and helping officers on scene who is likingly [sic] the primary aggressor and who is actually the looser [sic] in the physical altercation.² So the bias and dogma of her training and background are obvious from the outset. After reciting her professional qualifications, Dr. Dully went on to outline her vision of what domestic violence was based upon her ³training and experience.² What followed was an extensive colloquy with trial counsel that involved this pediatrician's personal view of how domestic violence presents itself, and how both the aggressor and victim are likely to act according to the DV industry playbook. This discussion included offering the members of the trial court an ideological basis for why a victim might take certain action, such as remaining with her abuser over a long period of time, all in line with redfem DV dogma. Notably, defense counsel did not voir dire the witness at trial. Further, a review of the record reveals that the trial counsel's questions and Dr. Dully's responses substantially mirrored the factual theory of the case presented by the Government. Yet the record is clear that the Dr. Dully reviewed no materials specific to this case and certainly did not conduct an examination of either Sgt. Foster or his estranged wife, Heather, in preparation for trial. In short, dogma and ideology were introduced unchallenged as evidence in this criminal case.This outline of what constitutes abuse by this expert witness, and the close factual nexus between the call of those questions and the Government's position at trial, brings Dr. Dully¹s testimony very close to the nature of profile evidence of an offender, which is forbidden under military law. While the appeals court did not hold that Dr. Dully¹s ³evidence² strayed over the permissible line, having drawn so very close to it, the Government's admission of Dr. Rusher's testimony immediately thereafter, exacerbates the dangerous nature of Dr. Mary Dully's unrestricted testimony.
Testimony of Lieutenant Commander Mary Rusher, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy
Regarding the testimony of Lieutenant Commander Mary Rusher, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy, the court of appeals held that the military judge abdicated his role as impartial gatekeeper, and erroneously admitted testimony which compromised the credibility of this trial in its entirety. [emphasis added] While the record indicates that Dr. Rusher was a physician, board certified in neurology and psychology, her testimony was that she was, in fact, a psychiatrist, who conducted a single interview with the alleged victim in this matter. Therefore, the military judge erred in permitting the members to consider Dr. Rusher's testimony. In preparing their case for litigation, the prosecution arranged for Heather Foster to meet once with Dr. Rusher for an evaluation on November 10, 1999. The examination took two hours. Dr. Rusher testified that she took a history from Mrs. Foster, including a review of past substance abuse, history of abuse, social history, medical history, conducted a mental status evaluation, and developed an assessment. Importantly, Dr. Rusher does not simply explain to the members of the court what Mrs. Foster claims. In sharp contrast to the fundamentals of admissible expert testimony, Dr. Rusher delivered the factual assertions of the victim as a medical diagnosis.
The pertinent exchange with trial counsel follows:
Q: What did you observe during the interview?
A: I observed that Mrs. Foster did indeed have the symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder.
Q: And what are those symptoms that you observed?
A: The symptoms that I observed in her was [sic] that she did experience a traumatic - actually, multiple traumatic incidents where her life was threatened and the life [sic] of her children were threatened; and she re-experienced this trauma through nightmares.
She would have nightmares of her husband placing a gun to her head for several hours. She had intrusive memories of the abuse where her life was threatened and the lives of her children were threatened. She had graphic memories where she was told she would be chopped up, and her children would be chopped up in small little pieces; and they would have a slow painful death...She also had avoidance symptoms where she had difficulty going places that reminded her of the abuse. For example, it was very difficult for her to come to California, because in California was one of the places where the abuse occurred. She had a numbing of responsiveness where her effect at times or her expression were somewhat flat and emotionless, which again is more -- one of the very common symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder order [sic]. As set forth above, Dr. Rusher went well-beyond a medical analysis of the facts before her. In short, she adopted the facts as advanced by the alleged ³victim² and cloaked them in a physician's white coat, presenting them as scientific findings to the members of the trial court. It is well established that ³...to put Œan impressively qualified expert's stamp of truthfulness on a witness' story goes too far.' An expert should not be allowed to Œgo so far as to usurp the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine credibility.'² However, this is a standard tactic of ³expert² witnesses introduced by radical feminists in domestic violence trials for the reason, as here, that it frequently works to condemn a male defendant. In reviewing Sgt. Foster¹s case, the court noted that the military judge took no action to correct the tone and content of Dr. Rusher¹s testimony during the tenure of her recitation to the court martial officers. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) has stated that: ³...it is [dangerous] for judges to receive uncritically just anything an expert wants to say. The evaluation of expert testimony does not end with a recitation of academic degrees. Everything the expert says has to be relevant, reliable, and helpful to the fact finder. A rational and demonstrable basis is the sine qua non of expert opinion.² United States v. King, 35 M.J. 337, 342 (C.M.A. 1992). As a result to appeals court concluded the testimony of Dr. Rusher was plain and obvious error. Though the military judge failed to recognize this and take action to prevent the improper testimony, he ultimately recognized the threat it posed to the neutrality of his members, albeit not until the expert witness had concluded her testimony. At the close of her testimony, the military judge, without defense prompting, provided the members a curative instruction. The law is clear that such a curative instruction is the ³preferred² remedy for correcting error when the court members have heard inadmissible evidence, as long as the instruction is adequate to avoid prejudice to the accused. Generally courts assume that members are able to comport themselves with a curative instruction in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise and apparently in Sgt. Foster¹s case the members made an honest effort to comport themselves with the trial judge's instruction. However, the appeals court decided that in view of the testimony in conjunction with the entire trial, they were left convinced that the military judge was unable to ³unring the bell.² They further concluded that the error did ³substantially sway² the members in their decision to convict Sgt. Foster, and to impose a punitive discharge and substantial confinement in his case. Thus, this error materially prejudiced Sgt. Foster¹s substantial rights.
Now allow an incompetent witness who wasn¹t even born when the ³rape² occurred
Adding injury to insult the trial judge permitted the members to hear the testimony of an incompetent witness in the form of Jacob Foster, the six-year-old son of the ³victim.² The child¹s testimony was permitted without the military judge conducting an Article 39(a), UCMJ, session so as to make an assessment of the child's competence and probity. After the child, who was coached and alienated from Sgt. Foster by his mother, began testifying the trial court found that the boy had not been born at the time of one of the charges about which he was testifying. Further, he was approximately two years old at the time of the most recent alleged act. When that was discovered the military judge excused the members of the trial court. After consultation with counsel, the judge ordered the testimony to be stricken and instructed the members to disregard it. One can only wonder why defense counsel didn¹t demand a mistrial at this point? But when it is noted that the Judge Advocate General (JAG) defense attorney for Sgt. Foster was Lt. Kathleen Kadlec, USN, the picture of the ³incompetent defense² becomes a bit clearer. Were this the only error, the appeal judges felt they could rely on the members of the trial court to assiduously abide by their instructions to mitigate the error. But this testimony amounted to at least the third retelling of the victim's story, including one retelling by a physician as a matter of medical fact, and another who recited dogma as proven in every case of abuse.
Cumulative error
In view of all these errors the appeals court found that the accumulation of errors described above required them to evaluate the fairness of the appellant's trial using the cumulative error doctrine. The scope of their evaluation of the errors in the case was made: ³,,,against the background of the case as a whole, paying particular weight to factors such as the nature and number of the errors committed; their interrelationship, if any, and combined effect; how the [trial] court dealt with the errors as they arose (including the efficacy ‹ or lack of efficacy ‹ of any remedial efforts); and the strength of the government's case.² Considering the improper testimony of Dr. Rusher, combined with the dogma of Dr. Dully, and the stricken testimony of the boy, the appeals court concluded that these errors called into question the basic fairness of Sgt. Foster¹s trial. They also questioned the efficacy of the trial courts curative instructions in that the military judge acted late with regard to both Dr. Rusher's improper testimony and the child's coached recitation. The appeals court also noted that the Government¹s case was not strong, being based almost entirely on the statements of the ³victim² and some testimony that Sgt. Foster was an abusive husband. They stated that but for the cloaking of the victim's statements in the physician's lab coat of Dr. Rusher they were unable to discern whether the members of the trial court would have convicted Sgt. Foster on any charge. They characterized the entire case as muddled and hearsay based. As a result they vacated all the findings of the trial court.
Unreasonable delay for review The tremendous time lapse in having Sgt. Foster¹s conviction reviewed ‹ about nine years ‹ caught the attention of the appellate court and outside experts in military law. ³I¹ve never bumped into something like this in 30 years of practicing law,² said attorney Kevin Barry McDermott, who represented Foster for eight months between late 2000 and early 2001. ³From all the feedback I¹ve gotten, no one can remember a case that took this long to get to a preliminary review.² Sgt. Foster¹s case came at a bad time, said Michelle Lindo McCluer, executive director of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C. The Navy and Marine Corps¹ appeals system faced such a backlog of cases, she said, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces eventually told those services to add staffing. ³It is a black eye for the military justice system,² said Tom Umberg, an Army Reserve colonel called to active duty in 2004 to prosecute detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ³This injustice should have been resolved in 18 months,² Umberg said. ³This was not the world¹s most complicated case.²
Regarding prejudice the appeal judges found that this case is one in which the post-trial delay is so extreme as to ³...give rise to a strong presumption of evidentiary prejudice.² They then concluded that Sgt. Foster was clearly prejudiced by the post-trial delay after his general court-martial, and considered that as weighing heavily in his favor. The primary factor in their evaluation was the determination that the Government failed to prove Sgt. Foster guilty of rape by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court also concluded that had just one of the seven previous lead judges in this matter conducted a thorough assessment of the record of trial in a timely fashion the extensive errors embracing this case would have been discovered and Sgt. Foster would have faced, at worst, the prospect of a new trial on all but the rape charge. In short, nearly ten years of delay makes a difference in a case where the alleged instances of misconduct took place years before the actual trial. As a result of all the factors cited they determined that Sergeant Foster's conviction for rape was improper as the Government did not and could not establish his guilt. Therefore, he served nearly ten years of confinement in large measure for an alleged offense of which he should not have been convicted and that likely never happened.The appeals court then considered the egregious delay in the reviews of Sgt. Foster¹s case and concluded that there was a due process violation resulting from the post-trial delay in processing this case. They found the delay ³...is so egregious that tolerating it would adversely effect the public's perception of the fairness and integrity of the military justice system.² Further, they concluded that the error created by the unreasonable delay is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it was harmless, the court was also aware of their authority to grant relief under Article 66, UCMJ, and stated that in this case, irrespective of the due process violation, they would have chosen to exercise that authority because of the unique circumstances. As to an appropriate remedy the judges considered dismissing all charges and specifications with prejudice. However, they found that Sgt. Foster would be able to defend himself against any remaining charges. So as to compensate Sgt. Foster for the actual prejudice discerned from ten years of confinement served in large measure for an offense which they dismissed, they limited Sgt. Foster¹s further exposure to any adjudged sentence to nothing more than a punitive discharge. Should the rehearing result in conviction, court of appeals believed that limiting Sgt. Foster¹s possible sentence will serve as adequate relief for the deprivation of his right to speedy post-trial review. The Equal Justice Foundation most emphatically disagrees. The injustice of nearly ten years confinement at Fort Leavenworth on trumped up, vindictive, self-serving false allegations should free this Marine without question or reservation.
Findings
The charge of rape was dismissed with prejudice and cannot be retried. The remaining findings and the sentence were set aside. The record was returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to an appropriate Convening Authority with a rehearing authorized. Sgt. Foster was ordered to be released from confinement forthwith and that was done on March 14, 2009. He is now back in the Marine Corps with his rank restored. He is still trying to collect back pay for nearly 10 years of confinement. This is by no means the only case the Equal Justice Foundation has seen where members of America's Armed Forces have been falsely convicted based on perjury, false allegations, radical feminist (redfem) dogma and ideology, incompetent defense counsel, and biased and dysfunctional courts. But Sgt. Brian Foster's case well illustrates the need for the Foundation and why your support is needed.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
Former Marine and Father
of a disabled Marine veteran
Friday, April 10, 2009
K.C.E.A.J.'s Policy
K.C.E.A.J.’s policy is to investigate issues and educate the public on the truth. Our investigation have led us on many legal issues dealing with the courts, the cases, or the issues we are investigating. Our personal opinions may or may not upset you, but we attempt to educate the public on the real issues, which are usually hidden behind the truth. We hope you get more involved in your community and our legal system to understand why this is occurring in our halls of justice. If these stories shock you, maybe you can check this out yourself in your own courtrooms, and let us know what you have discovered, so we can educate the rest of the public who may be unaware of what is currently transpiring within your courthouse. Our goal is to inspire you.
K.C.E.A.J. does not solicit any funds from any special interest groups or political interest groups, but if you would like to donate contributions to assist us in our goal to assist educating the public for our publications please donate to David Martin Price, President of I.F.F.O.C., at the referenced address. K.C.E.A.J. 's blog is not for a response or any other point of view. it is only for educational purposes only.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. David Martin Price
President of K.C.E.A.J. Blog
3121 SE Fremont St.
Topeka, Kansas 66605
(785) 267-5132
E-mail: iffocpresident@cox.net
Blog: http://ithappenedinkansas-davidmartinprice.blogspot.com
K.C.E.A.J. does not solicit any funds from any special interest groups or political interest groups, but if you would like to donate contributions to assist us in our goal to assist educating the public for our publications please donate to David Martin Price, President of I.F.F.O.C., at the referenced address. K.C.E.A.J. 's blog is not for a response or any other point of view. it is only for educational purposes only.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. David Martin Price
President of K.C.E.A.J. Blog
3121 SE Fremont St.
Topeka, Kansas 66605
(785) 267-5132
E-mail: iffocpresident@cox.net
Blog: http://ithappenedinkansas-davidmartinprice.blogspot.com
Thursday, April 9, 2009
COMMON LAW 1
New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is , therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.
The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire. All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause). This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. 'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary for the GOOD of the ship.' That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.
Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.
INTRODUCTION
We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing--playing the wrong ball game.
We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce - Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).
Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.
Another way to understand admiralty law - it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments - the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.
Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.
Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.
For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.
Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated. Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.
In marshaling our information and facts it is necessary to go back in time. Let us examine the evidence and facts: Back at the time, just before the revolution -- when our Colonies were festering and threatening revolt from the King -- when we had the Common Law of the Colonies. The King's men came over to collect their taxes. They didn't use the Common Law on us, they applied Admiralty Law on us -- arrested people, held Star Chamber proceedings and denied us our common rights as Englishmen.
This, more than any one thing, (sure, taxation without representation was part of it) -- but it was denial of our Common Law rights by putting us under Admiralty Law wherein the King was the Chancellor. His agents deprived us of jury trials, put us on ships, sent us down to ports in the British West Indies -- where many died of fever in the holds of ships -- and very few returned. This was one of the main reasons for the revolution in 1776.
What is the Common Law? Historically, the Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law in England. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England. It is/was the Golden Rule (Rule of Common Justice) that in the negative form reads: "Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you." The positive Golden Rule deals with Social Justice.
Where did this law come from -- this Anglo-Saxon Common Law? Did it come from Christianity's introduction to England? Apparently not.. It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law". It is suspect that early Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ. The Law or Hebrew word for Law, the TORH (pronounced Tor-ah) was the basis of Hebrew religion and society.
So what has happened? The English people had this simple and pure Common Law of rights and property rights. But there also existed along side of it, even in those days, the law of commerce, which is the Maritime Law. The earliest recorded knowledge we have of Maritime Law is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C. -- then there's the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League, Maritime Law, which was part and parcel of their civil law. This is the law of commerce, whereas the Common Law was the law that had to do with the land, and with the people of the land.
William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city and their walls held off the invaders. The merchants were able to provision the city by ships and William's soldiers were not able to prevail. Finally, acknowledging that he could not take the City by force, he resorted to compromise. The merchants demanded "the "Lex Mercantoria" [the Maritime Law]. This was granted and remains to this day. The inner city of London has its special law where the Merchant's Law is the law of the City of London.
Protection of their shipping industry was one of the primary reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious entities called "persons" - men under contract to be limited liability (natural persons), as military personnel; and artificial persons (companies). The elite desired to maintain absolute control and subjugation of the People within London. The Anglo-Saxon Common Law recognized only full liability men with volitional and moral minds. Common Law deals with the "mind" of man. Roman Law is based upon good order and discipline on a ship. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.
At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day. However, the 1215 Magna Carta was promptly voided by the Pope of Rome. The Magna Carta was instituted voluntarily by King Henry III in 1225, making it the lawful Magna Carta of England. The other documents are the Petition of Rights[1628] and the Bill of Rights[1689]}.
The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation. The colonists were, on the whole, very well schooled in the Common Law and were quite aware of the wrongs that King and Parliament were committing against them. This eventually forced them to rebel.
The Common Law that we had in our land is parallel to another ancient law. You will find that when our Founding Fathers set up the declaratory trust, known to us as the Declaration of "Independence", Jefferson listed 18 grievances and in each one of these grievances he showed how we were being denied our rights as free-born Englishmen. So, he made an appeal to the nations of the world that the acts being committed against the colonists were acts committed against the Laws of Nations, and it (the Declaration of Independence) became an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations -- and those Founding Fathers knew that they would have to fight to win the independence that they had so declared.
Editors note: It now appears that Jefferson used George Mason's 'Virginia Declaration of Rights' (June 12, 1776) as the basis for his Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776); but Jefferson deleted the very specific 'property rights' included by George Mason. Read here.
After the English surrendered at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation period followed. Then our Founding Fathers implemented the Constitution into this Public Trust, which was the mechanism to provide for us our hopes and aspirations. In the Constitution you will find principles; but, not necessarily those found in the Declaration of Independence.
Editor's note: To learn the reality of the grand deception by the Founding Fathers, read here.
Some of the writers of the Constitution thought it was a little too restrictive. It was generally conceded, for instance, that the people had the right to bear arms, but they also knew that if we ever were placed or allowed ourselves to be brought under Maritime Admiralty Law concerning our persons and property, we would have dire need of a guarantee for our rights -- thus, the ten amendments were added to the Constitution, and that became the substantive part of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction.
How have we been tricked out of our Common Law rights; and, into the Admiralty courts? How has equity as well as Admiralty been corrupted? How has the Federal Government made it almost impossible for us to receive our constitutional rights -- our substantive rights in the Constitution?
Now, to understand the Constitution -- we must examine the Declaration of Independence and those 56 men who signed it, and pledged their lives, liberty, family, property, and their honor to this sacred trust. All of these men were very knowledgeable and learned in the Common Law -- they knew the law because they studied the law, they may not have had a high school education (many of them). But they could read, and they read and studied law. They were men of the age or reason and they knew and they understood. They knew exactly what the king was doing. They knew the law.
Knowledge is a very important thing. And, as James Madison wrote years ago: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Education should never be terminal! The First Amendment to the U S Constitution cites "Freedom of Religion" that in actual fact is "Freedom of Education" since the church controlled education, at the time of its writing.
Now, there is a chronological sequence of events that placed us where we are today. We can almost assure you that you will reject, or want to reject, parts of what you are about to see and hear. There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) that holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you heretofore believed to be true. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!
END PART ONE
Proceed To PART TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN
GoTo: MY OTHER SITE ABOUT DETAX CANADA (Home Page)
GoTo: REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
BY: ELDON WARMAN
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire. All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause). This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. 'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary for the GOOD of the ship.' That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.
Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.
INTRODUCTION
We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing--playing the wrong ball game.
We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce - Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).
Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.
Another way to understand admiralty law - it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments - the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.
Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.
Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.
For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.
Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated. Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.
In marshaling our information and facts it is necessary to go back in time. Let us examine the evidence and facts: Back at the time, just before the revolution -- when our Colonies were festering and threatening revolt from the King -- when we had the Common Law of the Colonies. The King's men came over to collect their taxes. They didn't use the Common Law on us, they applied Admiralty Law on us -- arrested people, held Star Chamber proceedings and denied us our common rights as Englishmen.
This, more than any one thing, (sure, taxation without representation was part of it) -- but it was denial of our Common Law rights by putting us under Admiralty Law wherein the King was the Chancellor. His agents deprived us of jury trials, put us on ships, sent us down to ports in the British West Indies -- where many died of fever in the holds of ships -- and very few returned. This was one of the main reasons for the revolution in 1776.
What is the Common Law? Historically, the Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law in England. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England. It is/was the Golden Rule (Rule of Common Justice) that in the negative form reads: "Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you." The positive Golden Rule deals with Social Justice.
Where did this law come from -- this Anglo-Saxon Common Law? Did it come from Christianity's introduction to England? Apparently not.. It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law". It is suspect that early Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ. The Law or Hebrew word for Law, the TORH (pronounced Tor-ah) was the basis of Hebrew religion and society.
So what has happened? The English people had this simple and pure Common Law of rights and property rights. But there also existed along side of it, even in those days, the law of commerce, which is the Maritime Law. The earliest recorded knowledge we have of Maritime Law is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C. -- then there's the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League, Maritime Law, which was part and parcel of their civil law. This is the law of commerce, whereas the Common Law was the law that had to do with the land, and with the people of the land.
William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city and their walls held off the invaders. The merchants were able to provision the city by ships and William's soldiers were not able to prevail. Finally, acknowledging that he could not take the City by force, he resorted to compromise. The merchants demanded "the "Lex Mercantoria" [the Maritime Law]. This was granted and remains to this day. The inner city of London has its special law where the Merchant's Law is the law of the City of London.
Protection of their shipping industry was one of the primary reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious entities called "persons" - men under contract to be limited liability (natural persons), as military personnel; and artificial persons (companies). The elite desired to maintain absolute control and subjugation of the People within London. The Anglo-Saxon Common Law recognized only full liability men with volitional and moral minds. Common Law deals with the "mind" of man. Roman Law is based upon good order and discipline on a ship. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.
At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day. However, the 1215 Magna Carta was promptly voided by the Pope of Rome. The Magna Carta was instituted voluntarily by King Henry III in 1225, making it the lawful Magna Carta of England. The other documents are the Petition of Rights[1628] and the Bill of Rights[1689]}.
The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation. The colonists were, on the whole, very well schooled in the Common Law and were quite aware of the wrongs that King and Parliament were committing against them. This eventually forced them to rebel.
The Common Law that we had in our land is parallel to another ancient law. You will find that when our Founding Fathers set up the declaratory trust, known to us as the Declaration of "Independence", Jefferson listed 18 grievances and in each one of these grievances he showed how we were being denied our rights as free-born Englishmen. So, he made an appeal to the nations of the world that the acts being committed against the colonists were acts committed against the Laws of Nations, and it (the Declaration of Independence) became an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations -- and those Founding Fathers knew that they would have to fight to win the independence that they had so declared.
Editors note: It now appears that Jefferson used George Mason's 'Virginia Declaration of Rights' (June 12, 1776) as the basis for his Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776); but Jefferson deleted the very specific 'property rights' included by George Mason. Read here.
After the English surrendered at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation period followed. Then our Founding Fathers implemented the Constitution into this Public Trust, which was the mechanism to provide for us our hopes and aspirations. In the Constitution you will find principles; but, not necessarily those found in the Declaration of Independence.
Editor's note: To learn the reality of the grand deception by the Founding Fathers, read here.
Some of the writers of the Constitution thought it was a little too restrictive. It was generally conceded, for instance, that the people had the right to bear arms, but they also knew that if we ever were placed or allowed ourselves to be brought under Maritime Admiralty Law concerning our persons and property, we would have dire need of a guarantee for our rights -- thus, the ten amendments were added to the Constitution, and that became the substantive part of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction.
How have we been tricked out of our Common Law rights; and, into the Admiralty courts? How has equity as well as Admiralty been corrupted? How has the Federal Government made it almost impossible for us to receive our constitutional rights -- our substantive rights in the Constitution?
Now, to understand the Constitution -- we must examine the Declaration of Independence and those 56 men who signed it, and pledged their lives, liberty, family, property, and their honor to this sacred trust. All of these men were very knowledgeable and learned in the Common Law -- they knew the law because they studied the law, they may not have had a high school education (many of them). But they could read, and they read and studied law. They were men of the age or reason and they knew and they understood. They knew exactly what the king was doing. They knew the law.
Knowledge is a very important thing. And, as James Madison wrote years ago: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Education should never be terminal! The First Amendment to the U S Constitution cites "Freedom of Religion" that in actual fact is "Freedom of Education" since the church controlled education, at the time of its writing.
Now, there is a chronological sequence of events that placed us where we are today. We can almost assure you that you will reject, or want to reject, parts of what you are about to see and hear. There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) that holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you heretofore believed to be true. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!
END PART ONE
Proceed To PART TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN
GoTo: MY OTHER SITE ABOUT DETAX CANADA (Home Page)
GoTo: REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
BY: ELDON WARMAN
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Stevens conviction to be reversed
BBC News
21:35 GMT, Wednesday, 1 April 2009 22:35 UK
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens's conviction for corruption should be overturned, officials from the US justice department have requested. Mistakes made by prosecutors during his trial render the conviction invalid, the officials said. In October 2008, a jury found Mr Stevens, a Republican, guilty of lying about gifts and free home renovations he received from an oil company. Mr Stevens went on to lose his Senate re-election battle the following month. He was the longest-serving Republican senator, having first entered the chamber in 1968. 'Cloud removed' Prosecutors made a number of errors during the trial, officials said, the chief among which was the failure to make available notes of a crucial interview in which a witness made a statement that contradicted evidence he gave later under oath. The prosecutors who made the error have been removed from the case and placed under investigation. A judge will hear the justice department's request on Tuesday, and is expected to grant the motion to overturn Mr Stevens's conviction. "I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed," Mr Stevens said in a statement. "That day has finally come. It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognised as unfair." The BBC's Jon Donnison in Washington says the high profile case clearly led to Mr Stevens losing his seat and gave the Democrats an important addition to its ranks in the US Senate. But President Obama's new Attorney General Eric Holder is sending a message that Justice Department prosecutors must operate within the law, our correspondent adds.
21:35 GMT, Wednesday, 1 April 2009 22:35 UK
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens's conviction for corruption should be overturned, officials from the US justice department have requested. Mistakes made by prosecutors during his trial render the conviction invalid, the officials said. In October 2008, a jury found Mr Stevens, a Republican, guilty of lying about gifts and free home renovations he received from an oil company. Mr Stevens went on to lose his Senate re-election battle the following month. He was the longest-serving Republican senator, having first entered the chamber in 1968. 'Cloud removed' Prosecutors made a number of errors during the trial, officials said, the chief among which was the failure to make available notes of a crucial interview in which a witness made a statement that contradicted evidence he gave later under oath. The prosecutors who made the error have been removed from the case and placed under investigation. A judge will hear the justice department's request on Tuesday, and is expected to grant the motion to overturn Mr Stevens's conviction. "I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed," Mr Stevens said in a statement. "That day has finally come. It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognised as unfair." The BBC's Jon Donnison in Washington says the high profile case clearly led to Mr Stevens losing his seat and gave the Democrats an important addition to its ranks in the US Senate. But President Obama's new Attorney General Eric Holder is sending a message that Justice Department prosecutors must operate within the law, our correspondent adds.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Woman gets 14 Years for Child Abuse
By Natalie Singer and Christine Clarridge
Seattle Times staff reporters
KENT — A woman who punished her foster daughter by plunging hypodermic needles into the girl's eyes and beating her with various objects was sentenced Friday to 14 years in prison. Prosecutors asked for and received a high-end sentence for Chornice Kabbelliyaa, who pleaded guilty in September to one count of first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree assault.
Prosecutors said Child Protective Services reports that the girl, who is now 16, has been moved to another family and is doing well. Kabbelliyaa's defense attorneys asked Superior Court Judge James Cayce to deliver an exceptionally low sentence because they said their client was insane at the time of the abuse and didn't realize she had mental illness until she was jailed. "She's much better now and is totally astounded at what happened," said defense attorney Marvin McCoy. But Cayce said a report from Western State Hospital, where Kabbelliyaa was evaluated, indicated she knew what she was doing when she punished the child and then tried to hide her from authorities who came to her home to investigate. "She's manipulative and cruel," said Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Corinn Bohn. "Her level of torture is incomprehensible." Kabbelliyaa, who also goes by the last name of Lewis, abused and tortured the girl she had cared for since the girl, who is her cousin, was 5. Police and prosecutors said Kabbelliyaa routinely punished the girl by burning her tongue with a heated fork, beating her feet with dumbbells and sticking a needle into the girl's eye, telling her she would be blinded if she moved. The girl suffered permanent vision loss. According to charging documents filed in King County Superior Court, Kabbelliyaa had been the girl's licensed foster mother since the girl was 5. She was arrested last year after Child Protective Services was called by someone acquainted with the family who reported seeing Kabbelliyaa punch the girl, hit her with an umbrella and lock her in an outside storage unit for hours. The girl was 14 when police arrested Kabbelliyaa. Physicians examining the foster girl found serious damage to the girl's right eye, scarring, bruising and a severely burned tongue. Charging documents also state that Kabbelliyaa would turn on the stove's burner until it was red hot before pressing the girl's palm onto the burner.The foster girl's brother and another child that had been placed with Kabbelliyaa told investigators that they too were mistreated before being placed in other homes. Kabbelliyaa's biological children did not show signs of abuse, investigators said. CPS officials admitted after the arrest that the girl's case had been mismanaged and that caseworkers overlooked some red flags because they were pleased she had been placed in a relative's home.
Seattle Times staff reporters
KENT — A woman who punished her foster daughter by plunging hypodermic needles into the girl's eyes and beating her with various objects was sentenced Friday to 14 years in prison. Prosecutors asked for and received a high-end sentence for Chornice Kabbelliyaa, who pleaded guilty in September to one count of first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree assault.
Prosecutors said Child Protective Services reports that the girl, who is now 16, has been moved to another family and is doing well. Kabbelliyaa's defense attorneys asked Superior Court Judge James Cayce to deliver an exceptionally low sentence because they said their client was insane at the time of the abuse and didn't realize she had mental illness until she was jailed. "She's much better now and is totally astounded at what happened," said defense attorney Marvin McCoy. But Cayce said a report from Western State Hospital, where Kabbelliyaa was evaluated, indicated she knew what she was doing when she punished the child and then tried to hide her from authorities who came to her home to investigate. "She's manipulative and cruel," said Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Corinn Bohn. "Her level of torture is incomprehensible." Kabbelliyaa, who also goes by the last name of Lewis, abused and tortured the girl she had cared for since the girl, who is her cousin, was 5. Police and prosecutors said Kabbelliyaa routinely punished the girl by burning her tongue with a heated fork, beating her feet with dumbbells and sticking a needle into the girl's eye, telling her she would be blinded if she moved. The girl suffered permanent vision loss. According to charging documents filed in King County Superior Court, Kabbelliyaa had been the girl's licensed foster mother since the girl was 5. She was arrested last year after Child Protective Services was called by someone acquainted with the family who reported seeing Kabbelliyaa punch the girl, hit her with an umbrella and lock her in an outside storage unit for hours. The girl was 14 when police arrested Kabbelliyaa. Physicians examining the foster girl found serious damage to the girl's right eye, scarring, bruising and a severely burned tongue. Charging documents also state that Kabbelliyaa would turn on the stove's burner until it was red hot before pressing the girl's palm onto the burner.The foster girl's brother and another child that had been placed with Kabbelliyaa told investigators that they too were mistreated before being placed in other homes. Kabbelliyaa's biological children did not show signs of abuse, investigators said. CPS officials admitted after the arrest that the girl's case had been mismanaged and that caseworkers overlooked some red flags because they were pleased she had been placed in a relative's home.
Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 23, 2009
SAFFORD, Arizona — Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on — black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt — the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade. An assistant principal, enforcing the school’s anti-drug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advil's. The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, “they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side,” she said. “They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.” Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 21. The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide important guidance to schools around the nation. In Ms. Redding’s case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights.” “More than that,” Judge Wardlaw added, “it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity.” Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways “a close call,” given the “humiliation and degradation” involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, “I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students.” Richard Arum, who teaches sociology and education at New York University, said he would have handled the incident differently. But Professor Arum said the Supreme Court should proceed cautiously. “Do we really want to encourage cases,” Professor Arum asked, “where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?” The Supreme Court’s last major decision on school searches based on individual suspicion — as opposed to systematic drug testing programs — was in 1985, when it allowed school officials to search a student’s purse without a warrant or probable cause as long their suspicions were reasonable. It did not address intimate searches. In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Redding’s case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was “carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal.”
The government added, though, that the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search, so the assistant principal should not be subject to a lawsuit. Sitting in her aunt’s house in this bedraggled mining town a two-hour drive northeast of Tucson, Ms. Redding, now 19, described the middle-school cliques and jealousies that she said had led to the search. “There are preppy kids, gothic kids, nerdy types,” she said. “I was in between nerdy and preppy.” One of her friends since early childhood had moved in another direction. “She started acting weird and wearing black,” Ms. Redding said. “She started being embarrassed by me because I was nerdy.” When the friend was found with ibuprofen pills, she blamed Ms. Redding, according to court papers. Kerry Wilson, the assistant principal, ordered the two school employees to search both students. The searches turned up no more pills. Mr. Wilson declined a request for an interview and referred a reporter to the superintendent of schools, Mark R. Tregaskes. Mr. Tregaskes did not respond to a message left with his assistant.
Published: March 23, 2009
SAFFORD, Arizona — Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on — black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt — the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade. An assistant principal, enforcing the school’s anti-drug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advil's. The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, “they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side,” she said. “They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.” Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 21. The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide important guidance to schools around the nation. In Ms. Redding’s case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights.” “More than that,” Judge Wardlaw added, “it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity.” Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways “a close call,” given the “humiliation and degradation” involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, “I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students.” Richard Arum, who teaches sociology and education at New York University, said he would have handled the incident differently. But Professor Arum said the Supreme Court should proceed cautiously. “Do we really want to encourage cases,” Professor Arum asked, “where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?” The Supreme Court’s last major decision on school searches based on individual suspicion — as opposed to systematic drug testing programs — was in 1985, when it allowed school officials to search a student’s purse without a warrant or probable cause as long their suspicions were reasonable. It did not address intimate searches. In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Redding’s case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was “carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal.”
The government added, though, that the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search, so the assistant principal should not be subject to a lawsuit. Sitting in her aunt’s house in this bedraggled mining town a two-hour drive northeast of Tucson, Ms. Redding, now 19, described the middle-school cliques and jealousies that she said had led to the search. “There are preppy kids, gothic kids, nerdy types,” she said. “I was in between nerdy and preppy.” One of her friends since early childhood had moved in another direction. “She started acting weird and wearing black,” Ms. Redding said. “She started being embarrassed by me because I was nerdy.” When the friend was found with ibuprofen pills, she blamed Ms. Redding, according to court papers. Kerry Wilson, the assistant principal, ordered the two school employees to search both students. The searches turned up no more pills. Mr. Wilson declined a request for an interview and referred a reporter to the superintendent of schools, Mark R. Tregaskes. Mr. Tregaskes did not respond to a message left with his assistant.
Wife Was Leaving Man Who Killed 5 Children
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: April 5, 2009
GRAHAM, Wash. — A man who shot his five children to death in a mobile home near here over the weekend and later killed himself was distraught that his wife was having a relationship with another man, the authorities said Sunday. The man, James Harrison, 34, was found dead in his car around 8:30 a.m. Saturday in Auburn, about 18 miles from here. The car’s engine was still running. Eight hours later, Pierce County sheriff’s deputies went to the mobile home after a relative saw a child lying down inside and no one answered the door. The police found four of Mr. Harrison’s children dead in their bedrooms. The fifth was in a bathroom. “One can only hope that most of them were asleep,” said Detective Ed Troyer of the Sheriff’s Department. Neighbors identified the children as Maxine, 16; Samantha, 14 or 15; Jamie, 11; Heather, 8; and James, 7. The children’s mother, Angela Harrison, Mr. Harrison’s wife, was not in the home at the time of the shootings. Detective Troyer said Ms. Harrison had told her husband on Friday that she was leaving him, prompting Mr. Harrison and his daughter Maxine to track her to a convenience store in Auburn. Ms. Harrison was there with the other man. The father and daughter “confronted her at the convenience store,” Detective Troyer said. “She said she wasn’t coming home and that he was her new boyfriend,” he continued. “Everything went downhill from there.” Detective Troyer said Mr. Harrison shot his children early Saturday. He then drove to an area near the convenience store in Auburn, where he shot himself.
The deaths followed recent mass shootings in Alabama, California, New York and North Carolina. Also on Saturday, a gunman shot and killed three police officers in Pittsburgh. Here, at the Deer Run mobile home park, about an hour’s drive south from Seattle, Sheriff Paul Pastor said late Saturday that the shooting was the worst in the history of Pierce County. “This was not a tragedy,” Sheriff Pastor said. “This was a rotten murder.” A spokeswoman for the State Children’s Administration said Sunday that Mr. Harrison had been found to have physically abused one of the children in February 2007. The spokeswoman, Sherry Hill, said it was not yet clear who had called the agency to the house or whether the state had taken action against Mr. Harrison. Ms. Hill said none of the children were removed from the home. She said the state had also been called to the home on matters “more geared toward neglect” but said she could not explain more. She said the state had not been in contact with the family in the last year. “We still have to get further down into the weeds of this to get to the bottom of it,” Ms. Hill said. Detective Troyer said deputies appeared to have visited the family as part of the 2007 abuse claim. He said Ms. Harrison worked at a smoke shop and Mr. Harrison at the Emerald Queen Casino in Tacoma, possibly as a security guard. Neighbors said that the Harrisons largely kept to themselves but argued frequently and loudly, and that Mr. Harrison could be heard threatening his children. Carolyn Bader, who said she lived a few houses down from the Harrisons until January 2008, said she and her husband, Raymond, called the police and state child protection officials more than once because they were worried that the children were being abused. “We’d be in our home with the doors and windows shut,” Ms. Bader said, “and they would be inside their house and we could hear him yelling at the kids.” “It was out of control,” she added. “We would hear kids screaming in the house. I don’t mean playing screaming. I mean screaming.” A neighbor, Ryan Peden, 16, said he had exchanged text messages with Maxine Harrison up until about 11 p.m. Friday. In the last text message he received from Maxine, Ryan said, “Maxine told me, ‘I’m tired of crying. I’m going to bed. I’ll talk to you in the morning.’ ”Ryan said he knew Maxine from talking with her at a school bus stop. He said they were not particularly close but had been in contact more frequently recently. He said that she was a good student but that neither she nor the other children appeared to have been involved with many activities beyond school. Another neighbor, Trisha Lund, said that her son, Robert, 8, sometimes played with James and that the two were in the same second-grade class this year at Orting Primary School. The boys also shared a regular session with a speech therapist at school. Ms. Lund said she and her parents had struggled to explain the shooting to Robert. “I asked him how he felt about it,” Ms. Lund said. “He said, ‘I’m mad at his dad.’ ” were not particularly close but had been in contact more frequently recently. He said that she was a good student but that neither she nor the other children appeared to have been involved with many activities beyond school. Another neighbor, Trisha Lund, said that her son, Robert, 8, sometimes played with James and that the two were in the same second-grade class this year at Orting Primary School. The boys also shared a regular session with a speech therapist at school. Ms. Lund said she and her parents had struggled to explain the shooting to Robert. “I asked him how he felt about it,” Ms. Lund said. “He said, ‘I’m mad at his dad.’ ”
Published: April 5, 2009
GRAHAM, Wash. — A man who shot his five children to death in a mobile home near here over the weekend and later killed himself was distraught that his wife was having a relationship with another man, the authorities said Sunday. The man, James Harrison, 34, was found dead in his car around 8:30 a.m. Saturday in Auburn, about 18 miles from here. The car’s engine was still running. Eight hours later, Pierce County sheriff’s deputies went to the mobile home after a relative saw a child lying down inside and no one answered the door. The police found four of Mr. Harrison’s children dead in their bedrooms. The fifth was in a bathroom. “One can only hope that most of them were asleep,” said Detective Ed Troyer of the Sheriff’s Department. Neighbors identified the children as Maxine, 16; Samantha, 14 or 15; Jamie, 11; Heather, 8; and James, 7. The children’s mother, Angela Harrison, Mr. Harrison’s wife, was not in the home at the time of the shootings. Detective Troyer said Ms. Harrison had told her husband on Friday that she was leaving him, prompting Mr. Harrison and his daughter Maxine to track her to a convenience store in Auburn. Ms. Harrison was there with the other man. The father and daughter “confronted her at the convenience store,” Detective Troyer said. “She said she wasn’t coming home and that he was her new boyfriend,” he continued. “Everything went downhill from there.” Detective Troyer said Mr. Harrison shot his children early Saturday. He then drove to an area near the convenience store in Auburn, where he shot himself.
The deaths followed recent mass shootings in Alabama, California, New York and North Carolina. Also on Saturday, a gunman shot and killed three police officers in Pittsburgh. Here, at the Deer Run mobile home park, about an hour’s drive south from Seattle, Sheriff Paul Pastor said late Saturday that the shooting was the worst in the history of Pierce County. “This was not a tragedy,” Sheriff Pastor said. “This was a rotten murder.” A spokeswoman for the State Children’s Administration said Sunday that Mr. Harrison had been found to have physically abused one of the children in February 2007. The spokeswoman, Sherry Hill, said it was not yet clear who had called the agency to the house or whether the state had taken action against Mr. Harrison. Ms. Hill said none of the children were removed from the home. She said the state had also been called to the home on matters “more geared toward neglect” but said she could not explain more. She said the state had not been in contact with the family in the last year. “We still have to get further down into the weeds of this to get to the bottom of it,” Ms. Hill said. Detective Troyer said deputies appeared to have visited the family as part of the 2007 abuse claim. He said Ms. Harrison worked at a smoke shop and Mr. Harrison at the Emerald Queen Casino in Tacoma, possibly as a security guard. Neighbors said that the Harrisons largely kept to themselves but argued frequently and loudly, and that Mr. Harrison could be heard threatening his children. Carolyn Bader, who said she lived a few houses down from the Harrisons until January 2008, said she and her husband, Raymond, called the police and state child protection officials more than once because they were worried that the children were being abused. “We’d be in our home with the doors and windows shut,” Ms. Bader said, “and they would be inside their house and we could hear him yelling at the kids.” “It was out of control,” she added. “We would hear kids screaming in the house. I don’t mean playing screaming. I mean screaming.” A neighbor, Ryan Peden, 16, said he had exchanged text messages with Maxine Harrison up until about 11 p.m. Friday. In the last text message he received from Maxine, Ryan said, “Maxine told me, ‘I’m tired of crying. I’m going to bed. I’ll talk to you in the morning.’ ”Ryan said he knew Maxine from talking with her at a school bus stop. He said they were not particularly close but had been in contact more frequently recently. He said that she was a good student but that neither she nor the other children appeared to have been involved with many activities beyond school. Another neighbor, Trisha Lund, said that her son, Robert, 8, sometimes played with James and that the two were in the same second-grade class this year at Orting Primary School. The boys also shared a regular session with a speech therapist at school. Ms. Lund said she and her parents had struggled to explain the shooting to Robert. “I asked him how he felt about it,” Ms. Lund said. “He said, ‘I’m mad at his dad.’ ” were not particularly close but had been in contact more frequently recently. He said that she was a good student but that neither she nor the other children appeared to have been involved with many activities beyond school. Another neighbor, Trisha Lund, said that her son, Robert, 8, sometimes played with James and that the two were in the same second-grade class this year at Orting Primary School. The boys also shared a regular session with a speech therapist at school. Ms. Lund said she and her parents had struggled to explain the shooting to Robert. “I asked him how he felt about it,” Ms. Lund said. “He said, ‘I’m mad at his dad.’ ”
Clear Signs Of Child Abuse In Agency Files
By RICHARD LEZIN JONES and LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: Friday, March 14, 2003
Christian Harp was only 8 days old when he came to the attention of New Jersey's child welfare agency. Caseworkers at the Division of Youth and Family Services received a complaint that Christian's mother had not received prenatal care and had given birth to Christian and a twin in a toilet.
A private agency that contracted with the state to provide services went to check on Christian and reported that the family's home ''was dirty with rats and roaches all over.'' The division opened a file, but did not ultimately determine that the risk of neglect was real. Three months later, in December 2000, Christian died of malnutrition. Six of his brothers and sisters were also treated for malnutrition at the time.
Today, the child welfare agency provided some of the details of its handling of Christian's family, as part of its release of the case files on 82 children who died or were critically injured in the state in the last five years. Although some of the records had previously been made available to the public, most were being released for the first time in response to the intense scrutiny of the agency after the death of 7-year-old Faheem Williams.
The authorities found Faheem's malnourished remains in a locked Newark basement in January. Although his mother had been the subject of 11 reports of abuse over a decade, the agency had closed Faheem's file -- that is, stopped checking on him or his family.
The files, while far from complete, provide a window into the chaotic and frequently violent lives of many of the children who come under the care or supervision of the state. The files also suggest that it is all too common for children to fall through the gaps in the state's abuse safety net, often with deadly consequences.
Joe Delmar, the agency's spokesman, said the deaths ''run a wide gamut of tragedy'' from the accidental to the premeditated and foreseeable. ''For the child deaths where we had an open or closed case,'' he said, ''we do an internal investigation to review the decisions made.''
''Any death,'' he added, ''especially where we had an open or closed case, is very disheartening and shows we need to do a better job protecting New Jersey's children.''
The state is required to give an accounting of child fatalities under a 1997 law, the Comprehensive Child-Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Nevertheless, state officials removed large amounts of information and details like sibling names or the nature of previous reports of abuse to preserve confidentiality, the officials said. News organizations, including The New York Times, are suing the agency in an effort to get it to make public more complete accounts of such cases.
While many of the files concern children who were unknown to the agency until they were harmed, there are many examples of children who had been mentioned in prior allegations of abuse or neglect. In many instances, then, the files raise questions about the agency's investigations and followup.
Many files are tantalizing with their absence of an explanation for the agency's failure to sense trouble. Simone Frye, for example, died in January 1998 from a cocaine overdose at the age of 7 weeks. The division had closed a file on the family before she was born. A notation in the file said simply: ''Three prior allegations of abuse and neglect unsubstantiated.''
Mr. Delmar said that from April 1994 to June 1995, there were allegations that her older siblings were being hit and being left unsupervised and that her mother was drinking. Mr. Delmar said the agency was unable to find evidence to support those charges and therefore closed the file. No other information on the agency's internal decision-making process was made available.
In a few cases, like Christian's, the signs seem to have been stark.
''This case raises major issues about the investigative work done,'' Mr. Delmar said of Christian's case. The caseworker did not see evidence of rats and roaches, he said. ''In hindsight, questions are raised as to how thorough a review of the home the worker conducted,'' he said. ''This is a case where we could have done a better job.''
Some children were severely harmed even though the agency recognized problems and was giving the family parental counseling, drug treatment or other services. On Sept. 3, 2002, Derrick Johnson, a 5-year-old boy, was admitted to the hospital with a fractured skull and rib. His mother later admitted hitting and shaking him, the report says.
The agency had received reports of neglect and abuse involving the family in the preceding year. In May 2002, the agency sent the family to a parenting-skills class and also enrolled them in a home medical treatment program for infants.
''There was no medical evidence to support a claim of physical abuse,'' Mr. Delmar said. ''Therefore it did not rise to a situation where we would remove a child.''
In several cases, it appeared that once the agency arranged for services like drug counseling, it stopped checking on the family, leaving children exposed to potential harm. Sylvester White, age 16 months, died in August 1998 when his mother smashed his head, according to the reports.
The file says tersely: ''Family has been involved with D.Y.F.S. due to allegations of physical abuse. Parents availed themselves of services offered.'' The file was closed in July 1997.
Mr. Delmar said two prior reports came from medical workers who were concerned about marks on the child, and who reported that the father said the mother was impatient with the baby and had shaken him. Still, Mr. Delmar said, the agency had not considered that enough evidence to prove physical abuse and to remove the child from the household.
Yet Mr. Delmar acknowledged that even when abuse was not substantiated, the sheer volume of allegations should have prompted some reaction. For example, Bryan Weaver, age 3 months, arrived at Morristown Memorial Hospital with broken bones, seizures, and trouble breathing in October 2002.
His father said he might have injured Bryan's arm when he ''snatched him up'' out of bed a month earlier but could not account for his other injuries. The case is still being investigated, although Bryan and three siblings have been removed to foster care.
Before the hospital visit in October, though, the extended family living in the home was the subject nine times of serious allegations, including ''medical neglect, domestic violence, house fire, lack of supervision, dirty and overcrowded housing, children poorly clothed, dental neglect.'' Some of the allegation came from family members seeking government services. ''Such a large number of referrals,'' Mr. Delmar said, ''should have raised alarms about the safety of all the children.''
Published: Friday, March 14, 2003
Christian Harp was only 8 days old when he came to the attention of New Jersey's child welfare agency. Caseworkers at the Division of Youth and Family Services received a complaint that Christian's mother had not received prenatal care and had given birth to Christian and a twin in a toilet.
A private agency that contracted with the state to provide services went to check on Christian and reported that the family's home ''was dirty with rats and roaches all over.'' The division opened a file, but did not ultimately determine that the risk of neglect was real. Three months later, in December 2000, Christian died of malnutrition. Six of his brothers and sisters were also treated for malnutrition at the time.
Today, the child welfare agency provided some of the details of its handling of Christian's family, as part of its release of the case files on 82 children who died or were critically injured in the state in the last five years. Although some of the records had previously been made available to the public, most were being released for the first time in response to the intense scrutiny of the agency after the death of 7-year-old Faheem Williams.
The authorities found Faheem's malnourished remains in a locked Newark basement in January. Although his mother had been the subject of 11 reports of abuse over a decade, the agency had closed Faheem's file -- that is, stopped checking on him or his family.
The files, while far from complete, provide a window into the chaotic and frequently violent lives of many of the children who come under the care or supervision of the state. The files also suggest that it is all too common for children to fall through the gaps in the state's abuse safety net, often with deadly consequences.
Joe Delmar, the agency's spokesman, said the deaths ''run a wide gamut of tragedy'' from the accidental to the premeditated and foreseeable. ''For the child deaths where we had an open or closed case,'' he said, ''we do an internal investigation to review the decisions made.''
''Any death,'' he added, ''especially where we had an open or closed case, is very disheartening and shows we need to do a better job protecting New Jersey's children.''
The state is required to give an accounting of child fatalities under a 1997 law, the Comprehensive Child-Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Nevertheless, state officials removed large amounts of information and details like sibling names or the nature of previous reports of abuse to preserve confidentiality, the officials said. News organizations, including The New York Times, are suing the agency in an effort to get it to make public more complete accounts of such cases.
While many of the files concern children who were unknown to the agency until they were harmed, there are many examples of children who had been mentioned in prior allegations of abuse or neglect. In many instances, then, the files raise questions about the agency's investigations and followup.
Many files are tantalizing with their absence of an explanation for the agency's failure to sense trouble. Simone Frye, for example, died in January 1998 from a cocaine overdose at the age of 7 weeks. The division had closed a file on the family before she was born. A notation in the file said simply: ''Three prior allegations of abuse and neglect unsubstantiated.''
Mr. Delmar said that from April 1994 to June 1995, there were allegations that her older siblings were being hit and being left unsupervised and that her mother was drinking. Mr. Delmar said the agency was unable to find evidence to support those charges and therefore closed the file. No other information on the agency's internal decision-making process was made available.
In a few cases, like Christian's, the signs seem to have been stark.
''This case raises major issues about the investigative work done,'' Mr. Delmar said of Christian's case. The caseworker did not see evidence of rats and roaches, he said. ''In hindsight, questions are raised as to how thorough a review of the home the worker conducted,'' he said. ''This is a case where we could have done a better job.''
Some children were severely harmed even though the agency recognized problems and was giving the family parental counseling, drug treatment or other services. On Sept. 3, 2002, Derrick Johnson, a 5-year-old boy, was admitted to the hospital with a fractured skull and rib. His mother later admitted hitting and shaking him, the report says.
The agency had received reports of neglect and abuse involving the family in the preceding year. In May 2002, the agency sent the family to a parenting-skills class and also enrolled them in a home medical treatment program for infants.
''There was no medical evidence to support a claim of physical abuse,'' Mr. Delmar said. ''Therefore it did not rise to a situation where we would remove a child.''
In several cases, it appeared that once the agency arranged for services like drug counseling, it stopped checking on the family, leaving children exposed to potential harm. Sylvester White, age 16 months, died in August 1998 when his mother smashed his head, according to the reports.
The file says tersely: ''Family has been involved with D.Y.F.S. due to allegations of physical abuse. Parents availed themselves of services offered.'' The file was closed in July 1997.
Mr. Delmar said two prior reports came from medical workers who were concerned about marks on the child, and who reported that the father said the mother was impatient with the baby and had shaken him. Still, Mr. Delmar said, the agency had not considered that enough evidence to prove physical abuse and to remove the child from the household.
Yet Mr. Delmar acknowledged that even when abuse was not substantiated, the sheer volume of allegations should have prompted some reaction. For example, Bryan Weaver, age 3 months, arrived at Morristown Memorial Hospital with broken bones, seizures, and trouble breathing in October 2002.
His father said he might have injured Bryan's arm when he ''snatched him up'' out of bed a month earlier but could not account for his other injuries. The case is still being investigated, although Bryan and three siblings have been removed to foster care.
Before the hospital visit in October, though, the extended family living in the home was the subject nine times of serious allegations, including ''medical neglect, domestic violence, house fire, lack of supervision, dirty and overcrowded housing, children poorly clothed, dental neglect.'' Some of the allegation came from family members seeking government services. ''Such a large number of referrals,'' Mr. Delmar said, ''should have raised alarms about the safety of all the children.''
Friday, April 3, 2009
Disgraced judge Claims immunity for his actions against juveniles, who allege they were unjustly incarcerated; Juvenile Law Center’s response coming
April 1 Ciavarella moves to dismiss lawsuit
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.comLaw & Order Reporter
SCRANTON – Claiming he has judicial immunity, former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella on Tuesday filed a motion seeking to dismiss one of the federal lawsuits filed against him by juveniles who allege they were unjustly incarcerated.
Read more Luzerne County Judges articles
click image to enlarge
Ciavarella
Related DocumentCiavarella_motion_dismiss
Select images available for purchase in theTimes Leader Photo Store
The motion, which Ciavarella authored and filed himself, argues he is immune from civil suits related to actions he took on the bench, even if those actions were done “maliciously or corruptly.”
The disgraced judge filed the motion in connection with a class-action lawsuit filed by the Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia, which represents dozens of juveniles who allege Ciavarella wrongly detained them in order to financially benefit himself and others.
Ciavarella and former judge Michael Conahan pleaded guilty in February to charges of tax evasion and depriving the public of their honest services for accepting more than $2.6 million in kickbacks in exchange for rulings that benefited the Pa Child Care and Western Pa Child Care centers that were once co-owned by Butler Township attorney Robert Powell.
Ciavarella and Conahan have agreed to serve 87 months in prison, but remain free pending their official sentencing, which is not expected to be scheduled for at least another month. Although no longer on the bench, both have retained their license to practice law as their plea agreements call for them to resign from the bar within 10 days after they are sentenced.
Robert Schwartz, executive director of the Juvenile Law Center, said attorneys there had anticipated Ciavarella would file a motion to dismiss. He said the center will have a response to the motion but declined to state the legal basis upon which that motion will be based.
The center’s suit is one of three pending against Ciavarella, Conahan, Powell and several other persons who are alleged to have engaged in a scheme to send children to the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care centers in order to pad their pockets.
Attorneys who filed the other suits, Michael Cefalo of Pittston and Barry Dyller of Wilkes-Barre, said Ciavarella had not filed a motion to dismiss in their cases as of late Tuesday afternoon.
Cefalo said he anticipated the judges might seek to claim judicial immunity. He said the judges do have immunity for acts they take on the bench, but that immunity may not extend to administrative actions they take outside of their office.
All three suits allege the judges took various administrative actions, including closing the county’s former juvenile detention, as part of the scheme.
“The acts he committed when he wears the robe, he has immunity. When he’s not wearing the robe, and it’s an administrative act, that may not be covered,” Cefalo said.
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.comLaw & Order Reporter
SCRANTON – Claiming he has judicial immunity, former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella on Tuesday filed a motion seeking to dismiss one of the federal lawsuits filed against him by juveniles who allege they were unjustly incarcerated.
Read more Luzerne County Judges articles
click image to enlarge
Ciavarella
Related DocumentCiavarella_motion_dismiss
Select images available for purchase in theTimes Leader Photo Store
The motion, which Ciavarella authored and filed himself, argues he is immune from civil suits related to actions he took on the bench, even if those actions were done “maliciously or corruptly.”
The disgraced judge filed the motion in connection with a class-action lawsuit filed by the Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia, which represents dozens of juveniles who allege Ciavarella wrongly detained them in order to financially benefit himself and others.
Ciavarella and former judge Michael Conahan pleaded guilty in February to charges of tax evasion and depriving the public of their honest services for accepting more than $2.6 million in kickbacks in exchange for rulings that benefited the Pa Child Care and Western Pa Child Care centers that were once co-owned by Butler Township attorney Robert Powell.
Ciavarella and Conahan have agreed to serve 87 months in prison, but remain free pending their official sentencing, which is not expected to be scheduled for at least another month. Although no longer on the bench, both have retained their license to practice law as their plea agreements call for them to resign from the bar within 10 days after they are sentenced.
Robert Schwartz, executive director of the Juvenile Law Center, said attorneys there had anticipated Ciavarella would file a motion to dismiss. He said the center will have a response to the motion but declined to state the legal basis upon which that motion will be based.
The center’s suit is one of three pending against Ciavarella, Conahan, Powell and several other persons who are alleged to have engaged in a scheme to send children to the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care centers in order to pad their pockets.
Attorneys who filed the other suits, Michael Cefalo of Pittston and Barry Dyller of Wilkes-Barre, said Ciavarella had not filed a motion to dismiss in their cases as of late Tuesday afternoon.
Cefalo said he anticipated the judges might seek to claim judicial immunity. He said the judges do have immunity for acts they take on the bench, but that immunity may not extend to administrative actions they take outside of their office.
All three suits allege the judges took various administrative actions, including closing the county’s former juvenile detention, as part of the scheme.
“The acts he committed when he wears the robe, he has immunity. When he’s not wearing the robe, and it’s an administrative act, that may not be covered,” Cefalo said.
P.A.S. {Parental Alienation Syndrome} Specifically Designed for Defense Attorneys, the History you need to know?
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that P.A.S. is junk science and was created by Mr. Richard Gardner {A psychiatrist} wrote a book called “The Parental Alienation Syndrome”, and published it himself through his own publishing company { Cresskill Publishing Company} then sent a copy out to each and every family court in America with the promise to do training on P.A.S., in which started a whole new carrier path for Mr. Richard Gardner, in which he did family court training for over the next 20 to 30 years.
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered there are a number of courts who will not allow P.A.S. as evidence because it does not meet the Kelly Fry standard or Dobbert standard of evidence. It is very controversial, unscientific and only a concept or a theory, in which is not supported by any research and that these are only Mr. Richard Gardner’s personal ideas.
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that in 2003 the American Prosecutors Research Institute identified use of P.A.S. as a deliberate means to obstruct means of prosecution of abuse cases. It is a complete bogus Defense for child molesters to use for only a tactical reasons, a Defense mechanism, not that they believe that it is really occurring, it is that they know that the judges will buy this Defense argument.
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that the family courts allowed and loved the idea of P.A.S. because it is an easy answer, and it allowed them to simply dismiss these cases that they do not want to deal with, although they did not realize that P.A.S. is very controversial, unscientific and only a concept or a theory, in which is not supported by any research, evidence or medical research. It allowed the courts not to deal with real evidence of the abuse cases. P.A.S. is still being used in family courts across the country. This P.A.S. is a result of the mediators, the evaluators, and of the attorneys who use it for tactical reasons and have realized the courts and judges will buy this bogus theory. This explains away these horrible cases the courts do not want to deal with. If we think about whether child abuse occurs then the courts have to deal with evidence and horrible ideas and the actual concept, and the actual events, in which occured.
That it actually happened and you have to deal with the reality of events, in which had occurred, this was an easy out for the perpetrator or the one who actually committed the abuse.
P.A.S. was easily dismissed as a vindictive or disgruntled parent against the other, to ruin the other parents reputation. Then it was used to punish the parent reporting the abuse and hopefully make the abuse go away.
This actually punished the parents reporting the abuse. And we wonder why are courts are the way they are? Nothing like Defense Attorneys coming to the rescue of their clients and protect the abusers. And you wonder why people do not like Attorneys? Now you know.
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered there are a number of courts who will not allow P.A.S. as evidence because it does not meet the Kelly Fry standard or Dobbert standard of evidence. It is very controversial, unscientific and only a concept or a theory, in which is not supported by any research and that these are only Mr. Richard Gardner’s personal ideas.
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that in 2003 the American Prosecutors Research Institute identified use of P.A.S. as a deliberate means to obstruct means of prosecution of abuse cases. It is a complete bogus Defense for child molesters to use for only a tactical reasons, a Defense mechanism, not that they believe that it is really occurring, it is that they know that the judges will buy this Defense argument.
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that the family courts allowed and loved the idea of P.A.S. because it is an easy answer, and it allowed them to simply dismiss these cases that they do not want to deal with, although they did not realize that P.A.S. is very controversial, unscientific and only a concept or a theory, in which is not supported by any research, evidence or medical research. It allowed the courts not to deal with real evidence of the abuse cases. P.A.S. is still being used in family courts across the country. This P.A.S. is a result of the mediators, the evaluators, and of the attorneys who use it for tactical reasons and have realized the courts and judges will buy this bogus theory. This explains away these horrible cases the courts do not want to deal with. If we think about whether child abuse occurs then the courts have to deal with evidence and horrible ideas and the actual concept, and the actual events, in which occured.
That it actually happened and you have to deal with the reality of events, in which had occurred, this was an easy out for the perpetrator or the one who actually committed the abuse.
P.A.S. was easily dismissed as a vindictive or disgruntled parent against the other, to ruin the other parents reputation. Then it was used to punish the parent reporting the abuse and hopefully make the abuse go away.
This actually punished the parents reporting the abuse. And we wonder why are courts are the way they are? Nothing like Defense Attorneys coming to the rescue of their clients and protect the abusers. And you wonder why people do not like Attorneys? Now you know.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Mom of 2 Boys Apparently Slain By Dad Blames Ill. Court, Seeks Name Change
Posted Apr 1, 2009, 08:10 pm CDT By Martha Neil
When a family court judge in Illinois told Michael Connolly to get a job, find a home of his own and stop harassing his wife, he did just that.
For months he behaved as the judge required and was rewarded with unsupervised visits with his two sons, Jack, 7, and Duncan, 9. Then, after another several more months passed, the 40-year-old father apparently killed his two sons last month, according to the Chicago Tribune and other news coverage.
Their bodies, and the body of their father, were found Sunday in a remote area of Putnam County, three weeks after he failed to return his sons to their mother after a scheduled visit. Officials won't say how the boys died; their father reportedly hanged himself.
The heartbroken mother of the two boys, Amy Leichtenberg, blames the McLean County Circuit judge who ordered the unsupervised visitation for her sons' murders. However, state law makes it very difficult for a judge to order supervised visitation when there has been a long period without clear threats to a child's health or safety, experts tell the Tribune. Meanwhile, it wasn't just the judge but law enforcement officials and social workers who saw no immediate threat, according to the story.
Leichtenberg is petitioning to have the judge removed from the bench. And she is also seeking a new court order: to change her sons' last name so they will no longer have that connection with her ex-husband, the Tribune reports.
The boys' funeral will be held Friday.
When a family court judge in Illinois told Michael Connolly to get a job, find a home of his own and stop harassing his wife, he did just that.
For months he behaved as the judge required and was rewarded with unsupervised visits with his two sons, Jack, 7, and Duncan, 9. Then, after another several more months passed, the 40-year-old father apparently killed his two sons last month, according to the Chicago Tribune and other news coverage.
Their bodies, and the body of their father, were found Sunday in a remote area of Putnam County, three weeks after he failed to return his sons to their mother after a scheduled visit. Officials won't say how the boys died; their father reportedly hanged himself.
The heartbroken mother of the two boys, Amy Leichtenberg, blames the McLean County Circuit judge who ordered the unsupervised visitation for her sons' murders. However, state law makes it very difficult for a judge to order supervised visitation when there has been a long period without clear threats to a child's health or safety, experts tell the Tribune. Meanwhile, it wasn't just the judge but law enforcement officials and social workers who saw no immediate threat, according to the story.
Leichtenberg is petitioning to have the judge removed from the bench. And she is also seeking a new court order: to change her sons' last name so they will no longer have that connection with her ex-husband, the Tribune reports.
The boys' funeral will be held Friday.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
PA. Judges Accused of Jailing Kids for Cash
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM and MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writers Michael Rubinkam And Maryclaire Dale, Associated Press Writers – Wed Feb 11, 6:16 pm ET
AP – Kurt Kruger, who spent three days in juvenile detention and another four months at a youth wilderness …
Slideshow: Judges accused of taking payoffs to jail kids
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. – For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses.
The explanation, prosecutors say, was corruption on the bench. In one of the most shocking cases of courtroom graft on record, two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers. "I've never encountered, and I don't think that we will in our lifetimes, a case where literally thousands of kids' lives were just tossed aside in order for a couple of judges to make some money," said Marsha Levick, an attorney with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which is representing hundreds of youths sentenced in Wilkes-Barre. Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. The judges were charged on Jan. 26 and removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shortly afterward. No company officials have been charged, but the investigation is still going on. The high court, meanwhile, is looking into whether hundreds or even thousands of sentences should be overturned and the juveniles' records expunged. Among the offenders were teenagers who were locked up for months for stealing loose change from cars, writing a prank note and possessing drug paraphernalia. Many had never been in trouble before. Some were imprisoned even after probation officers recommended against it. Many appeared without lawyers, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1967 ruling that children have a constitutional right to counsel. The judges are scheduled to plead guilty to fraud Thursday in federal court. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years behind bars. Ciavarella, 58, who presided over Luzerne County's juvenile court for 12 years, acknowledged last week in a letter to his former colleagues, "I have disgraced my judgeship. My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame." Ciavarella, though, has denied he got kickbacks for sending youths to prison. Conahan, 56, has remained silent about the case. Many Pennsylvania counties contract with privately run juvenile detention centers, paying them either a fixed overall fee or a certain amount per youth, per day. In Luzerne County, prosecutors say, Conahan shut down the county-run juvenile prison in 2002 and helped the two companies secure rich contracts worth tens of millions of dollars, at least some of that dependent on
how many juveniles were locked up. One of the contracts — a 20-year agreement with PA Child Care worth an estimated $58 million — was later canceled by the county as exorbitant. The judges are accused of taking payoffs between 2003 and 2006. Robert J. Powell co-owned PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care until June. His attorney, Mark Sheppard, said his client was the victim of an extortion scheme.
"Bob Powell never solicited a nickel from these judges and really was a victim of their demands," he said. "These judges made it very plain to Mr. Powell that he was going to be required to pay certain monies."
For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Ciavarella was ridiculously harsh and ran roughshod over youngsters' constitutional rights. Ciavarella sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a statewide rate of one in 10. The criminal charges confirmed the advocacy groups' worst suspicions and have called into question all the sentences he pronounced. Hillary Transue did not have an attorney, nor was she told of her right to one, when she appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom in 2007 for building a My Space page that lampooned her assistant principal.
Her mother, Laurene Transue, worked for 16 years in the child services department of another county and said she was certain Hillary would get a slap on the wrist. Instead, Ciavarella sentenced her to three months; she got out after a month, with help from a lawyer. "I felt so disgraced for a while, like, what do people think of me now?" said Hillary, now 17 and a high school senior who plans to become an English teacher. Laurene Transue said Ciavarella "was playing God. And not only was he doing that, he was getting money for it. He was betraying the trust put in him to do what is best for children." Kurt Kruger, now 22, had never been in trouble with the law until the day police accused him of acting as a lookout while his friend shoplifted less than $200 worth of DVDs from Wal-Mart. He said he didn't know his friend was going to steal anything. Kruger pleaded guilty before Ciavarella and spent three days in a company-run juvenile detention center, plus four months at a youth wilderness camp run by a different operator. "Never in a million years did I think that I would actually get sent away. I was completely destroyed," said Kruger, who later dropped out of school. He said he wants to get his record expunged, earn his high school equivalency diploma and go to college. "I got a raw deal, and yeah, it's not fair," he said, "but now it's 100 times bigger than me."
AP – Kurt Kruger, who spent three days in juvenile detention and another four months at a youth wilderness …
Slideshow: Judges accused of taking payoffs to jail kids
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. – For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses.
The explanation, prosecutors say, was corruption on the bench. In one of the most shocking cases of courtroom graft on record, two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers. "I've never encountered, and I don't think that we will in our lifetimes, a case where literally thousands of kids' lives were just tossed aside in order for a couple of judges to make some money," said Marsha Levick, an attorney with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which is representing hundreds of youths sentenced in Wilkes-Barre. Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. The judges were charged on Jan. 26 and removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shortly afterward. No company officials have been charged, but the investigation is still going on. The high court, meanwhile, is looking into whether hundreds or even thousands of sentences should be overturned and the juveniles' records expunged. Among the offenders were teenagers who were locked up for months for stealing loose change from cars, writing a prank note and possessing drug paraphernalia. Many had never been in trouble before. Some were imprisoned even after probation officers recommended against it. Many appeared without lawyers, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1967 ruling that children have a constitutional right to counsel. The judges are scheduled to plead guilty to fraud Thursday in federal court. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years behind bars. Ciavarella, 58, who presided over Luzerne County's juvenile court for 12 years, acknowledged last week in a letter to his former colleagues, "I have disgraced my judgeship. My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame." Ciavarella, though, has denied he got kickbacks for sending youths to prison. Conahan, 56, has remained silent about the case. Many Pennsylvania counties contract with privately run juvenile detention centers, paying them either a fixed overall fee or a certain amount per youth, per day. In Luzerne County, prosecutors say, Conahan shut down the county-run juvenile prison in 2002 and helped the two companies secure rich contracts worth tens of millions of dollars, at least some of that dependent on
how many juveniles were locked up. One of the contracts — a 20-year agreement with PA Child Care worth an estimated $58 million — was later canceled by the county as exorbitant. The judges are accused of taking payoffs between 2003 and 2006. Robert J. Powell co-owned PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care until June. His attorney, Mark Sheppard, said his client was the victim of an extortion scheme.
"Bob Powell never solicited a nickel from these judges and really was a victim of their demands," he said. "These judges made it very plain to Mr. Powell that he was going to be required to pay certain monies."
For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Ciavarella was ridiculously harsh and ran roughshod over youngsters' constitutional rights. Ciavarella sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a statewide rate of one in 10. The criminal charges confirmed the advocacy groups' worst suspicions and have called into question all the sentences he pronounced. Hillary Transue did not have an attorney, nor was she told of her right to one, when she appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom in 2007 for building a My Space page that lampooned her assistant principal.
Her mother, Laurene Transue, worked for 16 years in the child services department of another county and said she was certain Hillary would get a slap on the wrist. Instead, Ciavarella sentenced her to three months; she got out after a month, with help from a lawyer. "I felt so disgraced for a while, like, what do people think of me now?" said Hillary, now 17 and a high school senior who plans to become an English teacher. Laurene Transue said Ciavarella "was playing God. And not only was he doing that, he was getting money for it. He was betraying the trust put in him to do what is best for children." Kurt Kruger, now 22, had never been in trouble with the law until the day police accused him of acting as a lookout while his friend shoplifted less than $200 worth of DVDs from Wal-Mart. He said he didn't know his friend was going to steal anything. Kruger pleaded guilty before Ciavarella and spent three days in a company-run juvenile detention center, plus four months at a youth wilderness camp run by a different operator. "Never in a million years did I think that I would actually get sent away. I was completely destroyed," said Kruger, who later dropped out of school. He said he wants to get his record expunged, earn his high school equivalency diploma and go to college. "I got a raw deal, and yeah, it's not fair," he said, "but now it's 100 times bigger than me."
Subcontracted Services through Social Rehabilitation Services, Division of Family Services, What you really need to know?
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that these family agencies are not really what they seem. They are specifically designed to keep the confrontation going to keep the system profiting. There are a lot of families under the pretension that these family agencies are to assist those families to keep them together and help re-unite families. This is absurd. If this was true these agencies would not have created a monopoly in the family services division. People have requested the Mr. David Martin Price, President of I.F.F.O.C. explain to the people how this works in detail. Lets say you are a middle class citizen family with a lot of assets and property. These things are bound to happen. Lets understand what the system actually is.
First of all they teach and preach child abuse in our public schools where the students have it practically memorized. Then you have other children who have been through the system teaching your children how easy it is to manipulate the system. So if the child does not get what he or she wants they scream child abuse or run away from home, and when they get caught they scream child abuse, due to what may happen when they return home. Then the agencies and courts step in to protect these so called abused children from their false accusations. Then the place the children in foster care, promising to re-integrate the families. {Remember these foster care programs are making bonuses to keep children in the system}
Second these agencies or sub-contracted agencies terminate and shut off or down the following; your access to school records, medical records, any information you may possibly need to keep track on your childrens progress, even though you still pay the bills. The reason is to keep you either in the dark on information, or keep you out of reach of information that may be vital to your child's care and well being. They will not produce reports until the last minute if they have to.
Then either SRS, DFS, or their sub-contracted services starts you into the system. They start a family plan which they keep the goals just ahead of your reach. They will also change or amend these goals without your authorization, at a moments notice.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will have family planning meetings they will ask you to sign, so they can get your signature and amend these planning meetings without your consent. Be Aware, be prepared. These individuals have had classes on taking advantage of those who are miss-informed on these matters. I.F.F.O.C. has been there done that. Make sure of final approval prior to signature.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will recommend a domestic financial affidavit to see and know where your financial assets, property, and any other valuables you may be in possession of are. You know they are going to attempt to assess you with child support, clothing allowance, and any other cost they can run up.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will recommend a psychological evaluation on all parents and children. This is if any chance you attempt to challenge them, they will use the psychological evaluation against you. {Remember they will use the professionals they hire or usually use to keep you in the system, basically they pay, so they get the results they want}
If the child is 16 years of age or over they will allow her to stay in the system until she ages out. {Remember you are paying the bill} If you actually under the belief that they are out to help you, you are totally misguided or in a dream world.
I.F.F.O.C. has also found out these individuals, agencies, or sub-contracted agencies do not either know the laws or follow the laws on proper procedures, administrative remedies, or even their own regulations.
If these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will recommend family or individual therapy {remember this is sub-contracted out by the court and agencies} What this means if this is subcontracted out by the court the payment goes into a general court fund, in which 15% goes into the judges retirement funding. Usually these attorneys and courts see these individuals all the time and recommend them for their services, due to their frequent flyer miles with the courts. Most of the time these individuals are not even properly qualified for their position,. I.F.F.O.C. had found a KVC worker who had no degree to run things attempting to run the whole operation until we pointed it out, and he was properly terminated from employment.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will attempt to upset you so they can show that you are a disgruntled parent. They will create confusion, this is there art of illusion to steal your money, property and assets, while your attempting to save your butt, or protect your children. A parent will attempt to do everything to save their children. Do not let them place you in this position, due not give them the satisfaction, focus on the things you have been informed and stay a step ahead of this twisted sick game.
First of all they teach and preach child abuse in our public schools where the students have it practically memorized. Then you have other children who have been through the system teaching your children how easy it is to manipulate the system. So if the child does not get what he or she wants they scream child abuse or run away from home, and when they get caught they scream child abuse, due to what may happen when they return home. Then the agencies and courts step in to protect these so called abused children from their false accusations. Then the place the children in foster care, promising to re-integrate the families. {Remember these foster care programs are making bonuses to keep children in the system}
Second these agencies or sub-contracted agencies terminate and shut off or down the following; your access to school records, medical records, any information you may possibly need to keep track on your childrens progress, even though you still pay the bills. The reason is to keep you either in the dark on information, or keep you out of reach of information that may be vital to your child's care and well being. They will not produce reports until the last minute if they have to.
Then either SRS, DFS, or their sub-contracted services starts you into the system. They start a family plan which they keep the goals just ahead of your reach. They will also change or amend these goals without your authorization, at a moments notice.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will have family planning meetings they will ask you to sign, so they can get your signature and amend these planning meetings without your consent. Be Aware, be prepared. These individuals have had classes on taking advantage of those who are miss-informed on these matters. I.F.F.O.C. has been there done that. Make sure of final approval prior to signature.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will recommend a domestic financial affidavit to see and know where your financial assets, property, and any other valuables you may be in possession of are. You know they are going to attempt to assess you with child support, clothing allowance, and any other cost they can run up.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will recommend a psychological evaluation on all parents and children. This is if any chance you attempt to challenge them, they will use the psychological evaluation against you. {Remember they will use the professionals they hire or usually use to keep you in the system, basically they pay, so they get the results they want}
If the child is 16 years of age or over they will allow her to stay in the system until she ages out. {Remember you are paying the bill} If you actually under the belief that they are out to help you, you are totally misguided or in a dream world.
I.F.F.O.C. has also found out these individuals, agencies, or sub-contracted agencies do not either know the laws or follow the laws on proper procedures, administrative remedies, or even their own regulations.
If these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will recommend family or individual therapy {remember this is sub-contracted out by the court and agencies} What this means if this is subcontracted out by the court the payment goes into a general court fund, in which 15% goes into the judges retirement funding. Usually these attorneys and courts see these individuals all the time and recommend them for their services, due to their frequent flyer miles with the courts. Most of the time these individuals are not even properly qualified for their position,. I.F.F.O.C. had found a KVC worker who had no degree to run things attempting to run the whole operation until we pointed it out, and he was properly terminated from employment.
Then these agencies or sub-contracted agencies will attempt to upset you so they can show that you are a disgruntled parent. They will create confusion, this is there art of illusion to steal your money, property and assets, while your attempting to save your butt, or protect your children. A parent will attempt to do everything to save their children. Do not let them place you in this position, due not give them the satisfaction, focus on the things you have been informed and stay a step ahead of this twisted sick game.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Pro Se Litigant v. 2nd Judicial DIstrict Court of Jackson County, Kansas
Jackson County, Kansas - Cheryl Nicol {maiden name Parrett} was recently going through a divorce action, and decided that her attorney was not doing enough to help her, so she terminated his assistance. She had decided she had enough and decided to get involved and do her case as a pro se litigant {acting as her own attorney} with a little help from outside group. She had discovered her former husband {Parrett} did not file a Domestic Financial Affidavit, in which was required pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule {SCR 164}. He also testified he made over 55 thousand a year since 1999 and failed to file any taxes. The Honorable Nafziger had gave Cheryl both of the properties in question. The Attorney Cheryl Nicol had fired then placed a lien upon her property she was awarded, in which was a violation of violation of Kansas SCR 1.5 (f)(1). The Honorable Nafziger decided to reverse the decision without justifiable cause. Cheryl Nicol had decided to Appeal the decision. She is now in the Kansas Court of Appeals. The Kansas Court of Appeals was well familiar with this judge and has now removed him from the bench. If Attorneys go after judges for this they get disbarred. If Pro Se Litigants do this, only time will tell. Cheryl is currently waiting fro the Kansas Court of Appeals decision.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
USDA vs. Darwin Rice: Strange Case Becomes Even Stranger
10 — The Milkweed February 2009
by Pete Hardin
Loan No. Amount Delinquent Date of Loan Amount of Loan
04 $41,091.79 04/04/1994 $44,000.00
05 $238,036.28 10/23/2000 $200,000.00
95 $513,709.90 12/1/2008 $510,980.00
97 $339.49 07/07/2005 $300.00
98 $594.10 07/07/2005 $525.00
99 $850.32 06/16/2005 $750.00
This table details the loan amounts in arrears that USDA’s Farm Services Agency wants collect from Darwin Rice, according to a January 13, 2009 dunning letter. USDA is demanding payment in full, with interest, on all loans, by March 13, 2009.
How can USDA force a farmer to pay off a loan that he never applied for and never saw the money from?
Background: In our November 2008 issue, The Milkweed detailed the long-running battle by Iowa grain and livestock farmer Darwin Rice to stave off foreclosure of his 120-acre farm and home properties. Rice was convicted for crimes relating to a loan he obtained from USDA’s Farm Services Agency back in 2000. Darwin alleges a wide variety of misdeeds by USDA’s farm loan personnel. See article, “Vindictive Prosecution? Feds Hound Darwin Rice, Iowa Farmer.” Please review that article on this publication’s Web site: http://www.themilkweed.com/ Darwin%20Rice%20Nov%2008.pdf
The epic battle featuring the United States of America vs. Darwin G. Rice has taken some unfathomable turns in the past couple months. Why do unknown USDA personnel continue hounding this (now former) Iowa farmer and his lovely wife, Diane?
On December 4, 2008, the Greene County (Iowa) Sheriff sold three real estate parcels owned by Darwin and Diane Rice at auction. Those parcels consisted of a pair of 40 acres of farmland and a 40-acre patch that included the Rice’s home and farm buildings.
The bidding was strange. Commerce Bank
submitted the first bid – $327,502.13. And then USDA’s Farm Services Agency entered a competing bid of $510,980. USDA’s bid totaled $183,000 more than the only other bid. At that point, bidding ceased and Uncle Sam was the proud new owner of 120 acres of some of Iowa’s finest black soil – where the Rices had made their living since Darwin came out of the Army and started farming in 1971.
Two days later, according to the property records of the Greene County Assessor’s Page, title to the two parcels was transferred to Uncle Sam’s USDA Farm Services Agency. Done deal? No!
12/1/08: Secret $513,000 USDA loan to Rices
Imagine the shock for Darwin and Diane, in mid-January 2008, when they opened a letter dated January 13, 2009 from USDA’s FSA Financial Serv-ices Center in St. Louis, Missouri … and learned that on December 1, 2008, USDA had granted a loan of $513,980 to Darwin G. Rice! Darwin had never applied for, signed papers agreeing to, or even known anything about any such half-million-plus dollar loan from FSA. Given the fact that Darwin’s
farm properties and home would be on the Sheriff’s auction block in just three days, the notion that FSA would approve a half million dollar loan to Darwin G. Rice is absolutely preposterous!
That January 13, 2009 letter was actually a dunning notice, informing Darwin that this “secret” loan dated December 1, 2008 was due in full by March 13, 2009, with interest and penalties!
Ironically, that FSA loan for $513,980 was dated December 1 – three days before the Rice’s farm and home were lost at the sheriff’s sale – the EXACT amount that FSA bid at that same sheriff’s sale to acquire those properties on December 4! This curious situation got stranger! Four additional loans assigned to Darwin G. Rice were also listed as delinquencies and due for full payment on March 13, 2009:
* A delinquency totaling $41,091.79 from a loan dated April 4, 1994. (This one is disputed:
Rice’s original copy of the loan is unsigned and dated April 5, 1994.)
* A delinquency totaling $238,036.28 from a loan dated October 23, 2000. (That was the loan for which Darwin was convicted and his farm seized. How can FSA claim this amount is still due, when the farm properties’ titles were transferred to USDA???)
* A delinquency totaling $339.49 from a loan dated July 7, 2005.
* A delinquency totaling $594.10 from a loan dated July 7, 2005.
* A delinquency totaling $850.12 from a loan dated June 16, 2005.
Except for the $41,091.79 matter and $238,036 loan from October 23, 2000, Darwin Rice has no familiarity with any other loans that the FSA warn-ing letter claimed were delinquent and due for com-plete pay-out by March 13, 2009!
Certainly, FSA could not have issued Darwin loan totaling $510,980 on December 1, 2008 – three days before Rice’s properties were sold at the court-house by the county sheriff! Repeat: Darwin never applied for any such loan. Darwin never signed any such loan papers. And Darwin is completely puzzled as to how he’s supposed to pay off all those loans by mid-March 2009. Uncle Sam has already stolen most of his financial assets … and the government, in separate legal actions, is now trying to seize everything down the Rices’ boxes of cereal and their toilet plunger.
How can Uncle Sam collect on a loan for over half a million dollars that the person never applied for nor ever saw a penny of receipts? In Darwin’s case, the likelihood of “identity theft” is virtually impossible. That’s because two words light up warning buzzers at USDA’s FSA: Darwin Rice.
Seized properties’ revert to Rices!
FSA’s notice of all those delinquencies sends the Rice family back to square one. They next learned of another shocker in mid-January: title to the 40-acre property that included the house and barns that was purchased by USDA/FSA at the sheriff’s sale on December 4, 2008, had been transferred back to Darwin and Diane Rice!
WHY, Darwin and Diane wondered, would USDA go to the lengths to bid $183,000 more than the competing bidder at the auction, and then, one month later, revert title for the home and 40 acres back to the Rices? Admittedly, Uncle Sam has been giving away a lot of financial assets lately … but Darwin never imagined he’d be a beneficiary, after the shafting he’s been given by the federal government for nearly the past decade.
The Rices are completely stumped by these recent events.
What about IRS “gift tax” implications?
Lord have mercy! FSA’s reassigning titles for seized properties to Darwin and Diane may be a trap, designed to sic another federal agency – the Internal Revenue Service – on the Rices. (IRS’ reputation as a nasty federal agency is nothing compared to what USDA has put the Rices through.)
Here’s the potential trap: If those seized properties were “gifted,” or transacted at “below market value” by Uncle Sam back to Darwin and Diane Rice at the beginning of 2009, then are the Rices going to get into hot water with the Internal Revenue Service if the IRS considers deeding the farm prop-erties back to the Rices a “gift.” Egad, the tax bite on a gift worth more than $700,000 (market value according to Greene County tax records) would wipe out Darwin and Diane Rice … as if their favorite “Uncle” hadn’t already frisked them clean. The $513,709.90 “delinquency” listed by FSA on Darwin Rice’s January 13, 2009 dunning notice was for the farm that was sold off by the county sheriff on December 4, 2008. How many times does FDA want Darwin to pay for this farm???
Did USDA employees commit criminal fraud?
Somebody at USDA’s Farm Services Agency has committed multiple, criminal frauds against Dar-win and Diane Rice in recent months … without any mention to what all Rices have suffered through prior to December 1, 2008:
* Filing loans that were never requested or signed for by the recipients is financial fraud!
Where’d the money go??? What FSA personnel approved the loans? Who forged Darwin Rice’s signature to the loan papers???
* Transferring government assets (the Rices’ home and adjoining 40 acres) back to the folks from whom they were seized … without payment … would seem to be an illegal conversion of federal assets. But of course, with the U.S. Treasury Department throwing out hundreds of billions of dollars to banks and other institutions, what’s it matter if Dar-win
Rice of Jefferson, Iowa gets his farm back from Uncle Sam’s clutches in the most mystifying of circumstances? (Psst … nobody tell the IRS, or else the Rices could get in more trouble!)
Stay tuned! Uncle Sam has not heard the last from these folks … and their friends.
by Pete Hardin
Loan No. Amount Delinquent Date of Loan Amount of Loan
04 $41,091.79 04/04/1994 $44,000.00
05 $238,036.28 10/23/2000 $200,000.00
95 $513,709.90 12/1/2008 $510,980.00
97 $339.49 07/07/2005 $300.00
98 $594.10 07/07/2005 $525.00
99 $850.32 06/16/2005 $750.00
This table details the loan amounts in arrears that USDA’s Farm Services Agency wants collect from Darwin Rice, according to a January 13, 2009 dunning letter. USDA is demanding payment in full, with interest, on all loans, by March 13, 2009.
How can USDA force a farmer to pay off a loan that he never applied for and never saw the money from?
Background: In our November 2008 issue, The Milkweed detailed the long-running battle by Iowa grain and livestock farmer Darwin Rice to stave off foreclosure of his 120-acre farm and home properties. Rice was convicted for crimes relating to a loan he obtained from USDA’s Farm Services Agency back in 2000. Darwin alleges a wide variety of misdeeds by USDA’s farm loan personnel. See article, “Vindictive Prosecution? Feds Hound Darwin Rice, Iowa Farmer.” Please review that article on this publication’s Web site: http://www.themilkweed.com/ Darwin%20Rice%20Nov%2008.pdf
The epic battle featuring the United States of America vs. Darwin G. Rice has taken some unfathomable turns in the past couple months. Why do unknown USDA personnel continue hounding this (now former) Iowa farmer and his lovely wife, Diane?
On December 4, 2008, the Greene County (Iowa) Sheriff sold three real estate parcels owned by Darwin and Diane Rice at auction. Those parcels consisted of a pair of 40 acres of farmland and a 40-acre patch that included the Rice’s home and farm buildings.
The bidding was strange. Commerce Bank
submitted the first bid – $327,502.13. And then USDA’s Farm Services Agency entered a competing bid of $510,980. USDA’s bid totaled $183,000 more than the only other bid. At that point, bidding ceased and Uncle Sam was the proud new owner of 120 acres of some of Iowa’s finest black soil – where the Rices had made their living since Darwin came out of the Army and started farming in 1971.
Two days later, according to the property records of the Greene County Assessor’s Page, title to the two parcels was transferred to Uncle Sam’s USDA Farm Services Agency. Done deal? No!
12/1/08: Secret $513,000 USDA loan to Rices
Imagine the shock for Darwin and Diane, in mid-January 2008, when they opened a letter dated January 13, 2009 from USDA’s FSA Financial Serv-ices Center in St. Louis, Missouri … and learned that on December 1, 2008, USDA had granted a loan of $513,980 to Darwin G. Rice! Darwin had never applied for, signed papers agreeing to, or even known anything about any such half-million-plus dollar loan from FSA. Given the fact that Darwin’s
farm properties and home would be on the Sheriff’s auction block in just three days, the notion that FSA would approve a half million dollar loan to Darwin G. Rice is absolutely preposterous!
That January 13, 2009 letter was actually a dunning notice, informing Darwin that this “secret” loan dated December 1, 2008 was due in full by March 13, 2009, with interest and penalties!
Ironically, that FSA loan for $513,980 was dated December 1 – three days before the Rice’s farm and home were lost at the sheriff’s sale – the EXACT amount that FSA bid at that same sheriff’s sale to acquire those properties on December 4! This curious situation got stranger! Four additional loans assigned to Darwin G. Rice were also listed as delinquencies and due for full payment on March 13, 2009:
* A delinquency totaling $41,091.79 from a loan dated April 4, 1994. (This one is disputed:
Rice’s original copy of the loan is unsigned and dated April 5, 1994.)
* A delinquency totaling $238,036.28 from a loan dated October 23, 2000. (That was the loan for which Darwin was convicted and his farm seized. How can FSA claim this amount is still due, when the farm properties’ titles were transferred to USDA???)
* A delinquency totaling $339.49 from a loan dated July 7, 2005.
* A delinquency totaling $594.10 from a loan dated July 7, 2005.
* A delinquency totaling $850.12 from a loan dated June 16, 2005.
Except for the $41,091.79 matter and $238,036 loan from October 23, 2000, Darwin Rice has no familiarity with any other loans that the FSA warn-ing letter claimed were delinquent and due for com-plete pay-out by March 13, 2009!
Certainly, FSA could not have issued Darwin loan totaling $510,980 on December 1, 2008 – three days before Rice’s properties were sold at the court-house by the county sheriff! Repeat: Darwin never applied for any such loan. Darwin never signed any such loan papers. And Darwin is completely puzzled as to how he’s supposed to pay off all those loans by mid-March 2009. Uncle Sam has already stolen most of his financial assets … and the government, in separate legal actions, is now trying to seize everything down the Rices’ boxes of cereal and their toilet plunger.
How can Uncle Sam collect on a loan for over half a million dollars that the person never applied for nor ever saw a penny of receipts? In Darwin’s case, the likelihood of “identity theft” is virtually impossible. That’s because two words light up warning buzzers at USDA’s FSA: Darwin Rice.
Seized properties’ revert to Rices!
FSA’s notice of all those delinquencies sends the Rice family back to square one. They next learned of another shocker in mid-January: title to the 40-acre property that included the house and barns that was purchased by USDA/FSA at the sheriff’s sale on December 4, 2008, had been transferred back to Darwin and Diane Rice!
WHY, Darwin and Diane wondered, would USDA go to the lengths to bid $183,000 more than the competing bidder at the auction, and then, one month later, revert title for the home and 40 acres back to the Rices? Admittedly, Uncle Sam has been giving away a lot of financial assets lately … but Darwin never imagined he’d be a beneficiary, after the shafting he’s been given by the federal government for nearly the past decade.
The Rices are completely stumped by these recent events.
What about IRS “gift tax” implications?
Lord have mercy! FSA’s reassigning titles for seized properties to Darwin and Diane may be a trap, designed to sic another federal agency – the Internal Revenue Service – on the Rices. (IRS’ reputation as a nasty federal agency is nothing compared to what USDA has put the Rices through.)
Here’s the potential trap: If those seized properties were “gifted,” or transacted at “below market value” by Uncle Sam back to Darwin and Diane Rice at the beginning of 2009, then are the Rices going to get into hot water with the Internal Revenue Service if the IRS considers deeding the farm prop-erties back to the Rices a “gift.” Egad, the tax bite on a gift worth more than $700,000 (market value according to Greene County tax records) would wipe out Darwin and Diane Rice … as if their favorite “Uncle” hadn’t already frisked them clean. The $513,709.90 “delinquency” listed by FSA on Darwin Rice’s January 13, 2009 dunning notice was for the farm that was sold off by the county sheriff on December 4, 2008. How many times does FDA want Darwin to pay for this farm???
Did USDA employees commit criminal fraud?
Somebody at USDA’s Farm Services Agency has committed multiple, criminal frauds against Dar-win and Diane Rice in recent months … without any mention to what all Rices have suffered through prior to December 1, 2008:
* Filing loans that were never requested or signed for by the recipients is financial fraud!
Where’d the money go??? What FSA personnel approved the loans? Who forged Darwin Rice’s signature to the loan papers???
* Transferring government assets (the Rices’ home and adjoining 40 acres) back to the folks from whom they were seized … without payment … would seem to be an illegal conversion of federal assets. But of course, with the U.S. Treasury Department throwing out hundreds of billions of dollars to banks and other institutions, what’s it matter if Dar-win
Rice of Jefferson, Iowa gets his farm back from Uncle Sam’s clutches in the most mystifying of circumstances? (Psst … nobody tell the IRS, or else the Rices could get in more trouble!)
Stay tuned! Uncle Sam has not heard the last from these folks … and their friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
