A Grand Jury Ain't So "Grand"

For the "start of the story", visit the Jon Massey Caset.

The use of a Grand Jury hearkens back to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. For more reference, read up on the background of a Grand Jury here: Wikipedia Grand Jury.

However, despite its origins as an objective tribunal for realistically evaluating whether a matter merits prosecution, today's version is completely different.

A modern Grand Jury is completely under the control of the District Attorney. 

As a refresher, it is the District Attorney's job to convict someone. Why? Because it looks good, and will help them get re-elected. So they can put away more people. And look good. And get re-elected. Infinite cycle of job security. This is even more true for high profile offenses.

There is a saying among attorneys: "Any attorney can indict a ham sandwich...or exonerate Charles Manson covered in blood..." (and the accompanying issue is that if an attorney can't manage either, they are incompetent and should find a new career).

The district attorney controls what evidence is presented, and what witnesses are called. It shouldn't be that way for the Grand Jury to fully evaluate a matter, but the DA isn't interested in the Grand Jury objectively evaluating a case.

You ask again, why? Very simple - because once the DA gets an indictment from a Grand Jury, they blast it all over the media along with the picture of the "criminal". The media presentation often implies that the indicted person has been convicted. Jury pool is predisposed, the DA eventually gets their conviction, and looks good, and gets re-elected...ad infinitum.

Now there are some simple hard and fast laws that govern the behavior of Grand Jurors (the people who are selected). The jurors are not to talk about the case, especially before the indictment has been served. And they are not to disclose the identity of other Grand Jurors.

What happened at the first Grand Jury? It was a horror show for Jon Massey. 

Although Jon was a diabetic and repeatedly requested water while he was testifying, the DA denied his request. Ultimately, when Jon kept trying to persuade the Grand Jury to listen to audio recording that would exonerate him, and to call several witnesses - including Mike Heisler, the DA took a recess. During the recess, under the pretext of getting a drink of water for Jon, he took him in a back room and screamed and yelled at him - pure and simple witness intimidation.

Additionally, the DA characterized one of the witnesses that Jon requested as a "convicted felon" and a "convicted drug user". The witness had no felony record and no drug arrests, so the DA lied in order to persuade the Grand Jury not to call him. 

The DA also called one of the witnesses that Jon requested a "snitch". That particular witness actually was a CRI (Confidential Registered Informant) who worked with the local Metro-Jeff Drug Task Force. As such he was registered in a database with a handler in law enforcement. Just for the record, "outing a snitch" is a criminal offense at the federal level, as it is considered endangering their life.

We have the Grand Jury transcript as well as the affidavits of Jon Massey and his attorney at the time, Eric Swartz, which document all of the above events.

As to the Grand Jury themselves? Well, apparently there were at least two members who knew our family personally. How do I know? Because the daughter of one of them approached my oldest daughter in public shortly after Christmas and started telling her all about what had transpired at the Grand Jury. 

The Grand Jury heard the case on December 11, 2012 and Jon was not indicted until on or around January 2, 2013. For any of the Grand Jurors to disclose material prior to his indictment would normally constitute a criminal offense.

According to the juror's daughter, the District Attorney took it upon himself to unseal and disclose legal records regarding my oldest daughter to the Grand Jury. Normally unsealing a record would take a judge's order, but none was ever produced that would document the legality of what the DA did. The records in question were under the control of DSS, and nothing that the DA would have access to. This indicates that either the DSS attorney or the CPS Caseworker was complicit in this circumvention of the law.

Now the disclosed records had nothing to do with Ruby or with Jon Massey, but they were presented in such a way as to make the jury believe that they did.

So, not only did the DA behave inappropriately in suppressing witnesses and evidence from the Grand Jury, but one of the Grand Jurors illegally broke the secrecy of the proceeding and described it in detail to her daughter. The juror's daughter also informed my oldest daughter of the name of one of the other Grand Jurors, a woman who had known all of my children and myself for quite a few years.

And not a thing was ever done to either the DA or the Grand Juror.

Indictment obtained under false pretenses and the sanctity of the process irreparably tainted. This is our justice system in Jefferson County, NY.

Lies CPS Will Tell You

In no particular order, here are some of the lies, half-truths, and myths of "working with CPS":

1. If you sign the service plan, CPS won't take your kids away. Status? MYTH/LIE - CPS will use your signature as acknowledgement of your guilt, and then even as you work through the service plan (which utilizes people who are paid directly by CPS and know where their pay is coming from), "issues" will keep cropping up that prove you are an unfit parent. Best case scenario? They will string you along for years before finally leaving your family traumatized but "intact" or "reunited".
2. If you don't let us in the house, we will take your kids away. Status? LIE - They cannot enter your house without a warrant, and a warrant takes probable cause. However if you live in a small community CPS works hand in glove with the local authorities and probably can get a warrant based on their lies. If you don't let them in, they will use it against you in court. If you do let them in, they will manufacture lies about your home/living environment and what they allegedly found. It's a no win.
3. If you sign over your kids to us, we won't seize custody. Status: LIE - If they don't prove their case, you can sue them for emotional distress. Once they hit this point, they are going to move heaven and earth to prove you an unfit and/or abusive parent. Part of this means that they need to have custody of your children to use parental alienation techniques.
4. Nobody should be talking to your children about the case. Status: LIE/MYTH/HALF-TRUTH - The only person who isn't allowed to talk to your children about the case is you. The caseworker and the foster parents will talk to your kids endlessly about the case, use parental alienation techniques, and taint your children's memories. Any family members who are cooperating with CPS are also allowed to continue to talk to the kids about the case in a way that is detrimental to you.
5. If you do everything we tell you, you will get your children back. Status: HALF-TRUTH - If you do everything in the service plan, AND have an attorney watching out for your interests, AND do everything that they add on to your service plan, AND you end up with a reasonably good set of foster parents or kinship care that doesn't use parental alienation, AND your children aren't easily adoptable, THEN you will get your children back. I've probably forgotten some of the hoops they make you jump through, but you get the idea.
6. You are the child's parent and still have input and feedback. Status: HALF-TRUTH/LIE - You are only allowed to make decisions or to get reports if you cooperate. Otherwise, the foster parents and the case worker get to make all decisions for your child regarding religion, education, medical care, etc. We even have an email from the DSS attorney to the case worker stating that "unless they let you in the house, don't give them any reports". So they ignored my input regarding my daughter's medical conditions, educational needs, etc. for a year and a half.

This list is a "to be continued" - feel free to leave a comment that adds a new category or expands on one already listed. I will do revisions as we go.

If you were to ask me our particular favorite? The CPS investigator called me on the phone and told me that if I voluntarily signed my children over to him and if I testified against Jon, they wouldn't file charges against me. Last time I checked, that was known as "suborning perjury" and a criminal offense.

Please be sure to visit the article about Jon's trial! CLICK HERE

Here We Go Again!

Interesting coincidence - the article and my blog have gained a lot of traction over the weekend.

This has probably generated some consternation among those wishing to cover up their involvement, because we are back to some dirty tricks.

Episode 3:

Last night I did an interview on Parent Revolution with Tim Skomo, and an anonymous person showed up in the online chat.

Dear "anon4931" - let's see...first you post to the chat log of a radio interview under an "anon" ID, then you can't even tell a coherent story. 

If there was a "similar episode" in 2001 and the mother lost custody, then why were Ruby and her two sisters still living with the mother and in her full custody (and all three had been continuously in her custody since birth up until these false allegations by Ruby)?

And if the episode was "similar" and there was abuse that occurred, then how could the mother be doing PAS - wouldn't it be her job to keep the children away from the abuser from 2001?

Meanwhile, the true PAS - the father of her youngest child (and his wife) - even made multiple statements to CPS, attorneys, many other individuals, that he thought Ruby was a "liar" and making it all up. CPS even has it documented in their notes in several locations - as well as it being in his sworn testimony.

Nothing like being unable to even give coherent information. But you haven't been able to keep yourselves from lying to police, to judges, to each other. 

In fact, this man was such an obvious liar and so mentally unstable that the DSS attorney refused to allow him to be called at trial. After all, when someone can be proven to have lied to a judge (that is called perjury and a criminal offense), and has testified under oath to a different judge that he has lied to police, is he even a credible witness?

Maybe the transcripts and audio testimony of this man should be posted so that his friends and family are aware of just how out of control he is...after all, he has admitted to lying to them and involving them in his lies.

So yeah "anon4931", the mother would go on Steve Wilkos, as long as you go first. After all, the only one changing stories and lying is you.

Episode 2:

Although we have had well over $200,000 in legal expenses, apparently someone has attempted to register a complaint about our setting up a www.tfund.com/bottomfeedingsharks account to attempt to recoup some of our expenses. 

It would probably be whoever has MAC address 14:30:c6:e3:10:dc (oh, did I mention that your attempts to use a free wi-fi leaves a trail, so enjoy your Motorola device....) since the attempts to evade detection were so obvious.

This is SOP (standard operating procedure) for CPS in these matters. The quicker you can run a party out of money to present a defense, the more rapidly you can "win" a case. CPS never prevails on truth, they rely on the advocates for the truth running out of money and the ability to fight their case. See the entry on David and Goliath for details.

So for now, we have a PayPal donation button instead of being able to purchase a t-shirt to reflect your beliefs and support our cause. Once we get this squared away, we will be back up and running with t-shirts (and bumper stickers, and key chains, and whatever it takes to get the word out that the CPS and Family Court system is corrupt and needs to be reformed).

Addendum to Episode 2:

Really?

How well did that work for you?

Episode 1: I received an email from PayPal for a password change. This is one of my PayPal accounts that isn't linked to the email that I use for FB or Twitter, so to know the address it would take someone involved in the case. I called and learned that the password change attempt was done by telephone.

Dear mouth breathing sociopath : 

• PayPal logs phone numbers. 
• My account has been on higher levels of security since an individual suspected but not proven engaged in similar attacks about 5 years ago. 
• PayPal has obligingly provided me with the address for a subpoena.
• PayPal is in California and I reside in New York. I suspect that you are the idiot that lives in Canada. Even if you aren't, you have attempted identity theft and wire fraud that crosses state lines. That concerns the FBI and Homeland Security. If you are the idiot from Canada, that would also involve the CIA.
• "Burner" phones are still traceable.

Have a nice day.

We will stay updated. Let the fun and games begin!

A Parent's Right

At this point I am sure there is speculation about why I don't/didn't believe Ruby's allegations.

Many of you will argue that like beauty, "truth is in the eye of the beholder", and I would have to agree, to a point. Any two people won't see the same incident the same way. But just because you are a parent, you don't have to believe everything your child tells you.

And when you have access to multiple episodes of contradictory evidence, why would you believe unfounded allegations?

Ruby repeatedly demonstrated that she was not afraid of Jon and didn't avoid being alone with him, despite her later testimony. That testimony directly contradicts what we as a family knew to be the truth. Below are some very specific examples:

• Anytime that Jon wanted to run an errand, she would request to go with him. When she was told no on occasion, she would get angry with me and/or Jon and whine.
• Ruby rode to school with me every day for two years - it was about 20 miles from home. We had to leave the house at about 6:45 am, and Ruby was definitely NOT a morning person. About once every other week or more frequently, she would be impossible to get out of bed. When I would insist, she would tell me that "Jon can take me later." Sometimes that would cause an argument if Jon had appointments to keep and couldn't oblige her.
• In 9th grade, once Ruby got involved in drugs (Tramadol, Valium, marijuana that she got at school), she would want to leave school early at least once a week, because she "didn't feel well". This was often not an option for me, and despite me telling her to rest in the nurse's office, Ruby would text or call Jon to come pick her up.
• In spring of 2012, a few months before the allegations, Jon and Ruby and I had tickets to go to a Chickenfoot concert. I had another obligation before we could leave, and Ruby tried insisting that she and Jon leave me behind and go themselves, even though the concert was five hours away and meant an overnight stay without two drivers. (After that concert, Ruby even began searching out concerts that she wanted Jon to take her to, and insisted that if they were too far away, the two of them could stay in a hotel - Jon repeatedly told her that wasn't going to happen.)
• Most telling of all was the period of time when Jon was working on an app for smart phones, a few months before the allegations. He sat the family down and explained that if he was able to get the app developed, he would need to go out to California to access funding. Ruby insisted that Jon take her with him. Jon refused and told her that he would be couch-surfing with friends, but Ruby began telling her friends that she was going to "move" to California.

Ruby had a history of making false allegations. 

• Less than a year before the allegations against Jon, she insisted that I call the police because a former friend of hers had been "threatening her", and Ruby showed me the text messages. When the police officer investigated, he found that Ruby had been sending equally threatening and nasty messages, but that Ruby had conveniently deleted them from her phone before involving me.
• A year before Jon moved in, Ruby claimed that one of her classmates had been bullying her, as an excuse for why she wouldn't do her homework. I called the parents, and they grounded the "bully". The next day Ruby went to school and began laughing at him and teasing him. School got involved and it turns out that Ruby had a crush on the "bully" and he wouldn't pay attention to her, so this was apparently her way of forcing his attention.
• The statement of Mike Heisler isn't the only documentation we have that Ruby was threatening him with police involvement if he didn't see her - there are at least two other witnesses to that information that have come forward.

Ruby was constantly introducing and describing Jon as her "father" to all her friends and their parents, as well as to casual acquaintances. She would repeatedly tell everyone that he was a great parent. This was reported back to us by teachers, parents of her friends, and even her friends. We even had a friend who is a social worker in a different county (who has adopted children that have been abused) tell us that when she learned of the allegations, she did NOT believe them because she had witnessed Ruby's relationship with Jon and it was not characteristic of abuse. Ruby didn't limit this to just when we were around, she would say this when she was away from us also, including in her social media conversations and private messages with people who didn't know us.

Ruby had multiple opportunities to report the alleged abuse to people who would believe and support her including at least ten mandated reporters that she spent time with alone, three individuals that she knew had been sexually abused and would support her, and most of her friends. Ruby never bothered to make any allegations until Jon and I stepped between her and her relationship with Mike Heisler. Not only didn't she report any abuse, she repeatedly told multiple individuals that she was going to get Jon out of the house because she didn't think I would be able to monitor her as well.

Ruby had repeatedly threatened Jon and me with arrest or CPS involvement any time that we wouldn't give in to her demands.

• She wanted to go to a bonfire party one night, and when I told her no, she said that she would call CPS on me and report that the bruises she got from skateboarding were from me. I reminded her that she had already posted pictures of them all over Facebook describing the skateboarding incident so she backed off. 
• A few weeks later she assaulted me (I have photos of the bruises and multiple eye and ear witnesses) because I told her that we were going to have Mike arrested when we learned that they were trying to make arrangements to go to Camp Bisco for the weekend together with friends. 
• She would even threaten her sister Maura in the same way if Maura let us know about Ruby sneaking out or being involved with people who had police records or inappropriate behaviors.
• The night of the allegations, while at the police station in front of the police officer and the detective, and then again in the lobby, Ruby repeatedly threatened to "call CPS on you too" when I tried to file charges against Mike Heisler. This was witnessed by an additional police officer who came into the lobby to check on me and make sure that Ruby wasn't a threat to me.

The details of what Ruby gave for allegations don't match reality. 

She described going over to Jon's apartment "every week" and that the abuse allegedly occurred 10-20 times or more. Unfortunately for her, and fortunately for Jon, teens these days live on the web and leave a detailed digital footprint, in addition to what we have for records from school, the pediatrician, sports schedules, play practices, etc. We were able to develop a very detailed calendar that demonstrated that Ruby in fact had almost NO opportunity to go to Jon's apartment even once a month. Her social media (and that of her friends) demonstrated that she was at swim practices and meets, musical practice, and her friend's houses almost non-stop during BOTH periods of time (her first story and her second version). Since there were additional friends that she spent time with during both intervals that we didn't collect data from, it further limits her version of how she spent her time.

Additionally, since Jon was living at my house for almost the entire time period involving the first set of allegations, and Ruby didn't even go to Jon's apartment during the second time period (with his depression, it was his "safe place" and we were just friends and not dating), her story just doesn't ring true.

The only direct correlation was that Ruby only began escalating her behavioral problems AFTER we discovered the inappropriate relationship with Mike Heisler (he was 21 and she was 14) and tried to put a stop to it by whatever means possible.

I am and always have been an involved parent and insist on knowing where my children are, when she first began telling her story I knew that it was "off" and there were major issues and discrepancies. I expressed that to the police officer, to the detective, and to the CPS investigators, all of whom chose to ignore my concerns.

Ask yourself, do you have an obligation to support someone who you know is not telling the truth, no matter how close your relationship, if the false allegations will destroy someone else's life?

"Seal Team Six"

Despite the title of this blog, and the posts regarding some of the attorneys, we have been blessed to have worked with some skilled and talented individuals during the duration (ongoing at this point) of the Jon Massey Case.

Sometimes losing a case isn't about the ability of the attorney, especially when the odds are stacked against you.

Some of what transpired was in violation of our 6th Amendment Constitutional Right to representation, so I will present the attorneys in roughly chronological order.

John W. Hallett was my first attorney. Despite the original Family Court Judge insisting that there was no conflict of interest, two AFCs (Attorney for Child), Attorney Sanchez, and the CPS attorney insisted that John Hallett had a "conflict of interest" because he was the AFC for my youngest daughter five years prior when she was 3 years old (he only had to meet with her once, and there was no conflict, as she wanted to live with me than just as she repeatedly expressed at the beginning of this case that she wanted to return home now). The judge conceded despite his objections and Attorney Hallett removed himself.

Eric Swartz was Jon's first attorney. He was doing the best that he could, but it quickly became obvious that the ADA was ignoring all the evidence and proceeding forward with this case for political reasons. The ADA wanted to enhance his reputation as the "go to guy" for sexual offenses against minors, and indeed had an article published about him regarding that within days of Jon's first indictment. We realized that we needed an attorney who could be more aggressive in asserting our rights.

Enter onto the scene Mark D. Blum. He was first retained to represent me in the Family Court issues, but then we realized that he had the skills and the knowledge to attack the bigger issues of Jon's criminal charges. We thoroughly researched and realized that his representation of both of us was not a conflict, as our interests were united. We signed the appropriate waivers and attempted to move forward. However, Mark has a very gung-ho style, and his IQ was demonstrably higher than those he was up against. Consequently, the ADA and his replacement ADA, the CPS attorney, Attorney Sanchez, and two of the AFCs screamed bloody murder and got the county judge on board. This was probably as a result of them feeling intimidated by his abilities. (Sorry Sal and Sal, gotta call this one as I see it.)

I retained Salvatore F. Lanza, who is a most excellent attorney and really knows his stuff. He was thorough, complete, and even when we realized that the court was failing to acknowledge the truth, he continued to strongly advocate for my interests at all possible openings. He was intelligent, thoughtful, analytical, and knew how to present the law at every possible opportunity (which was apparently something beyond the comprehension of the opposing attorneys and the court). I would give him my whole-hearted recommendation for whatever path he chooses for his legal career! He obviously knows the law and respects it.

Jon retained Sal Piemonte who did an superb job, given the predisposition of the judge and the prejudicial behavior of the court and the District Attorney's office. Sal spent hours with us researching and interviewing. He was organized and analytical and developed a thorough defense. Unfortunately, the court was looking for a conviction regardless of the truth of the matter, and Sal was unable to present his entire defense. Sal is definitely an excellent lawyer with respect for the law and the truth.

Finally, the sixth member of the team was Beth Lockhart. My middle child, Maura, was 17 at the onset of this case. She was appointed an AFC who did an adequate job. However, when Maura turned 18, despite the Family Court judge ordering that she continue to represent Maura, the AFC returned the file to Maura and told her to find a new attorney. (We later learned that this was a violation of the NYS guidelines for AFC - the same ones used to disqualify John Hallett - which state that an AFC remain in place for the duration of the case or until the client turns 21.) At that point, Beth Lockhart entered onto the scene. Beth is amazing! She became an invaluable resource and truly performed as an AFC should for my daughter. Maura maintains an ongoing relationship with her despite the outcome.

Here you have the members of "Seal Team Six" - the six attorneys who during the course of this case to this point have done an outstanding job to the best of their abilities and to the extent allowed by the courts involved. Trust me, I am fully aware that there are many wonderful attorneys out there, and it is just as important to acknowledge them as to expose the corrupt and incompetent ones.

Suicide Is NOT a "Choice"!

For the "start of the story", visit the Jon Massey Case.

Jon had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder with suicidal ideations in 2004, but had been suffering with medical and other issues for years before that.

This was long before Jon and I had reunited in 2008 - I say reunited because we met in Junior High and were friends all through high school - graduating together in 1979.

Depression is not easy to deal with, but Jon and I did our best to not let it affect our lives.

Unfortunately, in New York State - apparently a suicide attempt can be used as an "indicator of guilt" by police and prosecutors, so Jon leaving the house to attempt to kill himself when Ruby made her allegations was not seen as a response that was part of his medical disability, but rather an attempt to avoid prosecution.

This could not be further from the truth. If you asked any 10 men what their response would be if a teenage girl accused them of sexually molesting her, I have no doubts that at least 8 of them would admit that they would think about suicide.

So for a man who already had the predisposition, Jon's response was no more abnormal than it would be if he wanted a cup of tea and the sugar bowl was empty - anything big or small could be a trigger for his suicidality.

What I do know is that Jon pulled himself back from the edge that day when he was picked up by the Sheriff's department, and he spent the next two years fighting back his suicidal urges every day to try to prove himself innocent. He knew that the only way to save our family was to continue to fight, despite all the obvious corruption that was continuously thrown at us.

Jon's fight from July 2012 through February 2014 is how anyone should know that he was not guilty - a man with his level of depression would simply have found a way to kill himself as soon as possible rather than fight a corrupt system against incredible odds.

And yet, "Honorable" John Brennan, in his infinite wisdom, when our case finally came before him in Family Court, became just as abusive and corrupt as Judge Martusewicz. We have the transcript in which Judge Brennan stated on the record that Jon Massey's suicide was a "choice" by which Jon relinquished his right to appeal.

Judge Brennan, suicide is never a "choice"! Your choice of words was inappropriate beyond measure, and most probably an ADA violation.

Judge Martusewicz, your choice of waving off standard courtroom procedures when placing Jon under arrest upon the verdict was also most likely an ADA violation. You had been presented with evidence of his longstanding depression including multiple hospitalizations for suicidality, yet you took no precautions to treat Jon as a suicide risk upon taking him into custody. 

Although, given the fact that you listened to at least 5 prosecution witnesses testify in front of you that Ruby had given each of them the same allegations (using multiple references - "last year", "eighth grade", and 2010-2011) and then she changed her story three days later and you didn't think it was an issue, I would say that you may have some serious perceptual issues.

The two of you will have to live with the choices you made, in driving a man to the brink of despair by your manipulation and stupidity, and then your choices to add insult to injury after his death.

But Jon did not make a "choice" - he was forced into his actions by the corrupt system that is represented by both of you. With the narrow minded thinking that the two of you demonstrated, I'm sure that you tell yourselves that people "choose" to be bullied and abused.

Suicide is NOT a "choice"!

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system that FORCES people to bring themselves to the end!

The Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments

for CPS and Family Court

1. Thou shalt only present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2. Thou shalt not let monetary reward, promise of promotion or threat of discipline, political aspirations, opinions of superiors or outside agencies, or anything else derail or influence your quest for the truth.
3. Thou shalt use the scientific method and gather ALL evidence, testimony, and documentation prior to evaluating the truth.
4. Remember to present only the truth in all your dealings, whether with families, paperwork, the court, or any other respect.
5. Honor the concept of family and respect the father and/or mother and their right to be different from you in their parenting approach.
6. Thou shalt not kill familial relationships through the use of alienation tactics.
7. Thou shalt not enter into relationships with any family members to the exclusion or destruction of other family members.
8. Thou shalt not wrongfully take children from their parents.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against any family member.
10. Thou shalt not desire to remove children or destroy family relationships.

Please Share and Retweet

This Isn't CSI Folks!

For the "start of the story", visit the Jon Massey Case.

Crime scene shows are very popular these days - CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds, True Detective, there are even modernizations of old favorites with Sherlock, nerd versions like Numbers, and Steampunk style shows like Murdoch Mysteries. But before you get all bent out of shape because I didn't include your favorite (and before rushing off to Netflix the ones that I listed that you hadn't heard of)  please take a few minutes to read through what you don't know about the investigatory process.

Most of us learned about the scientific method in school. You form a hypothesis, possibly conduct an experiment, collect all the data and evidence that you can possibly find, and then evaluate what you have to determine whether your hypothesis is supported.

Police don't work that way. Ever. Can you think of the time and resources that are utilized in just one episode of your favorite crime drama? Now imagine if that were done for every case that is presented to law enforcement. Police departments would have a debt load larger than the national debt, and employ more people than any other entity. 

Here is how police actually work. They get a report, and if it includes a likely suspect, they focus on collecting any and all evidence and only interviewing those witnesses who will corroborate that the suspect is guilty. They will ignore (or possibly destroy) any evidence that contradicts their theory. They will do what they can to suppress any witnesses who will provide contradictory testimony. If there is no suspect, they will rattle around and see what they can find, and then it becomes a "cold case".

CPS actually functions in an identical manner, except they already have a "smoking gun" so to speak - the parents or "caregivers". Anyone who dares to stand up to them becomes a fresh target for their charges and false reports. Family members are turned against each other and encouraged to provide information that would lead to additional charges.

This is not cynicism, this is reality. We have lived this for the past three years.

Examples? My youngest child was placed in the custody of her father (Ken Shaw) who lives in Canada. Ken Shaw immediately began filing false reports against me (as well as my middle daughter and my friends) with CPS, as well as Homeland Security, various Canadian police agencies, our local police department, and who knows where else. It is amazing that with all the reports filed, not only did nobody get arrested, but one of the Canadian police agencies actually told our local police force that they believed that my youngest daughter had been "coached", and they told me that they thought the father was "mentally unbalanced" and a "pathological liar".

Because none of my family backed up Ruby's claims, in fact they all contradicted her allegations, my oldest three children have been systematically denied any visitation with my youngest daughter, at the urging of CPS.

My son was threatened with arrest by the local Sheriff's department (under Burns and Trudeau) if he disclosed the information and evidence he had collected that contradicted Ruby's allegations. The detective involved also threatened to have me arrested and told my son that she would do so if he continued to cooperate with Jon and I. We have notes provided in the CPS discovery that prove these issues.

I've already discussed the police raids on my house that were a method of intimidation. At the first grand jury, the DA not only made false claims that my son was a "convicted felon" and "convicted drug dealer" to prevent him from being called and his evidence from being presented, he also disclosed information about my son that placed his life in jeopardy, and this disclosure was a violation of US law.

One of the friends of Ruby who was initially a defense witness and could testify as to motivation and behavior changed her story after a year and a half. Even though she voluntarily signed an affidavit for Jon and then a second affidavit with the Sheriff that reaffirmed her first affidavit, somehow she was "persuaded" to change her story. It possibly had to do with the fact that some of the evidence obtained by my son could be used by CPS to go after her parents.

Most telling about this whole situation are two incidents. 

There was an issue with one of the police statements - it had my signature on it. You would think that you are entitled to a copy of any legal document that has your signature on it. Apparently, according to our local police, you are not.

WHENEVER YOU ARE ASKED TO SIGN ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT, DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL YOU HAVE A COPY. IF THE DOCUMENT HAS MORE THAN ONE PAGE, MAKE SURE YOU INITIAL EACH PAGE AND THAT ANYONE ELSE SIGNING IT DOES SO ALSO.

When I requested a copy, I was shuffled from person to person until being told that I had to talk to the detective about it. When I asked the detective for a copy, I ended up with a police lieutenant screaming at me so hard that his spit was on my face, physically towering over me in a threatening manner, and telling me that I had to leave a public government building or he would have me arrested. This document later became the topic for a young police officer to commit perjury over - although the judges involved have conveniently sealed up half the testimony so that we can't prove the contradictory statements at this point in time.

The second incident involves the "evidence collecting" against Jon. Jon had absolutely NO record at all at the time of the allegations, and none afterwards either. No speeding or parking tickets, nothing. (I find this amazing - what person hasn't gotten at least a parking ticket?) The same detective mentioned above went to Jon's landlord for the initial time period requesting property rental records. The landlord, who is also a friend of ours, asked for a warrant. The detective said he didn't have one and the landlord told him to come back when he did (which never happened). As an attempt to persuade the landlord, the detective made the statement, "If we don't get him for this we will get him for something."

The irony of this entire situation is that even though we had documentation of the statutory rape that had occurred between Ruby and Mike (recorded admissions from Ruby, text messages, etc), CPS wouldn't touch it ("That's not our job"), the local police wouldn't touch it ("If it didn't happen in city limits, it isn't our job"), and even the Sheriff's department wouldn't touch it ("she says it didn't happen"). The reality is that a conversation going on behind the scenes (which CPS gave us partial documentation regarding) demonstrated that all three agencies knew that to pursue the statutory rape issue meant that they would lose the case against Jon. Since it was coming up on an election year, as well as high-level vacancies occurring in CPS and the police department, the "high profile" effect of prosecuting an adult male who abused a minor would benefit them more than a "low profile" statutory rape of a 14 year old by a 21 year old.

Once again, politics and the desire for fame outweighs truth and the administration of true justice. This isn't CSI, it is a game where the only winners are the best manipulators, and the losers are truth, justice, and the innocent.

The Hospital and The Hypocritical Undersheriff

For the "start of the story", visit the Jon Massey Caset.

On Friday, February 28, 2014, Jon Massey apparently ingested cyanide sometime after hearing a guilty verdict.

His best friend, my daughter, and I were in the courtroom as support people. We didn't see him put anything in his mouth. We did see him openhandedly pick up a glass of water and drink, but he never put anything in the glass or his mouth. Trust me, we were watching, because we knew about his suicidality and we didn't want to anything to happen to him.

What we did see was the bailiff walk over to Jon and ask him what he had in his pockets. Jon showed him some cash (for the jail commissary), his reading glasses, and a comb. The bailiff pulled out his handcuffs (standard courtroom procedure), but the judge waived him off and told him it wasn't necessary. The bailiff escorted Jon through a door in the back of the courtroom. That was the last any of us saw of Jon in a conscious state.

I stayed behind to ask the judge where to take Jon's medications, as the last time he was in prison (upon his initial arrest) the prison didn't have a correct list of his medications and weren't able to obtain some of them. I was directed to take them to the prison, about 10 minutes away.

I went down and dropped them off, and on the way back learned from the news that Jon had been rushed to the hospital. No phone call to me, no phone call to his sister or mother, we heard it from the news. Apparently people from the DA's office and the Sheriff's Department continued to report to the local news sources throughout the weekend and ultimately reported his death. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be a HIPAA violation.

Additionally, from what we were told by the staff at Samaritan Medical Center (who were compassionate and caring with one exception) - Jon collapsed at the loading dock and was rushed to the hospital WITHOUT ANY IDENTIFYING PAPERWORK. It took Samaritan over 20 minutes to get a positive ID on Jon so that they could access his information in the system. The Sheriff's deputy couldn't/wouldn't ID him because there had been no transfer of custody. This was subsequently confirmed by several Corrections Officers and Deputies.

Jon died three times and was brought back before he was transferred to ICU - in a coma and non-responsive. At that point the Undersheriff (who had announced his campaign for Sheriff) Paul Trudeau "took charge". Paul Trudeau took it upon himself to decide that since Jon was in their custody and their responsibility, he would decide who was able to see Jon, when, and how long.

Paul Trudeau was campaigning on a "Family and Christian Values" platform. And this self-righteous man decided that Maura, Grant, and Chad (all children with whom Jon had a father/child relationship) were NOT allowed to see him - solely because they were not "blood relatives" or "legal step-children". He only allowed myself (Jon's partner), his sister, and his mother to see him 20 minutes each. Not only didn't this conform to hospital visitation policy, it didn't conform to NYS Correctional visitation guidelines - which specify that the visitation rules of the facility in which an inmate is housed are to be followed.

Hospital policy for ICU was that one family member could stay 24/7, and a second family member could visit for 20 minutes at a time in addition. The doctor in charge of Jon's case and the nursing staff tried to persuade the corrections officers to allow hospital policy to dictate - after all, Jon was in a coma, attached to multiple life support systems, and non-responsive. Trudeau was adamant about his own guidelines.

Matthew 25 speaks to this: 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

When I chose to remind Paul Trudeau (a man of "Christian and Family Values") of this verse, he grew irate. His buddy Sheriff Burns backed him up. This meant that none of the kids was able to see Jon until after he had died a very difficult death. Trust me, you would not have wanted to see that as an adult, much less as the de facto child of a man.

I have no complaints about Samaritan Medical Center, the hospital administrator even interceded at one point on our behalf when Trudeau tried to have his corrections officers prevent me from getting status updates on Jon. (Jon had registered me with Samaritan as his medical information resource, granting me full permission to get medical reports on him.) The doctor handling Jon's case was amazingly compassionate, and insisted that her medical reports on Jon be delivered in his room, outside of the 20 minute allotted visitation times (in order that the three of us have opportunity to spend some more time with Jon). Even several of the Corrections Officers assigned to "guard" Jon were very lenient when it came to watching the clock.

The only people causing problems were the Undersheriff and the Sheriff. Not a big surprise given their history:

• Deputy Passed Out Drunk in Patrol Car
• Deputy Sues For Harassment & Defamation
• Woman Sues Deputy for Sexual Harassment
• Woman Sues Deputy for Defamation
• Corrections Officer Sues for Harassment
• Partial Summary Timeline

On the plus side, there is a new Sheriff in town, and it is NOT Paul Trudeau. The current Sheriff seems to have her hands very busy cleaning up all the departments that were allowed to reign unchecked and inappropriate under Burns and Trudeau.

"Dirty Tricks and Retribution" - Part 1

For the "start of the story", visit the Jon Massey Case.

The abuse from CPS/DSS and the Jefferson County Court System was beyond belief. When I tell my sister about it she thinks I am exaggerating because the incidents are so out of control.

The title for this blog comes from an email I received four months after Jon's death. There is a VERY short list of people who had my email address, so it isn't hard to know that it came from one of those people (most of them employed by DSS/CPS or the DA's office).

So I received this email, clicked on the link, and it went directly to a news article about Jon's death. I managed to get a chuckle because Jon had years before purchased the domain names that referenced my name with middle initial and my name by nickname. The abusive idiot who did this was left with "sloppy seconds".

An IT friend of mine was all set to trace the individual, but within two hours the account had been closed and "no longer existed" according to Google.

A few days later I discovered that I had missed something that had been sent to my "Other" inbox on Facebook, apparently on the same day.

Once again, the account had either been closed immediately, or I had been blocked. These are actions of a VERY immature but manipulative and devious individual.

All of this occurred a few days AFTER I was called into the office by my immediate supervisor. (I will not name them, because they had obviously been manipulated by individuals of the same ilk.) I was told that I might be getting a disciplinary letter in my file because "friends and family of the judge" were upset about what I was posting on Facebook about the case, and because I had a GoFundMe account that I was posting about the case on. I was posting on MY Facebook page, and MY GoFundMe account - information that is contained in the article about Jon Massey and what was done to him in criminal court. The phrase "friends and family of a certain judge" was repeated several times. The individuals who went to my employer were upset and said that they "didn't think they could work with me" anymore because of my posts.

Let me get something straight about my philosophy - each of us is our own individual. We are not our friends or our family members. We each deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for who and what we are, not for the behaviors and actions of those around us. If I have a problem with someone, it is because I have a problem with them, not anyone they are related to or in contact with. We all have skeletons in the closet and those crazy or deranged family members, so I'm not one to throw stones.

Sidebar aside, I did not get a disciplinary letter when I made it clear that my posts were made on MY time, on MY account, from MY devices.

Before that point, my house had been subjected to multiple raids by the police based on false reports filed by Ken Shaw, his attorney Ruthanne Sanchez, his wife Mary Shaw, Eileen Ruggiero (the DSS caseworker), and Michael D. Werner (the DSS attorney). I have the email record, so obligingly provided in the DSS discovery, that demonstrates the involvement of all of those individuals. The pretext of the police raids was that Jon Massey was supposedly living at my house in violation of the Orders of Protection.

From the date of the allegations until all orders of protection were lifted (July 11, 2013) Jon initially lived at his mother's apartment in Carthage, NY. Then he moved in with his sister in Carthage, NY for about two months. Finally, he lived with our friend in Watertown from sometime in late October/early November 2012 until her death in July 2013. Carthage is about 30 minutes away from Watertown.

The raids were initiated by Ken Shaw in January 2012, who lied and claimed that I told him Jon was "sneaking in the back door at night", and who also lied and said that he "heard Jon calling the dog" while I was on the phone with my youngest daughter. Let's get some information straight - my house is completely enclosed with a 6 foot fence and Jon was 5'6" and had some medical conditions that would have prevented him from easily climbing the fence; additionally, the only entrance(s) were through the garage/gate on a driveway shared with my neighbor who works for Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and has a dog that barks if you sneeze. Secondly, Ken Shaw lives over three hours away in Canada and would have no knowledge of what happens on a day to day basis in my house.

Once Ken Shaw kicked it off, DSS and Ken's attorney jumped on board. After the first time the police showed up, there were two more episodes. The first time was about 5 pm, and they not only didn't find Jon (who was at a medical appointment the full time in question), my daughter and I had already left the house.

The second time was about 3 am that weekend - my daughter called me because they were pounding on the door. She let them in, but Jon and I were at a hotel (security cameras can document). They searched the entire house and tracked mud all through at the same time.

The third time they showed up was about 1 am around a week or so later. Two of the kids who are friends with my daughter were there out front, and the police specifically asked for Jon. Ironically, one of the kids was named John, and after clarifying that the police weren't looking for him, the kids both informed the police that Jon Massey didn't live at the house. So the police found reasons to ticket the kids for their cars and then left.

The next round was in early February 2014. The DA served me with a subpoena for Jon's trial at 11:30 pm on a work night - apparently specific orders were left to serve me during the 11 pm to 7 am shift - and I was told by a police officer that I "was lucky they didn't serve me at 2 am". When I was served for the first trial on the original charges, it was at about 4 pm and a courtesy call was made in advance to arrange service. Can you imagine being woken up at 11:30 pm from a sound sleep to a police officer pounding on your door? I actually had a Letter to the Editor published in the Watertown Daily Times regarding this abuse of power.

These are just a few of the dirty tricks that were engaged in because Jon and I "dared" to fight back and try to get the truth heard.

The DSS Attorney

For the "start of the story", visit the Jon Massey Case.

This is the man who stated to two defense attorneys, Jon and I, and Andy Williams that he "knew" all the charges were BS, but that he and the DA were "under orders" to keep going after Jon and I. The county was trying to avoid ANOTHER lawsuit. For the record, his Facebook page was wide open for me to view and save the pictures.

Now the pic above just demonstrates the hypocrisy of this guy - he openly posts a picture that any "Joe Plumber" would get their child taken away for. But he claims that it was just "a joke". Hmmm...a child actually latched inside a crate that is for a dog and probably has animal feces and urine residue inside is a JOKE?

And this is the same guy who puts in his petitions that parents aren't allowed to consume alcohol within 24 hours of contact with their wrongfully removed children - obviously out of control intoxicated with alcohol bottles all over the tables.

Stand up, speak out, expose CPS!
(You can reach this fine, upstanding example of humanity at: Michael.Werner@dfa.state.ny.us)