Coincidence?

Interesting development - the Jefferson County District Attorney (who was in office during the whole Jon Massey Case and whose name is featured in at least one exonerating/exculpatory reference) has decided to NOT run for reelection (see article here).

Could it be that her "hands on" involvement in the case that lead to the death of Jon Massey gave the public doubt in her abilities to fairly administer justice?

Or is it because she herself sent an email to Jon Massey's attorney and made a phone call to a young man's parents that could be interpreted as witness tampering?

Could it be that assistant district attorneys under her command have been involved in ethically questionable legal behavior?

After all, one of them in the Jon Massey Case alone engaged in Grand Jury misconduct (click here for details) before he crashed and burned.

And then there is the second ADA on the case who, when the defense presented a very strong case, somehow managed to ignore all the facts and prior testimony and ended up with a witness who mysteriously changed her story in a way that contradicted the county's expert witness (click here for details).

But apparently now we will be blessed with a "replacement" - from the same regime. The candidate who announced her run last night has just as questionable a history in the DA's office.

Let's start with the fact that she was the ADA handling the CRI who was exposed during the Grand Jury in the Jon Massey Case. She was responsible for preserving the confidentiality of his identity, even from others in the DA's office. Obviously, she failed at that (click here for details).

But she was also involved in the Deputy John Hallett fiasco - apparently despite the fact that he was found passed out drunk behind the wheel of his running patrol vehicle with a bottle of booze in his lap and his K9 in the car, the candidate failed to see any reason to charge him (click for the Sheriff's report).

So, are we there yet? It appears that it will be "business as corrupt as usual" if she is elected.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose the corruption!

Pushing Buttons!

Suicide is a criminal offense!

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the person who commits suicide is a criminal - the criminals are those who put any person in a situation where they perceive that suicide is their only option!

Who are some of the victims of this particular offense?

Dave and Tiffany O'Shell were two police officers who were wrongfully charged with abuse when doctor's failed to diagnose their daughter with a genetic disorder. Their despondency at the persecution of their family by child protective services and the criminal courts led to a murder-suicide for the husband and wife. And the family was unable to prevail in a lawsuit against CPS for wrongful actions. The irony is that their daughter was diagnosed with a genetic disorder that explained her injuries and also caused her death soon after.

Eleanor de Freitas brought rape charges to the police, but although they believed her story, they felt there wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction. The alleged perpetrator spent over 200,000 pounds to bring private prosecution against her and the Crown Prosecutor joined in (smell the money trail?). Eleanor, who suffered from bi-polar disorder, killed herself as a result.

Ron Mayfield Jr. was a teacher falsely accused of assault by a disruptive student. Without even informing or consulting the boy's parents, the school and CPS pursued charges against him. He was cleared by the police the morning that he killed himself, sadly enough. David Alan Papadakos suffered similar persecution after false allegations by his adopted son (who was on psychiatric meds at the time), and he also killed himself as a result.

Chris Mackney is another case, in which an ex-wife repeatedly and continuously dragged Chris through the Family Court system and criminal courts until he was bankrupt and had lost all hope of contact with his children. Despair over the inequity of the justice system caused Chris to kill himself.

I have previously written about Jon Massey, whose despondency over being unable to present the evidence and witnesses that would show the allegations against him were false made him give up all hope of justice and take his own life.

A simple Google search for "suicide", combined with any other terms of your choosing (false allegations, bullying, harassment, CPS, Family Court, etc) leads to hundreds of results of actual people who have been victimized by a system that fails to take action against those who have brought them to the brink of death.

In many suicides there are clear and distinct signs that actions and words of an individual or group were what prompted the attempt (whether successful or not), yet those people and systems responsible for the death of another person are rarely, if ever, held accountable.

What is not-so-surprisingly missing are the statistics on how many parents and children have died after being wrongfully dragged through the Family Court or Criminal Court systems by CPS. At this point, unless the friends and family members come forward, the true numbers will never be known.

What is known is that for over 25 years there have been questions about the legitimacy of the CPS system and the actions that it takes - often using coercive and underhanded techniques to continue cases without merit while ignoring the actual reasons for false allegations. (Click here for an article that details statistics from 1990 and earlier regarding false allegations and their effect on families.)

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose the corruption that has existed for more than a quarter of a century!

Listen Up!

Friday, April 17 @ 10 pm EST (9 pm CST)

The Jon Massey Case

(A CPS/Family Court/Criminal Court Travesty)

on

Parenting Revolution

Archived Interview Link:

https://soundcloud.com/parentingrevolution/special-guests-liz-scanlon-michael-volpe

(Note - during the show, Ken Shaw and his acquaintances got on the chat and kept posting comments, which is why Tim announced that people should call in if they had any questions or statements to make. As usual he and his friends did not, because they prefer to lie and start problems without people knowing who they are. For more information on Ken Shaw, you can see the "PA - Consider the Source" post and the "Here We Go Again" post to get an idea.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

A jury is directed to only pronounce a guilty verdict if they are sure "beyond a reasonable doubt".

But what exactly does that mean?

In this day and age of Stepford mentality, we are pressured to conform to current PC beliefs and behaviors, and people are (unfortunately) reluctant to assert themselves.

However the true function of a jury depends not upon going along with the crowd, but with standing your ground and remaining true to your beliefs, regardless of the pressures exerted on you by others.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical  explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com)

When you vote "guilty", can you truly say that none of the evidence could support another theory?

Can you truly say that you held true to your own doubts and beliefs that another explanation held weight and was reasonable?

Can you truly say that you stood up against pressure to vote with the crowd? Pressure to end the case before the weekend? Pressure from the prosecutor or court to not leave a "hung jury"?

And if you had been a juror in the Jon Massey case, what would it have taken to elevate the level of doubt in your mind?

Would hearing from two of the "adult" men that Ruby had been trying to figure out ways to get out from under supervision for MONTHS prior to allegations have helped?

Would hearing from her mother that what incited Ruby into a violent attack against her mother, sister, and Jon Massey was a threat to arrest her 21 year old boyfriend - less than two weeks before the false allegations? Oh, wait, the judge screamed at the mother in front of you and then ordered you cleared from the room and didn't allow you to hear that piece of evidence.

And the judge and prosecutor prevented you from hearing the same story from Ruby's sister. Would hearing it have given you enough doubt?

What if you had known that Ruby had made allegations against multiple people over the years, including her "best friend", and the sons of some well-known local individuals? Would that have made the difference?

I feel sorry for the jurors in the Jon Massey case. Based on what they DIDN'T know, they found an innocent man guilty.

I truly feel sorry for them. Well, most of them.

There has to be a special place for this juror who made the following post on Facebook the day before being chosen for jury duty - most of the conversation is between the juror and her mother.

Almost sounds like a ringer or a plant.

I would hope that when being called to jury duty, this serves as a cautionary tale - the judge and the DA rely on being elected. To get re-elected they need to present an image of being able to convict "bad guys", whether the charges and allegations are true. The more heinous the offense, the more favorable the election publicity.

Don't be a sheeple - think for yourself, believe for yourself, and remember that guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt!

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.

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.