Ruby Slippers

There's the saying, "you can't know about someone else until you have walked a mile in their shoes".

Unfortunately, in this day and age of lives plastered all over social media, our younger generations are growing up believing that "what you see is what you get" aka WYSIWYG.

Almost three years ago, Ruby made false allegations against her de facto stepfather in order to keep her boyfriend at the time from being arrested (she was 14 and he was 21).

Ruby was also involved in drugs at multiple levels (stealing prescription drugs from family members, using drugs, and selling drugs to others) and that was on the verge of being discovered.

Read more about the outcome of that situation at www.jeffersoncountyny.com as well as in the earlier blog entries here.

Now Ruby was a highly intelligent young lady, and she had a friend with whom she maintained contact for a number of years, let's call her Sapphire.

Sapphire had also gotten caught up with the same crowd that was involved in drug and sexual behavior, and Ruby and Sapphire had renewed their contact, once Ruby was allowed access to social media.

By some mysterious coincidence - the drugs and other inappropriate behaviors (including potential theft or other threatening behaviors towards family members) have been occurring with Sapphire also.

And by another odd and "totally coincidental" event, Sapphire has now made false allegations against one of her family members who tried to stop her.

So Ruby has handed down her shoes - because she learned that she really didn't have to walk that mile at all.

Once the false allegations were out of her mouth - CPS and the District Attorney, as well as a corrupt court system, picked her up and carried her to the winner's circle.

And now Sapphire will get the same free ride, because she has learned that if you don't get what you want, or you are on the verge of getting in serious trouble, make false allegations and it all goes away.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

NYC #1

So apparently NYC rates as the "worst" foster care system in the United States.

But what goes beyond that is the defense of the system by a "Legal Aid" attorney who should be working to correct the problems.

Tami Steckler, head of the Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Practice, blasted the suit as “short-sighted” and warned that it could “stall the progress being made by those of us actually working with these families and children.”

“As the organization that represents almost all the children in New York City foster care, we have been working very closely with the current Commissioner to improve outcomes,” Steckler said in a prepared statement.

“This lawsuit is being brought by attorneys who have never represented clients in New York City’s foster care system, yet purport to know how to fix it, at a time when foster care numbers are at an all-time low and collaboration is at an all-time high.”

Collaboration at an "all-time high"? Sounds like the only collaboration that is doing well would be the collaboration between Steckler and the current Commissioner.

It would be interesting to trace the funding stream for the Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Practice - anyone care to hazard whether the money comes from the same locations that fund DSS and the foster care system?

So, let's take a look at their website: Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Practice - information from their own site reveals:

The Division was established concurrently with New York State's Family Court in 1962

and

The Juvenile Services Unit, the social work component, was formed as a result of the pioneering work of Juvenile Rights in teaming social workers with lawyers in order to adequately address the educational, social, and psychological issues that arise in Family Court proceedings.

Care to wonder where the "social workers" are found? I would be willing to bet that they are graciously supplied by DSS - in other words, DSS helps to keep control over the attorneys who should be only accountable to their child clients.

There has already been repeated documentation that DSS not only doesn't work to reunite families, but actively works to estrange family members from  each other, terminate parental rights as rapidly as possible, and farm children out for adoption.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose CPS for the outdated, abusive system that it is.

Prosecutor Misconduct

If you think that "justice" actually exists, you need to watch these two videos:

The system has become a political game for elected officials - District Attorneys and Prosecutors rely on a "good track record" to be reelected. That requires proving that they are adept at convicting "high profile" criminals.

Judges need to show that they are "tough on crime" in a similar manner, making sure that these "criminals" are put away and keeping the public safe.

The videos above demonstrate why we need to change the laws and remove immunity for wrongful prosecution. There is currently a petition regarding this matter on Change.org which has well over 1500 signatures. Please click on link below the picture to sign the petition, and then share it on all your social media accounts.

Petition to Remove Immunity

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

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!

Urban Dictionary Act Three

Let's do a reverse order post now...

So what exactly got the Family Court Judge so upset?

(Never mind the disclaimer at the bottom of this email - it was sent by the judge (now retired) to all the parties listed in his letter. Make special note of the names in the judge's letter...because they are the only parties legally allowed access to the information due to Family Court confidentiality rules.) For the record, Laura Cerow was the Commissioner of our local Department of Social Services at the time. She has since retired.

Now lets look at the attachments to the email that Ms. Cerow was trying to bring to the judge's attention:

So, let's see - the attorney who goes by the name of Louis Short not only is actively criticizing the judge ("the guy in the black dress"), but also the Commissioner of DSS, and is now promising to disclose confidential information about the case to at least three other people who are NOT parties to the case.

You would think that the judge (as well as the NY Bar Association and Appellate Fourth Grievance Committee) would be concerned about an attorney who uses wide open social media to disclose confidential information.

You would think that the judge (as well as the NY Bar Association and Appellate Fourth Grievance Committee) would be concerned about an attorney who shows blatant disrespect for the entire judicial process.

But no, this attorney saw the judges correspondence as free license to continue her bullying and harassment of DSS and it's employees (click here for details).

And although the media was alerted to this issue, and grievances were filed against this attorney, no action was taken by any of the agencies that could have provided oversight.

This attorney also used the judge's letter as opportunity to continue her criticism of the judge and his court:

People wonder why there is no justice? Perhaps it is because the legal profession fails to police itself and instead allows this unethical behavior to run rampant.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

Witness Tampering?

Throughout the Jon Massey Case we encountered multiple instances of highly suspect behavior.

Ruby was allowed to have a tablet at Christmastime in 2012 which she then used to "mysteriously" connect to the Internet (under the supervision of her foster parents). She began contacting a number of witnesses for the defense asking/telling them to not make statements, not testify, etc.

Subsequently one of the individuals, who had signed TWO affidavits expressing her disbelief in Ruby's story, totally reversed her testimony at trial in February 2014.

That tablet also "mysteriously" "burned up" within a week or two of the defense's discovery of Ruby's actions.

In May of 2013 Ruby joined the track team at her school, despite being diagnosed with flat feet and running being a sport that caused her pain, and as a member she traveled to one of her former schools. While there she approached at least one defense witness and told that person to "stop signing statements against me" and "don't testify".

The DA's office sent an "investigator" to "interview" multiple defense witnesses, and the investigator demanded that each witness who agreed to the interview tell everything that they would testify regarding.

When Jon Massey's mother failed to return his phone call within three hours (she had already left a message with the DA's office that she would NOT meet with him), he called the NY State Police claiming to be concerned about her well-being, and sent them to do a "welfare check" on her apartment.

The ADA served a trial subpoena on at least one of the witnesses at 11:30 pm - which was contradictory to protocol.

Most interesting, however, is the actions of the DA herself (not just one of her underlings).

Let me paraphrase this email - it sounds like "We are offering a job to the son of two of your witnesses, but the job offer disappears if those witnesses actually will be testifying".

The email doesn't mention that the same message was conveyed to both parents of the young man in question.

Surprisingly enough, both parents maintained their status on the witness list, because they had both known Ruby for over nine years and had witnessed her behaviors over the years PRIOR to Jon Massey entering the household.

If this case was so "transparent", why all the actions of multiple parties towards defense witnesses that have the appearance of harassment and intimidation?

Time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

Her Own Words!

What is at the heart of the Jon Massey Case is the testimony of Ruby. After all, there was no other evidence to prove that her allegations against him were true.

Quite to the contrary - there was sufficient documentation through multiple parties that Ruby had been planning to get Jon out of the house since April (when he first interfered in her statutory rape relationship with a 21 year old while she was 14). 

Additionally, there were at least fifty witnesses who had been willing to testify that Ruby had always demonstrated a positive relationship with Jon and had repeatedly introduced him as "my father", as well as speaking about him in positive terms, and even encouraging her friends to meet him.

Another issue raised by reporter Mike Volpe is that if Jon had actually done what Ruby accused him of doing, Jon would have been the first molester in history to:

• begin at the age of 50;
• only molest for a short period of time (approximately six months);
• stop when the victim asked him to stop;
• stop when access to victim actually increased;
• not have any other "victims" come forward (actually, quite to the contrary, many of Ruby's friends came forward in support of Jon);
• have absolutely NO criminal record;
• had been able to pass high-level security and bond screenings for employment (Jon had held top-secret clearances and was involved in multi-million dollar sales).

So now let's look at what happened, in Ruby's own "words" - her testimony to the Grand Juries.

The first Grand Jury was held on December 11, 2012 (less than five months after Ruby made the false allegations):

So, at the first Grand Jury, Ruby was able to twice give her original dates, AND reference them to when/where she was at school.

And at this point, Ruby was specifically referencing dates when Jon was NOT living at his apartment, he had suffered bi-lateral kidney stones (initial attack at the end of November 2010 - hospital records proved it - did not get lithotripsy to remove the stones until the end of April 2011) and had moved into our house. His landlord had been doing major renovations on the apartment and would have testified at the trial that they had to set up times specifically for Jon to meet them there, as he wasn't living there anymore.

Love the euphimism "date" - the ADA was apparently unaware at this point that Ruby had made recorded admissions to the sex as had Mike.

And just to document that Ruby had no problem recalling information correctly, she was able to correctly reference other specific life events that stood out in her life. (You would think that dates she had been sexually molested would stand out also...)

Now compare the above testimony to her testimony at the second Grand Jury on July 18, 2013 (almost a year after her false allegations):

 Note: Different ADA - the first one was no longer with the District Attorney's office.

 So - they got along. In fact they got along right up until the final time that we threatened to have the 21 year old boyfriend arrested, on July 22, 2012.

Again, her own words - she actually thought of Jon as a father. For the record, we only broke up once, remained friends, then worked out our differences and he moved back in.

Here is where the ADA begins constant reminders of the dates rather than Ruby remembering them.

 Ruby was actually FULLY AWARE of the cycle of the school year, as the child of a school employee who didn't work during the summer, the school year marked when we no longer had as much free time to do things.

And here we have it! The story that the ADA is trying to lead Ruby through by constantly reminding her of the dates (which conflicted with the story that Ruby had rehearsed and reported for almost a year) crashes and burns. Ruby was 12 going on 13 in 2010-2011, not the new set of dates being forced upon her.

 Note that the ADA is still repeatedly reminding Ruby of the dates.

 And again, the ADA is feeding Ruby the dates, and at this point Ruby indicates that she is "not sure".

 Hmmm...why is the ADA insisting that Ruby not give a year? Could it be because she knew that Ruby's whole story was a lie, and that the first version had fallen apart? And now they had to "remediate" the case to avoid a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

 Maybe you should listen to this:

And this:

Because Ruby's own friend testifies as to her drug behavior (use, sales, etc).

Now here is the parting piece of testimony regarding these matters:

So, apparently the 34+ hours that were spent with Ruby, especially the 3+ hours spent specifically walking through the time frame by the county psychologist, have all miraculously disappeared. (See the Doctor, Doctor, Give Me the News! blog entry for verification of his testimony.)

After all, a psychologist with a PhD would have no clue how to appropriately verify information with appropriate questioning techniques. Yet an ADA with a vested interest is able to lead her by the nose through the story (as documented above with the repeated reminders on dates).

The problem with telling a lie is that over time, it falls apart. And this would explain why the new ADA had to spend over 50 hours "coaching" her for the trial. (A good comparison is that 50 hours is approximately the same amount of time spent on rehearsals to perform a school play or community musical - practicing to be someone you aren't.)

It is time so stand up and speak out! Expose corruption!

Snitch!

One of the issues that arose in the Jon Massey Case was the "irregularities" that occurred at the first Grand Jury. Something that seems fairly small and inconsequential, but actually has HUGE implications was the ADA "outing a snitch".

Jon tried to call a witness who was a Confidential Registered Informant (CRI) and who had information about Ruby's premeditation and exculpatory evidence (exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt). 

This CRI had a registration number and a specific handler within local law enforcement. This CRI had been instrumental in a number of larger weapons and drugs busts, involving individuals who were known for violence. The identity of this CRI was known to the DA's office, as they had utilized the CRI in Grand Jury testimony for securing sealed indictments for a number of criminal offenses.

The United States Attorney General's Office has very clear and specific guidelines that dictate the use of Confidential Registered Informants - they are the "gold standard" that are to be followed by all law enforcement agencies and prosecutor's offices (click here).

Of particular note is the following section:

2. The Chief Federal Prosecutor and his or her designee are required to maintain as confidential the identity of any CI and the information the CI has provided, unless obligated to disclose it by law or Court order. If a JLEA provides the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee with written material containing such information:

a. Such individual is obligated to keep it confidential by placing it into a locked file cabinet when not in his or her direct care and custody;

b. Access to the information shall be restricted to the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee and personnel deemed necessary to carry out the official duties related to the case;

c. The Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee is responsible for assuring that each person permitted access to the information is made aware of the need to preserve the security and confidentiality of the information, as provided in this policy;

d. Prior to disclosure of the information to defense counsel or in open Court, the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee must give the JLEA an opportunity to discuss such disclosure and must comply with any other applicable provision of 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21-16.29; and

e. At the conclusion of a case or investigation, all written materials containing the information that have not been disclosed shall be forwarded to the JLEA that provided them.(3)

Because the federal guidelines are those that are to be followed by ALL law enforcement entities as well as ALL prosecutors, the actions of the ADA in this case violated Federal Law. Since the judge allowed this to continue with no repercussions, both are complicit.

This irregularity, as well as the others, was brought to the judge's attention immediately and he FAILED TO ACT. Under normal circumstances, the indictment would be thrown out and resubmitted to a new Grand Jury, as happened in a neighboring county less than a year after Jon Massey's death. (Click here for details.)

Additionally at fault is the prosecutor in the District Attorney's office who actually dealt directly with the CRI. - as the ADA who was prosecuting Jon Massey had never been involved directly with cases involving the CRI. Under the above guidelines, this ADA was under an obligation to keep the identity of the CRI secure, and that would include from other members of the DA's office under section 2.b. So there is plenty of blame to spread around. (It is interesting that the ADA in question has been involved and directly implicated in aiding a cover up in a matter involving the local Sheriff's department. Click here for details.)

"Outing a snitch" is considered an extremely serious offense, as it places the life and safety of the CRI in jeopardy, as well as endangering the safety of the CRI's family and friends. The CRI, upon learning of what had happened in front of 20 people, had filed a notice of claim against the County and the DA's office, as well as the ADA. Most lawsuits of this nature have won million dollar settlements.

But even more serious was the follow-up implication that has far wider reaching implications. The actions of the ADA indicate that any and all testimony of this CRI is untruthful in the eyes of the DA's office. 

That would indicated that any and all cases that relied on the testimony of and evidence produced by this CRI were "fruit of the poisonous tree". They can't have it both ways - either the CRI was a reliable witness or wasn't. 

Once again, there is documentation that the DA's office and the judge were working far too hard to ensure that there was a case against a man who had NO criminal record. Not only was there no criminal record, there were no other "victims" that came forward as normally happens. Quite to the contrary, the friends of Ruby rallied to the side of Jon and reported that the allegations were premeditated.

The only probable cause in this case was that the county was using any and every dirty trick they could to avoid lawsuits by Jon's partner and the CRI.

Read for yourself, learn the tools that are being used in our court system every day to PREVENT justice from being served.

It is time to stand up and speak out!

Criminal Injustice

If you haven't familiarized yourself with the Jon Massey Case yet, click here.

As a summary of what has been presented in this blog so far, in addition to the article above, are the following factors:

1. Ruby's story changed by a whole year and many events AFTER she had been interviewed for well over 30 hours that are documented.
2. The county psychologist (PhD) testified under oath that he believed the original time frame was correct, and that if Ruby changed her story after he had confirmed the time frame and details with her, she would be unreliable.
3. Ruby changed her story less than a week after the psychologist testified, and claimed that "nobody had ever asked her" about when the alleged abuse occurred and what happened.
4. The county psychologist did NOT diagnose Ruby with sexual abuse, or PTSD (as would be expected) - only "adjustment disorder".
5. The county psychologist was not allowed to testify at trial.
6. A counselor (MSW) testified that Ruby's "delayed disclosure" and "acting out" behaviors are characteristic of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS).
7. CSAAS only is present when there has been a diagnosis of sexual abuse. See #4 above.
8. The judge wrongfully invoked Rape Shield Law to prevent any testimony and witnesses regarding Ruby's relationship with a man that was the basis of her false allegations.
9. The judge wrongfully invoked Rape Shield Law to prevent any testimony regarding Ruby's premeditation to remove Jon Massey from the house so she could continue the relationship.
10. Ruby was unable to correctly provide physical description of Jon Massey - in fact she incorrectly described his physical characteristics.
11. There were multiple violations that occurred from the judge and the district attorney, including wrongfully removing people from court, lying to the grand jury, and threatening defense witnesses.

These are just a quick summary of the "justice" that was meted out to Jon. If Jon was truly guilty, why were both the judge and the district attorney working so hard and violating so many rights to make sure they won the case?

Stand up for your rights, speak out against corruption!

Urban Dictionary Part Deux

In the previous entry regarding Ken Shaw's attorney, we reviewed some of her unethical conduct and legal misconduct. However in addition to the things listed previously, this attorney has demonstrated that she is a cyberbully of the worst type.

The DSS attorney was fined $1000 for failing to follow a direct order of the judge in our case. Ken Shaw's mouthpiece capitalized on that fine to engage in a systematic pattern of harassment against him AND the director of CPS.

What followed from Ken Shaw's attorney, masquerading under a false Facebook name, was post after post targeting the director of CPS, interspersed with insults aimed at the DSS attorney, other attorneys, and even the judge.

Now apart from the fact that the use of a false name on Facebook not only violates Facebook policy, but also the Social Media Ethics Guidelines for NYS attorneys, the use of social media in this context is also a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as it functions to disrupt the functioning of the court.

I think these posts speak for themselves about the maturity and mindset of this attorney - no wonder Ken Shaw is her client, after all, birds of a feather flock together!

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!