How Far Will They Go? (Snitch Part Two)

On Friday, October 17, 2014, the largest weapons arrest in Jefferson County, NY history was made. (Click to read the full article.)

The only reason these weapons did NOT end up in the hands of drug dealers or other criminals was because of the efforts of a long-term "snitch" for the local police agencies. (This was actually the same CRI mentioned in the blog entry Snitch.)

The two "gentlemen" attempting to broker the weapons had contacted him to find them a buyer.

The snitch promptly began contacting anyone and everyone he knew in law enforcement in an attempt to set up a sting to get these "fine upstanding citizens" and the weapons off the streets.

He texted a Sheriff's deputy, but she was on the way out of the country on vacation and unable to do anything.

He called his probation officer, who initially ignored the report/request. (Interestingly enough, one of the young men arrested on the weapons charges is the nephew of that probation officer.)

He continued to contact any and every law enforcement contact he could, until finally he received a response.

But in the meantime, the two young men were getting suspicious and anxious. They told the snitch that they wanted him to prove that he was capable of doing the buy, and that he only had a few hours or they would go elsewhere.

So he borrowed $200 from a family member, bought an unloaded gun for "Mr. Big" to inspect, and put it in the locked gun safe at his house.

Before he had a chance to blink, the local task force produced the $5K for the rest of the buy and had him set up a deal. The snitch was the third man in the car, sitting in the front seat with a loaded hand gun pointed at him from the rear by one of the two arrested.

When the arrest went down, as part of his statement he informed the officers about the gun in his locked safe and he took them to retrieve it.

However, the "snitch" had unfortunately testified on behalf of his mother three and a half months earlier in the Family Court aspect of the Jon Massey Case.

As retaliation for his efforts in exposing the fraud, false allegations, and wrongful prosecution that resulted in the death of Jon Massey, the district attorney and the judge decided to "throw the book" at the snitch. In fact, they "fast-tracked" his case.

Meanwhile, the two weapons thieves are still in jail awaiting trial. And the primary witness against them? The "snitch" who is well within his rights to plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify for the people responsible for ongoing harassment of his family and friends.

That could result in two high level criminals going free.

Or maybe this was the plan all along - after all, it wouldn't look good for the nephew of a probation officer to be convicted of the "largest weapons bust" in Jefferson County history. Far better to continue to harass a family to cover up a wrongful action that resulted in the death of an innocent man, as well as irreparable harm to multiple children.

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

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!

Disregard for the Truth!

Denise Robertson has written an article which sums up what is happening in so-called "child protective systems" around the globe on a daily basis. (Click here for the article.)

There is a systemic disregard for the truth inherent in the Family Court/CPS system. It has become blatantly obvious in Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and other countries that the system established to "assist" families in trouble is now being used to abuse children and families.

I have detailed just a few of the experiences we and other families have had - for every post I have written, there are (conservatively) a thousand other stories that have gone untold. Read the rest of my blog entries for details of some of the techniques and strategies used to systematically destroy the relationships between children and their families, usually for a financial profit.

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

Interesting...

Odd things just keep popping up in the Jon Massey case.

This, for example:

You might be wondering why I consider this "odd", so let me enlighten you.

1. The July 2013 Grand Jury is the same one that was used to issue a superseding indictment on Jon Massey when the original charges fell apart on the DA for a number of reasons. (See: ADAs, Nerd Law and Legalese, and Doctor, Doctor, Give Me the News for a small sampling of the flaws in the case).
2. Scott D. McNamara is the Oneida County District Attorney. Apparently even he seems to think there is a need to unseal the record.
3. Judge Martusewicz is the same Judge who dismissed the indictment and sealed the record against Jon Massey after his suicide, in accordance with the law and Appellate Court rulings that protected Jon's Constitutional Rights post mortem. Yet Judge Martusewicz is the same judge who quickly unsealed that same record (in violation of court procedure requiring a higher level judge to do so) - in order to allow Jefferson County Family Court to continue to persecute the family (families) that supported Jon Massey.

It appears (at face value) that there is something rotten in the county of Jefferson that has come to the attention of all, even the prosecutors of nearby counties.

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

Coincidence Too? Connect More Dots

The local DA's office has quite a few resources under their control, both financial and logistical.

The DA suddenly decides not to run for reelection, but one of her minions decides to run in her stead.

A qualified candidate steps up and announces that he is running in opposition to the ADA.

It will be interesting to see what type of dirt starts being "dug up" by the entrenched candidate against the contender and his friends and family.

They couldn't possibly be this stupid...could they?

(I'm not sure whether this last comment is rhetorical or sarcastic...)

"Family" Court?

And this is business as usual for Family Court - judges ignoring the truth, those charged with enforcing the law instead violating it, witness tampering, but worst of all - damage done to a child and a family!

We had judges listening to what they knew were outright lies, yet instead of shutting the liars down and advocating for the truth and justice, they continued to penalize those of us telling the truth.

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!

US Govt Says? Foster Care FAILS!

In August 2005, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a report on federal foster care financing (click here for the full report).

What is most striking is that the report lists quite a few failures in the funding system that have not been addressed at all in any type of reform.

A sample is as follows (directly quoted from the report):

"The current funding structure has not resulted in high quality services."

"The current funding structure is inflexible, emphasizing foster care.  Title IV-E funds foster care on an unlimited basis without providing for services that would either prevent the child's removal from the home or speed permanency."  

Again, it is all about 'cash for kids'.

"Foster care services are intended to provide temporary, safe alternative homes for children who have been abused or neglected until such time as they are able to return to their parents' care safely or can be placed in other permanent homes. Federal foster care funds, authorized under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, are paid to States on an uncapped, “entitlement” basis, meaning any qualifying expenditure by a State will be partially reimbursed, or “matched,” without limit."

In other words, there is no incentive for states to return an child to their parent, and there is actually financial reason to keep the child in foster care for as long as possible.

"the current funding structure is inflexible and emphasizes foster care payments over preventive services" 

Preventive services would mean reunification with the family.

This table is very interesting - it shows that the states which collected the most money for "maintenance" (actual foster care) are West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Maryland, and New York  - in that order. In other words, those five states are maximizing their revenues by putting kids in foster care and keeping them there as long as possible. 

These are funds collected from the federal government in addition to child support collected from the parents.

"Funding sources for preventive and reunification services, primarily the Child Welfare Services Program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program funded under title IV-B of the Social Security Act, are quite small in comparison with those dedicated to foster care and adoption."

The federal funding streams encourage foster care and adoption, rather than reunification.

The report repeatedly cites failures in record keeping and accountability by the states, as well as the issue that reunification is not fiscally rewarded, and it is more lucrative for children to be placed in foster care or adopted out rather than being left with or returned to their families.

The system is broken, even the feds have been aware of it for at least ten years!

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

Who Wins?

As a case progresses through the morass of Family Court, who really wins?

The "family" doesn't win - despite the name, the grinding action of Family Court places families under such stress that most of them crumble under the strain. Those families that manage to stick together are subjected to pressures that erode their financial stability, their sense of justice, their feelings of security.

Children don't win. The very nature of so-called Family Court actions these days are adversarial - deisgned to promote competition between parents and alienation of parents from the children. The children are ultimately deprived of the love and care of one or both parents.

Parents don't win. Family Court fosters a "winners/losers" environment, rather than recognizing that it is in everyone's best interest to promote cooperation between parents instead of competition. The adversarial relationship is often escalated to the point that it consumes the lives of one or both parents.

The damaging environment that occurs in Family Court, often over an unnecessarily protracted period of time, manufactures long-term complications that often snowball into repeated trips to court over minor issues. These are usually accompanied by false allegations and other destructive behaviors designed to promote one parent at the expense of the other.

So who wins?

The court system benefits - they receive a stipend for every case that passes through their system. The more traffic (so to speak), the more income.

The family court lawyers benefit - for some of them this practice is their sole source of income, between divorces, child custody, and working as AFC, they secure their income from prolonging cases and generating repeat business.

Even the Jefferson County criminal court judge in the Jon Massey Case engaged in repeated returns to court in an attempt to prevail in his divorce in 1995 and again in 1996 - choosing to utilize the appeals process rather than more appropriately petitioning the court to modify. He had learned as a lawyer how to game the system to further his own desires.

The only winners are those collecting money - the more the case involves and the longer it takes, the more money they make.

When you factor in the CPS actions that process through Family Court, sometimes in conjunction with divorce and custody issues, the money changing hands increases exponentially - all at the cost to children and families.

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

Cash for Kids

Over the course of the past three years, I have had numerous talks with my friends, relatives, and co-workers (not necessarily mutually exclusive) and have heard some fairly profound stories about just how badly the system is broken.

The intent of the Federal Adoption Incentive was to spur CPS and the Family Court system into finding "forever homes" for children who had been lingering in the system for years.

Unfortunately, there is a reason these children had been held in limbo, unadopted. Many of them had physical or developmental issues that would be difficult to manage. Others had been subjected to severe levels of physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological abuse that would require intensive treatment over a period of years.

To draw an analogy - most people would prefer a brand new puppy to a dog from the local animal shelter, and the mentality about adopting a child isn't much different.

People who are looking to adopt want a baby they can "raise from scratch", or a child who hasn't been subjected to the ordeals of actual abuse. But those didn't exist in the foster care system - so CPS had to find a way to generate such a marketable commodity.

With the rise of private adoptions, in which pregnant women could broker deals for the unwanted child they were carrying, CPS needed to find another source of babies and children to supply the adoption demand, and to start generating quotas to earn their state the bonuses under the Federal Adoption Incentive.

That meant that they needed to start seizing children who were "marketable", so CPS found a new target. They began to go after people on "neglect" charges - and they came up with a new description to broaden their search - "derivative neglect".  

In the eyes of CPS, parents are neglectful if they miss a doctor's appointment (even if they immediately reschedule), if their child misses too much school (even when there is documented illness and the parent coordinates with school and keeps their child up to date on work), if their child isn't dressed according to the standards of the social worker (regardless of whether the child's clothing meets "community standards" - what is considered acceptable to most of society), or if the parents aren't feeding a diet deemed acceptable by the social worker. All of it is entirely subjective, and gives caseworkers wide latitude to charge a parent wrongfully, setting in motion a seizure of their children.

Derivative neglect is even more interesting as a concept. It basically means that a parent can be charged for anything that may have happened to a child, even if they were not present, were not informed about it, and the child never told them or demonstrated any signs that anything occurred. Under this standard - each and every one of us could be deemed guilty of derivative neglect for the Boston Marathon bombing, or the Twin Towers - that is how broad the standard is and how non-existent a burden of proof is required.

And this is how CPS has been able to make their own niche in the Cash for Kids market - they find families with minor amounts of discord and assess for how "marketable" the children are, then proceed accordingly. The Family Court judges buy into this corruption because they receive funding based on case load and disposition, not the merits of the case. There is no incentive to adjudicate fairly - after all, once a family has been logged into the CPS system they become "fair game" for future action.

People worry about the NSA and other agencies maintaining a database - however there is a much more insidious database being maintained by a specific government agency - the CPS and Family Court System. Any individual who has ever been a "party" in Family Court or in any Child Support action, has now been entered into the CPS database. This includes not only the adults, but also the "subject" children. This is in addition to the records maintained on any and every report ever called in to CPS - whether "founded", "indicated", or "unfounded".

Foster children, victims of false reports, parents who have fully completed and complied with "service plans" (and learned and changed their behaviors as a result), are all fair game for the pickings. They have become a "fertile field" for CPS to harvest adoptable children.

And meanwhile, the situation that the Federal Adoption Incentive was designed to correct continues - with repercussions. Now only the most severely obvious cases of abuse are acted upon - and often those are the only families that are reunified. The system is bogged down with cases of "neglect" and "derivative neglect" that are fast-tracked into TPR (termination of parental rights) and adoption, rather than the reunification that should occur with these mild or even non-existent charges.

Meanwhile, foster parents looking to adopt the "high needs" children are put on the back burner - their cases are dragged out with repetitive paperwork and unnecessary delays - while children from intact families are fast-tracked into removal from their parents and placement for adoption.

I have spoken to two separate adoptive parents who refuse to work with our local CPS system any more after their experiences in foster-to-adoption. Both parents are mandated reporters who have been trained in the recognition and reporting of child abuse, and who have no doubts that the children they fostered and then adopted had been actually abused. Yet they faced what they characterized as a "lack of support" for ensuring that the needs of the children in their care were met. This would be expected - the needs of a genuinely abused child would require spending money long-term and would erode the CPS profit margin on the funds they receive from multiple sources.

Additionally, one of the adoptive parents was subjected to extortion attempts from the extended family of the children they were adopting. The family had absolutely NO interest in taking the two children, but upon learning of the employment status of the foster family adopting the children, they began making direct contact with the foster family requesting payments for them to sign off on the adoption quickly.

In conversations with several teachers, I learned about multiple cases that had been "hotlined" in which children made allegations against a parent, with more than sufficient evidence to back up the allegations. Yet not only weren't the children removed from the homes, nothing was done to address the abuse. In one instance a sexually abused child (one of several in the home) finally attacked the abusive parent with a hammer and was sent to a juvenile facility.

We even have a local county legislator who was showed up on CPS radar after his child and other kids got into a "very active" game of street hockey that left marks. Despite the evidence presented by all of the children involved, it took months before the legislator was given a "clean slate".

The common factor when children are seized? No evidence of abuse, often no evidence of neglect, and characteristics in the children that would make them "adoptable" - no disabilities or other issues that would render them undesirable. Even in our own case they tried to fast-track Ruby into adoption - within four months Ruby's father was told that she was going to be adopted out "soon", despite family members who wanted to take her. (It kind of makes you wonder who would be in the market for an intelligent, beautiful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl who at age 14 could pass for 17 or older.) 

The system is irreparably broken. It is merely a cover for the illegal seizure and sale of children and youth, as well as a source of revenue generation and career preservation.

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

Stats Too!

We've already looked at the statistics for children being taken from their parents, never to be returned.

Now let's take a hard look at this last column:  DEATH OF A CHILD

Read the column title again:  DEATH OF A CHILD

Now read the title of the table:  FOSTER CARE EXIT OUTCOMES

Since when is the death of even a single child considered nothing more than an "exit outcome"? Better yet, why are children in foster care dying? They have been placed there to "protect" them by a government agency.

And yet, it isn't just a single child - in the 12 years of this record, it is 6,317 children. Children who have been taken from their parents - the families who try to protect them and keep them safe.

If even a fraction of these had occurred in Ferguson or Baltimore or NYC, the riots would still be going. Yet these children are a blip on the radar, swept under the rug by a corrupt government agency that doesn't want to acknowledge that it is failing families and children.

How many more children have died in the over five years since this data was recorded? How many more children killed in foster care will it take before we acknowledge that the system is broken and corrupt?

Stop the insanity and killing! Stand up, speak out! Expose CPS!

Speak Out!

For More Information on the Jon Massey Case:

Interview with "The Captain"

Monday, April 27, 2015 from 8-10 pm EST

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with The Captain0 on BlogTalkRadio

*********************************************************************************

Interview with Tim Skomo of Parenting Revolution

Friday, April 17, 2015 from 10-12 pm EST

*********************************************************************************

Interview with Marti Oakley of The PPJ Gazette

Friday, April 17, 2015 from 10-12 pm EST

Check Out News Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Marti Oakley on BlogTalkRadio

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!

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!

Wolf Cry! - The Fallacy of the "Rape Shield Law"

The "Violence Against Women Act" of 1994 created a Federal "rape shield law", which followed after many states had already enacted equivalent versions during the 1970's and 1980's.

A rape shield law is a law that limits a defendant's ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. 

If you have listened to the radio interviews regarding the Jon Massey Case, you will have heard author Mike Volpe talk about how the judge and the district attorney used NY Rape Shield Law to obstruct Jon Massey's attorney. He was blocked from developing and presenting a defense against the false allegations made against him by Ruby, his partner's daughter.

Ruby's had compelling motivation to make false allegations - Jon and her mother had tried to prevent the 14 year old girl from having a romantic relationship with a 21 year old man for almost six months.

Her premeditated intent to remove Jon from the house solely to enable her to continue her relationship was repeatedly expressed by her in text messages and Facebook messages to her boyfriend, as well as to other individuals. 

At issue was not the sexual nature of the relationship - it was the fact that the boyfriend had been warned on at least three occasions that he was not to have any type of relationship with Ruby and that to do so would lead to pursuit of legal action. It was the constant attempts by Jon and her mother to prevent the relationship by any means necessary that prompted Ruby to make allegations that would remove Jon from any ability to interfere, as well as tie her mother's hands.

As a point of fact, when Ruby's mother tried to describe how Ruby responded violently when the subject of the boyfriend was even brought up, the judge not only began screaming at the mother from the bench, he also cleared the jury from the room and threatened to have her jailed for contempt of court. This occurred not once, but twice during the trial.

Not one of the defense witnesses was ever allowed to mention the boyfriend's name or allude that there even was one. The jury never heard about Ruby's threats against her mother and Jon if they interfered with her relationship. They were blocked from hearing the truth.

Additionally, one of the other potential witnesses who could testify to Ruby planning months in advance to "get Jon out of the house so he won't be able to monitor me" was a young man, and the judge refused to allow him to be called as a defense witness, again citing the Rape Shield Law.

The Rape Shield Laws are a necessary and a valid protective tool - they prevent defendants from using prior sexual behavior, lifestyle choices, or even attire to prejudice a jury against the victim. Nobody disputes that further exposing a victim to shame and humiliation is unnecessary and should be prevented whenever possible.

However, these laws were never intended as a tool to be used by the court or district attorney to prevent someone accused of a capital offense from preventing a valid defense, which is what has evidently evolved.

Even the NY Court of Appeals, in 1999 in the case People v. Jovanovic (in which a lower court improperly suppressed emails which would have cleared the defendant), affirmed that Rape Shield was not to interfere with a valid defense. (This sounds hauntingly familiar - as there was electronic evidence that Ruby was planning for months to remove Jon as she viewed him as the primary person able to monitor her behavior. The case was even cited by Jon's attorney in an attempt to persuade the judge to allow the documentary evidence and testimony, not only by Ruby's boyfriend, but by the other young man.)

The defense in this case wasn't even focused on the sexual behavior of Ruby - it was centered on her belief that Jon and her mother would be able to have her boyfriend arrested. Even without an admission of sexual activity from either Ruby or her boyfriend, the fact that he allowed her to spend the night at his house to "watch documentaries" would be chargeable as endangering the welfare of a child, as well as custodial interference. 

Instead of protecting victims however, the Rape Shield Laws have now become a tool to wrongfully convict people by cutting off their entire line of defense. The judge and the prosecutor in Jon Massey's case deliberately used them in that regard. 

It is interesting to note that available on the internet are several "handbooks" for district attorneys with "blueprints" for prosecuting sexual offenses. One of the strategies that is promoted is to attempt to use the Rape Shield Law to suppress any and all evidence of innocence or ulterior motive on the part of the alleged victim.

We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf. 

By allowing girls who make false allegations to hide behind the Rape Shield statutes and secure wrongful convictions, judges and district attorneys are creating a situation that could result in erosion of victim's rights. The more that people learn of these false convictions based on spite and vindictive behavior, the less likely they are to take true allegations seriously.

It is time to stop allowing prosecutors, judges, and "victims" who make false allegations to hide behind the Rape Shield Law and secure wrongful convictions. Preserve the rights of the true victims, don't allow the corruption of the system to erode their rights.

Speak out, stand up, make a difference!

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!

Hear Ye, Hear Ye!

Talk Radio with Marti Oakley 

7pm Monday April 13, 2015
Postponed

The Jon Massey Case

Rescheduled

7pm Monday April 20, 2015

Tune in to Talk Radio with Marti Oakley

Mike Volpe and a guest will be discussing the Jon Massey case. 

Details of the case at 
www.jeffersoncounty.com

and

www.bottomfeedingsharks.com

Click on the link below to listen to the interview via the Internet.
 Tune in shortly before 7 pm to activate the interview.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley

Here is the archived interview:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2015/04/20/journalist-mike-volpe-liz-scanlon-the-prosecution-of-jon-massey

Two hours is NOT ENOUGH for what they have put us through!

Numbers Don't Lie

The second DA on the Jon Massey case sent the letter below four days after a hearing was held on the original indictment.

The ADA informed Jon Massey's attorney in a subsequent phone call that  Ruby had told her "nobody had ever asked" about the dates the alleged abuse occurred and the alleged events that happened.

So, let's look at some numbers documented in the paperwork regarding that interviews that occurred between July and December 2012:

• Initial interview by police officer:                0.5 hr
• Interview by police detective:                    2.0  hrs
• Interview by CPS investigators:                 1.0  hr
• Reinterview by CPS investigator:               1.0  hr
• Meetings with two therapists:                   10.0 hrs (minimum, probably more)
• Meetings with Assistant DA:                      6.0 hrs (two meetings, possibly more)
• Meetings with County Psychologist:           9.0 hrs 
• Extensive testimony at Grand Jury             5.0 hrs (low estimate)

Even under the Common Core Math, this is a total of over 34.5 hours.

The testimony of the county psychologist documents that he was VERY thorough about verifying her time frame and even consulted with the therapists, as well as the school counselor and the foster parents (whose hours talking to Ruby about the case are undocumented), to confirm the time frame that Ruby had given. (See the Doctor, Doctor, Give Me the News blog entry.)

All of the testimony occurred in front of the judge, so it should have been just as obvious to him, as it is to anyone else, that the continued prosecution of Jon Massey was based on false allegations and a flawed case.

Over 34 hours telling the story to multiple people with no "inconsistency" according to the psychologist? And suddenly "nobody asked her"? I smell a huge untruth.

Additionally, what came out when Jon Massey was finally brought to trial, was that the DA's office spent over 25 hours "coaching" Ruby on her testimony. That is about the length of rehearsal time that is spent in performing a school or community musical (and Ruby had been an A student in a drama and theater class, and had taken a college-level psychology class at this point in time, as well as already testifying at two grand juries). Why would someone "telling the truth" need that much practice time? Something just doesn't add up.

Numbers don't lie. People do.

ADAs (Apparently Dumb Attorneys)

The first ADA (Assistant District Attorney) involved in the Jon Massey case was a go-getter.

He had a shining career in prosecuting sexual offenses against minors that was the subject of a very favorable interview in the local newspaper.

The article even documents the inter-agency cooperation between CPS and the District Attorney's office, as it details the use of the Child Advocacy Center - a location used by CPS for interviewing children (and it was used to interview Ruby in the Massey case).

But there was an undercurrent swirling around the ADA. First were the issues involving the first grand jury that heard the Massey case.

Leading up to that grand jury, we have documentation that numerous affidavits and other evidence were sent to the ADA that would cast substantial doubt on Ruby's story, yet he proceeded forward regardless.

Even the DA was concerned about the reliability/credibility of the case, as presented in the discovery from CPS:

There is documentation that this first ADA spent at least two 3-hour sessions with Ruby reviewing her story and working on her testimony before the first Grand Jury, as well as the hours of time spent with other experts and prosecutorial parties - see Numbers Don't Lie!

However the first ADA assigned to the case did a major crash and burn, and left his position at the DA's office in March 2013.

The next ADA filed a motion in the case that definitively states that Ruby's story had been checked and verified as being as accurate and as complete as possible. This would make sense - there were well over 34 documented hours of interviews regarding time, place, and events that occurred with Ruby. The new ADA had access to all of the files and records in the case and so would have been confident of these details enough to put her name to a sworn statement.

Additionally, the second ADA directly witnessed the testimony of the psychologist that was paid by the county to do an evaluation of Ruby, she herself called him as a witness and did the direct examination of this expert. So when she presented the letter below to the judge four days after the hearing ended, it was blatantly disingenuous.

It must be very gratifying to work for the DA's office in our county - you can be incompetent, ineffective, and inept, and still collect a regular paycheck.

As taxpayers, we definitely are NOT getting our money's worth!