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!

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!

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!

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!

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.