|
|
|
Your FEEDBACK & Federal Trial Results (Guilty and NOT guilty)
From: Webmaster (kids-right) (webmaster@kids-right.org)
This is a message from a mailing list, members@kids-right.org Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message. ====================================================================== Good People and People of Faith, This message contains: 1. Federal Trial Results - guilty & NOT guilty as charged. 2. Your pretrial FEEDBACK - thanks for the thoughts. 1. Federal Trial Results - guilty & NOT guilty as charged! --------------------------------------------------------- Today, in US District Court, Magistrate Judge Gustav DiBianco found John Murtari both guilty and NOT guilty as charged in the government's 4 count complaint. If you find this confusing, so was the trial. At the conclusion attorneys for both sides were trying to understand what the ruling meant. [We should have a transcript of the ruling in a few days at the web site. If you wish to read the original complaint and activity leading up to this trial, please check: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr/federal_trial.htm]. In a case where it first seemed the Judge was ready to find John guilty on all counts -- John's Public Defender, Ms. Lisa Peebles, put up a very strong fight during the trial and moved for dismissal of ALL charges after the prosecution had completed it's case -- the grounds, they had not shown any "obstruction" of the building that would have violated the rules. The Judge reserved decision and directed the defense to present its case, but in the end, after a powerful closing argument, it was obvious the Judge could not sustain all the claims made by the US Attorney's office. However, on the last two counts of the complaint, which involved a "group" of people blocking the halls and not obeying an order to leave -- he found John guilty. This was very confusing since the three other group members who had accompanied John on July 29th, were just there to visit Senator Clinton's office and had no intention of walking in the hallways with John. BUT -- as they walked by John in the halls (he was already under arrest), that created the "crowd" that needed to be dispersed. An appeal is planned both on the facts and Constitutional grounds, but the win on the first two counts appears to indicate as an individual, he did nothing wrong. The US Attorney's office had hoped a conviction would make it clear John's conduct was not allowed in the building, this mixed decision may have served to only increase confusion and partially support his position. Judge DiBianco asked both sides for letters regarding sentencing. John will again appear in Court on November 22nd for his sentence and the Judge made it clear incarceration was quite possible and his future conduct might influence the sentence to be imposed. John plans on returning to the building next Monday, Nov 4th, at 1pm. More details as we can get them posted at the site, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr, Your participation is welcome! We should all note -- other than Mary Jo Marceau-Hawthorne (our PR person and also a witness at the trial), there were no other parents in attendance. John was very, very relieved at the outcome -- he had been prepared to begin a jail sentence today. 2. Your FEEDBACK - thanks for the thoughts! ------------------------------------------- --- Children's Legal (childrenslegal@hotmail.com) - Press Release > > Details of a FEDERAL TRIAL FOR **PEACEFULLY** PETITIONING SENATOR > CLINTON FOR REFORM!! Trial Date October 29th. Chuck Schumer didn't > respond like this. > > http://www.akidsright.org/actionc_syr/federal_trial.htm > > Baldwinsville Messenger ran the story (front page) > http://www.akidsright.org/actionc_syr/messenger1a.jpg > > Times of Wayne County ran the story (front page) > http://www.akidsright.org/actionc_syr/wayne-times1.jpg --- Gregory Romeo (WacoDads@aol.com) > John: First Step of your Federal Trial, make sure that the judge, > prosecutor and even your own defense council are ALL AWARE of their > duties as per statute as well as oath... (case law references) Sorry for the delay and I want to thank you for the references and the case law. My lawyer is making good constitutional arguments, you can read her memo of law at the site. But I guess what is really needed is more people. That Senator Clinton can just ignore a parent outside her offices, and other parents visiting her, and actually let the person be prosecuted is more an "indictment" of us, the parents in this movement, and how disjointed things are. We haven't found the path yet to get people fired up and active -- but I think that will come with time (I just hope it is soon!). --- Gloria (GKelly1091@aol.com) > I am praying for you. > My great-niece was taken from me illegally by Catholic Social > Services in Winnebago County, Illinois. I had her from birth until > she was two years and nine months. They have not let me see her > since February. There was no abuse or neglect alleged. Now my > niece's newborn has been taken from her. She is mentally ill and I > do not argue that she can care for her children by herself. The > policy here is to not let relatives of children who have been taken > into protective custody to be present at guardianship hearings. The > excuse is "confidentiality". This is totally illegal according to > the Social Security Act Title IV B & E. I am a qualified relative as > Great Aunt. The problem is that the agency makes money for not > placing children with relatives. The Attorney General and State's > Attorney and the courts are corrupt. Who do we go to? I have already > spent over $10,000 on attorneys. I am an RN who is on Social > Security Disability myself. I have two graduate degrees but I am not > intelligent enough to get these crooks in trouble and get my family > returned to me. > HELP! Gloria Kelly 815-654-2384 737 Otto Road, > Machesney Park, --- BRIAN DUTCHER <bddutcher@yahoo.com> - Support > I AM IN GEORGIA AND IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF MY PROBATION(CHILD > RELATED) BUT I MIGHT SHOW UP ANYWAY. AFTER ALL IF THEY DON'T KNOW I > LEFT THE STATE WHAT CAN THEY DO? WE DO HAVE TO STICK TOGETHER OR > NOTHING WILL CHANGE. > I HAVEN'T SEEN MY FIVE YEAR OLD IN OVER A YEAR NOW,SHE DOESN'T GET > THE BIRTHDAY PRESENTS I SEND HER OR ANYTHING ELSE FROM ME. I > HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG YET, BUT I MISS MY BABY SO MUCH, AT > FIRST I THOUGHT GOD WOULDN'T LET THIS CONTINUE. BUT NOW I WONDER IF > EVEN HE CARES. > IF I DON'T SHOW UP TO SUPPORT YOU, I'LL PRAY FOR THE BEST ANYWAY. > GOD MIGHT HAVE TURNED HIS BACK ON MY DAUGHTER AND MYSELF BUT I WILL > NEVER TURN AWAY FROM HIM AND HIS SON! GOOD LUCK YOU WILL NEED IT. --- Joe (JMargrabia@aol.com) -- Support > God Bless You! Your fight is for all fathers collectively. Don't > give up. How about a fathers' march on family courts. If we could > organize a few thousand dads here in south Jersey, I would attend > and not fear an arrest. Any fathers here in NJ that would be > interested, please contact me. Family Court in NJ is so bias in > favor of women it is a disgrace. --- Addison (TOLLENA@wyeth.com) > John, keep up ypor efforts!! You have tons of unspoken support. I > recently spoke with a person running for State rep. They asked me if > I was going to vote for him. I asked what his stand on Family court > reform was. They didn't know, so 2 hours later the person running, > Carl Cherkin from Pa. called. I told him the issues. He's not an > ex-lawyer, which is paramount for me, as I will not vote for a > lawyer(we know why). He's committed to helping our cause should he > be elected. But, who knows, they all tell you what you want to hear > anyway. > Curious, has Clintons office ever given a reason as to why they > don't want to meet?? It seems so simple, just meet with you and you > won't have to be there anymore. Not that you'll go away....just > wondering. Good luck!! Keep up the fight!! --- Rinaldo (berkshire_fatherhood_coalition@hotmail.com) > John, what an incredible story! I am so far away, but this is a > real inspiration. --- Ron (Citroencar@aol.com) > Good luck in your trial. If NY has the same system as Missouri does > for putting judges in place, don't get your hopes up. We have some > of the biggest losers for judges. The general rule around here is > the ones who graduate from law school with the top grades go on to > become law professors or very successful lawyers. The vast majority > of the class go on to become the mainstream average lawyers, some > with ethics and some without. The bottom of the barrel ones become > lazy lawyers who work for some firm in a nearly clerical fashion and > only do the minimum. These seem to be the ones who get appointed as > judges. > In my divorce case, this was painfully obvious. My ex went through 5 > lawyers, delayed trial numerous times, tried using a close friend of > the judge as one lawyer which resulted in an FBI investigation and > the subsequent resignation of the judge, her alienating the kids > from me, her denying me visitation, trying to put the kids in a > different school without my knowledge or consent, and numerous other > issues. After she ran up about a $85,000 legal bill and we agreed to > visitation, the judge ordered an excessive child support and ordered > me to pay $45,000 of her fees. He even put in the decree, whoever > violates the decree and we come back to court, that person is > responsible for the attorney fees. We go back to court because of > the denied visitation, her not keeping me informed of what the kids > are doing, her not keeping medical insurance on them as ordered, her > not getting the QDROs in as ordered, and numerous other issues. The > judges finds that the kids are afraid of me and that she did > whatever she could to have them go (she wasn't even there about 70% > of the time and 20% of the time, no one was there), that she is > intentionally underemployed and not maintaining the insurance as > ordered. He recognizes my child support has always been paid, and > doesn't emancipate my oldest daughter after she did not follow the > requirements as spelled out in the decree. He then orders me to pay > $10,000 of her fees. We go back for rehearing and the judge recuses > himself from the case based of lies told to him by his brother > outside of the courtroom. He then permanently poisons the case by > stating in the order of recusal that it was because of my > misconduct. My ex garnishes my accounts, and my pay in order to get > the $10,000. > So here I am, not seeing my kids as she agreed to in the divorce and > as ordered by the judge, in hock up to the limit, and being denied > my constitutional right to a fair court because of the poison pill > the judge put on the case, and barely getting by. If I was to go and > visit my brother and his family, the best way would be for me to > hitch hike. > I've come to the conclusion that in Missouri they did away with race > slavery and replaced it with gender slavery. If your a divorced Dad > you have no rights, and are turned into a financial slave. The court > rewards the woman for violating the laws and punishes the Father for > abiding by them. > While I don't know how the "system" works in NY, if it's anything > like the one here in Missouri, I pity you. Good luck in your efforts > and I hope the judge at least suspends sentence or selects community > work as an alternate. ================================================================== To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to Majordomo@kids-right.org with the following 1 line in the BODY of the message (Subject is ignored). unsubscribe members
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 03:12:02 EST |
