Wednesday, December 10, 2008

We've Got Mail! (UPDATED)

I know this sort of diverges from the purpose of this blog, but I find it so amusing that I just have to share. I just got home to find the following 5 emails in my inbox, all in rapid succession:

To: (ed - my email in the sidebar)
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:33 PM
Subject: laughable

We check your site a few times a year, Cindy has better things to do.
I guess being behind bars will keep you out of trouble- rapist
As for Cindy, shes great, best thanksgiving gift she could have got was finding out you about all your arrests
Enjoy your time behing bars, with any hope they will lock away the key. She may have pity for you, we think you are just as sick as always. Now the world nows

and we call her Bugs, not boots you moron. still cant keep your facts straight

Hmmm...well, Boots was the nick she was using when she was trying? pretending? (I honestly don't know what the hell she was doing.) to get me to date her via email on July 25 and 27, 2003. So, you can call her whatever you want, but she'll always be Boots to me. As for me being a rapist, I'm pretty sure that I would know about something like that. Next:

To: (Again, see the sidebar)
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:35 PM
Subject: (no subject)

Busy in Aug? guess that's why you didn't write more crap so the police could keep track. Guess they give you computers behind bars. Keeps you busy?

Huh. Jail? Police keeping track? Hmmm....

To: (Look, over there ---->>>>)
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:36 PM
Subject: (no subject)OH so that's why you think that she would bother. She changed to lap top a year ago. We have her computer. You are so stupid!

OK, I don't know what that means. If anyone sees a point in there, please let me know.

To: (you know where to find my email adress now, right?)
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:48 PM
Subject: (no subject)
BTW your mug shot in Aug looks worse than the one from when you assaulted her( we made a bit of a comparison ), doesn't look like you are holding up there . too much drinking we take it. Couldn't find anyone your own age, so you go after 14 and 17 year olds? Bet your roommates at prison love you!
You think for some reason that you have weird plan, making you look like a sicker person than you are.
We don't want Cindy to get involved, but knowing her, if she can help to keep you in jail, she will.
we'll check in another 4 or 5 months, or maybe not, the police tell her a lot. At this point its not worth the effort, we can get information from them. She has tons of people behind her, we'll make sure you get what is coming to you, the legal way. They check often, they so have you number. What goes around comes around.

WTF with all this jail???? OH! I've had a revelation!

I did a triple take myself on this one when I heard it on the news, but several months ago a guy who is also named Paul McKay got arrested for sexual assault on a minor, or maybe two if I recall correctly. But he's older than I am and lives in Somerset, MA. North Attleborough. [corrected -ed] I'm also guessing his middle name isn't Patrick. He's in jail now apparently, and good for him. He sounds like a quite a dirtbag.

To: (you know the drill)
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 12:08 AM
Subject: (no subject)
my husband said he just posted on your email. I don't think you can access your email from prison, but just in case you have another inmate that is allowed to. We think that your site would be better named
Mckay Insanity. So much more fitting don't you think? We all do. As disturbed as you are, you show us each time how crazy you are. I guess the rape charges dropped 10 years ago was a big mistake too? What did you dial the wrong number and go to the wrong house? so long, we will miss your blog, good luck with your new roomates, I hear they love boys like you.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble kids, but one, you're not very bright if you're looking at a picture of a completely different person and thinking it's me instead of one of the other several hundred people in America who share my first and last names, and two, I haven't seen the wrong side of a set of bars since July 13, 2003, courtesy of our favorite felon, Cynthia Whelahan. Here's a little something for you to consider:

That is a TV in my office with CNN coverage of the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai burning. Which, that whole story is awful, but it's what's on TV right now. Then, there's me, with a big silly grin. And a Sam Adams. And I'm waving to dumb people who think I'm in jail. And McKay is spelled with a capital "K". And "posted on your email" is gobbldeygook. :-)

I swear, if you wrote all this as fiction, it would be rejected as too ridiculous.

I can't help but wonder why my correspondents don't identify herself themselves.

UPDATE: Knock it off, Cindy. If you've got something to say, don't be an anonymous coward. Stand up and spit it out, or just keep it to yourself.

UPDATE 2: This is Paul McKay the accused child molester:

I found that here. That guy is being held without bail and I guarantee you that he isn't spending a lot of time on the internet. Now, here's a close-up of me so that those who don't know me or who were engaged to marry me can do a more detailed comparison than the photo above will allow:

See the difference?

You know what's really amazing? That someone could fail to recognize that a person is not someone they were engaged to marry and slept with for over a year, and then also be excited (in a happy way) about the idea that the guy she had her 2 teenage daughters living with is a serial child molester. Thank you, Cindy, for this window into your psyche. You're making my task here a lot easier, ya whackjob.

This is the sort of insanity I was up against, folks. And for the most part, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and it's various and sundry agencies) is all too happy to take such nonsensical slander at face value and put the weight of government behind it under color of law. The problem in a nutshell is that they don't care what the facts are and they don't care what the truth is. They know who the victim is by looking for boobs and they simply pretend and proceed from there. They know who they're paid to prosecute and if they forget, they've got Jane Doe, Inc. to remind them. The reality, however, is this: One of us is an abuser. One of us violently attacked the other. One of us is a felon. And it ain't me. If that isn't clear already, it will be by the time I finish telling and documenting this story. And to think I'm only 5 days into it....

I suppose I should be extra glad they've got this other guy because otherwise, she'd probably have them after me.


Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Today, I have another hero

From Glenn Sacks: F4J Protester Mark Harris' Daughter: 'I'm Proud of My Dad'

Recently I wrote about UK Fathers 4 Justice's Jolly Stanesby, a divorced father of one, who has carried out numerous daring, creative protests.


Stanesby's partner in "crime" was UK fatherhood activist Mark Harris, who went through a terrible ordeal during his divorce. Below we reprint a blog post I wrote about Harris earlier this year.

F4J Protester's Daughter: 'I'm Proud of My Dad'

"Her life has been blighted by years of enforced separation from the father she clearly adores.

"'Most people look back on their childhood and remember family days out at the seaside and birthday parties,' she says. 'My recollections are of Mum, sour-faced in a suit, heading off for yet another court appearance and endless interviews with social workers and child psychologists, all telling me that I didn't have to see my dad if I didn't want to.'"

Glenn then goes on to quote this article in the UK's Daily Mail.

On Sunday morning, just hours before he scrambled on to the roof of Harriet Harman's home dressed as a superhero, Mark Harris kissed and hugged his daughter Lisa and set off from the South Devon home they share.

'I told him I was proud of him,' says Lisa, a 21-year-old wages clerk. 'I said that however long he managed to stay up there, I would be cheering him on and sending him my love.'

In the end, Mark, who staged his weekend protest with fellow Fathers 4 Justice campaigner Jolly Stanesby, stayed on the roof of Ms Harman's elegant period home in Herne Hill, South London, for ten hours - an hour for every year that his own case wasn't resolved by the courts.

When he climbed down on Sunday night, he was immediately arrested and detained by police, leaving Mr Stanesby perched precariously on the slates, stubbornly insisting he wouldn't descend until Mark had been released.

But then as Lisa points out, brushes with the law are nothing new to her 49-year-old father. During the decade he spent fighting for full access to his three daughters after his wife walked out and took them with her, the driving instructor faced 133 court appearances before 33 different judges, two stints in jail and went on a hunger strike.

The irony is that Mark's case is now resolved: Lisa, his eldest, now lives with him. So does his 17-year-old daughter. Another daughter, aged 15, lives nearby with her mother, but visits at least twice a week. He now has everything he fought for.

But he still donned Superman's leotard, tights and cape because while he is free to talk about the horrors he suffered at the hands of the British justice system, other fathers are not.

Last year, the Lord Chancellor ruled that family court proceedings must remain secret and therefore, argue some, unaccountable.

That, my friends, is a winner and one with big brass balls. To put your butt on the line when you've already won the game is courageous and deeply principled. Mark Harris joins his stuntmate Jolly Stanesby in my highest esteem. While these stunts might seem silly on their face, F4J has done a highly effective job of getting the problem with the UK's family courts into the public consciousness. Jolly is a veteran of dozens of these high profile protests, and he's currently serving 2 months in jail for the protest on Harman's roof. He won't be released until mid January, so please keep him in your thoughts over the holidays. I had the distinct honor of picking him up from jail after this stunt. He also once handcuffed himself to the UK's then Childrens Minister Margaret Hodge while she was delivering a speech. He further poked the system in the eye by then legally changing his name to Margaret Hodge and insisting on being addressed as Mrs. Hodge during court proceedings. Jolly was cleared at trial on false imprisonment charges for that one.

These guys have vowed that they will not stop until the custody laws are fixed and kids are guaranteed full access to both of their parents. Non-violent civil rights protest and civil disobedience has a long and distinguished history. Not only is F4J carrying that history on, they're doing it with passion and good humor. And kids love superheroes. I do too.

Keep fighting the good fight, Gentlemen.


Tuesday, December 02, 2008

The Documents: Dancing with The Man

In the last post, I left off with a letter I sent to FPD Chief O'Leary on 3/4/04. I received this response, dated 3/5/04 from Sgt Bousquet, the FPD Internal Affairs Officer. It turns out that my lawyer pretty much wanted to strangle me for writing to O'Leary in the first place, so I sent Bousquet this response. Sometime shortly thereafter, I received a call from someone who identified himself as Bousquet and was quite pleasant and understanding. He also wanted to dig in to who and what my others complaints with FPD officers were about, but I declined to get into it with him at that time. He assured me that he'd open an investigation, and we ended the call on a pleasant note agreeing to pick up later, after the trial.

As continuances piled up, and as Cindy started pulling restraining orders out of Barnstable Family and Probate (having moved to Sandwich), I got a little impatient and I also learned a bit more about the probable cause process, so I sent this letter to Bousquet on 8/9/04 asking that the 3/4/04 hearing result be appealed based on my right to attend having been violated by officer Austin. I received this response which sounded a whole lot different from the phone call I'd received from Bousquet. And this one told me that if I had a problem with how Scott Austin handled the hearing, that I should go to Scott Austin to straighten out the mess that Scott Austin made. So I called Bousquet, probably to ask him what he'd been smoking, and I got his voice mail. And I noticed from his outgoing message that while the call I had taken months earlier had been from a man with a smooth, unremarkable voice, Bousquet has a distinctive gravelly old man voice. So, someone had called me, identified himself as Bousquet, and tried to dig into to who else in that department I was going to point a finger at. So, what was I to do? Why, write another letter, of course. And I got another response from Bousquet.

This part of the story will will pick back up shortly, but first I've got the Barnstable restraining order and the Wrentham trial to talk about. Stay tuned.


The Documents: Charging Cindy

...but not really. On 10/3/2003, a preliminary hearing was held at Wrentham District which yielded nothing more than another date to go back to court. It was an opportunity for both sides to consider a resolution, and my lawyer was trying to get "pre-trial" probation, which would mean that if nothing happened before the period ended, the charges would be dismissed. (This is different than the "continuation without finding" I mentioned earlier, in that no admission is required and if there were an incident, the prosecution would pick up where it left off. With a CWF, if there's an incident, like someone claiming you violated a 209A, you're immediately found guilty on the CWF'd charges) The ADA, Mark Fabiano was willing, but in order to agree to this, he'd have to get the "victim" to agree to it too. So, Cindy had an opportunity to make all this go away and refused to do it. Malicious? You bet she is.

My lawyer had a good rapport with ADA Fabiano (who, last I saw, has crossed over from the Dark Side and is now a public defender), and he had a good handle on the absolute zero of a case he was looking at, as my attorney had made sure he was aware of my side of the story and who attacked who. He recommended to both of us that I should go to the Foxboro Police Station and file an assault and battery complaint against Cindy. My lawyer agreed, and so I left the courthouse and went directly there. Upon arriving there, I spoke with officer Frank Azevedo who wanted nothing to do with taking my complaint. I must have spent 15 minutes arguing with him and insisting that my complaint be taken before he left me standing at the counter with a statement form. I had with me a 3 page statement that I had written right after the incident to record the details while they were fresh in my mind, and I wanted to submit that as part of my statement, but Azevedo wasn't having it. I got one page, hand written, standing at the counter and a whole lot of attitude. When I finished writing, he took the statement and told me to check back in a month, which didn't strike me as proper procedure for handling a criminal complaint. Here's the complaint I filed against Azevedo with Internal Affairs.

A month passed, and nothing had happened, so I asked my lawyer to shake the bushes and find out what was going on. It was clear by that point that we were going to trial so she was also requesting a copy of Cindy's 911 call as evidence. Here's her letter to the FPD. You can see what happened next in my complaint linked above. Long story short, my complaint wasn't processed until 3 months after I had filed it and my lawyer had gotten involved. So, a probable cause hearing was scheduled for Cindy on March 4, 2004. I'll tell the rest of what happened via the letter I wrote to FPD Chief O'Leary later that day. Yes, I, the victim in the case, was barred from the hearing By FPD prosecutor Scott Austin. And then the son of a bitch snuck out the back door of the courtroom hoping to avoid me. And then I found him anyway. The Massachusetts Victim Bill of Rights (M.G.L. c.258B) requires that

You and your family members have the right to be present at all court proceedings unless you are required to testify and the judge determines that your testimony may be influenced by your presence.

and that...

You have the right to confer with the prosecutor before the start of the case, before a case is dismissed, and before a sentence recommendation is made.

and that...

You have the right to be informed of how a criminal case progresses through the system, what your role is in the process, what will be expected of you, and why.

Then there's M.G.L. Chapter 265, Section 37 which states:

No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if bodily injury results, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

The law? Victim's rights? Who cares? Lookit! She's got BOOBIES! It's legal insanity, folks. Massachusetts style insanity.

You have to take your satisfaction where you can get it. So, props to J.R. Moore. I wonder how Scott Austin feels about slipping on the gloves.


Monday, December 01, 2008

The Documents: Small Claims case

As I've mentioned before, when I was forcibly removed and restrained from my home I was also deprived of several thousand dollars worth of my property. There's a laundry list of things that Cindy either stashed and claimed to not know where they were, or decided and declared that she owned because, well, she wanted to. So, after pestering my lawyer to do something about it a few times and not getting any results, I filed a small claims suit against her in Wrentham District Court. I'll also admit that part of my motivation was her threat to sue me in the very insane email she'd left on my laptop when I finally got it back from her. There was definitely an "Oh, yeah? How do like that?" aspect of my motivation. But that aside, she stole a lot of my stuff and I wanted it back. A couple of things stand out like the leather jacket that was the last Christmas gift I'd ever get from my daughter Alannah. There was also an office tape recorder that had a tape in it of a meeting on writing a proposal for an important research project involving the disease that killed Alannah, and I was tasked with writing that proposal. (I've been a very active patient advocate since shortly after Alannah's death.) I needed that tape for review to do a competent job of it. Cindy knew exactly what that was and how important it was to me and she disappeared it before I could come back to get my things. I asked her where it was when I was there and she just played stupid, so I was feeling the need to push back on her malice. Another part of my motivation was that the best way to trap a liar is to get them talking because they're bound to screw up, which she did repeatedly. Little did I know that not a soul in that courthouse gives a tinker's damn about perjury. At any rate, before we ever made it to court, something pretty funny happened. This arrived via Fed-Ex: (click to enlarge)

After reading this, I couldn't get to a phone fast enough. I'd get paid to go spend a couple of days in So Cal (where I lived for 14 years and have lots of friends and family), get the travel paid for, get paid for my stuff and I'd get to watch Judge Judy rip my favorite felon a new one for all the world to see. So, I called the producer and said "Not just yes, HELL YES!!!" and she told me she'd contact Cindy and ask her to agree. Of course, Cindy is a Judge Judy fan and knows that she has a finely tuned bullshit detector and she's not very nice when it red-lines, so needless to say she wasn't interested in appearing before her on national TV. Man, that would have been fun! And I wish I could have seen the look on her face when she opened a similar letter. But Judge Judy just wasn't going to happen. So instead, we wound up in Wrentham, appearing before magistrate A. Ross Pini (who is also notorious for being a pig.)

A recording of the hearing can be found here. There are actually two hearings here, but the first is where the real fun is. This whole thing is long, clocking in at about 1:12 and the audio is not great. If you're game to listen to the whole thing, more power to you. But there's something that's definitely worth listening to at about the 11 minute mark. Before that, Pini gives a stern lecture about how if he finds anyone perjuring themselves, he'll have them prosecuted. Then there's some back and forth including Cindy presenting a letter she got from the Foxboro police indicating that I had said at the time I gotten everything I wanted out of the house. And then, Pini tries to get us to settle it amongst ourselves and sends us out of the courtroom to do so. That's where you'll pick up at the 11 minute mark. You'll first hear Pini complaining "What am I gonna play Judge Wapner? Who gets the orange squeezer?" Given that his fat ass was sitting on the bench of a small claims court, I think the answer should be yes, you should play Judge Wapner, or at least try to be a pale imitation. Then, you can hear the court clerk saying the following to Pini. Remember that Cindy and I are out of the room.

Clerk: Do you want to know what happened with it? I think he knows...(unintelligble)...Foxboro Police Department, she didn't want to have to carry it anymore, and she was gonna be OK, you don't need to put storage and she got rid of it. So that's why he made the comment "I want everything back." 'cause he knows she doesn't have it. Oh, shh, they're back.

Now, how I would know that is a mystery to me, but the important thing is that we have a court employee arguing one side of a case to the guy deciding it in the absence of the parties to the case. Then, if you keep listening, you'll hear Cindy testifying, under oath, that she has no idea where most of my stuff is, a completely different story than what she had told the clerk who was arguing on her behalf. For instance, the bed I bought was on my list, as well as the sheet sets I bought for it. Now, she admitted having the bed, but claimed to have no knowledge of where the sheets were. Call me crazy, but if I had to guess, I'd say one of them was on the bed and she'd probably been sleeping on them the night before coming into court and lying about them. There are some other great nuggets in there, like the power tools I'd supposedly sold her for beer money or something and even Pini told her that was ridiculous. But instead of doing his job, ruling in my favor and having her perjury prosecuted, he granted her a continuance she didn't ask for so she could file the countersuit he told her she should file. Bias? Advocating from the bench? Canon of Judicial Ethics? Impartial administration of justice? Who cares? Lookit! Boobies!

Now, let's read that letter from the Foxboro cops. And, let's have a look at the countersuit she filed. Or, I should say, that the lawyer she hired for Round 2 filed. Both state that I told Scott Hodson I had everything I wanted. The police log also says that. But I did no such thing. On the contrary, I asked him flat out what I was supposed to do about the things she was stealing from me and he told me to take it to court. Let's look back at the Internal Affairs "investigation" report. Page 3, the paragraph numbered 4 of the list of official police investigation findings begins "That Officer Hodson did in fact escort you to your former residence to obtain your personal property and informed you of the correct process to obtain property that was in question." Now why would he have done that if I told him I had everything? Because I told him quite the opposite, that's why. And yet this falsehood made it into the record, and Cindy Whelahan knew it was there when it was put there, which is why she went looking for a letter containing it when I sued her. She and Scott Hodson were conspiring, you see, just as they were when they decided to dummy up the 209A violation charge. It's little wonder Officer Nitwit couldn't remember any of this when he was on the witness stand. But he seemed to remember it when he was talking to Sgt. Eugene Bousquet during the Internal Affairs investigation. Yes, the same Bousquet that wrote the letter for Cindy referencing the lie on the record.

Another thing you'll see in the countersuit is that Cindy paid everything out of her own funds, and I paid nothing of any household expenses. But if you make it through the audio to the second hearing, you'll hear her lawyer admitting that my paycheck was being direct deposited into the checking account she paid the bills out of. And here's a spreadsheet of common expenses that I paid for directly on either credit or debit cards, totaling $3500+ over the month and a half. (I submitted this with the relevant statements into evidence. This does not include anything I paid cash for, as I couldn't document that. And no, I'm not putting my bank statements online.) You'll also see that we supposedly lived together from January 1st until I was dragged out in handcuffs in July and I, being a deadbeat all that time owed her for half of the rent for the year. But if you look at Cindy's original complaint for a restraining order, you'll see in Section H she checked off that The Defendant and Plaintiff: "are not related but live in the same household" and then wrote in next to that "7 wks". Which, it was more like 6 and a half, but that's close enough to the truth. She also testified that we lived together all year in the first hearing. That is perjury, folks. That is a felony.

As it turned out, the second hearing, in front of magistrate Joseph Semensi, ended with him taking the case under advisement and then sending out a no-decision decison later that same day. If the Patriots ever need a punter, they should look that guy up. He knows how to kick it away. Still, filing that suit may have been the best $40 I've ever spent.