Wednesday, August 01, 2012

I can't imagine why Scott Hodson wasn't prosecuted

A reader brings this to my attention: Settlement close in police lawsuit over harassment

The lawsuit also alleged that Gallagher was harassed and threatened by Officer Scott Hodson, with whom she had an earlier relationship, and who the complaint said is the father of her second child.
Oh, wait. He's a member of the Foxboro Police Department and they can do whatever the hell they like and their boss, Chief Edward O'Leary will do whatever it takes to cover for them! How could I forget?
Gallagher alleged in the lawsuit that Hodson deflated her car's tires, stood too close to her in an effort to intimidate her, spit on her husband's police cruiser, threatened to attack her husband, yelled at her and called her a "whore" and other terms broadly offensive to women.
That's sounds pretty awful. Worse than anything I was accused of doing. Apparently, anything a woman alleges must be true and must be prosecuted, unless it's being said about a member of the Foxborough Police Department. Those corrupt bastards are on the side of the angels, always. Just ask them. But be careful, they lie a lot. Like this:
Our mission to the residents of Foxborough is as follows: "To provide a safe environment for the citizens of Foxborough, free from crime and disorder, with protection of rights under the Constitution."
That one's a real knee slapper. You know who isn't the least bit surprised to find that Scott Hodson is a pig and a bully? Me.

Read More...

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Hmmmm.....

This could explain a few things. A pity, that.

Read More...

Sunday, May 24, 2009

I know who you are, Madam, and I know how you manipulated the system.





“It’s so infuriating to me because there are women who worked very hard for decades to create a system where domestic violence is serious business and people respond to it in a serious way, and when women use it as a weapon not a shield it’s offensive.

It's also illegal, not that anyone in the Massachusetts system cares what's illegal and what isn't. But with Judge Judy not being part of the MA court system, it's little wonder Cindy declined our invitation to visit her, and tell her tale of woe.

Be sure to watch the post action interviews at the end of part 2. There's something awfully familiar about them. Poor, sweet, innocent, victimized Cindy Ashley. Do shed a tear for her, won't you?

Note: Yes, I've been remiss in finishing my little story. Hey, I told you I'm a procrastinator. It's been a very busy few months, but I'm going to endeavor to finish this thing up when I get back from vacation. See you next week.

Read More...

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:


From: Lkestat11@aol.com
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:


From: Lkestat11@aol.com
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....


From: Lkestat11@aol.com
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.


From: Lkestat11@aol.com
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.

From: JKm825@aol.com
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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

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.

Read More...

Sunday, November 30, 2008

To Whom It May Concern

I see that I've got a number of very interested repeat visitors who obviously have an interest in this case and I want to make it clear that I'm very accessible and willing to talk about it. That said, I'm not big on publishing my contact info on the internet, but if there's anything you'd like to discuss, you can email me via the "Email me" link in the right sidebar. From there, it doesn't take much to get my phone number out of me.

If there's anything you'd like to discuss, just pull the trigger on an email. I'm easy like that.

Read More...

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

The Documents: 209A violation charge

On July 18, 2003 a 209A (restraining order) violation charge was filed against me by Foxboro police officer Scott Hodson, at the request of Cynthia Whelahan. The best summary of the situation was published in Massachussetts Lawyers Weekly and can be found here. The report, along with the police log entry (which comes into play again later in this story) is here. Hodson's testimony at trial is here. Whelahan's testimony is here: Part 1 and Part 2. My testimony is here: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

If you've read all that, please consider two questions. First, who do you believe as to what the content of the message left was? Second, would you hire Scott Hodson to pick up dog crap from your lawn? That boy is dumb as a stump, ain't he?

One more question: Does it strike you as odd that this message on an answering machine wasn't preserved as evidence? If you were going to charge someone with leaving a message, wouldn't you keep it to prove that they did it? Of course you would...if you weren't lying about what was said. And if you didn't think the question would ever get to trial. But, as she testified on pages 63-64 of the trial transcript (Part 2 link above), she didn't keep the tape and it was conveniently unavailable to be played at trial. Or was it?

I'm going to get into this document in much more detail later in the story, but this is a letter to me from Foxboro police chief Edward O'Leary explaining the outcome of an "investigation" conducted by FPD Internal Affairs on several complaints that I filed immediately after the July 2004 trial. Look at page 3 of that document, in the paragraph numbered 4 which states as a finding of this "investigation": "That recording was preserved by Ms. Whelahan and could be produced for court presentation if needed." This is an official finding of a police investigation conducted after Whelahan gave sworn testimony indicating that she did not have the recording and didn't keep it because a Foxboro cop, Scott Hodson, told her she didn't need to.

Most people plead these things out for fear of a bad outcome at trial. I had (and declined) the opportunity to have the charges "Continued Without a Finding" which would have had them dismissed after a year. But that requires an "admission to sufficient facts" to prove guilt, and I wasn't guilty of anything, so that was out. Still, most people take the deal. Most people. The cops and DA's count on it. If everyone exercised their right to a jury trial, this corrupt system would be brought to its knees in short order and this sort of nonsense would stop.

UPDATE: Memo to Cindy, since she's reading. Remember that smug, condescending attitude and that smirk on your face on the day in question when I was at the house getting some of my things and learning that you'd decided to steal the rest from me? You know, that attitude you were throwing at me while you were charming your new buddy Scott Hodson who somehow couldn't remember having been there an hour or so before the two of you decided to dummy up a new criminal charge to hang on me. How's that holding up these days, Boots? Do you still find all this funny?

Addendum: It also bears noting that the 10 day hearing on this restraining order was conducted first thing on a Monday morning, piggybacked on the A&B arraignment, less than 24 hours after the order was served leaving me no opportunity to get a lawyer or to really understand the implications of the order, let alone prepare a proper defense, gather witnesses, etc. This thing was extended for a year without me having any real opportunity to fight it. They pass these things out like candy, and they really don't care about having any sort of fair, reasonable hearing on them.

Read More...

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The beginning

OK, three documents here, all in PDF files. First, Cynthia Whelahan's Voluntary Statement written just after having me arrested. Second, Foxboro Police officer McDonald's narrative from the police report. Then we have Page 164 of the trial transcript, which includes the contents of Whelahan's 911 call, the tape of which was played at trial.

I'll be editing this post later to add some commentary and connect some dots. For now, I just want to get these out there and make sure it works.

Read More...

The Documents

I started this blog with the intention of creating a historical record of my trials and tribulations at the hands of the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That was two years ago and several forces have played a part in suspending that project. First, I thought this thing was over at the time. That turned out not to be the case and the prospect of further litigation made it unwise to continue at the time. That is no longer an issue. The case is done, and I have been completely exonerated. Second, personal revulsion played a part. Seriously, going through this enormous pile of crap turns my stomach. But it's too important that this be fully documented to let that get in the way. Several requests have renewed my motivation, and I'm going to dedicate some time to scanning and posting the documents related to this case. Well, a lot of them, anyway. There has to be 1000 pages here, but I'm going to endeavor to get the relevant stuff posted. Third, there are some technical issues related to the limits of the Blogger software, but I think I have those worked out. Last, there's the part about me being something of a procrastinator, which is compounded by the second point. I can think of a hundred ways I'd rather spend my time, but I'm feeling a moral obligation to get this done, so I'm going to try to be disciplined about doing it.

Some of the commentary that will accompany this effort is is going to read like an attack on Cindy Whelahan, and by necessity, it will be. She started this nonsense and she pursued it, with malice in mind and lying every step of the way, and that will be made perfectly clear in great detail. But I want to make it clear that that is not my purpose here. What I mean to expose is the system, from the police to the courts to the DA's, that allowed and enabled this travesty to happen with no regard whatsoever for the truth or for the law itself. This system continues to do such things to innocent people every day, and they're spending millions of taxpayer dollars in this pursuit of rank sexism. That is what must be detailed, and that is why I chose the name I did when I started this blog.

For those who'd like a summary, there's a narrative here and there's a more detailed chronology of events here. Someone once quipped after reading those that this story sounds a lot like Franz Kafka's "The Trial" I think that "Kafkaesque" is a fairly accurate descriptor.

Read More...

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Reminiscing, 5 years later

Every week, I get an email from Sitemeter and sometimes it prompts me to take a look at the traffic the site is getting. There really aren't any gaudy numbers to look at, so I tend to look more at where the traffic comes from, how long the visitor stays, etc...

That email often just gets deleted, but this week is significant in that that Sunday, July 13th was five years to the day from the day I went to bed and wound up in jail, courtesy of my favorite felon, Cynthia Whelehan. And strangely enough, guess who visited this little site on July 13? Yup. Cynthia Whelahan. From Lambeth, I presume.

Obviously, I can only assume that she's looking for what I might have to say on the occasion, and I hate to disappoint. So...

I thank God every day that I saw the light before I made two of the most horrific mistakes I would ever have made in my life: marrying you and having a child with you. If you're wondering if you're still on my mind, the answer is yes. I kick myself regularly for being so willfully blind to your utter lack of trust and your inability to be a partner in an adult relationship. And I cringe every time I imagine what my life might be like today if I had submitted to your perverse desire for control.

For a while, there were pangs of sadness at having lost what often seemed so perfect a relationship before we lived together. But every time those cropped up, all I had to do was look at what you very intentionally did to me, and I know that I made the right decision when I told you I was leaving. You made yourself awfully easy to get over, and I suppose I should thank you for that. I know I could never trust you, which is sort of ironic, given that I had already made that leap of faith that you simply couldn't.

I really should get around to posting all of the documents from this case, starting with your police statement. The trial testimony is pretty juicy too. A full document dump is in order, even though it's hundreds of pages. I should set some time aside to share, don't you think?

Read More...

Friday, October 19, 2007

Upcoming 209A Forum - Recommended

False Allegations Restraining Order Forum

Defending Yourself in Court

Thursday November 8th from 7pm to 9:30pm

Marriot Courtyard Westboro at Route 495 and Route 20 intersection. One
block West of 495

Massachusetts courts have been issuing domestic abuse restraining orders (Ch. 209A) at the rate of about 40,000 per year. Judges give them out even if a person claims to have a vague fear. Once an order is issued, the defendant can lose his house, his children, his guns, his livelihood, and sometimes his life.

Something must be done to help those who are falsely accused. Of course, no one defends actual abuse. However, some lawyers say that as many as 95% of restraining orders are issued on false allegations, for reasons like breaking up with a boyfriend, or getting a leg up in a divorce. This is abuse of the purpose of these orders. The phrase used by lawyers is that they are “given out like candy”. At this
point, a mere claim of “Fear” is sufficient to issue these devastating restraining orders. Even though the Mass. Appeals Court has said this is NOT lawful most judges are ignoring the Appeal Court guidelines. The result is destroying parents and children’s lives.

Education and legislative efforts are underway to stop this unconstitutional law and prosecute false accusations to stop this destruction. False accusations and restraining orders have become a tool to tear apart families, and traumatize children, when no domestic violence has occurred and there is no proof that
they help anyone. In fact some studies show they cause far more problems than they prevent.

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT A FALSE 209A RESTRAINING ORDER IN COURT INCLUDING:
1. What to do when you suspect an order is on the way.
2. How to prepare for your day in court.
3. How you can defend yourself against false allegations and claims of fear.
4. How to get evidence that will win.
5. Skits on how to present your court case the WRONG way, and the RIGHT way.
6. Take home valuable and practical written information to use in Court, including key cases and legal arguments.

Who Should Attend: Anyone involved in a divorce proceeding, anyone under a restraining order now, anyone in a relationship going sour.

Call (617) SAD-DADS to reserve your seat. Just leave your name, phone and email address.

Requested Donation is $5-$10 to cover hotel and refreshment costs.

Sponsored by: www.FatherhoodCoalition.org and www.FathersUnite.org where much more information can be found on these and related divorce issues.

Read More...

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Victims of false domestic violence reporting detail experiences

An eye opening article appears in The West Virginia Record detailing two studies into the abuse of restraining orders. The article is here, and I'll cite it extensively after the jump in case the article expires from the WVR website.

I'd like to connect it to the same problem in Massachusetts, but the Commonwealth has done it's very best to see that this doesn't happen. You see, a gentleman by the name of Steve Basile conducted a similar study, focusing on orders issued in the Gardner District Court in the year 1997. As Basile and others began to expand the scope of the original study, the Commonwealth and Jane Doe, Inc responded with a successful effort to restrict access to the orders and to the data, ensuring that no such study could ever be completed.

They don't want the truth getting out. Lies are their livelihood, and that hasn't changed under the reign of Martha Coakley.

The WVR article follows:


Victims of false domestic violence reporting detail experiences

10/5/2007 9:00 AM
By Lawrence Smith -Kanawha Bureau

CHARLESTON - The release of a study indicating that most of the petitions for domestic violence protection orders may be used for leverage in a divorce or child custody proceeding comes as cold comfort to those who've experienced it firsthand.

"I was so innocent, and the evidence was so profound, I was able to beat that in court myself," said Teresa Lowe.

Lowe was among the 25 people who gathered along Lee Street in front of the Charleston Town Center Mall Monday, Oct. 1 as part of a rally and press conference held by Men and Women Against Discrimination.

To kick off National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the Vienna-based children's advocacy group staged the event to release two studies showing inequities in the West Virginia judicial system when it comes to domestic violence.

The first study was an analysis of all petitions for domestic violence protective orders filed in Cabell County Family Court during the 2006 calendar year. According the study, 76 percent of all petitions are dismissed.

Using the Cabell County statistics as a model, the second study showed that the time and resources lost in dealing with those dismissed petitions is $18 million.

Though she now lives in her native Wood County, Lowe, 38, says the analysis of Cabell County holds true in Jackson County, where she used to live with her now ex-husband. In the course of their divorce proceeding, Lowe says he leveled accusations against her of child abuse in an attempt to gain custody of their children.

Though the tactic eventually failed, Lowe says she and her children are still feeling the repercussions of those allegations.

"I've spent six years of my life tied up in court," Lowe said.

Likewise, Chris Saunders says the same holds true in Wayne County which not only neighbors Cabell County, but also shares part of Huntington. According to Saunders, accusations of domestic violence were leveled against him on nine different occasions by his ex-wife, not including additional allegations he molested his daughter, which led to two warrants being issued for his arrest.

Now since exonerated of all the charges leveled against him, Saunders, 37, who now lives in Burlington, Ohio, says the studies MAWAD released has a therapeutic effect for him.

"I just like seeing the information get out," Saunders said. "Nobody should have their children torn away for making false allegations."

Hopefully, Sanders says, the studies will convince lawmakers to pass bills criminalizing false reporting of domestic violence, and creating 50/50 parenting plan.

"What we're talking about is children having a right to both halves of themselves," Saunders said.

Charles Pope says both he and wife were victims of domestic violence. He for not being provided assistance after she battered him one night, and her for being provided too much assistance under the assumption she was the victim.

According to Pope, who lives on Charleston's West Side, his wife become violent one night in January. Unbeknownst to him, Pope says, his wife was taking medication for depression, and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

"She just snapped," Pope said.

When police came to their house at her urging, Pope says they were prepared to arrest him. However, with the intervention of his pastor, police placed her in custody.

Instead of being arrested, Pope says, his wife was taken to CAMC for evaluation. Believing she was the victim of domestic violence, the hospital referred her to a local shelter for battered women.

Later, when he attempted to have a mental hygiene warrant served on her by Kanawha County Sheriff's Department, Pope says, people at the shelter told deputies she was not there. However, when he publicly detailed his ordeal at a conference on male victimization in April, his wife was released from the shelter.

"And she really never got the help," Pope said.

Pope says he hopes that police will begin to investigate each domestic violence-related case on its merits instead of arriving on the scene with the assumption the man is the guilty party.

Likewise, he would like to see more services, especially overnight shelter, provided to male victims of domestic violence.

"There's too many politicians hooked up in the foolishness of all this," Pope said. "They don't believe a man can be a victim of domestic violence."

"I'm living proof of it," he added

Charly Young says she knows too well of the man-is-guilty mentality many law enforcement officers have. Though she was not formally part of MAWAD's rally, Young, 29, who lives in downtown Charleston, donned one of their T-shirts and joined them in a march around the Town Center on her way to the transit mall.

About two weeks ago, Young says, she and her fiancee got into a heated argument. The argument centered about coping with financial difficulties they are experiencing.

Needless to say, police were summoned to their apartment. Despite telling police no blows were struck, and she shared part of the blame in creating the disturbance, Young said police encouraged her to press charges against her fiancee.

"The police really didn't care," Young said. "They just wanted to take somebody down."

For Young, the matter was "culture shock." A native of Washington, D.C., Young said she moved to Charleston after leaving an abusive relationship in Baltimore in 2003.

After being nearly choked to death by her former boyfriend, Young says she found it incomprehensible that her word alone could have sent her fiancee to jail.

According to Young, the financial challenges she and her fiancee are having stem from a gunshot wound he suffered three years ago. He is still rehabilitating from that wound, and has not had steady employment since then.

Though acknowledging money won't solve all their problems, Young says if more were done to alleviate poverty, then that would go a long way in curbing domestic violence.

"That is where domestic violence comes from in the poor neighborhoods," Young said.

Read More...

Thursday, October 04, 2007

GET OFF THE BENCH

I was honored to be invited as a guest last Sunday on the internet radio show "Get Off The Bench!"

The topic was "Abuse of Domestic Violence Laws" and as you can imagine, my experience is a classic case study in that phenomenon.

Links to access the show are below the jump.



Click here to download the show as a podcast. Or, you can go here, find Episode 13 and click on the "Listen" link next to it.

I hope you enjoy it. Thanks to Bob Norton and Lary Holland for inviting me on.

Read More...

Sunday, September 30, 2007

A Chronology

I haven't posted much about my case for a while because of the ongoing litigation and the tactical advantage of keeping things close to the vest. But enough of the litigation has concluded that I don't mind posting this chronology of the case that I prepared some time ago. So, without further ado, here's what's happened up until March of this year, after the jump.


Commonwealth v. McKay Chronology


Saturday, July 12, 2003 – Midnight After approximately 6 weeks of cohabitation under joint tenancy, and a days old ongoing disagreement, I was sleeping in bed when Cynthia Whelehan woke me and proceeded to scream at me. I quickly cut her off, stated that I would be moving out in the morning, went downstairs and attempted to sleep on the sofa. Whelehan followed me and began insisting that I leave immediately, and that I leave without my daughter Kristin, who was visiting from Georgia. She then proceeded stuffing my belongings into trash bags and upon my suggestion that she stop doing so and go to bed, smacked me in the face repeatedly. At no time did I make physical contact with her other than to grab her hands to stop her from striking me.

Sunday, July 13, 12:55 AM (Time according to police log) Whelehan placed a 911 call and stated that she wanted police assistance because “My boyfriend won’t leave.” Approx. 10 minutes later, Foxborough Police offices McDonald and Foscaldo arrived at our house and McDonald asked what was going on. I immediately informed him that Whelahan had struck me in the face repeatedly. McDonald instructed Whelahan’s daughter Jennifer to go to her room, me to go into the living room and Whelahan to remain in the kitchen/dining area. Foscaldo remained with Whelahan while McDonald followed me into the living room. He questioned me very briefly, including asking me if I’d tried to stop Whelehan from throwing my things out of the house, to which I replied that I had. He then went to the kitchen to confer with Foscaldo and Whelehan. Approximately 5-7 minutes after his arrival, McDonald instructed me to stand up and place my hands behind my back and handcuffed me. At about this time FPD Sgt. Noonan arrived and placed me in the back of his cruiser. I spent about 10 minutes there, parked in front of the house, during which time Noonan went back into the house, coming back out momentarily to ask whether I wanted DSS to pick up my daughter. When he next returned to the car, we proceeded to the Foxborough Police station. According to Noonan’s booking report, the booking process began at 1:23 AM.

7/13/03, 9:00 AM My parents arrived at the police station and posted $1000 bail for my release. Because I was told by the police that I could not return to my house, my parents proceeded there to collect my daughter, my car and some belongings. My father asked Whelahan specifically for my laptop, which she refused to give him.

7/13/03 11:17 AM Smithfield, RI police serve 209A (Abuse Prevention Order) per FPD’s request

Monday, 7/14/03 8:30 AM Arraignment on A&B charge and extension hearing on 209A issued ex-parte less than 24 hours prior. ADA John Healy informs the court that I have “an extensive criminal record in California”, which is simply not true. I objected to the extension of the 209A. Bail was maintained and the 209A was extended for a year.

Friday, 7/18/03, Apprx 10:00 AM I arrived at the FPD station to arrange a time and a police escort to retrieve my belongings from my former home. The dispatcher made telephone contact with Whelahan, who stated that she would be unavailable for 5 or more days. I then proceeded to Revere, MA to socialize with my longtime friend Cynthia Baumann and her family. At approx 1:00 PM, while we were at lunch, I received a phone call from the FPD dispatcher informing me that I could meet an escort to get my things at 4:00 PM that day. I proceeded to the station and Officer Scott Hodson arrived to escort me shortly after 5:00 PM. We proceeded to the house and I began removing my things. Several items were not where they were when I was arrested, and Whelehan claimed to not know where they were. These included my Palm Pilot, my cell phone charger and an office cassette recorder with a very important tape in it. Other items, including the bed I had just purchased and a number of my power tools, Whelehan claimed ownership of. I asked Hodson how this would be resolved and he told me to take it to court. At approximately 5:45, I left the residence. Shortly thereafter, the FPD dispatcher, Richard Parker, made an entry into the log that reads in part “Male subject stated he took everything that was his.” Presumably, Hodson related this to him.

7/18/03 Approx 6:00 PM After leaving the residence in Foxboro, I was on my way back to Smithfield, RI when I attempted to call Cindy Baumann to discuss what had just transpired with Whelahan. I inadvertently speed dialed Cindy Whelahan’s house. I left a message stating “Hi it’s Paul. I just called to amuse you. Hey, can you say Tessa? I went, I got most of my things, the majority of what I really and wanted. I got my laptop so that’s great. She’s decided she’s keeping a whole bunch of stuff and we’ll have to fight about that later. At any rate, just called to say, hey so hey.” Upon my arrival at home, I turned on my laptop and found a vicious email from Whelahan that was clearly intended to intimidate me.

Shortly thereafter, Hodson filed a report mischaracterizing the message I had left, and also filed a violation charge of the 209A order. At trial, he claimed not to remember having been at the house to escort me.

10/3/2003 On the advice of Atty Mason and ADA Mark Fabiano, I went to the FPD station to file an A&B complaint against Whelahan. Officer Azevedo is exteremly resistant to taking my complaint, but does so at my insistence and tells me to “check back in a month”

11/18/2003 Atty Mason writes to the FPD inquiring about a copy of Whelahan’s 911 call, and the status of my complaint against Whelahan

11/20/2003 Small Claims hearing on my suit against Whelahan for personal property. Wrentham Magistrate A. Ross Pini admonishes both parties regarding the penalty for perjury, and then sends us out of the courtroom to attempt a settlement. The clerk then begins to argue Whelahan’s case and expresses to Pini why he shouldn’t rule in my favor. Upon our return, the clerk states “Shhh..they’re back” and the hearing proceeds. Whelahan claims not to know where most of the property is, and claims ownership of other property. With the exception of the bed, which she admits to having, Pini claims that he cannot rule in my favor unless I prove that she has the property, which was impossible for me to do, and not the proper preponderance standard. Whelahan also presented the fraudulent Foxboro police log and a letter from Sgt. Eugene Bosquet further supporting the falsified evidence. (This leaves a question to which the answer is obvious: How did Whelahan know that she would get a document containing false information from the FPD? Why would she have sought it when what actually happened was very different?) Pini notes that he feels Whelehan is lying to him (as she claims that she owns my power tools because I sold them to her for cash), but then gives her a continuance that she didn’t ask for so she could file a counterclaim that he tells her she ought to file.

12/4/2003 Second small claims hearing with Magistrate Joseph Semensi presiding. Whelahan, through her new attorney, files a counterclaim stating that I owed her for 6 months of rent and utilities, that she had paid of this and I had paid none, also claiming that we had moved in together on Jan 1, 2003. However, she does admit that my paycheck was depositied into our joint account which she controlled. Aditionally, in her original 209A complaint, she notes that we had lived together for “7 wks”. Semensi takes the case under advisement and later that day denies both claims by mail, without specific findings.

Early January 2004, FPD Prosecutor Scott Austin contacts Atty Mason and (as it was related to me) explains that Officer Azevedo had “deep sixed” my complaint, but that he would have it scheduled for a Probable Cause hearing. I later learned, through Atyy Mason, that the hearing was to be held on 3/4/2004.

March 4, 2004 I arrived at Wrentham District Court to appear at Whelahan’s Probable Cause hearing. I introduced myself to Officer Austin and he instructed me to wait in the hallway until the case was called. Whelahan arrived with her attorney and we all waited through several other cases. Whelahan’s was the last case called, and when I rose to enter the courtroom, Austin stopped me and told me to sit down and wait. Approximately 15 minutes later, Whelahan and her attorney exited the courtroom. A couple of moments later, I entered and found the courtroom empty. I then went to the Clerk’s office on the first floor and found Austin. I asked him what had just happened, and he first told me that “I was looking for you” (despite the fact that I had been exactly where he’d left me, and that he’d snuck out the back door) and that the charges would not go forward as Whelahan had been found to be acting in self defense. I then went home and wrote a letter to FPD Chief Edward O’Leary asking him to explain why Austin had violated my right to attend the hearing as per the Massachusetts Victim’s Bill of Rights. (MGL 258b)

March 6, 2007 I received a letter from Sgt. Bosquet with FPD Internal Affairs inviting me to come in and file a complaint. On March 10, I wrote a letter in response indicating that Atty Mason insisted that I not meet with them pre-trial, and that I would do so after the trial.

August 3, 2004 Whelahan, having moved to Sandwich, MA, filed a complaint for another 209A order in Barnstable Probate and Family Court. The order was issued ex parte.

August 9, 2004 I sent a letter to Sgt Bosquet requesting that his department file an appeal of the probable cause hearing decision, as my right to attend was violated.

August 11, 2004 Extension hearing on 209A I appeared to oppose extension of the order. Whelahan’s complaint/affidavit included a plethora of ridiculous lies, most of which she repeated in testimony, and which I fully rebutted, including that of my “extensive criminal record” which she claimed to have learned of from the Wrentham DA, and which the Judge Susan Ricci knew full well did not exist, yet the order was extended. I then went directly to the Barnstable DA’s office and to the District Court Clerk, both of whom told me they could do nothing about the perjury Whelahan had just committed.

August 13, 2004 I received a letter from Sgt. Bosquet informing me that I would have to discuss an appeal with the prosecutor, Officer Scott Austin, who violated my right to attend the hearing in the first place.

Also 8/13/04, I ordered a copy of the tape of the 209A hearing from Barnstable P&F. I also sent notice of the tape order to Whelahan, as required by rule. I included a copy of the order form noting the mandatory nature of the notification, and cited the section of the 209A order that allows for such notifications.

August 14, 2004 I notified Whelahan of my intent to order a copy of the Wrentham Small Claims hearing tapes, and also cited the mandatory nature of the notification and the section of the 209A order that allows such communication.

August 16, 2004 Officer Bruce Lawrence of the Sandwich Police files an arrest report and a 209A violation charge for my mandatory, authorized notification. He attempts to secure a warrant and have me extradited, but the request is denied. A Probable Cause hearing on the charge is scheduled for 9/15/04.

August 17, 2004 I replied to Sgt. Bosquet expressing my distress at what appeared to be dishonest behavior emanating from the FPD, and noting my objection at being sent back to the very same officer who clearly violated my rights in order to correct the situation, and also noting the conflict of interest inherent in that situation

August 20, 2004 I receive a call at home from sandwich Officer Lawrence regarding my second notification to Whelahan. He tells me that I have violated the restraining order again, and after approximately 20 minutes of discussing the meaning of the words “Notification of court proceedings is permissible only by mail, or by sheriff or by other authorized officer when required by statute or rule” he informs me that he’ll look into it further.

August 24, 2004 I received a response from Sgt Bosquet suggesting that I have my attorney contact Officer Austin if I did not wish to speak with him myself about appealing the probable cause decision.

August 26, 27 Jury trial held at Wrentham District. I was acquitted on the A&B charge and convicted on the 209A violation after being denied a mistake instruction by Judge Emogene Johnson-Smith. I was sentenced to 1 year of supervised probation and 80 hours of Batterer’s Intervention Program, all of which I completed, paying all associated costs and fees. ( I have an electronic copy of the transcript, if you’d like it.) At the end of the trial, while exiting the courtroom, Whelahan’s friend Gretchen charged at me, screaming “You coward! You liar!” and swinging her right arm, causing Atty Mason to dive between the two of us before she got to me. Mason called out for the bailiff who was standing right across the room, and who did nothing. This also happened in full view of the judge and ADA Healey.

August 27, 2004 I wrote to FPD Chief O’Leary asking that an appeal be filed, and that it would be inappropriate for Officer Austin to prosecute it due to his prior actions and the conflict of interest they created. I also sent 4 sworn statements to Sgt. Bosquet along with a request that he commence investigation of the numerous misdeeds by officers in his department.

August 28, 2004 I sent a letter to Sandwich Police Chief Michael Miller and ask that he correct Officer Lawrence’s error, and see that I be relieved of having to show up for the 9/15/04 Probable Cause hearing. Several days later he calls me and informs me that he’s declining to do so because “there are question that need to be answered.” He refused to expand on what those questions were.

September 1, 2004 I sent a Civil Rights Complaint along with the statements I had sent to the FPD to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office. I also attempted repeatedly to begin a complaint with the Trooper of the Day, but my calls were never returned.

September 8, 2004 I received a letter from Sgt Bosquet containing a Citizen Complaint Form and a request that I have my statements notarized. I completed the form, had the statements notarized and returned them to Sgt. Bosquet that same day.

September 13, 2004 I received acknowledgement of receipt of proper complaints from Sgt. Bosquet.

September 15, 2004 Probable cause hearing in Barnstable on 209A violation. The Magistrate Pro Tem immediately recognizes the police error and throws out the charge.

September 17, 2004 I received a letter from Sgt. Bosquet explaining that he had spoken to the Clerk of the Wrentham District Court and that because the complaint against Whelahan had been dismissed without prejudice, it could be refilled, and that the FPD would do so, with Sgt Chandler appearing for the prosecution and not Officer Hodson. He further offered some poor excuses for Austin’s actions at the prior hearing.

September 20, 2004 I replied to Sgt Bosquet thanking him for refilling to cause a second Probable cause hearing, and I completely dismantled his excuses on Austin’s behalf.

September 23, 2004 I received a response from Bosquet telling me that he couldn’t address his findings as the investigation was continuing, despite that he had been very eager to do just that in his previous letter.

September 27, 2004 I filed a Notice of Appeal for the Wrentham 209A conviction, and ordered the trial tapes for transcription.

October 14, 2004 Second probable cause hearing for Whelahan, Magistrate A. Ross Pini presiding. After my statement to the FPD was read into the record, and Whelahan’s Attorney offered his defense, Pini asked me why I was appealing the 209A conviction. I cited 2 relevant cases. Pini asked me if I had attended law school and then told me not to cite case law to him since I hadn’t. He explained that since I lived in RI and Whelahan on the Cape, he didn’t see any point in prosecuting her. I asked why exactly the same evidence that I was prosecuted on was insufficient cause to prosecute Whelahan and he told me “That’s not my problem” He then told me I’d have to prove Whelahan was lying, so I offered to play the tape of her performance in Barnstable Probate and Family Court where she claimed she had proof of my non-existent criminal record which the Wrentham DA also had. Pini declined to hear it and ended the hearing.

October 30, 2004 I received a letter from FPD Chief O’Leary stating that “I have found that no Officer of this agency violated any rule or regulation regarding the handling of each incident reported to this agency by you or Ms. Whelahan….You were not treated in any manner that did not follow the normal protocol of this agency…That you were afforded each of your rights allowed by law…” You have to read this thing to believe it. There are a couple of bombshells in it, one of which is the notion that officers relating false information to dispatchers is normal protocol, as is police prosecutors violating victim’s rights. Another is the disclosure that Whelahan has the tape of the message I left in her possession, and that it could be made available in court, despite her testimony that she had not kept it.

November 16, 2004 Ordered small claims hearing tape from Wrentham District.

January 7, 2005 I retained Atty John Siskopoulos to represent me in the 209A appeal. His immediate task was to prod the Wrentham Clerk’s office into assembling the record, and producing the trial tapes, which had not been done. The tapes I had ordered on 9/27/04 were not produced until 3-16-05. The small claims tape I ordered on 11/16/04 was not copied until 4/20/05. The Wrentham Clerk simply refused to process my tape requests until Mr. Siskopoulos insisted strongly and repeatedly. He indicated to me that he had learned through a contact in the central tape reproduction office that they had not received the originals for duplication many weeks after Wrentham had told him they’d been sent.

June 16, 2005. I received a letter from Michael Fleischer, a paralegal in the MA attorney General’s Civil Rights Division. He explained that they could not initiate an investigation on the civil rights side, but that he had forwarded a copy of my complaint to the Criminal Division for investigation. He also suggested that I follow up with the FPD with a request for an internal investigation. That was the last I heard from the AG’s office.

June 17, 2005 I wrote to the Cape and Islands DA Michael O’Keefe detailing Whelahan’s perjury in the Barnstable 209A proceedings and asked for prosecution.

July 19, 2005 I received a call from Trooper Finn of the Cape and Islands State Police. I explained the situation to him, and he requested the relevant materials.

July 20, 2005 I sent Trooper Finn a copy of the 209A hearing audio, a transcript, the order itself, Whelahan’s falsified Complaint and affidavit, and documents relating to the charges she’d gotten Officer Lawrence to file in Sandwich.

August 11, 2005 Annual extension hearing on the Barnstable 209A. Again, I objected, and again I detailed Whelahan’s perjury. I also noted that she had not met the statutory burden for issuance of a 209A and again the order was extended for a year, with Judge Randy Kaplan citing the 209A conviction, although that is not a sufficient legal basis for issuing an order. I also called Trooper Finn to make myself available to sign a complaint. He informed me that this would not be necessary and that he would proceed within two weeks.

December 17, 2005 Follow up letter to Trooper Finn and DA O’Keefe. Noting that I heard nothing from Trooper Finn as promised, I asked whether either of them thought no crime had been committed or whether they simply weren’t going to do anything about it. Both men simply ignored the letter, and I received no response from either.

Months of foot dragging and procedural delay finally resulted in a finding by Emogene Johnson-Smith, the trial judge, that I had indeed requested a mistake instruction (the request was written by Atty Mathers, second chair, and was in the file all along) and that she had denied it. Appellate briefs were filed by both sides and the case was set for oral argument on June 7, 2006.

June 26, 2006 – Appeals Court Order: “ORDER: "...The record in its present form is inadequate to permit us to consider the defendant's claim...The parties and the district court are...directed to supplement the record further...specifically addressing and clarifying the form of the instruction administered to the jury at the defendant's trial, and to cause such further supplemental record to be certified and transmitted to this court by or before July 21, 2006."

After more footdragging, the lower court finally complied with the Appeals Court order on August 9, 2006. A portion of the response noted that the trial judge didn’t give the required instruction because she didn’t think there was any credible evidence to support my theory of defense. Therefore, she took the jury’s job out of their hands by denying them the opportunity to assess credibility, thereby denying me the right to trial by jury on that charge.

August 11, 2006 Annual extension hearing on Barnstable 209A order. Again, I detail the perjury, I detail the legal standard and Whelahan’s failure to meet her statutory burden for issuance of an order. I present the appellate briefs and docket and explain that the Appeals Court may rule at any time on the Wrentham 209A appeal. Judge James V. Menno notes her obvious emotional problems, cites the 209A conviction and extends the order for another year.

September 15, 2006 The Appeals Court reversed the judgement, set aside the verdict and remanded the case to the District Court. The Appeals Court docket is here: http://ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=2005-P-0506

In early December Atty Siskopoulos informed me that a status hearing had been set in Wrentham District for January 16, 2007.

January 3, 2007 I filed a motion to expunge the Wrentham 209A order from my record, and another to bring the crimes committed in this case to the court’s attention, and asking the court to direct the DA to investigate/prosecute.

January 16, 2007 Status hearing, Wrentham, Warren A. Powers presiding. Both of my motions were continued until March 12. ADA Jen Rowe offered a nolle prosse on the 209A violation, declining to retry me on the charge.

January 19, 2007 I wrote to Norfolk DA William Keating enclosing a copy of my motion to investigate/prosecute, suggesting that he need not wait for the Court to tell him to do what he should be doing anyway. I also requested two documents from his office and asked for a response within 10 days. That letter has been ignored.

March 12, 2007 Hearing on my motions in Wrentham, Warren A. Powers again presiding. My motion to direct the DA to investigate/prosecute was not heard based on the fact that the DA’s filing of the nolle prosse, at the same time this motion was continued, effectively ended the case. My motion to expunge the 209A from my record was continued again to May 17, 2007.

And here we are…..

Read More...

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Jet.

Read More...

Friday, September 14, 2007

The Way it Ought to Be.

Woman gets 3 years for perjury in custody case

HAMILTON — A Hamilton woman was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday for committing perjury when she provided a sworn false statement on a form that resulted in the removal of her daughter from her father's care.

Stephanie Rodriguez, 28, the mother of seven children, attempted to circumvent the legal system in October when she did not disclose the truth about her criminal record. There was a past case involving her 12-year-old daughter in Butler County Juvenile Court.

Steve Suttle, the girl's father, had a brief relationship with Rodriguez, resulting in the birth of their daughter. Settle took full custody of his daughter when she was seven years old after Rodriguez was found to be neglecting the girl as well as her siblings during a Butler County Juvenile Court proceeding.

The father cared for his daughter until October 2006 when the girl was removed from his custody for two weeks based on false statements she made on a form used to grant a motion for emergency removal of the child.

During a two-day trial in August, defense attorney Jeremy Evans said Rodriguez was directed to Domestic Relations Court after talking with an attorney. He said she was trying to protect her daughter after hearing some information about her treatment in Suttle's custody. He said she was confused by the forms, but did not make false statements.

A jury deliberated just 60 minutes before finding Rodriguez guilty of the third-degree felony on Aug. 3. She faced a one- to five-year prison sentence.

Butler County Common Pleas Judge Michael Sage gave Rodriguez three years in prison, noting she did attempt to manipulate the legal system to get what she could not otherwise.

Assistant Butler County Prosecutor Jason Phillabaum said, "if someone lies under oath, perjury is the result."


Yes, lying under oath is perjury, a felony. Unless you're a female in Massachusetts, where it's still technically a felony, but you're encouraged by "law enforcement" to do it anyway. Dishonorable mention to my favorite felon Cynthia Whelahan of Sandwich, MA, perjury suborning Foxborough Police Officers Scott Austin, Edward McDonald, David Foscaldo and Scott Hodson along with their Chief Edward O'Leary who has given such crimes his full blessing and endorsement. Same goes for Asst. DA John Healy and his similarly perjury approving boss, Norfolk DA William Keating. Collectively and individually, each and every one of you are an utter disgrace.

UPDATE: From the American Coalition for Fathers and Children and RADAR.

Tell Your Representative,

Stop the False Accusations, Stop HRES 590!

"…there is no other court in the land where the penalty for perjury does not exist - you can lie repeatedly and not only NOT be punished for it, but actually be rewarded for it. There is no other court where you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. And for non-custodial parents...especially fathers...going through a divorce...and the never-ending litany of custody issues and all the rest that goes with it...it can feel like eternal damnation."


So says a father of two from New Jersey, who has undergone an ordeal in which he was verbally abused by a judge, physically accosted by police officers, criticized by child welfare officials, shown the door by school administrators, and even turned away by life-long friends.

Situations such as this will be perpetuated by House Resolution 590. It allows for the continued abuse of domestic violence laws, creating a dynamic in which allegations are made solely for the purpose of obtaining an advantage in litigation.


We’re asking you to contact your own Representative and politely ask him or her to say “NO” to HRES 590.

To locate your Representative, go to http://www.house.gov/. At the top, enter your Zip code and look up your Representative’s name, then go to the Representative’s website. Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 1-202-224-3121.

Then leave this message with the Representative's staff: “It’s time to stop the false allegations of domestic violence. Say ‘No’ to HRES 590!”

For further information on House Resolution 590 see http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARanalysis-HRES590.pdf.

Read More...

Monday, August 20, 2007

Family Preservation Festival

Here's my friend and colleague Bob Norton speaking yesterday at the Lincoln Memorial regarding family courts in general and in Massachusetts specifically. The video is in 2 parts.

Part 1



Part 2



Raise your hand if you recognize yourself in Bob's narrative.

Read More...