Complaint Review:
Janhett T. Windglows 805-455-6548
BEWARE:SCAM Spell Casting Operation Owner:Janhett T. Windglows 805-455-6548 SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING: Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! Janhett T. Windglows Will Seek REVENGE on unsatisfied customers who ask for a refund by posting blatant lies on Rip-off Report.com: DO NOT USE: JANHETT T. WINDGLOWS or her employee James or Jim Morgan !!!! NOT Psychics !!! NOT Spell Casters ! Will BREACH client confidentiality and post blatant lies on the Global Internet about clients that are unsatisfied and want a refund. SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING: Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! Janhett T. Windglows Will Seek REVENGE Driggs, Idaho
SCAM -805-455-6548 Jan Windglows Will Seek REVENGE on unsatisfied customers who ask for a refund by posting blatant lies on Rip-off Report.com: DO NOT USE: JAN WINDGLOWS or her employee James or Jim Morgan !!!!
SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING : www.bloodloveandlustspells.com or passionspells@aol.com PO Box #712 Idaho , Driggs, 83422 . 805-455- Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! Janhett T. Windglows Will Seek REVENGE on unsatisfied customers who ask for a refund by posting blatant lies on Rip-off Report.com: DO NOT USE: JANHETT T. WINDGLOWS or her employee James or Jim Morgan !!!! NOT Psychics !!! NOT Spell Casters ! Will BREACH client confidentiality and post blatant lies on the Global Internet about clients that are unsatisfied and want a refund.
WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
BEWARE: 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224 Con-artists/Internet Predators James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- BREACH CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY, NOT Spell casters or Psychics, Scam clients for money then disappear Complete Rip-off!!
DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com or passionspells@aol.com or wizardmorgan2@aol.com . PO Box # 712 Idaho , Driggs, 83422 . 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224 James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows BREACH Client Confidentiality , hack into clients personal computers to take your money out of checking accounts and credit=2 0cards; Stalk clients on Internet and post blatant lies about clients on Global Internet; Will NOT cast spells; and worse James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows are not spell casters or psychics; once they get your money they stop answering the phone!!!! Do not use Western Union or PayPal you will never get your money back from James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows. False Claims on website: NO MONEY BACK Guarantee!! Infact, Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows will retaliate and seek revenge on clients that ask for refund by posting slander, including changing and editing clients personal emails with false statements then posting on Global Internet. Truly, STAY AWAY FROM Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows WHO are sick socio-paths!!!
WARNING:Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
JANHETT T. WINDGLOWS HAS BEEN RUNNING AROUND THIS RIPOFF REPORT.COM WEBSITE STATING THIS AND THAT ABOUT X-Clients that asked for a refun dWHILE NOT REALLY PRODUCING ANY SOLID EVIDENCE TO THESE CLAIMS MADE BY Janhett T. Windglows and Jim Morgan...AGAINST unsatisfied clients that want a refund. NO VALIDITY AND OR SUBSTANCE AT ALL TO OF THESE Slanderous CLAIMS OTHER THEN THESE CON-ARTISTS VENTING ACCUSATIONS COMING AT X-clients that are simple retaliation for exposing this Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
WARNING: Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
Here's where Janhett T. Windglows tried to Rip-off both PayPal and clients by saying she gave psychic readings and that customers also wanted a spell but they didnt approve it and or Janhett T. Windglows did not honor website offer of MONEY BACK GUARANTEE and clients never got their money back...Who is the real Fraud here I ask you? JANHETT T. WINDGLOWS OWNER OF http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com-/ 805-455-6548 IS THE ANSWER. Jan Winglows SAYS THAT SHE Will refund the work...BUT APPARENTLY DOESN'T ACCORDING TO THIS Unsatisfied Customer BELOW. MAKES YOU WONDER ABOUT THE OTHER STATEMENTS THAT JANHETT T. WINDGLOWS PROFESSES.
SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows Seeks revenge post Blatant Lies about unsatisfied X-client that ask for a refund! DO NOT USE 805-455-6548.
COMPLAINT of Unsatisfied Customer: I've forwarded you two e-mails in regard to Janhett T. Windglows. Yes, Jan did read for me. The worst readin g of my life TOTAL rip-off !!! During said time Jan conned me and begged me to let her a spell for me. Also I told her that I usually dont even get psychic readings..Jan wanted $5,000.00 for the type of spell saying that it was High Magic , not something simpleI want a refu nd to my $150 psychic reading from Janhett T. Windglows as it was the worst of my life.pls refund my PayPal account. I didnt want the spell and Janhett T. Windglows said she would curse me and would reverse the spell if I didn't pay her $5000. I told her that she should get professional therapy. HERE'S WHERE JANHETT T. WINDGLOWS REPORTED CLIENTS TO PAY PAL FOR FRAUD. MY QUESTION FOR JANHETT T. WINDGLOWSIS (HOW CAN YOU STEAL SOMETHING THAT WASNT APPROVED DOESN'T EXISTS?). THESE INVOICES WERE NEVER APPROVED To be paid. 0D Janhett T. Windglows tried to screw up my Credit with Pay Pal account by attempting to pay her own invoices until as if it were me then saying I asked for charge back....the unsatisfied customer found out what Janhett T. Windglows was doing and reported it to PayPal fraudulent activities. -----Original Message----- From: unsatisfiedcustomer to: complaint-response@paypal.com Cc: wizardmorgan2@aol.com ; passionspells@aol.com Sent: XXXXXXX Subject: Invoice20From James Morgan PayPay, I wish to report Jan Windlgows for Fraud she used my Credit Card without my permisssion and charged my Card $5000 There is a $1200 invoice currently on my PayPal account form this site Blood Love and Lust and Blood Spells which I did not approve.
I didnt want the spell and Owner, Janhett T. Windglows said she would curse me and would reverse the spell if I didn't pay her $5000. I told her that she should get professional therapy.
Thanks, Unsatisfied Customer of
JANHETT T. WINDGLOWS
SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! Will Seeks REVENGE on unsatisfied customers who ask for a refund
WARNING:Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! SCAM Psychic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com-/ 805-455-6548 WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com or passionspells@aol.com or wizardmorgan2@aol.com . PO Box # 712 Idaho , Driggs, 83422 . 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224 James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows BREACH Client Confidentiality , hack into clients personal computers to take your money out of checking accounts and credit cards; Stalk clients on Internet and post blatant lies about clients on Global Internet; Will NOT cast spells; and worse James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows are not spell casters or psychics; once they get your money they stop answering the phone!!!! Do not use Western Union or PayPal you will never get your money back from James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows. False Claims on website: NO MONEY BACK Guarantee!! Infact, Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows will retaliate and seek revenge on clients that ask for refund by posting slander, including changing and editing clients personal emails with false statements then posting on Global Internet. Truly, STAY AWAY FROM Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows WHO are sick socio-paths!!!
WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
Gypsy SCUM James/Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows of several spell casting sites on the Global Internet including www.bloodloveandlustspells.com breach client confidentiality and are proven Internet Predators with no magical powers or wizardry. These Gypsy SCUM will commit DECEPTION FRAUD and IDENTITY THEFT and take clients for thousan ds and thousands of American hard earned dollars. DO NOT USE or be RIPPED OFF by these SCUM idiots who stalk their clients and commit internet fraud by hacking into savings/checking accounts and posting personal information of clients on Global I nternet.
WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
Scam Spell Casting Scheme Operation James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com NOT WIZARDS- NOT PSYCHICS-NOT SPELL CASTERS !!! James/JIM Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows have no magical powers and both are complete SCUM Rip-off Artist Scamming thousands of dollars off inn ocent CLIENTS...I know James/Jim Morgan AND Janhett T. Windglows are complete Rip-off and Scam Artists whose only desire is to get as much money off their victims then NEVER answer their phone ever again...do not be taken by t hese CREEPS!!! WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
DO NOT USE: FAKE Spell Casters James/Jim Morgan or Janhett T. Windglows do not have magical powers and will only try to sc am you for thousands of dollars.
WARNING : Complete Spell Cast ing Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
BEWARE - Complete Rip-off !! : 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224 Con-artists James/Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows only want your money. DO NOT USE - w ww.bloodloveandlustspells.com or passionspells@aol.com or wizardmorgan2@aol.com NOT SPELLCASTERS; NO MAGICAL POWERS: Breach Client Confidentiality; post personal emails of clients; Internet Predators that hack into your personal checking accounts and steal your money; post blatant lies about clients on Global Internet !!! STAY AWA Y from these Internet Con-Artist !!!! Complete Scam Spell Casting Rip-off Scheme!!
BEWARE and DO NOT USE: James/Jim Morgan or Janhett T. Windglows unless you want your money stolen from these Gypsy Scum 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224, PO Box #712 Driggs , Idaho 83422 . BREACH CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY: Do not send personal check or use Western Union or PayPal you will NEVER get your money back from James Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows. False Claims on website: NO MONEY BACK Guarantee!! Infact, Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows will retaliate and seek revenge on clients that ask for refund by posting slander, including changing and editing clients personal emails with false statements then posting on Global Internet. Truly, STAY AWAY FROM Jim Morgan and Jan Wi ndglows WHO are sick socio-paths!!!
WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! ;
BEWARE and DO NOT USE: 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224 James/Jim Morgan and Jan Windglo ws of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com www.bloodloveandlustspells.com or passionspells@aol.com or wizardmorgan2@aol.com . PO Box # 712 Idaho , Driggs, 83422 . 805-455-
James/Jim Morgan and Jan W indglows: www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
Business phone: 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224
emails:
Janhett T. Windglows: passionspells@aol.com
Jim Morgan: wizardmorgan2@aol.com
=0 A
0A
"Blood Love And Lust Spells" Here are some of James/Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows sites to beware and not use:
http://www.fast-acting-black-magick-love-spells.com/dragonspells/lovespellsfastactingspellresultscurseremovalspells.html http://www.bloodloveandlustspell s.com/deathspells.html
http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/ultimatespells.html s.html http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/magicdisruption.html
http://www.bloodloveandlusts pells.com/removeacurse.html
http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/spellcastingpreviews.html
http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/testamonials.html
http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/orderaspell.html
http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/spellcastinginfo.html
www.fast-acting-black-magick-love-spells.com/.../lovespellsfastactingspellresultscurseremovalspells.html
whttp://www.fast-acting-black-magick-love-spells.com/dragonspells/lovespellsfastactingspellresultscurseremovalspells.htmlww.fast-acting-black-magick-love-spells.com/.../dontmesswiththedragonorthe janjan .html
http://www.fast-acting-black-magick-love-spells.com/dragonspells/lovespellsfastactingspellresultscurseremovalspells.html
www.strongestlovespellsprotectiondeathcursehexremoval.com/strongestbanishingmagic.html
WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!!
BEWARE: 805-455-6548 or 208-639-2224 Con-artists James /Jim Morgan and Janhett T. Windglows only want your money. DO NOT USE - www.bloodloveandlustspells.com or passionspells@aol.com or wizardmorgan2@aol.com NOT SPELLCASTERS; NO MAGICAL POWERS: BREACH Client Confidentiality; post personal email s of clients; Internet Predators that hack into your personal checking accounts and steal your money; post blatant lies about clients on Global Intern et !!! STAY AWAY from these Internet Con-Artist !!!! Complete Scam Spell Casting Rip-off Scheme!!
WARNING:Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip-off Scheme!! SCAM Psy chic-Janhett T. Windglows: Owner of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com- 805-455-6548 WARNING : Complete Spell Casting Scam Operation and Rip -off Scheme!!
Thank you Rip-off Report.com for exposing these Gypsy SCUM
This is a true post to reveall the Ripoff Spell Casting Scheme of Jan or Janhett T. Windglow Owner http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/ . James Morgan who is an employee of Jan Windlgows just repsonded to my post and actually names previous clients and slanders this X-client with slander and blatant lies on Ripoff Repot.com. Just read James Morgan DRAGON - rebuttal. Right here and now on this report - James Morgan commits the very allegations that I am reporting as BREACH of client confidentiality and clients personal information.
Who could trust Jan Windlgows and Jim Morgan - these CREEPS will hack into your personal computer and steal your money !!! It happened to me. And _ one need just read these posts, reports, and multiple rebuttals all written and posted by Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan of 805-455-6548 http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com/
Do Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan think that if they post more blatant lies about unsatisfied customers wanting a refund that is will somehow vindicate them of their crimes against their X-clients?
THANK YOU RIPOFF REPORT.COM - for allowing the trap to catch these SCAM INTERNET PREDATORS !!!!!
SCAM -805-455-6548 Jan Windglows Will Seek REVENGE on unsatisfied customers who ask for a refund by posting blatant lies on Rip-off Report.com: DO NOT USE: JAN WINDGLOWS or JIM MORGAN
33 Updates & Rebuttals
High Enchantress Jan Windglows
Internet,USA
Jan Windglows And Jim Morgan NOT Affliated With Michael Jenkins or ANY other Magick Site - File HUGE Civil Lawsuit On Malicious Criminal Stalker Mary Prantil aka " @AmericasDreamer"
#34REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, January 26, 2012
This is Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan of Blood Love And Lust Spells 208-714-4348 posting the lawsuit that we won on scum scammer CRIMINAL Mary Prantil just for the record. Stalker Mary Prantil belongs in prison. She is doing this to several other people as well, as she prides herself in harassing other people and businesses. Mary Prantil, the malicious poster here filed numerous frivilous lawsuits on New York, PLUS the New York Police Department that were thrown out of court.
Currently we are telling everyone about the criminal she is, including Mayor Bloomberg.
Posting hateful untrue malicious comments is one of Mary Prantil's favorite hobbies. So, here is the summons we served on Prantil, and the lawsuit.
She never even had the nerve to show up for the court hearing. See the attached files on the next page of us
serving Mary Prantil a summons.
You can view the full records, and actual lawsuit via this link, as it is too many pages to post here. Just click the link and then see the file here for the court summons and law suit first pages.
Mary Prantil's criminal records can also be seen at this link.
http://www.mary-prantil.com/readlawsuithere.html
Sincerely, Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows
http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
208-714-4348
READ THE LAWSUIT ON MARY PRANTIL WITH OTHER LINKS AND INFORMATION FOUND THERE THAT CONTAIN HARD EVIDENCE ON MARY PRANTIL'S NUMEROUS FRIVILOUS LAWSUITS SHE HAS FILED AGAINST NEW YORK AND THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT NYC WHICH IS THE CITY SHE PROFESSES TO LOVE SO MUCH BUT IS FILING LAWSUITS ON AND SCAMMING, RIPPING OFF HONEST HARD WORKING NEW YORK TAX PAYERS BY RIDING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR YEARS ON END.
PsychicINSeattle
Tacoma,Washington,
United States of America
I'm PsychicINSeattle;Turn to God. Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM: DO NOT USE: SCAM Jan Windglows
#34Consumer Comment
Fri, June 10, 2011
June 10, 2011 - I'm Psychic-IN-Seattle - Thank you for all the
responses/rebuttals on Ripoff Report.com!
Rebuttal Title: I'm PsychicINSeattle;Turn to God. Jan
Windglows is a Cyber SCAM: DO NOT USE: SCAM Jan Windglows
Turn to God. Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM! I offer free readings
and guidance. I pray for all the victims of Jan Windglows. I hope to help all
my clients to turn to God. Turn to the God Light within your abundant Soul.
Witchcraft is a SCAM; Jan Windglows will only do you spiritual harm.
Many of Jan Windglows clients come to me. I would never breach their client
confidentiality like this EVIL harmful Cyber Scam, calling herself Jan
Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows aka Mrd. Jan aka Queen Lilith is an EVIL
person who worships Satan and is part of a Cult.
DO NOT USE: SCAM called Jan Windglows of Scam Site Blood Love and
Lust Spells, PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho,83805 Internet & phone
Contact only ph: 208-714-4348 Witchcraft
is a SCAM! Jan Windglows is a SCAM!
May God bless you with Favor!
Love, Psychic in Seattle
JanWindglows-IS-EVIL@PsychicNSeattle Seattle, WashingtonTurn to God not Witchcraft. CRIMINAL Jan Windglows owns Ripoff Witchcraft site, Blood,Love, & Lust Spells. http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx http://janwindglowsexposedwitchcraftscam.wordpress.com/
Twitter / @PsychicNSeattle/Jan Windglows Cyber SCAM
Twitter -
Twitter / @PsychicNSeattle/Jan Windglows Cyber SCAM
Twitter -
Dragon Fire
New York,USA
Jan Windlglows Reveals Communistic Remarks Made By Criminal Mary Prantil, NYPD COP HATER , "CHARGEBACK MARY" Prantil, DERROGATORY COMMENTS ABOUT MAYOR BLOOMBURG MADE BY PRANTIL ON TWITTER
#34REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, December 09, 2010
http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net
GOOGLE DELETED MARY PRANTIL'S " SCAM JAN WINDGLOWS" ACCOUNT ON TWITTER BECAUSE MARY PRANTIL IS A LIAR AND A TWITTER CRIMINAL-CHECK IT OUT, THAT PAGE IS GONE AS MANY OF MARY PRANTIL'S FAKE LIAR "BLOGS" THAT SHE USES TO TRY TO COVER UP HER CRIMINAL ACTS.
Sorry, that page ( https://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM ) doesnt exist!
INSTRUCTIONS HERE OF HOW TO PULL UP MARY PRANTIL'S CRIMINAL COURT TRIAL DATE FOR THE MANHATTAN NEW YORK CRIMINAL COURT:
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/AttorneyCalendar
Then, go to the box that says defendant and type in Mary Prantil. You will see her CRIMINAL CHARGES , court date which is January 11th 2011 arraignment and NOT arrest charges.
Note: To view case details, click the case # link (opens in new window).
Case # Defendant Summons # Appearance Date Court Judge Part
2010NY022485 Prantil, Mary 01/11/2011 New York Criminal Court B
2009NY002655 Prantil, Mary T 01/11/2011 New York Criminal Court B
2009NY046033 Prantil, Mary T 01/11/2011 New York Criminal Court B
CASE INFORMATION
CourtNew York Criminal Court
PL 240.30 02 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionAgg Har-2nd:telephone
PL 215.50 03 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionCrim Contempt-2nd:disobey Crt
PL 240.30 1A
**TOP CHARGE** A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionAggravated Harassment-2nd Deg
CASE INFORMATION
CourtNew York Criminal Court
PL 205.30 00
**TOP CHARGE** A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionResisting Arrest
PL 240.30 01 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionAgg Harass-2:communicate/alarm
CASE INFORMATION
CourtNew York Criminal Court
PL 240.30 02 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionAgg Har-2nd:telephone
PL 120.50 03 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionStalking 3rd
PL 240.30 01
**TOP CHARGE** A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionAgg Harass-2:communicate/alarm
Mary Prantils next CRIMINAL COURT date : January 11th,2011
YOU SEARCHED ON
CourtNew York Criminal Court
Modify Search
JanWindglowsNEIGHBOR
Bonners Ferrys,United States of America
SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 aka Enchantress http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM ALERT for IDENTITY THFET - Criminal Jan Windglows post FRAUD on Global Internet as Identity Theft
#34Consumer Comment
Thu, October 28, 2010
SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 aka Enchantress http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM ALERT for IDENTITY THFET - Criminal Jan Windglows post FRAUD as Identity Theft
PO BOX #118Bonners Ferry Idaho 83805
United States of America
Phone: 208-714-4348
Web Address: www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
on-line SCammer Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - is a verifiied convicted criminal for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Identiy Theft.
I know because I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida - JAIL BIRD Scam Jan Windglow is a FUGITIVE from SUMTER Florida JAIL where I personally bailed her out on a number of occasions. I am now a PAID informant.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME, associated with Psychics, Spell Casters and almost most Con-Artist convicted of Grand Larceny.
It the CRIME of promising results for a price.
For Example - For $5000 I will reunite you with your X-wife.
Call Police give whereabouts of SCAM Jan Windglows who only offers a PO BOX. Everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME.
Scam Jan Windglows uses WIGS and different PHOTOS on her websites. BEWARE this is the latest...also known as a BLONDE. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Cult-organizations/SCAM-Jan-Windglows-a/SCAM-Jan-Windglows-aka-Mystica-F3D2B.htm.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permittion of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SCAM Jan Windglows
Dragon Fire
bushnell,United States of America
"UPDATED" CRIMINAL CHARGES & CRIMINAL RECORDS OF Mary Prantil Astoria New York BELOW, PLEASE READ And SAVE YOURSELF SOME GRIEF
#34REBUTTAL Individual responds
Wed, October 20, 2010
Try To Lie Your Way Out Of This Criminal Trash Mouth Mary Prantil. Tell Us AGAIN, How All This Information Provided By The NYPD and Court System On You Is ALLEGDLY Fake, According To You LOL.
Hey Prantil, Looks like youre going back to jail again according to your court dates and other records. You know, youve proclaimed to speak the truth about this entire conflict for quite some time however; even this past statement of telling the truth is a lie on your part.
Again, youve said that reputation is everything and that we should all protect it yet it has been proven that you spend your days going around attacking the good reputations of others with slanderous stories of what allegedly happened to you, another lie on your part.
The first set of fictitious names that you choose to use was Honest Person and Enforcer Of Truth oddly enough. But there again this was just your sick little way to sell your mockeries of the truth as the truth. Why? Because all of your statements under various user names are purely slanders and anything but the truth as you know.
Nothing but pure deceptions and false accusations coming out of your evil mouth everyday, Evil statements directed at multiple people in your attempts to destroy their lives and businesses just because your to d**n lazy to achieve your own dreams. To lazy to work on your own personal success and thus, as the old saying goes: (If I Cant Have It Then Neither Will You)
You cant make it on your own prantil, others wont allow you to steal from them, so you decided to go slamming and defaming from behind 43 to 46 fictitious names on seven to eight other Forum sites. It didnt do you any good though did it? Because were still here and bigger and stronger then ever.
So, what did all your negative efforts mean? NOTHING is the answer to that one.
It seems that every time you lost the augment or conflict you just slip behind another identity because you failed in backing up anything that you were charging another with. Trying to make the Public believe that there were many complaints against us especially, when it was only you.
Little OLD troubling making you. Tell me Prantil, does it make you feel good when you pump yourself up on crack? while posting s**t on innocent people all night long? year in and year out?
It must make you feel even better in knowing that after trying to destroy our good names and business for four years that you have failed miserably in this area as well.
And then you have the nerve in calling us a looser? Thats too funny. Mary, you have to be the HUGEST looser that Jan or I have ever seen. No one could be as stupid as you mary, I just think that your on a personal self-destruct for whatever reason.
Or you just have a great urge to be punished for your little sins, LOL.
As Ive said many times before, all anyone has to do is take what you say about another and turn it back on you and they will know the truth. If Prantil says that someone is harassing her, or has hacked into something, then this is actually Prantil doing these things to others.
The same with Identity Theft issue, If Mary is accusing you of this activity then she has no doubt attempted it herself, or possible carried it out against someone. Again, look to her current criminal charges and records in NY.
All anyone has ever heard from you Mary is: Scam, Scam, Scam and nothing more. You have perpetually yelled scam when it was really you doing all the scamming and lying all along, right Mary? Of course it was.
I think the scam sites liked you at first but now your becoming a bit of a embarrassment to them and thats why they have blocked you and moreover stated Quit Using Rip Off Reports To Carry Out Your Vendettas On .
The people on Twitter and Facebook do nothing but make fun of you while laughing at all your little trashy blog pages on us, Especially after they look over the LilITH site. After they see all of your Verifiable criminal records going back to the very cops that youre asking everyone to call. Youre a JOKE Miss Prantil, and thats no joke.
In the beginning your little game was in attempting to turn magic sites against one another while scamming them out of their services, to which you were somewhat successful in doing to a few of us.
That is, until we all caught on to you and what you were doing, and throw you out on your a*s. I bet that was a drag, Huh? A little embarrassing as well I would assume.
Yes, throw you out on your scamming criminal a*s before you could scam us out of the thousands of dollars that youre always bitching about. The thousands youre always telling folks you were scammed out of that NEVER HAPPENED.
Well, Im sure youve had a lot of fun creating all your fake and malicious blog pages on everyone, mainly Jan and myself however, the last laugh is on you, Isnt it Mary ? Especially since I placed this site at the top of the search engines over and under all the crap youve posted against us.
Something you didnt want to happen, something you didnt expect. You hate it when folks get the opportunity to defend themselves because this in itself proves what a Creep and Liar you really are.
Youre not laughing as hard now as you were at one time, are you Prantil? Its not so fun for you anymore, is it? Especially now that your freedom is at stake, and moreover you have a real chance of going to prison for a very long time. I hope you meet a new love interest in the federal pin, Your Soul Mate named Helga the weight lifter.
Youre an animal and prison is the place you need to be Prantil.
Now the whole world knows about you, and you cant go anywhere without someone asking you about this site and what were saying about you.
Is this what you wanted? Perhaps not, as you just didnt think that this would come back on you like it did. Well Scammer, this is what it feels like to be EXSPOSED, How does it feel? Scam Artist Prantil.
You see Mary, You can play with the Courts there in New York because their restricted by tedious procedure in protecting your civil rights however, The Public isnt burdened with these same bureaucratical hindrances and thus, people will call it like they see it, especially over the Internet. FREE SPEECH, Right?
In other words, they see you for what you are: A Cyber Criminal and all around trouble maker, This is both their and our OPENION of you. It doesnt matter how many times you proclaim to love Jesus, or pretend to preach love and tolerance because everyone knows youre just some Dullard, lying Crook who knows she has been caught.
Who now has the Jesus complex until she can get out of the trouble she made for herself. Of course, one day when they let you out youll forget all about Jesus like he never existed.
Four years ago, you thought you could get on the Internet to cause harm without it coming back to touch you, BUT YOU WERE WRONG, werent you? Because it did IN FACT backfire on you in a bad way, didnt it, Fool.
Not only did your slander plot back fire on you over the Internet, but that your also going to jail for the very same things that youve been accusing others of doing to you over the years LOL, now thats funny and a little strange at the same time, Dont you think ?
What was that you were saying about curse spells not working?, and how they fade away LOL, I dont think they will ever fade from you. Curse spells are drawn to evil, and youre full of it Mary, so I think youll be feeling your curse for quite some time to come.
You know what else I find amusing? That is in the way that you actually lie your a*s off while trying to wiggle out of your past slanders and actions moreover, providing everyone with the Lilith link that disproves everything your saying LOL.
d**n, how stupid is that? I mean, providing the goods on yourself while hoping that everyone would accept it as nonsense, to which its not as you well know. Oh and by the way: We dont talk s**t about anyone just for the record and not everyone engages in your negative behavior such as slander and character assignation like you prantil.
You know mary, you actually make me laugh really hard when Ive taken a few moments to glance over your IGNORANT, or uneducated crap about the Constitution, Free Speech, The Decency act, protecting your reputation etc because it sounds like the views of a lying air head trying to shovel her way out of something shes been caught red handed in. It is what it is.
All your boo hooing mean absolutely nothing as you get what you deserve, especially when youre the one needlessly, and unjustifiably attacking others, or abusing these same laws by intruding on the civil rights of others for purposes of self-gain. Thats what makes you a two bit piece of cyber trash Criminal.
Youve hide behind others, fictitious names, laws and religion as a platform in launching all your attempts of deception however you left out one very important factor Prantil,, (People Arent Stupid). And in light of this fact, they have seen through what youve tried to accomplish on the net and now ignore you as a result because youre nothing but a phony.
Its because of this oversight on your part that you have failed, Prantil. Everyone one that hears your story resoundingly rejects it for what it is, (TRASH), coming from a low life mentality or simpleton who has no life.
Now that all else has failed, your are now calling us Satan however, you should look up what the name Satan really means and youll discover that it outlines everything that you are LOL.
For Instance, You are The Deceiver, Liar, Accuser, Adversary, the Anti-Christ, The Beast etc, you are all these things because you hate, and go against the teachings of Jesus the Christ in every word you speak and write. Not leaving out all your highly negative and destructive actions.
Youre a Hypocrite and the False Prophet because you speak of peace and love by day while propagating acts of war by night against the innocent. Oh peace, love, tolerance you say ?, Feed the hungry, show compassion to the sick and the poor yet, you know nothing about these things while going around posting trash on those who sought to lift you up out of your misery.
At the same time your talking this crap you continue to fly your site on us full of negative hype, this just shows everyone that the Jesus thing etc is nothing but another ploy on your part.
You declare war on any who tried to tell you the truth about yourself. Mary T. Prantil, you are a pathetic human being that moreover belongs to the legions of the lost, and not us. Why? Because your small and narrow little mind cant grasp anything past your immediate sexual desires and other perverse needs, Unnatural desires.
How can a person like you whom moreover rejects the laws of God be anything to do with that God, or Christianity as a whole. Further, your actions declare war against all that is holy and only enhances that which is evil in the human spirit.
d**n, youre anything but Gods shinning light of NY as you proclaim, Youre not your own religion unless theres a religion called STUPID. Youre not of God via your very words and actions besides, and to show your contradiction in even this matter,
you proclaim that your such a good Catholic or Christian on your Twitter pages listed under JanWindglowscam of all things, but then you go on to write little trash sites slamming us with obvious lies in the same breath as Ive mentioned previously.
Even though Im using all these Biblical phrases and compressions to describe you Mary, all Im really saying is that youre a very uneducated person with no standers or values, whom likes to lie and scam people while pursuing your perverse sexual needs with anything that will lay with you as can be seen on your Twitter pages.
Youre a rude, crude, obnoxious and extremely troubled person with an excessive ego problem, Your a arrogant person attempting to be larger then life whom habitually lies about everything under the sun.
You not a big city executive and all the people that you have listed for references arent even aware that you have their contact information posted on your sites. Are you hoping they will say something nice about you, Mary? Well their not for your information.
They do say things like whos mary, sounds like a real h*e bag, thanks for the warning, wow thats scary, no she never worked with us and so on.
So, Mary writes her own testimonials about herself while posting the contact of others unaware.
Mary thinks that Perhaps someone will call these alleged past Employers and put them on the spot, perhaps someone will say something nice about men says mary.
The same thing occurs when we ask around about you in the comedy clubs that youre telling everyone that youve allegedly had shows with, or will have shows with on your twitter site.
In truth, you try to be funny but arent very good at it, you want to be successful however your not, and no one knows you. You say that youre from a prestigious family but youre wrong there as well because your father was a dirty lawyer who was a convicted criminal according to the LA Times, not to mention his brothers colorful record in ripping his Clients off for $10,000.
Your mother was a medical biller who was left with a little ill gotten money, and your father was driven out of town for pretty much carrying out the same activities against others that you are engaging in currently.
Youre pissed off now from what I understand because your parents found you to irresponsible to handle any moneys or in handling your own affairs and thus, you tried to hire several sites including the Cahill site to perform death spells on your own mother. This is according to Mike Cahill and recordings he has of you threating him to do this for free or else.
So, your not rich, you dont come from a influential family, Your not a spiritual person or a legally knowledgably individual, Your not living the American Dream and your not a successful Comedian.
Youre not in a successful relationship because its all about you and what you want. However, let me tell you what you have succeeded in doing over the last four years that I know of: Youve failed anger management classes, drug rehab, youve been thrown in the mental health units several times for suicide attempts.
Youve ripped off several on-line businesses along with the perpetual harassing of them. Youve alienated everyone that comes around you, Youve harassed and tormented many private people along with law enforcement officials, Youve gotten yourself in endless legal trouble,
Youve brought down several curses on you from various magical sites, and youve proven to the world that your not who you say you are and that they should be leery of, and avoid you at all cost ( DO NOT USE,
DO NOT USE Mary T. Prantil ). The comedy act here isnt in your alleged acts that no one knows anything about there in the entire state of New York more so then you making a complete a*s of yourself over the Internet for the last four years.
Basically, youre a legend in your own mind that further has a serious problem separating reality from your highly distorted perspective in what is and isnt real.
Now your pretending to be this little victim while asking everyone to pray for you, Trying to come off as this little Christian person who is being picked on by the big bad spell caster, to which is all hype on your part, another falsity coming from you.
Now youre looking for sympathy anywhere you can get it even if it means lying about your own family. Again, according to Cahill Mary said My father and Mother locked me in the closet for days and weeks at a time , My Father and Uncles sexually molested me,
My Mother beat me up constantly, My Mother ripped me off out of my inheritance This is all on tape and email record according to Mike Jenkins and Mike Cahill incase your thinking about denying these statements prantil.
Im pretty sure Mr. Cahill conveyed these things to your Mother when she called him to ask why your kept cutting your wrist, This was about the time that you drove your boy friend back to Egypt just so he could get away from your stalking a*s.
After you harassed and tormented him for over two years and then had him arrested after he shoved you away from his door, after he had repeatedly ask and Demanded that you stay away from him.
The guy that was going to enter into marriage with you before you turned into the scum bucked and dirt bag that you now are, mary. Weve proven that youre the tax evader with tax warrants on you along with your claims of money laundering etc. Like I said before, Youre a dirt bag.
There were some good accomplishments coming from you mary and thus this is why Divinity allows creatures like yourself to continue . You did manage to take away the credibility of just about every scam site out their on the Internet because now everyone realizes that what their reading about another could be coming from someone like you.
And thus, if someone does have a question about a possible scam artist they will have to fall back on their own research instead of believing in something they have read on the Internet.
You have caused the public to reevaluate the laws currently in place through your abusing of these same laws and so, Im sure they will eventually close the loop holes that have allowed you to harass others over the years.
Even though you didnt mean to advertise for us, you have succeeded in driving a lot of traffic our way through your negative slander and spamming. As Ive repeatedly said before, your posted crap gets their attention and they come to the sites only to find that youre full of boloney and that the sites are the best thing that ever was.
Youve proven to people that spells, curse spells really do work as all they have to do is in looking over yore life for the last three to four years. Youve proven that good ALLWAYS over comes evil and that Intelligence reigns supreme over ignorance every time.
Through your repeated attacks and us hammering you down every week, weve shown people that they dont have to take this kind of treatment from scum bags like yourself.
So, I guess even in the day of evil and false Prophets good can come out of chaos. God is not dead and continues to be alive and thus, justice is served against the wicked. Now Mary can go to jail with knowing all her accomplishments.
Case Details - Charges
Case #2009NY059991
DefendantHernandez, Jonathan P
**TOP CHARGE**
Case Details - Charges
Case #2010NY022485
DefendantPrantil, Mary
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
Criminal SCAM Jan Windglows ARRESTED for Grand Larceny today on the streets of Bonners Ferry, Idaho DO NOT USE Blood Love and Lust Spells
#34UPDATE EX-employee responds
Fri, August 20, 2010
Larceny - Definition
Larceny is a crime involving stealing. Under English common law, larceny consisted of (1) a taking (2) and carrying away (3) of tangible personal property (4) of another (5) by trespass (6) with intent to permanently deprive.
In most of the United States the common law definitions of certain crimes have been modified. Quite often the general crime of theft has replaced larceny, and most related common law and statutory crimes such as embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, and receipt of stolen property.
Larceny by Trick or Deception occurs when the victim of larceny is tricked by a misrepresentation of fact into giving up possession of property. This should not be confused with false pretenses, where the victim is tricked into giving up title to the property.
Grand larceny is typically defined as larceny of a significant amount of property, in the US this is often defined as an amount valued at $200 or more. Grand larceny is often classed as a felony with the concomitant possibility of a harsher sentence. Because of its distinctive meter, the phrase is often heard in the lyrics of gangsta rap compositions.
In cases where services rather than goods have been unlawfully appropriated, the charge of theft of services may apply.
See also: motor vehicle theft.
Larceny - Example Usage
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
Boycott Jan Windglows aka Janhett - Cyber Stalker - Spell Casting is not a legitimate Business
#34UPDATE EX-employee responds
Mon, August 16, 2010
Boycott SCAMM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows of the SCAM site Blood Love and Lust Spells.
Http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho, 83805, Castle Eye, Dragon Spells and Blood Love and Lust Spells - all verified SCAM site to STEAL your money via Western Union and PayPal.
Jan on the LAm - in 15 yrs on the Internet has NEVER psoted a real address - bcs Jan Windglows is afraid the COPS will arrest her...BEWARE - Scam Jan Windglows is caught Cyber Stalking Kim Kardashian Miami POLICE to issue warrant...amy ppl are reporting this SCAMMER Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows for 15 yrs of PayPal Western Union Ripoff's.
SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows is a veriried Cyber Stalker who has no real legitimate clients bcs og addiction and obsession of stalking, defaming and harassing.
BEWARE - SCANMMER Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows is a verified Cyber Stalker - Evidence on many sits, BEWARE - Jan Windglows coudl target you next and begin to harass and stalk you....
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
BOYCOTT Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows - Spell Casting is not a legitimate business...Jan Windglows NEVER listed her HOME addtess, only a PO BOX
#34UPDATE EX-employee responds
Mon, August 16, 2010
My Opinion SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows is a criminally insane Con-Artist - that has a very violnet sadistic side.
PO BOX #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho 208-714-4348 - DO NOT GET SCAMMED by Sadistic Jan Windglows who can be placed on this RIPOFF REPORT>COM committing FELONY acts of Deception Fraud, promoting her DECEPTION FRAUD with advertizments, defamation and CYBER stalking, harassing and posting lIES about X-employees and X-clinet, even NYC Celebrities come and Kim Kardashian rpeorts SCAM Jan Windglows to the police for stalking her in 2009.
Http://rwitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - READ this Forum shared by the victims of Sadiistic Jan Windglows.
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Jan Windglows is a our "PET Psycho" Jan Windglows is made fun of in the circle of X-employees. SCAM Jan Windglows has NEVER posted her real address ever since you sentence at SUMTER Florida JAIL in 2003.
BOYCOTT CRIMINAL and extremely sadistic woman Jan Windglows - who is a verified FELONY stalker with a Conviction for DECEPTION FRAUD!!!
BEWARE - SCAM Jan Windglows has a history of EXTORTION and felony stalking ...Jan Windglows could target you next and stalk you for MONEY and Sadistic pleasure, verified criminal seeking pleasure in harassing and stalking...
Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows
Bonners Ferry,Idaho,
USA
GREETINGS TO ALL FROM ENCHANTRESS JAN ! SCAM MARY FELONY STALKER,LIAR, AT IT AGAIN I SEE, LOL !!!!!
#34REBUTTAL Owner of company
Wed, August 11, 2010
successful entrepreneur of my beautiful web site, www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
What this is all about: We have a criminal stalker on our hands, only temporarily from what we hear from inside sources which are none of Mary Prantil's business. Betcha can't even GUESS who those inside sources are can ya, Mary?
AGAINST MARY PRANTIL IN OUR EFFORT TO STAND UP FOR OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, OUR RIGHT
TO FAIR TRADE, AND EXPOSING INTERNET TERRORIST MARY PRANTIL who has been stalking us on the Internet over telephone and email for about four years. SHE IS A PSYCHOTIC FREAK AND PATHOLOGICAL LIAR BIG TIME.
The INTERNET
AND LAND CRIMINAL MARY PRANTIL IS NOW FACING FELONY STALKING CHARGES THAT HAS
posting against us on the Internet is a deluded woman from New York facing a lot
of criminal charges, named Mary Prantil.
We expect her to be thrown in jail
this October hopefully sooner. She is a liar and blabber mouth, as everyone can
see, and a garbage mouth as well.
Every time she emails or calls us,
we simply send her threatening emails and phone calls to the attorney in New
York currently prosecuting her. Mary will post and post up here but the fact is,
everyone knows that she is a liar - she has not proved a single statement she
has ever posted, makes up outlandish stories, cannot provide ANYTHING to
actually PROVE what she is saying. She just likes to tell lies. Mabie it is the
only way she knows how to entertain herself.
Mary Prantil is our "pet
psycho" so to speak- every successful business owner deals with these types of
unsavory characters. People like this freak Mary Prantil are actually twisted
GROUPIES trying to ride off our famous coat tails because it is their only claim
to fame since they cannot get a life of their own and keep messing up their own
life by perpetually getting into trouble with the law, LOL.
UNSAVORY CHARACTERS WHO ARE UNHAPPY AND UNSUCCESSFUL AND CONTINUE TO GET IN
TROUBLE AND DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL- they are
hateful, evil, vindictive, and hate honest people because they are unhappy and
have an extremely troublesome existence and no one can help them.
My
husband James and I are here in Bonners Ferry Idaho, anyone can call us- our
phone number is 208-714-4348, just like it says on our web sites. No one is on
the lam here, lol just Mary and her CRIME RIDDEN CLAN.
go to this link to
see Mary Prantil's CRIMINAL BOOKING AND CASE NUMBER: (((Redacted))) OR :
The public may look up Mary
Prantil's criminal records, on the NYC Department Of Corrections web site so you
the public can see what a real piece of crap Mary Prantil really is.
Go
to the following link which is the NYC jail inmate lookup:
http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/
After
the page has been pulled up, you will see the place where to enter Mary
Prantil's Booking and Case Number, which is 3471001054- simply enter that number
in the white box, as shown below.
As you will see, the NYC Department Of
Corrections has all her criminal information and charges posted. As we have said
numerous times in the past, we have proof of what we have been warning the
public about this criminal Mary Prantil all along, so see for yourself- go to
the link, enter her book and case number, the information is current and is all
there for anyone because it is PUBLIC RECORD. The facts, simply
put.
Enter
NYSID or Book & Case Number: ( enter 3471001054
)
You will then find, on the NYC Department of Corrections Inmate Lookup,
Mary Prantil's criminal records, including her Felony Stalking
charge.
OpinionatedAmerican
Tampa,Florida,
USA
CRIMINAL-Extortionist-SCAM Queen Jan Windglows stalks;harasses clients; Criminal Aggravated Harassment NYPD #3057
#34Consumer Comment
Wed, August 04, 2010
SCAM Quieen Jan Windglows is committing Aggravated Harassmet - The NYPD are looking for SCAM Queen Jan Windglows for over 4 yras caught salking and harasing the same NYC woman - post lies about NYC woman has no Criminal Record. Police Reports #3057, #277 and #5247 active warrant for Jan Windglows
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM Read about the daily Ripoff's of SCAM Jan Windglows
DO NOT USE- www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118. Bonners Ferry, Idaho 208-714-4348.
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - Do not Use SCAM Queen Jan Windglows of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho.
X-employees speak out:
Mike Cahill says: I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows - her SPELLS DO NOT WORK ! Because lazy Jan Windglow does no work.
Celeste Morgan says: SCAM Jan Windglows is a convicted Vriminal form SUMTER Floridas Jail for Grand Larceny and Deception Fraud. Jan Windglows is a scary woam that I had to get a restraining Order. My X-husband Jim Morgan is a verified Criminal afor Tax Evasion and Gradn Larceny.
Kim Thrasher says: Iwork with Jan Windglows right now. Yes, she does SPELL for MONEY. I get Psychic Reading work from Jan Windglows. All clients complain about how Jan Windglows never answers her phone or does any spell work at all.
The Global Internet is aware of SCAM Queen Jan Windglows - SPELLS DO NOT WORK!!!
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL Crime. Everytime Jan Windglows does a SPELL or offers to do a SPELL for money - Scam Jan Wiondglows is committing a CRIME.
Dragon Fire
bushnell,United States of America
CRIMINAL RECORDS OF MARY T. PRANTIL : http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/ and punch in number 3471001054
#34REBUTTAL Individual responds
Sun, August 01, 2010
This Report Concerns Mary T. Prantil of Queens County Astoria New York. You can also find Scam Prantil posting on Rip Off Report and other Forum sites posting against us and others under AKA Honest Person AKA Honestperson AKA Park City USA, AKA Uta, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania, AKA Washington D.C. AKA Washington, AKA Astoria, New York, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania AKA Park City, AKA Utah AKA Astoria New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA SadisticPsychicJanWindglowsHURTME2 - Houston (USA AKA Unhappy Client - Xxx (U.S.A AKA CONArtist-JimMorganNOTaWizardorMagicalPowers AKA Houston (USA AKA SCAMJanWindglowsSpellCastingSchemeOperation AKA Settle USA AKA Astoria USA AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A. AKA Cc - Essex United Kingdom AKA Enforcer Of Justice AKA Washington D.C., Washington AKA New York, New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A AKA Enforced Justice AKA Phoenix USA AKA UK Other AKA PsychicHater (Seattle Washington)United States of America, AKA do not tread on me (Astoria New York AKA OpinionatedAmerican (Tampa Florida)United States of America AKA Psychic Hater AKA Toronto Ontario
CRIMINAL RECORDS OF MARY T. PRANTIL : http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/ and punch in number 3471001054
MARY PRANTIL NYSID: 03088617J Age: 46 Sex: Female Race: White Height: 5 ft 3 inches Weight: 95 lbs Hair Color: Blonde Eye Color: Green Nativity: New York Booking Information Incarceration: 2010-06-14 Book & Case Number: 3471001054 Facility: Rose M. Singer Center Arrest Date: 2010-06-14 Arrest Number: COURT DIRECT Next Court Date: 2010-06-30 Projected Release Date: Actual Release Date: Discharge Reason: Bail & Bond: Remanded Charge Information Docket: 2010NY022485 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony) 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY002655 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY046033 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 215.50 MA (CRIMINAL CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor) Ten Jails on Rikers Island List Part 2 Rose M. Singer Center Address: 19-19 Hazen St., East Elmhurst, N.Y. 11370 Rose M. Singer Center was opened in June 1988 as an 800-bed facility for female detainees and sentenced inmates. http://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/nycdoc/html/jailst1a.html#RMSC
Dragon Fire
bushnell,United States of America
Jan Doesn't have Employes SCAMMER MARY
#34REBUTTAL Individual responds
Sun, August 01, 2010
Your a fraud scammer prantil trying to decieve people again, HOW STUPID ARE YOU ? Do you really think people believe this crap your posting ? Oh, by the way and concerning your PO BOX arguement, CHECK YOUR OWN MOVING HISTORY AND THE PO BOXES YOU HAVE currently in New York, you moron.
Hey everyone, check out her criminal information above and you'll see a long list of addresses belonging to prantil. Ask yourself, why does this IDIOT move so much, perhaps she's always running from the law and others trying to sue her for attempting to scam or harass them LOL. ------- Jim Morgan
Charge Information
List Part 2
Rose M. Singer Center
Address:
19-19 Hazen St.,
East Elmhurst, N.Y.
11370
3285 33rd St, Astoria, NY 11106
Reported:12/01/2002
32nd St, New York, NY 10016
Reported:07/18/2001
Astoria, NY 11106
Reported:06/01/2001
92103
Reported:11/13/2000
10150
Reported:06/18/1997
92104
Reported:10/01/1995
92102
Reported:12/01/1993
92037
Reported:08/01/1992
Profile
Subject Name:
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Date:
12/8/2007 3:45:39
PM
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Source
State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case Number:
M695524
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case Number:
T105836
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case Number:
T108343
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case Number:
T110326
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case Number:
T120948
Records
Case Number: M598531
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 03/23/1990
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
M695524
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 02/01/1995
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T105836
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 11/13/1992
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T108343
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 01/04/1993
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T110326
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 02/02/1993
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T120948
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date:
08/09/1993
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY T
Address:
PO BOX 1352, NEW YORK NY
10150
STATE TAX LIEN
Court:
SACRAMENTO COUNTY COURT
(RD)
Plaintiff:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case:
9706100302
(06/10/1997)
Liability/Assests:
$1, 310.00/NA
PRANTIL,
MARY T
Address:
251 E 32ND ST #2C, NEW YORK NY
10016
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
SCAM Jan Windglows - 208-714-4348-Verified SCAMMER -SPELLS DON"T WORK!!
#34UPDATE EX-employee responds
Fri, July 30, 2010
SCAMMER Jan Windglows or Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows - GET A LIFE!!!
SPELLS DON"T WORK!!!
I used to work for SCAMMER Jan Windglows - I bailed her out of SUMTER Florida JAIL a number of times for DECEPTION FRAUD and GRAND LARCENY!!! PO BOX 118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho - 208-714-4348 www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM site.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL Crime assoiciated with Grand Larceny. It is the CRIME of promising results for a CRIME.
SCAM Jan Windglows commits DECEPTION FRAUD everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers you a SPELL for money!!
SPELLS DON"T WORK!!
BEWARE - SCAM Jan Windglows has YEARS of unsatisfied clients and a Criminal Record.
do not tread on me
Astoria,New York,
USA
From Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows
#34REBUTTAL Owner of company
Wed, July 28, 2010
Take care and be blessed everyone, call me and come visit my website I have nothing to hide, lol. Come and see the new beautiful altar my husband James and I have built to bring glory to Divinity.
In Divinity's Service,
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
208-714-4348
High Court Closes Book on Colorful Legal Career
SAN DIEGO At Largehttp://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-31/local/me-603_1_high-court
The California Supreme Court has quietly ended one of San Diego County's more clamorous legal careers.
The court this month upheld the disbarment of Frank George Prantil, a well-known attorney and aspiring politician before being convicted of perjury and forgery charges and spending 14 months in prison.
"At one time, he was considered one of the county's top defense attorneys," said attorney Eugene Iredale, who once represented Prantil. "Somehow his life just fell apart on him."
Now living outside Sacramento, the 51-year-old Prantil said he was "devastated" by the court's rejection of his plea that he was unfairly convicted. And he repeated his oft-made accusation that he was victimized because of his maverick ways.
"I'm a victim of the war on drugs," Prantil said. "The prosecutors and the courts can't stand it when someone insists that all defendants have rights."
In nearly two decades as a practicing attorney, the San Diego native was never far from the headlines. He won several high-publicity felony cases and big-money damage suits. He defended a San Diego councilman indicted in the Yellow Cab scandal.
Reporters loved his flamboyant rhetoric (he favored Shakespeare and the classics) and brash attire (he wore an American flag tie to court). His practice boomed. He moved from East County to a comfortable spread in La Jolla.
But there were also political defeats, angry public disputes, money problems and his final slide into Vacaville state prison. He concedes now that alcohol and marijuana played a role in his difficulties.
He lost races for Congress (1968), district attorney (1970) and El Cajon Municipal Court (1978). The County Bar Assn. branded him as unqualified. The State Bar in 1979 suspended him for six months for misusing a client's money.
He was convicted in 1983 of forgery and perjury in a case involving a bogus $53,000 check and, in 1986, of being an accessory to a cocaine conspiracy. Released from prison in 1987, Prantil says he will never return to San Diego County: "They rode me out on a rail."
He says that Deputy Dist. Atty. Bob Sullivan had a vendetta against him. Sullivan says that's bunk and notes that two juries convicted Prantil on a number of counts.
From his self-imposed exile, Prantil tries not to dwell on how far he has fallen. "I used to believe in ultimate justice," he said. "I don't anymore."
A Winning T-Shirt
T-shirts protesting the judge's decision will go on sale today in 14 San Diego County outlets of Pacific Eyes and T's, the Sorrento Valley-based T-shirt and sunglasses chain.
The new shirts show a Conner-like catamaran with a large screw through it, and a kiwi bird laughing at the sight. Price: $10.
Pacific Eyes and T's has long backed Conner against pirate-banker Michael Fay. During the September races it sold shirts saying "No Way Fay", and "Throw Another Kiwi on the Barbie."
A Well-Done Roast
In Pete Wilson's latter years as mayor of San Diego, it was said he had two goals: to learn to sing and to become governor.
He took lessons and can manfully handle a tune. The second goal eluded him, and he settled for the U. S. Senate. Now, he's trying to rectify that with his third try at the governorship, with his likely Democratic foe being Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.
Thursday night the Republican Wilson was among those roasting Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) at a benefit dinner in Oakland.
He joked that he wasn't surprised to find picketers carrying signs urging him to stay in the Senate. What did surprise him, he said, was that one of the signs was carried by Van de Kamp.
==========================================================================================
843 F.2d 314
Frank George PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 86-6669.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*.
Memorandum Jan. 4, 1988.
Order and Opinion March 31, 1988.
Frank G. Prantil, Fair Oaks, Cal., pro se.
M. Howard Wayne, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before CHOY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank George Prantil, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.
I.
Prantil, formerly an attorney in California, was introduced to Daryl Bell by his client Melvin Goins. Prantil agreed to represent Bell on a criminal charge. A few weeks later a woman purporting to be Bell's mother asked Prantil to help her negotiate an escrow check from which Prantil would receive his fee. Prantil accompanied the woman to his bank where he informed the teller that the woman was his client's mother and that he wanted to deposit the check into his trust account. The woman signed the check, which was made payable to Joanna F. McKnight, and Prantil endorsed it to his trust account. Neither Prantil nor the woman indicated that the check might not be genuine.
Subsequently, the owner of an escrow agency discovered that three checks were missing from her office. One of the checks had been made out to Joanna F. McKnight and deposited in Prantil's account. The agent's signature had been forged on the check.
Prantil was charged with forgery in violation of Section 470 of the California Penal Code. At trial, Prantil argued he knew nothing of the forgery, and that he had deposited the check merely for collection purposes to see whether it was genuine.To establish that Prantil knew the escrow check was forged, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning four trust deeds which Prantil had prepared. Prantil had received information suggesting that the four deeds were forged and that Goins and Bell, were responsible for the forgeries.
Prantil was convicted of forgery and sentenced to two years in prison. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. People v. Prantil, 169 Cal.App.3d 592, 215 Cal.Rptr. 372 (1985). The California Supreme Court denied review and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Prantil v. California, 475 U.S. 1067, 106 S.Ct. 1381, 89 L.Ed.2d 606 (1986).1
Prantil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court summarily denied the petition. This court granted Prantil's application for a certificate of probable cause.2
II.
Prantil contends that numerous trial court errors and a district court delay in deciding his habeas petition denied him due process.
This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987). This court presumes the state court's findings of fact to be correct. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d).
III.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he passed the forged escrow check "as true and genuine."3
This court determines whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The evidence established that Prantil received information prior to the transaction which suggested that Goins and Bell were involved in a forgery scheme. He also knew that one of the possible victims of the scheme was Joanna McKnight, who was described to him as an elderly woman between the ages of 78 and 80. Yet, despite this knowledge, when Prantil deposited the escrow check into his trust account he did not inform the teller that the check might be a forgery or that the woman with him, who appeared to be approximately 40 to 45 years of age, might not be the person whose name appeared on the check. He merely endorsed the check and asked that it be deposited into his account.
Prantil's knowledge of the previous forgeries and the contradictory descriptions of McKnight could have led the jury to reasonably conclude that by failing to alert the bank, Prantil was attempting to pass the check "as true and genuine." See People v. Williams, 186 Cal.App.2d 420, 424, 8 Cal.Rptr. 871, 873 (1960) (tender of check purporting to be signed by specific person established "true and genuine" requirement). Thus, the district court did not err in the determining there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the "true and genuine" requirement was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV.
Prantil contends that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving two erroneous jury instructions.
This court evaluates jury instructions "in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of the entire trial process." Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). To warrant habeas relief, the instruction cannot be merely "undesirable, erroneous, or even 'universally condemned,' " but must violate some due process right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). Moreover, the petitioner in a habeas proceeding has the burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." Darnell v. Swinney, 823 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 1, 1987).
Prantil challenges the trial court's instruction regarding the elements of forgery. He contends that by omitting the "true and genuine" requirement, the trial court denied him his due process right to have the jury consider each element of the charged offense. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 87-88, 103 S.Ct. 969, 978, 74 L.Ed.2d 823 (1983) (instruction on presumption of intent reversible error because permitted jury to convict defendant without examining evidence concerning essential element of crime).
The trial court gave the following instructions on the elements of forgery:
Now, in order to prove the commission of such crime [forgery], each of the following elements must be proved, each of them. Here we go.
Number one, that a person passed or offered to pass a forged instrument. That is the first one.
Two that such person knew that the instrument was forged; and three, that such person passed or offered to pass such instrument with the specific intent to defraud another person or persons.
Although the instruction omitted the "true and genuine" requirement, we consider the instruction in conjunction with the other instructions. See Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1239. Prior to giving the challenged instruction the court told the jury:
Now, every person with the specific intent to defraud--now, remember that I told you 'specific intent.' That's it. That's specific intent--with the specific intent to defraud another, utters, publishes, passes or attempts to pass or make use--there's a lot of things here--or make use of, as true and genuine, any false, altered, forged or counterfeited instrument or document, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, is guilty of the crime of forgery. (emphasis added)
Because the overall charge to the jury informed them of the true and genuine requirement, Prantil was not denied his due process right to have the jury consider every element of the crime.
Prantil also contends he was denied due process because the trial court gave an inapplicable and erroneous jury instruction on aiding and abetting. Prantil argues that the accomplice instruction removed an issue of intent from the jury's consideration and thus constituted reversible error under the reasoning of Johnson and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).
However, the prosecutor specifically denied that Prantil could be guilty as an aider and abettor instead of as a principal. An erroneous jury instruction does not merit habeas relief if the deficiencies pertain to matters that are not in dispute and the error did not so affect the entire trial as to deprive the defendant of due process.See Darnell, 823 F.2d at 302-03. The trial court gave proper instructions regarding the intent necessary to convict Prantil as a principal to the forgery. Because the prosecution did not present an accomplice theory, any deficiencies went to a matter that was not in dispute. The error did not mislead the jury on a disputed issue and thus did not so infect the trial as to deprive Prantil of due process. Id.
V.
Prantil contends that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to grant judicial use immunity to a potentially exonerating witness.
On his motion for a new trial, Prantil claimed that Goins could testify that Goins and Bell had set up Prantil, that Prantil was unaware that the check was stolen, and that Bell had lied to Prantil when he said there were criminal charges pending against him. Goins had been unavailable to testify at the trial because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. At the new trial hearing Goins invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the trial unless he received judicial use immunity because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. The court denied Prantil's motion to grant immunity to Goins.
Under California law, a court may only grant immunity on the prosecutor's request. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1324. See In re Weber, 11 Cal.3d 703, 720, 523 P.2d 229, 240, 114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 440 (1974). However, the prosecution's failure to request immunity violated Prantil's due process rights if it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 905, 102 S.Ct. 1750, 72 L.Ed.2d 161 (1982).
Here, Prantil's unsupported assertion is the only indication that Goins would have presented exculpatory testimony had he been granted immunity. The record contains overwhelming evidence that Prantil was not an unwitting accomplice in the crime, much of which would not be controverted by Goins' testimony even if that testimony is as Prantil contends it would be. For example, Prantil knew that the woman who deposited the check in his account did not match the description of the woman whose name appeared on the check. On these facts, we hold that Prantil was not deprived of a fair trial. If Prantil was denied a fair trial in this case, trial courts would be required to grant immunity simply on the basis of unsupported allegations by criminal defendants that immunity is required by due process.
Moreover, Prantil has made no showing that any misconduct on the part of the prosecutor caused Goins to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination. See United States v. Lord, 711 F.2d 887, 890-92 (9th Cir.1983).
VI.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because of a twenty-month delay between the date of the alleged crime and the date of the indictment.
A pre-indictment delay, unlike a delay in bringing a charged defendant to trial, is "tested by general proscriptions of due process."4 Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1978). A pre-indictment delay does not justify habeas relief unless the defendant can show actual prejudice. Id. at 1382. To prove actual prejudice a defendant must give more than "mere assertions that ... witnesses' memories may have faded with the passage of time...." United States v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822, 106 S.Ct. 74, 88 L.Ed.2d 60 (1985).
Prantil contends that he suffered actual prejudice because the bank teller could no longer remember the details of the escrow check transaction. However, the state court of appeals found that the delay did not affect the teller's memory. In addition, the court noted that Prantil was benefited by the teller's unresponsiveness to certain questions; therefore there was no prejudice.
Prantil also claims that a seven-month delay between the time he filed his habeas petition and the time the district court dismissed the action violated his right to due process.5
In Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit held that a district court's procedure for handling habeas petitions which routinely resulted in delays of up to twenty months violated due process. However, in Satterlee v. Kritzman, 626 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir.1980), we held that a district court's clerical error which resulted in an eight-month delay between the dismissal of a prisoner's habeas petition and the time his files were forwarded to the court of appeals did not deprive the petitioner of any substantive rights. As in Satterlee, here there is no policy of discrimination and no showing that the delay was purposeful.
VII.
We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Prantil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)
Because Prantil's direct appeal presented the same constitutional claims as his subsequent habeas petition, it is unnecessary for him to have filed for state habeas relief. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987)
Prantil was released from prison on April 20, 1987. However, because a felony conviction may cause a defendant to suffer adverse collateral consequences even after he has served his sentence, a defendant's release from custody prior to the completion of his federal habeas corpus proceedings will not render his petition moot. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968). Prantil was in custody when he filed the petition in district court, so this court retains jurisdiction over the proceedings after he is released. Id
Under California law, a person is guilty of forgery if he passes or attempts to pass as true and genuine a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 470; People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-79, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1961). The only element Prantil challenges as lacking sufficient evidence is the true and genuine requirement
Once a suspect is indicted, the more stringent requirements of the speedy trial right apply. Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir.1978)
Prantil first raised the issue in his brief to this court. Ordinarily, this court will not decide an issue which was not raised at the District Court. Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985). The court may decide an issue for the first time on appeal, however, where review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Id. Because a claim that a district court violated a party's due process rights questions the integrity of the federal judicial system, we review Prantil's claim despite his failure to raise it below
CC | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
=========================================================================
Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area. No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings. Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on who picked up the defendant at the airport and who drove him back. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so. In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation. The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman at the airport could not have launched any further successful grand jury investigation.
The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false premise that there was a woman at the airport and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-law, whose identity the defendant wishes to conceal. The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood, could not have influenced the grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if there was no blonde woman at the Omaha airport, the defendant's inability to recall her name is immaterial. Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, we reverse defendant's perjury conviction on Count Six of the indictment because the allegedly perjurious statements lack materiality. We reverse and remand the defendant's remaining convictions on the ground that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to recuse the participating prosecutor as a material witness and on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct in the government's closing argument.
===========================================
In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor. I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents the defendant. That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's your duty to call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment.
R.T. 116.
In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the monies he collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T. 115 (emphasis added)
==========================================
Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., argued, Peter K. Nunez, U.S. Atty., Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Eugene G. Iredale, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California.
Before FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge.
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge: http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/
A review of the prosecutor's remarks during the closing argument reveals that his statements, although derogatory and gratuitous by themselves, served to compound the prejudice to the defendant that flowed from Mr. Gorder's ambiguous role as both prosecutor and participant witness. The prosecutor's closing arguments illustrate the degree of actual prejudice that results when an advocate, through his direct participation in the events under litigation, can argue to the jury based on actual or perceived personal knowledge.5 The prosecutor launched a personalized attack on the defendant's motives. A recurrent theme of the prosecutor's summation was to portray the defendant as "greedy,"6 "corrupt," "dishonest," and "sleazy." The prosecutor cautioned the jury that the defendant did not meet the minimum standards of attorney behavior demanded by the "advocacy system of justice." As such, the prosecutor explained to the jury that "Mr. Prantil is the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name to the general public and it's your duty as jurors to call him to account." The prosecutor charged the jury with the responsibility of ridding the ranks of the criminal defense bar of such a "crook" even though "it's true, thank God it's true, that criminal defense attorneys are not crooks as a general rule."
These comments came from an individual who was not only an experienced prosecutor but also, as the jury could not fail to appreciate, both a participant in many of the underlying events and Mr. Prantil's adversary throughout. As previously mentioned, Mr. Gorder had conducted the grand jury examination of the defendant that resulted in three of the defendant's perjury convictions. In his summation of the evidence on these counts, the prosecutor drew the jury's attention to the complete grand jury transcripts. Mr. Gorder informed the jury that these transcripts demonstrated that the defendant committed perjury "not just in the specific counts he's charged with, but in a number of other areas also." Once again, this is an assertion of personal knowledge of a testimonial rather than an argumentative character.
=========================================
(1984). Hence, we must decide whether the defendant's testimony was material.
Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area. No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings. Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on who picked up the defendant at his hotel and who drove him back to the Omaha Airport. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so. In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation. The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman could not have launched any further successful grand jury investigation.
The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false premise that there was a woman who met him at his hotel and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-law, whose identity the defendant wishes to conceal. The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood, could not have influenced the grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if there was no blonde woman who met the defendant at his hotel and drove him to the airport, the defendant's inability to recall her name is immaterial. Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed.
===========================================
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/ See United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), rev'd in part, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). Betty Powell was convicted on four counts of a fifteen-count indictment which had alleged that she conspired with her husband and son to distribute cocaine. She was acquitted on all substantive conspiracy counts. Three of her four convictions, those alleging the use of a telephone to facilitate drug offenses, were subsequently reversed on appeal, United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), but then reinstated by the Supreme Court, United States v. Powell, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984)
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2864, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979)
In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor. I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents the defendant. That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's your duty to call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment.
R.T. 116.
In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the monies he collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T. 115 (emphasis added)
===========================================================================
do not tread on me
Astoria,New York,
USA
Mary Prantil Garbage Can For A Mouth ( but what else is new, lol )
#34REBUTTAL Owner of company
Wed, July 28, 2010
Take care and be blessed everyone, call me and come visit my website I have nothing to hide, lol. Come and see the new beautiful altar my husband James and I have built to bring glory to Divinity.
In Divinity's Service,
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
208-714-4348
High Court Closes Book on Colorful Legal Career
SAN DIEGO At Largehttp://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-31/local/me-603_1_high-court
The California Supreme Court has quietly ended one of San Diego County's more clamorous legal careers.
The court this month upheld the disbarment of Frank George Prantil, a well-known attorney and aspiring politician before being convicted of perjury and forgery charges and spending 14 months in prison.
"At one time, he was considered one of the county's top defense attorneys," said attorney Eugene Iredale, who once represented Prantil. "Somehow his life just fell apart on him."
Now living outside Sacramento, the 51-year-old Prantil said he was "devastated" by the court's rejection of his plea that he was unfairly convicted. And he repeated his oft-made accusation that he was victimized because of his maverick ways.
"I'm a victim of the war on drugs," Prantil said. "The prosecutors and the courts can't stand it when someone insists that all defendants have rights."
In nearly two decades as a practicing attorney, the San Diego native was never far from the headlines. He won several high-publicity felony cases and big-money damage suits. He defended a San Diego councilman indicted in the Yellow Cab scandal.
Reporters loved his flamboyant rhetoric (he favored Shakespeare and the classics) and brash attire (he wore an American flag tie to court). His practice boomed. He moved from East County to a comfortable spread in La Jolla.
But there were also political defeats, angry public disputes, money problems and his final slide into Vacaville state prison. He concedes now that alcohol and marijuana played a role in his difficulties.
He lost races for Congress (1968), district attorney (1970) and El Cajon Municipal Court (1978). The County Bar Assn. branded him as unqualified. The State Bar in 1979 suspended him for six months for misusing a client's money.
He was convicted in 1983 of forgery and perjury in a case involving a bogus $53,000 check and, in 1986, of being an accessory to a cocaine conspiracy. Released from prison in 1987, Prantil says he will never return to San Diego County: "They rode me out on a rail."
He says that Deputy Dist. Atty. Bob Sullivan had a vendetta against him. Sullivan says that's bunk and notes that two juries convicted Prantil on a number of counts.
From his self-imposed exile, Prantil tries not to dwell on how far he has fallen. "I used to believe in ultimate justice," he said. "I don't anymore."
A Winning T-Shirt
T-shirts protesting the judge's decision will go on sale today in 14 San Diego County outlets of Pacific Eyes and T's, the Sorrento Valley-based T-shirt and sunglasses chain.
The new shirts show a Conner-like catamaran with a large screw through it, and a kiwi bird laughing at the sight. Price: $10.
Pacific Eyes and T's has long backed Conner against pirate-banker Michael Fay. During the September races it sold shirts saying "No Way Fay", and "Throw Another Kiwi on the Barbie."
A Well-Done Roast
In Pete Wilson's latter years as mayor of San Diego, it was said he had two goals: to learn to sing and to become governor.
He took lessons and can manfully handle a tune. The second goal eluded him, and he settled for the U. S. Senate. Now, he's trying to rectify that with his third try at the governorship, with his likely Democratic foe being Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.
Thursday night the Republican Wilson was among those roasting Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) at a benefit dinner in Oakland.
He joked that he wasn't surprised to find picketers carrying signs urging him to stay in the Senate. What did surprise him, he said, was that one of the signs was carried by Van de Kamp.
==========================================================================================
843 F.2d 314
Frank George PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 86-6669.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*.
Memorandum Jan. 4, 1988.
Order and Opinion March 31, 1988.
Frank G. Prantil, Fair Oaks, Cal., pro se.
M. Howard Wayne, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before CHOY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank George Prantil, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.
I.
Prantil, formerly an attorney in California, was introduced to Daryl Bell by his client Melvin Goins. Prantil agreed to represent Bell on a criminal charge. A few weeks later a woman purporting to be Bell's mother asked Prantil to help her negotiate an escrow check from which Prantil would receive his fee. Prantil accompanied the woman to his bank where he informed the teller that the woman was his client's mother and that he wanted to deposit the check into his trust account. The woman signed the check, which was made payable to Joanna F. McKnight, and Prantil endorsed it to his trust account. Neither Prantil nor the woman indicated that the check might not be genuine.
Subsequently, the owner of an escrow agency discovered that three checks were missing from her office. One of the checks had been made out to Joanna F. McKnight and deposited in Prantil's account. The agent's signature had been forged on the check.
Prantil was charged with forgery in violation of Section 470 of the California Penal Code. At trial, Prantil argued he knew nothing of the forgery, and that he had deposited the check merely for collection purposes to see whether it was genuine.To establish that Prantil knew the escrow check was forged, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning four trust deeds which Prantil had prepared. Prantil had received information suggesting that the four deeds were forged and that Goins and Bell, were responsible for the forgeries.
Prantil was convicted of forgery and sentenced to two years in prison. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. People v. Prantil, 169 Cal.App.3d 592, 215 Cal.Rptr. 372 (1985). The California Supreme Court denied review and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Prantil v. California, 475 U.S. 1067, 106 S.Ct. 1381, 89 L.Ed.2d 606 (1986).1
Prantil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court summarily denied the petition. This court granted Prantil's application for a certificate of probable cause.2
II.
Prantil contends that numerous trial court errors and a district court delay in deciding his habeas petition denied him due process.
This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987). This court presumes the state court's findings of fact to be correct. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d).
III.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he passed the forged escrow check "as true and genuine."3
This court determines whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The evidence established that Prantil received information prior to the transaction which suggested that Goins and Bell were involved in a forgery scheme. He also knew that one of the possible victims of the scheme was Joanna McKnight, who was described to him as an elderly woman between the ages of 78 and 80. Yet, despite this knowledge, when Prantil deposited the escrow check into his trust account he did not inform the teller that the check might be a forgery or that the woman with him, who appeared to be approximately 40 to 45 years of age, might not be the person whose name appeared on the check. He merely endorsed the check and asked that it be deposited into his account.
Prantil's knowledge of the previous forgeries and the contradictory descriptions of McKnight could have led the jury to reasonably conclude that by failing to alert the bank, Prantil was attempting to pass the check "as true and genuine." See People v. Williams, 186 Cal.App.2d 420, 424, 8 Cal.Rptr. 871, 873 (1960) (tender of check purporting to be signed by specific person established "true and genuine" requirement). Thus, the district court did not err in the determining there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the "true and genuine" requirement was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV.
Prantil contends that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving two erroneous jury instructions.
This court evaluates jury instructions "in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of the entire trial process." Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). To warrant habeas relief, the instruction cannot be merely "undesirable, erroneous, or even 'universally condemned,' " but must violate some due process right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). Moreover, the petitioner in a habeas proceeding has the burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." Darnell v. Swinney, 823 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 1, 1987).
Prantil challenges the trial court's instruction regarding the elements of forgery. He contends that by omitting the "true and genuine" requirement, the trial court denied him his due process right to have the jury consider each element of the charged offense. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 87-88, 103 S.Ct. 969, 978, 74 L.Ed.2d 823 (1983) (instruction on presumption of intent reversible error because permitted jury to convict defendant without examining evidence concerning essential element of crime).
The trial court gave the following instructions on the elements of forgery:
Now, in order to prove the commission of such crime [forgery], each of the following elements must be proved, each of them. Here we go.
Number one, that a person passed or offered to pass a forged instrument. That is the first one.
Two that such person knew that the instrument was forged; and three, that such person passed or offered to pass such instrument with the specific intent to defraud another person or persons.
Although the instruction omitted the "true and genuine" requirement, we consider the instruction in conjunction with the other instructions. See Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1239. Prior to giving the challenged instruction the court told the jury:
Now, every person with the specific intent to defraud--now, remember that I told you 'specific intent.' That's it. That's specific intent--with the specific intent to defraud another, utters, publishes, passes or attempts to pass or make use--there's a lot of things here--or make use of, as true and genuine, any false, altered, forged or counterfeited instrument or document, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, is guilty of the crime of forgery. (emphasis added)
Because the overall charge to the jury informed them of the true and genuine requirement, Prantil was not denied his due process right to have the jury consider every element of the crime.
Prantil also contends he was denied due process because the trial court gave an inapplicable and erroneous jury instruction on aiding and abetting. Prantil argues that the accomplice instruction removed an issue of intent from the jury's consideration and thus constituted reversible error under the reasoning of Johnson and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).
However, the prosecutor specifically denied that Prantil could be guilty as an aider and abettor instead of as a principal. An erroneous jury instruction does not merit habeas relief if the deficiencies pertain to matters that are not in dispute and the error did not so affect the entire trial as to deprive the defendant of due process.See Darnell, 823 F.2d at 302-03. The trial court gave proper instructions regarding the intent necessary to convict Prantil as a principal to the forgery. Because the prosecution did not present an accomplice theory, any deficiencies went to a matter that was not in dispute. The error did not mislead the jury on a disputed issue and thus did not so infect the trial as to deprive Prantil of due process. Id.
V.
Prantil contends that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to grant judicial use immunity to a potentially exonerating witness.
On his motion for a new trial, Prantil claimed that Goins could testify that Goins and Bell had set up Prantil, that Prantil was unaware that the check was stolen, and that Bell had lied to Prantil when he said there were criminal charges pending against him. Goins had been unavailable to testify at the trial because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. At the new trial hearing Goins invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the trial unless he received judicial use immunity because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. The court denied Prantil's motion to grant immunity to Goins.
Under California law, a court may only grant immunity on the prosecutor's request. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1324. See In re Weber, 11 Cal.3d 703, 720, 523 P.2d 229, 240, 114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 440 (1974). However, the prosecution's failure to request immunity violated Prantil's due process rights if it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 905, 102 S.Ct. 1750, 72 L.Ed.2d 161 (1982).
Here, Prantil's unsupported assertion is the only indication that Goins would have presented exculpatory testimony had he been granted immunity. The record contains overwhelming evidence that Prantil was not an unwitting accomplice in the crime, much of which would not be controverted by Goins' testimony even if that testimony is as Prantil contends it would be. For example, Prantil knew that the woman who deposited the check in his account did not match the description of the woman whose name appeared on the check. On these facts, we hold that Prantil was not deprived of a fair trial. If Prantil was denied a fair trial in this case, trial courts would be required to grant immunity simply on the basis of unsupported allegations by criminal defendants that immunity is required by due process.
Moreover, Prantil has made no showing that any misconduct on the part of the prosecutor caused Goins to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination. See United States v. Lord, 711 F.2d 887, 890-92 (9th Cir.1983).
VI.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because of a twenty-month delay between the date of the alleged crime and the date of the indictment.
A pre-indictment delay, unlike a delay in bringing a charged defendant to trial, is "tested by general proscriptions of due process."4 Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1978). A pre-indictment delay does not justify habeas relief unless the defendant can show actual prejudice. Id. at 1382. To prove actual prejudice a defendant must give more than "mere assertions that ... witnesses' memories may have faded with the passage of time...." United States v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822, 106 S.Ct. 74, 88 L.Ed.2d 60 (1985).
Prantil contends that he suffered actual prejudice because the bank teller could no longer remember the details of the escrow check transaction. However, the state court of appeals found that the delay did not affect the teller's memory. In addition, the court noted that Prantil was benefited by the teller's unresponsiveness to certain questions; therefore there was no prejudice.
Prantil also claims that a seven-month delay between the time he filed his habeas petition and the time the district court dismissed the action violated his right to due process.5
In Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit held that a district court's procedure for handling habeas petitions which routinely resulted in delays of up to twenty months violated due process. However, in Satterlee v. Kritzman, 626 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir.1980), we held that a district court's clerical error which resulted in an eight-month delay between the dismissal of a prisoner's habeas petition and the time his files were forwarded to the court of appeals did not deprive the petitioner of any substantive rights. As in Satterlee, here there is no policy of discrimination and no showing that the delay was purposeful.
VII.
We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Prantil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)
Because Prantil's direct appeal presented the same constitutional claims as his subsequent habeas petition, it is unnecessary for him to have filed for state habeas relief. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987)
Prantil was released from prison on April 20, 1987. However, because a felony conviction may cause a defendant to suffer adverse collateral consequences even after he has served his sentence, a defendant's release from custody prior to the completion of his federal habeas corpus proceedings will not render his petition moot. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968). Prantil was in custody when he filed the petition in district court, so this court retains jurisdiction over the proceedings after he is released. Id
Under California law, a person is guilty of forgery if he passes or attempts to pass as true and genuine a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 470; People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-79, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1961). The only element Prantil challenges as lacking sufficient evidence is the true and genuine requirement
Once a suspect is indicted, the more stringent requirements of the speedy trial right apply. Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir.1978)
Prantil first raised the issue in his brief to this court. Ordinarily, this court will not decide an issue which was not raised at the District Court. Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985). The court may decide an issue for the first time on appeal, however, where review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Id. Because a claim that a district court violated a party's due process rights questions the integrity of the federal judicial system, we review Prantil's claim despite his failure to raise it below
CC | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
=========================================================================
Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area. No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings. Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on who picked up the defendant at the airport and who drove him back. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so. In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation. The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman at the airport could not have launched any further successful grand jury investigation.
The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false premise that there was a woman at the airport and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-law, whose identity the defendant wishes to conceal. The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood, could not have influenced the grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if there was no blonde woman at the Omaha airport, the defendant's inability to recall her name is immaterial. Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, we reverse defendant's perjury conviction on Count Six of the indictment because the allegedly perjurious statements lack materiality. We reverse and remand the defendant's remaining convictions on the ground that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to recuse the participating prosecutor as a material witness and on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct in the government's closing argument.
===========================================
In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor. I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents the defendant. That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's your duty to call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment.
R.T. 116.
In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the monies he collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T. 115 (emphasis added)
==========================================
Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., argued, Peter K. Nunez, U.S. Atty., Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Eugene G. Iredale, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California.
Before FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge.
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge: http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/
A review of the prosecutor's remarks during the closing argument reveals that his statements, although derogatory and gratuitous by themselves, served to compound the prejudice to the defendant that flowed from Mr. Gorder's ambiguous role as both prosecutor and participant witness. The prosecutor's closing arguments illustrate the degree of actual prejudice that results when an advocate, through his direct participation in the events under litigation, can argue to the jury based on actual or perceived personal knowledge.5 The prosecutor launched a personalized attack on the defendant's motives. A recurrent theme of the prosecutor's summation was to portray the defendant as "greedy,"6 "corrupt," "dishonest," and "sleazy." The prosecutor cautioned the jury that the defendant did not meet the minimum standards of attorney behavior demanded by the "advocacy system of justice." As such, the prosecutor explained to the jury that "Mr. Prantil is the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name to the general public and it's your duty as jurors to call him to account." The prosecutor charged the jury with the responsibility of ridding the ranks of the criminal defense bar of such a "crook" even though "it's true, thank God it's true, that criminal defense attorneys are not crooks as a general rule."
These comments came from an individual who was not only an experienced prosecutor but also, as the jury could not fail to appreciate, both a participant in many of the underlying events and Mr. Prantil's adversary throughout. As previously mentioned, Mr. Gorder had conducted the grand jury examination of the defendant that resulted in three of the defendant's perjury convictions. In his summation of the evidence on these counts, the prosecutor drew the jury's attention to the complete grand jury transcripts. Mr. Gorder informed the jury that these transcripts demonstrated that the defendant committed perjury "not just in the specific counts he's charged with, but in a number of other areas also." Once again, this is an assertion of personal knowledge of a testimonial rather than an argumentative character.
=========================================
(1984). Hence, we must decide whether the defendant's testimony was material.
Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area. No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings. Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on who picked up the defendant at his hotel and who drove him back to the Omaha Airport. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so. In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation. The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman could not have launched any further successful grand jury investigation.
The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false premise that there was a woman who met him at his hotel and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-law, whose identity the defendant wishes to conceal. The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood, could not have influenced the grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if there was no blonde woman who met the defendant at his hotel and drove him to the airport, the defendant's inability to recall her name is immaterial. Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed.
===========================================
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/ See United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), rev'd in part, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). Betty Powell was convicted on four counts of a fifteen-count indictment which had alleged that she conspired with her husband and son to distribute cocaine. She was acquitted on all substantive conspiracy counts. Three of her four convictions, those alleging the use of a telephone to facilitate drug offenses, were subsequently reversed on appeal, United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), but then reinstated by the Supreme Court, United States v. Powell, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984)
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2864, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979)
In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor. I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents the defendant. That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's your duty to call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment.
R.T. 116.
In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the monies he collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T. 115 (emphasis added)
===========================================================================
OpinionatedAmerican
Tampa,Florida,
USA
SCAM Jan Windglows -Convicted Criminal -Jan on the LAM www.bloodlovandlustspells.com
#34Consumer Comment
Mon, July 26, 2010
SCAM and Convicted Criminal Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 aka Enchatress 208 is a VERIFIED Convicted Criminal for DECEPTION FRAUD...JAIL BIRD Jan Windglows violated Florida Probation Sentence - 90 Day Jail Sentence.
SCAM Jan Windglows is ONLY interested in STEALING your Identity then CASH!!!
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows is a verified Cyber Stalker harassing many ppl on the Global Internet - DO NOT USE scam sites www.bloodloveandlustspells.com or www.dragonspells.com - PH: 208-714-4348 PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho
SCAM Jan Windglows changes PO box's as many times as she is ARRESTED and SENTENCED to DECEPTION FRAUD, GRAND LARCENY and IDENTITY THEFT>
15 yrs Western Union Ripoff off Scheme - ask Jan Windglows for her REAL Address...ask Jan Windglows aboput her stay SUMTER COUNTY JAIL call the DOC in Florida get the FREE PUBLIC records on CRIMINAL SCAMMER Jan Windglows 352-793-2525.
DO NOT USE - DECEPTION QUEEN 0 SCAM Jan Windglows, PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho, previously PO BOX #712 Driggs, Idaho last mailing address 7961 Court, Bushnell, Florida.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM SITE to download Trojan Virus into your home computer then STEAL your Identity and CASH.
SCAM Jan Windglows - FUGITIVE call Florida Sumter JAIL Florida Dept of Correction is looking for Jan Windglows
Jan Windglows U can Run but U cannot HIDE no matter how many times you change your address, PO BOx or alias - Florida State Dept of Corrections wants you, SCAM Jan Windglows.
Dragon
Driggs,Idaho,
USA
CURRENT ASTORIA NEW YORK CRIMINAL RECORDS ON MARY T PRANTIL ON-LINE SCAM ARTIST
#34REBUTTAL Individual responds
Sun, July 04, 2010
(((Redacted)))
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
Ten Jails on Rikers Island
Rose M. Singer CenterList Part 2
Address:
Rose M. Singer Center was opened in June 1988 as an 800-bed facility for female detainees and sentenced inmates. http://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/nycdoc/html/jailst1a.html#RMSC19-19 Hazen St.,
East Elmhurst, N.Y.
11370
CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.
Mary T. Prantil Is A Scam Artist
Astoria,New York,
United States of America
Mary Prantil AKA Honest Person Of Astoria New York Is Caught Red Handed In Scams
#34General Comment
Tue, April 27, 2010
credible eyewitness statements, emailed statements, web site cross links, 66 pages of telephone spoofing records and so fourth. This person's only intent is in ripping off free services from unsuspecting on-line and land based businesses by charging back via Pay Pal, putting stop payments on checks, and writing bad checks for any services rendered by these companies.
So, a person like Mary T. Prantil not only has the advantage in making false charges at a company or private person in relative safety from behind her fictitious names, but can also afford to abuse the first amendment of free speech for the sole reason she's not made to stand behind what she says against others.
Why ? Because when a cowardly person such as Prantil engages in the activity of slander, blackmail, extortion and harassment on-line against others out of the blue, then they are instantly at a disadvantage in defending themselves against whatever statements are being made against them.
This is a person who has no concept of what truth really consists of, neither does she have a good understanding of why morals, values or standards are needed in a person's life, and thus when a person like this is allowed to interact with others on the Internet then problems are certainly in the making.
The only thing that drives a person such as Prantil forward is the very nature that consumes her on a daily basis such as her obsessive, compulsive, raging temperament against anything that she conceives or perceives to be a threat to herself, This could be anything. A word, a deed that was spoken in all innocence, a well meaning action or jester that didn't jive with her perception of the way things should be.
This is a noble venture and further operates under the first amendment outlining free speech and the whistle blowers act. Then something questionable occurs by these same sites in that they invoke a very obscure law to witch protects them from the liability concerning anything someone might post be it true or of a slanderous nature.
Even if you were to win a civil suit and obtain a money judgment for damages you would then have to spend thousands of dollars more in collecting the judgment. Most of these scamming, slandering idiots don't have any financial worth to them to start with and that's why their out starting up bogus lawsuits and slandering businesses to start with.
If you pay the site to have the bad links removed, or they agree to take the links down such as Consumer Complaints did for us on four or five occasions, then the offending poster will simply re-post on the company or private person as the sites in question either won't, or can't block the offending poster submitting the false statements.
So, in essence most forum sites are using loop holes found in the United Staten Constitution to capitalize on to which is highly questionable as a matter of ethics, in my opinion, Yes, these sites can be helpful to a extent when used in the correct way however, when you get someone like Mary Prantil who has bad intent towards another because her scams were unsuccessful against them, then the forum sites give her a way to exact her revenge.
Google will post any negative link on the search engines about a person immediately, or within a matter of minutes as this gives them better rankings as well. Incidentally, Google blatantly refuses to remove any post proven false or other harmful links while standing behind the first amendment along with many other forum sites like e-Bolger etc.
Especially during the time of my divorce and copyright issue with Mr. Cahill on ROR. One thing I will say in defense of the sites of Rip Off Report and the Consumer Complaints boards, and that is, even though Rip Off Reports didn't remove the trash post that prantil posted, They did in fact block her from making any other post.
The American based Complaints Board also saw what was going on and removed several of prantil's trash reports on us as well, they did this numerous times at our request until we just ask that the post remain up to show contradictions in prantil's statements to which they honored.
Prantil abuses these sites and uses them to harm other people through by abusing their own policies against them or in just blatantly breaking these same policies. The forum sites aren't even safe from this moronic idiot who believes she is above any law or site policy etc.
This was her sole intent or goal after all. It's a matter of public record that Mary T. Prantil hates ALL spell casters, psychic readers etc and further believes that were all Satan, that she is the defender of God and all his holy laws lol. You can also see this in her ROR and Complaints boards postings against us.
everyone up that much more under their assumed User names, not leaving out her posting under her Honest Person User and the numerous other postings made under her multitude of other User names, as can be found on the second page of this site.
ANSWER: Yes. Does this make her a Bible thumping snake cultist with a twisted and severally sick view on Christianity ?, Answer Is: Yes. Is her post and other statements against spell casters, or any other person in the spiritual community credible ?, I would say definitely not.
armature clubs from time to time where she gets paid little to nothing for her trouble. Prantil doesn't work at any other job because she lives off her elderly mother who refuses to give her any extra money as she' afraid that she will spend it on drugs or alcohol according to what Mr. Cahill stated that she directly told him.
Incidentally, Mary T. Prantil worked for companies through temporary services and not directly through any corporate company as she proclaims to have done in the past. Do you really want to believe anything this person says either in private or up on the internet LOL, Your answer should be NO.
Again, there are hundreds of postings about us posted on these scam complaint sites, some are real, but most are fabricated by prantil in her efforts to bring down the magick sites in question. Don't believe everything you read out there because idiots like criminal mary t. prantil is on the loose and you and you just can't be sure who's writing what. .
http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net/scamartistexposed.html
http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net/moreevidencelinks.html
http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net/cursespelltapes.html
http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net/endingstatement.html
Dragon
Driggs,Idaho,
USA
Internet Terrorist and CRIMINAL LIAR Mary T. Prantil DISGRACES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION RIPS off Internet and Land Based Businesses follows in her crooked attorney father Frank G. Prantil's footsteps
#34Consumer Comment
Wed, December 23, 2009
and neither was your late dad. Why don't you do something nice for yourself and move to another country? YOU ARE BUSTED EVERYONE KNOWS IT" ))))
Ok, great, now let's move back to the topics at hand. I quote Prantil in saying : ("The Psychic Scam Artist posted all these falsehoods on Ripoff Report.com in retaliation because I could not be scammed for thousands of dollars for love spells and more Psychic Readings.
(((Redacted)))
My Story: About 3 years ago (Oct 2006) my Father died of cancer and to deal with it, I foolishly went to a Psychic for a Psychic Reading who wanted to also scam me for thousands of dollars by encouraging me to buy Psychic Love Spells. It was this Scam Artist Psychic that retaliated when they realized I could not be scammed for thousands of dollars. So for over 3 years now, the Scam Artist Psychic posted all the false claims about me on Rip-off Report.com. I originally went to the Psychic because I was very devastated by my Dad's untimely death. It's not a crime to go to a Psychic or even buy a Psychic Reading. I did not Rip-off anyone. I asked the Psychic for my money back when I realized my mistake. So the Scam Artist and "so called Psychic" retaliated by posting all of these false claims on Ripoff Report.com for over 3 years without my permission. Clearly, the Scam Psychic has no life or real business with legitimate clients to continue for 3 years to post more false claims with no contact from me.
Mary T. Prantil's BOGUS Web Sites:
(((Redacted)))
(PRANTIL'S EMPLOYER AND PREVIOUS EMPLOYERS )
http://www.linkedin-ech3.com/pub/mary-prantil/a/632/591
( PRANTIL'S LIES TO COVER UP THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT WHO SHE IS )
http://maryprantil.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/mary-prantil-defends-truth-victim-of-ripoff-reportcom/
http://www.blogger.com/profile/02680327863556078460
(REPUTATION "FAULTLESS"
http://maryprantil.blogspot.com/
(NEWSPAPER AND CO WORKERS ON JIGSAW )
http://www.jigsaw.com/Mich_Pran_Davi_Prar/contact_information.xhtml
http://www.jigsaw.com/scid7472092/mary_prantil.xhtml
Mike Cahill & Celeste Schaub Tells All, How To Catch A Theif Named Marry T. Prantil
----- Original Message -----
From: service@paypal.com
To: archer926@msn.com
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 11:15 AM
Subject: PayPal: Initial Inquiry: Case ID - PP-467-553-217
Dear stanley cahill,
received or received significantly not as described. The details of this
transaction are as follows:
Buyer's Name: Mary Prantil
Buyer's Email: prant99@aol.com
Buyer's Transaction ID: 6E967396TD6877542
Transaction Amount: -$1, 500.00 USD
Your Transaction ID: 6E967396TD6877542
Case Number: PP-467-553-217
Your Transaction ID: 6E967396TD6877542
Buyer's Transaction ID: 77E56376XD890860G
We are contacting you to let you know that we will not be continuing this
investigation because this complaint was filed 45 or more days after the
original transaction date. However, we reserve the right for the next 180
days to begin an investigation if we later determine that this complaint
should be examined.
We are committed to providing our community a safe environment in which to
transact. As stated in the PayPal User Agreement, we reserve the right to
close or limit an account in response to excessive complaints received
about failure to ship merchandise, non-delivery of services, merchandise
not as described, or problems with merchandise shipped.
to work directly with the buyer to amicably resolve this matter.
PayPal Protection Services Department
will not receive a response. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account
and click the Help link located in the top right corner of any page. If
your inquiry is regarding a claim, log in to your PayPal account and go to
the Resolution Center.
From: service@paypal.com
To: archer926@msn.com
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 5:39 PM
Subject: Notification of chargeback reversal: Case ID #PP-396-648-789 - PM001