Print the value of index0
Jan Windglows And Jim Morgan Criminals And Con-Artist: Using Divinity, need to put in jail for FRAUD due to the amount of money they continue to rip off innocent honest people. Driggs Idaho
Jim Morgan and Jan Windglows claim to do high magical art but are really just con-artist. They have several sites on the wed and are commitng fraud with fasle claims and literally stealing money like common theifs. They are only concerened with taking your money then dissapearring. Jim Morganis a complete fool and rip off artist. Jan Windglows his partner in crime is one of the ugliest fattest woman I have ever encountered. Once they get your money Jan Windglows never returns phone calls. Jan Windglows give fraudulent psychic readings to get you to buy spells.
Jim Morgan and Jan Windglows stole $2600 from me. They never sent me photos of any spell. they did not honored the 24/7 counseling. The spells never worked either. These 2 do not have the skills or talent they claim.
They should be put in jail for Fraud and Tax Evasion. Jim Morgan told me he does not report his earnings to the IRS bcs akll the money goes thru Jan Windglows. Jan Windglows is Jim Morgans mistress not wife.
Most importantly, their spells do not work. They suck as wizards and should be put in jail as the common criminals.
Honestperson
Astoria, New York
U.S.A.
69 Updates & Rebuttals
High Enchantress Jan Windglows
Internet,USA
Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan NOT Affliated With Michael Jenkins OR Any Other Casters Slap A HUGE Civil Lawsuit On Malicious Poster Mary Prantil
#70REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, January 26, 2012
Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan are NOT affliated with Michael Jenkins or ANY other spell casters or spell web sites !!! Stalker antagonist Mary Prantil has BEEN SUED!!!!!!!! READ THE LAWSUIT and other information about Internet Predator Mary Prantil aka @AmericasDreamer aka @BestMaryPrantil and read about how Prantil is stalking and antagonizing not only US but over TWENTY OTHER PEOPLE !!!!!
Kindly click the link above and read the TRUTH of what is REALLY going on concerning any of these threads about us, get our attorney's contact information, etc.
MARY PRANTIL HAS BEEN SUED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read the actual summons and lawsuit in PDF format, the actual documents and all information and see for yourself what a stalker scammer and LIAR Mary Prantil REALLY IS and how WE dealt with her!!!!
Scammer Con Artist Mary Prantil of maryprantilcorrectstherecord.blogspot Gets Served A Civil Lawsuit By James Morgan And Jan Windglows For $100,000.00 plus In Damages, And Loses Because She Is Too Cowardly To Show Up To Court. Nope, She Can't Prove Anything, Or Back Up Her Charges,, So She Runs And Hides While Spending Most Of Her Time Scamming Others Through Her Harassment And Frivolous Lawsuits As Can Be Seen With The New York Businesses She's Attempted To Sue, And Has Sued In The Past,,, As The Record Reflects
Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan THE MOST REPUTABLE HONEST AND HARD WORKING CASTERS ON THE WEB !!!!! Call Us at 208-714-4348
JanWindglowsWitchcraftCyberSCAM
Tampa,Florida,
USA
SCAM Jan Windglows thinks everyone is PsychicNSeattle, Take your Medications Jan Windglows aka Enchantress Jan is the Crazy one...DO NOT USE verified STALKER Jan Windglows
#70Consumer Comment
Wed, May 11, 2011
May 11, 2011
Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows thinks everyone is PsychicNSeattle, Take your Medications Jan Windglows aka Enchatress...Crazy one...DO NOT USE verified STALKER Jan Windglows
May 11, 2011
Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows thinks everyone is PsychicNSeattle, Take your Medications Jan Windglows aka Enchatress...Crazy one...DO NOT USE verified STALKER Jan Windglows
May 11, 2011
Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows thinks everyone is PsychicNSeattle, Take your Medications Jan Windglows aka Enchatress...Crazy one...DO NOT USE verified STALKER Jan Windglows
Jan Windglows - I am not Psychic N Seattle, you stole from me, I want my money back. Your Spells did not wortk. Jan Windglows is a complete SCAM.
Pat
Las Vegas,Nevada,
United States of America
PsychicEye4GOD aka Mary Prantil AKA Witchcradft Stopper AKA Psychic in Seattle aka Honest Person
#70Consumer Comment
Wed, May 11, 2011
Proverbs 16:13 Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaketh right.
Proverbs 19:22 What is desirable in a man is his kindness; and it is better to be a poor man than a liar.
Revalation 21:8 But the fearful , and the unbelieving and the abominable, and the murderers, and whoremangers, and scorcerors, and iooldators, and all liars,shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone , which
is the second death.
Ephesians 4:31 Get rid of all hard feelings, anger, and rage. Stop lying and fightning. Put away every form of hatred.
Proverbs 14:25 An honest witnesss can save your life, but liars can't be trusted.
Proverbs 12:22 The LORD hateth very liar , but he is friend of all who can be
trusted.
Proverbs 10;32 If you obey the lord, you will always know the right thing to say.
But nonne will trust you if you tell lies.
Proverbs 11:6 Honesty can keep you safe, but if you can't be trusted.
you trap yourself.
Proverbs 12:19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever; but a lying tongue
is but for a moment.
John 8;44 Ye are of your father the devil , and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth , because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar,
and the father of it.
Colossians 3:9 Lie not to one another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.
Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
Psalms 31:18 Let the lying lips be put to silence.
Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estanged from the womb; they go astray as soon as
they be born, speaking lies.
Psalms 52:2-4 Thy tongue devises mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue.
Psalms 59:12 For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips le them ever be taken in their pride ; and for cursing and lying which they speak.
Psalms 63:11 ... the mouth of them that speaks lies shall be stopped.
Psalms 109:2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened againstt me; they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
Psalms 119:163 I hate and abhor lying, but thy law I do love.
Psalms 120:2 Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips. and from a deceitful tongue.
Psalms 119:29 Remove me from the way of lying, and grant me thy law graciously.
Proverbs 8:7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
Proverbs 13:5 A rigtheous man hatheth lying; but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.
proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie, but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 17:4 A wicked doer gives heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.
Proverbs 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speakest lies shall not escape.
Proverbs 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speakest lies shall perish.
Proverbs 19:22 the desire of a man is his kindess; and a poor man is better than a liar.
Jeremiah 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words
Ezekiel 24:12 She has wearied herself with lies , and her great scum went not forth
out of her ; her sccum shall be in the fire.
Daniel 11:27 .. and they shall speak lies at one table, but it shall not prosper.
Zechariah 13:3 Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD.
Revelation 22:4-14 Blessed are they who do his commandments ; that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city.For without are... whosever loveth and maketh a lie.
PsychicEYE4GOD
Tampa,Florida,
USA
Jan Windglows u arent fooling anybody...Criminally Insane since a young woman...Scammer, Stalker, Criminal that stole from me
#70Consumer Comment
Tue, May 10, 2011
May 10, 2011...Jan Windglows u arent fooling anybody...Criminally Insane since a young woman...Scammer, Stalker, Criminal that stole from me.
Jan Windglows thinks that everyone is a criminal...Jan Windglows is the SCAMMER.
Pat
Las Vegas,Nevada,
United States of America
PyshicEye4GOD aka Mary Prantil Required Reading
#70Consumer Comment
Tue, May 10, 2011
Exodus20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Colossians3:9 Lie not to one another, seeing that ye have put off the old man
with his deeds.
Proverbs6:16-19 These six doth the Lord hate ; yea, seven an abomination unto
him: a proud look , a lying tongue , and hands that shed innocent blood , a heart
that devisith wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
James3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of inquity: so is the tongue among our
members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the
course of nature ; and it is set on fire of hell.
I Timothy5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or
three witnesses.
Romans12:18 If it be possible, much as it lieth in you, live peaceably with
all men.
Jeremiah 9:4-9 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour , and trust ye not in
any brother ; for every brother will utterly supplant , and every neighbour will
walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour , and will
not speak the truth: that they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and
weary themselves to commit inquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of
deceit ; through deceit they refuse to know me , saith the LORD. Therefore
thus saith the LORD of hosts , Behold, I will melt them and try them ; for how shall I
do for the daughter of my people? Their tongue is an arrow shot out ; it
speaketh deceit : it speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth,
but in heart he layeth his wait. Shall I not visit them for these saith the LORD :
shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
PsychicINSeattle
Tacoma,Washington,
United States of America
Jan Windglows/James Morgan aka Multiple names, Personalities, "Life Stories" Criminally Insane with long criminal records
#70Consumer Comment
Tue, May 10, 2011
Criminal SCAM -Jan Windglows/James Morgan aka Multiple names, Personalities,
"Life Stories" Criminally Insane with long criminal records
AUTHOR: PsychicINSeattle - Tacoma (United States of America)
Jan Windglows has spent most her life in
hospitals for the criminally insane. As a young girl her family had her
committed, as she was convicted of molesting children in the
neighborhood, and taking drugs. She was released at 21 from the
first institution but was not rehabilitated. Within 5 years she was
committed again, this time for 12 years where she met James Morgan also a
patient in the same psychiatrist ward for the criminally insane.
This is where they cooked up the scheme to start a "business" to
"sell spells" to suckers. Not use their real names, get a cell
phone and move around the country so no one could find them or arrest
them. Crazy is doing the same thing over and over with the same
result. Read the scary 30 page reports these two nuts have written.
They brag about killing homeless people to get the blood for their
spells. Crazy and arrogant. They tell lies and make up stories
about everyone including themselves. The phone 208 714 4348 is
registered in Couer d'Alene, Idaho so they may live there but not under any
name they give publically. These are dangerous criminals, murderers and
convicted child molesters. They sell drugs to sustain their life style when
they aren't ripping people off with phony "spells" They are
confused about their sexual orientation and prey on young people. You
will both wind up in another criminal psychiatric ward hopefully this time
forever. You can spin all the stories you want in therapy to people
trained to listen and give you drugs to control your criminal
urges. You keep saying Psychic in Seattle is someone
else 3000 miles away in New York. Is that where you are now
living? With a cell phone you can be anywhere on the planet.
There is no Jan Windglows, or James Morgan how do you remember who you are
today? Do you keep a list of your aliases on you at all times.
Phony ID' s Phony charge cards, Phony Licenses.
No license for any business in Idaho or otherwise. Someone might actually
find you. So many people want you dead at this point keep running.
Read, "The Enemy Within" by Robert Kennedy it will reveal a lot to
you about how your lives will end. Have a nice
day you creeps
Pat
Las Vegas,Nevada,
United States of America
Question for PsychicEye4GOD
#70Consumer Comment
Mon, May 09, 2011
PsychicEye4GOD, are you Mary Prantil doing one of your "own woman comedy acts?"
You wrote: "Criminally insane Jan Windglows is and EVIL con-artist with a criminal record and a history of mental illness." But you didn't provide any listings of dockets, cases, convictions etc of a "criminal record" nor any links to any medical
examinations or testimony showing any "mental illness."
You wrote:" The bible defines sorcerers as conjurers, dealers with unclean spirits, necromancers, use of the magic art, whoredoms, withcraft and idolaters. These are people who engage in black magic to harm or muder others" please see this on line link
http://bryanwithay.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/the-greek-word-for-sorcery/
According to blueletterbible.org, it's pharmakeia
1) the making or administering of drugs
2) poisoning
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered
by it
4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
Accoriding to Myers, this word is related to the modern word "pharmacy", and the biblical defintion is "anything that meditates the mind so it will not follow the will or law of God " or "anything that disconnects the mind from the mind of Christ." According to Myers, this can apply to marijuana, television, music, and many other things people struggle with."
PsychicEye4GOD/Mary Prantil have you read the Book of Proverbs. It talks a lot about false witnesses. It says "A false witness shall not be unpunished. And he that speakest lies shall not escape."
PsychicEYE4GOD
Tampa,Florida,
USA
May 9, 2011 Sorcerer & Criminal JAN WINDGLOWS RUNS A CULT OPERATION TO BRAIN WASH YOU INTO BELIEVING YOU NEED SPELLS TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS- THAT IS DECEPTION FRAUD.
#70Consumer Suggestion
Mon, May 09, 2011
May 9, 2011 Sorcerer & Criminal JAN WINDGLOWS RUNS A CULT OPERATION TO BRAIN WASH YOU INTO BELIEVING YOU NEED SPELLS TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS- THAT IS DECEPTION FRAUD.
5/9/11 CRIME
ALERT:Criminal Jan Windglow Scams $1000's for Witchcraft & Deception Fraud.http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/Jan-Windglows.aspx
The Bible defines sorcerers as conjurers, dealers with unclean spirits, necromancers, use the magic art,whoredoms, witchcrafts and idolaters. Sorcerers-practicing evil magic: These are people who engage in black magic to harm or murder others.
Deuteronomy 18:10 Don't try to use any kind of magic or witchcraft to tell fortunes, or to cast spells or to talk with spirits of the dead.
Galatians 5:19-20 "..immoral, filthy and indecent actions; in worship of idols and witchcraft...
Exodus 22:18 Put to death any woman who practices magic.
Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against you will prosper; And every tongue that accuses you in judgment God will condemn.
Godly Practioners and People, Psychic Healers & Psychic Readers. Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows is scamming people $1000's and has continued to commit Deception Fraud. Jan Windglows stalks, defrauds and misrepresents and she is going to sue her clients for stop payment of more phony "spells' yeah crazy one. God is our source. Witchcraft is of SATAN. Evil begets EVIL. Criminally Insane Jan Windglows is and EVIL Con-Artist with a criminal record, and a history of mental illness. READ the REAL Compliants on Ripoff Report.com - . http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx
May 9, 2011
Sorcerer & Criminal JAN WINDGLOWS RUNS A CULT OPERATION TO BRAIN WASH YOU INTO BELIEVING YOU NEED SPELLS TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS- THAT IS DECEPTION FRAUD.
The Bible defines sorcerers as conjurers, dealers with unclean spirits, necromancers, use the magic art,whoredoms, witchcrafts and idolaters. Sorcerers-practicing evil magic: These are people who engage in black magic to harm or murder others.
James 5:15-16 Confess your sins & pray for one another that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power.
Psalms 91: 14 Whoever clings
to me I will deliver; whoever knows my name I will set on high.
Psalms 23:1 The Lord is my sheperd; there is nothing I lack.
5/9/11 CRIME ALERT:Criminal Jan Windglow Scams $1000's for Witchcraft & Deception Fraud. http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/Jan-Windglows.aspx
JanWindglowsWitchcraftCyberSCAM
Tampa,Florida,
USA
May 8, 2011 Coven, Cult Criminal Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows- Multiple FAKE names, FAKE photos, FAKE Facebook photo, and FAKE Rip-off websites- Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you?
#70Consumer Suggestion
Sun, May 08, 2011
May 8, 2011 Coven, Cult Criminal Cyber SCAM an Windglows- Multiple FAKE names, FAKE photos, FAKE Facebook photo, and
FAKE Rip-off websites- Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you?
SCAMX-exposed May 8,
2011
Coven, Cult, Criminals! Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows post multiple FAKE photos, Multiple FAKE Rip-off websites and multiple Fake phone numbers. NO such thing as SPELLS! Magic is just a pretty name for Witchcraft! READ multiple complaints on Rip-off Report.com
Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you? Jan Windglows is a 200 lbs fat brunette woman with a computer connection - NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!!! NO such thing as SPELLS! Magic is just a pretty name for Witchcraft! READ multiple complaints about Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows on Rip-off Report.com http://www.ripoffreport.com/directory/Jan-Windglows.aspx
Look below at the end of the rebuttal - I found over 3 different photos that SCAM Jan Windglows post on the Internet. SEE BELOW including a DAKE photo on Facebook.
Multiple Fake phone numbers that SCAM Jan Windglows has uses: 208-714-4348. 805-455-6548 and 208-639-2999 all disconnected as the Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny police reports file up and the police look for their Verified
Con-Artist Jan Windglows and her concern cult of Con-Artist
Multiple temporary fake PO Box's - 1) PO Box 712, Driggs, Idaho, 2.) PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, ID and HERE IS MS. WINDGLOWS REAL ADDRESS- Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan aka Janhett T Windglows,
Multiple FAKE Rip-off Spellcasting website - www.bloodloveandlustspells.com, www.dragonspells.com, www.angelicseals.com, to name a few. All claims to drain their own bodies and veins of their own BLOOD to sacrifice, all
claim to take weeks to write out in ancient satanical language a long spell sheet that you will get a copy of a photos of the spell ritual, all ask for your photo and birthday, all want to use Western Union and or PayPal. ALL are
a COMPLETE RIPOFF SCAM!!! No such thing as Spells! Witchcraft does not work and is a complete scam.
Magic is a pretty name for Witchcraft and both are a SCAM.
Buy a $1 dollar candle - put your name on it- pray into the flame. Psychic in Seattle taught me to pray for myself. There is a real Psychic in Seattle. She goes by referral only and does not charge for her services. Many x-clients that lost money and dignity from the Coven Cult Criminal Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan mike Cahill, Matilda Somerfield, Kim Thrasher, Mike Jenkins, and Jim Morgan X-wife Celeste Morgan all works together to scam $1000's of dollars off of innocent people - and they share
all the profit.
Multiple FAKE names - Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Mrs. Jan aka Enchantress Jan 208 aka Mrs. Jan aka the wife of SATAN!
NO such thing as SPELLS!
Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you? Jan Windglows is a 200 lbs fat brunette woman with a computer connection - NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!!!
Magic is just a pretty name for Witchcraft!
DO NOT USE: Coven Cult Criminals - Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan, Mike Cahill, Kim Thrasher, Matilda Somerfeild, Mike Jenkins and X-wife of Jim Morgan Celeste Morgan. FYI - Celeste Morgan had to file a domestic violence assault
report on Jim Morgan and got a Restraining Order on crazy out of control Jim Morgan. Hey Jan Windglows if you and Jim Morgan are such powerful casters -than how come you can't stop me from posting the truth about you...or how
come you could stop Celeste Morgan from getting
DO NOT USE - Coven Cult Criminal Jan Windglows uses multiple FAKE photos, multiple FAKE names, and multiple website. BEWARE - Jan Windglows could stalk and harass you next - READ multiple complaints about Jan Windglows right here
on Rip-off Report.com!
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor! http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx
Over 30 Complaints filed on Ripoff Report on Jan Windglows http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx
WARNING: Cyber Stalker Jan Windglows is a verified SCAM Witchcraft Ripoff.
Multiple fake websites and Fake Photos for SCAMMER Jan Windglows. Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you?
SEE REAL photo of Jan Windglows of a 200 lbs fat brunette woman with a computer connection only intending her target HARM - NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS.
SCAMMER Jan Windglows Divinity and God do not condone Witchcraft. Witchcraft is EVIL. EVIL begets EVIL.
If someone tells you they are into Witchcraft RUN as fast as you away for this Satan worshiper.
Witchcraft is of SATAN.
Jan Windglows which Photo is you? Only a Con-artist puts multiple photos. Crazy Jan Windglows is a verified SCAMMER.
May 8, 2011 - Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan, Mike Vahill, Kim Thrasher, Matilda Sommerfield Michale Jenkins all work for SCAM Quenn Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress Jan 208.
Multiple fake websites and Fake Photos for SCAMMER Jan Windglows. Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you?
SEE REAL photo of Jan Windglows of a 200 lbs fat brunette woman with a computer connection only intending her target HARM - NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS.
CRIME ALERT: Jan Windglows is a verified THEIF...call you local police and file a report for Deception Fraud and Grand Larceny...FO NOY USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com - Totla scam ripoff operation - Jan Windglows is a Fake, Fake photos, Fake websites - Fake claims by Verified SCAMMER Jan Windglows.
May 8, 2011 SCAM Jan Windglows has Multiple fake websites and Fake Photos for SCAMMER Jan Windglows. Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you? SEE REAL photo of Jan Windglows of a 200 lbs fat brunette woman with a computer connection only intending her target HARM - NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS.
May 8, 2011 -Jan Windglows which Photo is you? Only a Con-artist puts multiple photos. Crazy Jan Windglows is a verified SCAMMER.
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
Cyber MONSTER SCAM Jan Windglows stalks;harasses NYC Comic/Celebrity and Prestigious San Diego Family
#70UPDATE EX-employee responds
Fri, August 06, 2010
Scammer Jan Windglows needs to get alife. Clearly, SCAM Jan Windglows is obsessed with this NYC Celebrity - Comic that SCAM Jan Windglows unsuccessfully CONNED about 4 yrs ago.
MENTALLY ILLL SCAM Jan Windglows post daily editorials all LIES all proof of CONINUED CRIMES of Cyber Monster SCAM Jan Windglows.
CYBER STALKER obsessed with NYC Comic and Prestgious Family. PROOF of CRIMES right here on Ripoff Report.com - Aggravated Harassment, Cyber Stalking, Deception Fraud, and Grand Larceny.
http://twittter.com/JanWindglowSACAM
SCAM Jan Windglows admits to taking MONEY for SPELLS which is a CRIME.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho - SCAM Jan Windglows admits to DECEPTION FRAUD - to taking MONEY from NYC woman for SPELLS.
DO NOT USE this mentally ill woman - Obsessed with posting LIES to cover her own life of CRIME...DECEPTION FRAUD is a real CRIME.
do not tread on me
Astoria,New York,
USA
Mary is still not providing ANY REAL proof of her statements about Jan Windglows LMAO
#70REBUTTAL Owner of company
Sat, July 31, 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
do not tread on me
Astoria,New York,
USA
Verified CRIMINAL Mary Prantil REPORTED BY Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan - YES USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com 208-714-4348, PO Box #712, PO BOX #118, Driggs-Bonners Ferry Idaho # 1 Spell Casters
#70Consumer Comment
Sat, July 31, 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)
===========================================================================
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
Criminal Jan Windglows DECEPTION FRAUD - SPELLS DON'T WORK Deception Fraud is a REAL CRIME
#70UPDATE EX-employee responds
Tue, July 27, 2010
Ex-Employee speaks out: I used to work for SCAM Jan Windglows when she lived in Bushnell, Florida Last known address for SCAM Jan Windglows - PH-352-793-2205,7961 Court, Bushnell, Florida - and SCAM Jan Windglows was arrested and bailed out many times at SUMTER FLORIDA COUNTY JAIL.
Scam Jan Windglows taught me the trade of scamming innocent ppl for SPELLS and Psychic Readings. SCAM Jan Windglows SPELLS DO NOT WORK !!!
Jan Windglows will Scam you for money - then never to be heard from again - SCAM Jan Windglows only wants your MONEY!!!
Ask Scam Jan Windglows for her REAL Address and when SCAM Jan Windglows does not give it to you - GET OFF THE PHONE - ASK FOR YOUR MONEY BACK - Call the POLICE!!!
Everytime SCAM Jan Windglows offers to do you a SPELL for money - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing DECEPTION FRAUD!!
PO BOX #118
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
208-714-4348
PO Box #712
Drigg, Idaho
208-639-2224
Cal the SUMTER DEPT OF CORRECTIONS and find out about FUGITIVE SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208
(((Redacted)))Thank you to Ed Magedson and Ripoff Report.com - SCAM Jan Windglows has several Ripoff Report.com complaints for DECEPTION FRAUD, GRAND LARCENY and CYBER Harasssing and CYBER STALKING.
do not tread on me
Astoria,New York,
USA
Posted By Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows Concerning Mary Prantil
#70REBUTTAL Owner of company
Tue, July 27, 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
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
CRIMINALS Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan - SCAM RIPOFF site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
#70UPDATE EX-employee responds
Mon, July 26, 2010
BEWARE - SCAM Jan Windglows and SCAM Jim Morgan are Convicted Criminals for DECEPTION FRAUD - www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118 Bonners Ferry, Idaho or PO Box #712 Driggs, Idaho or last mailing address: 7961 Court Bushnell, Florida - BEWARE Jail Bird Jan Windglows violates SUMTER Florida County JAIL - 90 Day Jail sentence.
I worked with Jan Windglows in Bushnell Florida - SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted FELON - BEWARE.
http://twitter.com/JanwindglowSCAM - READ up to date Ripoff's of SCAM site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com OWNER SCAM Jan Windglows 208-714-4348.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME. Everytime Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY Jan Windglows is committing Deception Fraud.
Mary T. Prantil Is A Scam Artist
Astoria,New York,
United States of America
Criminal & Civil Records Of Mary T. Prantil, Frank George Prantil, Richard G. Prantil
#70REBUTTAL Individual responds
Mon, July 26, 2010
CRIMINAL RECORDS OF MARY T. PRANTIL : http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/ and punch in number 3471001054
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
Frank George PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/843/843.F2d.314.86-6669.html http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=Frank+George+Prantil&circuit= PUBLIC RECORDS http://public.resource.org/ 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
Frank George PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
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,
Frank George PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
(1984). Hence, we must decide whether the defendant's testimony was material. 29 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.