Print the value of index0
Jim Morgan,also Known As Drews, And Jan Windglows Satan Worshiper:Jim Morgan he performs DEATH spells, sacrifices live animals, uses own blood and is truely one of the most frightening people to meet. Driggs Idaho
Jim Morgan(also known as Drews) and Jan Windglows.
DO NOT USE: Jim Morgan he perforrms DEATH spells, sacrifices live animals, uses own blood and is truely one of the most frightening people to meet.
Truly evil person nad site...do not use.
Honestperson
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania
U.S.A.
30 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
#31REBUTTAL Individual responds
Tue, January 31, 2012
Mary Prantil has a life long criminal career and currently has nine criminal charges she is on trial for, and one in Nevada. Mary Prantil uses dozens of Spell Casters to help her attain her wishes, then commits haneous acts to mess up her spell results, then blames her messed up life on the Spell Casters that have helped her. Mary Prantil messes up her life and alienates everyone around her including her own family, while blaming everyone for everything that has gone wrong in her life because of her own evil deeds against innocent people.
Mary Prantil is broke, lost her inheritance after sponging and taking advantage of her family and mother for years on end while continuing her SCAMMING CRIME SPREE to hurt innocent people, Spell Casters and ANYONE that does not agree with her. Mary Prantil refuses to take responsibility for her OWN actions but instead blames her shortcomings on other innocent people who have tried to help her, then calls them SCAM.
Top Spell Caster Jan Windglows SUES Mary Prantil because Mary Prantil cannot and will not stop stalking and harrassing Jan Windglows and her husband. Mary Prantil had it coming for years. Mary Prantil sends Jan Windglows a letter of EXTORTION threatening Jan Windglows. Mary Prantil stalks Spell Casters, and other different types of celebrities, comedians, etc. in her weak sick efforts of her so called "claim to fame" while using her crimes and abuse to continue to harass spell casters, other high profile people, writing lie after lie in her hateful crime spree against innocent people.
READ THE LAWSUIT- this is how stalkers SHOULD be handled, because that is the only way to get through to them, by sending them to JAIL where they will not hurt themselves or others. WE HAVE SUED Mary Prantil due to her long term criminal history of stalking and abusing us. If she does not get that or understand that, it is ok because she is on her way to jail anyway, why? BECAUSE MARY PRANTIL IS A HARD CORE CRIMINAL and does not know any other way except for her sick life of crime against innocent people and business.
Now that Mary Prantil is getting her BUTT KICKED by us, she is angry and continues to post lies about us but we REFUSE to back down from trash like her. Mary Prantil is a low life criminal who is better off when she is locked up and out of society because she will never be capable of being any type of honest or decent person that is able to make any type of positive contribution to society. This is Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan 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
Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM, Verified criminal, and Cyber Stalker -owner of several scam "spell casting" websites to lure you with a free psychic reading then direct you to a fake "SPELLS".
#31Consumer Suggestion
Mon, June 13, 2011
June 13, 2011 Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM, Verified criminal, and
Cyber Stalker -owner of several scam "spell casting" websites to lure you with a free psychic reading then direct you to a fake "SPELLS". DO NOT USE: www.bloodloveandlustspells.com Jan Windglows will try to SCAM a lot of MONEY for Witchcraft, not perform the spells, take your $1000s then go to the next victim to SCAM. Jan Windglows is a common THEIF.
TURN TO GOD! NO SUCH THING-WITCHCRAFT IS A AGAINST DIVINITY AND GOD. DO NOT USE. RIPOFF SITES:
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com, www.dragonspells.com, www.angelicseals.com, DO NOT USE: Scammers Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan, Mike Cahill, This coven of criminals work together to scam you of $1000,s thru "free psychic reading" to buy their "spells" this is DECEPTION FRAUD and it is a real Crime. DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows of SCAM Rip-off site: Blood, Love and Lust Spells.Ph: 208-714-4348. PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho Jan Windglows is a Rip-off SCAM who only will do you spiritual harm. Turn to God.
Witchcraft is a SCAM. I am Psychic in Seattle. I posted a couple of reports
on Rip-off Report.com after many X-clients of Jan Windglows came to me
for real spiritual guidance after getting ripped off
by www.bloodloveandlustspells.com Please read the pathetic responses to
my former reports all phony names Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows aka Enchantress Jan 208 - These SCAMMERS will never use their real names because they are not real. The work they do is a criminal rip-off thru Western Union. They make money by lying to anyone who seeks their services.
They prey on people like vampires; they talk about blood and killing people, death spells, and destruction of people, murder. Lucifer is talking to you through each of them. In the bible a Dragon is the name for Lucifer among many others. Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan and Mike Cahill follow all the directives of Lucifer the Devil.
I tell all my clients, that every human being has psychic abilities innately
part of your soul. When you pray to God tell Him what you want. God
will always grant His children what they need. No need for "spells" or any such negative forces. God is positive. Murder and the taking of any life are against the precepts of His Sacred Word. Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan, and Mike Cahill are an abomination of His Word.
Every human being has weaknesses, Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan and Mike Cahill will find these weakness or vulnerability and like the Vampires that they are they will prey upon you and rob you of your money and dignity. You will never see proof of any stupid "spell" they charge you money to
create as they only defraud you of as they don't cast any "spells".
Once they have your information through your free psychic "reading"
they have a script ready to go and "fake spell offers" that are all
scripted to rip you off. Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan and Mike Cahill have
been in business for years and rely on the fact that once they have ripped
off a "client" that person is too embarrassed to admit to being
taken in by these phonies, doesn't tell anyone, doesn't report them to the
police DECEPTION FRAUD counts on your reaction to silence to profit and
continue to exist to rip off more people every day. DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows of SCAM Rip-off site: Blood, Love and Lust Spells.Ph: 208-714-4348. PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho Jan Windglows is a Rip-off SCAM who only will do you spiritual harm. Turn to God. Witchcraft is a SCAM.
I am praying for each and every person that has been victimized by Jan
Windglows, Jim Morgan and Mike Cahill of ww.bloodloveandlustspells.com,
www.dragonspells.com, www.angelicseals.com, They do not speak to any
Angels or any Divinity, Entity. God condems witchcraft, spells and
the work of these scammers. Jan Windglows, Jim Morgan and Mike Cahill are committing Deception Fraud, which is a real crime punishable by a conviction, criminal records and jail time. If they could be found, please understand they offer no real name, addresses or phone numbers that are traceable, because they are professional criminals and scammers all working together and with other in their criminal coven. God help them when their Karma is paid in full. No one escapes Karma, God is aware of all you do and say and Justice is the Lord's. "Vengeance is mine said the Lord"
God bless you children of the Lord. God is your Salvation, your Hope and the Light of God. God will forgive you and loves you unconditionally. Turn
to God. Witchcraft is a SCAM. Jan Windglows will only do you spiritual harm. I pray for all my clients that have been previously scammed and harmed by Jan Windglows.
Turn to the light of God within in you.
Love PsychicNSeattle
JanWindglows-IS-EVIL@PsychicNSeattle Seattle, Washington Turn to God not Witchcraft. CRIMINAL Jan Windglows owns Rip-off Witchcraft site, Blood, Love, & Lust Spells.http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net is Evidence of Jan Windglows stalking an X client for years. www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net
could be you if you do business with Jan Windglows.
JanWindglows-IS-EVIL Prayer is FREE-God does not charge MONEY for his
LOVE. Turn to God & the Magic within your soul. PEACE http://twitter.com/#!/PSYCHICNSEATTLE
JanWindglows-IS-EVIL Happy June 7, 2011 DO NOT PARTAKE in WITCHCRAFT. There is severe Karmic backlash Follow me on my Twitter @PsychicNSeattle PsychicNSeattle JanWindglows-IS-EVIL Victims of Jan Windglows call Sheriff Greg Sprungl @ 208 267 3151 report all scams by this phony spellcaster check the Most Wanted list
JanWindglows-IS-EVIL Victims of Jan Windglows report all fraud to
www.boundarycountyid.org or call 208 267 3151 file your complaint STOP CRIME JanWindglows-IS-EVIL Jan Windglows I believe nothing is real about you or any computer site. Probably in prison with nothing else to do
JanWindglows-IS-EVIL 6/8 Jan Windglows Psycho in Bonners Ferry, Life of
crime, Witchcraft, phony spells, Extortionist, Identity Theft. Wanted for
Grand Larceny PsychicNSeattle JanWindglows-IS-EVIL If monster SCAM Jan Windglows ripped you off then file police complaint with your local police, like I tell all of my Jan Windglows victims JanWindglows-IS-EVIL Turn to God not Jan Windglows who is hurting God's children by stealing their money. http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/Jan-Windglows
PsychicNSeattle JanWindglows-IS-EVIL Godly Psychic Healers &
Psychic Readers. Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows is scamming people $1000's and has continued to commit Deception Fraud.
PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
@PsychicNSeattle
Hello: I am Psychic IN Seattle and no one else.
God's Healing energy to you. I believe in God. I am a Psychic of God's Light. I am doing God's work. God's love is all you need to manifest your dreams in this lifetime. Praying to God is powerful. Turn to God.
I pray all my clients turn to God not Witchcraft or SCAM Jan Windglows.
Witchcraft is EVIL. Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows owns a Black Magic Witchcraft Rip-off Site Blood, Love and Lust Spells. Many of my clients
have been scammed $1000's by SCAM Jan Windglows so I am defending God's principles, my many clients, the law of Karma and my morals as a God centered Psychic.
Psalms 23:1 The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack. I created my profile after hearing scam story after scam story from so many of my clients that have been scammed $1000's by Jan Windglows. All said Jan Windglows Black Magic Witchcraft spells did not work. SCAM Jan Windglows uses fake alias, fake websites, all to commit Deception Fraud.
SCAM Jan Windglows give all Psychics of God's light a bad name. BEWARE
of SCAM Jan Windglows, who has a Criminal Record for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Cyber Identity Theft. https://profiles.google.com/u/0/101443660197371199257/about?hl=en&tab=bh
God is our source. Witchcraft is of SATAN. Evil begets EVIL. Jan
Windglows is EVIL. Read real complaints about Cyber SCAM http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx
I offer FREE Psychic Readings and Psychic Healings. I believe in God. I am a Psychic of God's Light. I am doing God's work. I only take clients by referral. You can reach me on my Twitter Forum at: http://twitter.com/PsychicNSeattle
Jan Windglows is EVIL.
Turn to God not Witchcraft or Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows. God and Divinity are against Witchcraft.
Love,
Psychic IN Seattle
JanWindglows-IS-EVIL
@PsychicNSeattle Seattle, Washington
Healing energy to you. Turn to God not Witchcraft or SCAM Jan
Windglows. Witchcraft is EVIL. Jan Windglows owns Black Magic Rip-off Site Blood,Love&LustSpells!
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx
Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against you will prosper; And every tongue that accuses you in judgment God will condemn.
Psalms 91: 14 Whoever clings to me I will deliver; whoever knows my name I will set on high. KEEP TURNING TO GODWITCHCRAFT IS A SCAMGODS HEALING ENERGY TO YOU.
June 13, 2011 --Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM, Verified criminal, and
Cyber Stalker -owner of several scam "spell casting" websites to lure you with a free psychic reading then direct you to a fake "SPELLS".
OpinionatedAmerican
Tampa,Florida,
USA
BOYCOTT Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan also known as DREWS - Spell Casting is NOT a legitimate Business
#31Consumer Suggestion
Mon, August 16, 2010
SCAMMMERS Jim Morgan, also known as Drews, and Jan Windglows cleary have no clients and devote all their time to Cyber Stalking...Jan Windglows has become so obsessed with harassing Kim Kardashian and many other X-employees and X-clients -Blood Love and Lust Spells is a failing business.
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Spell Casting is not a legitimate Busiemss...beware most Con-Artist are scam Spell Casters...SCAM Jan Windglows is a convicted Criminal form SUMTER Florida JAIL, in 15 yrs on the Internet has NEVER posted a real address for FEAR that the COPS would arrest her...SADISTIC Jim Morganis not an MD or a Police Official...and yet Jimmorgan has written editorial in the 100,000's of pgs - to cover his life of SCAMMING for SPELLS...
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Jim morgan and Jan Windglows - no matter how many lies you come up with...the fact remains you are the CRIMINALS scamming for SPELLS...which is a crime.
do not use : Blood Love and Lust Spells now bieng converted to Castel Eye as a result of many polic reports file din 2009 and 2010 for DECEPTION FRAUD...2 by Kim Kardashian...
PsychicHater
Seattle,Washington,
United States of America
Verified CRIMINAL SCAM Jan Windglows CYBER STALKS-X-employees and Clients
#31UPDATE EX-employee responds
Wed, August 04, 2010
SCAMMER Jan Windglows and her employee, Jim Morgan are Verified CYBER STALKERS and CRIMINALS!!! Do not Use: www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - it a verified Criminal wanted by the SUMTER Florida POLICE for violating her Sentence and Probation for DECEPTION FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT and GRAND LARCENY!!!!
SCAM Jan Windglows does NOT post real address because Jan Windglows is a Verified CRIMINAL:
PO Box #118
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
208-714-4348
passionspells@aol.com
wizardmorgan2@aol.com - both of these emails are contaminated and will download TROJAN VIRUS into your home computer then STEAL your MONEY!!!
Mike Cahill, Spell Caster says: I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows - her SPELLS DON"T WORK becasue Jan on the LAM is a Con-artist that just takes money and does no work.
Celeste Morgan X-wife of Jim Morgansays: My X-husband Jim Morgan is a Verified Criminal for TAX Evasion. I had to get a Restraining Order on Jim Morgan for Domestic Violence.
Kim Thrasher -Employee says: I work for SCAM Jan Windglows now. I get alot of Psychic Reading referrals from Jan Windglows - and all clients complain to me about Jan Windglows.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME - For example: For $5000 I will reunite you withyour X-wife. Everytime SCAM Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - Scam Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME. http;//twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
SPELLS DON'T WORK!!!!
http://twitter.com/JanWindgl
do not tread on me
Astoria,New York,
USA
Proof with links provided of Mary Prantil and her crime ridden relatives
#31Consumer Comment
Fri, July 30, 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
Verified Criminal Jan Windglows -DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com JAN on the LAM
#31Consumer Comment
Mon, July 26, 2010
Hey - Jan on the LAM SCAM Jan Windglows and your employee Jim Morgan - GET A LIFE already - the Global internet is onto your 15 yr Western Union Ripoff SCAM...do not use www.bloodloveandlustspells.com or passionspells@aol.com PH: 208-714-4348...PO Box #118 Bonners Ferrym Idaho.
Jan on the LAM - SCAM Jan Windglows continues CYBER STALKING and DECEPTION FRAUD - verified Criminals "Jan on the LAM"
Hey SCAM Jan Windglows that NYC woman does NOT have a CRIMINAL record and IS NOT a CRIMINAL. Like any American she is making COURT DATES - the charges are "alleged" so again SCAMMERS Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan caught in their STALKING and HARASSING.
SCAM Jan Windglows - avoid and do not use -ask for your money back...call Florida State Dept of Correction - help POLICE find this FUGITIVE and SCAM called Jan Windglows.
http://twitter.com//JanWindglowSCAM - READ this shared forum on recent RIPOFF of SCAM site www.bllodloveandlustspells.com
OpinionatedAmerican July 26, 2010 - Jan Windglows post WRONG info on NYC Woman - this are only COURT DATES - NO TRIAL DATE - NO CONVICTION DATE - like any American alleged with charges...NYC Woman has NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
SCAMMERS - Jim Morgan and Jan Windglows are CREEPY PPL covering up their lifetime of CRIME!!!!
Mary T. Prantil Is A Scam Artist
Astoria,New York,
United States of America
TRASH MOUTH MARY PRANTIL OF ASTORIA NEW YORK IS EXPOSED AS A CRIMINAL, LEARN THE LAW IDIOT BEFORE YOU MAKE A a*s OUT OF YOURSELF ON THE FOURMS
#31REBUTTAL Individual responds
Sat, July 24, 2010
.
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.