July 20, 2010 Verified Criminals - SCAMS Jim Morgan and Jan Windglows - DO NOT USE - Ph: 208-714-4348 of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com [email protected] When is SCAM jan Windglows telling a LIE? Everytime she opens her mouth orpost s blog onto the Internet. Hey - SCAM Jan Windglows - where is your REAL ADDRESS - everyone knows only a SCAM post a PO BOX. SCAM Jan Windglows is a VERIFIED CONVICTED CRIMINAL- I know because I used to work for her in Bushnell Florida.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows Verified Criminal of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
I live in Seattle, Washington now but I used to work for SCAM Jan Windglows when she lived in Florida. I learned the trade of SCAMMING innocent people for SPELLS and Psychic eadings. Jan Windglows taught me well. I have since reprted Jan Windglows to the Florida Police ANd absolutley will be a PAID informant against tis SCAM site called www.bloodloveandlustspells.com - 208-714-4348 [email protected] PO Box 712 Driggs, Idaho and PO Box #118 Boners ferry, Idaho. BEWARE SCAM Jan Windglows is a verified Criminal with a Criminal Record.
Cyber Stalker and Verified Criminal with Criminal Convictions that span YEARS !!! Jan Windglows skipped her PROBATION in Bushnell Florida an has been on the RUN ever since.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows or her employee, Jim Morgan - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho - is the most recent PO BOX. P: 208-714-4348.
SCAMMERS Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan do not provide a REAL Address on their SCAM site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com - Because they are VERIFIED CRIMINALS.
X- employee of an Windglows - I used to work for SCAM Jan Windglows - now i am a PAID informant Jan Windglows you can RUN but you cannot hide.
JanWindglowsWitchcraftCyberSCAM
Tampa,#2Consumer Comment
Wed, May 25, 2011
Criminally INSANE Jan
Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for
Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict,
Witchcraft is EVIL.
May 25, 2011 Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin
Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for
Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict,
Witchcraft is EVIL.
Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her
drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict
that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. - NOT in Bonners Ferry,
ID
- FAKE Address - Fake Spellcaster- NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS! Criminal Jan
Windglows - NOT in Bonners Ferry, ID - FAKE Address Fake Spellcaster-
NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!
JAN WINDGLOWS IS
CRIMINALLY INSANE AND HAS BEEN IN AND OUT OF HOSPITALS FOR THE
CRIMINALLY INSANE ALL HER LIFE, FOR HEROIN ABUSE AND Bi-POLAR ISSUES
WHEN JAN WINDGLOWS STOPS TAKING HER LITHIUM.
Only insane people call themselves a SPELLCASTERNo such thing as SPELLS!!
Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan is a Cyber SCAM! Queen Lilith aka Jan
Windglows is an EVIL Beast like Satan! Witchcraft is a SCAM!
Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you? Jan Windglows is a 200 lbs fat
woman with a computer connection see real photo - NO SUCH THING AS
SPELLS!!!
WHEN JAN WINDGLOWS ISNT ANSWERING THE PHONE IT'S BECAUSE JAN IS
SHOOTING UP HEROIN AND CHASING THE DRAGON....JIM MORGAN NAMED HIMSELF THE
DRAGON...SICKOS
May 25, 2011 -Mrs. Jan aka Jan Windglows hurt me; worst service;
stole money; breaches confidHeroin Addict Jan Windglows.Witchcraft is
how Jan Windglows
supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. - NOT in Bonners Ferry, ID -
FAKE Address - Fake Spellcaster- NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!entiality DO NOT USE
SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan aka Queen Lilith!
May 25, 2011 Many people agree with me that Witchcraft is a SCAM, that
there is no such thing as SPELLS! I do not believe in SPELLS or Witchcraft!!!
Jan Windglows took advantage of me when I was in a spiritual crisis, and said
that SPELLS would be my answer if I only paid Jan Windglows more and more
money. The SPELLS did not work. Jan Windglows ripped me off, and Jan
Windglows kept asking for more and more money, like a bottomless pit in hell,
where Jan Windglows lives.
May 25, 2011 -Mrs. Jan aka Jan Windglows hurt me; worst service; stole money;
breaches confidentiality-DO NOT USE SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan Many
people like me have been victimized by SCAM Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith
aka Enchantress Jan 208, Jim Morgan, Mike, Cahill, Kim Thrasher and
Matilda Sommerfield. No such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a SCAM.
There are NO friggin' Spellcaster or Spells only Con-Artist! Hey I do believe
that psychics can be good, and also believe there are bad psychics aka
criminals like Jan Windglows - who stole money from me. No such thing as
SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a SCAM END OF STORY of the Jan Windglows SAGA
the JURY IS OUT
SCAM Jan Windglows is GUILTY of Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Cyber ID Theft.
DO NOT USE: www.bloodloveandlustspells.com, www.dragonspells.com, and www.angelicseals.com
!!!
DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress Jan 208 aka
Janhett T.Windglows of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry,
ID, 83805 Ph: 208-714-4348.
I agree - NO SPELLS WORK! If you think SPELLS work like Jan Windglows tells
all her victims -then they only exist in both your
deluded minds. SCAM Jan Windglows brain only money on the brain -HOW
TO GET AS MUCH MONEY OFF YOU. Hey Jan Windglows You need an enema up there.
Stick the pipe in your third eye too not your ear hole like the guy that
doesn't believe in psychics. Jan Windglows is Endless drivel!! ."Blame
it on Divinity" ...that is what SCAM Jan Windglows said when I wanted my
$2100 returned - that the spells I paid $2100 didn't work bcs divinity didn't
want me to have it...Jan Windglows is a SCAM crooked bad egg. Do not use: Jan
Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress. No such thing as SPELLS - but
there are good psychics, like there are good people. Psychic in Seattle is a
good person and good psychic. Jan Windglows is bad Psychic nd horrible human
being that needs to step into to the light. No such thing as SPELLS!!
Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM!! No such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows
is a Cyber SCAM!! No such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a Cyber
SCAM!!
DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress Jan 208 aka Janhett
T.Windglows aka Mrs. Jan of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box 118,
Bonners Ferry, ID, 83805 Ph: 208-714-4348 Jan Windglows hurt me; worst
service; stole money; breaches confidentiality-DO NOT USE Cyber SCAM Jan
Windglows aka Mrs. Jan DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka
Enchantress Jan 208 aka Janhett T.Windglows aka Mrs. Jan of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, ID, 83805 Ph: 208-714-4348 Feb 8, 2011
-Mrs. Jan aka Jan Windglows hurt me; worst service; stole money; breaches
confidentiality-HEROIN ADDICT THAT SUPPORTS HER DRUG HABIT WITH WITCHCRAFT
MS. JAN WINDGLOWS POST NO REAL ADDRESS- Cyber SCAM Jan
Windglows aka Mrs. Jan aka Janhett T Windglows, PO Box 118 is a
SCAM Address- Jan Windglows does NOT Live in Bonners Ferry, ID - the
phone is not a real home number but rather a voice line. DO NOT USE: SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows aka Mrs. Jan aka Queen Lilith. Criminally INSANE Jan Windglow is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin Addict Jan
Windglows Jan Windglow is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug
habit by scamming for Spells. - NOT in Bonners Ferry, ID - FAKE Address
Fake Spellcaster- NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!
Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you? Jan Windglows is a 200
lbs fat woman with a computer connection see real photo - NO SUCH
THING AS SPELLS!!!
WHEN JAN WINDGLOWS ISNT ANSWERING THE PHONE IT'S BECAUSE JAN IS
SHOOTING UP HEROIN AND CHASING THE DRAGON....JIM MORGAN NAMED HIMSELF THE
DRAGON...SICKO
May 25, 2011
Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her
drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows scam to pay for her HEROIN.
Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict,
Witchcraft is EVIL.
James Morgan
NA,#3Consumer Comment
Mon, May 23, 2011
What a story teller LOL everyone is laughing at Prantil's reports and as usual, Jan is doing yet more and more business because of it. So here it is again in case anyone has missed it, which we doubt. Mary Prantil is PsychicNSeattle as everyone knows, who has failed miserably in her weak attempts to ruin highly successful caster Jan Windglows of Blood Love And Lust Spells business. Business is better than ever, new testamonials are being posted all the time. Divinity is blessing Their people. This is Divinity's will, and despite anything Prantil says or does, Divinity will CONTINUE to bless Their people. As far as Mary Prantil aka PsychicNSeattle is concerned, we do not care about anything she says anymore. We are posting these records for the PUBLIC so the public can continue to be warned about some of the unsavory people that are predators on the web such as Mary Prantil aka PsychicNSeattle. MARY PRANTIL AKA PSYCHICNSEATTLE THIS IS A PUBLIC WARNING MESSAGE ABOUT CYBER STALKER MARY PRANTIL: Manhattan CriminalCourt, 100 Centre Street, New York - (646) 386-4500 Give the clerk this information-they know who Mary Prantil AKA PsychicNSeattle is. NYSID: 03088617J which is Mary Prantil's JAIL/Prison number. MARY PRANTIL AKA "PSYCHIC IN SEATTLE" AKA MARY T. PRANTIL OF QUEENS NEW YORK CURRENT CRIMINAL RECORDS NYSID: 03088617J Age: 46 Sex: Female Race: White Height: 5 ft 3 inches Weight: 95 lbs Hair Color: Blonde Eye Color: Green Nativity: New York Booking Information Incarceration: 2010-06-14 Book & Case Number: 3471001054 Facility: Rose M. Singer Center Arrest Date: 2010-06-14 Arrest Number: COURT DIRECT Next Court Date: 2010-06-30 Projected Release Date: Actual Release Date: Discharge Reason: Bail & Bond: Remanded Charge Information Docket: 2010NY022485 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony) 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY002655 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY046033 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) 215.50 MA (CRIMINAL CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor) The Rose M. Singer Center is where Mary Prantil has been many times over incarcerated, which is one of TEN jails on Rikers Island. Ten Jails on Rikers Island List Part 2 Rose M. Singer Center Address: 19-19 Hazen St., East Elmhurst, N.Y. 11370 Rose M. Singer Center was opened in June 1988 as an 800-bed facility for female detainees and sentenced inmates. correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/nycdoc/html/jailst1a.ht **Important Note** The information here below was posted the night before Mary Prantil was arrested and taken into custody: 06/14/2010 B PENDING (Prantil's Criminal Court Date 06/14/2010 ) 05/18/2010 B Mennin, F PENDING No Type Morrison, S Case Continued (adjourned), Returned On Warrant Released on Recognizance 05/07/2010 B Burke, J PENDING No Type Riccio, C Parole Revoked, warrant Ordered - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued 03/24/2010 APAR3A Coin, E PENDING Pre-Arraignment Deposition Given Tejada, I Psychiatric Exam Ordered - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Released on Recognizance Web Crims Search Results 1 through 3 of 3: 010NY022485 Prantil, Mary 6/14/2010 New York Criminal Court 009NY002655 Prantil, Mary T 6/14/2010 New York Criminal Court 009NY046033 Prantil, Mary T 6/14/2010 New York Criminal Court Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence: L 120.50 03 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description : Stalking - 3rd count. ( NOTE* Stalking is what Mary has been accusing us and others of doing to HER, lol ) L 240.30 01 **TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Agg Harass-2nd count, communicate/alarm. Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence: L 240.30 02 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Aggravated Harrassment-2nd count, telephone. L 215.50 03 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Criminal Contempt-2nd count, disobeying the Court. L 240.30 1A **TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Aggravated Harassment-2nd Degree. Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence: L 205.30 00 **TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Resisting Arrest L 240.30 01 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Aggravated Harassment-2nd count, communicate/alarm. More Evidence On Scammer Mary Prantil Posted On May 11th, 2010 Mary Prantil's Current Criminal Records 2010 Posted Here Ethnicity: Unknown Arrest/Incident Date/Time Arrest Date: June 9, 2009 Arrest Time: 11:00 Incident Date: May 6, 2009 Incident Time: 04:42 Case Related Numbers Criminal Justice Tracking Number: 63615729R NYSID Number: 3088617J Arrest Number: M09652561 Summons/Ticket Number: BAC and Vehicle Info Blood Alcohol Content: Vehicle Info: N/A Arresting Officer Info Name: SHEEKO Shield Number: 6560 Tax Registry Number: Agency: NYPD Officer Command: 20 Confidentially Search for Records You are searching for records on First Name: mary Last Name: prantil State: NY DOB: 19640127 MARY THERESA PRANTIL AKA: MARY T PRANTIL AKA: PRANTIL, MARY Year Of Birth: 1964 (46) Address City State Zip 32-85 C2 33 ST ASTORIA NY 11106 3285 33RD ST C2 ASTORIA NY 11106 32-85 33 ST ASTORIA NY 11106 251 E 32ND ST 2C NEW YORK NY 10016 251 E 32ND ST 17F NEW YORK NY 10016 3285 33 WUSD 69 ASTORIA NY 11106 1352 PO BOX NEW YORK NY 10150 PO BOX 1352 NEW YORK NY 10150 Voter Information Name : MARY T PRANTIL Residential Address : 32-85 33 STREET C2, ASTORIA, NY 11106 Mailing Address (if any) : Political Party : Democratic Voter Status : Active Voter District Information Election District : 59 County Legislative District : Senate District : 12 Assembly District : 30 Congressional District : 14 Town : QUEENS Ward : Case Information Court New York Criminal Court Case # 2009NY002655 Defendant Prantil, Mary T Defendant Name:Prantil, Mary T Birth Year:1964 NYSID: 3088617J Status: Incident and Arrest Date:June 22, 2008 Summons/Ticket #: CJTN: 63355383N Arrest Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45 Arrest #: M09602686 Officer Agency:NYPD Command:20 Attorney Information Defense Attorney Name:Unk, Type:Private (Retained) Court Date:January 10, 2009 Court Part:APAR3 Assistant District Attorney Name: Assigned:February 20, 2009 Next Appearance Date:June 14, 2010 Court:New York Criminal Court Part:B Docket Sentence No Sentence Information on File Incident and Arrest Date:June 22, 2008 Summons/Ticket #: CJTN: 63355383N Arrest Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45 Arrest #: M09602686 Officer Agency:NYPD Command:20 Attorney Information Defense Attorney Name:Unk, Type:Private (Retained) Court Date:January 10, 2009 Court Part:APAR3 Assistant District Attorney Name: Assigned:February 20, 2009 Next Appearance Date:June 14, 2010 Court:New York Criminal Court Part:B Docket Sentence No Sentence Information on File Defendant Name:Prantil, Mary T Birth Year:1964 NYSID: 3088617J Status: Incident and Arrest Incident Date:June 22, 2008 Summons/Ticket #: CJTN: 63355383N Arrest Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45 Arrest #: M09602686 Officer Agency:NYPD Command:20 Attorney Information Defense Attorney Name:Unk, Type:Private (Retained) Court Date:January 10, 2009 Court Part:APAR3 Assistant District Attorney Name: Assigned:February 20, 2009 Next Appearance Date:June 14, 2010 Court:New York Criminal Court Part:B Docket Sentence No Sentence Information on File Defendant Name:Prantil, Mary T Birth Year:1964 NYSID: 3088617J Status: Incident and Arrest Date:June 22, 2008 Summons/Ticket #: CJTN: 63355383N Arrest Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45 Arrest #: M09602686 Officer Agency:NYPD Command:20 Attorney Information Defense Attorney Name:Unk, Type:Private (Retained) Court Date:January 10, 2009 Court Part:APAR3 Assistant District Attorney Name: Assigned:February 20, 2009 Next Appearance Date:June 14, 2010 Court:New York Criminal Court Part:B Docket Sentence No Sentence Information on File Case Information Court New York Criminal Court Case # 2009NY002655 Defendant Prantil, Mary T Defendant Name:Prantil, Mary T Birth Year:1964 NYSID: 3088617J Status: Incident and Arrest Date:June 22, 2008 Summons/Ticket #: CJTN: 63355383N Arrest Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45 Arrest #: M09602686 Officer Agency:NYPD Command:20 Attorney Information Defense Attorney Name:Unk, Type:Private (Retained) Court Date:January 10, 2009 Court Part:APAR3 Assistant District Attorney Name: Assigned:February 20, 2009 Next Appearance Date:June 14, 2010 Court:New York Criminal Court Part:B Docket Sentence No Sentence Information on File Case Details - Appearances Case Information Court New York Criminal Court Case # 2009NY002655 Defendant Prantil, Mary T Date/ Part Judge Calendar Section Arraignment/ Hearing Type Court Reporter Outcome/ Release Status 06/14/2010 B PENDING No Type 03/24/2010 B Unknown, PENDING No Type Test, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 03/09/2010 B Whiten, M PENDING No Type Johnson, S Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 03/03/2010 B PENDING No Type Unk, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 02/17/2010 B PENDING No Type Oviedo, Y Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 12/10/2009 B Mcgrath, K PENDING No Type Barna, C Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 10/28/2009 B Burke, J PENDING No Type Morrison, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Released on Recognizance 08/10/2009 B Burke, J PENDING No Type Barna, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Cash $1 (Cash) 07/28/2009 B Whiten, M PENDING No Type Burrofato, Court Adjourned - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bond $1 (Not Posted) 06/09/2009 B Ross, N PENDING No Type Barna, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 04/02/2009 B Kamins, B PENDING No Type Rodriguez, I Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 02/20/2009 B Burke, J PENDING No Type Bent, A Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 01/10/2009 APAR3 Allen, B PENDING Pre-Arraignment Deposition Given Harris, V Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Released on Recognizance Case Details - Charges Case Information Court New York Criminal Court Case # 2009NY002655 Defendant Prantil, Mary T Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence PL 205.30 00 **TOP CHARGE** A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description Resisting Arrest PL 240.30 01 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description Agg Harass-2:communicate/alarm Case Details - Motions Case Information Court New York Criminal Court Case # 2009NY002655 Defendant Prantil, Mary T There are no motions on record for this case. Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence L 240.30 02 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description Agg Har-2nd:telephoneL 215.50 03 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge DescriptionCrim Contempt-2nd:disobey CrtL 240.30 1A **TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge DescriptionAggravated Harassment-2nd Deg Queens Civil Supreme Court Index Number: 022186/2009 Case Name: 3285 REALTY COMPANY LLC vs. PRANTIL, MARY Case Type: Other Real Property Track: Expedited Motion Information: Motion Number Date Filed Filed By Relief Sought Submit Date Answer Demanded Status Decision Order Signed Date 001 02/04/2010 PLAINT Change Or Remove Attorney 03/04/2010 No Decided: 04-MAR-10 MOTION GRANTED Before Justice: PINEDA-KIRWAN Short Form Order 03/04/2010 Court: Queens Civil Supreme Index Number: 022186/2009 Case Name: 3285 REALTY COMPANY LLC vs. PRANTIL, MARY Case Type: Other Real Property Track: Expedited RJI Filed: 01/26/2010 Date NOI Due: NOI Filed: Disposition Deadline: Disposition Date: Calendar Number: Jury Status: Justice Name: DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff: MARK S. FRIELANDER Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active 150 BROADWAY NEW YROK, N.Y. 10038 212 962-2877 Attorney/Firm For Defendant: ATTORNEY RELIEVED Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active 32-30 87th Street East Elmhurst 11369 718-426-7424 Date Part Judge Calendar Section Arraignment/ Hearing Type Court Reporter Outcome/ Release Status 6/14/2010 B ENDING o Type 3/24/2010 B unknown, ENDING o Type est, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 3/09/2010 B hiten, M ENDING o Type ohnson, S Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued RoR Continued 3/03/2010 B ENDING o Type nk, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Released on Recognizance 2/17/2010 B ENDING o Type viedo, Y Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bail Continued 2/10/2009 B cgrath, K ENDING o Type arna, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bail Continued 0/28/2009 B urke, J ENDING o Type orrison, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bail Continued 8/10/2009 B urke, J ENDING o Type arna, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bail Continued 7/28/2009 B hiten, M ENDING o Type urrofato, Court Adjourned - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bail Continued 6/15/2009 C andelbaum, R ENDING o Type ames, C Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bond $500 Cash $500 (Cash) 6/10/2009 APAR2 hiten, M ENDING re-Arraignment Deposition Given ilion, Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued Bond $500 Cash $500 (Not Posted) NEW YORK New York Criminal Court Docket 2009NY046033 Defendant Prantil, Mary T Law Code and Code Section/Subsection PL 240.30 02 Charge Detail A Misdemeanor, 1 count count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: AGG HAR-2ND:TELEPHONE Disposition/Sentence Law Code and Code Section/Subsection PL 215.50 03 Charge Detail A Misdemeanor, 1 count count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: CRIM CONTEMPT-2ND:DISOBEY CRT Disposition/Sentence Law Code and Code Section/Subsection PL 240.30 1A *** TOP CHARGE *** Charge Detail A Misdemeanor, 1 count count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT-2ND DEG Disposition/Sentence Court: Queens County Civil Court Index Number: CV-071786-09/QU Case Name: GE MONEY BANK vs. PRANTIL, MARY Case Type: Civil Classification: Consumer Credit Filing Date: 06/18/2009 Disposition Date: Calendar Number: Jury Demand: No Judge Name: Attorney/Firm(s) For Plaintiff - GE MONEY BANK: Rubin & Rothman LLC Attorney Type: Firm 1787 Veterans Highway Suite 32 P.O.Box 9003 Islandia, New York 11749- (631) 234-1500 ext: Attorney/Firm(s) For Defendant - MARY PRANTIL: Please note that this record report has been generated by an independent searcher, using the Department of State's, State Tax Warrant Notice On-Line Database. The information contained in this report is NOT an official record of the Department of State. Taxpayer Name(s) Selected: City specified in warrant address record of Taxpayer Searched: County in which warrant is filed of Taxpayer Searched: MARY PRANTIL Not Applicable QUEENS Your name selection(s) has returned 1 State Tax Lien Notice histories. Warrant ID# : E-029211902-W001-3 MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST C2 ASTORIA, NY 11106 June 10, 2008 QUEENS $106.21 June 20, 2008 Warrant ID# : E-029159448-W001-7 MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST C2 ASTORIA, NY 11106 February 14, 2008 QUEENS $4, 072.14 February 14, 2008 Taxpayer Name(s) Selected: City specified in warrant address record of Taxpayer Searched: County in which warrant is filed of Taxpayer Searched: MARY PRANTIL Not Applicable QUEENS NEW YORK New York Criminal Court Docket 2009NY046033 Defendant Prantil, Mary T Appearance Information: Appearance Part & Date Judge Calendar Section Court Reporter Release Status Arraignment Type Hearing Type Docket Detail Restraining Orders Applied Against Mary T. Prantil B, June 14, 2010 Pending No Type B, March 24, 2010 UNKNOWN, Pending TEST, RoR Continued No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued B, March 9, 2010 WHITEN, M Pending JOHNSON, S RoR Continued No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued B, March 3, 2010 Pending UNK, Released on Recognizance No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued B, February 17, 2010 Pending OVIEDO, Y Bail Continued No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued B, December 10, 2009 MCGRATH, K Pending BARNA, C Bail Continued No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued B, October 28, 2009 BURKE, J Pending MORRISON, Bail Continued No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued B, August 10, 2009 BURKE, J Pending BARNA, Bail Continued No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued B, July 28, 2009 WHITEN, M Pending BURROFATO, Bail Continued No Type COURT ADJOURNED - Temporary Order of Protection Issued C, June 15, 2009 MANDELBAUM, R Pending JAMES, C Bond $500 Cash $500 (Cash) No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued APAR2, June 10, 2009 WHITEN, M Pending FILION, Bond $500 Cash $500 (Not Posted) Pre-Arraignment Deposition Given CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued Docket Information: Standards and Goals Age Defendant Status Docket Sentence Information: Docket Sentence No Data Available Defense Attorney Information: Name Type Court Date Court Part Firm Name Phone Number Address UNK, 18B (Assigned) June 10, 2009 APAR2 Assistant District Attorney Information: Name Assignment Date June 15, 2009 Defendant Docket Number Summons Number Appearance Date County / Court / Part Judge Prantil, Mary T- 2009NY002655 -06/14/2010 NEW YORK / New York Criminal Court / B Prantil, Mary T 2009NY046033 06/14/2010 NEW YORK / New York Criminal Court / B State of California & Queens NY Criminal & Civil Records On Mary T. Prantil : Supreme Court Civil ; Lawsuit Case Detail : Court: Queens Civil Supreme Index Number: 031093/2002 Case Name: PRANTIL, MARY vs. LAMPROPOULOS, CHRISTOPHER ANO Case Type: Motor Vehicle Track: Complex RJI Filed: 11/28/2003 Date NOI Due: NOI Filed: Disposition Deadline: Disposition Date: Calendar Number: Jury Status: Justice Name: COMPLIANCE CONF JUDGE Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff: GEOGHAN & COHEN Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active 7 PENN PLAZA SUITE 505 NEW YORK NY 10001 212-465-0600 Attorney/Firm For Defendant: JERROLD N. COHEN Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active 163 MINEOLA BLVD - POB #229 MINEOLA, NY 11501 1 - 718 - 895 - 3215 ISSERLIS AND SULLIVAN, ESQ., Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active 999 STEWART AVENUE BETHPAGE, NEW YORK 11714 516-349 0111 Court: Queens Civil Supreme Index Number: 022186/2009 Case Name: 3285 REALTY COMPANY LLC vs. PRANTIL, MARY Case Type: Other Real Property Track: Expedited Appearance Information: Appearance Date Time On For Appearance Outcome Justice / Part Comments Motion Seq 05/24/2010 Supreme Trial DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN PT 36 PRELIM CONF 05/19/2010 Supreme Trial Remove Stay DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN PT 36 GEN CAL 03/04/2010 Motion Fully Submitted DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN PT 36 MOTIONS OSC=LIC 001 02/22/2010 Supreme Trial Stayed-Attorney Relieved DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN PT 36 PRELIM CONF 45 DAYS PER SFO 3/4/10 02/08/2010 Supreme Initial (first time on) Adjourned DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN PT 36 PRELIM CONF Previous address Locations & Civil Records Of Mary T. Prantil 3285 33rd St, Astoria, NY 11106 Reported:12/01/2002 251 32nd St, New York, NY 10016 Reported:07/18/2001 3285 33 Wusd # 69, Astoria, NY 11106 Reported:06/01/2001 3044 1st Ave, San Diego, CA 92103 Reported:11/13/2000 1352 PO Box, New York, NY 10150 Reported:06/18/1997 3044 Juniper St # 2, San Diego, CA 92104 Reported:10/01/1995 1154 22nd # 2, San Diego, CA 92102 Reported:12/01/1993 319 Gravilla St, La Jolla, CA 92037 Reported:08/01/1992 Criminal Court Records Criminal Profile Subject Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Date: 12/8/2007 3:45:39 PM Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Source State: AOCDOCCourts County: SAN DIEGO Date Reported(CA): 10/30/2006 Offense: 1 NOT SPECIFIED BY STATE Offense State: CA Offense County: SAN DIEGO Case Number: M695524 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Source State: AOCDOCCourts County: SAN DIEGO Date Reported(CA): 10/30/2006 Offense: 1 NOT SPECIFIED BY STATE Offense State: CA Offense County: SAN DIEGO Case Number: T105836 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Source State: AOCDOCCourts County: SAN DIEGO Date Reported(CA): 10/30/2006 Offense: 1 NOT SPECIFIED BY STATE Offense State: CA Offense County: SAN DIEGO Case Number: T108343 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Source State: AOCDOCCourts County: SAN DIEGO Date Reported(CA): 10/30/2006 Offense: 1 NOT SPECIFIED BY STATE Offense State: CA Offense County: SAN DIEGO Case Number: T110326 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Source State: AOCDOCCourts County: SAN DIEGO Date Reported(CA): 10/30/2006 Offense: 1 NOT SPECIFIED BY STATE Offense State: CA Offense County: SAN DIEGO Case Number: T120948 Criminal Court Records Name: PRANTIL, MARY T Case Number: M598531 Case County: San Diego Source State: CA Case File Date: 03/23/1990 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Case Number: M695524 Case County: San Diego Source State: CA Case File Date: 02/01/1995 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Case Number: T105836 Case County: San Diego Source State: CA Case File Date: 11/13/1992 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Case Number: T108343 Case County: San Diego Source State: CA Case File Date: 01/04/1993 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Case Number: T110326 Case County: San Diego Source State: CA Case File Date: 02/02/1993 Name: PRANTIL, MARY THERESA Case Number: T120948 Case County: San Diego Source State: CA Case File Date: 08/09/1993 Bankruptcies, Tax Liens & Judgments by Name for: Name: PRANTIL, MARY T Address: PO BOX 1352, NEW YORK NY 10150 Action: STATE TAX LIEN Court: SACRAMENTO COUNTY COURT (RD) Plaintiff: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case: 9706100302 (06/10/1997) Liability/Assests: $1, 310.00/NA Name: PRANTIL, MARY T Address: 251 E 32ND ST #2C, NEW YORK NY 10016 Action: BANKRUPTCY Court: NEW YORK FED COURT-NEW YORK CITY (NEW YORK County) Case: 9640110 (01/11/1996) Liability/Assests: NA/NA Name: PRANTIL, MARY T Address: 251 E 32ND ST #2C, NEW YORK NY 10016 Action: BANKRUPTCY Court: NEW YORK FED COURT-NEW YORK CITY (NEW YORK County) Plaintiff: PRO SE Case: 9640110 (01/11/1996) Liability/Assests: NA/NA Judgement Against Name: PRANTIL, MARY T Address: 3038 DICKENS ST, SAN DIEGO CA 92106 Action: SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Court: KEARNEY MESA MUNI - SAN DIEGO CO Plaintiff: LIBS CHIROPRACTOR CENTER Case: 570215 (12/19/1991) Liability/Assests: $2, 198.00/NA Supreme Court - Motion Detail Court: Queens Civil Supreme Index Number: 031093/2002 Case Name: PRANTIL, MARY vs. LAMPROPOULOS, CHRISTOPHER ANO Case Type: Motor Vehicle Track: Complex Appearance Information: Appearance Date Time On For Appearance Outcome Justice / Part Comments Motion Seq 10/26/2004 Supreme Trial Stayed-Bankruptcy ALLAN B. WEISS PRENOTE COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE INTERBORO 01/05/2004 Supreme Trial Preliminary Conference Held ALLAN B. WEISS PT 2 PRELIM CONF 12/22/2003 Supreme Initial (first time on) Adjourned ALLAN B. WEISS PT 2 PRELIM CONF Manhattan CriminalCourt, 100 Centre Street, New York - (646) 386-4500 Give the clerk this information-they know who Mary Prantil AKA PsychicNSeattle is. NYSID: 03088617J which is Mary Prantil's JAIL/Prison number. Prantil's next court date is this next month of June 2011 but no matter what happens, we will continue to serve Divinity and move forward with Divinity's work as Their messengers. Ficticious names of Mary T. Prantil Of Astoria New York/ AKAs Of Mary Prantil: AKA "American Citizen Speaking Out" AKA WitchcraftSTOPPER - Seattle ( USA ) " AKA Honest Person AKA Honestperson AKA Park City USA, AKA Uta, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania, AKA Washington D.C.AKA Washington, AKA Astoria, New York, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania AKA Park City, AKA Utah AKA Astoria New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA SadisticPsychicJanWindglowsHURTME2 - Houston (USA AKA Unhappy Client - Xxx (U.S.A AKA CONArtist-JimMorganNOTaWizardorMagicalPowers AKA Houston (USA AKA SCAMJanWindglowsSpellCastingSchemeOperation AKA Settle USA AKA Astoria USA AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A. AKA Cc - Essex United Kingdom AKA Enforcer Of Justice AKA Washington D.C., Washington AKA New York, New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A AKA Enforced Justice AKA Phoenix USA AKA UK Other AKA PsychicHater (Seattle Washington)United States of America, AKA do not tread on me (Astoria New York AKA OpinionatedAmerican (Tampa Florida)United States of America AKA Psychic Hater AKA Toronto Ontario AKA Jesus Hates Satan
JanWindglowsWitchcraftCyberSCAM
Tampa,#4Consumer Comment
Mon, May 23, 2011
May 23, 2011 Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for
Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict, Witchcraft is EVIL.
Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. - NOT in Bonners Ferry, ID
- FAKE Address - Fake Spellcaster- NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS! Criminal Jan Windglows - NOT in Bonners Ferry, ID - FAKE Address Fake Spellcaster- NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!
JAN WINDGLOWS IS CRIMINALLY INSANE AND HAS BEEN IN AND OUT OF HOSPITALS FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE ALL HER LIFE, FOR HEROIN ABUSE AND Bi-POLAR ISSUES WHEN JAN WINDGLOWS STOPS TAKING HER LITHIUM.
Only insane people call themselves a SPELLCASTERNo such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan is a Cyber SCAM! Queen Lilith aka Jan Windglows is an EVIL Beast like Satan! Witchcraft is a SCAM!
Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you? Jan Windglows is a 200 lbs fat woman with a computer connection see real photo - NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!!!
WHEN JAN WINDGLOWS ISNT ANSWERING THE PHONE IT'S BECAUSE JAN IS SHOOTING UP HEROIN AND CHASING THE DRAGON....JIM MORGAN NAMED HIMSELF THE DRAGON...SICKOS
May 22, 2011 -Mrs. Jan aka Jan Windglows hurt me; worst service; stole money; breaches confidHeroin Addict Jan Windglows.Witchcraft is how Jan Windglows supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. - NOT in Bonners Ferry, ID -
FAKE Address - Fake Spellcaster- NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!entiality DO NOT USE SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan aka Queen Lilith!
May 22, 2011 Many people agree with me that Witchcraft is a SCAM, that there is no such thing as SPELLS! I do not believe in SPELLS or Witchcraft!!! Jan Windglows took advantage of me when I was in a spiritual crisis, and said that SPELLS would be my answer if I only paid Jan Windglows more and more money. The SPELLS did not work. Jan Windglows
ripped me off, and Jan Windglows kept asking for more and more money, like a bottomless pit in hell, where Jan Windglows lives.
May 22, 2011 -Mrs. Jan aka Jan Windglows hurt me; worst service; stole money; breaches confidentiality-DO NOT USE SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan Many people like me have been victimized by SCAM Jan Windglows aka Queen
Lilith aka Enchantress Jan 208, Jim Morgan, Mike, Cahill, Kim Thrasher and Matilda Sommerfield. No such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a SCAM. There are NO friggin' Spellcaster or Spells! Hey I do believe that psychics can be
good, and also believe there are bad psychics aka criminals like Jan Windglows - who stole money from me. No such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a SCAM END OF STORY of the Jan Windglows SAGA the JURY IS OUT _ SCAM Jan Windglows is GUILTY of Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Cyber ID Theft.
DO NOT USE: www.bloodloveandlustspells.com, www.dragonspells.com, and www.angelicseals.com !!!
DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress Jan 208 aka Janhett T.Windglows of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, ID, 83805 Ph: 208-714-4348.
I agree - NO SPELLS WORK! If you think SPELLS work like Jan Windglows tells all her victims -then they only exist in both your deluded minds. SCAM Jan Windglows brain only money on the brain - HOW TO GET AS MUCH MONEY OFF YOU. Hey Jan Windglows You need an enema up there. Stick the pipe in your third eye too not your ear hole like the guy that doesn't believe in psychics. Jan Windglows is Endless drivel!!
.."Blame it on Divinity" ...that is what SCAM Jan Windglows said
when I wanted my $2100 returned - that the spells I paid $2100 didn't work bcs divinity didn't want me to have it...Jan Windglows is a SCAM crooked bad egg. Do not use: Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress. No such thing
as SPELLS - but there are good psychics, like there are good people. Psychic in Seattle is a good person and good psychic. Jan Windglows is bad Psychic and horrible human being that needs to step into to the light. No such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM!! No such thing as SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM!! No such thing as
SPELLS!! Jan Windglows is a Cyber SCAM!!
DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress Jan 208 aka Janhett T.Windglows aka Mrs. Jan of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, ID, 83805 Ph: 208-714-4348 Feb 8, 2011 -Mrs. Jan aka Jan
Windglows hurt me; worst service; stole money; breaches confidentiality-DO NOT USE Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan
DO NOT USE: Jan Windglows aka Queen Lilith aka Enchantress Jan 208 aka Janhett T.Windglows aka Mrs. Jan of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box 118, Bonners Ferry, ID, 83805 Ph: 208-714-4348 Feb 8, 2011 -Mrs. Jan
aka Jan Windglows hurt me; worst service; stole money; breaches confidentiality-
MS. JAN WINDGLOWS POST NO REAL ADDRESS- Cyber SCAM Jan Windglows aka Mrs. Jan aka Janhett T Windglows, PO Box 118 is a SCAM Address- Jan Windglows does NOT Live in Bonners Ferry, ID - the phone is not a real home number but rather a voice line. DO NOT USE: SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows aka Mrs. Jan aka Queen Lilith.
Criminally INSANE Jan Windglow is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin
Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglow is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. - NOT in Bonners Ferry, ID - FAKE Address - Fake Spellcaster- NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!
Jan Windglows who are you? Where are you? Jan Windglows is a 200 lbs fat woman with a computer connection see real photo - NO SUCH THING AS SPELLS!!!
WHEN JAN WINDGLOWS ISNT ANSWERING THE PHONE IT'S BECAUSE JAN IS SHOOTING UP HEROIN AND CHASING THE DRAGON....JIM MORGAN NAMED HIMSELF THE DRAGON...SICKO
May 23, 2011 Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict, Witchcraft is EVIL.
SCAMJanWindglowsEXPOSED
Bonners Ferrys,#5Consumer Suggestion
Tue, December 28, 2010
Jan Windglows is a complete SCUM!!! Thuis woman is a complete Ripoff Queen that is using the Internet to ripoff ppl for so-called SPELLS.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
One - there is no such thing as a SPELL - so if you are reading this - pick up a Bible - as it clearly states this - or better call a good friend and talk out your problem.
If you contact this LOSER SCAM Jan Windglows then you are only asking for trouble. SCAM Spellcasteer Jan Windglows is committing Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and is a verified Serail Cyber Stalker.
Jan Windglows is not the smartest person either as Jan Windglows has left a trail of her Cyber Crimes all over the Internet.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
Dragon Fire
New York,#6Consumer Comment
Wed, December 08, 2010
JanWindglowsNEIGHBOR
Bonners Ferrys,#7Consumer Suggestion
Thu, October 28, 2010
on-line SCammer Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - is a verifiied convicted criminal for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Identiy Theft.
I know because I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida - JAIL BIRD Scam Jan Windglow is a FUGITIVE from SUMTER Florida JAIL where I personally bailed her out on a number of occasions. I am now a PAID informant.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME, associated with Psychics, Spell Casters and almost most Con-Artist convicted of Grand Larceny.
It the CRIME of promising results for a price.
For Example - For $5000 I will reunite you with your X-wife.
Call Police give whereabouts of SCAM Jan Windglows who only offers a PO BOX. Everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME.
Scam Jan Windglows uses WIGS and different PHOTOS on her websites. BEWARE this is the latest...also known as a BLONDE. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SCAM Jan Windglows
on-line SCammer Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - is a verifiied convicted criminal for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Identiy Theft.
I know because I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida - JAIL BIRD Scam Jan Windglow is a FUGITIVE from SUMTER Florida JAIL where I personally bailed her out on a number of occasions. I am now a PAID informant.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME, associated with Psychics, Spell Casters and almost most Con-Artist convicted of Grand Larceny.
It the CRIME of promising results for a price.
For Example - For $5000 I will reunite you with your X-wife.
Call Police give whereabouts of SCAM Jan Windglows who only offers a PO BOX. Everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME.
Scam Jan Windglows uses WIGS and different PHOTOS on her websites. BEWARE this is the latest...also known as a BLONDE. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SCAM Jan Windglows
on-line SCammer Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - is a verifiied convicted criminal for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Identiy Theft.
I know because I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida - JAIL BIRD Scam Jan Windglow is a FUGITIVE from SUMTER Florida JAIL where I personally bailed her out on a number of occasions. I am now a PAID informant.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME, associated with Psychics, Spell Casters and almost most Con-Artist convicted of Grand Larceny.
It the CRIME of promising results for a price.
For Example - For $5000 I will reunite you with your X-wife.
Call Police give whereabouts of SCAM Jan Windglows who only offers a PO BOX. Everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME.
Scam Jan Windglows uses WIGS and different PHOTOS on her websites. BEWARE this is the latest...also known as a BLONDE. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SCAM Jan Windglows
on-line SCammer Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - is a verifiied convicted criminal for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Identiy Theft.
I know because I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida - JAIL BIRD Scam Jan Windglow is a FUGITIVE from SUMTER Florida JAIL where I personally bailed her out on a number of occasions. I am now a PAID informant.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME, associated with Psychics, Spell Casters and almost most Con-Artist convicted of Grand Larceny.
It the CRIME of promising results for a price.
For Example - For $5000 I will reunite you with your X-wife.
Call Police give whereabouts of SCAM Jan Windglows who only offers a PO BOX. Everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME.
Scam Jan Windglows uses WIGS and different PHOTOS on her websites. BEWARE this is the latest...also known as a BLONDE. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SCAM Jan Windglows
Ramjet
Somewhere,#8Consumer Comment
Tue, September 14, 2010
Good grief people, sue each other or something. Carrying on here with your long silly immature rants (that NO one reads by the way) accomplishes nothing except making you all look like a bunch of buffoons.
Ridiculous.
Mary T. Prantil Is A Scam Artist
Astoria,#9REBUTTAL Individual responds
Tue, September 14, 2010
Little Mary is back under yet another assumed set of fictitious names on ROR to hide what shes done. Well, RamS-hit / Tracy AKA Mary prantil, YOUVE BEEN EXPOSED AGAIN, looser. All your little efforts in attempting to make people believe that you dont have criminal records have fallen short, as these records on you are coming from State agencies that can be looked up by anyone.
All anyone has to do is look them up via the numbers and links weve provided on your CRIMINAL report, just like any other information weve provided on your dirty daddy and uncle. Moving on, you say that you were a client of Jans and that she ripped you off, and then you contradict yourself by saying that you werent, the sums of money you claim was taken from you go from $5,000 to $750,000 etc.
Your telling people that you GOT A LEGAL REFUND FROM PAY PAL, But you didnt get anything from me or the Windglows' site, IDIOT. You did get a refund from the Cahill site after you charged back on him five or six times as is explained in his report against you, The report Celeste made is backing this and other things up on you.
Your refund from Cahill was anything but legal according to Pay Pal and his Attorney and thats why Cahill is casting curses on youre a_s every week LOL. Thats why you cant get a Pay Pal account now under your real name. Of course we have the original Pay Pal records that show you trying to do this to Blood Love And Lust Spells.
You say that you were never a client of Windglows or mine yet, your up her scamming and bad mouthing us while contradicting yourself every five minutes by saying that we "ripped you off" out of large differing amounts of money. Your accusing us of criminal acts to which you have no evidence in any remote sense as these charges are nothing more then just you being nasty and trying to cause us trouble, or to harm legal business interstate commerce.
Again, you say that were stalking you, and that we are criminals however, we can prove you wrong here as well and that you are the CRIMINAL. Why ? because we have 67 pages of phone records showing your number calling us in every five seconds with harassing messages, ATTEMPTING TO HACK INTO OUR BUSINESS CELL ACCOUNT. Not only coming from your number but the numbers of others in which you spoofed through a card to which we now have the records to.
Then of course theres your voice sound bits in which your calling in to threaten, blackmail, extort and harass by stating every negative thing under the sun. Dont say its not your voice, BECAUSE IT IS, and all anyone has to do is in speaking to you to solve this great mystery.
All of your sites have been downloaded,your speech is on tape, your criminal and civil records are posted via public records, and we have everyone of your pathetic emails ever sent. Youve given me a really good case against you Mary. I mean, after this is turned in along with all the other complaints against you, YOUR LOOKING AT A LOT OF TIME in jail. Look up the federal laws concerning your activities, CRIMINAL.
I finally have you C_t, and your little games are pretty much over. WOW, look at all that trouble your in, The state of New York is going to put your lying a_s away for a long time. Youve stalled for about as long as you can and now your going to pay for all your criminal crap against others. By the way, everything your charging us with over the net is exactly what your being charged with in the NY courts LOL, LOOSER.
Youve stated that "spells dont work" however, your life is a basket of Sh_t right now, isnt it? Of course it is. To prove this, all anyone has to do is to look over your life, especially the last two or three years of it. Your talk about God a lot yet, all you can do is make quotes out of the Bible to which your guilty of much of the time.
Your anything BUT "Gods light in New York" as this is just plain offensive as you practice nothing but deception and evil all the day and night long, much as what your doing up here this very second. We have no doubt that people see you as the Satan and not ourselves despite your ratings about "The Dragon". Incidentally, which dragon are you talking about as the Bible is full of both good and bad dragons, you scripture quoting dullard.
The only one God is going to crush is YOU, trash can Mary and not ANY Dragon. And d**n sure not me. Look who God is permitting to be crushed here, NOT ME, BUT YOU through your own speech and deeds that are now being revealed to the world.
Youre the typical small minded Troll, or Neanderthal who only goes around parroting what theyve heard from others, and not going off of any obtained knowledge acquired from your own personal research. I could rip your statements apart one by one and enjoy doing it, but this would be like arguing with a two year old with s_t in her pants. "SCAM, SCAM, SCAM" is all I would hear from you as you have no real knowledge about anything, especially the Bible or magical practice.
When you speak about religion or faith issues you really come off as sounding very uninformed. Not only this, but you sound like your ground zero emotionally and spiritually, NOT A EVOLVED PERSON with understanding of the issues in which you speak. God will not protect you nor will he ever love you WHY ? BECAUSE HE WILL NOT PROTECT OR LOVE EVIL no matter the form it takes.
Everything about you is evil, God doesnt love evil and the Devil wont take you because he hates IGNORANCE, stupidity such as can be found in your words and deeds everywhere. Even though your full of ARROGANCE, PRIDE, EGO and DECEPTION; your too stupid to even enter therein even to Hell itself. Your likened to the beast of the field living from moment to moment fulfilling its most basic needs, and nothing more.
I mean, you are like a 8 year old in the body of a 47 year old woman whom feels it necessary to starve herself because she thinks it makes her look sexy. Oh, LOOK AT ME, Mary, Im a beautiful and talented media executive living the American dream ((((((NOT)))))))). NEWS FLASH, It makes you look like a FOOL in the body of a P.O.W or A.I.D.S patient and this is why people on your little twitter sites wont speak with you? Of course they all see the Lilith link that weve been sending out to everyone as well.
Thats why you spend much of your time talking to yourself on all your 5 or 6 stupid looking sites, the blog sites that havent been deleted like previous five that we turned to twitter and e-blogger etc. Thats why all your friends are, and have left you, Again because youre a criminal and a stalker that takes advantage of people and businesses who have shown you kindness.
Youre a scammer that is going back to jail really soon as the result of MANY MANY people whom you have harassed, stalked and tormented over the years.
Oh, I also saw your latest victim on the forum sites accusing you of charging back on him for a lot of money, of course he really does look like a Scammer, but still. Oh, I get it, thats what you met by how does the Scammer Scam The Scammer, YOU SCAMED THE SCAMMER. No mystery there as you scammed the scammer Prantil, didnt ya ?
You scammed Matilda, Kim, Gary and Mike Cahill along with many others, right ? YOU DIDNT SCAM the Windglows site as she was smart enough to obtain the original records of what you tried to do and thus took this up with Pay Pal. Then Pay Pal dropped youre a_s, didnt they? Especially after what they saw you do to the Cahill site shortly after you left the B.L.&L.S site. All these records are factual information that can be verified by anyone.
Hey Mary, how do you like the Lilith Site (((Redacted))) ? Hows it feel to be exposed along with your DIRT BAG dad and uncle ? Your from a long line of dirt bags arent you ? Well, I am perfectly content in that I can let everyone know exactly who and what you are.
You spend much of your time calling others """"scammers""""" and making other fictitious allegations at them from behind your little computer, when in all actuality YOU ARE THE SCAMMER TRYING TO COVER YOUR CRIMINAL DEEDS that you committed over the last twenty years.
Not only this, but youre a COWARDLY CRIMINAL who cant even use your real name to defend yourself on the forum sites. WHY, BECAUSE YOUR GUILTY via the proof submitted, AND YOU HAVE BEEN CLEARLY EXPOSED, thats why.
I dare you to say, "my name is Mary Prantil and I didnt do any of this stuff" on the forum sites. You wont because your all ready denying on your form sites however, you do come up here under different names trying to deceive people into think your different people supporting your cause, right ? Liar.
Your nothing but a HABITUAL COWARDLY LIEING SCAM ARTIST who has been exposed in everything that you say as a lie, Youve been CAUGHT RED HANDED in scamming businesses, you are a criminal with records who is now attempting to lie over and over again thinking that your going to cover it all up by burying our post, NOT WORKING. Get It ? YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT, CRIMINAL.
The NYDA is going to put you away, also they will be receiving help from a much higher office soon that Ive been talking to. When they are done with you the other will launch their charges. So, keep on posting your uninformed trash, keep making your bogus charges as no one believe you any way. Its only a matter of time and you will be arrested AGAIN and put in jail for a long time.
Keep sending your emails or calling us as we will just add this to your case file to turn over. Keep posting as were collecting your IP addresses from ED, keep on keeping on if you like. You must want to F-k up your life and go to jail badly as you just keep giving me stuff to use against you. Oh, know what ? LOTS OF PEOPLE DO READ THESE REPORT, 20,000 VIEWED THE LILITH SITE LAST MONTH, so people really do care about who you are and what youve been up to. The police, comedy clubs, fortune 500 and anyone else looking to avoid scam artist and trouble makers like you. That was just last month and we look forward to seeing the new numbers this month, especially since Ive worked on the site and now have it all over the internet coming up over and around all your scammer trash sites.
Your not a New Yorker "living the American dream" however, YOU ARE an ex-citizen running from your past in California thats now living a pipe dream in New York State. Think "PETTY CRIMINAL", or "two bit criminal" living a life of poverty in a dirty little apartment while being supported by your working class mother, NOT A MILLIONARESS as you proclaim, I looked her up, liar.
You're NOT A CELBERITY, more so than some looser creep trying to be funny by acting like a comedian out side in the parking lot of a waffle house in Queens. No one even knows your name at the places you tell everyone your performing in. Your whole life is a lie, Prantil. Your nothing but some anorexic who_e looking for sex while trying to dazzle everyone with deception of what you would like them to think you are. A larger then life FAKE is all you are.
Of course, then it all comes crashing down around you because they eventually she you for who you really are: A two bit criminal liar who causes sadness and torment after they try to help you in some way, or tell you the truth about yourself. Oh, by the way, YOU WERE IN RIKERS ISLAND being evaluated for emotional well being, and then released.
RECORDS FROM STATE AGENCIES DONT LIE, so I guess they thought you were crazy, or they wouldnt have put you in for a mental observation for two weeks. How did that test turn out Mary-ARE YOU CRAZY OR NOT? I hope they found you NOT CRAZY so justice can be applied to the fullest extent that the law will allow in your case.
Hey Prantil, did you know that it goes against FEDERAL laws to post negative and unwanted advertisements against people on the Internet? Like what youve done with ourselves and others not related to us? Moreover that it is unlawful to ride on someones coat tails while promoting negative and fictitious criminal charges against them and thus communicating alarm to the public.
Communicating alarm to the public of a fictitious nature while promoting your own ventures, using their name and likeness in the process of this crime. Did you know that calling or writing someone against their will while threatening them is a invasion of their privacy be they a business or individual.
Not to mention charging them with fictitious crimes like extortion, fraud, hacking, aggravated harassment and stalking. I bet you didnt but now you do. Guess what, you have carried out these same things against us and others and we have all the proof of it, four years of proof.
Youve been accusing everyone else of the very things you have been doing to THEM. I would be very concerned if I were you. I mean, in knowing that four of five of us have solid proof of theses things that youve carried out etc. Thats the difference here between the TRASH you post and what we have to say about you (((( WE HAVE PROOF ))) and you dont.
WE HAVE THE PROOF AND YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT BULL_HIT accusations posted under fictitious names. Again, our evidence comes from the State and public records, eyewitness accounts of businesses and private people, law enforcement officials, background searches and Pay Pal records. ALL THIS CAN BE VERIFIED and folks can just look it up on you, What do you have? NOTHING BUT RUNNING OFF AT THE MOUTH.
Mike Cahill has all kinds of Pay Pal charge records on you, records from Pay Pal telling him that you have done this to numerous people. Matilda has records of you charging back on her, and Michael Jenkins has all your accusing voice mails concerning all of us. Mike Cahill has all your voice sound files concerning your calls to him,, and we all have all your crazy and nasty emails that youve sent to us recently, The DA also has copies of all this.
Yes you are a CRIMINAL Pran-Idiot that mixes religion, ripping people off , harassing innocent folks and deviant sexual practices along with many other unsavory things that you do. Yeah, you really are an "upstanding" citizen "living the American dream", NOT. Youre a mixed up and turned around piece of s_it who is on the take just like dad and uncle Richard.
You know nothing of charity, peace or bringing joy into anyones life but are more so just a feeder blood sucker on the backs of those who really do try to do the right thing and persue happy and peaceful lives.
Youre a F_king PARISITE Mary, that ALL of society can do without, in my opinion who does and says anything she can to get noticed even if it comes at the expense of others, youre a mean spirited, jealous, vindictive and envious person that hasnt changed a bit in the four years Ive known of you. Your likened to a stagnate pond full of rotten water and your life reflects this.
In closing, why dont you crawl back under your rock and let the good people of the world strive for success and happiness in their lives. JUST BECAUSE YOUR TO d**n LAZY to do this for yourself, and further want to ride off the hard work of others as a result, THE WORLD DOESNT OWE YOU A LIVING and society just needs to scrape you off the bottom of it's shoe, you piece of s_t.
Say what you will after this post prantil, but know your time is short as your going back to jail in about a month or so. Also everyone that reads your crap under your little fake names will just blow you off as the lying idiot that youve always been on these form sites.
So, just keep talking to yourself up here and pretending to be others attacking us for whatever scammer reasons you have. The truth is the truth and it will NEVER change no matter how many time you try to distort it. BYE, FREAK !
P.S: All Your Sites and post are Downloaded to disk, Ask someone what that means legally, Criminal Mary Prantil
OpinionatedAmerican
Tampa,#10Consumer Suggestion
Mon, August 30, 2010
Scam Jan Windglows is a Cyber Stalker and Menace - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry 208-714-4348. SCAM Jan Windglows is BALD from her CRACK addiction and uses WIGS to disguise herself.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted Felon from SUMTER Florda Jail - it is PUBLIC information for those want to bother and look it up.
Hey SCAM Jan Windglows I did look up the info on Mary Prantil - and you POST LIES - these are just COURT DATES not CONVICTIONS and hey SCAM Jan Windglows - so is the info on the NY ADA - I bet you do speak to him...guess what - Ms. Prantil is NOT at Rikers Island as you say.
SCAM Jan Windglows has been caught in her lies and Cyber Stalking- but worse since the recent postings that caught my EYE have caught the attention of an X-employee that worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida.
Ex- emplyee trhank you for posting the info about SUMTER Jail -SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE from Sumter Flroda JAIL - look who is calling the Kettle BLACK.
Scam Jan Windglows Verified Convicted Criminal and SCAMMER!!! Do Not use www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho..previously PO BOX #712 Driggs, Idaho last mailing address: 7961 Court, Bushnell Idaho...home of SUMTER JAIL.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows - Convicted Criminal and Cyber Stalker - BOYCOTT the SCAM Site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
Jan Windglows you can run but you can't HIDE - The SUMTER Florida JAIL want you back - SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE - for Deception Fraud - Everytime SCAM Jan Windglows offer to do a SPELL for MONEY Jan Windglows is commtting DECEPTION FRAUD - call the Police and report the CRIME
Scam Jan Windglows is a Cyber Stalker and Menace - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry 208-714-4348. SCAM Jan Windglows is BALD from her CRACK addiction and uses WIGS to disguise herself.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted Felon from SUMTER Florda Jail - it is PUBLIC information for those want to bother and look it up.
Hey SCAM Jan Windglows I did look up the info on Mary Prantil - and you POST LIES - these are just COURT DATES not CONVICTIONS and hey SCAM Jan Windglows - so is the info on the NY ADA - I bet you do speak to him...guess what - Ms. Prantil is NOT at Rikers Island as you say.
SCAM Jan Windglows has been caught in her lies and Cyber Stalking- but worse since the recent postings that caught my EYE have caught the attention of an X-employee that worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida.
Ex- emplyee trhank you for posting the info about SUMTER Jail -SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE from Sumter Flroda JAIL - look who is calling the Kettle BLACK.
Scam Jan Windglows Verified Convicted Criminal and SCAMMER!!! Do Not use www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho..previously PO BOX #712 Driggs, Idaho last mailing address: 7961 Court, Bushnell Idaho...home of SUMTER JAIL.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows - Convicted Criminal and Cyber Stalker - BOYCOTT the SCAM Site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
Jan Windglows you can run but you can't HIDE - The SUMTER Florida JAIL want you back - SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE - for Deception Fraud - Everytime SCAM Jan Windglows offer to do a SPELL for MONEY Jan Windglows is commtting DECEPTION FRAUD - call the Police and report the CRIME
PsychicHater
Seattle,#11Author of original report
Fri, August 27, 2010
Hey Scammer Jan Windglows - Spell Casting is not a legitimate business...GET A LIFE SCAM Jan Windglows
Dragon Fire
New York,#12Consumer Comment
Wed, August 25, 2010
DOES EVERYONE ( as IF anyone ever reads this except for us, LOL ) FEEL THE SAME WAY WE DO ABOUT PRANTIL'S STUPID POSTINGS AND HOW RIDICULOUS SHE SOUNDS, LOL???????
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)
===========================================================================
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 an
PsychicHater
Seattle,#13Author of original report
Tue, August 24, 2010
SCAMM Jan Windglows is a Convited Criminal for DECEPTION FRAUD, Aggravated Harasssment and Garand Larceny. DO NOT CALL 208-714-4348
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM READ
Http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
PO BOx #118 Bonners Ferry, Idaho 208-714-4348
DO NOT Call SCAM Jan Windglows - once SCAM Jan Windglows gets your MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows will start to stalk and harass you for more MONEY - by posting lies on the Global Internet like Blackmail to get MONEY for Spells you don't want.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a VERIFIED Convicted Criminal form Bushenell, Florida. I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows when she lived at 7961 Court St, Bushnell Florida, 805-455-6548.
SCAM Jan Windglows only wants you MONEY!!!
SCAM Jan Windglows is the #1 Most Hated On-line SCAMMER !!!!
BEWARE - SACAM Jan Windglows operates several On-line SCAM SITES - Blood Love anbd Lsut Spells. Castle Eye and Dragaon Spells - all Ripoff Schemes - of DECEPTION FRAUD!!
BEWARE SCAM Jan Windglows could stalk you next..SCAM jan Windglows #1 Most Hated On-line Scammer.
OpinionatedAmerican
Tampa,#14Consumer Suggestion
Mon, August 16, 2010
Send email 
|
Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows Complaints - Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows Convicted of DECEPTION FRAUD; Cyber Stalker DO NOT CALL 208-714-4348 | |||||||
| View all Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows complaints | |||||||
Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows | |||||||
| Posted: 2010-08-14 by JesusLoverREBUKESatan Send email | |||||||
|
| |||||||
|
Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows Convicted of DECEPTION FRAUD; Cyber Stalker DO NOT CALL 208-714-4348
DO NOT SCAMMED by SCAM Queen Jan Windglows! Mary Pranrtil asks: How do you SCAM the SCAMMER? Mary Prantil never claimed too and never worked for SCAM Jan Windglows - Mary Prantil does not care where these Con-Artist live that is for the FBI and POLICE to figure out!! Mary Prantil says: I was ripped off of MONEY then SCAM Jan Windglows wanted more MONEY...Mary Prantil says:JAN WINDGLOWS charged my PayPal $5000 and I got a legal REFUND in 2006! Mary Prantil asks: HOw do you SCAM the SCAMMER? - We are now in 2010 and they are posting false information about my Father and Uncle...what does a tax Bill for $106 that was paid in 2003 on time have anything to do with the original Ripoff of Spells Jan Windglows stole MONEY. Jan Windglows is the SCAMMER soliciting SPELLS on the Global Internet - that is the Crime - Deception Fraud and Grand Larceny. Jan Windglows commits a crime everytime she offers to do a SPELL for money. MULTIPLE REPORTS of SCAM Jan Windglows on Ripoff Report.com http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/scam-jan-windglows-a/scam-jan-windglows-aka-mystica-f3d2b.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/extortionist-jan-win/extortionist-jan-windglows-aka-9c736.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/astrologers-psychics/verified-criminals-j/verified-criminals-jan-windglo-3adeb.htm Mary Prantil says: Contrary to the LIS posted by SCAM Jan Windglows - I am not a Criminal and I am not at Rikers Island. I have made Court Apperarances in connection to the Cover up of a ASSAULT at 346 West End Avenue. The number 34710011054 has to do with alleged charges - NO sentence or conviction. The case is one of a cover up - and it's getting Sealed and Dismissed and will be OVER by October 14, 2010. No Felony charges - what kind a a creep could post such lies? answer am Extorionist Scammer like Windglows -BEWATE Jan Windglows could stalk you next... 1. Mary Prantil was ripped off do MONEY by the SCAM Spell caster Jan Windglows in 2006- then Mary Prantil walked away cut he lossesfrom embarassment 2. While working for Jason Klein, CEO at Newspaper National Network SCAM Jan Windglows starts with these postings that I am a Criminal - when I had/have no record - I hae beem an Executive Assistant since 1998 - worked at HBO and CNN - I do no now or ever have owned any business 3. The posting continue that i sel drugs form my hone, that I have a Criminal record - Jan Windglows start to build and cistruct actual websites ie the Sadistic Shrinto Queen Lilth - with actual DEATH THREATS wriitten in their satanicla language. 4. I file police reports #277, #5247 and #3057 with the NYPD - a warrant has been issued to arrest but SCAMMERS Jan Windglows and Jimorgan are Professional Criminals that are on the RUN form POLICE so they only list a PO BOX 5. SCAM Jan Windglows like an immature jealous teenage of the beautil woman Mary Prantil then starts topost lies about my DEAD Father Frank Prantil and now my Unle Richard. What does any of this have to do with SPELLS and me getting ripped off by the Jan Windglows? How do you SCAM the SCAMMER? Mary Prantil is not at Rikers Island - Mary Prantil does not have a Criminal REcord. Frank Prantil died in 2006 and never spoke with of knew of Jan Windglows, SCAM Jan Windglows is taking out of context an event that happeedned ion 1989 - Cleary thees Hilly Billy don't know anything about Corporate America or being a High proced lawyerliek my deceased Father. So how do you SCAM the SCAMMER? Mary Prantil was scammed in 2006 - has had no contact with the SCAMMERS Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan. SCAM Jan Windglows - no matter how many lies you come up with - SCAM Jan Windglows is the one SCAMMING for SPELLS - SCAM Jan Windglows caught in her LIES of Extotion to get me to pay $5000 for SPELLS I don't want...SCAM< Jan Windglows ripped me off - I am completley innocent. Again - Jan Windglows post lies about my Taxes that are all cuurent there has NEVER been a warrant for my arrest for RAX Evasion - againthis is fasle information posted like Extortion to get me to pay $5000 for Spells I do not want. FACTS: SCAM Jan Windglows is the Criminal for Deception Fraud and is cuurentlt owning several Spell Sites that SCAM people for Money. ScamJan Windglows is the SCAMMER posting EXROTION and will go to JAIL for all this harasment. In the meantime - SCAM Jan Windglows get a life...I have far more important things to focus on than a troubled criminal like SCAM Jan Windglows - do not call 208-714-4348 do not use Blood Love and Lust Spells - SCAM Jan Windglows will harass you and stalke you the post lies on the Global Internet about you and your family. BEWARE!! http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - READ up to date daily complaints and SCAM of SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows !!! http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - READ up to date daily complaints and SCAM of SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows !!! Mary Prantil asks: HOw do you SCAM the SCAMMER? MULTIPLE REPORTS of SCAM Jan Windglows on Ripoff Report.com http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/scam-jan-windglows-a/scam-jan-windglows-aka-mystica-f3d2b.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/extortionist-jan-win/extortionist-jan-windglows-aka-9c736.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/astrologers-psychics/verified-criminals-j/verified-criminals-jan-windglo-3adeb.htm SCAM Jan Windglows uses WIGS to disguise herself - DO NOT GET SCAMMED by the SCAM Queen Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows
| |||||||
PsychicHater
Seattle,#15Author of original report
Fri, August 13, 2010
SCAMMER Jan Windglows get a life...do not use this sick FREAK! Hey Jan I am not Mary - yo have no idea where this is all going ...SUMTER COUNTY JAIL BIRD.
http://twitter.com/JanWindGlowSCAM
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows
Bonners Ferry,#16REBUTTAL Owner of company
Wed, August 11, 2010
PsychicHater
Seattle,#17Author of original report
Wed, August 11, 2010
Scammer Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan are verified Criminals for Decpetion Fraud.
SPELLS DON'T WORK - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
PO Box #118 Bonners Ferry, 208-714-4348
last mailing address
7961 Court Bonners Ferry, 805-455-6548
DO NOT GET SCAMMED by Jan Windglows aka Janhett T Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 [email protected] - Verified Criminal.
|
|
SCAM Jan Windglows is a TRASH MOUTH that needs to be put in JAIL to stop her Aggravated Harassment and blatant CYBER CRimes and stalking.
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
PO Box #118
Bonners Ferry,Idaho
208-714-4348
BEWARE - SCAM Jan Windglows will post like EXTORTION to get you to pay for SPELLS you don't want...SCAMMER Jan Windglows is the most Hated on-line scammer.
Scammer Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan are verified Criminals for Decpetion Fraud.
SPELLS DON'T WORK - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
PO Box #118 Bonners Ferry, 208-714-4348
last mailing address
7961 Court Bonners Ferry, 805-455-6548
DO NOT GET SCAMMED by Jan Windglows aka Janhett T Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 [email protected] - Verified Criminal.
|
|
Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows
Bonners Ferry,#18REBUTTAL Owner of company
Tue, August 10, 2010
PsychicHater
Seattle,#19Author of original report
Mon, August 09, 2010
Thank you to all that have responded to my Post warning the Global Internet of SCAMMER Extortionist Jan Windglows. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM . I am an X-employee of SCAM Jan Windglows. I can verify that SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted Criminal from SUMTER Florida and the NYPD have several OPEN police reports on SCAM Jan Windglows of Castle Eye and Blood Loveand Lust Spells. Please contninue to contact me withe any information of the whereabouts of this JAIL BIRD, SCAMMER Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208, Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows ak Enchatress 208 - Dragon. ONLY A SCAMMER uses an ALIAS, like Jan Windglows.
Jan Windglows is the MOST HATED On-line Scammer and Verified Criminal sentenced for DECEPTION FRAUD in SUMTER Florida where I bailed her out on a number of occasions for Grand Larcney and Deception Fraud.
Besides - ONLY A SCAM provides a PO BOX and no real address: SCAM Jan Windglows changes PO BOX's as much as she get Arrested or a clients contacts the POLICE to try and get thier money back.
SCAM Jan Windglows - what is you real address? - I have several of your X-clients contacting me since the Ripoff Report.com posting in July 2010- claiming Deception Fraud;Grand Larceny; and Aggravated Harassment. YOu are committing a CRIME Jan Windglows everytime you offer to do a SPELL for MONEY and Aggravated Harassment by posting LIES like Blackmail.
PO BOX #118
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
208-714-4348
PO Box #712
Driggs, Idaho
208-639-2224
Last known mailing address:
7961 Court
Bushnell, Florida
805-455-6549
352=793-2205
DO NOT CALL JAN WINDGLOWS - Jan on the LAM is nice on the phone until she gets you MONEY. It's all part of the SCAM - this woman is an EVIL Predator that needs to be put back in JAIL for violating her probation in SUMTER and also Jan Windglows continued efforts in contining to commit the CRIME of DECEPTION FRAUD.
SCAM Jan Windglows is the MOST HATED ON-LINE SCAMMER that scams businesses and innocent ppl fpr MONEY. SCAM Jan Windglows is nice on the phone as she is scamming then wil stalk you, harass you for MONEY to do SPELLS!!!! Only A Scam is in the Spell Casting Business.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME.
PsychicHater
Seattle,#20Author of original report
Mon, August 02, 2010
Scammer Jan windglows and Jim Organ are verified Criminals for Decpetion Fraud.
SPELLS DON'T WORK - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
PO box #118 Bonners Ferry, 208-714-4348
last mailing address
7961 Court Bonners Ferry, 805-455-6548
DO NOT GET SCAMMED by Jan Windglows aka Janhett T Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 [email protected] - Verified Criminal.
do not tread on me
Astoria,#21Consumer Comment
Fri, July 30, 2010
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, No. 86-6669. United States Court of
Appeals, Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*. 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 #22Author of original report Wed, July 28, 2010 Ex-Employee says: I used to wortk for SCAM Jan Windglows - I can say that SCAM Jan Windglows taught me well . The Trade of SCAMMINFG innocent ppl for SPELLS and Psychic READINGS. THES LIES about X-clients is EXTORION - SEE if you don't pay me the $5000 for the SPELLS I will let the WORLD knowe you bought a SPELL!!! EXTORTIION is what all these posting are all about. I will tell everyone LIES unless you give me the MONEY for a SPELL!!!! Scam Jan Windglows taught me to harasss, blackmail - stalk - do whatever to 1. get a much money up - 2. use extortion or blackmail to harass the client wanting theeir REFUND. The Harasssmet posted on this Ripoff Report is enough to PUIT SCAM Jan Windglows is JAIL for GRAND LARCENY - afterall Jan windglows admits - even has posted INVOICES from PayPal of ocover $2,500 - SCAM Jan Windglows is showing her CRIMINAL side. NYC Woman has no CRIMINAL record - so now they bring up TAX evasion on a Credible person - WHAR's UP SCAM Jan Windglows - you been caught in your AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT: DEFAMATION - and GRAND LARCENY. DO NOT GET SCAMMED SCAm Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan aka Enchatress 208. Previous address: 3 different address and $ different Phone Numbers - JAN on the LAM - Only a SCAM post just a PO BOX - Jan On the LAM 7961 Court PO Box #712 PO Box #118 SPELLS DON"T WORK!!! Hey Jan on the LAM - try to stick to what I post - it'sa about your CRIMINAL behavior not some prestious family in San Diego or this NYC woman - so you go from posting LIES about the alleged Court case - claiming this NYC woman has a CRIMINAL record when the NYC woman does NOT - now you come back with FALSE info about the NYC's woman raxes..again fasle - BU this is a form of EXTORTION> By the way what a BEAUTIFUL woman I love the PHOTO - Guess what you are committing COPYRIGHT infringement - another CRIME!!! SCAM Jan Windglows does not work! Extortion on Ripoff Report.com dated July 27, 2010. Just look at the post of SCAM Jan Windglows - SCAM Jan Windglows is an EXTORTIONIST!!!!! SPELLS DON"T WORK! OpinionatedAmerican #23Consumer Comment Tue, July 27, 2010 Scam Jan Windglows is a Cyber Stalker and Menace - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry 208-714-4348. SCAM Jan Windglows is BALD from her CRACK addiction and uses WIGS to disguise herself. SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted Felon from SUMTER Florda Jail - it is PUBLIC information for those want to bother and look it up. Hey SCAM Jan Windglows I did look up the info on Mary Prantil - and you POST LIES - these are just COURT DATES not CONVICTIONS and hey SCAM Jan Windglows - so is the info on the NY ADA - I bet you do speak to him...guess what - Ms. Prantil is NOT at Rikers Island as you say. SCAM Jan Windglows has been caught in her lies and Cyber Stalking- but worse since the recent postings that caught my EYE have caught the attention of an X-employee that worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida. Ex- emplyee trhank you for posting the info about SUMTER Jail -SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE from Sumter Flroda JAIL - look who is calling the Kettle BLACK. Scam Jan Windglows Verified Convicted Criminal and SCAMMER!!! Do Not use www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho..previously PO BOX #712 Driggs, Idaho last mailing address: 7961 Court, Bushnell Idaho...home of SUMTER JAIL. DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows - Convicted Criminal and Cyber Stalker - BOYCOTT the SCAM Site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com Jan Windglows you can run but you can't HIDE - The SUMTER Florida JAIL want you back - SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE - for Deception Fraud - Everytime SCAM Jan Windglows offer to do a SPELL for MONEY Jan Windglows is commtting DECEPTION FRAUD - call the Police and report the CRIME PsychicHater #24Author of original report Mon, July 26, 2010 Ex-Employee Speaks out - July 26, 2010..Jan on the LAM - SCAM Jan Windglows did JAIL time at SUMTER JAIL in BUshnell Florida and then violated her Probation - 90 Day Jail Sentence. DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com SCAM Jan Windglows operates a SCAM site called www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118 Bonners Ferry, Idaho 208-714-4348. SCAM Jan Windglows is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL for DECEPTION FRAUD - I know because I used to work for Jan Windglows in BUSHNELL FLORIDA - BEFORE JAN WINDGLOWS DID A SENTENCE FOR DECEPTION FRAUD AND GRAND LARCENY AT SUMTER JAIL IN FLORIDA. Jan Windglows is a convicted Criminal and SCAM - do not use! Mary T. Prantil Is A Scam Artist #25REBUTTAL Individual responds Mon, July 26, 2010 Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases
& Opinions Frank George PRANTIL,
Petitioner-Appellant, 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, 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, (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. Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases
& Opinions 843 F.2d
314 Frank George PRANTIL,
Petitioner-Appellant, Stacey #26Consumer Comment Sun, July 25, 2010 All of you - there is no such thing as a "psychic, spell caster, etc etc" Grow up and stop this idiotic rantings and ravings - it is really old do not tread on me #27REBUTTAL Owner of company Sun, July 25, 2010 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, No. 86-6669. United States Court of Appeals, Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*. 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) =========================================================================== 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 th OpinionatedAmerican #28Consumer Comment Fri, July 23, 2010 Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 aka Enchantress is a Florida POLICE FUGITIVE and when found is looking at FOOTBALL DIGITS for a Jail Sentence. SCAM Jan Windglows is a Verified Criminal spanning years of Convictions - currently Ms. Windglows is A POLICE FUGITIVE for VIOLATING PROBATION !!! 90 DAY JAIL Sentence. Jan Windglows changes alias bcs Jan is on the LAM !! Jan Windglows does not provide a REAL address bcs Jan is on the LAM!! EX- employee thank you for providing this information. GLOBAL INTERNET is helping catch this VERIFIED CRIMINAL. DO NOT USE - www.bloodloveandlustspells.com Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 is really ...Jan on the LAM! Help POLICE call 911 and give where-abouts of this Verified FUGITIVE!! do not tread on me #29Consumer Comment Wed, July 21, 2010
PsychicHater Dragon #31REBUTTAL Individual responds Tue, July 20, 2010
Dragon #32REBUTTAL Individual responds Tue, July 20, 2010 AKA Mary T. Prantil of Queens County Astoria New York. You can also find Scam
Prantil posting on Rip Off Report and other Forum sites posting against us
under AKA Honest Person AKA Honestperson AKA Park City USA, AKA
Uta, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania, AKA Washington D.C. AKA Washington, AKA
Astoria, New York, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania AKA Park City, AKA Utah AKA
Astoria New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA SadisticPsychicJanWindglowsHURTME2 -
Houston (USA
Hello to all who read this- this is Enchantress
Jan Windglows, owner and successful entrepreneur of my beautiful web site, www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
The person above posting against us on the
Internet is a deluded woman from New York facing a lot of criminal charges,
named Mary Prantil.
We expect her to be thrown in jail this October
hopefully sooner. She is a liar and blabber mouth, as everyone can see, and a
garbage mouth as well.
Every time she emails or calls us, we simply send
her threatening emails and phone calls to the attorney in New York currently
prosecuting her.
Mary Prantil is our "pet psycho" so to speak. Every successful business owner has one. My husband James and I are here in Bonners Ferry Idaho, anyone
can call us- our phone number is 208-714-4348, just like it says on our web
sites.
Mary would LOVE to have our home residential
address so she can make more trouble for us, but that will never happen. This
is precisely why business owners have post office boxes- to avoid psychotic
people like Mary of course, LOL.
You see, Mary is MAD because when we did her spell
work, the spells WORKED, her boyfriend wanted to marry her, and then Mary messed
up and drove her boyfriend off, and she has been blaming all her messed up
agenda on us ever since.
She also has some kind of psychotic thing going
where she makes up outlandish stories about other people about the same things
that are happening in HER life, lol. The woman needs to be put away, committed,
locked up for the rest of her life. She is 46 years old and still all she can
do is try to make trouble for innocent people.
My husband James spent countless hours on the
phone helping this woman. She did receive her spell results. She messed up her
life. Oh, well ! I have no control over what this crazy woman did to her own
life and we will not back down from her and will continue to help put her behind
bars.
So in closing, Mary is a very unhappy person,
constantly blaming her own self adversities on innocent other people. And my
husband and I are not the only ones- Mary Prantil has SEVERAL people in New York
that have pressed charges on her and are waiting for her to be
prosecuted.
For future reference, my husband and I will
continue to run our very reputable and innocent highly successful business and
continnue to defend ourselves, no matter WHAT Mary Prantil
says.
We know who we are, and we know who Mary Prantil
is.
Give me a call if any questions. By the way, I
see Mary had to actually write a long story of lies about me since she did a
background check and could not find anything on MY record,
lol.
Mary Prantil certainly has PLENTY of garbage
racked up against her huh? Just think here is a woman 46 years old that will
never be a responsible adult or lead a positive productive life. But that is
her problem now, and she has Divinity to answer for, for all her misdeeds and
her many lies and crimes.
The comical thing about all of this is, nobody
CARES what Mary Prantil writes or says. She is a liar and nobody or any of my
cleints EVER ask me who Mary Prantil even IS.
All the stories that Prantil fabricates about us
are garbage, as we have stated many times. My husband and I are very successful
honest people and we are not ruffled by anything Mary Prantil says because all
she is doing at this point is taking up bandwidth that someone else who has
something important to say could be using up here,
lol.
Concerning my home address- Mary is the reason I
will never disclose my residential address. I do not need her crazy as_ showing
up in my neighborhood, LOL. Anyone reading these threads would feel the
same.
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,
This report is concerning Frank George Prantil
and his daughter Mary Theresa Prantil. In past reports authored by Miss
Prantil, she has stated that " I'm proud to have been the daughter of Frank G.
Prantil" and that she again "comes from a "PRESTIGIOUS" family based in the San
Diego there in the state of California.
I can't speak for the character of the rest of her family as I
don't personally know them however, I have no reason to believe them to be
anything other then reasonable and law abiding people however, I can relay what
I've read from credible sources such as transcripts from the Supreme Court,
Colleges of Frank Prantil, Attorney Generals office, State Attorneys office
legal sites etc pertaining to Frank G. Prantil.
Miss Prantil has stated that "My father got off lots of
criminals" then latter went on to say: "My father got off lots of criminals and
innocent people to", LOL. Well, I'm sure he did successfully defend some
innocent people along the way but from the looks of it, he also was instrumental
in successfully defending the trash of society such as Murders, Child Molesters,
Check Forgers, Bank Robbers etc. Upon researching the records and past legal
performance of Mr. Prantil, I was also informed that not only was he successful
in defending the scum of humanity on several occasions but went on to be
completely corrupted by the same criminals that he had been representing
throughout his practice.
It was in my research sited below, did I run across several
charges launched against Frank G. Prantil via the Supreme and Superior court
system there in California, such infractions as Perjury, Drug Poisson, Drug
Abuse, Unlawfully removing $700,000 from a Clients safe as she sat in jail
awaiting a murder trial and so fourth. Mr. Prantil also had interfered with the
homicide trial by becoming personally involved with his Client of that same
murder trial by attempting to cover for the accused so he could recover his
fees. Prantil lied blatantly on several occasions and attempted to hold up the
due process of law by filling one frivolous motion of delay right after another
just like Mary in the current charges being lodged against her by the State of
New York.
Frank Prantil was known as a greedy individual who would stop
at nothing to accomplish his goals be they of a positive or unethical nature,
JUST LIKE Mary T. Prantil his daughter, He was considered out spoken, brazened,
and ruthless just like his daughter Mary T. Prantil Internet Terrorist
Extraordinaire. So in essence and according to other legal professionals, Frank
Prantil was nothing but a GREEDY UNETHICAL Attorney that happened to like the
spotlight just like Mary. Another thing I'd like to add here. Did you know that
Frank G. Prantil was in and out of rehab centers for his uncontrolled use of
illegal narcotics ?, Did you know that he was imprisoned for 14 months for not
only botching a homicide trial, but for being an Accomplice to check FORGERY in
the commission of that crime.
As you can read in the research below, Mr. Prantil wasn't
considered a professional on any level by the courts or his peers. Mr. Prantil
was DISBARRED twice for drug, unethical activity, and leaving his Clients
holding the bag simply because they ran out of money in the middle of their
defense. Does any of this sound familiar ?, Does it sound like anything Miss
Mary T. Prantil has done in the past ?, I would say that Little Mary is the
preverbal apple that didn't fall very far from the tree, wouldn't you say ?
Well, Frank Prantil won't be bothering, SCAMMING, or ripping off his Clients any
more because he's now deceased. Good Riddance I say.
Now, we have little Mary carrying on his legacy with all of
her criminal activities such as you can view below after her fathers
information. Please view the facts below coming from the Experts and those that
had the misfortune of dealing with him first hand. Sounds like a real Gypsy Scum
Ball to me. Read the history of this Idiot and be SHOCKED and then read about
the exploits of his daughter little miss marry low life prantil, people like
this should just be locked away forever and kept from wasting the courts time
and resources.
High Court Closes Book on Colorful Legal Career
SAN DIEGO At Largehttp://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-31/local/me-603_1_high-court
PUBLIC RECORDS http://public.resource.org/
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Ninth Circuit.
Memorandum Jan. 4, 1988.
Order and
Opinion March 31, 1988.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
*
1
2
3
4
5
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/ 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.
=================================
30
31
32
5
6
25
29
30
1
5
6
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/ A review o
Report Attachments
Washington,
United States of America
SPELLS DON"T WORK Jan Windglows - CRIMINAL-EXTORTIONIST with LIES - Posts LIES like Blackmail Jan covers up CRIME with LIES and Aggravated Harassment
Bushnelll, Florida
1.352-793-2205
2.805-455-6548
- this is when I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows - who got ARRESTED anmd Convicted at SUMTER Florida JAIL for DECEPTION FRAUD.
Driggs, Idaho
3.208-639-2224
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
4.208-714-4348
Report Attachments
Florida,
USA
BOYCOTT SCAM Jan Windglows CyberStalker and Public Menace - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
Report Attachments
Washington,
United States of America
Jan Windglows -Convicted Criminal 4 Deception FRAUD; SUMTER Florida Jail - BEWARE of Jan on the Lam
New York,
United States of America
Criminal & Civil Records Of Mary T. Prantil, Frank George Prantil, Richard G. Prantil
This report is concerning Frank George Prantil, Richard G. Prantil and
Franks daughter Mary Teresa Prantil. In past reports authored by Miss Prantil,
she's stated that " I'm proud to have been the daughter of Frank G. Prantil",
and that she again "comes from a "PRESTIGE'S family" based in the San Diego
California area. Moreover, Miss MOTOR MOUTH prantil has gone on to portend in
being several other people when posting against us such Richard G prantil her
uncle. So, I naturally looked him up only to find that he had some dirt in his
past as well.
I can't speak for the character of the rest of the Prantil family as I
don't personally know any of them however, I have no reason to believe them to
be anything other then reasonable and law abiding people of course,,, within
exception to the previously named Idiots above. Since Miss Prantil can't shut
her trashy, lieing trouble making mouth,. and in the interest of comparing
Mary's personality to that of her criminal father and uncle I've decided to add
additional information in prantil's criminal report, or to pass on to the
public what I've read from credible sources such as the Supreme Court, Colleges
Attorney Generals office, State Attorneys office and several legal sites
concerning unlawful activities pertaining to Frank G Prantil, Richard G Prantil
and Mary T. Prantil.
Miss Prantil has stated that ((( "My father got off lots of criminals"
))) then latter went on to say: ((( "My father got off lots of criminals and innocent people
to"))), LOL. She stated that she, nor any member of her
criminal family ever took anything that didn't belong to them and that they were
all honest people, PLEASE KEEP THESE LAST STATEMENTS IN
MIND as you read down through these long reports, or criminal
records belonging to the three Subjects above.
Well, I'm sure Frank Prantil did in fact successfully defend some innocent
people along the way regarding his practice however, and from the looks of it,,
he also was very instrumental in successfully defending the trash of society
such as Murders, Child Molesters, Check Forgers, Bank Robbers etc. He was also
quit capable in BOTCHING up their cases that in-turn resulted in sending them
away to the state, or federal penitentiary for years and years at a time. Do you
think it's possible that frankie prantil fuc_k_d up any of his cases through his
inability to see clearly as a result of severe drug abuse problem ? Do you think
that he could have been so incoherent, or inapt when handling a case that he
could have actually allowed a innocent person to have been sentenced to prison ?
Do you really think that Frank was anyone's friend, or that he really helped
anyone ? that is,,, after he cleaned them out of their life savings.
Upon researching the records and past legal performance of Mr. Prantil, I
was also informed that not only was he successful in defending the scum of
humanity on several occasions but went on to be completely corrupted by the same
criminals that he had once represented throughout his career. You know, Miss
Prantil has vested much of her negative energy over the last four years in her
SLANDEROUS POST and blog sites to: "DO NOT USE"
our services and that were allegedly attempting to
"COVER A LIFETIME OF CRIME" however all
this is bull s_it as she's simply trying to destroy a on-line business for
stopping her Scam games with them, We wouldn't let
her scam us in short. Of course, the
ONLY ONES TRYING TO HIDE A LIFETIME OF CRIME would be Mary T.
Prantil, Frank G. Prantil and Richard G. Prantil according to
the information below concerning each of them. The CURRENT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF
Mary T' Prantil can be found at www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net .
It was in my research sited below that I ran across several charges
launched against Frank G. Prantil via the Supreme and Superior court system
of California, such infractions as Perjury, Drug Poisson, Drug
Abuse, Unlawfully removing $700,000 from a Clients safe as she sat in jail
awaiting a murder trial, Fraud, FORGERY, PERJURY, Disbarment
on two occasions, Theft and a
Prison Term, Not leaving out that Frank had a
bad habit of soaking his Clients and then
leaving them right in the middle of their on-going cases without
Counsel.
Mr. Prantil also had interfered with A HIGH PROFILE homicide trial by
becoming personally involved with his Client of that same trial by attempting to
cover for the accused so he could recover his fees to which added up to be
hundreds of thousands of dollars. One example of his unethical and thieving
activity can be vied below as he took part in SCAMMING an old person of 70 or 80
out of a great deal of money by depositing a FORGED CHECK into his bank account,
Does this guy sound like he was out to help anyone but himself ?, as I've
said:
He was out to rip his Clients off period. You can see the same thing
occurring with Richard G Prantil concerning his REPRIMAND FROM THE STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION for cashing in on a divorce four years after it was over. Richard
carried this out by filling out a false document and then turning it into the
court, IS THAT FRAUD, ABUSING YOUR OFFICE, SCAMMING, FORGERY, FILLING OUT FALSE
POLICE AND COURT REPORTS ? Could this be considered UNETHICAL PRACTICE OF LAW
just like what his brother Frank was Disbarred and then thrown into prison over
? Does this sound like what Mary Prantil has done in the past ?
DIRTY ATTORNEYS and Dirty daughter Mary T. Prantil. Mary is currently doing
what her father had taught her to do when involved in the court system, LIE AND
HOLD EVERYTHING UP at the Tax Payers Expense. Frank Prantil blatantly lied on
several occasions and attempted to hold up the due process of law by filling one
frivolous motion of delay right after another, just like Mary is doing in the
current charges being lodged against her by the State of New York. Didn't work
for him and it won't work for Mary as you can only delay the inevitable for so
long before the obvious comes calling and they take you away LOL.
Frank Prantil was known as a GREEDY individual TO WHICH DIDN'T GET ALONG
WITH ANYONE whom further would stop at nothing to accomplish his goals be they
of a positive or unethical nature, JUST LIKE Mary T. Prantil his daughter. Both
of these criminal personalities both love the spotlight, like to steal and con
folks, they both like to bog down and play the legal system at everyone's
expense, they both like to abuse drugs and bully people. Mary and her father
Frank both like to lie and slander, blame shift their own short comings back
onto innocent people etc. I guess mary and daddy had more in common then we
thought.
Frank was considered out spoken, brazened, and ruthless just like his
daughter, Mary T. Prantil Internet Terrorist Extraordinaire. So in essence, and
according to other legal professionals, Frank Prantil was nothing but a GREEDY
UNETHICAL BAD Attorney, A CROOK that happened to liked all the ATTENTION he was
getting just like Mary. Another thing I'd like to add here. Did you know that
Frank G. Prantil was in and out of rehab centers for his uncontrolled use of
illegal narcotics ?, Did you know that he was imprisoned for 14 months for not
only botching a homicide trial,
but for being an Accomplice to check FORGERY in the commission of that
crime, as you can read in the research below, Mr. Prantil wasn't considered to
be a professional on any level by of the courts or his peers. You know, Mary
has huge drug problem from what I've understood and seen via looking at her
pictures, from what she's told me personally.
She's into filling out false police reports and starving herself so she
can fit into little girl clothing. I wonder why she's trying to be so thin, 90
or 98 pounds in what her police record shows. I wonder if she isn't trying to
look really skinny and young so she can get in with people in the age group of
15 or 20 years of age. No man in his right mind would want something a sickly
and haggard looking as this 46 or 47 year old scam artist.
Mr. Frank Prantil was DISBARRED twice for drugs, unethical legal activity,
and leaving his Clients holding the bag simply because they ran out of money in
the middle of their defense. Does any of this sound familiar ?, Does it sound
like anything Miss Mary T. Prantil has done in the past ? I would say that
Little Mary is the preverbal apple that didn't fall very far from the tree,
wouldn't you say ? Well, Frank Prantil won't be bothering, SCAMMING, or ripping
off his Clients any more because he's now deceased and Good Riddance I
say.
Now, we have little Mary carrying on his legacy with all of her criminal
activities such as you can view below after her fathers information or perhaps
here at www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net .
Please view the facts below coming from the Experts and those that had the
misfortune of dealing with him first hand. Sounds like a real Gypsy Scum Ball to
me. Read the history of this Idiot and be ready to be SHOCKED, and then read
about the exploits of his daughter little miss marry low life prantil. Basically
Mary Prantil is blaming everyone else for the very same things she's done in the
past or is carrying out against others currently.
People like this should just be locked away forever and kept from wasting
the courts time and resources. Lastly, please see Richard G. Prantil's
Suspension at the very bottom of the report for FILLING a false and misleading
document with the court, committing an act of moral turpitude, deception and
theft. It would seem that Deception, Lieing, Harassment, Drug Abuse, Drug
Trafficking, Filling out false Police and Court reports,
Blame Shifting, Stalking, Slander, FORGERY and STEALING runs in the
Prantil family when reading down through these various reports from several
different sites on the Internet. This family is nothing but a Horde of
self-serving Criminals who pray upon the weak in my opinion. The one thing these
Crooks all have in common is that they like to go around ripping people off
while at the same time calling innocent others a SCAM. Moreover
PROCLAIMING THEMSELVES to be the VICTIM of a hostile stalker etc.
This group of Individuals go on to proclaim themselves to be the VICTIMS
who are getting picked or stalked much as Mary has clamed for three years plus
now. Mary T. Prantil has no shame simply because she is nothing but a two bit
CRIMINAL like her father Frank G. Prantil and his brother as the records
reflect. Mary Prantil BASHES the legal
system, Attorneys, Ed Magedson, Scam Forum sites, us and everyone else that
doesn't go along with or by into her slanderous statements.
Many of us out have had to put up with this b***h Mary Prantil for years
now on and off however, I think there's enough information on three members of
this family now to inform everyone as to who these scum buckets really are. Mary
Prantil states: " My father isn't like all these other crooked Attorneys because
he spent his life helping people" however the information below not only proves
her to be lieing on this count but also proves her in being a Hypocrite as well.
Frank Prantil IS, one of those BAD ATTORNEYS that this beaten down, old and
haggard woman blast on her web blog sites, LOL. Always talking about how her
father helped people all his life etc, YEAH, he help them all right ?,, RIGHT
OUT OF THEIR LIFE SAVINGS. This man sounds like he was your friend until you ran
out of money, know the type ? I'm sure you do. Well Mary Pran-Stupid, How does
it feel to be FULLY EXPOSED along with your entire CRIMINAL SCAMMER family ?
YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE NEVER FU_C_ED WITH us Scammer. You did though, you
just couldn't help yourself, could yeah ? and now everyone knows who and what
your TRASHY FAMILY is all about, You hate it don't you ? The light is pretty
bright on you about now, isn't it ?
You don't like it because you don't have the option of sneaking around
anymore while stalking your next unsuspecting victim from the shadows, TO BAD.
Like I said Bit_h, WE WON'T BACK DOWN FROM CRIMINALS like you and we will flatly
pound you into the ground.
Heaven will REDUCE YOU to blood and screams before it's all over through
that little curse, you remember that curse, RIGHT ? Sure you do because you feel
it every day. Ok, STUPID, IF YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DIG UP MORE EVIDENCE ON YOU
JUST KEEP posting your trash on us. Hey, I wonder what we can find on your
Mother ? perhaps she has a story to tell the world. I WILL KEEP GOING AND GOING
to my last breath to EXPOSE a TRASH BAG like yourself. EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THE
LIFE OF CRIME YOUR TRYING TO HIDE Mary.
YOU DIDN'T GET TO SCAM US SO GET OVER IT, SO BEAT IT ON DOWN THE ROAD if
you know what's good for you.
====================================================================
Los Angeles
Times
The High Court Closes Book on Colorful Legal Career SAN DIEGO At Large http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-31/local/me-603_1_high-court
March 31, 1989|ANTHONY PERRY 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.
==========================================================================================
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Before CHOY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1 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. 2
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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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 6 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. 7
Prantil contends that numerous trial court errors and a district court delay in
deciding his habeas petition denied him due process. 8 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. 9 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 10 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). 11
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. 12 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. 13
Prantil contends that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving two
erroneous jury instructions.
14 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). 15 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). 16 The trial court gave the following instructions on the elements of
forgery: 17 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. 18 Number
one, that a person passed or offered to pass a forged instrument. That is the
first one. 19 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. 20 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: 21 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) 22 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. 23 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). 24 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. 25 Prantil contends that the trial court denied him due process by
refusing to grant judicial use
immunity to a potentially exonerating witness. 26 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. 27 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). 28 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. 29 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. 30
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. 31 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). 32 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. 33 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 34 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. 35 We
conclude that the district court properly
dismissed Prantil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 36 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) 1 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) 2 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 3 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 4 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) 5 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
=========================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases
& Opinions
MAIN SITE http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&circuit=http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/
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.
=================================
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.
30 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.
31 CONCLUSION 32 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.
===========================================
5 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. 6 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)
==========================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases
& Opinions
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
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." 25 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.
=========================================
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
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. 30 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.
===========================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases
& Opinions
1 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) 5 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. 6 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)
===========================================================================
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.MAIN SITE http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&circuit=
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/
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.
=================================
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.
30 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.
31 CONCLUSION 32 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.
===========================================
5 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. 6 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)
==========================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases
& Opinions
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." 25 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. 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.
Texas,
U.S.A.
Scammers
New York,
USA
HEY MARY YOU IDIOT YOU SHOULD NOT THROW ROCKS IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE, LOL, CRIMINAL FREAK NO BODY IS ON THE RUN HERE EXCEPT U PRANT FREAK
This report is concerning Frank George Prantil and his
daughter Mary Theresa Prantil. In past reports authored by Miss Prantil, she
has stated that " I'm proud to have been the daughter of Frank G. Prantil" and
that she again "comes from a "PRESTIGIOUS" family based in the San Diego there
in the state of California.
I can't speak for the character of the rest of her family as I don't
personally know them however, I have no reason to believe them to be
anything other then reasonable and law abiding people however, I can relay what
I've read from credible sources such as transcripts from the Supreme Court,
Colleges of Frank Prantil, Attorney Generals office, State Attorneys office
legal sites etc pertaining to Frank G. Prantil.
Miss Prantil has stated that "My father got off lots of criminals" then
later went on to say: "My father got off lots of criminals and innocent people
to", LOL. Well, I'm sure he did successfully defend some innocent people along
the way but from the looks of it, he also was instrumental in successfully
defending the trash of society such as Murders, Child Molesters, Check Forgers,
Bank Robbers etc. Upon researching the records and past legal performance of Mr.
Prantil, I was also informed that not only was he successful in defending the
scum of humanity on several occasions but went on to be completely corrupted by
the same criminals that he had been representing throughout his practice.
It was in my research sited below, did I run across several charges
launched against Frank G. Prantil via the Supreme and Superior court system
there in California, such infractions as Perjury, Drug Poisson, Drug Abuse,
Unlawfully removing $700,000 from a Clients safe as she sat in jail awaiting a
murder trial and so fourth. Mr. Prantil also had interfered with the homicide
trial by becoming personally involved with his Client of that same murder trial
by attempting to cover for the accused so he could recover his fees. Prantil
lied blatantly on several occasions and attempted to hold up the due process of
law by filling one frivolous motion of delay right after another just like Mary
in the current charges being lodged against her by the State of New York.
Frank Prantil was known as a greedy individual who would stop at nothing to
accomplish his goals be they of a positive or unethical nature, JUST LIKE Mary
T. Prantil his daughter, He was considered out spoken, brazened, and ruthless
just like his daughter Mary T. Prantil Internet Terrorist Extraordinaire. So in
essence and according to other legal professionals, Frank Prantil was nothing
but a GREEDY UNETHICAL Attorney that happened to like the spotlight just like
Mary. Another thing I'd like to add here. Did you know that Frank G. Prantil was
in and out of rehab centers for his uncontrolled use of illegal narcotics ?, Did
you know that he was imprisoned for 14 months for not only botching a homicide
trial, but for being an Accomplice to check FORGERY in the commission of that
crime.
As you can read in the research below, Mr. Prantil wasn't considered a
professional on any level by the courts or his peers. Mr. Prantil was DISBARRED
twice for drug, unethical activity, and leaving his Clients holding the bag
simply because they ran out of money in the middle of their defense. Does any of
this sound familiar ?, Does it sound like anything Miss Mary T. Prantil has done
in the past ?, I would say that Little Mary is the preverbal apple that didn't
fall very far from the tree, wouldn't you say ? Well, Frank Prantil won't be
bothering, SCAMMING, or ripping off his Clients any more because he's now
deceased. Good Riddance I say.
Now, we have little Mary carrying on his legacy with all of her criminal
activities such as you can view below after her fathers information. Please view
the facts below coming from the Experts and those that had the misfortune of
dealing with him first hand. Sounds like a real Gypsy Scum Ball to me. Read the
history of this Idiot and be SHOCKED and then read about the exploits of his
daughter little miss marry low life prantil, people like this should just be
locked away forever and kept from wasting the courts time and resources.
High Court Closes Book on Colorful Legal Career
SAN DIEGO At Largehttp://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-31/local/me-603_1_high-court
PUBLIC RECORDS http://public.resource.org/
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Ninth
Circuit.
Memorandum
Jan. 4, 1988.
Order and Opinion March 31, 1988.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
*
1
2
3
4
5
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/ 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.
=================================
30
31
32
5
6
25
29
30
1
5
6
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/ 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.
=================================
30
31
32
5
6
Report Attachments
Florida,
USA
Jan Windglows Convicted Criminal DECEPTION FRAUD, Grand Larceny Jan on the LAM violates 90 day Jail Sentence FLORIDA POLICE FUGITIVE
Report Attachments
New York,
USA
Been there, said that, numerous times, but here it is again :
None of the above written by Mary Prantil, as everyone already knows is not true, as we have already posted her criminal records several times for all to see to PROVE that Prantil in fact DOES have a criminal record. She has scammed LOTS of business, TRIED and FAILED to scam mine, got CAUGHT having criminal records after she swore up and down for over three YEARS that she did NOT, and now, pathetic excuse for a decent human being Mary Prantil JUST CANNOT SEEM TO GET OVER IT. She has her picture taken in churches, while posting pages full of slander and lies about innocent others. She is facing jail time- October 2010 is her next trial date. I am sure she is looking forward to it as much as we are, LOL.
Mary Prantil has lied, and twisted the facts around like a pretzel to try and make the public believe her lies simply because she knows she has been caught and exposed and simply cannot bring herself to get over it.
Mary Prantil is the "verified" criminal here, NOT Jan Windglows or Jim Morgan. We have already proven that numerous times, Mary Prantil STILL has no proof and cannot back anything she has EVER stated about us because all of Prantil's statements are lies to cover up her own criminal activities, obviously as the public can see.
Mary Prantil has failed to provide proof for all of her statements so she tries to twist and reverse the facts about herself, like a little kid playing some sick twisted game telling the complete reverse of what is real and true. Publicly displaying her picture standing by a church altar then making blogger pages filled with lies while she quotes scriptures from the bible, LOL if you can believe that, how dishonest is that? VERY DISHONEST.
Fact is, she is facing yet another court trial on October 2010, and we WILL be posting the outcome of that hearing.
Hopefully the authorities will make sure Mary Prantil is incarcerated this time for more than two weeks, we are guessing 3 to 5 years for all the criminal charges she is facing.
Innocent business owners like the www.bloodloveandlustspells.com sites do not have to put up with unsavory deadbeat clients like Mary Prantil any longer and we will not put up with her slander or her lies about our businesses, right spell casters all over the web?
Well, since our great websites as well as the real truth about all we have proven and stated have been posted, in closing we invite you the public to come over and find out what real magick is all about.
See you all soon ! Oh and in the future if anyone that reads these posts which I doubt very many people even do, because we have had ONE person in FOUR months even ASK us about Prantil which was before the site we created to expose Miss Prantil of http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net simply contact us and we will send you the contact information, email and phone number of the District Attorney in NYC who is going to put Mary Prantil behind bars so we all can be finally RID of her drama, LOL.
Take care and enjoy our beautiful web sites. Come and see the new altar that is being made.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
208-714-4348
FYI here AGAIN, just in case Mary is having trouble reading or understanding it, is the post containing Mary Prantil's criminal records, including a FELONY STALKING CHARGE. ((((( gee now why would anyone stick a felony stalking charge on her, LOL??)))))))) AHHHHHHEEEMMMMM!!!!!!
New July 2010 Update On Mary T. Prantil Of Astoria New York Proof That ALL Mary Prantil's Blogs Are LIES- Mary Spends Two Weeks At Rikers Island Women's Jail !
I've waited so long, to both find and post this information on the Forum sites against Miss PrantilYou know, Mary T. Prantil the two bit Internet CRIMINAL Cyber Stalker, LOL. You know, the same IDIOT that just wouldn't go away while the getting was good. Who moreover felt so compelled in getting up on the Internet everyday for four years attempting to scam free services out of unsuspecting online businesses and then viciously attacking and SLANDERING them just because they wouldn't let this parasite get away with conning them. Of course, she would eventually re-scam and slander the ones she did have a chance to rip off as the years unfolded as in the case of the Mike Cahill and Prantil incident, of scandal.
This report is a UPDATE to the first report that focused on revealing Mary Prantil's criminality, or unlawful activities against 11 to 12 people as the record reflects, and another EIGHT people that the record isn't showing at this time. I think Prantil was accusing us of stalking at one point along with her other lunatic charges such as us allegedly hacking into her computer and her bank accouts, committing tax fraud, credit card fraud, grand larceny, etc. Get a load of this charge that was just recently launched against "Miss Congeniality" Mary Prantil by the N.Y Court system just yesterday : 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony.
I'm sure you've already read our charges against her by now such as PROLONGED telephone and email harassment, habitual lying, tax evasion, extortion, blackmail etc. Take a look at her updated eight different charges on Mary Prantil provided below, YES I said EIGHT different charges that she's currently being held there in New York until she can go to back to court to explain all her actions to the JUDGE'S.
Again, YES; I said Judge's as there are five or six of them all together. Why? Because little Mary has been keeping them all very busy while being brought up on several charges of harassing others around her. Of course, Mary leads a very full life without a dull moment and that's why she's been running around on the Internet trying to convince everyone else that she wasn't a two bit low life criminal piece of human garbage while all this has been going on behind the scenes.
Running around while hiding behind one of her 33 fictitious names professing to speak the truth, telling her story in how she was the VICTIM of all those big nasty online magick casting businesses. Oh help me, help me everyone because I am the victim of being scammed, being hacked, stalked, slandered etc etc etc. Poor Little Mary. Did Mary get a bad rap by the New York Court system too? I mean, are they lying as well ? Perhaps they're just picking on little scammer Mary as well. Mary likes to hear herself talk when repeatedly saying " I didn't do anything " , " I didn't rip off anyone ", "I don't have a criminal record", " I have never had a spell cast," blah, blah, blah. And lets not forget go ramblings about how "great", or how "prestigious" the Prantil family is, LOL.
What was it Mary Prantil says on one of her sites? Wasn't it something like, "Birds Only Pick At The Best Fruit" LOL, I think in Mary's case it would be Buzzards and Crows as they like their fruit ROTTEN . Mary does remind me of something rotten, maybe not fruit but ROTTEN TO THE CORE just the same. Maybe I'm thinking rotten with a side order of POND SCUM when I think of Mary Prantil. Of course between bashing Jan and myself, Mary Prantil goes on to tell everyone that she's "living the American dream" and how Madonna is her "mentor" regarding her seven or eight blog pages. Please keep in mind that Mary Prantil is a 46 year old woman who says this along with her actually thinking that she looks like Kate moss lol. ( you gotta be KIDDING !!!!!! )
One minute she's a "hand and hoof" model, and in the same breath she's a "corporate executive" on wall street, LOL. In all reality Mary Prantil was nothing but a assistant secretary working for temporary services making a meager wage far from the six figures she had boasted in making earlier on. If you visit her blog sites, you'll see this in her job description. Basically, she made the coffee, shuffled papers, received calls, greeted people at the front desk and passed messages to folks working in the various offices from time to time. Of course these jobs didn't last as the longest held job may have been a year or a little over before she was fired from her many temporary little jobs for misconduct.
All in all, this is a far cry from her being a self proclaimed "Corporate Executive" for HBO, CNN, and Cinimax she has ranted and raved about over the last three years. Really when you look over Mary Prantil's life, you can see that she's always led a VERY menial life with no hopes of ever going anywhere in the cooperate world. Maybe this is why she felt it so important to fabricate, or lie about everything under the sun to make a impression on others, to come off to everyone as larger than life. Of course this fantasy, illusion of distorted reality became a way of life for Mary Prantil and moreover came in handy when Mary started her little slamming campaign against us on the net. Her finely tuned imaginary skills came handy when it came to lashing out at others who rubbed her the wrong way, like us lol.
It's interesting how Miss Prantil repeatedly states on her blog pages how Jan and myself are guilty of this and that but never seems to come up with any proof to back up any of her pathetic statements or charges against us, especially when given four years to produce anything to back up the smallest statement made. Miss Prantil was taken into custody before she could remove these blog pages just for the record,. I also think it's important to explain that Mary Prantil never DREAMED in a million years that her criminal records would be made public record by the courts and thus directly disproving her claims of, "not having a criminal record" of any kind.
When Mary Prantil saw her very recent criminal records posted for the first time I bet the blood just drained down to her feet while she was knocked back with surreal disbelief, lol. To be on the net bashing several people and then to see your own criminal activities revealed must be a sobering feeling indeed. Mary also likes to talk about "KARMA" and how it's real, well, KARMA IS REAL as she is now finding out. Did you finally have a RUDE KARMIC AWAKENING, MARY? I hope that she thinks of us while sitting in her small little nut PSYCHOTIC JAIL cell and how we assisted the D.A. in putting her there.
I certainly hope she thinks of all the people she's ripped off, stalked, and harassed over the years because she will have plenty of time to think about a lot of things in my opinion, especially about the curse we placed on her and how it will never go away, it will never be broken, it will never fade, it will be there looming over her FOREVER. Please read her criminal reports and then go check out these links going to prantil's FANTASY pages. The links are as follows: http://maryprantil.wordpress.com/ http://maryprantilripoffreport.blogspot.com/ http://maryprantilcorrectstherecord.blogspot.com/ http://www.correcttherecord.com/index.php/main_profile/view/53
Mary Prantil is very direct when repeatedly stating that she has NEVER been arrested, NEVER been in jail, NEVER was committed into a psychiatric ward, NEVER used or sold drugs, NEVER ripped off online or land biased businesses, NEVER used any online spell casting services, NEVER went bankrupt, ALWAYS paid her taxes and on and on. Ok, well, Miss Prantil is nothing but a lying CRIMINAL piece of gutter trash and I'm about to prove it over and over again.
In the previous report you can see where she owes the U.S. Government $ 4,000.00 in federal taxes, and $130.00 state or county tax, not only this but this report shows the Tax Warrants out on her. Prantil does in FACT have a civil and criminal record going back 20 years, back to her childhood in California while growing up under her unethical attorney father that was disbarred TWICE for drug abuse, stealing $700,000.00 and lying over and over to the court when asked about his shady activities with one or two of his clients that he became personally involved with. The man seems to have been the lowest low life of the legal community when you read what others in the legal community have to say about him, it's all very involved and likened to a scandalous novel when reading over or through it.
As the records show below, Prantil has been arrested several times, then incarcerated as a result for a array of charges ranging from harassment, resisting arrest on to criminal contempt etc. Mary Prantil has been committed to the state hospital in the past however she vigorously denied this, and then again here recently as you can see when you look her up on the link provided below concerning one of the RIKERS ISLAND JAIL facilities of The Rose M. Singer Center. Miss Scammer Prantil will be a guest here in this jail for the next two weeks because their afraid that she will flee justice, as she's done so many times before.
Prantil has also been court ordered to submit to a in-depth psychological exam to determine her sanity and moreover her distinction between right from wrong. Mary's not crazy more so then just a out of control petty criminal who's been caught, as they will all find out at the end of the study. This Simpleton Mary Prantil was just picked up on one out of two state warrants and thus was taken directly to the NUT HOUSE to await the remaining hearings and sentencing that they will ultimately produce against her. Seven to eight charges against this five foot and three inch 46 year old woman who starves herself down to a very thin 95 lbs is in a lot of trouble at this point. You would think that by the time you get to this point in your life it would be apparent that it's not prudent to act like a thirteen year old juvenile delinquent wanna be.
The police and courts have just HAD ENOUGH from what I understand, and they are ALL sick and TIRED of her games and thus they locked her up tight to be sure she wouldn't RUN, RUN, RUN away from them again. well Mary should be happy now as she's finally around people of her own stature- birds of a feather flock together in jail. Further down in this report it states that bail for Mary Prantil wasn't an option and that the court ordered her right into the hospital for a undetermined time for the mental evaluation. Again, Mary T. Prantil isn't crazy even though it would seem so however, she is a two bit manipulating criminal piece of New York TRASH who really knows how to play the legal system. I wonder how long she can keep up her act for the doctors and courts?
A trick she learned off her UNETHICAL ATTORNEY FATHER I'm sure. Especially, when it came to getting out of drug charges and expunging criminal records in the state of California. Mary says that she doesn't abuse drugs but that not what she told others and ourselves. I mean, doesn't everyone sit up all night long calling, emailing, maliciously harassing and stalking 16 to 20 people a night four over a four year period and for no apparent reason ? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ? WOW, the energy that must take on a nightly basis. I have trouble sending out five emails a day for this or that lol.
Mary says that she doesn't drink but again, we beg to differ with her lol. Mary says that she never had a spell cast with any service be they online or land based. Again, there are five or six on-line magic sites who beg to differ with this claim coming from Prantil as we all have records to show service rendered to her. Prantil states that she never ripped anyone off, yet there are two or three sites who can show that Prantil obtained services and then charged back, or wrote them rubber checks for their trouble. We have several on-line businesses who have been harassed by prantil who moreover kept records and recordings of her twenty to thirty calls a night.
Well, Mary can get her head checked out while she waits for judgment day; maybe she can manipulate her way out of the charges coming down on her. Maybe she can tell the Judge how the whole world is against her and moreover how her voices from God told her to rip off, scam and slander whomever she thought was evil. Perhaps her voices weren't from God after all and just herself talking to herself. You know, this happens a lot when people start coming apart at the seams, especially when nearing the end of their cycle of terror against others. Guess what, Mary? The jig is up for you, and yes, KARMA IS REAL.
We've read when little Mary started using words like scam, liar and slander while accusing others of these despicable acts yet, she was the perpetrator of all of these low caliber deceptions. Again, we hear little "Miss innocent" proclaiming to the world: "Don't believe Rip Off Reports", " Ed Magedson is a criminal" yet it was Mary Prantil up on the site of Rip Off Reports under twenty or thirty different user names posting liable slanderous defaming business impeding speech against the innocent in order to destroy their businesses, NOT Ed Magedson. I don't care for ROR but let's give credit where credit is due. ROR may be guilty of being a opportunist site along with many other forum sites however, I've never seen any of these sites openly carry out against others what Mary Prantil has consistently carried out against the innocent.
We hear Prantil stating that no one should believe Jan or my reports on the Internet yet, we have produced endless documentation, or piles of verifiable proof against Prantil regarding police records, police eyewitness accounts, accounts from four other magick site owners in what had transpired when prantil came calling on them for the services they offered and then rendered. We have produced verifiable records, old and current civil and criminal court records along with audio sound files catching Mary Prantil admitting that her spell work did in fact work until she messed it all up through her malicious, disruptive, hostile and over all out of control behavior due to the drug and alcohol abuse.
Miss Prantil likes to use the word HOAX a lot however, the only hoax here was perpetrated on her end. Again, we hear the words scammer, scam, rip off artist yet, when you look back at all the evidence against this fool you can't help knowing who the real scammer, fake or con artist is, wouldn't you agree ? I know you do especially when looking over the records below. Lastly, when reading over her seven or eight blog pages that she currently has up on us, you will notice her one resounding message being (" DO NOT USE " , DO NOT USE " ).
Yes, this statement has been posted over and over again all over the Internet, posted under her thirty or more user names on about every scam site over the net. Further under about every disingenuous story that you can think of as she's attempted to pass herself off as different people in a effort to both draw sympathy and fool the public. You know, as stupid as it is, Prantil's reasons were for trying to destroy our business you'd think that she would have just faded away after a while, but as you can see she was still with us four years later continuing to make a total a*s out of herself committing crimes to us and others to the point that she is actually up on several criminal charges including an ACTUAL FELONY STALKING CHARGE.
Basically her reasons for four years of lying and harassment was because we wouldn't take any s**t from her, nor would we permit her in scamming us out of services. We wouldn't permit her in bossing us around or posting blatant lies about us on the Internet without confronting her with factual proof disputing all her lies for all to see. That's all it took for this scammer to repeatedly attack us for close to four years. The thing that really angers her is in that we EXPOSE her every time we get a chance, or when we see her attempting to scam private persons or businesses.
Miss Prantil said it best when she said " Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves " SHE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HER OWN ADVICE as she gave everyone the rope to hang her high through her own evil actions and many crimes against innocent others. Internet Terrorist Mary T. Prantil will now face real justice in the CRIMINAL courts of New York while being made to face up to everything she's ever carried out against anyone. This criminal can get three to five years from what I understand when reading over what she's been technically charged with concerning the N.Y state codes, let's hope so anyway, as we all will be very happy to never hear of her again after all the trouble she has caused many innocent people. Hopefully the criminal courts will lock Prantil up AND THROW AWAY THE KEY, LOL.
I hope my faith in the Justice system can be restored once again. As I've said before, we as a Nation should be protected by our laws and thus people like prantil should be locked away under a deep, cold and dark jail in Siberia somewhere far away from the rest of us. I feel Mary T. Prantil was someone in search of the American dream but never seem to attain it on any level, and it was then that she decided to take a lesser version of it by force by resorting to the loathsome actions as stealing, conning, lying and attempting to steal or destroy this same dream that others are so earnestly trying to attain in these despairing times. Again, Mary's distorted view of the world and they way things should be carried out in life.
It all came down to jealousy, greed and reinventing herself into something that Prantil never had any real hope of becoming in reality. She fancies herself as a "Comedian" but how can you bring laughter to the world when your bringing so much sadness in its place through your own selfish actions ? You can't. How can the hopeless one bring love, laughter and hope to the world ? They can't because love, hope and laughter is nonexistent within them and can't give what you have not to give.
Prantil is a person whom feels that the American dream let her down, or left her behind and thus she decided that she should go for broke and attain this dream in any way possible even if it came at the great expense of others, even if it met breaking societal and spiritual rules across the board. In short, site policies, state laws, ethics, good morals or positive standers mean ABSOLUTY nothing to this individual of Mary Prantil. Religion, faith and other principal's are merely things she stands behind when it's convenient for her to do so, or can be used to achieve her goals.
Mary Prantil is someone who believes the world owes her a living in the process of achieving what she considered to be the American dream. As I've stated in other posts, Miss Prantil sure has a funny way of "achieving her dreams" and further has very little to total disregard for the rights of others in the process. Many people all over the country have suffered emencly as a direct result of Prantil's speech and actions over the last four years and back. Why? Because this person was left unchecked by the legal system for so long not to mentioned her despicable behavior being enabled by her family and others just because they were afraid to step in and do what needed to be done in committing her early on.
Well, it looks like it all coming full circle for Mary Prantil now, and the crow has finally come home to roost for lack of better words. I believe that our work has been completed in exposing this sick but criminal personality and there's really nothing more to say other then let this be a lesson to any scammers out there who, like Mary, believe that they are above the laws of the land and like to hide behind little fake names on the Internet while attacking the innocent, or ripping off the innocent. Scammers run both ways on the Internet, or can be found in the client just as well as in a bad company is the lesson for today.
I will say this to folks out there who like to pick on businesses: Without us you would still be growing your own s**t to eat and making your own clothing to wear, AREN'T YOU HAPPY you have someone to do this for you ? Most Companies and or small businesses AREN'T CRIMINALS so DON'T TREAT US as such. Have some d**n respect. Remember that word. We have respect for you so be kind to us next time you see a Vendor on the street or visit a web site. Besides we did not twist anyone's arm to contract services from us, and I can say the same about other businesses as well that have had to deal with someone attempting to impede their fair trade and or ruin their businesses as well. We do not go chasing after people to come and buy our services; our years of expertise and integrity stand alone, and the public knows us and who we are on the Internet, and what we have to offer.
I would like to say to everyone else that has had a personal conflict with Mary Prantil to rest easy now. I don't believe this moron will ever be back to hassle any of us ever again so it is time to release it and get back to our lives, it is time to enjoy the peace and quiet we once had before this menace of society came knocking at our doors with all her deceptions, trickery and games of scorn. Enjoy the postings exposing this Internet criminal for what she has always been, an ignorant fool. Even though Mary Prantil had spells cast for her situation many times over she never believed in them even when they worked in her life.
Ok, back to Miss Prantil; I wonder if now she believes in the Curse we cast against her now because she didn't seem to before lol??? The spell we cast against Mary Prantil in order to stop her madness against the innocent. What was that you said Mary ? Wasn't it something like, "God shall TRAMPLE the Dragon? " Well Mary, someone DID get trampled here but it wasn't my beautiful Jan or Dragon self, as you have clearly noticed. I think it's safe to say that YOU MARY PRANTIL were trampled under Divinity's Foot as evil can't exist in the presence of Divine Righteousness.
Let's hope that the state of New York continues to carry out its duty in the instance of Mary T. Prantil. Perhaps when it's all done, and when the judgments have been all passed, we as a society can been secure in that our system continues to work. Again, perhaps Mary T. Prantil will be lawfully RESTRAINED and kept away from law abiding citizens until which time she can function normally in society, if ever. If you would like to verify this on going criminal record on Miss Mary T. Prantil then please go to the address link below, be sure to click for updates as this case is still unfolding. If your not into looking up records we understand and thus the easy to access and read Queen Lilith Site is there for you at www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net.
The Lilith site was constructed out of necessity due to the prolonged cyber attacks we've endured as a direct result of Mary prantil attempting to destroy our business over the last four years. On this particular site you can view her entire criminal history along with several sound files catching her in the act of habitually lying, threatening, blackmailing, extortion etc. You will also read through the transcripts and eyewitness accounts along with transcripts of what actually transpired between her and the sites that were foolish enough to take on her cases.
The entire purposes of this site isn't to defame, embarrass or humiliate prantil however, it is about presenting the facts in a fair and truthful way while defending ourselves against the onslaught of her endless accusations. This is a defense site that were in essence excursing our right to free speech found under the first amendment of the United States Construction.
MARY PRANTIL
NYSID:
03088617J
Age:
46
Sex:
Female
Race:
White
Height:
5 ft 3 inches
Weight:
95 lbs
Hair Color:
Blonde
Eye Color:
Green
Nativity:
New York
Booking Information
Incarceration: 2010-06-14
Book & Case Number:
3471001054
Facility:
Rose M. Singer Center
Arrest Date:
2010-06-14
Arrest Number:
COURT DIRECT
Next Court Date:
2010-06-30
Projected Release Date:
Actual Release Date:
Discharge Reason:
Bail & Bond:
Remanded
Charge Information
Docket:
2010NY022485
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
Docket:
2009NY002655
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor)
Docket:
2009NY046033
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
Ten Jails on Rikers Island
Rose M. Singer Center
List Part 2Address:
Rose M. Singer Center was opened in June 1988 as an 800-bed facility for female detainees and sentenced inmates. http://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/nycdoc/html/jailst1a.html#RMSC
19-19 Hazen St.,
East Elmhurst, N.Y.
11370
Washington,
United States of America
Idaho,
USA
The Report Above Is Fake Written By Cyber Stalker Mary T. Prantil, Criminal Records Below Of Mary Prantil
AKA Mary T. Prantil of Queens County Astoria New York. You can also find Scam
Prantil posting on Rip Off Report and other Forum sites posting against us
under AKA Honest Person AKA Honestperson AKA Park City USA, AKA
Uta, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania, AKA Washington D.C. AKA Washington, AKA
Astoria, New York, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania AKA Park City, AKA Utah AKA
Astoria New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA SadisticPsychicJanWindglowsHURTME2 -
Houston (USA
AKA Unhappy
Client - Xxx (U.S.A AKACONArtist-JimMorganNOTaWizardorMagicalPowers AKA Houston
(USA AKA SCAMJanWindglowsSpellCastingSchemeOperation AKA Settle USA AKA Astoria
USA AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A. AKA Cc - Essex United Kingdom AKA Enforcer
Of Justice AKA Washington D.C., Washington AKA New York, New York AKA Phoenix
Arizona AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A AKA Enforced Justice AKA Phoenix USA
AKA UK Other AKA PsychicHater (Seattle Washington)United States of America, AKA do not tread on me
(Astoria New York AKA OpinionatedAmerican (Tampa
Florida)United States of America
.
CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.
Update On Mary T.
Prantil Of Astoria New York
I've waited
so long, to both find and post this information on the Forum sites against Miss
Prantil. You know, Mary T. Prantil the two bit Internet CRIMINAL Cyber Stalker,
LOL. You know, the same IDIOT that just wouldn't go away while the getting was
good. Who moreover felt so compiled in getting up on the internet everyday for
four years attempting to scam free services out of unsuspecting online
businesses and then viciously attacking and SLANDERING them just because they
wouldn't let this parasite get away with conning them. Of course, she would
eventually re-scam and slander the ones she did have a chance to rip off as the
years unfolded as in the case of the Mike Cahill and prantil incident, of
scandal.
This report is a UPDATE to the first report that
focused on revealing Prantil's Criminality, or unlawful activities against 11 to
12 people as the record reflects, and another EIGHT people that the record isn't
showing at this time. I think Prantil was accusing us of stalking at one point
along with her other lunatic charges such as us allegedly hacking, tax fraud,
credit card fraud etc. Get a load of this charge that was just recently launched
against Miss Congeniality by the N.Y Court system just yesterday :
120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony.
I'm sure you've all ready read our charges against
her by now such as PROLONGED Telephone and email harassment, Habitual lieing,
Tax Evasion, Extortion, Blackmail etc. Get a gander of her updated eight
different charges on prantil provided below, YES I said 8 different charges that
she's currently being held there in NY on until she can go to back to court to
explain all her actions to the JUDGE'S.
Again, yes, I said Judge's as there are five or six
of them all together, Why ? because little Mary has been keeping them all very
busy while being brought up on several charges of harassing others around her.
Of course, mary leads a very full life without a dull moment and that's why
she's been running around on the internet trying to convince everyone else that
she wasn't a two bit low life criminal while all this has been going on behind
the scenes.
Running around while hiding behind one of her 33
fictitious names professing to speak the truth, telling her story in how she was
the VICTIM of all those big nasty online magick casting businesses. Oh help me,
help me everyone because I am the victim of being scammed, being hacked,
stalked, slandered etc etc etc. Poor Little Mary. Did mary get a bad rap by the
New York Court system to ?. I mean, are they lieing as well ?, perhaps their
just picking on little scammer mary as well. Mary likes to hear herself talk
when repeatedly saying " I didn't do anything " , " I didn't rip off anyone ",
"I don't have a criminal record, blah, blah, blah. And lets not forget go
ramblings about how great, or how prestigious the prantil family is LOL.
What was it prantil says on one of her sites ?
wasn't it something like " Birds Only Pick At The Best Fruit " LOL, I think in
Mary's case it would be Buzzards and Crows as they like their fruit rotten. Mary
does remind me of something rotten, maybe not fruit but rotten just the same.
Maybe I'm thinking rotten with a side order of pound scum when I think of mary.
Of course between bashing Jan and myself Prantil goes on to tell everyone that
she's living the American dream and how Madonna is her mentor regarding her
seven or eight blog pages. Please keep in mind that this is a 46 year old woman
who says this along with her wanting to look like Kate moss
lol.
One minute she's a hand and hoof model, and in the
same breath she's a cooperate executive on wall street. In all reality prantil
was nothing but a assistant secretary working for temporary services making a
meager wage far from the six figures she had boasted in making earlier on.
If you visit her blog sites, you'll see this in her
job description. Basically, she made the coffee,
shuffled papers, received calls, greeted people at the front desk and passed
messages to folks working in the various offices from time to time. Of course
these jobs didn't last as the longest held job may have been a year or a little
over before she was fired for misconduct.
All in all, this is a far cry from her being a
self-proclaimed Corporate Executive for HBO, CNN and Cinimax she ranted and
raved about over the last three years. Really when you look over prantil's life,
you can see that she's always lead a menial life with no hopes of ever going
anywhere in the cooperate world. Maybe this is why she felt it so important to
fabricate, or lie about everything under the sun to make a impression on others,
to come off bigger then life. Of course this fantasy, illusion of distorted
reality became a way of life for prantil and moreover came in handy when
mary started her little slamming campaign against us on the net. Her finally
tuned imaginary skills came handy when it came to lashing out at others who
rubbed her the wrong way, like us lol.
It's interesting how Miss Prantil repeatedly states
on her blog pages how Jan and myself are guilty of this and that but never seems
to come up with any proof to back up any of her pathetic statements or charges
against us, especially when given four years to produce anything to back up the
smallest statement made. Miss Prantil was taken into custody before she could
remove these blog pages just for the record, I also think it's important to
explain that prantil never dreamed that her criminal records would be made
public record by the courts and thus directly disproving her claims of not
having a criminal record of any kind.
When she saw these criminal records posted for the
first time I bet the blood just drained down to her feet while she was knocked
back with surreal disbelief lol. To be on the net bashing several people and
then to see your own criminal activities revealed must be a sobering feeling
indeed. Mary also likes to talk about karma and how it's real, well, KARMA is
real as she is now finding out. I hope that she thinks of us while sitting in
her small little nut cell and how we assisted the DA in putting her there.
I certainly hope she thinks of all the people she's
ripped off and harassed over the years, she will have plenty of time to think
about a lot of things in my opinion, especially about the curse we placed on her
and how it will never go away, it will never be broken, it will never fade, it
will be there looming over her forever. Please read her criminal reports and
then go check out these links going to prantil's FANTASY pages. The links are
as follows:
(((Redacted)))
Prantil is very direct when repeatedly stating that
she has Never been arrested, Never been in jail, Never was committed into a
psychiatric ward, Never used or sold drugs, Never ripped off online or land
biased businesses, Never used any online spell casting services, Never went
bankrupt, Always paid her taxes and on and on. Ok, well, Miss Prantil is
nothing but a lieing CRIMINAL and I'm about to prove it over and over again.
In the previous report you can see where she owes
the U.S Government $ 4000.00 in federal tax & $130.00 state or county tax,
not only this but this report shows the Tax Warrants out on her.
Prantil does in FACT have a civil and criminal record
going back 20 years, back to her childhood in California while growing up under
her unethical attorney father that was Disbarred twice for drug abuse, stealing
$700,000 and lieing over and over to the court when asked about his shady
activities with one or two of his Clients that he became personally involved
with. The man seems to have been the lowest low life of the legal community when
you read what others in the legal community have to say about him, it's all very
involved and likened to a scandalous novel when reading over or through it.
As the records show below, Prantil has been arrested
several times, then incarcerated as a result for a array of charges ranging from
harassment, resisting arrest on to criminal contempt etc. Mary Prantil has been
committed to the state hospital in the past however she vigorously denied this,
and then again here recently as you can see when you look her up on the link
provided below concerning the RIKERS ISLAND JAIL facility called
Rose M. Singer
Center. Miss Scammer Prantil will be a
guest here in this jail for the next two weeks because their afraid that she
will flee justice, as she's done so many times before.
Prantil has also been Court Ordered to submit to a
in-depth psychological exam to determine her sanity and moreover her distinction
between right from wrong. Mary's not crazy more so then just a out of control
petty criminal who's been caught, as they will all find out at the end of the
study. This Simpleton was just picked up on one out of
two state Warrants and thus was taken directly to the NUT HOUSE to await the
remaining hearings and sentencing that they will ultimately produce against her.
seven to eight charges against this five foot and three inch 46 year old woman
who starves herself down to a very thin 95 lbs is in a lot of trouble at
this point. You would think that by the time you get to this point in your life
it would be apparent that it's not prudent to act like a thirteen year old
juvenile delinquent.
The police and Courts have just had enough from what
I understand and their tired of her games and thus they locked her up tight to
be sure she wouldn't RUN, RUN, RUN away from them again, well mary should be
happy now as she's finally around people of her own station, birds of a feather
flock together in jail. Further down in this report it states that bail wasn't
an option and that the court ordered her right into the hospital for a
undetermined time for the mental evaluation. Again, Mary T. Prantil isn't Crazy
even though it would seem so however, she is a two bit manipulating criminal
piece of New York TRASH who really knows how to play the system. I wonder how
long she can keep up her act for the doctors and courts.
A trick she learned off her UNETHICAL ATTORNEY FATHER I'm
sure. Especially, when it came to getting out of drug charges and expunging
criminal records in the state of California. Mary says that she doesn't abuse
drugs but that not what she told others and ourselves. I mean, doesn't everyone
sit up all night long calling, emailing, maliciously harassing and stalking 16
to 20 people a night four over a four year period and for no apparent reason ?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?, WOW the energy that must take on a nightly
basis. I have trouble sending out five emails a day for this or that
lol.
Mary says that she doesn't drink but again, we beg
to differ with her lol. Mary says that she never had a spell cast with any
service be they online or land based. Again, there are five or six on-line magic
sites who beg to differ with this claim coming from prantil as we all have
records to show service rendered to her. Prantil states that she never ripped
anyone off, yet there are two or three sites who can show that prantil obtained
services and then charged back, or wrote them rubber checks for their trouble.
We have several on-line businesses who have been harassed by prantil who
moreover kept records and recordings of her twenty to thirty calls a night.
Well, Mary can get her
head checked out while she waits for judgment day,, maybe she can manipulate her
way out of the charges coming down on her. Maybe she can tell the Judge how the
whole world is against her and moreover how her voices from God told her to rip
off, scam and slander whomever she thought was evil. Perhaps her voices weren't
from God after all and just herself talking to herself. You know, this happens a
lot when people start coming apart at the seems, especially when nearing the end
of their cycle of terror against others.
We've read when little Mary started using words like
scam, liar and slander while accusing others of these despicable acts yet, she
was the perpetrator of all of these low caliber deceptions. Again, we hear
little miss innocent proclaiming to the world: "Don't believe Rip Off Reports",
" Ed Magedson is a criminal" yet it was Mary Prantil up on the site of Rip Off
Reports under twenty or thirty different user names posting liable speech
against the innocent in order to destroy their businesses, Not Ed Magedson. I
don't care for ROR but let's give credit where credit is due. ROR may be guilty
of being a opportunist site along with many other forum sites however, I've
never seen any of these sites openly carry out against others what prantil has
consistently carried out against the innocent.
We hear Prantil stating that no one should believe
Jan or my reports on the Internet yet, we have produced endless documentation,
or piles of verifiable proof against Prantil regarding police records, police
eyewitness accounts, accounts from four other magick site owners in what had
transpired when prantil came calling on them for the services they offered and
then rendered. We have produced verifiable records, old and current civil and
criminal court records along with audio sound files catching prantil admitting
that her spell work did in fact work until she messed it all up through her
malicious, disruptive, hostile and over all out of control behavior due to the
drug and alcohol abuse.
Miss Prantil likes to use the word HOAX a lot
however, the only hoax here was perpetrated on her end. Again, we hear the words
scammer, scam, rip off artist yet, when you look back at all the evidence
against this fool you can't help knowing who the real scammer, fake or con
artist is, wouldn't you agree ? I know you do especially when looking over the
records below. Lastly, when reading over her seven or eight blog pages that she
currently has up on us, you will notice her one resounding message being (" DO
NOT USE " DO NOT USE " ).
Yes, this statement has been posted over and over
again all over the Internet, posted under her thirty or more User names on about
every scam site over the net. Further under about every disingenuous story that
you can think of as she's attempted to pass herself off as different people in a
effort to both draw sympathy and fool the public. You know, as stupid as it is
prantil's reasons were for trying to destroy our business you'd think that she
would have just faded away after a while, but as you can see she was still with
us four years latter.
Basically her reasons for four years of lieing and
harassment was because we wouldn't take any s**t from her, nor would we permit
her in scamming us out of services. We wouldn't permit her in bossing us around
or posting blatant lies about us on the Internet without confronting her with
factual proof disputing all her lies for all to see. That's it, that's all it
took for this scammer to repeatedly attack us for close to four years. The thing
that really angers her is in that we EXPOSE her every time we get a chance, or
when we see her attempting to scam private persons or businesses.
Miss Prantil said it best when she said " Give them
enough rope and they will hang themselves " SHE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HER OWN ADVICE
as she gave everyone the rope to hang her high through her own evil actions
against others. Internet Terrorist Mary T. Prantil will now face real justice
in the courts of New York while being made to face up to everything she's ever
carried out against anyone, this criminal can get three to five years from what
I understand when reading over what she's been technically charged with
concerning the N.Y state codes, let's hope so any way.
I hope my faith in the Justice system can be
restored once again. As I've said before, we as a Nation should be protected by
our laws and thus people like prantil should be locked away under a deep, cold
and dark jail in Siberia somewhere far away from the rest of us. I feel Mary T.
Prantil was someone in search of the American dream but never seem to attain it
on any level, and it was then that she decided to take a lesser version of it by
force by resorting to the loathsome actions as stealing, conning, lieing and
attempting to steal or destroy this same dream that others are so earnestly
trying to attain in these despairing times. Again, Marys distorted view of the
world and they way things should be carried out in life.
It all came down to jealousy, greed and reinventing
herself into something that prantil never had any real hope of becoming in
reality. She fancies herself as a Comedian but how can you bring laughter to the
world when your bringing so much sadness in its place through your own selfish
actions ? you can't. How can the hopeless one bring love, laughter and hope to
the world ?, They can't because love, hope and laughter is nonexistent
within them and can't give what you have not to give.
Prantil is a person whom feels that the American
dream let her down, or left her behind and thus she decided that she should go
for broke and attain this dream in any way possible even if it came at the great
expense of others, even if it met breaking societal and spiritual rules across
the board. In short, site policies, state laws, ethics, good morals or positive
standers mean ABSOLUTY nothing to this Individual. Religion, faith and other
principal's are merely things she stands behind when it's convenient for her to
do so, or can be used to achieve her goals.
Mary Prantil is someone who believes the world owes
her a living in the process of achieving what she considered to be the American
dream. As I've stated in other post, Miss Prantil sure has a funny way of
achieving her dreams and further has very little to total disregard for the
rights of others in the process. Many people all over the country have suffered
emencly as a direct result of prantil's speech and actions over the last
four years and back, Why ? because this person was left unchecked by the legal
system for so long not to mentioned her despicable behavior being enabled by her
family and others just because they were afraid to step in and do what needed to
be done in committing her early on.
Well, it looks like it all coming full circle for
prantil now, and the crow has finally come home to roost for lack of better
words, I believe that our work has been completed in exposing this sick but
criminal personality and there's really nothing more to say other then let this
be a lesson to any scammers out there who, like mary, believe that they are
above the laws of the land and like to hide behind little fake names on the
Internet while attacking the innocent, or ripping off the innocent. Scammers run
both ways on the Internet, or can be found in the Client just as well as in a
bad company is the lesson for today.
I will say this to folks out there who like to pick
on businesses: Without us you would still be growing your own s**t to eat and
making your own clothing to wear, AREN'T YOU HAPPY you have someone to do this
for you ? Most Companies and or small businesses AREN'T CRIMINALS so DON'T TREAT
US as such. Have some dam respect, Remember that word ? we have respect for you
so be kind to us next time you see a Vender on the street or visit a web site.
I would like to say to everyone else that has had a
personal conflict with Mary to rest easy now, I don't believe this moron will
ever be back to hassle any of us ever again, time to release it and get back to
our lives, time to enjoy the peace and quiet we once had before this menace of
society came knocking at our doors with all her deceptions, trickery and games
of scorn. Enjoy the postings exposing this Internet criminal for what she has
always been, a ignorant fool. Even though Mary had spells cast for her situation
many times over she never believed in them even when they worked in her
life.
Ok, back to Miss Prantil, I wonder if she believes
in the Curse we cast against her now because she didn't seem to before lol. The
spell we cast against prantil in order to stop her madness against the innocent.
What was that you said Mary ?, wasn't it something like God shall TRAMPLE the
Dragon ? Well mary, someone did get trampled here but it wasn't my beautiful Jan
or Dragon self, I think it's safe to say that you were trampled under Divinities
foot as evil can't exist in the presence of divine
righteousness.
Let's hope that the state of New York continues to
carry out its duty in the instance of Mary T. Prantil. Perhaps when it's all
done, and when the judgments have been all passed, we as a society can been
secure in that our system continues to work. Again, perhaps Mary T. Prantil will
be lawfully RESTRAINED and kept away from law abiding citizens until which time
she can function normally in society, if ever. If you would like to verify this
on going criminal record on Miss Mary T. Prantil then please go to the address
link below, be sure to click for updates as this case is still unfolding. If
your not into looking up records we understand and thus the easy to access and
read Queen Lilith Site is there for you at (((Redacted)))The Lilith site was constructed out of necessity due
to the prolonged cyber attacks we've endured as a direct result of mary prantil
attempting to destroy our business over the last four years. On this particular
site you can view her entire criminal history along with several sound files
catching her in the act of habitually lying, threatening, blackmailing,
extortion etc. You will also read through the transcripts and eyewitness
accounts along with transcripts of what actually transpired between her and the
sites that were foolish enough to take on her cases.
The entire purposes of this site isn't to defame,
embarrass or humiliate prantil however, it is about presenting the facts in a
fair and truthful way while defending ourselves against the onslaught of her
endless accusations. This is a defense site that were in essence excursing our
right to free speech found under the first amendment of the United States
Constitution.
MARY PRANTIL
NYSID:
03088617J
Age:
46
Sex:
Female
Race:
White
Height:
5 ft 3 inches
Weight:
95 lbs
Hair Color:
Blonde
Eye Color:
Green
Nativity:
New
York
Booking Information
Incarceration: 2010-06-14
Book & Case Number:
3471001054
Facility:
Rose M. Singer Center
Arrest Date:
2010-06-14
Arrest Number:
COURT DIRECT
Next Court Date:
2010-06-30
Projected Release Date:
Actual Release Date:
Discharge Reason:
Bail & Bond:
Remanded
Charge Information
Docket:
2010NY022485
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED
HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
Docket:
2009NY002655
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor)
Docket:
2009NY046033
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL
CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
Ten Jails on Rikers
Island
Rose M. Singer
Center
List Part 2Address:
Rose M.
Singer Center was opened in June 1988 as an 800-bed facility for female
detainees and sentenced inmates. (((Redacted)))
19-19 Hazen St.,
East Elmhurst, N.Y.
11370
Idaho,
USA
Your Going Back To Jail Cyber Stalker Mary T. Prantil, CRIMINAL RECORDS TO STALKER BELOW
AKA Unhappy
Client - Xxx (U.S.A AKACONArtist-JimMorganNOTaWizardorMagicalPowers AKA Houston
(USA AKA SCAMJanWindglowsSpellCastingSchemeOperation AKA Settle USA AKA Astoria
USA AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A. AKA Cc - Essex United Kingdom AKA Enforcer
Of Justice AKA Washington D.C., Washington AKA New York, New York AKA Phoenix
Arizona AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A AKA Enforced Justice AKA Phoenix USA
AKA UK Other AKA PsychicHater (Seattle Washington)United States of America, AKA do not tread on me
(Astoria New York AKA OpinionatedAmerican (Tampa
Florida)United States of America
.
Update On Mary T.
Prantil Of Astoria New York
I've waited
so long, to both find and post this information on the Forum sites against Miss
Prantil. You know, Mary T. Prantil the two bit Internet CRIMINAL Cyber Stalker,
LOL. You know, the same IDIOT that just wouldn't go away while the getting was
good. Who moreover felt so compiled in getting up on the internet everyday for
four years attempting to scam free services out of unsuspecting online
businesses and then viciously attacking and SLANDERING them just because they
wouldn't let this parasite get away with conning them. Of course, she would
eventually re-scam and slander the ones she did have a chance to rip off as the
years unfolded as in the case of the Mike Cahill and prantil incident, of
scandal.
This report is a UPDATE to the first report that
focused on revealing Prantil's Criminality, or unlawful activities against 11 to
12 people as the record reflects, and another EIGHT people that the record isn't
showing at this time. I think Prantil was accusing us of stalking at one point
along with her other lunatic charges such as us allegedly hacking, tax fraud,
credit card fraud etc. Get a load of this charge that was just recently launched
against Miss Congeniality by the N.Y Court system just yesterday :
120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony.
I'm sure you've all ready read our charges against
her by now such as PROLONGED Telephone and email harassment, Habitual lieing,
Tax Evasion, Extortion, Blackmail etc. Get a gander of her updated eight
different charges on prantil provided below, YES I said 8 different charges that
she's currently being held there in NY on until she can go to back to court to
explain all her actions to the JUDGE'S.
Again, yes, I said Judge's as there are five or six
of them all together, Why ? because little Mary has been keeping them all very
busy while being brought up on several charges of harassing others around her.
Of course, mary leads a very full life without a dull moment and that's why
she's been running around on the internet trying to convince everyone else that
she wasn't a two bit low life criminal while all this has been going on behind
the scenes.
Running around while hiding behind one of her 33
fictitious names professing to speak the truth, telling her story in how she was
the VICTIM of all those big nasty online magick casting businesses. Oh help me,
help me everyone because I am the victim of being scammed, being hacked,
stalked, slandered etc etc etc. Poor Little Mary. Did mary get a bad rap by the
New York Court system to ?. I mean, are they lieing as well ?, perhaps their
just picking on little scammer mary as well. Mary likes to hear herself talk
when repeatedly saying " I didn't do anything " , " I didn't rip off anyone ",
"I don't have a criminal record, blah, blah, blah. And lets not forget go
ramblings about how great, or how prestigious the prantil family is LOL.
What was it prantil says on one of her sites ?
wasn't it something like " Birds Only Pick At The Best Fruit " LOL, I think in
Mary's case it would be Buzzards and Crows as they like their fruit rotten. Mary
does remind me of something rotten, maybe not fruit but rotten just the same.
Maybe I'm thinking rotten with a side order of pound scum when I think of mary.
Of course between bashing Jan and myself Prantil goes on to tell everyone that
she's living the American dream and how Madonna is her mentor regarding her
seven or eight blog pages. Please keep in mind that this is a 46 year old woman
who says this along with her wanting to look like Kate moss
lol.
One minute she's a hand and hoof model, and in the
same breath she's a cooperate executive on wall street. In all reality prantil
was nothing but a assistant secretary working for temporary services making a
meager wage far from the six figures she had boasted in making earlier on.
If you visit her blog sites, you'll see this in her
job description. Basically, she made the coffee,
shuffled papers, received calls, greeted people at the front desk and passed
messages to folks working in the various offices from time to time. Of course
these jobs didn't last as the longest held job may have been a year or a little
over before she was fired for misconduct.
All in all, this is a far cry from her being a
self-proclaimed Corporate Executive for HBO, CNN and Cinimax she ranted and
raved about over the last three years. Really when you look over prantil's life,
you can see that she's always lead a menial life with no hopes of ever going
anywhere in the cooperate world. Maybe this is why she felt it so important to
fabricate, or lie about everything under the sun to make a impression on others,
to come off bigger then life. Of course this fantasy, illusion of distorted
reality became a way of life for prantil and moreover came in handy when
mary started her little slamming campaign against us on the net. Her finally
tuned imaginary skills came handy when it came to lashing out at others who
rubbed her the wrong way, like us lol.
It's interesting how Miss Prantil repeatedly states
on her blog pages how Jan and myself are guilty of this and that but never seems
to come up with any proof to back up any of her pathetic statements or charges
against us, especially when given four years to produce anything to back up the
smallest statement made. Miss Prantil was taken into custody before she could
remove these blog pages just for the record, I also think it's important to
explain that prantil never dreamed that her criminal records would be made
public record by the courts and thus directly disproving her claims of not
having a criminal record of any kind.
When she saw these criminal records posted for the
first time I bet the blood just drained down to her feet while she was knocked
back with surreal disbelief lol. To be on the net bashing several people and
then to see your own criminal activities revealed must be a sobering feeling
indeed. Mary also likes to talk about karma and how it's real, well, KARMA is
real as she is now finding out. I hope that she thinks of us while sitting in
her small little nut cell and how we assisted the DA in putting her there.
I certainly hope she thinks of all the people she's
ripped off and harassed over the years, she will have plenty of time to think
about a lot of things in my opinion, especially about the curse we placed on her
and how it will never go away, it will never be broken, it will never fade, it
will be there looming over her forever. Please read her criminal reports and
then go check out these links going to prantil's FANTASY pages. The links are
as follows: http://maryprantil.wordpress.com/
http://maryprantilripoffreport.blogspot.com/
http://maryprantilcorrectstherecord.blogspot.com/
http://www.correcttherecord.com/index.php/main_profile/view/53 ..
Prantil is very direct when repeatedly stating that
she has Never been arrested, Never been in jail, Never was committed into a
psychiatric ward, Never used or sold drugs, Never ripped off online or land
biased businesses, Never used any online spell casting services, Never went
bankrupt, Always paid her taxes and on and on. Ok, well, Miss Prantil is
nothing but a lieing CRIMINAL and I'm about to prove it over and over again.
In the previous report you can see where she owes
the U.S Government $ 4000.00 in federal tax & $130.00 state or county tax,
not only this but this report shows the Tax Warrants out on her.
Prantil does in FACT have a civil and criminal record
going back 20 years, back to her childhood in California while growing up under
her unethical attorney father that was Disbarred twice for drug abuse, stealing
$700,000 and lieing over and over to the court when asked about his shady
activities with one or two of his Clients that he became personally involved
with. The man seems to have been the lowest low life of the legal community when
you read what others in the legal community have to say about him, it's all very
involved and likened to a scandalous novel when reading over or through it.
As the records show below, Prantil has been arrested
several times, then incarcerated as a result for a array of charges ranging from
harassment, resisting arrest on to criminal contempt etc. Mary Prantil has been
committed to the state hospital in the past however she vigorously denied this,
and then again here recently as you can see when you look her up on the link
provided below concerning the RIKERS ISLAND JAIL facility called
Rose M. Singer
Center. Miss Scammer Prantil will be a
guest here in this jail for the next two weeks because their afraid that she
will flee justice, as she's done so many times before.
Prantil has also been Court Ordered to submit to a
in-depth psychological exam to determine her sanity and moreover her distinction
between right from wrong. Mary's not crazy more so then just a out of control
petty criminal who's been caught, as they will all find out at the end of the
study. This Simpleton was just picked up on one out of
two state Warrants and thus was taken directly to the NUT HOUSE to await the
remaining hearings and sentencing that they will ultimately produce against her.
seven to eight charges against this five foot and three inch 46 year old woman
who starves herself down to a very thin 95 lbs is in a lot of trouble at
this point. You would think that by the time you get to this point in your life
it would be apparent that it's not prudent to act like a thirteen year old
juvenile delinquent.
The police and Courts have just had enough from what
I understand and their tired of her games and thus they locked her up tight to
be sure she wouldn't RUN, RUN, RUN away from them again, well mary should be
happy now as she's finally around people of her own station, birds of a feather
flock together in jail. Further down in this report it states that bail wasn't
an option and that the court ordered her right into the hospital for a
undetermined time for the mental evaluation. Again, Mary T. Prantil isn't Crazy
even though it would seem so however, she is a two bit manipulating criminal
piece of New York TRASH who really knows how to play the system. I wonder how
long she can keep up her act for the doctors and courts.
A trick she learned off her UNETHICAL ATTORNEY FATHER I'm
sure. Especially, when it came to getting out of drug charges and expunging
criminal records in the state of California. Mary says that she doesn't abuse
drugs but that not what she told others and ourselves. I mean, doesn't everyone
sit up all night long calling, emailing, maliciously harassing and stalking 16
to 20 people a night four over a four year period and for no apparent reason ?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?, WOW the energy that must take on a nightly
basis. I have trouble sending out five emails a day for this or that
lol.
Mary says that she doesn't drink but again, we beg
to differ with her lol. Mary says that she never had a spell cast with any
service be they online or land based. Again, there are five or six on-line magic
sites who beg to differ with this claim coming from prantil as we all have
records to show service rendered to her. Prantil states that she never ripped
anyone off, yet there are two or three sites who can show that prantil obtained
services and then charged back, or wrote them rubber checks for their trouble.
We have several on-line businesses who have been harassed by prantil who
moreover kept records and recordings of her twenty to thirty calls a night.
Well, Mary can get her
head checked out while she waits for judgment day,, maybe she can manipulate her
way out of the charges coming down on her. Maybe she can tell the Judge how the
whole world is against her and moreover how her voices from God told her to rip
off, scam and slander whomever she thought was evil. Perhaps her voices weren't
from God after all and just herself talking to herself. You know, this happens a
lot when people start coming apart at the seems, especially when nearing the end
of their cycle of terror against others.
We've read when little Mary started using words like
scam, liar and slander while accusing others of these despicable acts yet, she
was the perpetrator of all of these low caliber deceptions. Again, we hear
little miss innocent proclaiming to the world: "Don't believe Rip Off Reports",
" Ed Magedson is a criminal" yet it was Mary Prantil up on the site of Rip Off
Reports under twenty or thirty different user names posting liable speech
against the innocent in order to destroy their businesses, Not Ed Magedson. I
don't care for ROR but let's give credit where credit is due. ROR may be guilty
of being a opportunist site along with many other forum sites however, I've
never seen any of these sites openly carry out against others what prantil has
consistently carried out against the innocent.
We hear Prantil stating that no one should believe
Jan or my reports on the Internet yet, we have produced endless documentation,
or piles of verifiable proof against Prantil regarding police records, police
eyewitness accounts, accounts from four other magick site owners in what had
transpired when prantil came calling on them for the services they offered and
then rendered. We have produced verifiable records, old and current civil and
criminal court records along with audio sound files catching prantil admitting
that her spell work did in fact work until she messed it all up through her
malicious, disruptive, hostile and over all out of control behavior due to the
drug and alcohol abuse.
Miss Prantil likes to use the word HOAX a lot
however, the only hoax here was perpetrated on her end. Again, we hear the words
scammer, scam, rip off artist yet, when you look back at all the evidence
against this fool you can't help knowing who the real scammer, fake or con
artist is, wouldn't you agree ? I know you do especially when looking over the
records below. Lastly, when reading over her seven or eight blog pages that she
currently has up on us, you will notice her one resounding message being (" DO
NOT USE " DO NOT USE " ).
Yes, this statement has been posted over and over
again all over the Internet, posted under her thirty or more User names on about
every scam site over the net. Further under about every disingenuous story that
you can think of as she's attempted to pass herself off as different people in a
effort to both draw sympathy and fool the public. You know, as stupid as it is
prantil's reasons were for trying to destroy our business you'd think that she
would have just faded away after a while, but as you can see she was still with
us four years latter.
Basically her reasons for four years of lieing and
harassment was because we wouldn't take any s**t from her, nor would we permit
her in scamming us out of services. We wouldn't permit her in bossing us around
or posting blatant lies about us on the Internet without confronting her with
factual proof disputing all her lies for all to see. That's it, that's all it
took for this scammer to repeatedly attack us for close to four years. The thing
that really angers her is in that we EXPOSE her every time we get a chance, or
when we see her attempting to scam private persons or businesses.
Miss Prantil said it best when she said " Give them
enough rope and they will hang themselves " SHE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HER OWN ADVICE
as she gave everyone the rope to hang her high through her own evil actions
against others. Internet Terrorist Mary T. Prantil will now face real justice
in the courts of New York while being made to face up to everything she's ever
carried out against anyone, this criminal can get three to five years from what
I understand when reading over what she's been technically charged with
concerning the N.Y state codes, let's hope so any way.
I hope my faith in the Justice system can be
restored once again. As I've said before, we as a Nation should be protected by
our laws and thus people like prantil should be locked away under a deep, cold
and dark jail in Siberia somewhere far away from the rest of us. I feel Mary T.
Prantil was someone in search of the American dream but never seem to attain it
on any level, and it was then that she decided to take a lesser version of it by
force by resorting to the loathsome actions as stealing, conning, lieing and
attempting to steal or destroy this same dream that others are so earnestly
trying to attain in these despairing times. Again, Marys distorted view of the
world and they way things should be carried out in life.
It all came down to jealousy, greed and reinventing
herself into something that prantil never had any real hope of becoming in
reality. She fancies herself as a Comedian but how can you bring laughter to the
world when your bringing so much sadness in its place through your own selfish
actions ? you can't. How can the hopeless one bring love, laughter and hope to
the world ?, They can't because love, hope and laughter is nonexistent
within them and can't give what you have not to give.
Prantil is a person whom feels that the American
dream let her down, or left her behind and thus she decided that she should go
for broke and attain this dream in any way possible even if it came at the great
expense of others, even if it met breaking societal and spiritual rules across
the board. In short, site policies, state laws, ethics, good morals or positive
standers mean ABSOLUTY nothing to this Individual. Religion, faith and other
principal's are merely things she stands behind when it's convenient for her to
do so, or can be used to achieve her goals.
Mary Prantil is someone who believes the world owes
her a living in the process of achieving what she considered to be the American
dream. As I've stated in other post, Miss Prantil sure has a funny way of
achieving her dreams and further has very little to total disregard for the
rights of others in the process. Many people all over the country have suffered
emencly as a direct result of prantil's speech and actions over the last
four years and back, Why ? because this person was left unchecked by the legal
system for so long not to mentioned her despicable behavior being enabled by her
family and others just because they were afraid to step in and do what needed to
be done in committing her early on.
Well, it looks like it all coming full circle for
prantil now, and the crow has finally come home to roost for lack of better
words, I believe that our work has been completed in exposing this sick but
criminal personality and there's really nothing more to say other then let this
be a lesson to any scammers out there who, like mary, believe that they are
above the laws of the land and like to hide behind little fake names on the
Internet while attacking the innocent, or ripping off the innocent. Scammers run
both ways on the Internet, or can be found in the Client just as well as in a
bad company is the lesson for today.
I will say this to folks out there who like to pick
on businesses: Without us you would still be growing your own s**t to eat and
making your own clothing to wear, AREN'T YOU HAPPY you have someone to do this
for you ? Most Companies and or small businesses AREN'T CRIMINALS so DON'T TREAT
US as such. Have some dam respect, Remember that word ? we have respect for you
so be kind to us next time you see a Vender on the street or visit a web site.
I would like to say to everyone else that has had a
personal conflict with Mary to rest easy now, I don't believe this moron will
ever be back to hassle any of us ever again, time to release it and get back to
our lives, time to enjoy the peace and quiet we once had before this menace of
society came knocking at our doors with all her deceptions, trickery and games
of scorn. Enjoy the postings exposing this Internet criminal for what she has
always been, a ignorant fool. Even though Mary had spells cast for her situation
many times over she never believed in them even when they worked in her
life.
Ok, back to Miss Prantil, I wonder if she believes
in the Curse we cast against her now because she didn't seem to before lol. The
spell we cast against prantil in order to stop her madness against the innocent.
What was that you said Mary ?, wasn't it something like God shall TRAMPLE the
Dragon ? Well mary, someone did get trampled here but it wasn't my beautiful Jan
or Dragon self, I think it's safe to say that you were trampled under Divinities
foot as evil can't exist in the presence of divine
righteousness.
Let's hope that the state of New York continues to
carry out its duty in the instance of Mary T. Prantil. Perhaps when it's all
done, and when the judgments have been all passed, we as a society can been
secure in that our system continues to work. Again, perhaps Mary T. Prantil will
be lawfully RESTRAINED and kept away from law abiding citizens until which time
she can function normally in society, if ever. If you would like to verify this
on going criminal record on Miss Mary T. Prantil then please go to the address
link below, be sure to click for updates as this case is still unfolding. If
your not into looking up records we understand and thus the easy to access and
read Queen Lilith Site is there for you at www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net.
The Lilith site was constructed out of necessity due
to the prolonged cyber attacks we've endured as a direct result of mary prantil
attempting to destroy our business over the last four years. On this particular
site you can view her entire criminal history along with several sound files
catching her in the act of habitually lying, threatening, blackmailing,
extortion etc. You will also read through the transcripts and eyewitness
accounts along with transcripts of what actually transpired between her and the
sites that were foolish enough to take on her cases.
The entire purposes of this site isn't to defame,
embarrass or humiliate prantil however, it is about presenting the facts in a
fair and truthful way while defending ourselves against the onslaught of her
endless accusations. This is a defense site that were in essence excursing our
right to free speech found under the first amendment of the United States
Constitution.
MARY PRANTIL
NYSID:
03088617J
Age:
46
Sex:
Female
Race:
White
Height:
5 ft 3 inches
Weight:
95 lbs
Hair Color:
Blonde
Eye Color:
Green
Nativity:
New
York
Booking Information
Incarceration: 2010-06-14
Book & Case Number:
3471001054
Facility:
Rose M. Singer Center
Arrest Date:
2010-06-14
Arrest Number:
COURT DIRECT
Next Court Date:
2010-06-30
Projected Release Date:
Actual Release Date:
Discharge Reason:
Bail & Bond:
Remanded
Charge Information
Docket:
2010NY022485
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED
HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
Docket:
2009NY002655
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor)
Docket:
2009NY046033
Indictment:
00000 0000
Charges:
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL
CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
Ten Jails on Rikers
Island
Rose M. Singer
Center
List Part 2Address:
Rose M.
Singer Center was opened in June 1988 as an 800-bed facility for female
detainees and sentenced inmates. http://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/nycdoc/html/jailst1a.html#RMSC
19-19 Hazen St.,
East Elmhurst, N.Y.
11370
➤
//
