Sponsored Links
nodetype

Jan Windglows Cyber SCAMMER Mary Prantil EXPOSED ! - Mary Prantil, LIAR, Felony Stalker, Text Switcher, Cannot Admit To The Truth of ACTUAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS,


Sponsored Links
Scam Report: #0062050

Jan Windglows
Cyber SCAMMER Mary Prantil EXPOSED ! - bloodloveandlustspells.com

Mary Prantil, LIAR, Felony Stalker, Text Switcher, Cannot Admit To The Truth of ACTUAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS,

Cyber SCAMMER Mary Prantil EXPOSED !
P.O. Box 118
Bonners Ferry Idaho 83805
United States
Phone: 208-714-4348
SCAM REPORT:
Respond to this report!
 File a Dispute!
Victim of this company?
 File a Report!

Gee Mary Prantil keeps blurting out all about her stupid blogs, saying she is innocent, has been trying to ruin my successful business because Prantil could not get her money back for all the successful work I did for her. What really happened is that MARY PRANTIL messed up her life and blamed it on ME. If Mary Prantil is NOT a criminal, then what is this picture that I am finding all over the Internet of MARY PRANTIL IN JAIL IN AN ORANGE SUIT?????? OH, IS THAT A FAKE PICTURE, A FALSE REPORT TOO, MARY?

Ya know, Mary Prantil sounds like A REAL IDIOT ON THE PUBLIC FORUMS. The woman has not, and cannot provide proof of any of her statements. Why? Because Mary Prantil is a LIAR. It runs in her family, apparently.

This is Jan Windglows owner of Blood Love And Lust Spells. First of all, Mary Prantil is the CRIMINAL here, and I do business casting spells for a living, legally and very successfully. You, poster are a liar and are probably Mary Prantil up here posting trash about myself, my husband and my innocent business.

ANYONE THAT ACCUSES ME OF SCAMMING ANYONE IS IGNORANT. If a person knows that I make my living by casting spells, and they make a choice to have me cast for them, they are not getting scammed at all. I fully explain everything about how spells work beforehand so sorry, not working, I did not SCAM anyone- never have, never will. I have a Higher Power to answer to, who do you answer to?

Mary Prantil is the SCAMMER AND SORE LOSER, why? Because she got mad because I would not allow her to SCAM ME AND RIP ME OFF out of the money SHE INSISTED ON PAYING ME after she BEGGED me to cast not one but SEVERAL spells for her.

I am fully legal, legitimate business. Like I said, and have been saying, ( perhaps you people cannot read ?) MARY PRANTIL'S CRIMINAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN POSTED ALL OVER THE INTERNET because she could not stop harassing us so we stood up to her and will continue to defend our innocent business.

Nobody TWISTED Mary Prantil's arm to have me cast spells for her. I did not go searching the Universe for Mary Prantil, SHE CAME TO ME FOR SPELLS AND OFFERED TO PAY ME. She attained all her results- then became mad when we completed her work successfully but after she messed up her life she could not force us to refund her money. YOU WHOEVER YOU ARE MUST BE STUPID OR ILLITERATE because my business HAS A NO REFUND POLICY this is something Mary Prantil WAS FULLY MADE AWARE OF before she EVER paid me a dime. I do not cast spells and then refund someone's money- never have, never will. Spell work is spiritual in nature not like getting your car fixed. NO REFUNDS- Mary KNEW this, and I have all Mary Prantil's emails to me telling me how much she liked our services and how much we helped her. I cannot, however help someone if they choose to not follow Divinity or live their life according to the laws of Divinity. Mary Prantil chose evil, and evil is right behind her, and will be the driving force that will put her away in jail for a long time to come and she knows this.

I hope all of the trouble SCAMMER CRIMINAL FELONY STALKER Mary Prantil has gotten herself into has been WELL WORTH IT FOR HER.

NOW READ THIS, AND BEFORE YOU GET UP ON ANY INTERNET FORUM AGAIN AND MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF, YOU HAD BETTER KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE ALL OF YOUR ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME ARE FALSE.

Hello to all who read this- this is Enchantress Jan Windglows, owner and
successful entrepreneur of my beautiful web site, <a href="http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com" title="www.bloodloveandlustspells.com">www.bloodloveandlustspells.com</a>

Business Phone Number: 208-714-4348

Scammer Mary should go and wash her mouth out with the biggest, strongest bar of soap she can find. I am a SOLO act, no employees, anyone can pull up records on ME and will find that I am clean as the white virgin snow, which is more than I can say AND PROVE about scam criminal Mary Prantil. I have nothing to hide, I am straight up, but Mary Prantil certainly isn't.

All Mary Prantil can produce is her little made up stories but never to this day has Prantil EVER PROVED ANY OF HER STATEMENTS. At Blood Love And Lust Spells I am all about what is right, just, and TRUE. Which is the Glory Of Divinity. Prantil is on her way to HELL, for sure.

For spell work there are no refunds, and no guarantees. Spell work IS SPIRITUAL in nature. Once I perform a spell, it is a done deal. How would you the reader feel if you were a company that performed numerous services at the client's request, that WORKED, then the client MESSED UP and then tried to SCAM you, the business owner out of the money for work that had already been successfully completed?

As far as Mary stating I will seek revenge on unsatisfied clients that is yet another lie coming out of her filthy lie filled mouth. I love all my clients and they all know it. Mary is the revenge seeker out here, because WE DID NOT ALLOW HER TO SCAM US OUT OF OUR FEE FOR THE WORK WE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED FOR HER UNGRATEFUL ASS and further more WE DID NOT ALLOW HER TO GET UP ON THE AIRWAYS AND SLANDER US BUT INSTEAD WE STOOD UP TO HER AND because of the fact that she is STILL continuing to slander us, we have the right as Americans to defend the TRUTH about her, and defend our Civil Rights and our right to fair trade! Mary is a spoiled adult child who had a crooked attorney father and is nothing but a two bit criminal herself who knows how to play the justice system, in and out of jail goes Mary Prantil, LOL.

The scriptures say that the wicked are made for the day of evil- THUS WE HAVE MARY, LOL. Many people believe that we are in fact in the last days. I could not think of a more evil person than Mary in these days, she is not capable of taking responsibility for her own actions not at all.......she had rather hide and tell lies about innocent people. What scum bag.

Mary wants to cover up her little pig mud mess with other innocent people and we are not the only ones she is doing this to. Go to this website and read the proof and listen to FREAK Mary's sound files posted there and you too will be convinced of what a psychotic freak and liar Mary Prantil is.

What Mary does not seem to GET is that all the posts she has made up here are only sending me more and more business. Free advertising, courtesy of blabber mouth criminal Mary. I send people to the website of <a href="http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net" title="www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net">www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net</a> and they come back to me and say what a crazy freak Mary Prantil is, then they of course contract me for my wonderful spell services. So your stupid little story telling is working AGAINST YOU, Mary. Too bad for you, GOOD FOR ME ! :)

What this is all about: We have a criminal stalker on our hands, only temporarily from what we hear from inside sources which are none of Mary Prantil's business. Betcha can't even GUESS who those inside sources are can ya, Mary?

WE ARE UP HERE DEFENDING OURSELVES
AGAINST MARY PRANTIL IN OUR EFFORT TO STAND UP FOR OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, OUR RIGHT
TO FAIR TRADE, AND EXPOSING INTERNET TERRORIST MARY PRANTIL who has been stalking us on the Internet over telephone and email for about four years. SHE IS A PSYCHOTIC FREAK AND PATHOLOGICAL LIAR BIG TIME.

She would not stop bugging us so we decided to pull up some actual CRIMINAL DIRT on her since she likes to wallow in her little mud hole LIKE A LITTLE FILTH PIG that just cannot get enough, LOL.

SCAM MARY PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT HAVE CRIMINAL RECORDS SHOULD NOT ACCUSE INNOCENT PEOPLE OF THE SAME CRAP YOU ARE GUILTY OF.

You are a spoiled adult child, an addict, who cannot get her way, not with us. NOT EVER. We will CONTINUE to stand up to you, CRIMINAL MARY and defend our Constitutional rights as Americans until law enforcement decides to toss you in jail and hopefully they will KEEP you there this time, LOL.

The INTERNET
AND LAND CRIMINAL MARY PRANTIL IS NOW FACING FELONY STALKING CHARGES THAT HAS
posting against us on the Internet is a deluded woman from New York facing a lot
of criminal charges, named Mary Prantil.

We expect her to be thrown in jail
this October hopefully sooner. She is a liar and blabber mouth, as everyone can
see, and a garbage mouth as well.

Every time she emails or calls us,
we simply send her threatening emails and phone calls to the attorney in New
York currently prosecuting her. Mary will post and post up here but the fact is,
everyone knows that she is a liar - she has not proved a single statement she
has ever posted, makes up outlandish stories, cannot provide ANYTHING to
actually PROVE what she is saying. She just likes to tell lies. Mabie it is the
only way she knows how to entertain herself.

Mary Prantil is our "pet
psycho" so to speak- every successful business owner deals with these types of
unsavory characters. People like this freak Mary Prantil are actually twisted
GROUPIES trying to ride off our famous coat tails because it is their only claim
to fame since they cannot get a life of their own and keep messing up their own
life by perpetually getting into trouble with the law, LOL.

IT IS A TWISTED AND VERY SICK PSYCHOTIC ATTRACTION FOR CRIMINALS AND
UNSAVORY CHARACTERS WHO ARE UNHAPPY AND UNSUCCESSFUL AND CONTINUE TO GET IN
TROUBLE AND DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL- they are
hateful, evil, vindictive, and hate honest people because they are unhappy and
have an extremely troublesome existence and no one can help them.

My
husband James and I are here in Bonners Ferry Idaho, anyone can call us- our
phone number is 208-714-4348, just like it says on our web sites. No one is on
the lam here, lol just Mary and her CRIME RIDDEN CLAN.

go to this link to
see Mary Prantil's CRIMINAL BOOKING AND CASE NUMBER: (((Redacted))) OR :

The public may look up Mary
Prantil's criminal records, on the NYC Department Of Corrections web site so you
the public can see what a real piece of crap Mary Prantil really is.

Go
to the following link which is the NYC jail inmate lookup:

<a href="http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/" title="http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/">http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/</a>

After
the page has been pulled up, you will see the place where to enter Mary
Prantil's Booking and Case Number, which is 3471001054- simply enter that number
in the white box, as shown below.

As you will see, the NYC Department Of
Corrections has all her criminal information and charges posted. As we have said
numerous times in the past, we have proof of what we have been warning the
public about this criminal Mary Prantil all along, so see for yourself- go to
the link, enter her book and case number, the information is current and is all
there for anyone because it is PUBLIC RECORD. The facts, simply
put.

Enter
NYSID or Book & Case Number: ( enter 3471001054
)

You will then find, on the NYC Department of Corrections Inmate Lookup,
Mary Prantil's criminal records, including her Felony Stalking
charge.

And now to my beloved public- if you are tired of reading about this worthless scam wanna be broke down HAS BEEN HAG of Mary Prantil who THINKS she is a celebrity comic and comes from some as she says "prestigious family" ( yeah RIGHT, LOL oh please, that is too funny, ROFL ) I invite everyone reading this post to come and visit us and find out what real magick is all about. Miracles happen every day thanks and all glory be to Divinity, The Higher Powers.

Blessings From High Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows
<a href="http://www.bloodloveandlustspells.com" title="www.bloodloveandlustspells.com">www.bloodloveandlustspells.com</a>
<a href="mailto:passionspells@aol.com">passionspells@aol.com</a>
208-714-4348

MARY PRANTIL AND HER FELONY STALKING: Cyber stalking is a form of computer related crime occurring in our society. Cyber stalking is when a person is followed and pursued on line. An innocent person's privacy is invaded, their every move watched. It is a form of harassment that can disrupt the life of the victim and leave them feeling very afraid and threatened. Cyber stalkers need not have to leave their home to find, or harass their targets, and has no fear of physical violence since they believe that they cannot be physically touched in cyberspace.
They may be on the other side of the earth or a neighbor or even a relative. It is believed that over 75% of the victims are female, but sometimes men are also stalked.

The figures are more on assumed basis such as Prantil's various user names, and the actual person that is the cyberstalking perpetrator as Prantil is on this forum using different names instead of identifying herself with her real name, can really never be known since most crimes of such natures go unreported. This theoretical analysis focuses on the typology of cyber stalking, typology of perpetrators and victims and research in cyber stalking.

I have been watching Prantil for quite a while and would like to state that all of Prantil's statements on Rip Off Report are false ones, all lies, untrue. I choose not to disclose my real name for legal reasons but will say that Miss Windglows business is legal, and that she, her husband and company are not the problem-Prantil is the problem. Prantil has been working very hard to cause a lot of problems for a lot of innocent people in different states including New York and has been for years. Miss Windglows and her husband have posted some ( not all ) of Prantil's criminal records which are all factual and true. I spoke to reliable inside sources that are compiling evidence against Prantil that she did in fact choose by her own free will and very gladly did pay several times for Miss Windglows' work that was fully successful.

Prantil has numerous personality disorders and has been deemed a dangerous violent woman. Everyone who reads her writings should disregard them as all false. My reasons for writing here are that I do not feel people that are in fact innocent as is Miss Windglows and her husband should not have to continue to endure continual abuse from someone such as Prantil, whom I have inside knowledge of from the court systems from working undercover on several of the criminal charges past and present, against Prantil.

The public should know that many Internet stalkers that fit Prantil's description are classified in the following description- Prantil is a particular stalker that has a mistaken belief that another person or persons love her and because of that she needs rescuing- which is her outcry in writing all the false information about the two people that she has and continues to stalk which of course are Miss Windglows and her husband. This characteristic is called " erotomania" in which again-Prantil is mistaken that Miss Windglows and other people Mary is stalking actually love her or care about her in some way. Many Internet stalkers such as Prantil are crying out to be rescued from themselves, so they continue to stalk and harass their victims.

Stalkers fall into two catagories, psychotic, and nonpsychotic. Prantil is classified as the typical nonpsychotic stalker because she has a pre-existing nonpsychotic disorder and did have before she ever came into contact with Miss Windglows and her husband. These types of nonpsychological disorders are often delusional disorders, or highly delusional disorder that often stems from excessive substance abuse, substance dependence, as well as a wide variety of what is called " Axis ll " personality disorders which are very common in Internet stalkers as Prantil that will cause hostile, antisocial avoidant borderline dependent, narcissistic, paranoia in some cases and in Prantil anger, hostility, projection of blame, obsession, denial such as her denial of having criminal records and attempting to blame her own criminality on Miss Windglows an innocent person, as well as jealousy- thus Prantil continues to try to convey to the public that she is an "NYC celebrity" etc. while accusing Miss Windglows of disguising herself with wearing wigs, for instance.

Prantil's continual projection of anger toward Miss Windglows of course stems back to Miss Windglows terminating Prantil's case due to the breaking of the rules of Miss Windglows business policies. When Miss Windglows was unable to deal with her any longer, case termination ensued, but triggered her to stalk Miss Windglows as a result of Prantil feeling some sort of rejection but having been unable to deal with her anger and irrationality concerning her behavior towards Miss Windglows and her obviously innocent business dealings with Prantil. Stalker Prantil feels no antipathic feelings at all toward any of her victims but simply a longing that cannot be fulfilled due to her hostile and aggressive abusive personality. Prantil could also be classified as a "rejected stalker" that pursues her victims in order to reverse, correct, or avenge her rejection ( case termination by Miss Windglows ) a resentful stalker like Prantil continually pursue a vendetta because of a sense of grievance against her victims of Miss Windglows and her husband, motivated mainly by her desire to frighten and cause distress to them on an ongoing basis.

I see writings here that state people tired of these ongoing debates between these people but what the public needs to see and realize about Prantil is that she has been and is a violent and highly aggressive stalker who is capable of causing her victims great harm. There are different types of stalkers, of which I have defined two, the other three as pertaining to Prantil are:

1. Prantil is an intimacy seeker who seeks to establish an intimate loving relationship with her victims, as she did her ex boyfriend. To Mary, her ex boyfriend who was also a victim that I understand actually left the United States to get away from her was also because she saw her victim of her ex boyfriend as her long sought after soul mate and felt that she and her ex boyfriend "were meant to be together."

2. Prantil is an "incompetent suitor" meaning despite poor social and courting skills, she had a fixation on her ex boyfriend and felt she was entitled to an intimate relationship with him because of her attraction to her amorous interest in him even though he was dating someone else at the time and ended up leaving her for another woman; most of the reasons why is that she continued to stalk him excessively around the clock.

3. Prantil is a "predatory stalker" who spies on her victims in order to prepare and plan an attack on them. This is why Prantil keeps demanding to know where Miss Windglows and her husband live, wanting their actual residential address.

4. Prantil is a "Vengeance/ Terrorist Stalker" meaning both the vengeance and terrorist stalker or the political stalker prefer to force their victims to emit certain responses favourable to them or to pester her victims to give her some type of response whether positive or negative. While the vengeance stalker's motive is "to get even" with the other person ( Prantil desires to "get even" with Miss Windglows and her husband and is willing to go as far as she can to achieve that vengeance ) because Prantil believes and insists that others as well believe that Miss Windglows and her husband have actually done something wrong to her.

This also stems into a political stalking aspect because Prantil shows that she intends to accomplish a political agenda with Miss Windglows and her husband using threats and intimidation to force them to refrain from defending themselves against her or become involved in some particular activity which in this case of Prantil would be that she desires Miss Windglows and her husband continue to respond to her, validate her in some way, acknowledge her, or issue her a refund for the work that Miss Windglows and her husband did for her.

5. Prantil is a "resentful stalker" who demonstrates a violent, untruthful, public persecution of two innocent people and an innocent business with her delusional thinking and highly aggressive angry behavior toward Miss Windglows and her husband, plus violent angry aggressive behaviours toward Miss Windglows that are offensive and illegal. As discussed above, these specific stalking behaviors that Prantil continues to exibit have multiple motivations or what is called " obsessed following behavior" which means that people as Prantil who complain obsessively for long periods of time about something that SHE perceived as a wrong doing when it was not and no one else can even perceive the alleged injury or wrongdoing, Prantil cannot bring herself to 'let go' of a person, place or an idea so the situation escalates and becomes as time passes highly violent illegal stalking, blaming others for her own mistakes, while continuing to have an ongoing violently directed tenacious obsession for Miss Windglows,her husband, and other victims.

6. The Cyberstalker's many purposes: Prantil's purpose is to be given more credibility than she deserves, and to suck people into useless, pointless, never-ending, emotionally-draining, ranting discussions full of verbal loops and "word labyrinths", playing people against each other, attempting to ridicule, hurt their feelings, and attempting to continue to waste the victim's time and emotional energy by baiting the victim to continue to respond to the stalker in some way, as this is one of the ways the stalker perpetrator receives gratification and acknowledgment from the victim in the stalker's attempts to be validated by the victim.

7. Harasser stalker Prantil And Her Power Trips- Some stalker types like to be the center of attention and may have an attention-seeking personality disorder; they may not be stalkers in the strict sense of the word but repeatedly pester anyone who might be persuaded, harassed, or coerced in any way to be made to pay them attention.

Prantil exhibits symptoms of "Munchausen Syndrome" which clearly Prantil has and continues to display; Prantil has selected a victim ( Miss Windglows ) who she has been engaging in ongoing stalking by fabricating claims of harassment by this person of Miss Windglows against themselves- in other words trying to blame Miss Windglows for what she herself has done and is continuing to do to an innocent person.

Cyberstaking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means such as telephone to stalk, follow, harass an individual or group of individuals that may include false accusations, monitoring that particular individual, making threats, discussing or attempting identity theft, to cause a person or persons reasonable distress in order to manipulate.

Stalking is a form of mental assault in which the perpetrator ( Prantil ) conducts continuous actions towards the victim or victims, continues to unwantedly break into the life world of the victim of which the stalker which does not have any kind of relationship or dealings with the victim for the reasons of vendetta, revenge, to cause continued distress to the victim, damage the victim's good reputation, business attempting to turn other people against the victim, the perpetrator may post false information about the victim on websites, set up their own websites or blogs or user pages for this purpose.

The perpetrator will post false allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other websites that allow public contributions. Many cyberstalkers will involve third parties in the ongoing harassment against the victim, claim that the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name, and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit of their victim. The cyberstalker when beginning their assault against a victim will claim that the victim is the one harassing THE STALKER.

The stalker may try to damage the victim's computer by sending viruses then blame the victim and accuse the victim of sending computer viruses to them instead. The stalker may also pressure the victim to disclose where they live, such as the stalker putting pressure on the victim for their personal home address, for example, which Prantil is clearly doing to Miss Windglows and other victims as the readers can see on these reports, which is an effort for the stalker to meet the victim in person in the stalker's attempt to cause more damage to the victim in some way.

Behaviors of Cyberstalker Prantil demonstrate all the typical behaviors that contribute to actual criminal behavior by the perpetrator. Cyberstalkers also target their victims by using search engines, online forums, and other places to attack the victim, also engaging in harasment by sending unsolcited email.

Victims of cyberstalkers may not even know they are being stalked however in the Prantil case, Prantil is a highly aggressive violent stalker who makes it clear that she has every intention to harm her victims in any way that is available to her. Again, a stalker such as Prantil have been well known to create fake blogs in the name of the victim containing false defamatory content in an effort to destroy the victim's reputation.

When a cyberstalker such as Prantil is prosecuted at that point the stalker has unsuccessfully attempted to justify their behavior based on their use of public forums such as this one, as opposed to direct contact with the victim; the cyberstalker's motive is to continue getting some kind of reaction from the victim, so that the stalker can track or follow the victim's Internet activity, trace the victim's IP address in the stalker's attempts to verify the victim's home address or the victim's place of employment.

Cyberstalking situations do evolve into actual physictal stalking ( as in the incident of Prantil tracking down and then stalking her ex boyfriend ) and a victim may even experience excessive abusive threatening phone calls, vandalism, threatening or obcene emails, trespassing, and actual physical assault. Many physical stalkers will use cyberstalking as another method of continuing to harass and stalk the victim.

Online identity stealth such as Prantil's numerous user names in her effort to try to hide her identity while she continues her cyber assaults on Miss Windglows, blurs the line on infringement of the rights of the victim to identify the perpetrator, however Prantil is in fact in the process of being prosecuted by people she has victimized in her state which is New York state. Miss Windglows, her husband, and their business are victims of Prantil.

The web site of <a href="http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net" title="www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net">www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net</a> is a factual website that Miss Windglows and her husband erected in their efforts to defend themselves against predator Prantil, however any information that is derrogatory on this forum or any other public Internet forum concerning Miss Windglows, her husband, or her businesses, all blogs written by Prantil, and or everthing Prantil is doing on or offline are all characteristics of what I have explained above, due to the fact that Prantil currently does have felony stalking charges that have been pressed against her along with countless other criminal charges that will in fact place Prantil in a jail facility for several years.

In addition, it is unfortunate that derrogatory postings by a run of the mill cyberstalker and land stalker like Mary Prantil does in fact discredit web forums and complaints forums such as this one because she is not required to state her real name or required to provide any factual proof of any of her statements concerning Miss Windglows, or her business.

All in all, one would need to provide proof of any statement or statements made about or against another person in order for the statement to stick. Miss Windglows and her husband have proved their statements over and over again, while Mary Prantil continues to fit all the descriptions of the behavior of a cyber and land criminal from New York state that is in the process of being prosecuted to the full extent of the law in Manhattan, New York.

Go to this website and listen to Mary Prantil's vile, evil, and hateful malicious voice messages- read all about how her crooked attorney father and uncle have scammed and ripped off others.

MARY PRANTIL'S BRAIN DOESNT WORK, she is STUPID or something is seriously WRONG with her brain because she has been exposed as a criminal with FELONY STALKING CHARGES AND MANY OTHER CRIMES. Law enforcement is catching up to you, YOU EVIL MALICIOUS WOMAN, MARY PRANTIL.

Go to this link and read, as well as SEE the actual PROOF that all the posts against us here are lies and scammers trying to ruin my innocent business BUT I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU, PRANTIL---------YOU HAVE FAILED AND WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL IN DOING SO.

Anyone with common sense KNOWS that if you make statements on the public airway, proof is required or it is just another made up story. Mary Prantil does not have any proof whatsoever to back up any of her claims, and keeps text switching, making up stories about innocent other people, accusing others of the same crimes she is committing.

See for yourself- the proof is here- voice messages of malicious Mary Prantil, criminal records, and instructions for her JAIL book and case number look up.

You are a criminal, Mary Prantil SO GET OVER IT. Ok enough of this, I have better things to do today with my time.

<a href="http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net" title="http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net">http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net</a>



WAS THIS REPORT HELPFUL?
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
BOOKMARK/PROMOTE THIS REPORT:
 

Comments

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
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.

==========================================================================================

<a href="http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/843/843.F2d.314.86-6669.html" title="http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/843/843.F2d.314.86-6669.html">http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/843/843.F2d.314.86-6669.html</a>

<a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=Frank+George+Prantil&amp;circuit=" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=Frank+George+Prantil&amp;circuit=">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=Frank+George+Pranti...</a>

PUBLIC RECORDS <a href="http://public.resource.org/" title="http://public.resource.org/">http://public.resource.org/</a>
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:

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

=========================================================================

MAIN SITE <a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&amp;circuit=" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&amp;circuit=">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&amp;circuit=</a>

<a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/</a> 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)

==========================================

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: <a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/</a>

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. 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.

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.

===========================================

1
<a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/</a> 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)

===========================================================================

MAIN SITE <a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&amp;circuit=" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&amp;circuit=">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=+Prantil+&amp;circuit=</a>

<a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/756/759/162188/</a> 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)

==========================================

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: <a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/</a>

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. 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.

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.

===========================================

1
<a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/" title="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/">http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/</a> 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.

LOOK PRANTIL TAX EVASION CHARGES AND REPORTS AGAINST YOU TAX WARRANTS REPORTED TO THE NEW YORK STATE AND FEDERAL TAX BOARDS

TAX HOME | e-Services Help | Privacy | Security | Disclaimer | Contact Us

Office of Tax Enforcement - File an Information Referral to report suspected tax evasion and fraud

Check to see if you meet our minimum browser requirements for this service.

*Required fields

Information Referral:
This information referral concerns a(n)* Individual Business/Tax Preparer/Practioner

Description of Information Referral*
Please include a detailed description of the alleged violation activity.
<a href="https://www.integrascan.com/search_results.php?type" title="https://www.integrascan.com/search_results.php?type">https://www.integrascan.com/search_results.php?type</a>

County in which warrant is filed of Taxpayer Searched:

MARY PRANTIL QUEENS

Warrant ID# : E-029211902-W001-3

Name of Taxpayer as appears on warrant

Address of Taxpayer as appears on warrant

MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST C2

ASTORIA, NY 11106

Date Warrant docketed by county clerk County where Warrant is docketed Tax Liability amount as appears on Warrant Date notice of tax warrant, amendment, vacation or satisfaction was filed by the Department of Taxation and Finance with the Department of State.

Date Warrant satisfaction docketed by county clerk Date Warrant Vacate Notice docketed by county clerk Date Warrant amendment docketed by county clerk
June 10, 2008 QUEENS $106.21 June 20, 2008

Warrant ID# : E-029159448-W001-7

Name of Taxpayer as appears on warrant

Address of Taxpayer as appears on warrant

MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST C2

ASTORIA, NY 11106

Date Warrant docketed by county clerk County where Warrant is docketed Tax Liability amount as appears on Warrant Date notice of tax warrant, amendment, vacation or satisfaction was filed by the Department of Taxation and Finance with the Department of State. Date Warrant satisfaction docketed by county clerk Date Warrant Vacate Notice docketed by county clerk Date Warrant amendment docketed by county clerk
February 14, 2008 QUEENS $4,072.14 February 14, 2008

* Filed with Department of State on or prior to implementation of electronic filing system, January 8, 2004. Dates for filings made prior to January 8, 2004 must be derived from paper filings and should be obtained from the Department of Taxation and Finance.

Taxpayer Name(s) Selected: City specified in warrant address record of Taxpayer Searched: County in which warrant is filed of Taxpayer Searched: MARY PRANTIL, QUEENS

Subject Information:

Please enter as much information as you can regarding the primary person allegedly involved in the complaint.

First Name* Mary T.
Last Name* Prantil
Street Address 32-85 33rd Street
Apt # C-2
City* Astoria
State* New York, 11106
Cell Phone Number: 9172246605
Also Known As: Mary Prantil, Mary T. Prantil, Mary Theresa Prantil
Date of Birth January 27, 1965
Physical Description: Female, white, eyes green, hair blonde, 95 pounds
Any known partners, affiliates, etc.:

THE MANHATTAN NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT

Sponsored Links