#10 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Defender Of The Innocent - Astoria (USA)
SUBMITTED: Friday, December 04, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, December 05, 2009
Mary Theresa Prantil, Mary Teresa Prantil, MARY T. PRANTIL WILL
BE INCARCERATED SOON, Mary T. Prantil 3285 33rd Street Astoria New York Queens
County Astoria New York, 11106, 917-224-6605, Scam Artist & Rip Off Artist
. Alert CNN, HBO, CINEMAX, VIACOM, TIME WARNER, NEWSPAPER NATIONAL NETWORK
Media & Newspaper New York, NY, DESOLA GROUP Marketing and Management
Consulting Firm New York, United Staffing NYC, HBO Entertainment Media New
York, NY, CNN Global News Broadcast Network New York, NY, SIMON & SCHUSTER
Major International Publisher New York, NY, PEARSON PARTNERS LLC Investment
Banking Firm New York, NY, UCSD, The University of California at San Diego, San
Diego, CA ALERT: N.Y.P.D, F.B.I, F.C.C I.R.S Department Of Justice. NOTICE:
AOL,YAHOO, MSN, GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE Alert. Mary Prantil Internet Terrorist
& Bully. Internet Stalker. Email & Phone Harassment By Prantil. Mary T.
Prantil Is The Laughingstock Of Internet & Law Enforcement .Trouble Maker.
Nut Case. False Reports & Slander By HABITUAL LIAR Mary Prantil Of Astoria
New York.. ATTENTION: ALERT For all Astoria & New York Police
Departments. F.B.I. I.R.S . F.C.C. Department Of Justice. New York Attorney
Generals Office. Calling For Investigation Of Mary T. Prantil. Negative.
Unethical. Unlawful. Highly Questionable Behaviors & Practices. Abuse Of
Public Mediums. Internet Stalking and Harassing Of Legitimate
Business.
MARY T. PRANTIL FOLLOWS IN HER CRIMINAL FATHER'S FOOTSTEPS-
BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLY TOGETHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looks like Mary Prantil is running out of lies to tell about
Jan and James so she is making up MORE LIES, and guess what? NOBODY believes
them !
Jan Windglows is home and happy running her business give her a
call- just go to her web site and her phone number is there because I just spoke
to her. In fact, I spoke to BOTH Jan and James- and they are happy, successful,
and enjoying their lives to the fullest every day.
These ongoing LIES of Mary Prantil saying that Jan Windglows
was arrested for larceny is utter HOGWASH and more lies and SMUT made up out of
the crazy DRUG FRIED OUT brain of criminal Mary Prantil.
Yes ----the information about Mary Prantil's deceased father is
CORRECT. He has his name listed all over attorney's websites on the internet,
and is not spoken of with any type of respect whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is , Mary Prantil is up here shooting
off her mouth telling lie after lie about Jan Windglows and James Morgan- who
only tried to help her in times past when she was a client of theirs long ago.
They terminated her case because she broke all the rules and regulations she
promised to keep when Jan first took her case, so who's fault is that? It is
Mary Prantil's fault.
Actually I heard that Mary Prantil DID get her spell manifested
with Jans' services, THEN PRANTIL MESSED EVERYTHING UP between herself and her
then boyfriend, then was OUT OF CONTROL so Jan had to drop her case
completely.
The facts are the facts-Mary Prantil is a criminal, she is a
stalker, she is a computer hacker, a phone hacker, a liar, she has been arrested
several times and currently is IN A LOT OF TROUBLE with the
law.
Jan and James did nothing wrong, they were only defending
themselves and their good names against this MONSTER Mary
Prantil.
Have you ever read all the postings here about Mary Prantil and
how she steals from businesses? Apparently NOT. Jan and James only deal in
FACTS they are not liars or thieves that have to make up stories because they
have FACTS AND THEY HAVE PROOF for everything they have said about
her.
Prantil is going as far as to post lies such as Jan Windglows
being arrested for larceny, which is another lie on Prantil's part. All the
posts on Mary Prantil and her father are TRUE.
Jan and James have every right to defend themselves against
Prantil-----so if Mary Prantil does not want any more information being posted
about her or her family that can incriminate her even MORE, IF SHE CAN'T TAKE
IT SHE SHOULD NOT DISH IT OUT.
Unfortunately for Mary Prantil, she feels she has to rely on
lies to the public to try and discredit the names of Jan and James because she
does not have anything else except the lies she dreams up in her attempts to
cause trouble for Jan and James.
I do defend the innocent- yes it is true that Mary Prantil's
father is deceased, but that is NOT the point- the point IS, that Mary Prantil
learned her criminal behavior from her father whether he is deceased or
not.
Mary Prantil is a criminal, and so was her father. The public
needs to see Mary T. Prantil for who and WHAT she really is- A CRIMINAL AND
LIAR. If Mary Prantil does not like information about her deceased father
being posted here, then she should STOP slinging mud constantly at two innocent
people and telling lies about them on the internet.
It is OBVIOUS that Mary Prantil is getting what is coming to
her. Jan Windglows is not guilty of any crimes neither is James Morgan. But
Prantil certainly is.
In fact, Mary Prantil started this scandal. Jan and James did
not come up here on this forum out of the blue for no reason or to hurt anyone,
but only to defend themselves.
Jan and James were not attempting to pick on Mary Prantil's
deceased father, but by showing the FACTS ( not LIES or false information )
about Mary Prantil AND her deceased father, the public now knows where Mary
Prantil learned to be a criminal and indeed Prantil IS following in her father's
footsteps.
Mary Prantil brought this upon herself. If she would have left
these two innocent people alone to begin with, all of this could have been
avoided.
Jan and James are forthright, and do everything possible to
help their clients in every way.
Mary Prantil lies, and lies, and lies......posting such GARBAGE
up here like Jan and James are idolaters and that they drink their own
blood.
The only other thing I have to say is that Mary Prantil's
deceased father is probably rolling in his grave and looking down on his
daughter with disappointment and disgust for all the trouble she is in, and has
attempted to get other innocent people into.
Mary Prantil is going to BE INCARCERATED SOON because Mary
Prantil is in a LOT OF LEGAL TROUBLE RIGHT NOW so if anyone reading about Mary
Prantil's deceased father feels sorry for Mary Prantil , then I DARE YOU to call
Mary Prantil and give her your email address and your phone number.
YOU WILL THEN SEE for yourself what kind of TRASH Mary Prantil
REALLY is, and what she is capable of, because Mary Prantil will do all the same
things to YOU that she has done to everyone with whom she cannot get her way
with.
So if anyone thinks Mary T. Prantil is innocent, then type in
Mary Prantil in your internet browser, I DARE YOU and get her phone number and
write her an email.
Then come back and post on this forum after she has stalked
you, harassed you, threatened you, etc. then Prantil will be on this forum
making up all kinds of lies about you too, and she will also post lies about YOU
or ANYONE all over the internet that she cannot get her way with or control or
boss around that does not agree with her about something.
Mary T. Prantil is A CONTROL FREAK and DRUG ADDICT THAT HAS
LOST CONTROL OF HER LIFE.
If anyone reading this decides to email Mary Prantil, make sure
you have a good anti virus program on your computer. She is mean and vindictive
and outright EVIL and she is known all over the internet for sending people
viruses to try and destroy their computers.
Mary Prantil TRULY IS following in her father's footsteps- THAT
IS A FACT SO GROW UP AND FACE IT, Prantil. I have no sympathy at ALL for Mary
Prantil, for her father.
If you DO, Mary Prantil will harrass and stalk you until you
are forced to change your phone number and block her from your emails.....that
is if your computer is still running because once Mary Prantil is on an evil
angry outrage, she will send you a virus in your email and keep stalking and
harassing you for as long as she can.
I DID call the NYPD and talked to Detective Carrano and all the
other officers that were involved with Mary T. Prantil and NONE of them can
stand her and ALL of them want to lock her up and get her away from public
society.
....and the so called "Good Conduct Certificate" that Mary T.
Prantil says she aquired from the NYPD is only a certificate that ANYONE can to
to the police station in New York, and purchase with twenty dollars
!!!!!
Too bad for you, Mary- but a good conduct certificate IS
WORTHLESS when you continue to behave like you do- you EVIL WICKED
WOMAN.
concerning crooked attorney Frank G. Prantil and Mary T.
Prantil drug addicts, liars, frauds, extortionists, criminals and thieves that
love to manipulate the criminal justice system MARY T. PRANTIL
FOLLOWS IN HER CRIMINAL FATHER'S FOOTSTEPS
MARY T. PRANTIL FOLLOWS IN HER CRIMINAL FATHER'S FOOTSTEPS
MATTER DISBARRMENT FRANK G. PRANTIL
( FATHER OF MARY T. PRANTIL THAT KEEPS POSTING LIES ABOUT BLOOD LOVE AND
LUST SPELLS, JIM MORGAN AND JAN WINDGLOWS OF BLOOD LOVE AND LUST SPELLS...
it is no WONDER that Mary T. Prantil is such a CRIMINAL and SCAM CON...hey
public take a look and read below and click the links to verify that Mary T.
Prantil and her father are the same birds of a feather- criminals, liars, and
drug addicts !!!
After you THE PUBLIC read the information below, you will learn all about
Mary T. Prantil's father getting disbarred TWICE as a lawyer, charged several
times for misconduct, all about his cocaine addictions, his lies, schemes,
causing a mistrial for a famous controversial murder case, stealing money from a
safe from inside a client's house...
Mary T. Prantil sure is a piece of slime gutter trash...like father, like
daughter...A CRIMINAL, a liar, a piece of white trash gutter slime that cannot
shut her OPEN GAPING HOLE in her face where her mouth used to be!!! Mary T.
Prantil LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE !!!
she learned everything she knows from her criminal father. PRANTIL GET OFF
THE INTERNET AND STOP SHOWING YOUR UGLY LIAR FACE BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS ALL
ABOUT YOU AND YOUR CRIMINAL FATHER. TAKE A HIKE, YOU ROTTEN LIAR SCUM GUTTER
TRASH.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. D-787
110 S. Ct. 493, 493 U.S. 972, 107 L. Ed. 2d 497, 58 U.S.L.W. 3351,
1989.SCT.45677 < http://www.versuslaw.com >
November 27, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF DISBARRMENT OF FRANK G. PRANTIL
For earlier order herein, see Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall,
Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
It having been reported to the Court that Frank G. Prantil, of Fair Oaks,
California, has been disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of
California and this Court by order of May 15, 1989, having suspended the said
Frank G. Prantil from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule
issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;
And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued;
It is ordered that the said Frank G. Prantil be disbarred from the practice
of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys
admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.
Disposition
Disbarrment entered.
19891127
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.
http://wi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CSCT%5CSCT2%5C1989%5C19891127_0045677.SCT.htm/qx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by VersusLaw, Inc. Home | Advertise | About | Feedback |
Terms | Privacy Policy | FAQ All contents © Copyright 2008 - 2009 VersusLaw,
Inc. Bellevue, WA, USA. All rights reserved
**************************************************************************************************** On
trial before the bar court in San Francisco, FRANK PRANTIL [#35155], 67, of
Sacramento is charged with multiple counts of failing to perform legal services
competently. Prantil was disbarred in 1989, reinstated in 1994 and charged with
misconduct in 2002. The trial on the new charges was ongoing at press time and
although the bar had not formally asked for his disbarment, it is a possible
penalty.
The 1989 disbarment was the result of convictions for forgery and being an
accessory to possess cocaine.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/June2005&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2005-06_TH_03_2nd-disbarments.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines
**********************************************************************************************************
In a case two miles across town at the State Bar offices on Howard Street
-- and at the other end of the world of privilege -- 67-year-old defense
attorney Frank Prantil is facing a task he's already performed numerous times --
defending himself against accusations that he's acted unethically as an
attorney. In 1979, Prantil was suspended from practicing law after he was
accused of improperly representing a client. While on probation, Prantil was
alleged to have participated in a check-fraud scheme. He was convicted of
forgery and disbarred, according to the California Supreme Court opinion
confirming Prantil's disbarment.
Prantil later took advantage of California rules that allow disbarred
attorneys to ask for reinstatement after five years. Prantil successfully argued
that he had rehabilitated himself, and resumed practice in 1994.
Prantil is now facing State Bar disciplinary charges, which could
potentially get him disbarred again, alleging that he failed to competently
defend a client, then improperly charged the client for his services.
Prantil's case, along with three cases decided earlier this year in which
California attorneys were disbarred for a second time, has added steam to a
nine-year-old bureaucratic proposal to give judges the option of disbarring the
worst attorneys for life.
In California, there now exists no legal concept of permanent disbarment. A
State Bar committee on Nov. 15 will consider the possibility of changing that,
if only slightly. Rather than making all disbarments permanent, it would extend
from five to seven years the amount of time disbarred attorneys would have to
wait before requesting to be reinstated, and would give judges the option of
forever banishing the worst of California's worst attorneys.
The fact that it's taken nine years for such a mild proposal to reach this
preliminary step hints at a lack of seriousness the California legal
establishment lobby applies to abuses by its own members.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-11-09/news/baring-equality/
***********************************************************************************************************
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank G. PRANTIL,
Defendant-Appellant. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit
June 25, 1985
764 F.2d 548
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.
AMENDED OPINION
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:
1 The defendant, a criminal defense attorney, appeals his conviction on
eight out of eleven counts alleged in an indictment for the offenses of perjury,
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623; false statements, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001; and being accessory
after the fact, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3. All of the defendant's convictions are
predicated on actions he took while representing a criminal defendant, Betty
Powell, in a separate criminal prosecution. After a seven-day trial the jury
found the defendant not guilty on two counts of harboring a fugitive and
perjury. The district court had previously dismissed the misprision of a felony
count before the trial began. On appeal, the defendant raises a host of issues
which, for the most part, we need not address. Three of the defendant's
challenges, however, require reversal of the defendant's convictions for the
reasons explained herein.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 The defendant was retained by Ronald Powell to represent his wife,
Betty Lou Powell, and her son in a federal criminal prosecution on various
drug-related charges.1 Mr. Powell had been a previous client of the defendant in
unrelated criminal proceedings. After Mrs. Powell and her son were arrested at
the Powell residence on April 23, 1982 in connection with the narcotics charges,
Mr. Powell, who was also named in the felony arrest warrant, remained a fugitive
until his apprehension on August 10, 1982. On the day of his wife's arrest, Mr.
Powell telephoned the defendant, Frank Prantil, and retained his services for
the criminal proceedings against his immediate family. Throughout Mr. Powell's
fugitive status, the defendant periodically telephoned Mr. Powell and met him on
at least two occasions.
3 During their first meeting after the incarceration of Mrs. Powell, Mr.
Powell presented the defendant with a partial payment of the retainer agreement
and directed the defendant to the whereabouts of other sources of cash in
various bank accounts and at the Powell residence. Mrs. Powell, unable to make a
$750, 000 bond, remained incarcerated until the completion of her criminal
trial. She gave the defendant the power of attorney to collect the funds from
the various bank accounts. The defendant also retrieved a substantial sum of
money from a floor safe at the Powell residence that had been overlooked at the
time of the Powell family arrest. Although questions over the capacity in which
Mr. Prantil retained custody of these monies (as attorney fees or in bailment
for Mrs. Powell) occupied a substantial portion of the defendant's trial, we
need not parse the evidence on this subject here. Pursuant to the retainer
agreement negotiated by Mr. Powell, the defendant represented Mrs. Powell for
the duration of her criminal trial. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United
States Attorney Charles Gorder.
4 Mr. Prantil succeeded in obtaining an acquittal on all but four of the
fifteen criminal counts leveled against his client Mrs. Powell. During the
course of his representation of Mrs. Powell, the defendant also sent his
sister-in-law, Malvina Schmidt, to meet the fugitive Ronald Powell for reasons
not relevant here. Within the same time frame, the defendant, on several
occasions, acted as the conduit for negotiations between the fugitive Ronald
Powell and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gorder for Mr. Powell's surrender. During the
period when Mr. Powell was a fugitive, the defendant was summoned before a grand
jury and questioned by Mr. Gorder concerning his contacts and relationship with
Mr. Powell. Three of the defendant's five perjury convictions rest on responses
he made to Mr. Gorder's grand jury examination. The remaining two perjury
charges and the two false statement counts stem from the events surrounding the
defendant's efforts to obtain Mrs. Powell's release on bond pending the appeal
from her criminal conviction. For purposes of this appeal, however, we need only
discuss the evidence presented on one perjury count.
5 One of the defendant's perjury convictions rests on grand jury
testimony the defendant gave under questioning by Mr. Gorder regarding a trip to
Omaha, Nebraska. In his testimony the defendant stated that he was picked up by
a blonde woman at his hotel in Omaha, Nebraska who took him to meet Mr. Powell
and then transported the defendant to the airport. The defendant further
testified that he did not know the identity of this woman. At trial the
government contended that the defendant committed perjury when he denied knowing
the name of this woman.
6 Under the government's theory, the defendant falsely denied knowing
the identity of this blonde woman in order to protect the woman from the grand
jury's investigation. The government unsuccessfully sought to prove that the
blonde woman who met the defendant at his hotel was Malvina Schmidt, the
defendant's sister-in-law. The evidence at trial revealed that although the
defendant had been met and transported to a different airport by a blonde woman
on a different occasion, no one picked up the defendant at his Omaha hotel. The
evidence did demonstrate that the defendant eventually met his sister-in-law at
a restaurant in the Omaha area. Accordingly, on appeal the government has
shifted its perjury allegation by recasting the defendant's denial of knowledge
about the name of the blonde woman who met him at his hotel into a denial of
"knowing who was with [Mr.] Powell in the Omaha area." In response, the
defendant claims his conviction should be reversed because the identity of the
woman whom he incorrectly recalled to have met at his Omaha hotel is immaterial
to any matters then before the grand jury and thus not perjurious.
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
7 The defendant has raised several challenges to his convictions on
appeal. We reach only three of his challenges. The defendant's first allegation
of error involves the refusal of the trial court to grant a pretrial motion to
have the prosecutor, Mr. Gorder, recused from the case so that the defendant
could call Mr. Gorder as a witness. The defendant also claims that the
prosecutor exceeded the bounds of proper argument during closing argument and
the defendant was thereby prejudiced. The final contention of error challenges
the materiality of the defendant's allegedly perjurious statements regarding the
blonde woman at the Omaha airport.
8 The defendant has also raised a claim of insufficiency of the evidence
as to counts seven and eight of the indictment which charged the defendant with
violations of the false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. In essence, the
government presented evidence that the defendant attempted to secure the release
of his client Betty Powell through the submission of an appeal bond form that
the defendant knew was not authorized by the named bond company. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution we find the evidence
presented sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Nonetheless, for the
reasons discussed in the balance of the opinion, we reverse the defendant's
convictions on these and the other counts of the indictment.
A. The Propriety of a Prosecuting Witness
9 The prosecutor in this case, Assistant United States Attorney Charles
Gorder, was also the prosecutor in the previous trial of Betty Powell. Mr.
Gorder not only opposed the defendant in that trial but also conducted the
examination of the defendant in both the grand jury and bond proceedings that
are the subject of defendant's perjury convictions in this case. Mr. Gorder was
also involved in the discussions with the bond agency as to the adequacy of Mrs.
Powell's bond collateral which gave rise to the defendant's false statement
convictions. Finally, on several occasions Mr. Gorder negotiated directly with
the defendant for the surrender of Ronald Powell, the fugitive whom the
defendant was accused of harboring and giving aid. Thus, although he never took
the stand, Mr. Gorder was a witness to, and indeed a participant in, some aspect
of all of the events alleged in the indictment.
10 The defendant was charged and convicted of being an accessory after
the fact to Mr. Powell's criminal offenses in that the defendant did "receive,
relieve, comfort and assist Ronald Lee Powell in order to hinder and prevent his
apprehension, trial and punishment, " in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3. During
trial the principal defense asserted by the defendant to this count, and the
harboring a fugitive charge, revolved around the defendant's efforts to
successfully negotiate Mr. Powell's surrender with Mr. Gorder. Rather than
harboring or assisting Mr. Powell, the defendant contended he was actively
conducting the ongoing negotiations for Mr. Powell's timely surrender through
direct communications with both Mr. Gorder and Mr. Powell. Obviously, this
defense hinges substantially on the availability of evidence detailing the
defendant's role in these surrender negotiations.
11 Both before and during the trial defense counsel unsuccessfully moved
the court to recuse the prosecutor to enable the defense to call him as a
witness. After final argument the defendant moved for a mistrial because the
prosecutor's remarks "reaffirm[ed] Mr. Gorder's role as a witness in the case
without cross-examination, because they appeared to be, in the way that they
were framed, assertions of personal knowledge based on his dealings with Mr.
Prantil." At every juncture, the prosecutor refused either to recuse himself or
to testify. The trial court declined to disturb the prosecutor's decision and
denied, without comment, all of the defendant's motions on this matter.
12 The prosecutor defended his decision, and the trial court concurred,
on the grounds that his testimony was unnecessary and cumulative to the
defendant's case. We recognize that a defendant has an obligation to exhaust
other available sources of evidence before a court should sustain a defendant's
efforts to call a participating prosecutor as a witness. United States v. West,
680 F.2d 652, 654 (9th Cir.1982). Nonetheless, the defendant's obligation to
resort to alternative means of adducing factual testimony is not absolute. Both
the quality and quantity of the alternate sources of evidence are proper
subjects for comparison with that sought directly from the participating
prosecutor. For example, in this case the prosecutor contends that his testimony
on the defendant's efforts to arrange for the surrender of the fugitive Ron
Powell was unnecessary and cumulative because the defendant could have presented
some testimony on this point through an FBI agent who listened to some, but not
all, of the relevant discussions. The prosecutor also avers that the defendant
himself was available to testify as to any conversations for which there are no
other witnesses besides the defendant and the prosecutor. The true worth of the
prosecutor's generous suggestion that the defendant himself testify in order to
"exhaust" all other sources of testimony, however, becomes self-evident when the
prosecutor subsequently portrays the defendant's testimony as self-serving and
"sleazy" in his summation before the jury.
13 Regardless of the prosecutor's view of the utility of his own
testimony, the district judge is charged with the responsibility of making
determinations as to the materiality of witness testimony. In so doing, the
court must honor the defendant's constitutional rights under the confrontation
and compulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment. The unequivocal
admonition of the Supreme Court on this point bears repetition here:
14 The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is
both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be
defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative
presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public
confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the
framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is
imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for
the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the
defense.
THE WORLD WILL BE A SAFIER HAPPIER PLACE WHEN MARY T. PRANTIL IS TAKEN OUT
OF SOCIETY AND IN JAIL WHERE SHE CANNOT CONTINUE HER EVIL DEEDS AND TELL LIES
ABOUT INNOCENT PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!
Looks like Mary Prantil is running out of lies to tell about
Jan and James so she is making up MORE LIES, and guess what? NOBODY believes
them !
Jan Windglows is home and happy running her business give her a
call- just go to her web site and her phone number is there because I just spoke
to her. In fact, I spoke to BOTH Jan and James- and they are happy, successful,
and enjoying their lives to the fullest every day.
These ongoing LIES of Mary Prantil saying that Jan Windglows
was arrested for larceny is utter HOGWASH and more lies and SMUT made up out of
the crazy DRUG FRIED OUT brain of criminal Mary
Prantil.
Yes ----the information about Mary
Prantil's deceased father is CORRECT. He has his name listed all over
attorney's websites on the internet, and is not spoken of with any type of
respect whatsoever. The fact of the matter is , Mary Prantil is up here
shooting off her mouth telling lie after lie about Jan Windglows and James
Morgan- who only tried to help her in times past when she was a client of theirs
long ago. They terminated her case because she broke all the rules and
regulations she promised to keep when Jan first took her case, so who's fault is
that? It is Mary Prantil's fault. Actually I heard that Mary Prantil
DID get her spell manifested with Jans' services, THEN PRANTIL MESSED EVERYTHING
UP between herself and her then boyfriend, then was OUT OF CONTROL so Jan had to
drop her case completely. The facts are the facts-Mary Prantil is a
criminal, she is a stalker, she is a computer hacker, a phone hacker, a liar,
she has been arrested several times and currently is IN A LOT OF TROUBLE with
the law.
Jan and James did nothing wrong, they were only defending
themselves and their good names against this MONSTER Mary
Prantil.
Have you ever read all the postings here about Mary Prantil and how she
steals from businesses? Apparently NOT. Jan and James only deal in FACTS they
are not liars or thieves that have to make up stories because they have FACTS
AND THEY HAVE PROOF for everything they have said about her. Prantil is
going as far as to post lies such as Jan Windglows being arrested for larceny,
which is another lie on Prantil's part. All the posts on Mary Prantil and her
father are TRUE. Jan and James have every right to defend themselves
against Prantil-----so if Mary Prantil does not want any more information being
posted about her or her family that can incriminate her even MORE, IF SHE CAN'T
TAKE IT SHE SHOULD NOT DISH IT OUT. Unfortunately for Mary Prantil, she
feels she has to rely on lies to the public to try and discredit the names of
Jan and James because she does not have anything else except the lies she dreams
up in her attempts to cause trouble for Jan and James. I do defend the
innocent- yes it is true that Mary Prantil's father is deceased, but that is NOT
the point- the point IS, that Mary Prantil learned her criminal behavior from
her father whether he is deceased or not. Mary Prantil is a criminal, and
so was her father. The public needs to see Mary T. Prantil for who and WHAT she
really is- A CRIMINAL AND LIAR. If Mary Prantil does not like information
about her deceased father being posted here, then she should STOP slinging mud
constantly at two innocent people and telling lies about them on the internet.
It is OBVIOUS that Mary Prantil is getting what is coming to her. Jan
Windglows is not guilty of any crimes neither is James Morgan. But Prantil
certainly is. In fact, Mary Prantil started this scandal. Jan and James
did not come up here on this forum out of the blue for no reason or to hurt
anyone, but only to defend themselves. Jan and James were not attempting
to pick on Mary Prantil's deceased father, but by showing the FACTS ( not LIES
or false information ) about Mary Prantil AND her deceased father, the public
now knows where Mary Prantil learned to be a criminal and indeed Prantil IS
following in her father's footsteps. Mary Prantil brought this upon
herself. If she would have left these two innocent people alone to begin with,
all of this could have been avoided.
Jan and James are forthright, and do everything possible to help their
clients in every way. Mary Prantil lies, and lies, and lies......posting
such GARBAGE up here like Jan and James are idolaters and that they drink their
own blood. The only other thing I have to say is that Mary Prantil's
deceased father is probably rolling in his grave and looking down on his
daughter with disappointment and disgust for all the trouble she is in, and has
attempted to get other innocent people into. Mary Prantil is going to BE
INCARCERATED SOON because Mary Prantil is in a LOT OF LEGAL TROUBLE RIGHT NOW
so if anyone reading about Mary Prantil's deceased father feels sorry for Mary
Prantil , then I DARE YOU to call Mary Prantil and give her your email address
and your phone number.
YOU WILL THEN SEE for yourself what kind of TRASH Mary Prantil REALLY is,
and what she is capable of, because Mary Prantil will do all the same things to
YOU that she has done to everyone with whom she cannot get her way with.
So if anyone thinks Mary T. Prantil is innocent, then type in Mary
Prantil in your internet browser, I DARE YOU and get her phone number and write
her an email. Then come back and post on this forum after she has
stalked you, harassed you, threatened you, etc. then Prantil will be on this
forum making up all kinds of lies about you too, and she will also post lies
about YOU or ANYONE all over the internet that she cannot get her way with or
control or boss around that does not agree with her about something.
Mary T. Prantil is A CONTROL FREAK and DRUG ADDICT THAT HAS LOST CONTROL
OF HER LIFE. If anyone reading this decides to email Mary Prantil, make
sure you have a good anti virus program on your computer. She is mean and
vindictive and outright EVIL and she is known all over the internet for sending
people viruses to try and destroy their computers. Mary Prantil TRULY IS
following in her father's footsteps- THAT IS A FACT SO GROW UP AND FACE IT,
Prantil. I have no sympathy at ALL for Mary Prantil, for her father. If
you DO, Mary Prantil will harrass and stalk you until you are forced to change
your phone number and block her from your emails.....that is if your computer is
still running because once Mary Prantil is on an evil angry outrage, she will
send you a virus in your email and keep stalking and harassing you for as long
as she can.
I DID call the NYPD and talked to Detective Carrano and all the other
officers that were involved with Mary T. Prantil and NONE of them can stand her
and ALL of them want to lock her up and get her away from public society.
....and the so called "Good Conduct Certificate" that Mary T. Prantil says
she aquired from the NYPD is only a certificate that ANYONE can to to the police
station in New York, and purchase with twenty dollars !!!!!
Too bad for you, Mary- but a good conduct certificate IS WORTHLESS when you
continue to behave like you do- you EVIL WICKED WOMAN.
This report contains the truth concerning crooked attorney Frank G. Prantil
and his criminal psychotic daughter Mary T. Prantil drug addicts, liars, frauds,
extortionists, criminals and thieves that love to manipulate the criminal
justice system
MARY T. PRANTIL FOLLOWS IN HER CRIMINAL FATHER'S
FOOTSTEPS
MARY T. PRANTIL FOLLOWS IN HER CRIMINAL FATHER'S
FOOTSTEPS MATTER DISBARRMENT FRANK G. PRANTIL ( FATHER OF MARY T.
PRANTIL THAT KEEPS POSTING LIES ABOUT BLOOD LOVE AND LUST SPELLS, JIM MORGAN AND
JAN WINDGLOWS OF BLOOD LOVE AND LUST SPELLS... it is no WONDER that Mary
T. Prantil is such a CRIMINAL and SCAM CON...hey public take a look and read
below and click the links to verify that Mary T. Prantil and her father are the
same birds of a feather- criminals, liars, and drug addicts !!! After you
THE PUBLIC read the information below, you will learn all about Mary T.
Prantil's father getting disbarred TWICE as a lawyer, charged several times for
misconduct, all about his cocaine addictions, his lies, schemes, causing a
mistrial for a famous controversial murder case, stealing money from a safe from
inside a client's house... Mary T. Prantil sure is a piece of slime
gutter trash...like father, like daughter...A CRIMINAL, a liar, a piece of white
trash gutter slime that cannot shut her OPEN GAPING HOLE in her face where her
mouth used to be!!! Mary T. Prantil LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE !!! she
learned everything she knows from her criminal father. PRANTIL GET OFF THE
INTERNET AND STOP SHOWING YOUR UGLY LIAR FACE BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS ALL ABOUT
YOU AND YOUR CRIMINAL FATHER. TAKE A HIKE, YOU ROTTEN LIAR SCUM GUTTER
TRASH. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. D-787 110
S. Ct. 493, 493 U.S. 972, 107 L. Ed. 2d 497, 58 U.S.L.W. 3351, 1989.SCT.45677
<http://www.versuslaw.com> November 27, 1989 IN THE MATTER
OF DISBARRMENT OF FRANK G. PRANTIL For earlier order herein, see
Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia,
Kennedy It having been reported to the Court that Frank G. Prantil, of
Fair Oaks, California, has been disbarred from the practice of law by the
Supreme Court of California and this Court by order of May 15, 1989, having
suspended the said Frank G. Prantil from the practice of law in this Court and
directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred; And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued; It
is ordered that the said Frank G. Prantil be disbarred from the practice of law
in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted
to practice before the Bar of this Court. Disposition Disbarrment
entered. 19891127 © 1998 VersusLaw
Inc. http://wi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CSCT%5CSCT2%5C1989%5C19891127_0045677.SCT.htm/qx -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Powered
by VersusLaw, Inc. Home | Advertise | About | Feedback | Terms | Privacy
Policy | FAQ All contents © Copyright 2008 - 2009 VersusLaw, Inc. Bellevue,
WA, USA. All rights
reserved **************************************************************************************************** On
trial before the bar court in San Francisco, FRANK PRANTIL [#35155], 67, of
Sacramento is charged with multiple counts of failing to perform legal services
competently. Prantil was disbarred in 1989, reinstated in 1994 and charged with
misconduct in 2002. The trial on the new charges was ongoing at press time and
although the bar had not formally asked for his disbarment, it is a possible
penalty. The 1989 disbarment was the result of convictions for forgery
and being an accessory to possess
cocaine. http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/June2005&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2005-06_TH_03_2nd-disbarments.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines ********************************************************************************************************** In
a case two miles across town at the State Bar offices on Howard Street -- and at
the other end of the world of privilege -- 67-year-old defense attorney Frank
Prantil is facing a task he's already performed numerous times -- defending
himself against accusations that he's acted unethically as an attorney. In 1979,
Prantil was suspended from practicing law after he was accused of improperly
representing a client. While on probation, Prantil was alleged to have
participated in a check-fraud scheme. He was convicted of forgery and disbarred,
according to the California Supreme Court opinion confirming Prantil's
disbarment. Prantil later took advantage of California rules that allow
disbarred attorneys to ask for reinstatement after five years. Prantil
successfully argued that he had rehabilitated himself, and resumed practice in
1994. Prantil is now facing State Bar disciplinary charges, which could
potentially get him disbarred again, alleging that he failed to competently
defend a client, then improperly charged the client for his
services. Prantil's case, along with three cases decided earlier this
year in which California attorneys were disbarred for a second time, has added
steam to a nine-year-old bureaucratic proposal to give judges the option of
disbarring the worst attorneys for life. In California, there now exists
no legal concept of permanent disbarment. A State Bar committee on Nov. 15 will
consider the possibility of changing that, if only slightly. Rather than making
all disbarments permanent, it would extend from five to seven years the amount
of time disbarred attorneys would have to wait before requesting to be
reinstated, and would give judges the option of forever banishing the worst of
California's worst attorneys. The fact that it's taken nine years for
such a mild proposal to reach this preliminary step hints at a lack of
seriousness the California legal establishment lobby applies to abuses by its
own
members. http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-11-09/news/baring-equality/ *********************************************************************************************************** UNITED
STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank G. PRANTIL,
Defendant-Appellant. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit June 25, 1985 764 F.2d 548 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. AMENDED OPINION 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: 1 The defendant, a criminal defense attorney, appeals
his conviction on eight out of eleven counts alleged in an indictment for the
offenses of perjury, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623; false statements, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001;
and being accessory after the fact, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3. All of the defendant's
convictions are predicated on actions he took while representing a criminal
defendant, Betty Powell, in a separate criminal prosecution. After a seven-day
trial the jury found the defendant not guilty on two counts of harboring a
fugitive and perjury. The district court had previously dismissed the misprision
of a felony count before the trial began. On appeal, the defendant raises a host
of issues which, for the most part, we need not address. Three of the
defendant's challenges, however, require reversal of the defendant's convictions
for the reasons explained herein. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 The
defendant was retained by Ronald Powell to represent his wife, Betty Lou Powell,
and her son in a federal criminal prosecution on various drug-related charges.1
Mr. Powell had been a previous client of the defendant in unrelated criminal
proceedings. After Mrs. Powell and her son were arrested at the Powell residence
on April 23, 1982 in connection with the narcotics charges, Mr. Powell, who was
also named in the felony arrest warrant, remained a fugitive until his
apprehension on August 10, 1982. On the day of his wife's arrest, Mr. Powell
telephoned the defendant, Frank Prantil, and retained his services for the
criminal proceedings against his immediate family. Throughout Mr. Powell's
fugitive status, the defendant periodically telephoned Mr. Powell and met him on
at least two occasions. 3 During their first meeting after the
incarceration of Mrs. Powell, Mr. Powell presented the defendant with a partial
payment of the retainer agreement and directed the defendant to the whereabouts
of other sources of cash in various bank accounts and at the Powell residence.
Mrs. Powell, unable to make a $750, 000 bond, remained incarcerated until the
completion of her criminal trial. She gave the defendant the power of attorney
to collect the funds from the various bank accounts. The defendant also
retrieved a substantial sum of money from a floor safe at the Powell residence
that had been overlooked at the time of the Powell family arrest. Although
questions over the capacity in which Mr. Prantil retained custody of these
monies (as attorney fees or in bailment for Mrs. Powell) occupied a substantial
portion of the defendant's trial, we need not parse the evidence on this subject
here. Pursuant to the retainer agreement negotiated by Mr. Powell, the defendant
represented Mrs. Powell for the duration of her criminal trial. The case was
prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Charles Gorder. 4 Mr.
Prantil succeeded in obtaining an acquittal on all but four of the fifteen
criminal counts leveled against his client Mrs. Powell. During the course of his
representation of Mrs. Powell, the defendant also sent his sister-in-law,
Malvina Schmidt, to meet the fugitive Ronald Powell for reasons not relevant
here. Within the same time frame, the defendant, on several occasions, acted as
the conduit for negotiations between the fugitive Ronald Powell and Assistant
U.S. Attorney Gorder for Mr. Powell's surrender. During the period when Mr.
Powell was a fugitive, the defendant was summoned before a grand jury and
questioned by Mr. Gorder concerning his contacts and relationship with Mr.
Powell. Three of the defendant's five perjury convictions rest on responses he
made to Mr. Gorder's grand jury examination. The remaining two perjury charges
and the two false statement counts stem from the events surrounding the
defendant's efforts to obtain Mrs. Powell's release on bond pending the appeal
from her criminal conviction. For purposes of this appeal, however, we need only
discuss the evidence presented on one perjury count. 5 One of the
defendant's perjury convictions rests on grand jury testimony the defendant gave
under questioning by Mr. Gorder regarding a trip to Omaha, Nebraska. In his
testimony the defendant stated that he was picked up by a blonde woman at his
hotel in Omaha, Nebraska who took him to meet Mr. Powell and then transported
the defendant to the airport. The defendant further testified that he did not
know the identity of this woman. At trial the government contended that the
defendant committed perjury when he denied knowing the name of this
woman. 6 Under the government's theory, the defendant falsely denied
knowing the identity of this blonde woman in order to protect the woman from the
grand jury's investigation. The government unsuccessfully sought to prove that
the blonde woman who met the defendant at his hotel was Malvina Schmidt, the
defendant's sister-in-law. The evidence at trial revealed that although the
defendant had been met and transported to a different airport by a blonde woman
on a different occasion, no one picked up the defendant at his Omaha hotel. The
evidence did demonstrate that the defendant eventually met his sister-in-law at
a restaurant in the Omaha area. Accordingly, on appeal the government has
shifted its perjury allegation by recasting the defendant's denial of knowledge
about the name of the blonde woman who met him at his hotel into a denial of
"knowing who was with [Mr.] Powell in the Omaha area." In response, the
defendant claims his conviction should be reversed because the identity of the
woman whom he incorrectly recalled to have met at his Omaha hotel is immaterial
to any matters then before the grand jury and thus not perjurious. II.
ISSUES ON APPEAL 7 The defendant has raised several challenges to his
convictions on appeal. We reach only three of his challenges. The defendant's
first allegation of error involves the refusal of the trial court to grant a
pretrial motion to have the prosecutor, Mr. Gorder, recused from the case so
that the defendant could call Mr. Gorder as a witness. The defendant also claims
that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of proper argument during closing
argument and the defendant was thereby prejudiced. The final contention of error
challenges the materiality of the defendant's allegedly perjurious statements
regarding the blonde woman at the Omaha airport. 8 The defendant has
also raised a claim of insufficiency of the evidence as to counts seven and
eight of the indictment which charged the defendant with violations of the false
statement statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. In essence, the government presented
evidence that the defendant attempted to secure the release of his client Betty
Powell through the submission of an appeal bond form that the defendant knew was
not authorized by the named bond company. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution we find the evidence presented sufficient to enable
a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789,
61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed in the balance of
the opinion, we reverse the defendant's convictions on these and the other
counts of the indictment. A. The Propriety of a Prosecuting
Witness 9 The prosecutor in this case, Assistant United States
Attorney Charles Gorder, was also the prosecutor in the previous trial of Betty
Powell. Mr. Gorder not only opposed the defendant in that trial but also
conducted the examination of the defendant in both the grand jury and bond
proceedings that are the subject of defendant's perjury convictions in this
case. Mr. Gorder was also involved in the discussions with the bond agency as to
the adequacy of Mrs. Powell's bond collateral which gave rise to the defendant's
false statement convictions. Finally, on several occasions Mr. Gorder negotiated
directly with the defendant for the surrender of Ronald Powell, the fugitive
whom the defendant was accused of harboring and giving aid. Thus, although he
never took the stand, Mr. Gorder was a witness to, and indeed a participant in,
some aspect of all of the events alleged in the indictment. 10 The
defendant was charged and convicted of being an accessory after the fact to Mr.
Powell's criminal offenses in that the defendant did "receive, relieve, comfort
and assist Ronald Lee Powell in order to hinder and prevent his apprehension,
trial and punishment, " in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3. During trial the
principal defense asserted by the defendant to this count, and the harboring a
fugitive charge, revolved around the defendant's efforts to successfully
negotiate Mr. Powell's surrender with Mr. Gorder. Rather than harboring or
assisting Mr. Powell, the defendant contended he was actively conducting the
ongoing negotiations for Mr. Powell's timely surrender through direct
communications with both Mr. Gorder and Mr. Powell. Obviously, this defense
hinges substantially on the availability of evidence detailing the defendant's
role in these surrender negotiations. 11 Both before and during the
trial defense counsel unsuccessfully moved the court to recuse the prosecutor to
enable the defense to call him as a witness. After final argument the defendant
moved for a mistrial because the prosecutor's remarks "reaffirm[ed] Mr. Gorder's
role as a witness in the case without cross-examination, because they appeared
to be, in the way that they were framed, assertions of personal knowledge based
on his dealings with Mr. Prantil." At every juncture, the prosecutor refused
either to recuse himself or to testify. The trial court declined to disturb the
prosecutor's decision and denied, without comment, all of the defendant's
motions on this matter. 12 The prosecutor defended his decision, and
the trial court concurred, on the grounds that his testimony was unnecessary and
cumulative to the defendant's case. We recognize that a defendant has an
obligation to exhaust other available sources of evidence before a court should
sustain a defendant's efforts to call a participating prosecutor as a witness.
United States v. West, 680 F.2d 652, 654 (9th Cir.1982). Nonetheless, the
defendant's obligation to resort to alternative means of adducing factual
testimony is not absolute. Both the quality and quantity of the alternate
sources of evidence are proper subjects for comparison with that sought directly
from the participating prosecutor. For example, in this case the prosecutor
contends that his testimony on the defendant's efforts to arrange for the
surrender of the fugitive Ron Powell was unnecessary and cumulative because the
defendant could have presented some testimony on this point through an FBI agent
who listened to some, but not all, of the relevant discussions. The prosecutor
also avers that the defendant himself was available to testify as to any
conversations for which there are no other witnesses besides the defendant and
the prosecutor. The true worth of the prosecutor's generous suggestion that the
defendant himself testify in order to "exhaust" all other sources of testimony,
however, becomes self-evident when the prosecutor subsequently portrays the
defendant's testimony as self-serving and "sleazy" in his summation before the
jury. 13 Regardless of the prosecutor's view of the utility of his own
testimony, the district judge is charged with the responsibility of making
determinations as to the materiality of witness testimony. In so doing, the
court must honor the defendant's constitutional rights under the confrontation
and compulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment. The unequivocal
admonition of the Supreme Court on this point bears repetition
here: 14 The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary
system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would
be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative
presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public
confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the
framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is
imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for
the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the
defense. THE WORLD WILL BE A SAFER HAPPIER PLACE WHEN CRIMINAL MARY T.
PRANTIL IS TAKEN OUT OF PUBLIC SOCIETY AND INCARCERATED !!!!!
PUT MARY T. PRANTIL BEHIND BARS AND GET HER OFF THE STREETS AND
AWAY FROM OUR INNOCENT CHILDREN !!!!
MARY T. PRANTIL DRUG ADDICT, EXTORTIONIST, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATOR, CRIMINAL, MENTALLY ILL PSYCHO, LUNATIC BIMBO AND ALCOHOLIC NOT FIT TO LIVE IN
SOCIETY !!!!
