Verified CRIMINALS Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com 208-714-4348, PO Box #712, PO BOX #118, Driggs-Bonners Ferry Idaho Scams-Cyber Stalkers-Verifified CONVICTED CRIMINALS Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...
July 20, 2010 Verified Criminals - SCAMS Jim Morgan and Jan Windglows - DO NOT USE - Ph: 208-714-4348 of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com passionspells@aol.com When is SCAM jan Windglows telling a LIE? Everytime she opens her mouth orpost s blog onto the Internet. Hey - SCAM Jan Windglows - where is your REAL ADDRESS - everyone knows only a SCAM post a PO BOX. SCAM Jan Windglows is a VERIFIED CONVICTED CRIMINAL- I know because I used to work for her in Bushnell Florida.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows Verified Criminal of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
I live in Seattle, Washington now but I used to work for SCAM Jan Windglows when she lived in Florida. I learned the trade of SCAMMING innocent people for SPELLS and Psychic eadings. Jan Windglows taught me well. I have since reprted Jan Windglows to the Florida Police ANd absolutley will be a PAID informant against tis SCAM site called www.bloodloveandlustspells.com - 208-714-4348 passionspells@aol.com PO Box 712 Driggs, Idaho and PO Box #118 Boners ferry, Idaho. BEWARE SCAM Jan Windglows is a verified Criminal with a Criminal Record.
Cyber Stalker and Verified Criminal with Criminal Convictions that span YEARS !!! Jan Windglows skipped her PROBATION in Bushnell Florida an has been on the RUN ever since.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows or her employee, Jim Morgan - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho - is the most recent PO BOX. P: 208-714-4348.
SCAMMERS Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan do not provide a REAL Address on their SCAM site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com - Because they are VERIFIED CRIMINALS.
X- employee of an Windglows - I used to work for SCAM Jan Windglows - now i am a PAID informant Jan Windglows you can RUN but you cannot hide.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/20/2010 10:11 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/verified-criminals-jan-windglows-and-jim-morgan-do-not-use-wwwbloodloveandlustspellscom/bonners-ferry-idaho-/verified-criminals-jan-windglows-and-jim-morgan-do-not-use-wwwbloodloveandlustspellsco-625109. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
#31 Consumer Comment
Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict, Witchcraft is EVIL.
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, May 25, 2011
#30 Consumer Comment
MARY PRANTIL AKA PSYCHICNSEATTLE EXPOSED
SUBMITTED: Monday, May 23, 2011
What a story teller LOL everyone is laughing at Prantil's reports and as usual, Jan is doing yet more and more business because of it.
So here it is again in case anyone has missed it, which we doubt. Mary Prantil is PsychicNSeattle as everyone knows, who has failed miserably in her weak attempts to ruin highly successful caster Jan Windglows of Blood Love And Lust Spells business. Business is better than ever, new testamonials are being posted all the time. Divinity is blessing Their people. This is Divinity's will, and despite anything Prantil says or does, Divinity will CONTINUE to bless Their people.
As far as Mary Prantil aka PsychicNSeattle is concerned, we do not care about anything she says anymore. We are posting these records for the PUBLIC so the public can continue to be warned about some of the unsavory people that are predators on the web such as Mary Prantil aka PsychicNSeattle.
MARY PRANTIL AKA PSYCHICNSEATTLE THIS IS A PUBLIC WARNING MESSAGE ABOUT CYBER STALKER MARY PRANTIL:
Manhattan CriminalCourt, 100 Centre Street, New York - (646) 386-4500 Give the clerk this information-they know who Mary Prantil AKA PsychicNSeattle is. NYSID: 03088617J which is Mary Prantil's JAIL/Prison number.
MARY PRANTIL AKA "PSYCHIC IN SEATTLE" AKA MARY T. PRANTIL OF
QUEENS NEW YORK CURRENT CRIMINAL RECORDS
NYSID: 03088617J
Age: 46
Sex: Female
Race: White
Height: 5 ft 3 inches
Weight: 95 lbs
Hair Color: Blonde
Eye Color: Green
Nativity: New York
Booking Information Incarceration: 2010-06-14
Book & Case Number: 3471001054
Facility: Rose M. Singer Center
Arrest Date: 2010-06-14
Arrest Number: COURT DIRECT
Next Court Date: 2010-06-30
Projected Release Date:
Actual Release Date:
Discharge Reason:
Bail & Bond: Remanded
Charge Information
Docket: 2010NY022485
Indictment: 00000 0000
Charges: 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
Docket: 2009NY002655
Indictment: 00000 0000
Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor)
Docket: 2009NY046033
Indictment: 00000 0000
Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
The Rose M. Singer Center is where Mary Prantil has been many
times over incarcerated, which is one of TEN jails on Rikers
Island.
Ten Jails on Rikers Island
List Part 2
Rose M. Singer Center
Address:
19-19 Hazen St.,
East Elmhurst, N.Y.
11370
Rose M. Singer Center was opened in June 1988 as an 800-bed
facility for female detainees and sentenced inmates.
correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/nycdoc/html/jailst1a.ht
**Important Note** The information here below was posted the
night before Mary Prantil was arrested and taken into custody:
06/14/2010 B PENDING (Prantil's Criminal Court Date 06/14/2010
)
05/18/2010 B Mennin, F PENDING No Type Morrison, S Case
Continued (adjourned), Returned On Warrant Released on Recognizance
05/07/2010 B Burke, J PENDING No Type Riccio, C
Parole
Revoked, warrant Ordered - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
03/24/2010 APAR3A Coin, E PENDING Pre-Arraignment Deposition
Given Tejada, I Psychiatric Exam Ordered - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Released on Recognizance
Web Crims Search Results 1 through 3 of 3:
010NY022485 Prantil, Mary 6/14/2010 New York Criminal Court
009NY002655 Prantil, Mary T 6/14/2010 New York Criminal Court
009NY046033 Prantil, Mary T 6/14/2010 New York Criminal Court
Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence:
L 120.50 03 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge,
Arraignment charge Description : Stalking - 3rd count. ( NOTE* Stalking is what Mary has been accusing us and others of doing to HER, lol )
L 240.30 01 **TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Agg Harass-2nd count, communicate/alarm.
Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence:
L 240.30 02 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Aggravated Harrassment-2nd
count, telephone.
L 215.50 03 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Criminal Contempt-2nd count, disobeying the Court.
L 240.30 1A **TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Aggravated Harassment-2nd Degree.
Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence:
L 205.30 00 **TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Resisting Arrest
L 240.30 01 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge, Arraignment charge Description: Aggravated Harassment-2nd
count, communicate/alarm.
More Evidence On Scammer Mary Prantil Posted
On May 11th, 2010
Mary Prantil's Current Criminal Records 2010 Posted
Here
Ethnicity: Unknown
Arrest/Incident Date/Time
Arrest
Date: June 9, 2009
Arrest Time: 11:00
Incident Date: May 6, 2009
Incident Time: 04:42
Case Related Numbers
Criminal Justice
Tracking Number: 63615729R
NYSID Number: 3088617J
Arrest Number:
M09652561
Summons/Ticket Number:
BAC and Vehicle Info Blood Alcohol Content: Vehicle Info: N/A
Arresting Officer Info
Name:
SHEEKO
Shield Number: 6560
Tax Registry Number:
Agency:
NYPD
Officer Command: 20
Confidentially Search for Records You are searching for records on First Name: mary Last Name: prantil
State: NY
DOB: 19640127
MARY THERESA PRANTIL AKA: MARY T
PRANTIL AKA: PRANTIL, MARY
Year Of Birth: 1964 (46)
Address City
State Zip
32-85 C2 33 ST ASTORIA NY 11106
3285 33RD ST C2 ASTORIA NY 11106
32-85 33 ST ASTORIA NY 11106
251 E 32ND ST 2C NEW YORK NY 10016
251 E 32ND ST 17F NEW YORK NY 10016
3285 33 WUSD 69 ASTORIA NY 11106
1352 PO BOX NEW YORK NY 10150
PO BOX 1352 NEW YORK NY 10150
Voter Information
Name : MARY T PRANTIL
Residential Address : 32-85 33 STREET C2, ASTORIA,
NY 11106
Mailing Address (if any) :
Political Party :
Democratic Voter Status : Active Voter District Information
Election District : 59 County Legislative District : Senate District :
12
Assembly District : 30 Congressional District : 14 Town :
QUEENS Ward :
Case Information Court New York Criminal Court
Case # 2009NY002655
Defendant Prantil, Mary T
Defendant
Name:Prantil, Mary T
Birth Year:1964
NYSID: 3088617J
Status:
Incident and Arrest
Date:June 22, 2008
Summons/Ticket #:
CJTN: 63355383N
Arrest
Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45
Arrest #:
M09602686
Officer
Agency:NYPD
Command:20
Attorney Information
Defense Attorney
Name:Unk,
Type:Private (Retained)
Court Date:January 10, 2009
Court
Part:APAR3
Assistant District Attorney
Name:
Assigned:February
20, 2009
Next Appearance
Date:June 14, 2010
Court:New York Criminal
Court
Part:B
Docket Sentence
No Sentence Information on
File
Incident and Arrest
Date:June 22, 2008
Summons/Ticket
#:
CJTN: 63355383N
Arrest
Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45
Arrest #: M09602686
Officer
Agency:NYPD
Command:20
Attorney Information
Defense Attorney
Name:Unk,
Type:Private (Retained)
Court Date:January 10, 2009
Court Part:APAR3
Assistant District Attorney
Name:
Assigned:February
20, 2009
Next Appearance
Date:June 14, 2010
Court:New York
Criminal Court
Part:B
Docket Sentence
No Sentence Information on
File
Defendant
Name:Prantil, Mary T
Birth Year:1964
NYSID: 3088617J
Status:
Incident and Arrest
Incident
Date:June 22, 2008
Summons/Ticket #:
CJTN: 63355383N
Arrest
Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45
Arrest #: M09602686
Officer
Agency:NYPD
Command:20
Attorney Information
Defense Attorney
Name:Unk,
Type:Private (Retained)
Court Date:January 10, 2009
Court
Part:APAR3
Assistant District Attorney
Name:
Assigned:February
20, 2009
Next Appearance
Date:June 14, 2010
Court:New York
Criminal Court
Part:B
Docket Sentence
No Sentence Information on
File
Defendant
Name:Prantil, Mary T
Birth Year:1964
NYSID: 3088617J
Status:
Incident and Arrest
Date:June 22, 2008
Summons/Ticket #:
CJTN: 63355383N
Arrest
Date &
Time:January 9, 2009 20:45
Arrest #: M09602686
Officer
Agency:NYPD
Command:20
Attorney Information
Defense Attorney
Name:Unk,
Type:Private (Retained)
Court Date:January 10, 2009
Court
Part:APAR3
Assistant District Attorney
Name:
Assigned:February 20, 2009
Next Appearance
Date:June 14, 2010
Court:New York Criminal Court
Part:B
Docket Sentence
No Sentence Information on
File
Case Information Court New York Criminal Court
Case # 2009NY002655
Defendant Prantil, Mary T
Defendant
Name:Prantil, Mary T
Birth Year:1964
NYSID: 3088617J
Status:
Incident and Arrest
Date:June 22, 2008
Summons/Ticket #:
CJTN: 63355383N
Arrest
Date & Time:January 9, 2009 20:45
Arrest #: M09602686
Officer
Agency:NYPD
Command:20
Attorney Information
Defense Attorney
Name:Unk,
Type:Private (Retained)
Court Date:January 10, 2009
Court
Part:APAR3
Assistant District Attorney
Name:
Assigned:February
20, 2009
Next Appearance
Date:June 14, 2010
Court:New York Criminal
Court
Part:B
Docket Sentence
No Sentence Information on File
Case
Details - Appearances
Case Information Court New York Criminal Court
Case
# 2009NY002655
Defendant Prantil, Mary T
Date/
Part Judge
Calendar
Section Arraignment/
Hearing Type Court
Reporter
Outcome/
Release Status
06/14/2010
B PENDING No Type
03/24/2010
B Unknown, PENDING No Type Test,
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
03/09/2010
B Whiten, M PENDING No Type Johnson, S
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
03/03/2010
B PENDING No Type Unk,
Case Continued (adjourned) -
Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
02/17/2010
B PENDING No Type Oviedo, Y
Case Continued (adjourned) -
Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
12/10/2009
B Mcgrath, K PENDING No Type Barna, C
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
10/28/2009
B Burke, J PENDING No Type Morrison,
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Released on Recognizance
08/10/2009
B Burke, J PENDING No Type Barna,
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Cash $1 (Cash)
07/28/2009
B Whiten, M PENDING No Type Burrofato,
Court Adjourned -
Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bond $1 (Not Posted)
06/09/2009
B Ross, N PENDING No Type Barna,
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
04/02/2009
B Kamins, B PENDING No Type Rodriguez, I
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
02/20/2009
B Burke, J PENDING No Type Bent, A
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued
01/10/2009
APAR3 Allen, B PENDING Pre-Arraignment Deposition Given
Harris, V
Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection
Issued
Released on Recognizance
Case Details - Charges
Case
Information Court New York Criminal Court
Case # 2009NY002655
Defendant
Prantil, Mary T
Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence
PL 205.30 00
**TOP CHARGE** A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge,
Arraignment charge
Description Resisting Arrest
PL 240.30 01 A Misdemeanor, 1 count, Arrest charge,
Arraignment charge
Description Agg Harass-2:communicate/alarm
Case Details - Motions
Case Information Court New York Criminal Court
Case # 2009NY002655
Defendant Prantil, Mary T
There are no motions on
record for this case.
Charge Detail Disposition/Sentence L 240.30 02
Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description Agg Har-2nd:telephoneL 215.50 03 Misdemeanor, 1
count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionCrim Contempt-2nd:disobey CrtL 240.30 1A
**TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge,
Arraignment charge
DescriptionAggravated Harassment-2nd Deg
Queens Civil Supreme Court
Index Number: 022186/2009
Case Name: 3285 REALTY
COMPANY LLC vs. PRANTIL, MARY
Case Type: Other Real Property
Track: Expedited
Motion Information:
Motion
Number Date
Filed Filed
By Relief Sought Submit
Date
Answer
Demanded Status Decision Order
Signed Date
001 02/04/2010 PLAINT Change Or Remove Attorney
03/04/2010
No Decided: 04-MAR-10
MOTION GRANTED
Before Justice:
PINEDA-KIRWAN Short Form Order 03/04/2010
Court: Queens Civil
Supreme
Index Number: 022186/2009
Case Name: 3285 REALTY COMPANY LLC vs.
PRANTIL, MARY
Case Type: Other Real Property
Track: Expedited
RJI
Filed: 01/26/2010
Date NOI Due:
NOI Filed:
Disposition Deadline:
Disposition Date:
Calendar Number:
Jury Status:
Justice Name:
DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN
Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff:
MARK S.
FRIELANDER Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active
150
BROADWAY
NEW YROK, N.Y. 10038
212 962-2877
Attorney/Firm For
Defendant:
ATTORNEY RELIEVED Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty.
Status: Active
32-30 87th Street
East Elmhurst 11369
718-426-7424
Date
Part Judge Calendar
Section Arraignment/
Hearing Type
Court
Reporter Outcome/
Release Status 6/14/2010
B ENDING o Type
3/24/2010
B unknown, ENDING o Type est,
Case Continued (adjourned) -
Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued 3/09/2010
B hiten, M ENDING o Type ohnson, S
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued 3/03/2010
B ENDING o Type nk,
Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary
Order Of Protection Issued
Released on Recognizance 2/17/2010
B ENDING o Type viedo, Y
Case Continued (adjourned) -
Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 2/10/2009
B cgrath, K ENDING o Type arna,
Case Continued (adjourned)
- Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 0/28/2009
B urke, J ENDING o Type orrison,
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 8/10/2009
B urke, J ENDING o Type arna,
Case Continued (adjourned) -
Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 7/28/2009
B hiten, M ENDING o Type urrofato,
Court Adjourned -
Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 6/15/2009
C andelbaum, R ENDING o Type ames, C
Case Continued
(adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bond $500 Cash $500 (Cash)
6/10/2009
APAR2 hiten, M ENDING re-Arraignment Deposition Given ilion,
Case Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bond
$500 Cash $500 (Not Posted)
NEW YORK New York Criminal Court
Docket
2009NY046033
Defendant Prantil, Mary T Law Code and Code
Section/Subsection
PL 240.30 02
Charge Detail
A Misdemeanor, 1
count count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description: AGG
HAR-2ND:TELEPHONE
Disposition/Sentence
Law Code and Code
Section/Subsection
PL 215.50 03
Charge Detail
A Misdemeanor, 1
count count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description: CRIM
CONTEMPT-2ND:DISOBEY CRT
Disposition/Sentence
Law Code and Code
Section/Subsection
PL 240.30 1A *** TOP CHARGE ***
Charge
Detail
A Misdemeanor, 1 count count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
Description: AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT-2ND DEG
Disposition/Sentence
Court: Queens County Civil Court
Index
Number: CV-071786-09/QU
Case Name: GE MONEY BANK
vs.
PRANTIL,
MARY
Case Type: Civil
Classification: Consumer Credit
Filing
Date: 06/18/2009
Disposition Date:
Calendar Number:
Jury Demand:
No
Judge Name:
Attorney/Firm(s) For Plaintiff - GE MONEY BANK:
Rubin & Rothman LLC Attorney Type: Firm
1787 Veterans Highway
Suite 32
P.O.Box 9003
Islandia, New York 11749-
(631) 234-1500 ext:
Attorney/Firm(s) For Defendant - MARY PRANTIL:
Please note
that this record report has been generated by an independent searcher,
using
the Department of State's, State Tax Warrant Notice On-Line Database. The
information contained in this report is NOT an official record of the Department
of State.
Taxpayer Name(s) Selected: City specified in warrant address
record of Taxpayer Searched: County in which warrant is filed of Taxpayer
Searched: MARY PRANTIL Not Applicable QUEENS
Your name selection(s)
has returned 1 State Tax Lien Notice histories.
Warrant ID# :
E-029211902-W001-3
MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST C2
ASTORIA, NY 11106
June 10, 2008 QUEENS $106.21 June 20, 2008
Warrant ID# : E-029159448-W001-7
MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST
C2
ASTORIA, NY 11106
February 14, 2008 QUEENS $4, 072.14
February 14, 2008
Taxpayer Name(s) Selected:
City
specified in warrant address record of Taxpayer Searched: County in which
warrant is filed of Taxpayer Searched:
MARY PRANTIL Not Applicable
QUEENS
NEW YORK New York Criminal Court
Docket
2009NY046033
Defendant Prantil, Mary T
Appearance Information:
Appearance
Part & Date Judge Calendar
Section Court
Reporter
Release
Status Arraignment
Type Hearing
Type Docket
Detail
Restraining Orders Applied Against Mary T. Prantil
B, June 14, 2010 Pending No Type
B, March 24, 2010 UNKNOWN, Pending TEST, RoR Continued
No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued
B, March 9, 2010 WHITEN, M Pending JOHNSON, S RoR
Continued
No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of
Protection Issued
B, March 3, 2010 Pending UNK, Released on
Recognizance
No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of
Protection Issued
B, February 17, 2010 Pending OVIEDO, Y Bail Continued
No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued
B, December 10, 2009 MCGRATH, K Pending BARNA, C Bail
Continued
No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of
Protection Issued
B, October 28, 2009 BURKE, J Pending MORRISON, Bail
Continued
No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of
Protection Issued
B, August 10, 2009 BURKE, J Pending BARNA, Bail
Continued
No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of
Protection Issued
B, July 28, 2009 WHITEN, M Pending BURROFATO, Bail
Continued
No Type COURT ADJOURNED - Temporary Order of Protection
Issued
C, June 15, 2009 MANDELBAUM, R Pending JAMES, C Bond $500
Cash $500 (Cash) No Type CASE CONTINUED (ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of
Protection Issued
APAR2, June 10, 2009 WHITEN, M Pending FILION, Bond $500
Cash $500 (Not Posted) Pre-Arraignment Deposition Given CASE CONTINUED
(ADJOURNED) - Temporary Order of Protection Issued
Docket
Information:
Standards and Goals Age Defendant Status
Docket
Sentence Information:
Docket Sentence
No Data Available
Defense Attorney Information:
Name Type Court Date Court Part Firm Name
Phone Number Address
UNK, 18B (Assigned) June 10, 2009 APAR2
Assistant District Attorney Information:
Name Assignment Date
June
15, 2009
Defendant Docket Number Summons Number Appearance Date
County / Court / Part Judge Prantil,
Mary T- 2009NY002655 -06/14/2010
NEW YORK / New York Criminal Court / B Prantil, Mary T 2009NY046033 06/14/2010
NEW YORK / New York
Criminal Court / B State of California &
Queens NY Criminal & Civil Records On Mary T. Prantil :
Supreme Court Civil ; Lawsuit Case Detail :
Court: Queens Civil Supreme
Index Number: 031093/2002
Case Name: PRANTIL, MARY
vs. LAMPROPOULOS, CHRISTOPHER ANO
Case Type: Motor Vehicle
Track: Complex
RJI Filed:
11/28/2003
Date NOI Due:
NOI Filed:
Disposition Deadline:
Disposition Date:
Calendar
Number:
Jury Status:
Justice Name:
COMPLIANCE CONF JUDGE
Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff:
GEOGHAN & COHEN Attorney Type:
Attorney Of Record Atty.
Status: Active
7 PENN PLAZA SUITE 505
NEW
YORK NY 10001
212-465-0600
Attorney/Firm For Defendant:
JERROLD N. COHEN Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status:
Active
163 MINEOLA BLVD - POB #229
MINEOLA, NY 11501
1 - 718 - 895
- 3215
ISSERLIS AND SULLIVAN, ESQ., Attorney Type: Attorney Of
Record Atty. Status: Active
999 STEWART AVENUE
BETHPAGE, NEW YORK
11714
516-349 0111
Court: Queens Civil Supreme
Index Number:
022186/2009
Case Name: 3285 REALTY COMPANY LLC vs. PRANTIL, MARY
Case
Type: Other Real Property
Track: Expedited
Appearance Information:
Appearance
Date Time On For Appearance
Outcome Justice /
Part Comments
Motion
Seq
05/24/2010 Supreme Trial DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN
PT
36 PRELIM CONF
05/19/2010 Supreme Trial Remove Stay DICCIA T.
PINEDA-KIRWAN
PT 36 GEN CAL
03/04/2010 Motion Fully Submitted DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN
PT 36 MOTIONS OSC=LIC 001
02/22/2010 Supreme Trial Stayed-Attorney Relieved DICCIA
T. PINEDA-KIRWAN
PT 36 PRELIM CONF 45 DAYS PER SFO 3/4/10
02/08/2010 Supreme Initial (first time on) Adjourned
DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN
PT 36 PRELIM CONF
Previous address Locations & Civil Records Of Mary T.
Prantil
3285 33rd St, Astoria, NY 11106
Reported:12/01/2002
251
32nd St, New York, NY 10016
Reported:07/18/2001
3285 33
Wusd # 69,
Astoria, NY 11106
Reported:06/01/2001
3044 1st Ave,
San Diego, CA
92103
Reported:11/13/2000
1352 PO Box, New York,
NY
10150
Reported:06/18/1997
3044 Juniper St # 2, San Diego, CA
92104
Reported:10/01/1995
1154 22nd # 2, San Diego, CA
92102
Reported:12/01/1993
319 Gravilla St, La Jolla, CA
92037
Reported:08/01/1992
Criminal Court Records
Criminal
Profile
Subject Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Date:
12/8/2007 3:45:39
PM
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source
State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
Offense: 1
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case
Number:
M695524
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source
State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
Offense: 1
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case
Number:
T105836
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source
State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
Offense: 1
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case
Number:
T108343
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source
State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
Offense: 1
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case
Number:
T110326
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Source
State:
AOCDOCCourts
County:
SAN DIEGO
Date
Reported(CA):
10/30/2006
Offense: 1
NOT SPECIFIED BY
STATE
Offense State:
CA
Offense County:
SAN DIEGO
Case
Number:
T120948
Criminal Court
Records
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY T
Case Number: M598531
Case County: San Diego
Source
State: CA
Case File Date: 03/23/1990
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
THERESA
Case Number:
M695524
Case County: San Diego
Source State:
CA
Case File Date: 02/01/1995
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T105836
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 11/13/1992
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T108343
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 01/04/1993
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T110326
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date: 02/02/1993
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY THERESA
Case Number:
T120948
Case County: San Diego
Source State: CA
Case File Date:
08/09/1993
Bankruptcies, Tax Liens &
Judgments by Name for:
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY T
Address:
PO BOX 1352,
NEW YORK NY
10150
Action:
STATE TAX
LIEN
Court:
SACRAMENTO COUNTY COURT
(RD)
Plaintiff:
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Case:
9706100302
(06/10/1997)
Liability/Assests:
$1,
310.00/NA
Name:
PRANTIL,
MARY T
Address:
251 E 32ND ST
#2C, NEW YORK NY
10016
Action:
BANKRUPTCY
Court:
NEW YORK
FED COURT-NEW YORK CITY
(NEW YORK County)
Case:
9640110
(01/11/1996)
Liability/Assests:
NA/NA
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY
T
Address:
251 E 32ND ST #2C, NEW YORK NY
10016
Action:
BANKRUPTCY
Court:
NEW YORK FED COURT-NEW YORK CITY
(NEW
YORK County)
Plaintiff:
PRO SE
Case:
9640110
(01/11/1996)
Liability/Assests:
NA/NA
Judgement
Against
Name:
PRANTIL, MARY T
Address: 3038
DICKENS ST, SAN DIEGO
CA 92106
Action: SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT
Court: KEARNEY MESA MUNI - SAN
DIEGO
CO
Plaintiff: LIBS CHIROPRACTOR
CENTER
Case: 570215
(12/19/1991)
Liability/Assests: $2,
198.00/NA
Supreme Court
- Motion Detail
Court: Queens Civil Supreme
Index Number: 031093/2002
Case Name: PRANTIL, MARY
vs. LAMPROPOULOS, CHRISTOPHER ANO
Case
Type: Motor Vehicle
Track: Complex
Appearance Information:
Appearance
Date Time On For Appearance
Outcome Justice /
Part Comments
Motion
Seq 10/26/2004 Supreme Trial Stayed-Bankruptcy ALLAN B.
WEISS
PRENOTE COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE INTERBORO
01/05/2004 Supreme
Trial Preliminary Conference Held
ALLAN B. WEISS PT 2 PRELIM CONF
12/22/2003 Supreme Initial (first time on) Adjourned ALLAN B. WEISS
PT 2 PRELIM CONF
Manhattan CriminalCourt, 100 Centre Street, New York - (646) 386-4500 Give the clerk this information-they know who Mary Prantil AKA PsychicNSeattle is. NYSID: 03088617J which is Mary Prantil's JAIL/Prison number.
Prantil's next court date is this next month of June 2011 but no matter what happens, we will continue to serve Divinity and move forward with Divinity's work as Their messengers.
Ficticious names of Mary T. Prantil Of Astoria New York/ AKAs Of Mary Prantil:
AKA "American Citizen Speaking Out" AKA WitchcraftSTOPPER - Seattle ( USA ) " AKA Honest Person AKA Honestperson AKA Park City USA, AKA Uta, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania, AKA Washington D.C.AKA Washington,
AKA Astoria, New York, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania AKA Park City, AKA Utah AKA Astoria New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA SadisticPsychicJanWindglowsHURTME2 - Houston (USA AKA Unhappy Client - Xxx (U.S.A AKA CONArtist-JimMorganNOTaWizardorMagicalPowers AKA Houston (USA AKA SCAMJanWindglowsSpellCastingSchemeOperation AKA Settle USA AKA Astoria USA AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A. AKA Cc - Essex United Kingdom AKA Enforcer Of
Justice AKA Washington D.C., Washington AKA New York, New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A AKA Enforced Justice AKA Phoenix USA AKA UK Other AKA PsychicHater (Seattle Washington)United States of America, AKA do not tread on me (Astoria New York AKA OpinionatedAmerican (Tampa Florida)United States of America AKA Psychic Hater AKA Toronto Ontario AKA Jesus Hates Satan
#29 Consumer Comment
Criminally INSANE Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict that supports her drug habit by scamming for Spells. Heroin Addict Jan Windglows Jan Windglows is a Heroin Addict, Witchcraft is EVIL.
SUBMITTED: Monday, May 23, 2011
#28 Consumer Suggestion
SCAM Spellcaster Jan Windglows uses Psychic Reading to exploit for SPELLS
SUBMITTED: Monday, December 27, 2010
Jan Windglows is a complete SCUM!!! Thuis woman is a complete Ripoff Queen that is using the Internet to ripoff ppl for so-called SPELLS.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
One - there is no such thing as a SPELL - so if you are reading this - pick up a Bible - as it clearly states this - or better call a good friend and talk out your problem.
If you contact this LOSER SCAM Jan Windglows then you are only asking for trouble. SCAM Spellcasteer Jan Windglows is committing Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and is a verified Serail Cyber Stalker.
Jan Windglows is not the smartest person either as Jan Windglows has left a trail of her Cyber Crimes all over the Internet.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
www.bloodloveandlustspells.com is a SCAM Spellcasting operation. Jan Windglows is the #1 Ripoff site that uses Western Union as a method to ripoff innocent ppl.
#27 Consumer Comment
Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - Exposes Mary Prantil, Jan Windglows, Janhett Windglows aka Mystical Jan208 provides proof and instructions for the public-LOOK UP MARY PRANTIL CRIMINAL COURT RECS!
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, December 07, 2010
#26 Consumer Suggestion
ALERT for IDENTITY THFET - Criminal Jan Windglows post FRAUD as Identity Theft
SUBMITTED: Thursday, October 28, 2010
on-line SCammer Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - is a verifiied convicted criminal for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Identiy Theft.
I know because I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida - JAIL BIRD Scam Jan Windglow is a FUGITIVE from SUMTER Florida JAIL where I personally bailed her out on a number of occasions. I am now a PAID informant.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME, associated with Psychics, Spell Casters and almost most Con-Artist convicted of Grand Larceny.
It the CRIME of promising results for a price.
For Example - For $5000 I will reunite you with your X-wife.
Call Police give whereabouts of SCAM Jan Windglows who only offers a PO BOX. Everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME.
Scam Jan Windglows uses WIGS and different PHOTOS on her websites. BEWARE this is the latest...also known as a BLONDE. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SCAM Jan Windglows
on-line SCammer Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 - is a verifiied convicted criminal for Deception Fraud, Grand Larceny and Identiy Theft.
I know because I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida - JAIL BIRD Scam Jan Windglow is a FUGITIVE from SUMTER Florida JAIL where I personally bailed her out on a number of occasions. I am now a PAID informant.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME, associated with Psychics, Spell Casters and almost most Con-Artist convicted of Grand Larceny.
It the CRIME of promising results for a price.
For Example - For $5000 I will reunite you with your X-wife.
Call Police give whereabouts of SCAM Jan Windglows who only offers a PO BOX. Everytime Scam Jan Windglows offers to do a SPELL for MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows is committing a CRIME.
Scam Jan Windglows uses WIGS and different PHOTOS on her websites. BEWARE this is the latest...also known as a BLONDE. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SCAM Jan Windglows
#25 Consumer Comment
Settle this in court
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Good grief people, sue each other or something. Carrying on here with your long silly immature rants (that NO one reads by the way) accomplishes nothing except making you all look like a bunch of buffoons.
Ridiculous.
#24 REBUTTAL Individual responds
Stacy AKA ramjet AKA Openionated American AKA Psychic Hater AKA Mary Prantil We All Know It's You FREAK CRIMINAL
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Little Mary is back under yet another assumed set of fictitious names on ROR to hide what shes done. Well, RamS-hit / Tracy AKA Mary prantil, YOUVE BEEN EXPOSED AGAIN, looser. All your little efforts in attempting to make people believe that you dont have criminal records have fallen short, as these records on you are coming from State agencies that can be looked up by anyone.
All anyone has to do is look them up via the numbers and links weve provided on your CRIMINAL report, just like any other information weve provided on your dirty daddy and uncle. Moving on, you say that you were a client of Jans and that she ripped you off, and then you contradict yourself by saying that you werent, the sums of money you claim was taken from you go from $5,000 to $750,000 etc.
Your telling people that you GOT A LEGAL REFUND FROM PAY PAL, But you didnt get anything from me or the Windglows' site, IDIOT. You did get a refund from the Cahill site after you charged back on him five or six times as is explained in his report against you, The report Celeste made is backing this and other things up on you.
Your refund from Cahill was anything but legal according to Pay Pal and his Attorney and thats why Cahill is casting curses on youre a_s every week LOL. Thats why you cant get a Pay Pal account now under your real name. Of course we have the original Pay Pal records that show you trying to do this to Blood Love And Lust Spells.
You say that you were never a client of Windglows or mine yet, your up her scamming and bad mouthing us while contradicting yourself every five minutes by saying that we "ripped you off" out of large differing amounts of money. Your accusing us of criminal acts to which you have no evidence in any remote sense as these charges are nothing more then just you being nasty and trying to cause us trouble, or to harm legal business interstate commerce.
Again, you say that were stalking you, and that we are criminals however, we can prove you wrong here as well and that you are the CRIMINAL. Why ? because we have 67 pages of phone records showing your number calling us in every five seconds with harassing messages, ATTEMPTING TO HACK INTO OUR BUSINESS CELL ACCOUNT. Not only coming from your number but the numbers of others in which you spoofed through a card to which we now have the records to.
Then of course theres your voice sound bits in which your calling in to threaten, blackmail, extort and harass by stating every negative thing under the sun. Dont say its not your voice, BECAUSE IT IS, and all anyone has to do is in speaking to you to solve this great mystery.
All of your sites have been downloaded,your speech is on tape, your criminal and civil records are posted via public records, and we have everyone of your pathetic emails ever sent. Youve given me a really good case against you Mary. I mean, after this is turned in along with all the other complaints against you, YOUR LOOKING AT A LOT OF TIME in jail. Look up the federal laws concerning your activities, CRIMINAL.
I finally have you C_t, and your little games are pretty much over. WOW, look at all that trouble your in, The state of New York is going to put your lying a_s away for a long time. Youve stalled for about as long as you can and now your going to pay for all your criminal crap against others. By the way, everything your charging us with over the net is exactly what your being charged with in the NY courts LOL, LOOSER.
Youve stated that "spells dont work" however, your life is a basket of Sh_t right now, isnt it? Of course it is. To prove this, all anyone has to do is to look over your life, especially the last two or three years of it. Your talk about God a lot yet, all you can do is make quotes out of the Bible to which your guilty of much of the time.
Your anything BUT "Gods light in New York" as this is just plain offensive as you practice nothing but deception and evil all the day and night long, much as what your doing up here this very second. We have no doubt that people see you as the Satan and not ourselves despite your ratings about "The Dragon". Incidentally, which dragon are you talking about as the Bible is full of both good and bad dragons, you scripture quoting dullard.
The only one God is going to crush is YOU, trash can Mary and not ANY Dragon. And d**n sure not me. Look who God is permitting to be crushed here, NOT ME, BUT YOU through your own speech and deeds that are now being revealed to the world.
Youre the typical small minded Troll, or Neanderthal who only goes around parroting what theyve heard from others, and not going off of any obtained knowledge acquired from your own personal research. I could rip your statements apart one by one and enjoy doing it, but this would be like arguing with a two year old with s_t in her pants. "SCAM, SCAM, SCAM" is all I would hear from you as you have no real knowledge about anything, especially the Bible or magical practice.
When you speak about religion or faith issues you really come off as sounding very uninformed. Not only this, but you sound like your ground zero emotionally and spiritually, NOT A EVOLVED PERSON with understanding of the issues in which you speak. God will not protect you nor will he ever love you WHY ? BECAUSE HE WILL NOT PROTECT OR LOVE EVIL no matter the form it takes.
Everything about you is evil, God doesnt love evil and the Devil wont take you because he hates IGNORANCE, stupidity such as can be found in your words and deeds everywhere. Even though your full of ARROGANCE, PRIDE, EGO and DECEPTION; your too stupid to even enter therein even to Hell itself. Your likened to the beast of the field living from moment to moment fulfilling its most basic needs, and nothing more.
I mean, you are like a 8 year old in the body of a 47 year old woman whom feels it necessary to starve herself because she thinks it makes her look sexy. Oh, LOOK AT ME, Mary, Im a beautiful and talented media executive living the American dream ((((((NOT)))))))). NEWS FLASH, It makes you look like a FOOL in the body of a P.O.W or A.I.D.S patient and this is why people on your little twitter sites wont speak with you? Of course they all see the Lilith link that weve been sending out to everyone as well.
Thats why you spend much of your time talking to yourself on all your 5 or 6 stupid looking sites, the blog sites that havent been deleted like previous five that we turned to twitter and e-blogger etc. Thats why all your friends are, and have left you, Again because youre a criminal and a stalker that takes advantage of people and businesses who have shown you kindness.
Youre a scammer that is going back to jail really soon as the result of MANY MANY people whom you have harassed, stalked and tormented over the years.
Oh, I also saw your latest victim on the forum sites accusing you of charging back on him for a lot of money, of course he really does look like a Scammer, but still. Oh, I get it, thats what you met by how does the Scammer Scam The Scammer, YOU SCAMED THE SCAMMER. No mystery there as you scammed the scammer Prantil, didnt ya ?
You scammed Matilda, Kim, Gary and Mike Cahill along with many others, right ? YOU DIDNT SCAM the Windglows site as she was smart enough to obtain the original records of what you tried to do and thus took this up with Pay Pal. Then Pay Pal dropped youre a_s, didnt they? Especially after what they saw you do to the Cahill site shortly after you left the B.L.&L.S site. All these records are factual information that can be verified by anyone.
Hey Mary, how do you like the Lilith Site (((Redacted))) ? Hows it feel to be exposed along with your DIRT BAG dad and uncle ? Your from a long line of dirt bags arent you ? Well, I am perfectly content in that I can let everyone know exactly who and what you are.
You spend much of your time calling others """"scammers""""" and making other fictitious allegations at them from behind your little computer, when in all actuality YOU ARE THE SCAMMER TRYING TO COVER YOUR CRIMINAL DEEDS that you committed over the last twenty years.
Not only this, but youre a COWARDLY CRIMINAL who cant even use your real name to defend yourself on the forum sites. WHY, BECAUSE YOUR GUILTY via the proof submitted, AND YOU HAVE BEEN CLEARLY EXPOSED, thats why.
I dare you to say, "my name is Mary Prantil and I didnt do any of this stuff" on the forum sites. You wont because your all ready denying on your form sites however, you do come up here under different names trying to deceive people into think your different people supporting your cause, right ? Liar.
Your nothing but a HABITUAL COWARDLY LIEING SCAM ARTIST who has been exposed in everything that you say as a lie, Youve been CAUGHT RED HANDED in scamming businesses, you are a criminal with records who is now attempting to lie over and over again thinking that your going to cover it all up by burying our post, NOT WORKING. Get It ? YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT, CRIMINAL.
The NYDA is going to put you away, also they will be receiving help from a much higher office soon that Ive been talking to. When they are done with you the other will launch their charges. So, keep on posting your uninformed trash, keep making your bogus charges as no one believe you any way. Its only a matter of time and you will be arrested AGAIN and put in jail for a long time.
Keep sending your emails or calling us as we will just add this to your case file to turn over. Keep posting as were collecting your IP addresses from ED, keep on keeping on if you like. You must want to F-k up your life and go to jail badly as you just keep giving me stuff to use against you. Oh, know what ? LOTS OF PEOPLE DO READ THESE REPORT, 20,000 VIEWED THE LILITH SITE LAST MONTH, so people really do care about who you are and what youve been up to. The police, comedy clubs, fortune 500 and anyone else looking to avoid scam artist and trouble makers like you. That was just last month and we look forward to seeing the new numbers this month, especially since Ive worked on the site and now have it all over the internet coming up over and around all your scammer trash sites.
Your not a New Yorker "living the American dream" however, YOU ARE an ex-citizen running from your past in California thats now living a pipe dream in New York State. Think "PETTY CRIMINAL", or "two bit criminal" living a life of poverty in a dirty little apartment while being supported by your working class mother, NOT A MILLIONARESS as you proclaim, I looked her up, liar.
You're NOT A CELBERITY, more so than some looser creep trying to be funny by acting like a comedian out side in the parking lot of a waffle house in Queens. No one even knows your name at the places you tell everyone your performing in. Your whole life is a lie, Prantil. Your nothing but some anorexic who_e looking for sex while trying to dazzle everyone with deception of what you would like them to think you are. A larger then life FAKE is all you are.
Of course, then it all comes crashing down around you because they eventually she you for who you really are: A two bit criminal liar who causes sadness and torment after they try to help you in some way, or tell you the truth about yourself. Oh, by the way, YOU WERE IN RIKERS ISLAND being evaluated for emotional well being, and then released.
RECORDS FROM STATE AGENCIES DONT LIE, so I guess they thought you were crazy, or they wouldnt have put you in for a mental observation for two weeks. How did that test turn out Mary-ARE YOU CRAZY OR NOT? I hope they found you NOT CRAZY so justice can be applied to the fullest extent that the law will allow in your case.
Hey Prantil, did you know that it goes against FEDERAL laws to post negative and unwanted advertisements against people on the Internet? Like what youve done with ourselves and others not related to us? Moreover that it is unlawful to ride on someones coat tails while promoting negative and fictitious criminal charges against them and thus communicating alarm to the public.
Communicating alarm to the public of a fictitious nature while promoting your own ventures, using their name and likeness in the process of this crime. Did you know that calling or writing someone against their will while threatening them is a invasion of their privacy be they a business or individual.
Not to mention charging them with fictitious crimes like extortion, fraud, hacking, aggravated harassment and stalking. I bet you didnt but now you do. Guess what, you have carried out these same things against us and others and we have all the proof of it, four years of proof.
Youve been accusing everyone else of the very things you have been doing to THEM. I would be very concerned if I were you. I mean, in knowing that four of five of us have solid proof of theses things that youve carried out etc. Thats the difference here between the TRASH you post and what we have to say about you (((( WE HAVE PROOF ))) and you dont.
WE HAVE THE PROOF AND YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT BULL_HIT accusations posted under fictitious names. Again, our evidence comes from the State and public records, eyewitness accounts of businesses and private people, law enforcement officials, background searches and Pay Pal records. ALL THIS CAN BE VERIFIED and folks can just look it up on you, What do you have? NOTHING BUT RUNNING OFF AT THE MOUTH.
Mike Cahill has all kinds of Pay Pal charge records on you, records from Pay Pal telling him that you have done this to numerous people. Matilda has records of you charging back on her, and Michael Jenkins has all your accusing voice mails concerning all of us. Mike Cahill has all your voice sound files concerning your calls to him,, and we all have all your crazy and nasty emails that youve sent to us recently, The DA also has copies of all this.
Yes you are a CRIMINAL Pran-Idiot that mixes religion, ripping people off , harassing innocent folks and deviant sexual practices along with many other unsavory things that you do. Yeah, you really are an "upstanding" citizen "living the American dream", NOT. Youre a mixed up and turned around piece of s_it who is on the take just like dad and uncle Richard.
You know nothing of charity, peace or bringing joy into anyones life but are more so just a feeder blood sucker on the backs of those who really do try to do the right thing and persue happy and peaceful lives.
Youre a F_king PARISITE Mary, that ALL of society can do without, in my opinion who does and says anything she can to get noticed even if it comes at the expense of others, youre a mean spirited, jealous, vindictive and envious person that hasnt changed a bit in the four years Ive known of you. Your likened to a stagnate pond full of rotten water and your life reflects this.
In closing, why dont you crawl back under your rock and let the good people of the world strive for success and happiness in their lives. JUST BECAUSE YOUR TO d**n LAZY to do this for yourself, and further want to ride off the hard work of others as a result, THE WORLD DOESNT OWE YOU A LIVING and society just needs to scrape you off the bottom of it's shoe, you piece of s_t.
Say what you will after this post prantil, but know your time is short as your going back to jail in about a month or so. Also everyone that reads your crap under your little fake names will just blow you off as the lying idiot that youve always been on these form sites.
So, just keep talking to yourself up here and pretending to be others attacking us for whatever scammer reasons you have. The truth is the truth and it will NEVER change no matter how many time you try to distort it. BYE, FREAK !
P.S: All Your Sites and post are Downloaded to disk, Ask someone what that means legally, Criminal Mary Prantil
#23 Consumer Suggestion
BOYCOTT Criminal Jan Windglows - Spell Casting is not a Legitimate Business- DO NOT USE - Scam Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 30, 2010
Scam Jan Windglows is a Cyber Stalker and Menace - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry 208-714-4348. SCAM Jan Windglows is BALD from her CRACK addiction and uses WIGS to disguise herself.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted Felon from SUMTER Florda Jail - it is PUBLIC information for those want to bother and look it up.
Hey SCAM Jan Windglows I did look up the info on Mary Prantil - and you POST LIES - these are just COURT DATES not CONVICTIONS and hey SCAM Jan Windglows - so is the info on the NY ADA - I bet you do speak to him...guess what - Ms. Prantil is NOT at Rikers Island as you say.
SCAM Jan Windglows has been caught in her lies and Cyber Stalking- but worse since the recent postings that caught my EYE have caught the attention of an X-employee that worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida.
Ex- emplyee trhank you for posting the info about SUMTER Jail -SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE from Sumter Flroda JAIL - look who is calling the Kettle BLACK.
Scam Jan Windglows Verified Convicted Criminal and SCAMMER!!! Do Not use www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho..previously PO BOX #712 Driggs, Idaho last mailing address: 7961 Court, Bushnell Idaho...home of SUMTER JAIL.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows - Convicted Criminal and Cyber Stalker - BOYCOTT the SCAM Site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
Jan Windglows you can run but you can't HIDE - The SUMTER Florida JAIL want you back - SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE - for Deception Fraud - Everytime SCAM Jan Windglows offer to do a SPELL for MONEY Jan Windglows is commtting DECEPTION FRAUD - call the Police and report the CRIME
#22 Author of original report
Boycott Convicted Criminal Jan Windglows - Spell Casting is not a legitimate Business
SUBMITTED: Friday, August 27, 2010
Hey Scammer Jan Windglows - Spell Casting is not a legitimate business...GET A LIFE SCAM Jan Windglows
#21 Consumer Comment
Scam ! Mary Prantil Scam! SCAM ! SCAM! SCAM! MARY PRANTIL SCAM ! Do Not Use! Do Not Use! LOL Blah Blah Blah!!!! Scamary Prantil, Do Not Use Verified Criminal Mary Prantil! Her Brain Does Not Work !
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The California Supreme Court has quietly ended one of San Diego County's more clamorous legal careers.
The court this month upheld the disbarment of Frank George Prantil, a well-known attorney and aspiring politician before being convicted of perjury and forgery charges and spending 14 months in prison.
"At one time, he was considered one of the county's top defense attorneys," said attorney Eugene Iredale, who once represented Prantil. "Somehow his life just fell apart on him."
Now living outside Sacramento, the 51-year-old Prantil said he was "devastated" by the court's rejection of his plea that he was unfairly convicted. And he repeated his oft-made accusation that he was victimized because of his maverick ways.
"I'm a victim of the war on drugs," Prantil said. "The prosecutors and the courts can't stand it when someone insists that all defendants have rights."
In nearly two decades as a practicing attorney, the San Diego native was never far from the headlines. He won several high-publicity felony cases and big-money damage suits. He defended a San Diego councilman indicted in the Yellow Cab scandal.
Reporters loved his flamboyant rhetoric (he favored Shakespeare and the classics) and brash attire (he wore an American flag tie to court). His practice boomed. He moved from East County to a comfortable spread in La Jolla.
But there were also political defeats, angry public disputes, money problems and his final slide into Vacaville state prison. He concedes now that alcohol and marijuana played a role in his difficulties.
He lost races for Congress (1968), district attorney (1970) and El Cajon Municipal Court (1978). The County Bar Assn. branded him as unqualified. The State Bar in 1979 suspended him for six months for misusing a client's money.
He was convicted in 1983 of forgery and perjury in a case involving a bogus $53,000 check and, in 1986, of being an accessory to a cocaine conspiracy. Released from prison in 1987, Prantil says he will never return to San Diego County: "They rode me out on a rail."
He says that Deputy Dist. Atty. Bob Sullivan had a vendetta against him. Sullivan says that's bunk and notes that two juries convicted Prantil on a number of counts.
From his self-imposed exile, Prantil tries not to dwell on how far he has fallen. "I used to believe in ultimate justice," he said. "I don't anymore."
A Winning T-Shirt
T-shirts protesting the judge's decision will go on sale today in 14 San Diego County outlets of Pacific Eyes and T's, the Sorrento Valley-based T-shirt and sunglasses chain.
The new shirts show a Conner-like catamaran with a large screw through it, and a kiwi bird laughing at the sight. Price: $10.
Pacific Eyes and T's has long backed Conner against pirate-banker Michael Fay. During the September races it sold shirts saying "No Way Fay", and "Throw Another Kiwi on the Barbie."
A Well-Done Roast
In Pete Wilson's latter years as mayor of San Diego, it was said he had two goals: to learn to sing and to become governor.
He took lessons and can manfully handle a tune. The second goal eluded him, and he settled for the U. S. Senate. Now, he's trying to rectify that with his third try at the governorship, with his likely Democratic foe being Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.
Thursday night the Republican Wilson was among those roasting Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) at a benefit dinner in Oakland.
He joked that he wasn't surprised to find picketers carrying signs urging him to stay in the Senate. What did surprise him, he said, was that one of the signs was carried by Van de Kamp.
==========================================================================================
843 F.2d 314
Frank George PRANTIL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 86-6669.
United States Court of
Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*.
Memorandum Jan. 4, 1988.
Order and
Opinion March 31, 1988.
Frank G. Prantil, Fair Oaks, Cal., pro se.
M. Howard Wayne, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before CHOY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank George Prantil, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.
I.
Prantil, formerly an attorney in California, was introduced to Daryl Bell by his client Melvin Goins. Prantil agreed to represent Bell on a criminal charge. A few weeks later a woman purporting to be Bell's mother asked Prantil to help her negotiate an escrow check from which Prantil would receive his fee. Prantil accompanied the woman to his bank where he informed the teller that the woman was his client's mother and that he wanted to deposit the check into his trust account. The woman signed the check, which was made payable to Joanna F. McKnight, and Prantil endorsed it to his trust account. Neither Prantil nor the woman indicated that the check might not be genuine.
Subsequently, the owner of an escrow agency discovered that three checks were missing from her office. One of the checks had been made out to Joanna F. McKnight and deposited in Prantil's account. The agent's signature had been forged on the check.
Prantil was charged with forgery in violation of Section 470 of the California Penal Code. At trial, Prantil argued he knew nothing of the forgery, and that he had deposited the check merely for collection purposes to see whether it was genuine.To establish that Prantil knew the escrow check was forged, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning four trust deeds which Prantil had prepared. Prantil had received information suggesting that the four deeds were forged and that Goins and Bell, were responsible for the forgeries.
Prantil was convicted of forgery and sentenced to two years in prison. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. People v. Prantil, 169 Cal.App.3d 592, 215 Cal.Rptr. 372 (1985). The California Supreme Court denied review and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Prantil v. California, 475 U.S. 1067, 106 S.Ct. 1381, 89 L.Ed.2d 606 (1986).1
Prantil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court summarily denied the petition. This court granted Prantil's application for a certificate of probable cause.2
II.
Prantil contends that numerous trial court errors and a district court delay in deciding his habeas petition denied him due process.
This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987). This court presumes the state court's findings of fact to be correct. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d).
III.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he passed the forged escrow check "as true and genuine."3
This court determines whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The evidence established that Prantil received information prior to the transaction which suggested that Goins and Bell were involved in a forgery scheme. He also knew that one of the possible victims of the scheme was Joanna McKnight, who was described to him as an elderly woman between the ages of 78 and 80. Yet, despite this knowledge, when Prantil deposited the escrow check into his trust account he did not inform the teller that the check might be a forgery or that the woman with him, who appeared to be approximately 40 to 45 years of age, might not be the person whose name appeared on the check. He merely endorsed the check and asked that it be deposited into his account.
Prantil's knowledge of the previous forgeries and the contradictory descriptions of McKnight could have led the jury to reasonably conclude that by failing to alert the bank, Prantil was attempting to pass the check "as true and genuine." See People v. Williams, 186 Cal.App.2d 420, 424, 8 Cal.Rptr. 871, 873 (1960) (tender of check purporting to be signed by specific person established "true and genuine" requirement). Thus, the district court did not err in the determining there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the "true and genuine" requirement was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV.
Prantil contends that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving two erroneous jury instructions.
This court evaluates jury instructions "in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of the entire trial process." Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). To warrant habeas relief, the instruction cannot be merely "undesirable, erroneous, or even 'universally condemned,' " but must violate some due process right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). Moreover, the petitioner in a habeas proceeding has the burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." Darnell v. Swinney, 823 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 1, 1987).
Prantil challenges the trial court's instruction regarding the elements of forgery. He contends that by omitting the "true and genuine" requirement, the trial court denied him his due process right to have the jury consider each element of the charged offense. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 87-88, 103 S.Ct. 969, 978, 74 L.Ed.2d 823 (1983) (instruction on presumption of intent reversible error because permitted jury to convict defendant without examining evidence concerning essential element of crime).
The trial court gave the following instructions on the elements of forgery:
Now, in order to prove the commission of such crime [forgery], each of the following elements must be proved, each of them. Here we go.
Number one, that a person passed or offered to pass a forged instrument. That is the first one.
Two that such person knew that the instrument was forged; and three, that such person passed or offered to pass such instrument with the specific intent to defraud another person or persons.
Although the instruction omitted the "true and genuine" requirement, we consider the instruction in conjunction with the other instructions. See Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1239. Prior to giving the challenged instruction the court told the jury:
Now, every person with the specific intent to defraud--now, remember that I told you 'specific intent.' That's it. That's specific intent--with the specific intent to defraud another, utters, publishes, passes or attempts to pass or make use--there's a lot of things here--or make use of, as true and genuine, any false, altered, forged or counterfeited instrument or document, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, is guilty of the crime of forgery. (emphasis added)
Because the overall charge to the jury informed them of the true and genuine requirement, Prantil was not denied his due process right to have the jury consider every element of the crime.
Prantil also contends he was denied due process because the trial court gave an inapplicable and erroneous jury instruction on aiding and abetting. Prantil argues that the accomplice instruction removed an issue of intent from the jury's consideration and thus constituted reversible error under the reasoning of Johnson and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).
However, the prosecutor specifically denied that Prantil could be guilty as an aider and abettor instead of as a principal. An erroneous jury instruction does not merit habeas relief if the deficiencies pertain to matters that are not in dispute and the error did not so affect the entire trial as to deprive the defendant of due process.See Darnell, 823 F.2d at 302-03. The trial court gave proper instructions regarding the intent necessary to convict Prantil as a principal to the forgery. Because the prosecution did not present an accomplice theory, any deficiencies went to a matter that was not in dispute. The error did not mislead the jury on a disputed issue and thus did not so infect the trial as to deprive Prantil of due process. Id.
V.
Prantil contends that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to grant judicial use immunity to a potentially exonerating witness.
On his motion for a new trial, Prantil claimed that Goins could testify that Goins and Bell had set up Prantil, that Prantil was unaware that the check was stolen, and that Bell had lied to Prantil when he said there were criminal charges pending against him. Goins had been unavailable to testify at the trial because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. At the new trial hearing Goins invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the trial unless he received judicial use immunity because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. The court denied Prantil's motion to grant immunity to Goins.
Under California law, a court may only grant immunity on the prosecutor's request. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1324. See In re Weber, 11 Cal.3d 703, 720, 523 P.2d 229, 240, 114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 440 (1974). However, the prosecution's failure to request immunity violated Prantil's due process rights if it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 905, 102 S.Ct. 1750, 72 L.Ed.2d 161 (1982).
Here, Prantil's unsupported assertion is the only indication that Goins would have presented exculpatory testimony had he been granted immunity. The record contains overwhelming evidence that Prantil was not an unwitting accomplice in the crime, much of which would not be controverted by Goins' testimony even if that testimony is as Prantil contends it would be. For example, Prantil knew that the woman who deposited the check in his account did not match the description of the woman whose name appeared on the check. On these facts, we hold that Prantil was not deprived of a fair trial. If Prantil was denied a fair trial in this case, trial courts would be required to grant immunity simply on the basis of unsupported allegations by criminal defendants that immunity is required by due process.
Moreover, Prantil has made no showing that any misconduct on the part of the prosecutor caused Goins to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination. See United States v. Lord, 711 F.2d 887, 890-92 (9th Cir.1983).
VI.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because of a twenty-month delay between the date of the alleged crime and the date of the indictment.
A pre-indictment delay, unlike a delay in bringing a charged defendant to trial, is "tested by general proscriptions of due process."4 Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1978). A pre-indictment delay does not justify habeas relief unless the defendant can show actual prejudice. Id. at 1382. To prove actual prejudice a defendant must give more than "mere assertions that ... witnesses' memories may have faded with the passage of time...." United States v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822, 106 S.Ct. 74, 88 L.Ed.2d 60 (1985).
Prantil contends that he suffered actual prejudice because the bank teller could no longer remember the details of the escrow check transaction. However, the state court of appeals found that the delay did not affect the teller's memory. In addition, the court noted that Prantil was benefited by the teller's unresponsiveness to certain questions; therefore there was no prejudice.
Prantil also claims that a seven-month delay between the time he filed his habeas petition and the time the district court dismissed the action violated his right to due process.5
In Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit held that a district court's procedure for handling habeas petitions which routinely resulted in delays of up to twenty months violated due process. However, in Satterlee v. Kritzman, 626 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir.1980), we held that a district court's clerical error which resulted in an eight-month delay between the dismissal of a prisoner's habeas petition and the time his files were forwarded to the court of appeals did not deprive the petitioner of any substantive rights. As in Satterlee, here there is no policy of discrimination and no showing that the delay was purposeful.
VII.
We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Prantil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)
Because Prantil's direct appeal presented the same constitutional claims as his subsequent habeas petition, it is unnecessary for him to have filed for state habeas relief. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987)
Prantil was released from prison on April 20, 1987. However, because a felony conviction may cause a defendant to suffer adverse collateral consequences even after he has served his sentence, a defendant's release from custody prior to the completion of his federal habeas corpus proceedings will not render his petition moot. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968). Prantil was in custody when he filed the petition in district court, so this court retains jurisdiction over the proceedings after he is released. Id
Under California law, a person is guilty of forgery if he passes or attempts to pass as true and genuine a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 470; People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-79, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1961). The only element Prantil challenges as lacking sufficient evidence is the true and genuine requirement
Once a suspect is indicted, the more stringent requirements of the speedy trial right apply. Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir.1978)
Prantil first raised the issue in his brief to this court. Ordinarily, this court will not decide an issue which was not raised at the District Court. Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985). The court may decide an issue for the first time on appeal, however, where review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Id. Because a claim that a district court violated a party's due process rights questions the integrity of the federal judicial system, we review Prantil's claim despite his failure to raise it below
#20 Author of original report
BOYCOTT Convicted Criminal SCAM Jan Windglows - DO NOT USE Blood Love and Lust Spells, Castle Eye or Dragon Spells
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, August 24, 2010
SCAMM Jan Windglows is a Convited Criminal for DECEPTION FRAUD, Aggravated Harasssment and Garand Larceny. DO NOT CALL 208-714-4348
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM READ
Http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
PO BOx #118 Bonners Ferry, Idaho 208-714-4348
DO NOT Call SCAM Jan Windglows - once SCAM Jan Windglows gets your MONEY - SCAM Jan Windglows will start to stalk and harass you for more MONEY - by posting lies on the Global Internet like Blackmail to get MONEY for Spells you don't want.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a VERIFIED Convicted Criminal form Bushenell, Florida. I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows when she lived at 7961 Court St, Bushnell Florida, 805-455-6548.
SCAM Jan Windglows only wants you MONEY!!!
SCAM Jan Windglows is the #1 Most Hated On-line SCAMMER !!!!
BEWARE - SACAM Jan Windglows operates several On-line SCAM SITES - Blood Love anbd Lsut Spells. Castle Eye and Dragaon Spells - all Ripoff Schemes - of DECEPTION FRAUD!!
BEWARE SCAM Jan Windglows could stalk you next..SCAM jan Windglows #1 Most Hated On-line Scammer.
#19 Consumer Suggestion
BOYCOTT, Cyber Stalker Jan Windglows - Spell Casting is not a legitimate business
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 16, 2010
Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows Complaints - Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows Convicted of DECEPTION FRAUD; Cyber Stalker DO NOT CALL 208-714-4348 | |||||||
| View all Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows complaints | |||||||
Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows | |||||||
Posted: 2010-08-14 by JesusLoverREBUKESatan  Send email | |||||||
| | |||||||
| Extortionist SCAM Queen Jan Windglows Convicted of DECEPTION FRAUD; Cyber Stalker DO NOT CALL 208-714-4348 DO NOT SCAMMED by SCAM Queen Jan Windglows! Mary Pranrtil asks: How do you SCAM the SCAMMER? Mary Prantil never claimed too and never worked for SCAM Jan Windglows - Mary Prantil does not care where these Con-Artist live that is for the FBI and POLICE to figure out!! Mary Prantil says: I was ripped off of MONEY then SCAM Jan Windglows wanted more MONEY...Mary Prantil says:JAN WINDGLOWS charged my PayPal $5000 and I got a legal REFUND in 2006! Mary Prantil asks: HOw do you SCAM the SCAMMER? - We are now in 2010 and they are posting false information about my Father and Uncle...what does a tax Bill for $106 that was paid in 2003 on time have anything to do with the original Ripoff of Spells Jan Windglows stole MONEY. Jan Windglows is the SCAMMER soliciting SPELLS on the Global Internet - that is the Crime - Deception Fraud and Grand Larceny. Jan Windglows commits a crime everytime she offers to do a SPELL for money. MULTIPLE REPORTS of SCAM Jan Windglows on Ripoff Report.com http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/scam-jan-windglows-a/scam-jan-windglows-aka-mystica-f3d2b.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/extortionist-jan-win/extortionist-jan-windglows-aka-9c736.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/astrologers-psychics/verified-criminals-j/verified-criminals-jan-windglo-3adeb.htm Mary Prantil says: Contrary to the LIS posted by SCAM Jan Windglows - I am not a Criminal and I am not at Rikers Island. I have made Court Apperarances in connection to the Cover up of a ASSAULT at 346 West End Avenue. The number 34710011054 has to do with alleged charges - NO sentence or conviction. The case is one of a cover up - and it's getting Sealed and Dismissed and will be OVER by October 14, 2010. No Felony charges - what kind a a creep could post such lies? answer am Extorionist Scammer like Windglows -BEWATE Jan Windglows could stalk you next... 1. Mary Prantil was ripped off do MONEY by the SCAM Spell caster Jan Windglows in 2006- then Mary Prantil walked away cut he lossesfrom embarassment 2. While working for Jason Klein, CEO at Newspaper National Network SCAM Jan Windglows starts with these postings that I am a Criminal - when I had/have no record - I hae beem an Executive Assistant since 1998 - worked at HBO and CNN - I do no now or ever have owned any business 3. The posting continue that i sel drugs form my hone, that I have a Criminal record - Jan Windglows start to build and cistruct actual websites ie the Sadistic Shrinto Queen Lilth - with actual DEATH THREATS wriitten in their satanicla language. 4. I file police reports #277, #5247 and #3057 with the NYPD - a warrant has been issued to arrest but SCAMMERS Jan Windglows and Jimorgan are Professional Criminals that are on the RUN form POLICE so they only list a PO BOX 5. SCAM Jan Windglows like an immature jealous teenage of the beautil woman Mary Prantil then starts topost lies about my DEAD Father Frank Prantil and now my Unle Richard. What does any of this have to do with SPELLS and me getting ripped off by the Jan Windglows? How do you SCAM the SCAMMER? Mary Prantil is not at Rikers Island - Mary Prantil does not have a Criminal REcord. Frank Prantil died in 2006 and never spoke with of knew of Jan Windglows, SCAM Jan Windglows is taking out of context an event that happeedned ion 1989 - Cleary thees Hilly Billy don't know anything about Corporate America or being a High proced lawyerliek my deceased Father. So how do you SCAM the SCAMMER? Mary Prantil was scammed in 2006 - has had no contact with the SCAMMERS Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan. SCAM Jan Windglows - no matter how many lies you come up with - SCAM Jan Windglows is the one SCAMMING for SPELLS - SCAM Jan Windglows caught in her LIES of Extotion to get me to pay $5000 for SPELLS I don't want...SCAM< Jan Windglows ripped me off - I am completley innocent. Again - Jan Windglows post lies about my Taxes that are all cuurent there has NEVER been a warrant for my arrest for RAX Evasion - againthis is fasle information posted like Extortion to get me to pay $5000 for Spells I do not want. FACTS: SCAM Jan Windglows is the Criminal for Deception Fraud and is cuurentlt owning several Spell Sites that SCAM people for Money. ScamJan Windglows is the SCAMMER posting EXROTION and will go to JAIL for all this harasment. In the meantime - SCAM Jan Windglows get a life...I have far more important things to focus on than a troubled criminal like SCAM Jan Windglows - do not call 208-714-4348 do not use Blood Love and Lust Spells - SCAM Jan Windglows will harass you and stalke you the post lies on the Global Internet about you and your family. BEWARE!! http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - READ up to date daily complaints and SCAM of SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows !!! http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM - READ up to date daily complaints and SCAM of SCAM Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows !!! Mary Prantil asks: HOw do you SCAM the SCAMMER? MULTIPLE REPORTS of SCAM Jan Windglows on Ripoff Report.com http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/jan-windglows.aspx http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/scam-jan-windglows-a/scam-jan-windglows-aka-mystica-f3d2b.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/extortionist-jan-win/extortionist-jan-windglows-aka-9c736.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/astrologers-psychics/verified-criminals-j/verified-criminals-jan-windglo-3adeb.htm SCAM Jan Windglows uses WIGS to disguise herself - DO NOT GET SCAMMED by the SCAM Queen Jan Windglows aka Janhett T. Windglows
| |||||||
#18 Author of original report
EXTORTIONIST SCAM - Jan Windglows , Most hated On-line SCAMMER
SUBMITTED: Thursday, August 12, 2010
SCAMMER Jan Windglows get a life...do not use this sick FREAK! Hey Jan I am not Mary - yo have no idea where this is all going ...SUMTER COUNTY JAIL BIRD.
http://twitter.com/JanWindGlowSCAM
#17 REBUTTAL Owner of company
Mary Prantil's Felony Stalker Criminal Records Look Up HEY YOU ARE THE STALKER HERE Why can't you face up to who and what you are instead of making up LIES about innocent people, you FREAK
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, August 10, 2010
#16 Author of original report
TRASH MOUTH SCAM Jan Windglows - Most Hated On-line Extortionist posts LIES like BLACKMAIL Beware Jan could stalk you next...
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, August 10, 2010
SCAM Jan Windglows is a TRASH MOUTH that needs to be put in JAIL to stop her Aggravated Harassment and blatant CYBER CRimes and stalking.
http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM
PO Box #118
Bonners Ferry,Idaho
208-714-4348
BEWARE - SCAM Jan Windglows will post like EXTORTION to get you to pay for SPELLS you don't want...SCAMMER Jan Windglows is the most Hated on-line scammer.
Scammer Jan Windglows and Jim Morgan are verified Criminals for Decpetion Fraud.
SPELLS DON'T WORK - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
PO Box #118 Bonners Ferry, 208-714-4348
last mailing address
7961 Court Bonners Ferry, 805-455-6548
DO NOT GET SCAMMED by Jan Windglows aka Janhett T Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 passionspell@aol.com - Verified Criminal.
| |
#15 REBUTTAL Owner of company
From Enchantress Jan Windglows- THE REAL DEAL, THE REAL TRUTH FOUND HERE !!!
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 09, 2010
#14 Author of original report
Verified Criminal -Jan Windglows Most Hated On-line SCAMMER - Do not use SCAM sites -Blood Love and Lust Spells aka Castle Eye Spell Casting SCAM
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 09, 2010
Thank you to all that have responded to my Post warning the Global Internet of SCAMMER Extortionist Jan Windglows. http://twitter.com/JanWindglowSCAM . I am an X-employee of SCAM Jan Windglows. I can verify that SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted Criminal from SUMTER Florida and the NYPD have several OPEN police reports on SCAM Jan Windglows of Castle Eye and Blood Loveand Lust Spells. Please contninue to contact me withe any information of the whereabouts of this JAIL BIRD, SCAMMER Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208, Enchantress Janhett T. Windglows ak Enchatress 208 - Dragon. ONLY A SCAMMER uses an ALIAS, like Jan Windglows.
Jan Windglows is the MOST HATED On-line Scammer and Verified Criminal sentenced for DECEPTION FRAUD in SUMTER Florida where I bailed her out on a number of occasions for Grand Larcney and Deception Fraud.
Besides - ONLY A SCAM provides a PO BOX and no real address: SCAM Jan Windglows changes PO BOX's as much as she get Arrested or a clients contacts the POLICE to try and get thier money back.
SCAM Jan Windglows - what is you real address? - I have several of your X-clients contacting me since the Ripoff Report.com posting in July 2010- claiming Deception Fraud;Grand Larceny; and Aggravated Harassment. YOu are committing a CRIME Jan Windglows everytime you offer to do a SPELL for MONEY and Aggravated Harassment by posting LIES like Blackmail.
PO BOX #118
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
208-714-4348
PO Box #712
Driggs, Idaho
208-639-2224
Last known mailing address:
7961 Court
Bushnell, Florida
805-455-6549
352=793-2205
DO NOT CALL JAN WINDGLOWS - Jan on the LAM is nice on the phone until she gets you MONEY. It's all part of the SCAM - this woman is an EVIL Predator that needs to be put back in JAIL for violating her probation in SUMTER and also Jan Windglows continued efforts in contining to commit the CRIME of DECEPTION FRAUD.
SCAM Jan Windglows is the MOST HATED ON-LINE SCAMMER that scams businesses and innocent ppl fpr MONEY. SCAM Jan Windglows is nice on the phone as she is scamming then wil stalk you, harass you for MONEY to do SPELLS!!!! Only A Scam is in the Spell Casting Business.
DECEPTION FRAUD is a REAL CRIME.
#13 Author of original report
SCAM Jan Windglows - Spells Don't work - Verified Criminal for DECEPTION FRAUD
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 02, 2010
Scammer Jan windglows and Jim Organ are verified Criminals for Decpetion Fraud.
SPELLS DON'T WORK - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
PO box #118 Bonners Ferry, 208-714-4348
last mailing address
7961 Court Bonners Ferry, 805-455-6548
DO NOT GET SCAMMED by Jan Windglows aka Janhett T Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 passionspell@aol.com - Verified Criminal.
#12 Consumer Comment
Jan Windglows SOLE PROPRIETOR of Blood Love And Lust Spells NEVER HAS HAD ANY " EMPLOYEES" Mary Prantil like father like uncle CRIME runs in Mary Prantil's Family
SUBMITTED: Friday, July 30, 2010
The California Supreme Court has quietly ended one of San Diego County's more clamorous legal careers.
The court this month upheld the disbarment of Frank George Prantil, a well-known attorney and aspiring politician before being convicted of perjury and forgery charges and spending 14 months in prison.
"At one time, he was considered one of the county's top defense attorneys," said attorney Eugene Iredale, who once represented Prantil. "Somehow his life just fell apart on him."
Now living outside Sacramento, the 51-year-old Prantil said he was "devastated" by the court's rejection of his plea that he was unfairly convicted. And he repeated his oft-made accusation that he was victimized because of his maverick ways.
"I'm a victim of the war on drugs," Prantil said. "The prosecutors and the courts can't stand it when someone insists that all defendants have rights."
In nearly two decades as a practicing attorney, the San Diego native was never far from the headlines. He won several high-publicity felony cases and big-money damage suits. He defended a San Diego councilman indicted in the Yellow Cab scandal.
Reporters loved his flamboyant rhetoric (he favored Shakespeare and the classics) and brash attire (he wore an American flag tie to court). His practice boomed. He moved from East County to a comfortable spread in La Jolla.
But there were also political defeats, angry public disputes, money problems and his final slide into Vacaville state prison. He concedes now that alcohol and marijuana played a role in his difficulties.
He lost races for Congress (1968), district attorney (1970) and El Cajon Municipal Court (1978). The County Bar Assn. branded him as unqualified. The State Bar in 1979 suspended him for six months for misusing a client's money.
He was convicted in 1983 of forgery and perjury in a case involving a bogus $53,000 check and, in 1986, of being an accessory to a cocaine conspiracy. Released from prison in 1987, Prantil says he will never return to San Diego County: "They rode me out on a rail."
He says that Deputy Dist. Atty. Bob Sullivan had a vendetta against him. Sullivan says that's bunk and notes that two juries convicted Prantil on a number of counts.
From his self-imposed exile, Prantil tries not to dwell on how far he has fallen. "I used to believe in ultimate justice," he said. "I don't anymore."
A Winning T-Shirt
T-shirts protesting the judge's decision will go on sale today in 14 San Diego County outlets of Pacific Eyes and T's, the Sorrento Valley-based T-shirt and sunglasses chain.
The new shirts show a Conner-like catamaran with a large screw through it, and a kiwi bird laughing at the sight. Price: $10.
Pacific Eyes and T's has long backed Conner against pirate-banker Michael Fay. During the September races it sold shirts saying "No Way Fay", and "Throw Another Kiwi on the Barbie."
A Well-Done Roast
In Pete Wilson's latter years as mayor of San Diego, it was said he had two goals: to learn to sing and to become governor.
He took lessons and can manfully handle a tune. The second goal eluded him, and he settled for the U. S. Senate. Now, he's trying to rectify that with his third try at the governorship, with his likely Democratic foe being Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.
Thursday night the Republican Wilson was among those roasting Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) at a benefit dinner in Oakland.
He joked that he wasn't surprised to find picketers carrying signs urging him to stay in the Senate. What did surprise him, he said, was that one of the signs was carried by Van de Kamp.
==========================================================================================
843 F.2d 314
Frank George PRANTIL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 86-6669.
United States Court of
Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*.
Memorandum Jan. 4, 1988.
Order and
Opinion March 31, 1988.
Frank G. Prantil, Fair Oaks, Cal., pro se.
M. Howard Wayne, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before CHOY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank George Prantil, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.
I.
Prantil, formerly an attorney in California, was introduced to Daryl Bell by his client Melvin Goins. Prantil agreed to represent Bell on a criminal charge. A few weeks later a woman purporting to be Bell's mother asked Prantil to help her negotiate an escrow check from which Prantil would receive his fee. Prantil accompanied the woman to his bank where he informed the teller that the woman was his client's mother and that he wanted to deposit the check into his trust account. The woman signed the check, which was made payable to Joanna F. McKnight, and Prantil endorsed it to his trust account. Neither Prantil nor the woman indicated that the check might not be genuine.
Subsequently, the owner of an escrow agency discovered that three checks were missing from her office. One of the checks had been made out to Joanna F. McKnight and deposited in Prantil's account. The agent's signature had been forged on the check.
Prantil was charged with forgery in violation of Section 470 of the California Penal Code. At trial, Prantil argued he knew nothing of the forgery, and that he had deposited the check merely for collection purposes to see whether it was genuine.To establish that Prantil knew the escrow check was forged, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning four trust deeds which Prantil had prepared. Prantil had received information suggesting that the four deeds were forged and that Goins and Bell, were responsible for the forgeries.
Prantil was convicted of forgery and sentenced to two years in prison. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. People v. Prantil, 169 Cal.App.3d 592, 215 Cal.Rptr. 372 (1985). The California Supreme Court denied review and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Prantil v. California, 475 U.S. 1067, 106 S.Ct. 1381, 89 L.Ed.2d 606 (1986).1
Prantil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court summarily denied the petition. This court granted Prantil's application for a certificate of probable cause.2
II.
Prantil contends that numerous trial court errors and a district court delay in deciding his habeas petition denied him due process.
This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987). This court presumes the state court's findings of fact to be correct. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d).
III.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he passed the forged escrow check "as true and genuine."3
This court determines whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The evidence established that Prantil received information prior to the transaction which suggested that Goins and Bell were involved in a forgery scheme. He also knew that one of the possible victims of the scheme was Joanna McKnight, who was described to him as an elderly woman between the ages of 78 and 80. Yet, despite this knowledge, when Prantil deposited the escrow check into his trust account he did not inform the teller that the check might be a forgery or that the woman with him, who appeared to be approximately 40 to 45 years of age, might not be the person whose name appeared on the check. He merely endorsed the check and asked that it be deposited into his account.
Prantil's knowledge of the previous forgeries and the contradictory descriptions of McKnight could have led the jury to reasonably conclude that by failing to alert the bank, Prantil was attempting to pass the check "as true and genuine." See People v. Williams, 186 Cal.App.2d 420, 424, 8 Cal.Rptr. 871, 873 (1960) (tender of check purporting to be signed by specific person established "true and genuine" requirement). Thus, the district court did not err in the determining there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the "true and genuine" requirement was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV.
Prantil contends that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving two erroneous jury instructions.
This court evaluates jury instructions "in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of the entire trial process." Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). To warrant habeas relief, the instruction cannot be merely "undesirable, erroneous, or even 'universally condemned,' " but must violate some due process right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). Moreover, the petitioner in a habeas proceeding has the burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." Darnell v. Swinney, 823 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 1, 1987).
Prantil challenges the trial court's instruction regarding the elements of forgery. He contends that by omitting the "true and genuine" requirement, the trial court denied him his due process right to have the jury consider each element of the charged offense. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 87-88, 103 S.Ct. 969, 978, 74 L.Ed.2d 823 (1983) (instruction on presumption of intent reversible error because permitted jury to convict defendant without examining evidence concerning essential element of crime).
The trial court gave the following instructions on the elements of forgery:
Now, in order to prove the commission of such crime [forgery], each of the following elements must be proved, each of them. Here we go.
Number one, that a person passed or offered to pass a forged instrument. That is the first one.
Two that such person knew that the instrument was forged; and three, that such person passed or offered to pass such instrument with the specific intent to defraud another person or persons.
Although the instruction omitted the "true and genuine" requirement, we consider the instruction in conjunction with the other instructions. See Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1239. Prior to giving the challenged instruction the court told the jury:
Now, every person with the specific intent to defraud--now, remember that I told you 'specific intent.' That's it. That's specific intent--with the specific intent to defraud another, utters, publishes, passes or attempts to pass or make use--there's a lot of things here--or make use of, as true and genuine, any false, altered, forged or counterfeited instrument or document, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, is guilty of the crime of forgery. (emphasis added)
Because the overall charge to the jury informed them of the true and genuine requirement, Prantil was not denied his due process right to have the jury consider every element of the crime.
Prantil also contends he was denied due process because the trial court gave an inapplicable and erroneous jury instruction on aiding and abetting. Prantil argues that the accomplice instruction removed an issue of intent from the jury's consideration and thus constituted reversible error under the reasoning of Johnson and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).
However, the prosecutor specifically denied that Prantil could be guilty as an aider and abettor instead of as a principal. An erroneous jury instruction does not merit habeas relief if the deficiencies pertain to matters that are not in dispute and the error did not so affect the entire trial as to deprive the defendant of due process.See Darnell, 823 F.2d at 302-03. The trial court gave proper instructions regarding the intent necessary to convict Prantil as a principal to the forgery. Because the prosecution did not present an accomplice theory, any deficiencies went to a matter that was not in dispute. The error did not mislead the jury on a disputed issue and thus did not so infect the trial as to deprive Prantil of due process. Id.
V.
Prantil contends that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to grant judicial use immunity to a potentially exonerating witness.
On his motion for a new trial, Prantil claimed that Goins could testify that Goins and Bell had set up Prantil, that Prantil was unaware that the check was stolen, and that Bell had lied to Prantil when he said there were criminal charges pending against him. Goins had been unavailable to testify at the trial because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. At the new trial hearing Goins invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the trial unless he received judicial use immunity because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. The court denied Prantil's motion to grant immunity to Goins.
Under California law, a court may only grant immunity on the prosecutor's request. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1324. See In re Weber, 11 Cal.3d 703, 720, 523 P.2d 229, 240, 114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 440 (1974). However, the prosecution's failure to request immunity violated Prantil's due process rights if it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 905, 102 S.Ct. 1750, 72 L.Ed.2d 161 (1982).
Here, Prantil's unsupported assertion is the only indication that Goins would have presented exculpatory testimony had he been granted immunity. The record contains overwhelming evidence that Prantil was not an unwitting accomplice in the crime, much of which would not be controverted by Goins' testimony even if that testimony is as Prantil contends it would be. For example, Prantil knew that the woman who deposited the check in his account did not match the description of the woman whose name appeared on the check. On these facts, we hold that Prantil was not deprived of a fair trial. If Prantil was denied a fair trial in this case, trial courts would be required to grant immunity simply on the basis of unsupported allegations by criminal defendants that immunity is required by due process.
Moreover, Prantil has made no showing that any misconduct on the part of the prosecutor caused Goins to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination. See United States v. Lord, 711 F.2d 887, 890-92 (9th Cir.1983).
VI.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because of a twenty-month delay between the date of the alleged crime and the date of the indictment.
A pre-indictment delay, unlike a delay in bringing a charged defendant to trial, is "tested by general proscriptions of due process."4 Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1978). A pre-indictment delay does not justify habeas relief unless the defendant can show actual prejudice. Id. at 1382. To prove actual prejudice a defendant must give more than "mere assertions that ... witnesses' memories may have faded with the passage of time...." United States v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822, 106 S.Ct. 74, 88 L.Ed.2d 60 (1985).
Prantil contends that he suffered actual prejudice because the bank teller could no longer remember the details of the escrow check transaction. However, the state court of appeals found that the delay did not affect the teller's memory. In addition, the court noted that Prantil was benefited by the teller's unresponsiveness to certain questions; therefore there was no prejudice.
Prantil also claims that a seven-month delay between the time he filed his habeas petition and the time the district court dismissed the action violated his right to due process.5
In Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit held that a district court's procedure for handling habeas petitions which routinely resulted in delays of up to twenty months violated due process. However, in Satterlee v. Kritzman, 626 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir.1980), we held that a district court's clerical error which resulted in an eight-month delay between the dismissal of a prisoner's habeas petition and the time his files were forwarded to the court of appeals did not deprive the petitioner of any substantive rights. As in Satterlee, here there is no policy of discrimination and no showing that the delay was purposeful.
VII.
We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Prantil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)
Because Prantil's direct appeal presented the same constitutional claims as his subsequent habeas petition, it is unnecessary for him to have filed for state habeas relief. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987)
Prantil was released from prison on April 20, 1987. However, because a felony conviction may cause a defendant to suffer adverse collateral consequences even after he has served his sentence, a defendant's release from custody prior to the completion of his federal habeas corpus proceedings will not render his petition moot. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968). Prantil was in custody when he filed the petition in district court, so this court retains jurisdiction over the proceedings after he is released. Id
Under California law, a person is guilty of forgery if he passes or attempts to pass as true and genuine a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 470; People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-79, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1961). The only element Prantil challenges as lacking sufficient evidence is the true and genuine requirement
Once a suspect is indicted, the more stringent requirements of the speedy trial right apply. Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir.1978)
Prantil first raised the issue in his brief to this court. Ordinarily, this court will not decide an issue which was not raised at the District Court. Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985). The court may decide an issue for the first time on appeal, however, where review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Id. Because a claim that a district court violated a party's due process rights questions the integrity of the federal judicial system, we review Prantil's claim despite his failure to raise it below
#11 Author of original report
SPELLS DON"T WORK Jan Windglows - CRIMINAL-EXTORTIONIST with LIES - Posts LIES like Blackmail Jan covers up CRIME with LIES and Aggravated Harassment
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Ex-Employee says: I used to wortk for SCAM Jan Windglows - I can say that SCAM Jan Windglows taught me well . The Trade of SCAMMINFG innocent ppl for SPELLS and Psychic READINGS.
THES LIES about X-clients is EXTORION - SEE if you don't pay me the $5000 for the SPELLS I will let the WORLD knowe you bought a SPELL!!!
EXTORTIION is what all these posting are all about. I will tell everyone LIES unless you give me the MONEY for a SPELL!!!!
Scam Jan Windglows taught me to harasss, blackmail - stalk - do whatever to 1. get a much money up - 2. use extortion or blackmail to harass the client wanting theeir REFUND.
The Harasssmet posted on this Ripoff Report is enough to PUIT SCAM Jan Windglows is JAIL for GRAND LARCENY - afterall Jan windglows admits - even has posted INVOICES from PayPal of ocover $2,500 - SCAM Jan Windglows is showing her CRIMINAL side.
NYC Woman has no CRIMINAL record - so now they bring up TAX evasion on a Credible person - WHAR's UP SCAM Jan Windglows - you been caught in your AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT: DEFAMATION - and GRAND LARCENY.
DO NOT GET SCAMMED SCAm Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan aka Enchatress 208.
Previous address: 3 different address and $ different Phone Numbers - JAN on the LAM - Only a SCAM post just a PO BOX - Jan On the LAM
7961 Court
Bushnelll, Florida
1.352-793-2205
2.805-455-6548
- this is when I worked for SCAM Jan Windglows - who got ARRESTED anmd Convicted at SUMTER Florida JAIL for DECEPTION FRAUD.
PO Box #712
Driggs, Idaho
3.208-639-2224
PO Box #118
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
4.208-714-4348
SPELLS DON"T WORK!!!
Hey Jan on the LAM - try to stick to what I post - it'sa about your CRIMINAL behavior not some prestious family in San Diego or this NYC woman - so you go from posting LIES about the alleged Court case - claiming this NYC woman has a CRIMINAL record when the NYC woman does NOT - now you come back with FALSE info about the NYC's woman raxes..again fasle - BU this is a form of EXTORTION>
By the way what a BEAUTIFUL woman I love the PHOTO - Guess what you are committing COPYRIGHT infringement - another CRIME!!!
SCAM Jan Windglows does not work! Extortion on Ripoff Report.com dated July 27, 2010. Just look at the post of SCAM Jan Windglows - SCAM Jan Windglows is an EXTORTIONIST!!!!!
SPELLS DON"T WORK!
#10 Consumer Comment
BOYCOTT SCAM Jan Windglows CyberStalker and Public Menace - DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Scam Jan Windglows is a Cyber Stalker and Menace - PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry 208-714-4348. SCAM Jan Windglows is BALD from her CRACK addiction and uses WIGS to disguise herself.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a Convicted Felon from SUMTER Florda Jail - it is PUBLIC information for those want to bother and look it up.
Hey SCAM Jan Windglows I did look up the info on Mary Prantil - and you POST LIES - these are just COURT DATES not CONVICTIONS and hey SCAM Jan Windglows - so is the info on the NY ADA - I bet you do speak to him...guess what - Ms. Prantil is NOT at Rikers Island as you say.
SCAM Jan Windglows has been caught in her lies and Cyber Stalking- but worse since the recent postings that caught my EYE have caught the attention of an X-employee that worked for SCAM Jan Windglows in Bushnell, Florida.
Ex- emplyee trhank you for posting the info about SUMTER Jail -SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE from Sumter Flroda JAIL - look who is calling the Kettle BLACK.
Scam Jan Windglows Verified Convicted Criminal and SCAMMER!!! Do Not use www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118, Bonners Ferry, Idaho..previously PO BOX #712 Driggs, Idaho last mailing address: 7961 Court, Bushnell Idaho...home of SUMTER JAIL.
DO NOT USE - SCAM Jan Windglows - Convicted Criminal and Cyber Stalker - BOYCOTT the SCAM Site www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
Jan Windglows you can run but you can't HIDE - The SUMTER Florida JAIL want you back - SCAM Jan Windglows is a FUGITIVE - for Deception Fraud - Everytime SCAM Jan Windglows offer to do a SPELL for MONEY Jan Windglows is commtting DECEPTION FRAUD - call the Police and report the CRIME
#9 Author of original report
Jan Windglows -Convicted Criminal 4 Deception FRAUD; SUMTER Florida Jail - BEWARE of Jan on the Lam
SUBMITTED: Monday, July 26, 2010
Ex-Employee Speaks out - July 26, 2010..Jan on the LAM - SCAM Jan Windglows did JAIL time at SUMTER JAIL in BUshnell Florida and then violated her Probation - 90 Day Jail Sentence. DO NOT USE www.bloodloveandlustspells.com
SCAM Jan Windglows operates a SCAM site called www.bloodloveandlustspells.com PO Box #118 Bonners Ferry, Idaho 208-714-4348.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL for DECEPTION FRAUD - I know because I used to work for Jan Windglows in BUSHNELL FLORIDA - BEFORE JAN WINDGLOWS DID A SENTENCE FOR DECEPTION FRAUD AND GRAND LARCENY AT SUMTER JAIL IN FLORIDA.
Jan Windglows is a convicted Criminal and SCAM - do not use!
#8 REBUTTAL Individual responds
Criminal & Civil Records Of Mary T. Prantil, Frank George Prantil, Richard G. Prantil
SUBMITTED: Sunday, July 25, 2010
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
Frank George PRANTIL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/843/843.F2d.314.86-6669.html http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/search?q=Frank+George+Prantil&circuit= PUBLIC RECORDS http://public.resource.org/ 843 F.2d 314 Frank George PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 86-6669. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*. Memorandum Jan. 4, 1988. Order and Opinion March 31, 1988. Frank G. Prantil, Fair Oaks, Cal., pro se. M. Howard Wayne, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for
Frank George
PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., argued, Peter K. Nunez, U.S. Atty., Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Eugene G. Iredale, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California. Before FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge. FERGUSON,
Frank George
PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
(1984). Hence, we must decide whether the defendant's testimony was material. 29 Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area. No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings.
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
843 F.2d 314
Frank George PRANTIL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
#7 Consumer Comment
Scammers
SUBMITTED: Saturday, July 24, 2010
All of you - there is no such thing as a "psychic, spell caster, etc etc"
Grow up and stop this idiotic rantings and ravings - it is really old
#6 REBUTTAL Owner of company
HEY MARY YOU IDIOT YOU SHOULD NOT THROW ROCKS IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE, LOL, CRIMINAL FREAK NO BODY IS ON THE RUN HERE EXCEPT U PRANT FREAK
SUBMITTED: Saturday, July 24, 2010
The California Supreme Court has quietly ended one of San Diego County's more clamorous legal careers.
The court this month upheld the disbarment of Frank George Prantil, a well-known attorney and aspiring politician before being convicted of perjury and forgery charges and spending 14 months in prison.
"At one time, he was considered one of the county's top defense attorneys," said attorney Eugene Iredale, who once represented Prantil. "Somehow his life just fell apart on him."
Now living outside Sacramento, the 51-year-old Prantil said he was "devastated" by the court's rejection of his plea that he was unfairly convicted. And he repeated his oft-made accusation that he was victimized because of his maverick ways.
"I'm a victim of the war on drugs," Prantil said. "The prosecutors and the courts can't stand it when someone insists that all defendants have rights."
In nearly two decades as a practicing attorney, the San Diego native was never far from the headlines. He won several high-publicity felony cases and big-money damage suits. He defended a San Diego councilman indicted in the Yellow Cab scandal.
Reporters loved his flamboyant rhetoric (he favored Shakespeare and the classics) and brash attire (he wore an American flag tie to court). His practice boomed. He moved from East County to a comfortable spread in La Jolla.
But there were also political defeats, angry public disputes, money problems and his final slide into Vacaville state prison. He concedes now that alcohol and marijuana played a role in his difficulties.
He lost races for Congress (1968), district attorney (1970) and El Cajon Municipal Court (1978). The County Bar Assn. branded him as unqualified. The State Bar in 1979 suspended him for six months for misusing a client's money.
He was convicted in 1983 of forgery and perjury in a case involving a bogus $53,000 check and, in 1986, of being an accessory to a cocaine conspiracy. Released from prison in 1987, Prantil says he will never return to San Diego County: "They rode me out on a rail."
He says that Deputy Dist. Atty. Bob Sullivan had a vendetta against him. Sullivan says that's bunk and notes that two juries convicted Prantil on a number of counts.
From his self-imposed exile, Prantil tries not to dwell on how far he has fallen. "I used to believe in ultimate justice," he said. "I don't anymore."
A Winning T-Shirt
T-shirts protesting the judge's decision will go on sale today in 14 San Diego County outlets of Pacific Eyes and T's, the Sorrento Valley-based T-shirt and sunglasses chain.
The new shirts show a Conner-like catamaran with a large screw through it, and a kiwi bird laughing at the sight. Price: $10.
Pacific Eyes and T's has long backed Conner against pirate-banker Michael Fay. During the September races it sold shirts saying "No Way Fay", and "Throw Another Kiwi on the Barbie."
A Well-Done Roast
In Pete Wilson's latter years as mayor of San Diego, it was said he had two goals: to learn to sing and to become governor.
He took lessons and can manfully handle a tune. The second goal eluded him, and he settled for the U. S. Senate. Now, he's trying to rectify that with his third try at the governorship, with his likely Democratic foe being Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.
Thursday night the Republican Wilson was among those roasting Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) at a benefit dinner in Oakland.
He joked that he wasn't surprised to find picketers carrying signs urging him to stay in the Senate. What did surprise him, he said, was that one of the signs was carried by Van de Kamp.
==========================================================================================
843 F.2d 314
Frank George PRANTIL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 86-6669.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth
Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 1987*.
Memorandum
Jan. 4, 1988.
Order and Opinion March 31, 1988.
Frank G. Prantil, Fair Oaks, Cal., pro se.
M. Howard Wayne, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before CHOY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank George Prantil, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.
I.
Prantil, formerly an attorney in California, was introduced to Daryl Bell by his client Melvin Goins. Prantil agreed to represent Bell on a criminal charge. A few weeks later a woman purporting to be Bell's mother asked Prantil to help her negotiate an escrow check from which Prantil would receive his fee. Prantil accompanied the woman to his bank where he informed the teller that the woman was his client's mother and that he wanted to deposit the check into his trust account. The woman signed the check, which was made payable to Joanna F. McKnight, and Prantil endorsed it to his trust account. Neither Prantil nor the woman indicated that the check might not be genuine.
Subsequently, the owner of an escrow agency discovered that three checks were missing from her office. One of the checks had been made out to Joanna F. McKnight and deposited in Prantil's account. The agent's signature had been forged on the check.
Prantil was charged with forgery in violation of Section 470 of the California Penal Code. At trial, Prantil argued he knew nothing of the forgery, and that he had deposited the check merely for collection purposes to see whether it was genuine.To establish that Prantil knew the escrow check was forged, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning four trust deeds which Prantil had prepared. Prantil had received information suggesting that the four deeds were forged and that Goins and Bell, were responsible for the forgeries.
Prantil was convicted of forgery and sentenced to two years in prison. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. People v. Prantil, 169 Cal.App.3d 592, 215 Cal.Rptr. 372 (1985). The California Supreme Court denied review and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Prantil v. California, 475 U.S. 1067, 106 S.Ct. 1381, 89 L.Ed.2d 606 (1986).1
Prantil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court summarily denied the petition. This court granted Prantil's application for a certificate of probable cause.2
II.
Prantil contends that numerous trial court errors and a district court delay in deciding his habeas petition denied him due process.
This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987). This court presumes the state court's findings of fact to be correct. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d).
III.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he passed the forged escrow check "as true and genuine."3
This court determines whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The evidence established that Prantil received information prior to the transaction which suggested that Goins and Bell were involved in a forgery scheme. He also knew that one of the possible victims of the scheme was Joanna McKnight, who was described to him as an elderly woman between the ages of 78 and 80. Yet, despite this knowledge, when Prantil deposited the escrow check into his trust account he did not inform the teller that the check might be a forgery or that the woman with him, who appeared to be approximately 40 to 45 years of age, might not be the person whose name appeared on the check. He merely endorsed the check and asked that it be deposited into his account.
Prantil's knowledge of the previous forgeries and the contradictory descriptions of McKnight could have led the jury to reasonably conclude that by failing to alert the bank, Prantil was attempting to pass the check "as true and genuine." See People v. Williams, 186 Cal.App.2d 420, 424, 8 Cal.Rptr. 871, 873 (1960) (tender of check purporting to be signed by specific person established "true and genuine" requirement). Thus, the district court did not err in the determining there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the "true and genuine" requirement was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV.
Prantil contends that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving two erroneous jury instructions.
This court evaluates jury instructions "in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of the entire trial process." Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). To warrant habeas relief, the instruction cannot be merely "undesirable, erroneous, or even 'universally condemned,' " but must violate some due process right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). Moreover, the petitioner in a habeas proceeding has the burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." Darnell v. Swinney, 823 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 1, 1987).
Prantil challenges the trial court's instruction regarding the elements of forgery. He contends that by omitting the "true and genuine" requirement, the trial court denied him his due process right to have the jury consider each element of the charged offense. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 87-88, 103 S.Ct. 969, 978, 74 L.Ed.2d 823 (1983) (instruction on presumption of intent reversible error because permitted jury to convict defendant without examining evidence concerning essential element of crime).
The trial court gave the following instructions on the elements of forgery:
Now, in order to prove the commission of such crime [forgery], each of the following elements must be proved, each of them. Here we go.
Number one, that a person passed or offered to pass a forged instrument. That is the first one.
Two that such person knew that the instrument was forged; and three, that such person passed or offered to pass such instrument with the specific intent to defraud another person or persons.
Although the instruction omitted the "true and genuine" requirement, we consider the instruction in conjunction with the other instructions. See Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1239. Prior to giving the challenged instruction the court told the jury:
Now, every person with the specific intent to defraud--now, remember that I told you 'specific intent.' That's it. That's specific intent--with the specific intent to defraud another, utters, publishes, passes or attempts to pass or make use--there's a lot of things here--or make use of, as true and genuine, any false, altered, forged or counterfeited instrument or document, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, is guilty of the crime of forgery. (emphasis added)
Because the overall charge to the jury informed them of the true and genuine requirement, Prantil was not denied his due process right to have the jury consider every element of the crime.
Prantil also contends he was denied due process because the trial court gave an inapplicable and erroneous jury instruction on aiding and abetting. Prantil argues that the accomplice instruction removed an issue of intent from the jury's consideration and thus constituted reversible error under the reasoning of Johnson and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).
However, the prosecutor specifically denied that Prantil could be guilty as an aider and abettor instead of as a principal. An erroneous jury instruction does not merit habeas relief if the deficiencies pertain to matters that are not in dispute and the error did not so affect the entire trial as to deprive the defendant of due process.See Darnell, 823 F.2d at 302-03. The trial court gave proper instructions regarding the intent necessary to convict Prantil as a principal to the forgery. Because the prosecution did not present an accomplice theory, any deficiencies went to a matter that was not in dispute. The error did not mislead the jury on a disputed issue and thus did not so infect the trial as to deprive Prantil of due process. Id.
V.
Prantil contends that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to grant judicial use immunity to a potentially exonerating witness.
On his motion for a new trial, Prantil claimed that Goins could testify that Goins and Bell had set up Prantil, that Prantil was unaware that the check was stolen, and that Bell had lied to Prantil when he said there were criminal charges pending against him. Goins had been unavailable to testify at the trial because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. At the new trial hearing Goins invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the trial unless he received judicial use immunity because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. The court denied Prantil's motion to grant immunity to Goins.
Under California law, a court may only grant immunity on the prosecutor's request. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1324. See In re Weber, 11 Cal.3d 703, 720, 523 P.2d 229, 240, 114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 440 (1974). However, the prosecution's failure to request immunity violated Prantil's due process rights if it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 905, 102 S.Ct. 1750, 72 L.Ed.2d 161 (1982).
Here, Prantil's unsupported assertion is the only indication that Goins would have presented exculpatory testimony had he been granted immunity. The record contains overwhelming evidence that Prantil was not an unwitting accomplice in the crime, much of which would not be controverted by Goins' testimony even if that testimony is as Prantil contends it would be. For example, Prantil knew that the woman who deposited the check in his account did not match the description of the woman whose name appeared on the check. On these facts, we hold that Prantil was not deprived of a fair trial. If Prantil was denied a fair trial in this case, trial courts would be required to grant immunity simply on the basis of unsupported allegations by criminal defendants that immunity is required by due process.
Moreover, Prantil has made no showing that any misconduct on the part of the prosecutor caused Goins to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination. See United States v. Lord, 711 F.2d 887, 890-92 (9th Cir.1983).
VI.
Prantil contends he was denied due process because of a twenty-month delay between the date of the alleged crime and the date of the indictment.
A pre-indictment delay, unlike a delay in bringing a charged defendant to trial, is "tested by general proscriptions of due process."4 Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1978). A pre-indictment delay does not justify habeas relief unless the defendant can show actual prejudice. Id. at 1382. To prove actual prejudice a defendant must give more than "mere assertions that ... witnesses' memories may have faded with the passage of time...." United States v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822, 106 S.Ct. 74, 88 L.Ed.2d 60 (1985).
Prantil contends that he suffered actual prejudice because the bank teller could no longer remember the details of the escrow check transaction. However, the state court of appeals found that the delay did not affect the teller's memory. In addition, the court noted that Prantil was benefited by the teller's unresponsiveness to certain questions; therefore there was no prejudice.
Prantil also claims that a seven-month delay between the time he filed his habeas petition and the time the district court dismissed the action violated his right to due process.5
In Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit held that a district court's procedure for handling habeas petitions which routinely resulted in delays of up to twenty months violated due process. However, in Satterlee v. Kritzman, 626 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir.1980), we held that a district court's clerical error which resulted in an eight-month delay between the dismissal of a prisoner's habeas petition and the time his files were forwarded to the court of appeals did not deprive the petitioner of any substantive rights. As in Satterlee, here there is no policy of discrimination and no showing that the delay was purposeful.
VII.
We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Prantil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)
Because Prantil's direct appeal presented the same constitutional claims as his subsequent habeas petition, it is unnecessary for him to have filed for state habeas relief. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987)
Prantil was released from prison on April 20, 1987. However, because a felony conviction may cause a defendant to suffer adverse collateral consequences even after he has served his sentence, a defendant's release from custody prior to the completion of his federal habeas corpus proceedings will not render his petition moot. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968). Prantil was in custody when he filed the petition in district court, so this court retains jurisdiction over the proceedings after he is released. Id
Under California law, a person is guilty of forgery if he passes or attempts to pass as true and genuine a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 470; People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777, 778-79, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1961). The only element Prantil challenges as lacking sufficient evidence is the true and genuine requirement
Once a suspect is indicted, the more stringent requirements of the speedy trial right apply. Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir.1978)
Prantil first raised the issue in his brief to this court. Ordinarily, this court will not decide an issue which was not raised at the District Court. Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985). The court may decide an issue for the first time on appeal, however, where review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Id. Because a claim that a district court violated a party's due process rights questions the integrity of the federal judicial system, we review Prantil's claim despite his failure to raise it below
#5 Consumer Comment
Jan Windglows Convicted Criminal DECEPTION FRAUD, Grand Larceny Jan on the LAM violates 90 day Jail Sentence FLORIDA POLICE FUGITIVE
SUBMITTED: Friday, July 23, 2010
Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 aka Enchantress is a Florida POLICE FUGITIVE and when found is looking at FOOTBALL DIGITS for a Jail Sentence.
SCAM Jan Windglows is a Verified Criminal spanning years of Convictions - currently Ms. Windglows is A POLICE FUGITIVE for VIOLATING PROBATION !!! 90 DAY JAIL Sentence.
Jan Windglows changes alias bcs Jan is on the LAM !!
Jan Windglows does not provide a REAL address bcs Jan is on the LAM!!
EX- employee thank you for providing this information. GLOBAL INTERNET is helping catch this VERIFIED CRIMINAL.
DO NOT USE - www.bloodloveandlustspells.com Jan Windglows aka Mystical Jan 208 is really ...Jan on the LAM!
Help POLICE call 911 and give where-abouts of this Verified FUGITIVE!!
#4 Consumer Comment
Been there, said that, numerous times, but here it is again :
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 21, 2010
New July 2010 Update On Mary T. Prantil Of Astoria New York Proof That ALL Mary Prantil's Blogs Are LIES- Mary Spends Two Weeks At Rikers Island Women's Jail ! I've waited so long, to both find and post this information on the Forum sites against Miss PrantilYou know, Mary T. Prantil the two bit Internet CRIMINAL Cyber Stalker, LOL. You know, the same IDIOT that just wouldn't go away while the getting was good. Who moreover felt so compelled in getting up on the Internet everyday for four years attempting to scam free services out of unsuspecting online businesses and then viciously attacking and SLANDERING them just because they wouldn't let this parasite get away with conning them. Of course, she would eventually re-scam and slander the ones she did have a chance to rip off as the years unfolded as in the case of the Mike Cahill and Prantil incident, of scandal. This report is a UPDATE to the first report that focused on revealing Mary Prantil's criminality, or unlawful activities against 11 to 12 people as the record reflects, and another EIGHT people that the record isn't showing at this time. I think Prantil was accusing us of stalking at one point along with her other lunatic charges such as us allegedly hacking into her computer and her bank accouts, committing tax fraud, credit card fraud, grand larceny, etc. Get a load of this charge that was just recently launched against "Miss Congeniality" Mary Prantil by the N.Y Court system just yesterday : 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony. I'm sure you've already read our charges against her by now such as PROLONGED telephone and email harassment, habitual lying, tax evasion, extortion, blackmail etc. Take a look at her updated eight different charges on Mary Prantil provided below, YES I said EIGHT different charges that she's currently being held there in New York until she can go to back to court to explain all her actions to the JUDGE'S. Again, YES; I said Judge's as there are five or six of them all together. Why? Because little Mary has been keeping them all very busy while being brought up on several charges of harassing others around her. Of course, Mary leads a very full life without a dull moment and that's why she's been running around on the Internet trying to convince everyone else that she wasn't a two bit low life criminal piece of human garbage while all this has been going on behind the scenes. Running around while hiding behind one of her 33 fictitious names professing to speak the truth, telling her story in how she was the VICTIM of all those big nasty online magick casting businesses. Oh help me, help me everyone because I am the victim of being scammed, being hacked, stalked, slandered etc etc etc. Poor Little Mary. Did Mary get a bad rap by the New York Court system too? I mean, are they lying as well ? Perhaps they're just picking on little scammer Mary as well. Mary likes to hear herself talk when repeatedly saying " I didn't do anything " , " I didn't rip off anyone ", "I don't have a criminal record", " I have never had a spell cast," blah, blah, blah. And lets not forget go ramblings about how "great", or how "prestigious" the Prantil family is, LOL. What was it Mary Prantil says on one of her sites? Wasn't it something like, "Birds Only Pick At The Best Fruit" LOL, I think in Mary's case it would be Buzzards and Crows as they like their fruit ROTTEN . Mary does remind me of something rotten, maybe not fruit but ROTTEN TO THE CORE just the same. Maybe I'm thinking rotten with a side order of POND SCUM when I think of Mary Prantil. Of course between bashing Jan and myself, Mary Prantil goes on to tell everyone that she's "living the American dream" and how Madonna is her "mentor" regarding her seven or eight blog pages. Please keep in mind that Mary Prantil is a 46 year old woman who says this along with her actually thinking that she looks like Kate moss lol. ( you gotta be KIDDING !!!!!! ) One minute she's a "hand and hoof" model, and in the same breath she's a "corporate executive" on wall street, LOL. In all reality Mary Prantil was nothing but a assistant secretary working for temporary services making a meager wage far from the six figures she had boasted in making earlier on. If you visit her blog sites, you'll see this in her job description. Basically, she made the coffee, shuffled papers, received calls, greeted people at the front desk and passed messages to folks working in the various offices from time to time. Of course these jobs didn't last as the longest held job may have been a year or a little over before she was fired from her many temporary little jobs for misconduct. All in all, this is a far cry from her being a self proclaimed "Corporate Executive" for HBO, CNN, and Cinimax she has ranted and raved about over the last three years. Really when you look over Mary Prantil's life, you can see that she's always led a VERY menial life with no hopes of ever going anywhere in the cooperate world. Maybe this is why she felt it so important to fabricate, or lie about everything under the sun to make a impression on others, to come off to everyone as larger than life. Of course this fantasy, illusion of distorted reality became a way of life for Mary Prantil and moreover came in handy when Mary started her little slamming campaign against us on the net. Her finely tuned imaginary skills came handy when it came to lashing out at others who rubbed her the wrong way, like us lol. It's interesting how Miss Prantil repeatedly states on her blog pages how Jan and myself are guilty of this and that but never seems to come up with any proof to back up any of her pathetic statements or charges against us, especially when given four years to produce anything to back up the smallest statement made. Miss Prantil was taken into custody before she could remove these blog pages just for the record,. I also think it's important to explain that Mary Prantil never DREAMED in a million years that her criminal records would be made public record by the courts and thus directly disproving her claims of, "not having a criminal record" of any kind. When Mary Prantil saw her very recent criminal records posted for the first time I bet the blood just drained down to her feet while she was knocked back with surreal disbelief, lol. To be on the net bashing several people and then to see your own criminal activities revealed must be a sobering feeling indeed. Mary also likes to talk about "KARMA" and how it's real, well, KARMA IS REAL as she is now finding out. Did you finally have a RUDE KARMIC AWAKENING, MARY? I hope that she thinks of us while sitting in her small little nut PSYCHOTIC JAIL cell and how we assisted the D.A. in putting her there. I certainly hope she thinks of all the people she's ripped off, stalked, and harassed over the years because she will have plenty of time to think about a lot of things in my opinion, especially about the curse we placed on her and how it will never go away, it will never be broken, it will never fade, it will be there looming over her FOREVER. Please read her criminal reports and then go check out these links going to prantil's FANTASY pages. The links are as follows: http://maryprantil.wordpress.com/ http://maryprantilripoffreport.blogspot.com/ http://maryprantilcorrectstherecord.blogspot.com/ http://www.correcttherecord.com/index.php/main_profile/view/53 Mary Prantil is very direct when repeatedly stating that she has NEVER been arrested, NEVER been in jail, NEVER was committed into a psychiatric ward, NEVER used or sold drugs, NEVER ripped off online or land biased businesses, NEVER used any online spell casting services, NEVER went bankrupt, ALWAYS paid her taxes and on and on. Ok, well, Miss Prantil is nothing but a lying CRIMINAL piece of gutter trash and I'm about to prove it over and over again. In the previous report you can see where she owes the U.S. Government $ 4,000.00 in federal taxes, and $130.00 state or county tax, not only this but this report shows the Tax Warrants out on her. Prantil does in FACT have a civil and criminal record going back 20 years, back to her childhood in California while growing up under her unethical attorney father that was disbarred TWICE for drug abuse, stealing $700,000.00 and lying over and over to the court when asked about his shady activities with one or two of his clients that he became personally involved with. The man seems to have been the lowest low life of the legal community when you read what others in the legal community have to say about him, it's all very involved and likened to a scandalous novel when reading over or through it. As the records show below, Prantil has been arrested several times, then incarcerated as a result for a array of charges ranging from harassment, resisting arrest on to criminal contempt etc. Mary Prantil has been committed to the state hospital in the past however she vigorously denied this, and then again here recently as you can see when you look her up on the link provided below concerning one of the RIKERS ISLAND JAIL facilities of The Rose M. Singer Center. Miss Scammer Prantil will be a guest here in this jail for the next two weeks because their afraid that she will flee justice, as she's done so many times before. Prantil has also been court ordered to submit to a in-depth psychological exam to determine her sanity and moreover her distinction between right from wrong. Mary's not crazy more so then just a out of control petty criminal who's been caught, as they will all find out at the end of the study. This Simpleton Mary Prantil was just picked up on one out of two state warrants and thus was taken directly to the NUT HOUSE to await the remaining hearings and sentencing that they will ultimately produce against her. Seven to eight charges against this five foot and three inch 46 year old woman who starves herself down to a very thin 95 lbs is in a lot of trouble at this point. You would think that by the time you get to this point in your life it would be apparent that it's not prudent to act like a thirteen year old juvenile delinquent wanna be. The police and courts have just HAD ENOUGH from what I understand, and they are ALL sick and TIRED of her games and thus they locked her up tight to be sure she wouldn't RUN, RUN, RUN away from them again. well Mary should be happy now as she's finally around people of her own stature- birds of a feather flock together in jail. Further down in this report it states that bail for Mary Prantil wasn't an option and that the court ordered her right into the hospital for a undetermined time for the mental evaluation. Again, Mary T. Prantil isn't crazy even though it would seem so however, she is a two bit manipulating criminal piece of New York TRASH who really knows how to play the legal system. I wonder how long she can keep up her act for the doctors and courts? A trick she learned off her UNETHICAL ATTORNEY FATHER I'm sure. Especially, when it came to getting out of drug charges and expunging criminal records in the state of California. Mary says that she doesn't abuse drugs but that not what she told others and ourselves. I mean, doesn't everyone sit up all night long calling, emailing, maliciously harassing and stalking 16 to 20 people a night four over a four year period and for no apparent reason ? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ? WOW, the energy that must take on a nightly basis. I have trouble sending out five emails a day for this or that lol. Mary says that she doesn't drink but again, we beg to differ with her lol. Mary says that she never had a spell cast with any service be they online or land based. Again, there are five or six on-line magic sites who beg to differ with this claim coming from Prantil as we all have records to show service rendered to her. Prantil states that she never ripped anyone off, yet there are two or three sites who can show that Prantil obtained services and then charged back, or wrote them rubber checks for their trouble. We have several on-line businesses who have been harassed by prantil who moreover kept records and recordings of her twenty to thirty calls a night. Well, Mary can get her head checked out while she waits for judgment day; maybe she can manipulate her way out of the charges coming down on her. Maybe she can tell the Judge how the whole world is against her and moreover how her voices from God told her to rip off, scam and slander whomever she thought was evil. Perhaps her voices weren't from God after all and just herself talking to herself. You know, this happens a lot when people start coming apart at the seams, especially when nearing the end of their cycle of terror against others. Guess what, Mary? The jig is up for you, and yes, KARMA IS REAL. We've read when little Mary started using words like scam, liar and slander while accusing others of these despicable acts yet, she was the perpetrator of all of these low caliber deceptions. Again, we hear little "Miss innocent" proclaiming to the world: "Don't believe Rip Off Reports", " Ed Magedson is a criminal" yet it was Mary Prantil up on the site of Rip Off Reports under twenty or thirty different user names posting liable slanderous defaming business impeding speech against the innocent in order to destroy their businesses, NOT Ed Magedson. I don't care for ROR but let's give credit where credit is due. ROR may be guilty of being a opportunist site along with many other forum sites however, I've never seen any of these sites openly carry out against others what Mary Prantil has consistently carried out against the innocent. We hear Prantil stating that no one should believe Jan or my reports on the Internet yet, we have produced endless documentation, or piles of verifiable proof against Prantil regarding police records, police eyewitness accounts, accounts from four other magick site owners in what had transpired when prantil came calling on them for the services they offered and then rendered. We have produced verifiable records, old and current civil and criminal court records along with audio sound files catching Mary Prantil admitting that her spell work did in fact work until she messed it all up through her malicious, disruptive, hostile and over all out of control behavior due to the drug and alcohol abuse. Miss Prantil likes to use the word HOAX a lot however, the only hoax here was perpetrated on her end. Again, we hear the words scammer, scam, rip off artist yet, when you look back at all the evidence against this fool you can't help knowing who the real scammer, fake or con artist is, wouldn't you agree ? I know you do especially when looking over the records below. Lastly, when reading over her seven or eight blog pages that she currently has up on us, you will notice her one resounding message being (" DO NOT USE " , DO NOT USE " ). Yes, this statement has been posted over and over again all over the Internet, posted under her thirty or more user names on about every scam site over the net. Further under about every disingenuous story that you can think of as she's attempted to pass herself off as different people in a effort to both draw sympathy and fool the public. You know, as stupid as it is, Prantil's reasons were for trying to destroy our business you'd think that she would have just faded away after a while, but as you can see she was still with us four years later continuing to make a total a*s out of herself committing crimes to us and others to the point that she is actually up on several criminal charges including an ACTUAL FELONY STALKING CHARGE. Basically her reasons for four years of lying and harassment was because we wouldn't take any s**t from her, nor would we permit her in scamming us out of services. We wouldn't permit her in bossing us around or posting blatant lies about us on the Internet without confronting her with factual proof disputing all her lies for all to see. That's all it took for this scammer to repeatedly attack us for close to four years. The thing that really angers her is in that we EXPOSE her every time we get a chance, or when we see her attempting to scam private persons or businesses. Miss Prantil said it best when she said " Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves " SHE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HER OWN ADVICE as she gave everyone the rope to hang her high through her own evil actions and many crimes against innocent others. Internet Terrorist Mary T. Prantil will now face real justice in the CRIMINAL courts of New York while being made to face up to everything she's ever carried out against anyone. This criminal can get three to five years from what I understand when reading over what she's been technically charged with concerning the N.Y state codes, let's hope so anyway, as we all will be very happy to never hear of her again after all the trouble she has caused many innocent people. Hopefully the criminal courts will lock Prantil up AND THROW AWAY THE KEY, LOL. I hope my faith in the Justice system can be restored once again. As I've said before, we as a Nation should be protected by our laws and thus people like prantil should be locked away under a deep, cold and dark jail in Siberia somewhere far away from the rest of us. I feel Mary T. Prantil was someone in search of the American dream but never seem to attain it on any level, and it was then that she decided to take a lesser version of it by force by resorting to the loathsome actions as stealing, conning, lying and attempting to steal or destroy this same dream that others are so earnestly trying to attain in these despairing times. Again, Mary's distorted view of the world and they way things should be carried out in life. It all came down to jealousy, greed and reinventing herself into something that Prantil never had any real hope of becoming in reality. She fancies herself as a "Comedian" but how can you bring laughter to the world when your bringing so much sadness in its place through your own selfish actions ? You can't. How can the hopeless one bring love, laughter and hope to the world ? They can't because love, hope and laughter is nonexistent within them and can't give what you have not to give. Prantil is a person whom feels that the American dream let her down, or left her behind and thus she decided that she should go for broke and attain this dream in any way possible even if it came at the great expense of others, even if it met breaking societal and spiritual rules across the board. In short, site policies, state laws, ethics, good morals or positive standers mean ABSOLUTY nothing to this individual of Mary Prantil. Religion, faith and other principal's are merely things she stands behind when it's convenient for her to do so, or can be used to achieve her goals. Mary Prantil is someone who believes the world owes her a living in the process of achieving what she considered to be the American dream. As I've stated in other posts, Miss Prantil sure has a funny way of "achieving her dreams" and further has very little to total disregard for the rights of others in the process. Many people all over the country have suffered emencly as a direct result of Prantil's speech and actions over the last four years and back. Why? Because this person was left unchecked by the legal system for so long not to mentioned her despicable behavior being enabled by her family and others just because they were afraid to step in and do what needed to be done in committing her early on. Well, it looks like it all coming full circle for Mary Prantil now, and the crow has finally come home to roost for lack of better words. I believe that our work has been completed in exposing this sick but criminal personality and there's really nothing more to say other then let this be a lesson to any scammers out there who, like Mary, believe that they are above the laws of the land and like to hide behind little fake names on the Internet while attacking the innocent, or ripping off the innocent. Scammers run both ways on the Internet, or can be found in the client just as well as in a bad company is the lesson for today. I will say this to folks out there who like to pick on businesses: Without us you would still be growing your own s**t to eat and making your own clothing to wear, AREN'T YOU HAPPY you have someone to do this for you ? Most Companies and or small businesses AREN'T CRIMINALS so DON'T TREAT US as such. Have some d**n respect. Remember that word. We have respect for you so be kind to us next time you see a Vendor on the street or visit a web site. Besides we did not twist anyone's arm to contract services from us, and I can say the same about other businesses as well that have had to deal with someone attempting to impede their fair trade and or ruin their businesses as well. We do not go chasing after people to come and buy our services; our years of expertise and integrity stand alone, and the public knows us and who we are on the Internet, and what we have to offer. I would like to say to everyone else that has had a personal conflict with Mary Prantil to rest easy now. I don't believe this moron will ever be back to hassle any of us ever again so it is time to release it and get back to our lives, it is time to enjoy the peace and quiet we once had before this menace of society came knocking at our doors with all her deceptions, trickery and games of scorn. Enjoy the postings exposing this Internet criminal for what she has always been, an ignorant fool. Even though Mary Prantil had spells cast for her situation many times over she never believed in them even when they worked in her life. Ok, back to Miss Prantil; I wonder if now she believes in the Curse we cast against her now because she didn't seem to before lol??? The spell we cast against Mary Prantil in order to stop her madness against the innocent. What was that you said Mary ? Wasn't it something like, "God shall TRAMPLE the Dragon? " Well Mary, someone DID get trampled here but it wasn't my beautiful Jan or Dragon self, as you have clearly noticed. I think it's safe to say that YOU MARY PRANTIL were trampled under Divinity's Foot as evil can't exist in the presence of Divine Righteousness. Let's hope that the state of New York continues to carry out its duty in the instance of Mary T. Prantil. Perhaps when it's all done, and when the judgments have been all passed, we as a society can been secure in that our system continues to work. Again, perhaps Mary T. Prantil will be lawfully RESTRAINED and kept away from law abiding citizens until which time she can function normally in society, if ever. If you would like to verify this on going criminal record on Miss Mary T. Prantil then please go to the address link below, be sure to click for updates as this case is still unfolding. If your not into looking up records we understand and thus the easy to access and read Queen Lilith Site is there for you at www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net. The Lilith site was constructed out of necessity due to the prolonged cyber attacks we've endured as a direct result of Mary prantil attempting to destroy our business over the last four years. On this particular site you can view her entire criminal history along with several sound files catching her in the act of habitually lying, threatening, blackmailing, extortion etc. You will also read through the transcripts and eyewitness accounts along with transcripts of what actually transpired between her and the sites that were foolish enough to take on her cases. The entire purposes of this site isn't to defame, embarrass or humiliate prantil however, it is about presenting the facts in a fair and truthful way while defending ourselves against the onslaught of her endless accusations. This is a defense site that were in essence excursing our right to free speech found under the first amendment of the United States Construction. Ten Jails on Rikers IslandRose M. Singer Center | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
#3 Author of original report
SCAM - Jan Windglows is a Verified Convicted Criminal
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 21, 2010
SCAm - Jan Windglows - you can run but you cannot hide.
#2 REBUTTAL Individual responds
The Report Above Is Fake Written By Cyber Stalker Mary T. Prantil, Criminal Records Below Of Mary Prantil
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, July 20, 2010
MARY PRANTILNYSID: 03088617J Age: 46 Sex: Female Race: White Height: 5 ft 3 inches Weight: 95 lbs Hair Color: Blonde Eye Color: Green Nativity: New
York Booking Information Incarceration: 2010-06-14 Book & Case Number: 3471001054 Facility: Rose M. Singer Center Arrest Date: 2010-06-14 Arrest Number: COURT DIRECT Next Court Date: 2010-06-30 Projected Release Date: Actual Release Date: Discharge Reason: Bail & Bond: Remanded Charge InformationDocket: 2010NY022485 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED
HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY002655 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY046033 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL
CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
#1 REBUTTAL Individual responds
Your Going Back To Jail Cyber Stalker Mary T. Prantil, CRIMINAL RECORDS TO STALKER BELOW
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, July 20, 2010
AKA Mary T. Prantil of Queens County Astoria New York. You can also find Scam Prantil posting on Rip Off Report and other Forum sites posting against us under AKA Honest Person AKA Honestperson AKA Park City USA, AKA Uta, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania, AKA Washington D.C. AKA Washington, AKA Astoria, New York, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania AKA Park City, AKA Utah AKA Astoria New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA SadisticPsychicJanWindglowsHURTME2 - Houston (USA
MARY PRANTILNYSID: 03088617J Age: 46 Sex: Female Race: White Height: 5 ft 3 inches Weight: 95 lbs Hair Color: Blonde Eye Color: Green Nativity: New
York Booking Information Incarceration: 2010-06-14 Book & Case Number: 3471001054 Facility: Rose M. Singer Center Arrest Date: 2010-06-14 Arrest Number: COURT DIRECT Next Court Date: 2010-06-30 Projected Release Date: Actual Release Date: Discharge Reason: Bail & Bond: Remanded Charge InformationDocket: 2010NY022485 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED
HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY002655 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor) Docket: 2009NY046033 Indictment: 00000 0000 Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A
Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL
CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.
Ripoff Report on CBS 19
Ripoff Report on CBS 19 - Global Marketing Alliance
Ripoff Report on ABC 15 - Smart Shopper
Ripoff Report - Girls Gone Wild
Ripoff Report on Fox 11 - Car Repair
