FRANK GEORGE PRANTIL- San Diego California Conviction, Two Year Sentence - IMPRISONED For Perjury & Forgery- Served 14 Months - DISBARRED TWICE- For Stealing & Scamming His Clients,
Left Clients Holding The Bag. Cocaine Possession, Drug Abuser, Drug Arrest- Conspiracy To Buy, Distribute & Sell Illegal Narcotics- Conspiracy To Lie To The Superior & Supreme Courts - Ran For Governor- Defeated Twice, Ran Out Of Town By Peers.
Frank Prantil, Father Of Cyber Criminal and Internet Terrioist Mary T. Prantil - Scammer and Internet IDIOT Charged With: Felony Stalking, Aggravated Harassment, Resisting Arrest, Communicating Alarm, Criminal Contempt and Eluding Capture. Arrested 9 Times Plus in N.Y.C Alone.
I Charge Mary T. Prantil In Being A Internet SCAMMER, Slanderess, Mass Spamming, Habitual Liar and Trash Talker With MAJOR Psychological Challenges. I further charge her with Attempted Conspiracy To Incite Internet Mayhem, Conspiracy To Commit Disingenuous Collusion & Slander From Third Parties via Anonymity, False Anonymous Postings,
Mis-quotes Of Internet, Federal And State Law, Internet Terrorism, Cyber Bullying, Cyber Stalking, Media Harassment via Telephone, Email, Forum Sites, federal, state and municipal offices, Composing False Federal, State And Local Municipal Reports In A Effort To Harass, Cause fear And To Aggravate,
Composing Malicious Blog Sites To Harm Personal Reputations & To Hinder Free Trade, Repeated Slandering, Habitual Lieing, Communicating Alarm, Prolonged Harassment, Media Abuse Over all. Misuse and abuse of Law Enforcement Offices, Menacing, Obstruction and Using The Courts Against Others, Wasting Tax Payer Funds Via Filing Frivolous Motions for Continuance,
Hiding behind & Abusing Religion and the U.S Constitution, Hate Speech, Tax Evasion, Aggravated Harassment, Malcontent, Manipulation To Hinder And Cause Mental Stress, Abuse Of Scam Forums, Premeditated motive and Intent In Obtaining Paid Services For Free Through Blackmail, Extortion And Media Harassment.
Miss Prantil Can't Back Up Any Of Her Charges Against Us Even When She's Been Given Numerous Opportunities To Do It Over Last Four Years yet, She has again failed in disproving our charges against her.
Mary, Your A Looser, Failier And Simpleton Who Can't Do Anything Right Other aside from Scamming Innocent People Trying To Help your Pathetic ass. Your not even a good Liar or CON- WOMAN as your always getting caught up your own scams.
This report is concerning Frank George Prantil, Richard G. Prantil and Franks daughter Mary Teresa Prantil. In past reports authored by Miss Prantil, she's stated that " I'm proud to have been the daughter of Frank G. Prantil", and that she again "comes from a "PRESTIGE'S family" based in the San Diego California area. Moreover, Miss MOTOR MOUTH prantil has gone on to portend in being several other people when posting against us such Richard G prantil her uncle. So, I naturally looked him up only to find that he had some dirt in his past as well.
I can't speak for the character of the rest of the Prantil family as I don't personally know any of them however, I have no reason to believe them to be anything other then reasonable and law abiding people of course,,, within exception to the previously named Idiots above. Since Miss Prantil can't shut her trashy, lieing trouble making mouth,.
and in the interest of comparing Mary's personality to that of her criminal father and uncle I've decided to add additional information in prantil's criminal report, or to pass on to the public what I've read from credible sources such as the Supreme Court, Colleges Attorney Generals office, State Attorneys office and several legal sites concerning unlawful activities pertaining to Frank G Prantil, Richard G Prantil and Mary T. Prantil.
Miss Prantil has stated that ((( "My father got off lots of criminals" ))) then latter went on to say: ((( "My father got off lots of criminals and innocent people to"))), LOL. She stated that she, nor any member of her criminal family ever took anything that didn't belong to them and that they were all honest people, PLEASE KEEP THESE LAST STATEMENTS IN MIND as you read down through these long reports, or criminal records belonging to the three Subjects above.
Well, I'm sure Frank Prantil did in fact successfully defend some innocent people along the way regarding his practice however, and from the looks of it,, he also was very instrumental in successfully defending the trash of society such as Murders, Child Molesters, Check Forgers, Bank Robbers etc. He was also quit capable in BOTCHING up their cases that in-turn resulted in sending them away to the state, or federal penitentiary for years and years at a time.
Do you think it's possible that frankie prantil fuc_k_d up any of his cases through his inability to see clearly as a result of severe drug abuse problem ? Do you think that he could have been so incoherent, or inapt when handling a case that he could have actually allowed a innocent person to have been sentenced to prison ?
Do you really think that Frank was anyone's friend, or that he really helped anyone ? that is,,, after he cleaned them out of their life savings.
Upon researching the records and past legal performance of Mr. Prantil, I was also informed that not only was he successful in defending the scum of humanity on several occasions but went on to be completely corrupted by the same criminals that he had once represented throughout his career.
You know, Miss Prantil has vested much of her negative energy over the last four years in her SLANDEROUS POST and blog sites to: "DO NOT USE" our services and that were allegedly attempting to
"COVER A LIFETIME OF CRIME" however all this is bull s_it as she's simply trying to destroy a on-line business for stopping her Scam games with them, We wouldn't let her scam us in short. Of course,
the ONLY ONES TRYING TO HIDE A LIFETIME OF CRIME would be Mary T. Prantil, Frank G. Prantil and Richard G. Prantilco.rding to the information below concerning each of them. The CURRENT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF Mary T' Prantil can be found at
It was in my research sited below that I ran across several charges launched against Frank G. Prantil via the Supreme and Superior court system of California, such infractions as Perjury, Drug Poisson, Drug Abuse, Unlawfully removing $700,000 from a Clients safe as she sat in jail awaiting a murder trial, Fraud, FORGERY,
PERJURY, Disbarment on two occasions, Theft and a Prison Term, Not leaving out that Frank had a bad habit of soaking his Clients and then leaving them right in the middle of their on-going cases without Counsel.
Mr. Prantil also had interfered with A HIGH PROFILE homicide trial by becoming personally involved with his Client of that same trial by attempting to cover for the accused so he could recover his fees to which added up to be thousands and thousands of dollars.
One example of his unethical and thieving activity can be vied below as he took part in SCAMMING an old person of 70 or 80 out of a great deal of money by depositing a FORGED CHECK into his bank account, Does this guy sound like he was out to help anyone but himself ?, as I've said:
He was out to rip his Clients off as it would appear much like mary is out to rip off businesses. You can see the same thing occurring with Richard G Prantil concerning his REPRIMAND FROM THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION for cashing in on a divorce four years after it was over. Richard carried this out by filling out a false document and then turning it into the court, IS THAT FRAUD, ABUSING YOUR OFFICE,
SCAMMING, FORGERY, FILLING OUT FALSE POLICE AND COURT REPORTS ? Could this be considered UNETHICAL PRACTICE OF LAW just like what his brother Frank was Disbarred and then thrown into prison over ? Does this sound like what Mary Prantil has done in the past ?
DIRTY ATTORNEY, Dirty daughter Mary T. Prantil. Mary is currently doing what her father had taught her to do when involved in the court system, LIE AND HOLD EVERYTHING UP at the Tax Payers Expense.
Frank Prantil blatantly lied on several occasions and attempted to hold up the due process of law by filling one frivolous motion of delay right after another, just like Mary is doing in the current charges being lodged against her by the State of New York.
Didn't work for him and it won't work for Mary as you can only delay the inevitable for so long before the obvious comes calling and they take you away LOL.
Frank Prantil was known as a GREEDY individual TO WHICH DIDN'T GET ALONG WITH ANYONE whom further would stop at nothing to accomplish his goals be they of a positive or unethical nature, JUST LIKE Mary T. Prantil his daughter.
Both of these criminal personalities both love the spotlight, like to steal and con folks, they both like to bog down and play the legal system at everyone's expense, they both like to abuse drugs and bully people. Mary and her father Frank both like to lie and slander, blame shift their own short comings back onto innocent people etc. I guess mary and daddy had more in common then we thought.
Frank was considered out spoken, brazened, and ruthless just like his daughter, Mary T. Prantil Internet Terrorist Extraordinaire. So in essence, and according to other legal professionals, Frank Prantil was nothing but a GREEDY UNETHICAL BAD Attorney, A CROOK that happened to liked all the ATTENTION he was getting just like Mary.
Another thing I'd like to add here. Did you know that Frank G. Prantil was in and out of rehab centers for his uncontrolled use of illegal narcotics ?, Did you know that Frank was given a two year sentence and was actually imprisoned for 14 months for his part in the yielding FALSE TESTIMONY and the Forgery Scam.
As you can read in the research below, Mr. Prantil wasn't considered to be a professional on any level by of the courts or his peers. You know, Mary has huge drug problem from what I understand, or from what she's told me personally.
She's into filling out false police reports and starving herself so she can fit into little girl clothing. I wonder why she's trying to be so thin, 95 pounds according to her police record.
I wonder if she isn't trying to look really skinny and young so she can get in with people in the age group of 15 or 20 years of age. No man in his right mind would want something a sickly and haggard looking as this 46 or 47 year old scam artist.
Mr. Frank Prantil was DISBARRED twice for drugs, unethical legal activity, and leaving his Clients holding the bag simply because they ran out of money in the middle of their defense. Does any of this sound familiar ?, Does it sound like anything Miss Mary T. Prantil has done in the past ?
I would say that Little Mary is the preverbal apple that didn't fall very far from the tree, wouldn't you say ? Well, Frank Prantil won't be bothering, SCAMMING, or ripping off his Clients any more because he's now deceased and Good Riddance I say.
Now, we have little Mary carrying on his legacy with all of her criminal activities such as you can view below after her fathers information . Please view the facts below coming from the Experts and those that had the misfortune of dealing with him first hand. Sounds like a real Gypsy Scum Ball to me.
Read the history of this Idiot and be ready to be SHOCKED, and then read about the exploits of his daughter little miss marry low life prantil. Basically Mary Prantil is blaming everyone else for the very same things she's done in the past or is carrying out against others currently.
People like this should just be locked away forever and kept from wasting the courts time and resources. Lastly, please see Richard G. Prantil's Suspension at the very bottom of the report for FILLING a false and misleading document with the court,
committing an act of moral turpitude or deception and theft. It would seem that Deception, Lieing, Harassment, Drug Abuse, Drug Trafficking, Filling out false Police and Court reports,
Blame Shifting, Stalking, Slander, FORGERY and STEALING runs in the Prantil family when reading down through these various reports from several different sites on the Internet. This family is nothing but a Horde of self-serving Criminals who pray upon the weak in my opinion.
The one thing these Crooks all have in common is that they like to go around ripping people off while at the same time calling innocent others a SCAM. Moreover PROCLAIMING THEMSELVES to be the VICTIM of a hostile stalker etc.
This group of Individuals go on to proclaim themselves to be the VICTIMS who are getting picked or stalked much as Mary has clamed for three years plus now. Mary T. Prantil has no shame simply because she is nothing but a two bit CRIMINAL like her father Frank G. Prantil and his brother as the records reflect.
Mary Prantil BASHES the legal system, Attorneys, Ed Magedson, Scam Forum sites, us and everyone else that doesn't go along with, or by into her slanderous statements.
Many of us out have had to put up with this Bitch Mary Prantil for years however, I think there's enough information on three members of this family now to inform everyone as to who these scum buckets really are.
Mary Prantil states: " My father isn't like all these other crooked Attorneys because he spent his life helping people" however the information below not only proves her to be lieing on this count but also proves her in being a Hypocrite as well.
Frank Prantil IS, one of those BAD ATTORNEYS that this beaten down, old and haggard woman blast on her web blog sites, LOL. Always talking about how her father helped people all his life etc,
YEAH, he help them all right ?,, RIGHT OUT OF THEIR LIFE SAVINGS. This man sounds like he was your friend until you ran out of money, know the type ? I'm sure you do. Well Mary Pran-Stupid, How does it feel to be FULLY EXPOSED along with your entire CRIMINAL SCAMMER family ?
YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE NEVER FU_C_ED WITH us Scammer mary prantil. You did though, you just couldn't help yourself, could yeah ? and now everyone knows who and what your TRASHY FAMILY is all about, You hate it don't you ? The light is pretty bright on you about now, isn't it ?
You don't like it because you don't have the option of sneaking around anymore while stalking your next unsuspecting victim from the shadows, TO BAD. Like I said, WE WON'T BACK DOWN FROM CRIMINALS like you and we will flatly pound you into the ground.
Heaven will REDUCE YOU to blood and screams before it's all over through that little curse, you remember that curse, RIGHT ? Sure you do because you feel it every day.
Ok, STUPID, IF YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DIG UP MORE EVIDENCE ON YOU JUST KEEP posting your trash on us. Hey, I wonder what we can find on your Mother ? perhaps she has a story to tell the world.
I WILL KEEP GOING AND GOING to my last breath to EXPOSE a TRASH BAG like yourself mary. EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THE LIFE OF CRIME YOUR TRYING TO HIDE Mary. YOU DIDN'T GET TO SCAM US SO GET OVER IT, BEAT IT ON DOWN THE ROAD if you know what's good for you.
===============================================================================
Los Angeles Times
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.
==============================================================================
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
respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before CHOY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Frank George Prantil, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. I. 2
Prantil, formerly an attorney in California, was introduced to Daryl Bell by his client Melvin Goins. Prantil agreed to represent Bell on a criminal charge. A few weeks later a woman purporting to be Bell's mother asked Prantil to help her negotiate an escrow
check from which Prantil would receive his fee. Prantil accompanied the woman to his bank where he informed the teller that the woman was his client's mother and that he wanted to deposit the check into his trust account. The woman signed the check, which was made payable to Joanna F. McKnight,
and Prantil endorsed it to his trust account. Neither Prantil nor the woman indicated that the check might not be genuine. 3 Subsequently, the owner of an escrow agency discovered that three
checks were missing from her office. One of the checks had been made out to Joanna F. McKnight and deposited in Prantil's account. The agent's signature had been forged on the check. 4 Prantil was charged with forgery in violation of Section 470 of the California Penal Code. At trial, Prantil argued he knew nothing of the forgery, and that he had deposited the check merely for collection purposes to see whether it was
genuine. To establish that Prantil knew the escrow check was forged, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning four trust deeds which Prantil had prepared. Prantil had received information suggesting that the four deeds were forged and that Goins and Bell, were responsible for the forgeries. 5 Prantil was convicted of forgery and sentenced to two years in prison. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
People v. Prantil, 169 Cal.App.3d 592, 215 Cal.Rptr. 372 (1985). The California Supreme Court denied review and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Prantil v. California, 475 U.S. 1067, 106 S.Ct. 1381, 89 L.Ed.2d 606
(1986).1 6 Prantil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court summarily denied the petition. This court granted Prantil's application for a certificate of probable cause.2 II. 7 Prantil contends that numerous trial court errors and a district court delay in deciding his habeas petition denied him due process. 8 This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir.1987). This court presumes the state court's findings of fact to be correct. 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d). III. 9 Prantil contends he was denied due process because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he passed the forged escrow check "as true and genuine."3 10 This court determines whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 11 The evidence established that Prantil received information prior to the transaction which suggested that Goins and Bell were involved in a forgery scheme. He also knew that one of the possible victims of the scheme was Joanna McKnight, who was described to him as an elderly woman between the ages of 78 and 80. Yet, despite this
knowledge, when Prantil deposited the escrow check into his trust account he did not inform the teller that the check might be a forgery or that the woman with him, who appeared to be approximately 40 to 45 years of age, might not be the person whose name appeared on the check. He merely endorsed the check and asked that it be
deposited into his account. 12 Prantil's knowledge of the previous forgeries and the contradictory descriptions of McKnight could have led the jury to reasonably conclude that by failing to alert the bank, Prantil was attempting to pass the check "as true and genuine." See People v. Williams, 186 Cal.App.2d 420, 424, 8 Cal.Rptr. 871, 873 (1960) (tender of check purporting to be signed by specific person established "true and genuine" requirement). Thus, the district court did not err in the determining
there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the "true and genuine" requirement was established beyond a reasonable doubt. IV. 13 Prantil contends that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving two erroneous jury instructions.
14 This court evaluates jury instructions "in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of the entire trial process." Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). To warrant habeas relief, the instruction cannot be merely "undesirable, erroneous, or even 'universally condemned,' " but must violate some due process right guaranteed
by the fourteenth amendment. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). Moreover, the petitioner in a habeas proceeding has the burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." Darnell v. Swinney, 823 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 1, 1987). 15 Prantil challenges the
trial court's instruction regarding the elements of forgery. He contends that by omitting the "true and genuine" requirement, the trial court denied him his due process right to have the jury consider each element of the charged offense. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 87-88, 103 S.Ct. 969, 978, 74 L.Ed.2d 823 (1983) (instruction on presumption of intent reversible error because permitted jury to
convict defendant without examining evidence concerning essential element of crime). 16 The trial court gave the following instructions on the elements of forgery: 17 Now, in order to prove the commission of such crime [forgery], each of the following elements must be proved, each of them. Here we go. 18 Number one, that a person passed or offered to pass a forged instrument. That is the first one. 19 Two that such
person knew that the instrument was forged; and three, that such person passed or offered to pass such instrument with the specific intent to defraud another person or persons. 20 Although the instruction omitted the "true and genuine" requirement, we
consider the instruction in conjunction with the other instructions. See Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1239. Prior to giving the challenged instruction the court told the jury: 21 Now, every person with the specific intent to defraud--now, remember that I told you 'specific intent.' That's it. That's specific intent--with the specific intent to defraud another, utters, publishes, passes or attempts to pass or make use--there's a lot of things here--or make use of, as true and genuine, any false, altered, forged or
counterfeited instrument or document, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, is guilty of the crime of forgery. (emphasis added) 22 Because the overall charge to the jury informed them of the true and genuine requirement, Prantil was not denied his due process right to have the jury consider every element of the crime. 23 Prantil also contends he was denied due process because the trial court
gave an inapplicable and erroneous jury instruction on aiding and abetting. Prantil argues that the accomplice instruction removed an issue of intent from the jury's consideration and thus constituted reversible error under the reasoning of Johnson and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). 24 However, the prosecutor specifically denied that Prantil could be guilty as an aider
and abettor instead of as a principal. An erroneous jury instruction does not merit habeas relief if the deficiencies pertain to matters that are not in dispute and the error did not so affect the entire trial as to deprive the defendant of due process. See Darnell, 823 F.2d at 302-03. The trial court gave proper instructions regarding the
intent necessary to convict Prantil as a principal to the forgery. Because the prosecution did not present an accomplice theory, any deficiencies went to a matter that was not in dispute. The error did not mislead the jury on a disputed issue and thus did not so infect the trial as to deprive Prantil of due process. Id. V. 25 Prantil contends that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to grant judicial use
immunity to a potentially exonerating witness. 26 On his motion for a new trial, Prantil claimed that Goins could testify that Goins and Bell had set up Prantil, that Prantil was unaware that the check was stolen, and that Bell had lied to Prantil when he said there were criminal charges pending against him. Goins had been unavailable to testify
at the trial because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. At the new trial hearing Goins invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the trial unless he received judicial use immunity because he was in prison on an unrelated charge. The court denied Prantil's motion to grant immunity to Goins. 27 Under
California law, a court may only grant immunity on the prosecutor's request. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1324. See In re Weber, 11 Cal.3d 703, 720, 523 P.2d 229, 240, 114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 440 (1974). However, the prosecution's failure to request immunity violated Prantil's due process rights if it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S.
905, 102 S.Ct. 1750, 72 L.Ed.2d 161 (1982). 28 Here, Prantil's unsupported assertion is the only indication that Goins would have presented exculpatory testimony had he been granted immunity. The record contains overwhelming evidence that Prantil was not an unwitting accomplice in the crime, much of which would not be controverted
by Goins' testimony even if that testimony is as Prantil contends it would be. For example, Prantil knew that the woman who deposited the check in his account did not match the description of the woman whose name appeared on the check. On these facts, we hold that Prantil was not deprived of a fair trial. If Prantil was denied a fair trial in this case, trial courts would be required to grant immunity simply on the basis
of unsupported allegations by criminal defendants that immunity is required by due process. 29 Moreover, Prantil has made no showing that any misconduct on the part of the prosecutor caused Goins to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.
See United States v. Lord, 711 F.2d 887, 890-92 (9th Cir.1983). VI. 30 Prantil contends he was denied due process because of a twenty-month delay between the date of the alleged crime and the date of the indictment. 31 A pre-indictment delay, unlike a delay in bringing a charged defendant to trial, is "tested by general proscriptions of due process."4 Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th
Cir.1978). A pre-indictment delay does not justify habeas relief unless the defendant can show actual prejudice. Id. at 1382. To prove actual prejudice a defendant must give more than "mere assertions that ... witnesses' memories may have faded with the passage of time...." United States v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822, 106 S.Ct. 74, 88 L.Ed.2d 60 (1985). 32 Prantil contends
that he suffered actual prejudice because the bank teller could no longer remember the details of the escrow check transaction. However, the state court of appeals found that the delay did not affect the teller's memory. In addition, the court noted that Prantil was benefited by the teller's unresponsiveness to certain questions;
therefore there was no prejudice. 33 Prantil also claims that a seven-month delay between the time he filed his habeas petition and the time the district court dismissed the action violated his right to due process.5 34 In Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit held that a district court's procedure for handling habeas petitions which routinely resulted in delays of up to twenty months violated due process. However, in Satterlee v. Kritzman, 626 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir.1980),
we held that a district court's clerical error which resulted in an eight-month delay between the dismissal of a prisoner's habeas petition and the time his files were forwarded to the court of appeals did not deprive the petitioner of any substantive rights. As in Satterlee, here there is no policy of discrimination and no showing that the delay was purposeful. VII. 35 We conclude that the district court properly
dismissed Prantil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 36 AFFIRMED. * The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) 1 Because Prantil's direct appeal presented the same constitutional claims as his subsequent habeas petition, it is unnecessary for him to have filed for state habeas relief. Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528
(9th Cir.1987) 2 Prantil was released from prison on April 20, 1987. However, because a felony conviction may cause a defendant to suffer adverse collateral consequences even after he has served his sentence, a defendant's release from custody prior to the completion of his federal habeas corpus proceedings will not render his petition moot. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554
(1968). Prantil was in custody when he filed the petition in district court, so this court retains jurisdiction over the proceedings after he is released. Id 3 Under California law, a person is guilty of forgery if he passes or attempts to pass as true and genuine a forged instrument with knowledge of the forgery and with the specific intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 470; People v. Hellman, 189 Cal.App.2d 777,
778-79, 11 Cal.Rptr. 433 (1961). The only element Prantil challenges as lacking sufficient evidence is the true and genuine requirement 4 Once a suspect is indicted, the more stringent requirements of the speedy trial right apply. Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir.1978) 5 Prantil first raised the issue in his brief to this court. Ordinarily, this court will not decide an issue which was not raised at the
District Court. Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985). The court may decide an issue for the first time on appeal, however, where review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Id. Because a claim that a district court violated a party's due process rights questions the integrity of the federal judicial system, we review Prantil's claim despite his failure to raise it below CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
===============================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
A review of the prosecutor's remarks during the closing argument reveals that his statements,
although derogatory and gratuitous by themselves, served to compound the prejudice to the defendant that flowed from Mr. Gorder's ambiguous role as both prosecutor and participant witness. The prosecutor's closing arguments illustrate the degree of actual prejudice that results when an advocate, through his direct participation in the
events under litigation, can argue to the jury based on actual or perceived personal knowledge.5 The prosecutor launched a personalized attack on the defendant's motives. A recurrent theme of the prosecutor's summation was to portray the defendant as "greedy,"6 "corrupt," "dishonest," and "sleazy." The prosecutor
cautioned the jury that the defendant did not meet the minimum standards of attorney behavior demanded by the "advocacy system of justice." As such, the prosecutor explained to the jury that "Mr. Prantil is the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name to the general public and it's your duty as jurors to call him to
account." The prosecutor charged the jury with the responsibility of ridding the ranks of the criminal defense bar of such a "crook" even though "it's true, thank God it's true, that criminal defense attorneys are not crooks as a general rule." These comments came from an individual who was not only an experienced prosecutor but also, as the jury could not fail to appreciate, both a participant in many of the
underlying events and Mr. Prantil's adversary throughout. As previously mentioned, Mr. Gorder had conducted the grand jury examination of the defendant that resulted in three of the defendant's perjury convictions. In his summation of the evidence on these counts, the prosecutor drew the jury's attention to the complete grand jury
transcripts. Mr. Gorder informed the jury that these transcripts demonstrated that the defendant committed perjury "not just in the specific counts he's charged with, but in a number of other areas also." Once again, this is an assertion of personal knowledge of a testimonial rather than an argumentative character.
=============================================================================
Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area. No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings.
Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on
who picked up the defendant at the airport and who drove him back. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so. In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation.
The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman at the airport could not have launched any further successful grand jury investigation. 30 The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false premise that there was a woman at the airport and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-law, whose identity the defendant wishes to
conceal. The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood, could not have influenced the grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if
there was no blonde woman at the Omaha airport, the defendant's inability to recall her name is immaterial. Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed.
31 CONCLUSION 32 To conclude, we reverse defendant's perjury conviction on Count Six of the indictment because the allegedly perjurious statements lack materiality. We reverse and remand the defendant's remaining convictions on the ground that the
district court abused its discretion in refusing to recuse the participating prosecutor as a material witness and on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct in the government's closing argument.
===============================================================================
5 In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor.
I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents the defendant. That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's your duty to call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return
verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment. R.T. 116. 6 In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the monies he collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T. 115 (emphasis added)
===============================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
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,
Circuit Judge: http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/ A review of the prosecutor's remarks during the closing argument reveals that his statements, although derogatory and gratuitous by themselves, served to compound the prejudice to the defendant that flowed from Mr. Gorder's ambiguous role as both
prosecutor and participant witness. The prosecutor's closing arguments illustrate the degree of actual prejudice that results when an advocate, through his direct participation in the events under litigation, can argue to the jury based on actual or perceived personal knowledge.5 The prosecutor launched a personalized attack on the
defendant's motives. A recurrent theme of the prosecutor's summation was to portray the defendant as "greedy,"6 "corrupt," "dishonest," and "sleazy." The prosecutor cautioned the jury that the defendant did not meet the minimum standards of attorney behavior demanded by the "advocacy system of justice." As such, the prosecutor explained to the jury that "Mr. Prantil is the kind of person who gives
lawyers a bad name to the general public and it's your duty as jurors to call him to account." The prosecutor charged the jury with the responsibility of ridding the ranks of the criminal defense bar of such a "crook" even though "it's true, thank God it's true, that criminal defense attorneys are not crooks as a general rule." 25 These
comments came from an individual who was not only an experienced prosecutor but also, as the jury could not fail to appreciate, both a participant in many of the underlying events and Mr. Prantil's adversary throughout.
As previously mentioned, Mr. Gorder had conducted the grand jury examination of the defendant that resulted in three of the defendant's perjury convictions. In his summation of the evidence on these counts, the prosecutor drew the jury's attention to the complete grand jury transcripts.
Mr. Gorder informed the jury that these transcripts demonstrated that the defendant committed perjury "not just in the specific counts he's charged with, but in a number of other areas also." Once again, this is an assertion of personal knowledge of a testimonial rather than an argumentative character.
================================================================================
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.
Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the
Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on who picked up the defendant at his hotel and who drove him back to the Omaha Airport. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so.
In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation. The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman could not have launched any further successful grand jury investigation. 30 The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false
premise that there was a woman who met him at his hotel and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-law, whose identity the defendant wishes to conceal.
The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood,
could not have influenced the grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if there was no blonde woman who met the defendant at his hotel and drove him to the airport, the defendant's inability to recall her name is immaterial.
Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed.
================================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
1 http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/ See United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), rev'd in part, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). Betty Powell was convicted on four counts of a fifteen-count indictment which had alleged that she conspired with her husband and son to distribute cocaine. She was acquitted on all substantive conspiracy counts.
Three of her four convictions, those alleging the use of a telephone to facilitate drug offenses, were subsequently reversed on appeal, United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), but then reinstated by the Supreme Court, United States v. Powell, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
442 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2864, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979) 5 In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor. I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents the defendant.
That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's your duty to
call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment. R.T. 116. 6 In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the monies he
collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T. 115 (emphasis added)
===============================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
843 F.2d 314
Frank George PRANTIL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
although derogatory and gratuitous by themselves, served to compound the prejudice to the defendant that flowed from Mr. Gorder's ambiguous role as both prosecutor and participant witness. The prosecutor's closing arguments illustrate the degree of actual prejudice that results when an advocate, through his direct participation in the
events under litigation, can argue to the jury based on actual or perceived personal knowledge.5 The prosecutor launched a personalized attack on the defendant's motives. A recurrent theme of the prosecutor's summation was to portray the defendant as "greedy,"6 "corrupt," "dishonest," and "sleazy."
The prosecutor cautioned the jury that the defendant did not meet the minimum standards of attorney behavior demanded by the "advocacy system of justice." As such, the prosecutor explained to the jury that "Mr. Prantil is the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name to the general public and it's your duty as jurors to call him
to account." The prosecutor charged the jury with the responsibility of ridding the ranks of the criminal defense bar of such a "crook" even though "it's true, thank God it's true, that criminal defense attorneys are not crooks as a general rule."
These comments came from an individual who was not only an experienced prosecutor but also, as the jury could not fail to appreciate, both a participant in many of the underlying events and Mr. Prantil's adversary throughout. As previously mentioned, Mr. Gorder had conducted the grand jury examination of the defendant that resulted
in three of the defendant's perjury convictions. In his summation of the evidence on these counts, the prosecutor drew the jury's attention to the complete grand jury transcripts. Mr. Gorder informed the jury that these transcripts demonstrated that the defendant committed perjury "not just in the specific counts he's charged with, but in
a number of other areas also." Once again, this is an assertion of personal knowledge of a testimonial rather than an argumentative character.
===============================================================================
Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area. No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings.
Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the
Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on who picked up the defendant at the airport and who drove him back. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so. In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation.
The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman at the airport could not have launched any further successful grand jury investigation. 30 The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false premise that there was a woman at the airport and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-law, whose identity the defendant wishes to
conceal. The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood, could not have influenced the grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if there was no blonde woman at the Omaha airport, the defendant's inability to recall
her name is immaterial. Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed.
31 CONCLUSION 32 To conclude, we reverse defendant's perjury conviction on Count Six of the indictment because the allegedly perjurious statements lack materiality. We reverse and remand the defendant's remaining convictions on the ground that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to recuse the participating prosecutor as a material witness and on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct in the government's closing argument.
==============================================================================
5 In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor. I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents
the defendant. That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's
your duty to call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment. R.T. 116. 6 In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the
monies he collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T. 115 (emphasis added)
================================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., argued, Peter K. Nunez, U.S. Atty., Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Eugene G. Iredale, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California. Before FERGUSON and
although derogatory and gratuitous by themselves, served to compound the prejudice to the defendant that flowed from Mr. Gorder's ambiguous role as both prosecutor and participant witness. The prosecutor's closing arguments illustrate the degree of actual prejudice that results when an advocate, through his direct participation in the
events under litigation, can argue to the jury based on actual or perceived personal knowledge.5 The prosecutor launched a personalized attack on the defendant's motives. A recurrent theme of the prosecutor's summation was to portray the defendant as "greedy,"6 "corrupt," "dishonest," and "sleazy." The prosecutor
cautioned the jury that the defendant did not meet the minimum standards of attorney behavior demanded by the "advocacy system of justice." As such, the prosecutor explained to the jury that "Mr. Prantil is the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name to the general public and it's your duty as jurors to call him to
account." The prosecutor charged the jury with the responsibility of ridding the ranks of the criminal defense bar of such a "crook" even though "it's true, thank God it's true, that criminal defense attorneys are not crooks as a general rule." 25 These comments came from an individual who was not only an experienced prosecutor but also, as the jury could not fail to appreciate, both a participant in many of the
underlying events and Mr. Prantil's adversary throughout. As previously mentioned, Mr. Gorder had conducted the grand jury examination of the defendant that resulted in three of the defendant's perjury convictions. In his summation of the evidence on these counts, the prosecutor drew the jury's attention to the complete grand jury
transcripts. Mr. Gorder informed the jury that these transcripts demonstrated that the defendant committed perjury "not just in the specific counts he's charged with, but in a number of other areas also." Once again, this is an assertion of personal knowledge of a testimonial rather than an argumentative character.
================================================================================
(1984). Hence, we must decide whether the defendant's testimony was material. 29 Initially, we decline to accept the government's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the defendant committed perjury by denying knowing who was with Powell in the Omaha area.
No question concerning the identity of the person with Mr. Powell in the Omaha area was asked or answered in the grand jury proceedings. Further, the prosecutor's depiction of Mr. Prantil's actual remarks as an attempt to conceal the activities of his
sister-in-law from the grand jury is somewhat puzzling in light of the fact that Mr. Gorder had, pursuant to Ms. Schmidt's prior agreement to cooperate with the government, full knowledge of her activities in and around the Omaha area. The only grand jury testimony elicited from the defendant focused on who picked up the
defendant at his hotel and who drove him back to the Omaha Airport. The defendant said that a woman, whose name he couldn't recall, did so. In our view, this assertion could not have influenced the grand jury's investigation. The defendant's inaccurate testimony about a nonexistent woman could not have launched any further successful
grand jury investigation. 30 The government's entire perjury theory on this count of the indictment depends in equal measure on the false premise that there was a woman who met him at his hotel and that this woman was the defendant's sister-in-
law, whose identity the defendant wishes to conceal. The defendant, however, could not possibly be testifying falsely so as to shield a nonexistent woman. Similarly, the defendant's inability to recall the name of this nonexistent woman, a testimonial assertion that is hard to peg as a literal falsehood, could not have influenced the
grand jury's deliberations. Simply put, if there was no blonde woman who met the defendant at his hotel and drove him to the airport, the defendant's inability to recall her name is immaterial. Accordingly, because the defendant's testimony was not material, we hold that the defendant's conviction on Count Six is reversed. ================================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals Cases & Opinions
1 http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/764/548/149993/ See United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), rev'd in part, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). Betty Powell was convicted on four counts of a fifteen-count indictment which had alleged that she conspired with her husband and son to distribute cocaine. She was acquitted on all substantive conspiracy counts.
Three of her four convictions, those alleging the use of a telephone to facilitate drug offenses, were subsequently reversed on appeal, United States v. Powell, 708 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.1983), but then reinstated by the Supreme Court, United States v. Powell, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
442 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2864, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979) 5 In winding up his closing argument, Mr. Gorder clarified his role in the case as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen, our system of justice is an advocacy system of justice and there are adversaries. In this particular case the United States is an adversary, Frank Prantil is an adversor.
I represent the United States and Mr. Iredale represents the defendant. That system depends upon a certain minimum standard of behavior, a system where the attorneys are honest with each other and with the court. Frank Prantil is not that kind of
person. He was dishonest from day one until he walked off the stand on October 6th having said that everything was above the board. And it's your duty to call him to account for those actions, and I ask you to return verdicts of guilty on each count of the indictment. R.T. 116. 6 In his closing argument, Mr. Gorder refers to the
defendant's explanation, contained in a tape recording, that the monies he collected represented his attorney's fees in part. In response to the defendant's taped statement that "I have a right to earn my living too," the prosecutor explains to the jury, "He talks about he's just picking up his fees, again establishing his greed." R.T.
================================================================================
The State Bar Of California - ATTORNEY SEARCH
RICHARD G PRANTIL, BROTHER OF FRANK G PRANTIL & UNCLE TO MARY T PRANTIL http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=147764 Richard Gerard Prantil - #147764 Current Status: Active This member is active and may practice law in California. See below for more details. Profile Information Bar Number 147764 Address 1357 7th Ave #B San Diego, CA 92101 Phone Number (619) 231-7001 Fax Number Not Available e-mail .
District District 9 Undergraduate School Univ of San Francisco; San Francisco CA County San Diego Law School Western State Univ; CA Legal Specialist Family Law (State Bar of California) Sections None Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Active 1/22/2002 Active 9/22/2001 Not Eligible To Practice Law 8/14/1990 Admitted to The State Bar of California Explanation of member status Actions
Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status Disciplinary and Related Actions 9/22/2001 Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-13551 Not Eligible To Practice Law Administrative Actions This member has no public record of administrative actions. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request. Explanation of common actions California Bar Journal
Discipline Summaries Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 22, 2001. Prantil substituted in to a divorce case after the dissolution was complete. At the time the judgment was entered, the wife’s claim for interest in the couple’s property was to be released. Almost four years later,
Prantil demanded and received $10,000 from a title company for the release of the claim, without his client’s knowledge. He filed a false and misleading document with the court, committing an act of moral turpitude. In mitigation, he has no prior record
of discipline, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he provided references attesting to his good character.
================================================================================
AVVO - LAWER RATINGS
LISTED RICHARD G. PRANTIL AS ( DO NOT USE)
This lawyer has been cited for professional misconduct by a state disciplinary authority. See sanction details Hide sanction details State Citation type Year cited Last updated by Avvo California Discipline w/actual suspension 2001 11/03/2009 Education School Major Degree Graduated Univ of San Francisco undergraduate Western State Univ law .
===============================================================================
Family Law Courts
We are conducting a survey of legal research (not fees), charges. If you are willing to mail us copies of your legal expenses, (redacting any personal information), please advise; and thank you. And now, on to the attorneys we'd avoid. ===============================================================================
Family Law Court . Com
RICHARD G. PRANTIL Ask him for a copy of his public record of discipline. Prantil substituted in to a divorce case after the dissolution was complete. At the time the judgment was entered, the wife's claim for interest in the couple's property was to be released. Almost four years later, Prantil demanded and received $10,000 from a title company for the release of the claim, without his client's knowledge. He filed a false and misleading document with the court, committing an act of moral turpitude. http://www.familylawcourts.com/countysandiegoattorneys.html
================================================================================
California BAR JOURNAL
RICHARD GERARD PRANTIL [#147764], 43, of San Diego was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual four-month suspension and was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 22, 2001.
Prantil substituted in to a divorce case after the dissolution was complete. At the time the judgment was entered, the wife's claim for interest in the couple's property was to be released.
Almost four years later, Prantil demanded and received $10,000 from a title company for the release of the claim, without his client's knowledge. He filed a false and misleading document with the court, committing an act of moral turpitude. In mitigation, he has no prior record of discipline, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and he provided references attesting to his good character. http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/02jan/attdisc.htm
===============================================================================
Los Angeles Times
'Defense Attorneys Under Siege'
Stinging Debate Triggered By Indictment of Lawyer
April 21, 1985|H.G. REZA, Times Staff Writer
The term "adversaries" has taken on a new and bitter meaning in the traditional battle between federal prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys practicing in the U.S. District Court in San Diego.
In recent weeks, defense attorneys have been fuming over the decision by U.S. Atty. Peter K. Nunez to indict and prosecute local attorney James Warner. Barry Tarlow, Warner's attorney, said Warner was indicted for telling a grand jury witness to plead the Fifth Amendment and to seek legal counsel.
Tarlow said that Warner's advice to the witness was proper and legal. Nunez and federal prosecutors argued that Warner encouraged the witness to lie to impede a government investigation of a drug ring.
Although Warner was acquitted in a trial, his case has opened old wounds in the local defense bar and led to new allegations by lawyers of prosecutorial abuse and vindictive prosecution. The animosity between the
local defense bar and Nunez goes back to April, 1983, when his office conducted a search of the office and home of San Diego attorney Phil DeMassa.
A federal judge later said the search was not unreasonable but he ruled it unconstitutional because the government's search warrants failed to specify what materials should have been seized.
Since the search of DeMassa's office, defense lawyers have also complained of:- Nunez's decision to prosecute local attorney Frank Prantil on perjury charges. Prantil's conviction was reversed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals one day before Warner's acquittal. The appellate court said the prosecutor's behavior at the trial prejudiced Prantil's right to a fair trial.
- The indictments by federal prosecutors last month of 98 people, most of them North County residents, on drug charges. At a press conference announcing the indictments, Nunez said the defendants were part of a massive drug ring responsible for smuggling as much as 25% of all the cocaine used in the United States.
Federal officials later admitted that the amount of cocaine smuggled by the ring was nowhere near the amount originally announced. This prompted allegations by defense lawyers that Nunez sensationalized the case, thereby prejudicing the defendants' chances of getting a fair trial.
================================================================================
Justia US Court Of Appeals -Cases & Opinions
Frank G Prantil's Cocane charge
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Frank G. Prantil, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 764 F.2d 548
Argued and Submitted Oct. 2, 1984.Decided March 29, 1985.Amended June 25, 1985
Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., argued, Peter K. Nunez, U.S. Atty., Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Eugene G. Iredale, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California.
Before FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:
1
The defendant, a criminal defense attorney, appeals his conviction on eight out of eleven counts alleged in an indictment for the offenses of perjury, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623; false statements, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001; and being accessory after the fact, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3. All of the defendant's convictions are predicated on actions he took while representing a criminal defendant, Betty Powell, in a separate criminal prosecution After a seven-day trial the jury found the defendant not guilty on two counts of harboring a fugitive and perjury.
The district court had previously dismissed the misprision of a felony count before the trial began. On appeal, the defendant raises a host of issues which, for the most part, we need not address. Three of the defendant's challenges, however, require reversal of the defendant's convictions for the reasons explained herein.
================================================================================
Find-A-Case Lawdex SDX
MATTER DISBARRMENT FRANK G. PRANTIL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. D-787
110 S. Ct. 493, 493 U.S. 972, 107 L. Ed. 2d 497, 58 U.S.L.W. 3351, 1989.SCT.45677
November 27, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF DISBARRMENT OF FRANK G. PRANTIL
For earlier order herein, see Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
It having been reported to the Court that Frank G. Prantil, of Fair Oaks, California, has been disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of California and this Court by order of May 15, 1989, having suspended the said Frank G. Prantil from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;
And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued;
It is ordered that the said Frank G. Prantil be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.
Disposition
Disbarrment entered.
19891127
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.
================================================================================
V/LEX
Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., argued, Peter K. Nunez, U.S. Atty., Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Eugene G. Iredale, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
AMENDED OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California.
Before FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge.
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:
The defendant, a criminal defense attorney, appeals his conviction on eight out of eleven counts alleged in an indictment for the offenses of perjury, 18 U.S.C. Sec . 1623; false statements, 18 U.S.C. Sec . 1001; and being accessory after the fact, 18 U.S.C. Sec . 3. All of the defendant's convictions are predicated on actions he took while representing a criminal defendant, Betty Powell, in a separate criminal prosecution.
After a seven-day trial the jury found the defendant not guilty on two counts of harboring a fugitive and perjury. The district court had previously dismissed the misprision of a felony count before the trial began. On appeal, the defendant raises a host of issues which, for the most part, we need not address. Three of the defendant's challenges, however, require reversal of the defendant's convictions for the reasons explained herein.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The defendant was retained by Ronald Powell to represent his wife, Betty Lou Powell, and her son in a federal criminal prosecution on various drug-related charges. Mr. Powell had been a previous client of the defendant in unrelated criminal proceedings. After Mrs. Powell and her son were arrested at the Powell residence on April 23, 1982 in connection with the narcotics charges,
Mr. Powell, who was also named in the felony arrest warrant, remained a fugitive until his apprehension on August 10, 1982. On the day of his wife's arrest, Mr. Powell telephoned the defendant, Frank Prantil, and retained his services for the criminal proceedings against his immediate family. Throughout Mr. Powell's fugitive status, the defendant periodically telephoned Mr. Powell and met him on at least two occasions.
================================================================================
EASY TO VIEW CRIMINAL RECORDS ON MARY T. PRANTIL Complaints -
CYBER STALKING & PAY PAL WIRE FRAUD
Review all EASY TO VIEW CRIMINAL RECORDS ON MARY T. PRANTIL complaints
EASY TO VIEW CRIMINAL RECORDS ON MARY T. PRANTIL
Posted: 2010-07-22 by Mary Prantil 2 Arrest Warrants Out 4 U
CYBER STALKING & PAY PAL WIRE FRAUD
This Report Concerns 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 and others under AKA Honest Person AKA Honestperson AKA Park City USA, AKA Uta,
AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania, AKA Washington D.C. AKA Washington, AKA Astoria, New York, AKA Pittsburg, AKA Pennsylvania AKA Park City, AKA Utah AKA Astoria New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA SadisticPsychicJanWindglowsHURTME2 - Houston (USA
AKA Unhappy Client - Xxx (U.S.A AKACONArtist-JimMorganNOTaWizardorMagicalPowers AKA Houston (USA AKA SCAMJanWindglowsSpellCastingSchemeOperation AKA Settle USA AKA Astoria USA AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A.
AKA Cc - Essex United Kingdom AKA Enforcer Of Justice AKA Washington D.C., Washington AKA New York, New York AKA Phoenix Arizona AKA Honestperson Pittsburg U.S.A AKA Enforced Justice
AKA Phoenix USA AKA UK Other AKA PsychicHater (Seattle Washington)United States of America, AKA do not tread on me (Astoria New York AKA OpinionatedAmerican (Tampa Florida)United States of America AKA Psychic Hater
Update On Mary T. Prantil Of Astoria New York
I've waited so long, to both find and post this information on the Forum sites against Miss Prantil. You know, Mary T. Prantil the two bit Internet CRIMINAL Cyber Stalker, LOL. You know, the same IDIOT that just wouldn't go away while the getting was good.
Who moreover felt so compiled in getting up on the internet everyday for four years attempting to scam free services out of unsuspecting online businesses and then viciously attacking and SLANDERING them just because they wouldn't let this parasite get away with conning them.
Of course, she would eventually re-scam and slander the ones she did have a chance to rip off as the years unfolded as in the case of the Mike Cahill and prantil incident, of scandal.
This report is a UPDATE to the first report that focused on revealing Prantil's Criminality, or unlawful activities against 11 to 12 people as the record reflects, and another EIGHT people that the record isn't showing at this time.
I think Prantil was accusing us of stalking at one point along with her other lunatic charges such as us allegedly hacking, tax fraud, credit card fraud etc. Get a load of this charge that was just recently launched against Miss Congeniality by the N.Y Court system just yesterday : 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony.
I'm sure you've all ready read our charges against her by now such as PROLONGED Telephone and email harassment, Habitual lieing, Tax Evasion, Extortion, Blackmail etc. Get a gander of her updated eight different charges on prantil provided below,
YES I said 8 different charges that she's currently being held there in NY on until she can go to back to court to explain all her actions to the JUDGE'S.
Again, yes, I said Judge's as there are five or six of them all together, Why ? because little Mary has been keeping them all very busy while being brought up on several charges of harassing others around her.
Of course, mary leads a very full life without a dull moment and that's why she's been running around on the internet trying to convince everyone else that she wasn't a two bit low life criminal while all this has been going on behind the scenes.
Running around while hiding behind one of her 33 fictitious names professing to speak the truth, telling her story in how she was the VICTIM of all those big nasty online magick casting businesses. Oh help me, help me everyone because I am the victim of being scammed, being hacked, stalked, slandered etc etc etc.
Poor Little Mary. Did mary get a bad rap by the New York Court system to ?. I mean, are they lieing as well ?, perhaps their just picking on little scammer mary as well. Mary likes to hear herself talk when repeatedly saying " I didn't do anything ",
" I didn't rip off anyone ", "I don't have a criminal record, blah, blah, blah. And lets not forget go ramblings about how great, or how prestigious the prantil family is LOL.
What was it prantil says on one of her sites ? wasn't it something like " Birds Only Pick At The Best Fruit " LOL, I think in Mary's case it would be Buzzards and Crows as they like their fruit rotten. Mary does remind me of something rotten, maybe not fruit but rotten just the same. Maybe I'm thinking rotten with a side order of pound scum when I think of mary.
Of course between bashing Jan and myself Prantil goes on to tell everyone that she's living the American dream and how Madonna is her mentor regarding her seven or eight blog pages. Please keep in mind that this is a 46 year old woman who says this along with her wanting to look like Kate moss lol.
One minute she's a hand and hoof model, and in the same breath she's a cooperate executive on wall street. In all reality prantil was nothing but a assistant secretary working for temporary services making a meager wage far from the six figures she had boasted in making earlier on.
If you visit her blog sites, you'll see this in her job description. Basically, she made the coffee, shuffled papers, received calls, greeted people at the front desk and passed messages to folks working in the various offices from time to time. Of course these jobs didn't last as the longest held job may have been a year or a little over before she was fired for misconduct.
All in all, this is a far cry from her being a self-proclaimed Corporate Executive for HBO, CNN and Cinimax she ranted and raved about over the last three years. Really when you look over prantil's life, you can see that she's always lead a menial life with no hopes of ever going anywhere in the cooperate world.
Maybe this is why she felt it so important to fabricate, or lie about everything under the sun to make a impression on others, to come off bigger then life. Of course this fantasy, illusion of distorted reality became a way of life for prantil and moreover came in handy when mary started her little slamming campaign against us on the net. Her finally tuned imaginary skills came handy when it came to lashing out at others who rubbed her the wrong way, like us lol.
It's interesting how Miss Prantil repeatedly states on her blog pages how Jan and myself are guilty of this and that but never seems to come up with any proof to back up any of her pathetic statements or charges against us, especially when given four years to produce anything to back up the smallest statement made.
Miss Prantil was taken into custody before she could remove these blog pages just for the record, I also think it's important to explain that prantil never dreamed that her criminal records would be made public record by the courts and thus directly disproving her claims of not having a criminal record of any kind.
When she saw these criminal records posted for the first time I bet the blood just drained down to her feet while she was knocked back with surreal disbelief lol. To be on the net bashing several people and then to see your own criminal activities revealed must be a sobering feeling indeed.
Mary also likes to talk about karma and how it's real, well, KARMA is real as she is now finding out. I hope that she thinks of us while sitting in her small little nut cell and how we assisted the DA in putting her there.
I certainly hope she thinks of all the people she's ripped off and harassed over the years, she will have plenty of time to think about a lot of things in my opinion, especially about the curse we placed on her and how it will never go away, it will never be broken,
it will never fade, it will be there looming over her forever. Please read her criminal reports and then go check out these links going to prantil's FANTASY pages. The links are as follows:
Prantil is very direct when repeatedly stating that she has Never been arrested, Never been in jail, Never was committed into a psychiatric ward, Never used or sold drugs, Never ripped off online or land biased businesses, Never used any online spell casting services, Never went bankrupt, Always paid her taxes and on and on. Ok, well, Miss Prantil is nothing but a lieing CRIMINAL and I'm about to prove it over and over again.
In the previous report you can see where she owes the U.S Government $ 4000.00 in federal tax & $130.00 state or county tax, not only this but this report shows the Tax Warrants out on her. Prantil does in FACT have a civil and criminal record going back 20 years, back to her childhood in California while growing up under her unethical attorney father that was Disbarred twice
for drug abuse, stealing $700, 000 and lieing over and over to the court when asked about his shady activities with one or two of his Clients that he became personally involved with. The man seems to have been the lowest low life of the legal community when you read what others in the legal community have to say about him, it's all very involved and likened to a scandalous novel when reading over or through it.
As the records show below, Prantil has been arrested several times, then incarcerated as a result for a array of charges ranging from harassment, resisting arrest on to criminal contempt etc. Mary Prantil has been committed to the state hospital in the past however she vigorously denied this,
and then again here recently as you can see when you look her up on the link provided below concerning the RIKERS ISLAND JAIL facility called Rose M. Singer Center. Miss Scammer Prantil will be a guest here in this jail for the next two weeks because their afraid that she will flee justice, as she's done so many times before.
Prantil has also been Court Ordered to submit to a in-depth psychological exam to determine her sanity and moreover her distinction between right from wrong. Mary's not crazy more so then just a out of control petty criminal who's been caught, as they will all find out at the end of the study.
This Simpleton was just picked up on one out of two state Warrants and thus was taken directly to the NUT HOUSE to await the remaining hearings and sentencing that they will ultimately produce against her. seven to eight charges against this five foot and three inch 46 year old woman who starves herself down to a very thin 95 lbs is in a lot of trouble at this point.
You would think that by the time you get to this point in your life it would be apparent that it's not prudent to act like a thirteen year old juvenile delinquent.
The police and Courts have just had enough from what I understand and their tired of her games and thus they locked her up tight to be sure she wouldn't RUN, RUN, RUN away from them again, well mary should be happy now as she's finally around people of her own station, birds of a feather flock together in jail.
Further down in this report it states that bail wasn't an option and that the court ordered her right into the hospital for a undetermined time for the mental evaluation. Again, Mary T. Prantil isn't Crazy even though it would seem so however, she is a two bit manipulating criminal piece of New York TRASH who really knows how to play the system. I wonder how long she can keep up her act for the doctors and courts.
A trick she learned off her UNETHICAL ATTORNEY FATHER I'm sure. Especially, when it came to getting out of drug charges and expunging criminal records in the state of California. Mary says that she doesn't abuse drugs but that not what she told others and ourselves.
I mean, doesn't everyone sit up all night long calling, emailing, maliciously harassing and stalking 16 to 20 people a night four over a four year period and for no apparent reason ? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?, WOW the energy that must take on a nightly basis. I have trouble sending out five emails a day for this or that lol.
Mary says that she doesn't drink but again, we beg to differ with her lol. Mary says that she never had a spell cast with any service be they online or land based. Again, there are five or six on-line magic sites who beg to differ with this claim coming from prantil as we all have records to show service rendered to her.
Prantil states that she never ripped anyone off, yet there are two or three sites who can show that prantil obtained services and then charged back, or wrote them rubber checks for their trouble. We have several on-line businesses who have been harassed by prantil who moreover kept records and recordings of her twenty to thirty calls a night.
Well, Mary can get her head checked out while she waits for judgment day, , maybe she can manipulate her way out of the charges coming down on her. Maybe she can tell the Judge how the whole world is against her and moreover how her voices from God told her to rip off, scam and slander whomever she thought was evil.
Perhaps her voices weren't from God after all and just herself talking to herself. You know, this happens a lot when people start coming apart at the seems, especially when nearing the end of their cycle of terror against others.
We've read when little Mary started using words like scam, liar and slander while accusing others of these despicable acts yet, she was the perpetrator of all of these low caliber deceptions. Again, we hear little miss innocent proclaiming to the world: "Don't believe Rip Off Reports",
" Ed Magedson is a criminal" yet it was Mary Prantil up on the site of Rip Off Reports under twenty or thirty different user names posting liable speech against the innocent in order to destroy their businesses, Not Ed Magedson.
I don't care for ROR but let's give credit where credit is due. ROR may be guilty of being a opportunist site along with many other forum sites however, I've never seen any of these sites openly carry out against others what prantil has consistently carried out against the innocent.
We hear Prantil stating that no one should believe Jan or my reports on the Internet yet, we have produced endless documentation, or piles of verifiable proof against Prantil regarding police records, police eyewitness accounts, accounts from four other magick site owners in what had transpired when prantil came calling on them for the services they
offered and then rendered.
We have produced verifiable records, old and current civil and criminal court records along with audio sound files catching prantil admitting that her spell work did in fact work until she messed it all up through her malicious, disruptive, hostile and over all out of control behavior due to the drug and alcohol abuse.
Miss Prantil likes to use the word HOAX a lot however, the only hoax here was perpetrated on her end. Again, we hear the words scammer, scam, rip off artist yet, when you look back at all the evidence against this fool you can't help knowing who the real scammer, fake or con artist is, wouldn't you agree ?
I know you do especially when looking over the records below. Lastly, when reading over her seven or eight blog pages that she currently has up on us, you will notice her one resounding message being (" DO NOT USE " DO NOT USE " ).
Yes, this statement has been posted over and over again all over the Internet, posted under her thirty or more User names on about every scam site over the net. Further under about every disingenuous story that you can think of as she's attempted to pass herself off as different people in a effort to both draw sympathy and fool the public.
You know, as stupid as it is prantil's reasons were for trying to destroy our business you'd think that she would have just faded away after a while, but as you can see she was still with us four years latter.
Basically her reasons for four years of lieing and harassment was because we wouldn't take any shit from her, nor would we permit her in scamming us out of services. We wouldn't permit her in bossing us around or posting blatant lies about us on the Internet without confronting her with factual proof disputing all her lies for all to see.
That's it, that's all it took for this scammer to repeatedly attack us for close to four years. The thing that really angers her is in that we EXPOSE her every time we get a chance, or when we see her attempting to scam private persons or businesses.
Miss Prantil said it best when she said " Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves " SHE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HER OWN ADVICE as she gave everyone the rope to hang her high through her own evil actions against others. Internet Terrorist Mary T. Prantil will now face real justice in the courts of New York while being made to face up to everything she's ever carried out against anyone,
this criminal can get three to five years from what I understand when reading over what she's been technically charged with concerning the N.Y state codes, let's hope so any way.
I hope my faith in the Justice system can be restored once again. As I've said before, we as a Nation should be protected by our laws and thus people like prantil should be locked away under a deep, cold and dark jail in Siberia somewhere far away from the rest of us.
I feel Mary T. Prantil was someone in search of the American dream but never seem to attain it on any level, and it was then that she decided to take a lesser version of it by force by resorting to the loathsome actions as stealing, conning,
lieing and attempting to steal or destroy this same dream that others are so earnestly trying to attain in these despairing times. Again, Marys distorted view of the world and they way things should be carried out in life.
It all came down to jealousy, greed and reinventing herself into something that prantil never had any real hope of becoming in reality. She fancies herself as a Comedian but how can you bring laughter to the world when your bringing so much sadness in its place through your own selfish actions ? you can't.
How can the hopeless one bring love, laughter and hope to the world ?, They can't because love, hope and laughter is nonexistent within them and can't give what you have not to give.
Prantil is a person whom feels that the American dream let her down, or left her behind and thus she decided that she should go for broke and attain this dream in any way possible even if it came at the great expense of others, even if it met breaking societal and spiritual rules across the board.
In short, site policies, state laws, ethics, good morals or positive standers mean ABSOLUTY nothing to this Individual. Religion, faith and other principal's are merely things she stands behind when it's convenient for her to do so, or can be used to achieve her goals.
Mary Prantil is someone who believes the world owes her a living in the process of achieving what she considered to be the American dream. As I've stated in other post, Miss Prantil sure has a funny way of achieving her dreams and further has very little to total disregard for the rights of others in the process.
Many people all over the country have suffered emencly as a direct result of prantil's speech and actions over the last four years and back, Why ? because this person was left unchecked by the legal system for so long not to mentioned her despicable behavior being enabled by her family and others just because they were afraid to step in and do what needed to be done in committing her early on.
Well, it looks like it all coming full circle for prantil now, and the crow has finally come home to roost for lack of better words, I believe that our work has been completed in exposing this sick but criminal personality and there's really nothing more to say other then let this be a lesson to any scammers out there who, like mary,
believe that they are above the laws of the land and like to hide behind little fake names on the Internet while attacking the innocent, or ripping off the innocent. Scammers run both ways on the Internet, or can be found in the Client just as well as in a bad company is the lesson for today.
I will say this to folks out there who like to pick on businesses: Without us you would still be growing your own shit to eat and making your own clothing to wear, AREN'T YOU HAPPY you have someone to do this for you ? Most Companies and or small businesses AREN'T CRIMINALS so DON'T TREAT US as such. Have some dam respect, Remember that word ? we have respect for you so be kind to us next time you see a Vender on the street or visit a web site.
I would like to say to everyone else that has had a personal conflict with Mary to rest easy now, I don't believe this moron will ever be back to hassle any of us ever again, time to release it and get back to our lives, time to enjoy the peace and quiet we once had before this menace of society came knocking at our doors with all her deceptions,
trickery and games of scorn. Enjoy the postings exposing this Internet criminal for what she has always been, a ignorant fool. Even though Mary had spells cast for her situation many times over she never believed in them even when they worked in her life.
Ok, back to Miss Prantil, I wonder if she believes in the Curse we cast against her now because she didn't seem to before lol. The spell we cast against prantil in order to stop her madness against the innocent. What was that you said Mary ?,
wasn't it something like God shall TRAMPLE the Dragon ? Well mary, someone did get trampled here but it wasn't my beautiful Jan or Dragon self, I think it's safe to say that you were trampled under Divinities foot as evil can't exist in the presence of divine righteousness.
Let's hope that the state of New York continues to carry out its duty in the instance of Mary T. Prantil. Perhaps when it's all done, and when the judgments have been all passed, we as a society can been secure in that our system continues to work. Again, perhaps Mary T. Prantil will be lawfully RESTRAINED and kept away from law abiding citizens until which time she can function normally in society, if ever.
If you would like to verify this on going criminal record on Miss Mary T. Prantil then please go to the address link below, be sure to click for updates as this case is still unfolding. If your not into looking up records we understand and thus the easy to access and read Queen Lilith Site is there for you at www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net.
The Lilith site was constructed out of necessity due to the prolonged cyber attacks we've endured as a direct result of mary prantil attempting to destroy our business over the last four years. On this particular site you can view her entire criminal history along with several sound files catching her in the act of habitually lying, threatening, blackmailing, extortion etc.
You will also read through the transcripts and eyewitness accounts along with transcripts of what actually transpired between her and the sites that were foolish enough to take on her cases.
The entire purposes of this site isn't to defame, embarrass or humiliate prantil however, it is about presenting the facts in a fair and truthful way while defending ourselves against the onslaught of her endless accusations. This is a defense site that were in essence excursing our right to free speech found under the first amendment of the United States Constitution.
Instructions Of How To Look Up Mary Prantil's Incarceration Information By Following These Instructions. Go to the following link which is the NYC jail inmate lookup:http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/
After the page has been pulled up, you will see the place where to enter Mary Prantil's Booking and Case Number, which is 3471001054- simply enter that number in the white box, as shown below.
As you will see, the NYC Department Of Corrections has all her criminal information and charges posted. As we have said numerous times in the past, we have proof of what we have been warning the public about this criminal Mary Prantil all along,
so see for yourself- go to the link, enter her book and case number, the information is current and is all there for anyone because it is PUBLIC RECORD. The facts, simply put.
MARY PRANTIL
NYSID: 03088617J
Age: 46
Sex: Female
Race: White
Height: 5 ft 3 inches
Weight: 95 lbs
Hair Color: Blonde
Eye Color: Green
Nativity: New York
Booking Information Incarceration: 2010-06-14
Book & Case Number: 3471001054
Facility: Rose M. Singer Center
Arrest Date: 2010-06-14
Arrest Number: COURT DIRECT
Next Court Date: 2010-06-30
Projected Release Date:
Actual Release Date:
Discharge Reason:
Bail & Bond: Remanded
Charge Information
Docket: 2010NY022485
Indictment: 00000 0000
Charges: 120.50 FE (STALKING 3RD DEGREE E Felony)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
Docket: 2009NY002655
Indictment: 00000 0000
Charges: 240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
205.30 MA (RESISTING ARREST A Misdemeanor)
Docket: 2009NY046033
Indictment: 00000 0000
Charges:
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
240.30 MA (AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT A Misdemeanor)
215.50 MA (CRIMINAL CONTEMP- 2ND A Misdemeanor)
Ten Jails on Rikers Island
List Part 2
Rose M. Singer Center
Address:
19-19 Hazen St.,
East Elmhurst, N.Y.
11370
Section 240.26 Harassment in the second degree
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
Sub-divisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.
Section 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or
3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or
4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.
Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Criminal Records For Mary T. Prantil In Queens Astoria & Manhattan New York
Defendant Characteristics
Sex: Female
Race: White
Height: 5 Feet 3 Inches
Weight: 100 pounds
Eye Color: Green
Hair Color: Blond
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
Index
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
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
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
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
Case Information Court New York Criminal Court
Case # 2009NY002655
Defendant Prantil, Mary T
Index
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
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
DescriptionAgg Har-2nd:telephone
L 215.50 03 Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionCrim Contempt-2nd:disobey Crt
L 240.30 1A
**TOP CHARGE** Misdemeanor, 1 count, Not an arrest charge, Arraignment charge
DescriptionAggravated Harassment-2nd Deg
Court: Queens Civil Supreme
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 nknown, ENDING o Type est,
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued 3/09/2010
B hiten, M ENDING o Type ohnson, S
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
RoR Continued 3/03/2010
B ENDING o Type nk,
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Released on Recognizance 2/17/2010
B ENDING o Type viedo, Y
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 2/10/2009
B cgrath, K ENDING o Type arna, C
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 0/28/2009
B urke, J ENDING o Type orrison,
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 8/10/2009
B urke, J ENDING o Type arna,
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 7/28/2009
B hiten, M ENDING o Type urrofato,
ourt Adjourned - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bail Continued 6/15/2009
C andelbaum, R ENDING o Type ames, C
ase Continued (adjourned) - Temporary Order Of Protection Issued
Bond $500 Cash $500 (Cash) 6/10/2009
APAR2 hiten, M ENDING re-Arraignment Deposition Given ilion,
ase 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:
Edit Draft LOOK TAX EVATION PRANTIL
...
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.
Back Button
Warrant ID# : E-029211902-W001-3
Name of Taxpayer as appears on warrant
Address of Taxpayer as appears on warrant
MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST C2
ASTORIA, NY 11106
Date Warrant docketed by county clerk County where Warrant is docketed Tax Liability amount as appears on Warrant Date notice of tax warrant, amendment, vacation or satisfaction was filed by the Department of Taxation and Finance with the Department of State.
Date Warrant satisfaction docketed by county clerk Date Warrant Vacate Notice docketed by county clerk Date Warrant amendment docketed by county clerk
June 10, 2008 QUEENS $106.21 June 20, 2008
Warrant ID# : E-029159448-W001-7
Name of Taxpayer as appears on warrant
Address of Taxpayer as appears on warrant
MARY PRANTIL 32-85 33 ST C2
ASTORIA, NY 11106
Date Warrant docketed by county clerk County where Warrant is docketed Tax Liability amount as appears on Warrant Date notice of tax warrant, amendment, vacation or satisfaction was filed by the Department of Taxation and Finance with the Department of State. Date Warrant satisfaction docketed by county clerk Date Warrant Vacate Notice docketed by county clerk Date Warrant amendment docketed by county clerk
February 14, 2008 QUEENS $4, 072.14 February 14, 2008
* Filed with Department of State on or prior to implementation of electronic filing system, January 8, 2004. Dates for filings made prior to January 8, 2004 must be derived from paper filings and should be obtained from the Department of Taxation and Finance.
Taxpayer Name(s) Selected: City specified in warrant address record of Taxpayer Searched: County in which warrant is filed of Taxpayer Searched: MARY PRANTIL 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
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
Civil Supreme - 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 & Criminal 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
|