Feral

Rogue male
G'day Sparrow, we'd love to know how you are, what you're doing and if you need anything mate.

You've been quiiiet.
 

Div6

Crusader
Looks like the criminal trial has been rescheduled for

Event Scheduled
Event: Non-Jury Trial
Date: 04/28/2011 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: NASH, STUART G Location: Courtroom 117


Interestingly, another charge has been added late in the game:

Charge Updated
Charge #2: Wearing Hood or Mask
Phase: Prosecutor
Status: New Charge
Enhancement(s):
Attempt/Other:
Deg of Offense:
Weapon/Drug:


You can search\follow status here: https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf
 

pittny12

Patron with Honors
Looks like the criminal trial has been rescheduled for

Event Scheduled
Event: Non-Jury Trial
Date: 04/28/2011 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: NASH, STUART G Location: Courtroom 117


Interestingly, another charge has been added late in the game:

Charge Updated
Charge #2: Wearing Hood or Mask
Phase: Prosecutor
Status: New Charge
Enhancement(s):
Attempt/Other:
Deg of Offense:
Weapon/Drug:


You can search\follow status here: https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

So since the hearing was resceduled for 4/28 then his trial orginally set for today has been cancelled?

Wishing you the best Sparrow and hoping for the BIGGEST WIN for YOU whatever day they finally have the hearing!
 

Friend

Patron
Moxon really needs to lose this one. Then he needs to find out what really happened to his daughter.

I feel such a crap, it was today Brian had is court day. I wanted to be there and I missed it. I wanted to meet him.
I am so angry with myself.
I got distracted for loosing income I could have had. I didn't want to be on internet for couple of days. I dealt with an SP.

I used to know Moxon and I have even met their daughter that died mysteriously. How is her brother coping with it? Is he forgotten among the people? I know they have/had two children.
How is Carla doing; she used to be nice when I knew her. Is she the same or has she became a bitch to the degree Moxon becomes evil? I am just wondering! Does David Miscavige beat him up if he doesn't win the court cases? I am just wondering since so many other important ex staff got beaten. If he looses cases will he be slammed on the e-meter for overts and withholds? Does he get Org staff pay or does he get paid like every other lawyer? He must be an org. staff member with sign billion years contract; he should not be an acception. Does Moxon have to give all his money the the Church of $cientology and sucked cleaned, so he and his family can go up the bridge? He should; because since I was demanded to do so and to disconnect from another person who was a hindrance according to ethics office.
The Church of $cientology wanted all my money.
Does Moxon have special treatments?
I hope he loses the D.C. case!
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
So since the hearing was resceduled for 4/28 then his trial orginally set for today has been cancelled?

Wishing you the best Sparrow and hoping for the BIGGEST WIN for YOU whatever day they finally have the hearing!

Sparrow's trial has been rescheduled.

Event: Non-Jury Trial
Date: 04/28/2011 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: NASH, STUART G Location: Courtroom 117

Result: Government Discovery Incomplete/Brady Issues BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant); Mr THOMAS A KEY (Attorney) on behalf of BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant (Criminal).

The trial was rescheduled due to a question of prosecutor misconduct. "Brady issues" refers to judicial enforcement of the government's constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland to timely disclose favorable, material information to the defense.

The D.C. Court of Appeals has made it clear that trial courts must exercise more oversight over the government's Brady disclosures and have great power & authority to insure that the government is fulfilling its disclosure obligations under Brady before the trial begins.

In summary, the prosecutor in Sparrow's case deliberately withheld evidence that was favorable in Sparrow's defense and now the judge in the case has to consider how to respond to this before it goes to trial.

The judge has the power to throw the case out if the prosecutor fails to disclose evidence.
 

Div6

Crusader
Sparrow's trial has been rescheduled.

Event: Non-Jury Trial
Date: 04/28/2011 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: NASH, STUART G Location: Courtroom 117

Result: Government Discovery Incomplete/Brady Issues BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant); Mr THOMAS A KEY (Attorney) on behalf of BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant (Criminal).

The trial was rescheduled due to a question of prosecutor misconduct. "Brady issues" refers to judicial enforcement of the government's constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland to timely disclose favorable, material information to the defense.

The D.C. Court of Appeals has made it clear that trial courts must exercise more oversight over the government's Brady disclosures and have great power & authority to insure that the government is fulfilling its disclosure obligations under Brady before the trial begins.

In summary, the prosecutor in Sparrow's case deliberately withheld evidence that was favorable in Sparrow's defense and now the judge in the case has to consider how to respond to this before it goes to trial.

The judge has the power to throw the case out if the prosecutor fails to disclose evidence.

Dox would be delicious....:D
 

pittny12

Patron with Honors
Sparrow's trial has been rescheduled.

Event: Non-Jury Trial
Date: 04/28/2011 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: NASH, STUART G Location: Courtroom 117

Result: Government Discovery Incomplete/Brady Issues BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant); Mr THOMAS A KEY (Attorney) on behalf of BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant (Criminal).

The trial was rescheduled due to a question of prosecutor misconduct. "Brady issues" refers to judicial enforcement of the government's constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland to timely disclose favorable, material information to the defense.

The D.C. Court of Appeals has made it clear that trial courts must exercise more oversight over the government's Brady disclosures and have great power & authority to insure that the government is fulfilling its disclosure obligations under Brady before the trial begins.

In summary, the prosecutor in Sparrow's case deliberately withheld evidence that was favorable in Sparrow's defense and now the judge in the case has to consider how to respond to this before it goes to trial.

The judge has the power to throw the case out if the prosecutor fails to disclose evidence.

Wow! Thanks for the clarification Smurf! Really appreciate the information. So should we look at this as a little bit of good news or a little bit of both good and bad? When you say prosecutor are you speaking of disclose all of the information regarding Sparrow whether its positive or negative towards Sparrow? Are they in bed with the cult? Why the last minute petition for the new trumped up charges regarding wearing a mask so late in the game? Sorry for the zillion questions, but this is disturbingly odd.
 

FoTi

Crusader
Looks like the criminal trial has been rescheduled for

Event Scheduled
Event: Non-Jury Trial
Date: 04/28/2011 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: NASH, STUART G Location: Courtroom 117


Interestingly, another charge has been added late in the game:

Charge Updated
Charge #2: Wearing Hood or Mask
Phase: Prosecutor
Status: New Charge
Enhancement(s):
Attempt/Other:
Deg of Offense:
Weapon/Drug:


You can search\follow status here: https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

Wearing a hood or mask is a crime?
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Wearing a hood or mask is a crime?

Yes, it is a violation of the DC Criminal Code... but only if wearing the mask was meant to intimidate, threaten or harass another person. Hopefully, the jury will see through the bullshit and understand the true purpose for wearing masks at protests.

§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.

(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:

(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;

(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or

(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.


(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section apply only if the person was wearing the hood, mask, or other device:

(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the law or of equal privileges and immunities under the law, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of the United States or the District of Columbia from giving or securing for all persons within the District of Columbia equal protection of the law;

(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of his or her exercise of any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws, or to intimidate any person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws;

(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person;

(4) With the intent to cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety, or, where it is probable that reasonable persons will be put in fear for their personal safety by the defendant's actions, with reckless disregard for that probability; or

(5) While engaged in conduct prohibited by civil or criminal law, with the intent of avoiding identification.

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html#dc

From tikk (an attorney who posts on WWP):

He might not even have to go that far. From what I've seen Brian usually didn't wear a mask, which means that his identity was known to Belotte. Thus, besides the obvious affirmative reasons for wearing the mask, the acknowledged fact that he usually did not wear one undercuts the argument that he intended to intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass.

It's somewhat of a disgrace that the complaint was amended just prior to trial. Even if the Brady violation (a further disgrace to this DA) didn't come up the trial would've had to bumped anyway so that Sparrow could defend the new charge.
 

The Great Zorg

Gold Meritorious Patron
If anyone would like to experience the most lies told per minute then I suggest that they visit any court room for a few hours.

I don't know how any judge or commissioner could keep their sanity over any length of time in sorting out all of the crap from the truth.

My stepson is a cop. He became one about 6 years ago and he told me that the first thing he realized as a police officer is that EVERYONE lies. No exceptions. He told me all kinds of stories of how who lies about what, and it was across the board. Prolly because no one in their right mind would say; "Yeah, I was speeding, give me a fine. I want to pay our criminal Provincial government even more of my hard earned money!". :confused2:

The Western system of policing and fines naturally arranges for people to try, at least a little, to lie and avoid fines and/or jail or both. It's just part of the sick human condition at the moment. A traffic ticket is sometimes entirely based on the mood of the "Enforcer" and of the "Law Breaking Citizen". It can also be based on how you look and if any flirting or even bribery occurs. How many beautiful women bat their eyelashes out of a ticket and how many unnactractive women get the book thrown at them? The pretty woman could be as vicious as Satan himself and the unattractive one almost godlike, but in the end, what happens? :confused2:

What a planet! Only Earth could have given birth to scientology! :grouch:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Sparrow's trial has been rescheduled.

Event: Non-Jury Trial
Date: 04/28/2011 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: NASH, STUART G Location: Courtroom 117

Result: Government Discovery Incomplete/Brady Issues BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant); Mr THOMAS A KEY (Attorney) on behalf of BRIAN CARL MANDIGO (Defendant (Criminal).

The trial was rescheduled due to a question of prosecutor misconduct. "Brady issues" refers to judicial enforcement of the government's constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland to timely disclose favorable, material information to the defense.

The D.C. Court of Appeals has made it clear that trial courts must exercise more oversight over the government's Brady disclosures and have great power & authority to insure that the government is fulfilling its disclosure obligations under Brady before the trial begins.

In summary, the prosecutor in Sparrow's case deliberately withheld evidence that was favorable in Sparrow's defense and now the judge in the case has to consider how to respond to this before it goes to trial.

The judge has the power to throw the case out if the prosecutor fails to disclose evidence.

Best news I've had all week. Cheers Smurfy.
 
Top