How hard is it to prove forgery? Anyway?

[BadCat]

I was researching on the court site that the folks here like so much.

I looked up the original 140 charges against mattingly.

A big chunk of these charges were forgery. It looked like he was charged with forgery for every land transaction he did in the last 3 years.

So here is my point: FORGERY IS A VERY EASY CRIME TO PROVE.

I don't think anyone will argue with that point, but then again I know the folks on this forum and they probably will argue, so here is my logic.

For simplicities sake, here is my definition of forgery:
Forgery means 'the bad guy' fake signed the signature of 'the good guy'.

So if I were gonna accuse someone of forgery I would need the following:

1) A victim who said, I did not sign that document.
2) The document
3) Some sort of evidence that proves the signature on the document is not the signature of 'the good guy'.

One would think someone guilty of forgery would have a pretty hard time getting away with it once they were caught, since there is a paper trail and all.

So lets just focus on the first case with the 140 charges the current states attorney brought against his political opponent. This is case #: 18K10000011

I see approximately 16 counts of forgery on the case information page. That is not even counting the charges for 'filing a false document' or perjury which are basically the same thing.

As I stated above, forgery is a VERY SIMPLE CRIME TO PROVE. You either did it or you didn't and there is a paper trail to prove it.

Unlink OJ there was no leather glove that didn't fit mattingly's hand.

This was not a case of 'Mattingly's lawyer / legal skills being better than Dan White's'.

This is a case of NOT having evidence to back up your charges. Why was there NO EVIDENCE? Because the charges were politically motivated and fake to begin with.

There was
1) No victim of forgery e.g. no one called the police and said -- that guy fake signed my name on a deed.
2) There was no evidence of forged signatures e.g. The signature on the paper, matched the signature of the 'good guy'.
3) The police officer didn't even ask mattingly if he forged the document. He just assumed it.

Quite simply, the signatures WERE NOT FORGED.

The only thing that was forged were the charges against mattingly.

WHY? -- To win an election.

We don't need a State's Attorney who makes up fake charges to win an election.

St. Mary's Deserves Better.

VOTE FOR JOHN MATTINGLY

[ftcret]

In law, the making of a false writing with the intent to defraud. "Writing" need not be handwriting: the law of forgery also covers printing, engraving, and keyboarding. Counterfeiting is usually regarded as a specific type of forgery. Checks, negotiable instruments, contracts, wills, and deeds are examples of documents that may be forged. Evidence may also be forged. Forgery requires fraudulent intent; it is not forgery to sign another's name, fill in blanks, or alter a genuine writing in the honest, though mistaken, belief that such conduct is authorized.


Now for the love of God,

[BadCat]

Originally Posted by ftcret

In law, the making of a false writing with the intent to defraud. "Writing" need not be handwriting: the law of forgery also covers printing, engraving, and keyboarding. Counterfeiting is usually regarded as a specific type of forgery. Checks, negotiable instruments, contracts, wills, and deeds are examples of documents that may be forged. Evidence may also be forged. Forgery requires fraudulent intent; it is not forgery to sign another's name, fill in blanks, or alter a genuine writing in the honest, though mistaken, belief that such conduct is authorized.


Now for the love of God,

ok that is fine. i was using a simple definition that was relevant to this case.

Follow my logic (i'll type slow):

1) the allegations were that signatures on deeds were forged.
2) there was no evidence to support these allegations
3) case closed.

Why would a reasonable, honest prosecutor brings charges against a man when there was no evidence to support those charges?

There are only 2 possible explanations here:

1) The charges against mattingly were fake to begin with.
2) The prosecutors were so incompetent they could not gather enough evidence to prove a simple crime like forgery.

If a crime of forgery occurred, there would be physical evidence of said crime. It would be very easy to prove the crime.

Forgery is an easy crime to prove as I stated in my original post.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by BadCat

I was researching on the court site that the folks here like so much.

I looked up the original 140 charges against mattingly.

St. Mary's Deserves Better.

[www.rickfritz.com]VOTE

You are right about one thing, St. Mary's does deserve better. Rick Fritz, in an effort to show that this was not politically motivated allowed an independent prosecutor to handle the case. This prosecutor, for whatever reason, laziness, incompetence, or corruption, dropped these charges rather than allowing a jury to decide.

Now, you have a highly respected judge who looks at the plea agreement, 30 days in jail with work release that this Prince Georges County Prosecutor attempted to get through. Judge Wallace sees this as a farce and explains to the public that not only is Brown a cheat and is going to jail for 48 more months than the prosecutor wanted him to, but also said that his partner, JOHN MATTINGLY was a cheat.

I think if you are really asking questions, ask why this prosecutor would drop those charges. Who got to her? Why did she try to give such a sweetheart deal when she had the guy cold?

[BadCat]

Originally Posted by tom88

You are right about one thing, St. Mary's does deserve better. Rick Fritz, in an effort to show that this was not politically motivated allowed an independent prosecutor to handle the case. This prosecutor, for whatever reason, laziness, incompetence, or corruption, dropped these charges rather than allowing a jury to decide.

Now, you have a highly respected judge who looks at the plea agreement, 30 days in jail with work release that this Prince Georges County Prosecutor attempted to get through. Judge Wallace sees this as a farce and explains to the public that not only is Brown a cheat and is going to jail for 48 more months than the prosecutor wanted him to, but also said that his partner, JOHN MATTINGLY was a cheat.

I think if you are really asking questions, ask why this prosecutor would drop those charges. Who got to her? Why did she try to give such a sweetheart deal when she had the guy cold?

"I think her reasoning was 'Justice Demands it'."

The prosecutor you are referring to is one of the top prosecutors in the state of maryland. I read online she is the #1 white collar crime prosecutor in the state. I don't have her record in front of me but I can guarantee you she wins more jury trials than our State's Attorney's office does (We are currently 16% success rate on jury trials).

Putting the blame on her shows the total lack of responsibility the current office has for their own actions. A trend we see over and over.

Take some personal responsibility for your actions and stop lying all the time. The voters can see through the current administration's lies.

Isabelle Cummings did not have enough evidence to get a conviction. She dropped the charges because there was no proof of a crime. Certainly not 140 crimes.

To insinuate that 'someone' 'got to her' is a joke. Mattingly the super villain's reach can extend across 3 counties and influence one of the most respected and accomplished prosecutors in the state? Are you serious?


Learn the truth about Richard Fritz's Smear Campaign Against John Mattingly

[JOKER]

States Attorney Richard Fritz
Has received Election Endorsements
and support from

St Mary's Co. Sheriff Tim Cameron

The ENTERPRISE newspaper

the Fraternal Order of Police

AMERICAN LEGION POST 238

The COUNTY TIMES

Past St Marys County Sheriffs
Endorsing Richard Fritz for States Attorney

Ben Burroughs

Wayne Pettit

Richard Voorhar

Candidate John Mattingly has received endorsements from only
Ken Rossignol, former owner/editor of the St Marys Today Tabloid
And maybe that backhanded endorsement he got from Judge Wallace

"The two of you together (Mattingly & Brown) did operate your business corruptly,"
Judge Wallace said, "in an effort to cheat other people."

[tom88]

Originally Posted by BadCat

"I think her reasoning was 'Justice Demands it'."

[/SIZE]

Ok, can you explain why Judge Wallace said that Mattingly was a cheat? Can you explain why Judge Wallace rejected her minimal sentence, (something which his almost never done) and sentenced him to an additional two years?

[CleanTheSlateInSMC]

[QUOTE=BadCat;4425944(We are currently 16% success rate on jury trials).[/QUOTE]

Can you provide an online source for this statistic other than John Mattingly's campaign website?

[BadCat]

Originally Posted by tom88

Ok, can you explain why Judge Wallace said that Mattingly was a cheat? Can you explain why Judge Wallace rejected her minimal sentence, (something which his almost never done) and sentenced him to an additional two years?

Can you explain why the sentencing which was originally scheduled AFTER the trial was moved up to BEFORE the trial?

Can you explain why Terry Clark has not yet been sentenced?

Can you explain why a guy got 2.5 years for 3 misdemeanors which essentially amounted to a clerical error, while murders and drug dealers get off?

I honestly believe Judges are the most honorable and intelligent servants in our government and should be afforded the utmost respect at all times. I think Judges call it like they see it. I think Judges are forced by their position to make judgments and formulate opinions quickly based on the information that is presented to them. I do not think all judge's opinions are correct all of the time. I don't know what went on inside this Judge's mind when he made this decision and said what he said. I will NOT say that 'someone got to him' or he 'took a dive' or slander him the same way the Fritz people did to Ms Cummings. That was the judges opinion and I think he came to that conclusion by believing false information provided by the St Mary's county State's Attorney's Office.

Here's an opinion of another judge:

2003 - Chief Judge Wilkinson finds that Fritz's actions violated constitutional protections. The opinion stated that Fritz had actually engaged in criminal conduct and compared his political tactics to the terror tactics of the KKK. Fritz cost the taxpayers $500,000 in settlement and untold costs in attorneys.

Can you explain why Judge Wilkinson would say those things about our Fritz? Did someone get to him?

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tom88

Ok, can you explain why Judge Wallace said that Mattingly was a cheat? Can you explain why Judge Wallace rejected her minimal sentence, (something which his almost never done) and sentenced him to an additional two years?

Still waiting for an answer to those questions and not another diversion in to ancient judicial history.