So true. And many lawyers are adept at selecting jurors without common sense.
Richard Fritz: 1964 - Year of the Gang Rape
- Thread starter Clem_Shady
- Start date
Themis
New Member
The reason I stpped posting the way that I did in the beginning was because I realized I wasn't willing to listen to other peoples honest thoughts about Fritz, I also realized that if many people thought the way I do then we wouldn't be arguing about the man because he would have been votoed out of office a long time ago.
Walter Dorey statred project graduation many years ago, and to his credit Fritz has continued with the program because I don't think anyone thinks that it does anything but good for our communty.
You won't believe me when I say that I am not now nor have I ever been a close friend of Mattingly. I really didn't know much about him except for the things I heard from others and a few newspaper articles about some of his cases. We are to this day just acquaintanc's of one another.
You also won't believe me when i say that he told me in 2006 that he intended to run for the office of SA that year and was side tracked helping his cousin Shane Mattingly run for election but that he fully intended to run this year.I don't think that he was criticizing Fritz for using doantions for traffic offenses becase evryone knew about that,a nd that Dorsey had been the one to begin the practice. I think he was trying to say that money was being donated in lieu of much more serious offenses, and not all of it ended up going to the worthy causes you mentioned.
That's all I am going to say now, but I am going to print Mattingly's version of what happened at the first trial, I am going to put a link to some interesting comments made by Walter Dorsey before Fritz was elected in 1998. and the real reason Fritz pulled his office out of the Mattingly case.
Trial Highlights: July 23, 2010
These highlights were provided bv John Mattingly
* No "victim" had filed any complaint or charges against Mattlngly or Brown. All charges were initiated by the State's Attorney's Office.
* .The so-called "victims" admitted their stories had changed after being coached by Assistant State's Attorney Daniel J. White.
* White had made three visits to the victims, coaching their testimony prior to giving a statement.
* Numerous witnesses stated that White had threatened them in an effort to influence- their testimony.
* So corrupt was the "investigation" of Mattingly and Brown that no law enforcement witnesses were called by the State in its case. After a one and a half year "investigation," costing the taxpayers untold hundreds of thousands of dollars, the prosecutor could not call a single cop to the stand. In fact, Mattingly had to subpoena the cops in order for the jury to hear the bizarre and corrupt investigation which had incurred.
* Mattingly had met with the specially assigned prosecutors on two separate occasions for over ten hours prior to trial.
Mattingly actually requested to meet with the prosecutors to explain what really happened. In fact, Mattingly offered to give his proffer under oath with a court reporter present. In response to Mattingly's proffer, the State merely changed its version of events and theory of the case twice before trial.
* As a result of Mattingly's trial subpoena of the Sheriff's Office, the week before trial, magically a covert file was found. Two business days before trial, a report was uncovered which corroborated Mattingly's version of events. This report was taken 'by Det. Ray (who presumably because of his honesty in reporting the "first" story by the so-called "victims" was promptly removed from the case). Det. Ray's report reported the initial contact with "victim" Shirley Gilliam." Det. Ray was accompanied by Assistant State's Attorney Daniel J .White. Interestingly, Ray's report not only corroborated Mattingly's version of events, but further listed the Complainant as "Assistant State's Attorney Daniel J.-White." This report was over one year old.
* It should be particularly noted that Mattingly challenged the State to produce more police reports as early as March of this year. In response to the direct inquiry by Hon. Sean D. Wallace, in open court, as to whether the State had more police reports, White stated that he had given them all to Mattingly ("actually twice your Honor"). This, of course, was a lie. White had
failed to give many reports. More importantly, White was present when the critical interview was taken by Det. Ray. White lied and buried the report.
* Capt. Alioto, called as a witness not by the State; but by Mattingly, was asked why he gathered no evidence of the alleged forgery, he stated that he didn't need evidence. .
* Mattingly, waiving his rights, took the stand in his own defense. The State could not impeach or rebut Mattingly. In fact, the State called no witnesses to rebut nor offered any evidence to impeach Mattingly. .
* Following 'a four-day trial, Mattingly was acquitted of all charges.
Welcome to St. Mary's Today Online Edition!
Welcome to St. Mary's Today Online Edition!
Outsider gets case against St. Mary's County state's attorney's | Daily Record, The (Baltimore) | Find Articles at BNET
Dorsey Blasts Fritz Over Failing To Account For Drug Funds
itsrequired
New Member
I was a friend of John Mattingly's. I know that John Mattingly never intended to run for States Attorney, and didn't even want to come back to St. Mary's County after law school. I also know that the ONLY reason john decided to run for States Attorney is because he would be able to put up the very cloud of suspicion that is there now. This case should have been prosecuted by the original prosecutor, and there would have been a different outcome.
So, as a person who KNOWS John, I think sir your hatred for Fritz makes you tell lies and distort the truth. You are either the person himself, or no better than Kenny!
There is another case however, and we shall see what happens there.
Themis
New Member
I haven't lied to you or anyone else.
Was Walter Dorsey lying about Fritz when he made his statements in 1998. I am not going let you bait me into an argument.I stand by my statement about Mattingly's intention to run before this trouble began because He told me so years ago.I don't hate Fritz but I loathe what I think he has done whenever he has felt anyone one was threatening his position.Incidents of impropriety have popped up throughout Fritz's career. it's too bad that Rossignol's rag was the only one that would print some of the stuff he did and it's also too bad that he insisted on injecting his opinions into his news articles because he did cloud the facts of what happened. For month's he turned on Mattingly and wrote some terrible conjectures about him, but he was always careful to make sure the words he was distorting were someone elses. In the end he showed that he was the kind of man everyone already knew him to be when he conveniently sold out a few month's before the election to a man who was facing a possible prison sentence of over 50 years, and who had pled guilty on a plea bargain deal to recieve asentence of what? He made the deal over two years ago and still has not been sentenced. I'm sure that every millionaire bar owner in America dreams of owning a Rag like the St mary's Today. Do you think Danny White did nothing wrong even after two sworn affidavits were given to the judge by two grand jury witness's accusing him of trying to influence their testimony,and then published unaltered by Rossignol.These are not the only affidavits filed by grand jury witness's about Whites conduct in this case. Or the fact that prosecution witness's at the first trial had to admit that he had them alter their original statements in the case so that they would fit the charges. Was the sheriff's detective lying about taking the witness's original statements that suddenly appeared just two days before the trial began.
I wonder what Capt. Alioto meant when he stated on the stand " I don't need any evidence". I can think of at least two more recent cases where the SA's office actions were questionable at best. It's hard for me to believe that Fritz's staff did the things they did right under his nose with out his knowledge, but it is possible. There is at least one more trial coming up and it's not inconceivable that Mattingly will be convicted, But if Danny White procurred his evidence the same way he did in the first trial, by maufacturing it and there is every reason to think he did then Mattingly will again be acquitted, and I'm sure that you, and all of Mattingly's detractors will attribute it to slick lawyers and not the facts that come out in the trial. If Mattingly is cleared on all these charges I'm sure that Fritz will be attributed to Danny Whites actions, and the incompetence of the special prosecutor. I may have made a mistake by going after Fritz instead of White. But it's still really hard to believe that White did the things he did without his boss's knowledge. I'm sure its happened before and if in the end the facts bear this possibility out I will personally apologize to Mr. Fritz. The trial transcript from the first trial is out, and I am trying to optain a copy of it, and if the facts of the trial are any different than Mattingly stated after the trial I will say so.
If you want to continue this discussinon I will be glad to do so on private messaging.
I promised these people on the forum I woudn't do this any more, so good night.
I do think that Sheriff Cameron has done a great job in his first term, and I hope he intends to stays here as Sheriff for many years to come.
Last edited:
"There is at least one more trial coming up and it's not inconceivable that Mattingly will be convicted"
The fact is there are two more Felony Jury trials coming for Mr Mattingly!
This is Themis's quote about Mr. Mattingly's upcoming Felony Jury Trial. If there is no concern about Mr.Mattingly's indictments being concrete why make the statement.
I'm sure our local justice system will prevail!
The fact is there are two more Felony Jury trials coming for Mr Mattingly!
This is Themis's quote about Mr. Mattingly's upcoming Felony Jury Trial. If there is no concern about Mr.Mattingly's indictments being concrete why make the statement.
I'm sure our local justice system will prevail!
Themis
New Member
"There is at least one more trial coming up and it's not inconceivable that Mattingly will be convicted"
The fact is there are two more Felony Jury trials coming for Mr Mattingly!
This is Themis's quote about Mr. Mattingly's upcoming Felony Jury Trial. If there is no concern about Mr.Mattingly's indictments being concrete why make the statement.
I'm sure our local justice system will prevail!
I think everyone understood what I was saying. EXCEPT YOU!
I think you are confused because of the concrete beteen your ears.
Let me make a simple analogy of my remarks for you.
Lets say you were arrested and charged with having some small amount of intelligence, and faced prison time for having it(intelligence).You realized you were going to have to hire an attorney and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself aqainst these unfounded charges, because you knew for a fact that you lack any form of intelligence.
While you were waiting to go to trial for these spurious charges you would worry because there was always the chance that the prosecution would convince the jury that you did possess a small amount of intelligence,
and your stupid A-- would have to sit in jail for something you knew you didn't do. Do you think you understand the meaning of my comments now?
Have you found out yet how to use the private messaging feature of the forum. You haven't responded to my private messages,. M.aybe you have and don't care to continue this privately
Last edited:
I think everyone understood what I was saying. EXCEPT YOU!
I think you are confused because of the concrete beteen your ears.
Let me make a simple analogy of my remarks for you.
Lets say you were arrested and charged with having some small amount of intelligence, and faced prison time for having it(intelligence).You realized you were going to have to hire an attorney and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself aqainst these unfounded charges, because you knew for a fact that you lack any form of intelligence.
While you were waiting to go to trial for these spurious charges you would worry because there was always the chance that the prosecution would convince the jury that you did possess a small amount of intelligence,
and your stupid A-- would have to sit in jail for something you knew you didn't do. Do you think you understand the meaning of my comments now?
Have you found out yet how to use the private messaging feature of the forum. You haven't responded to my private messages,. M.aybe you have and don't care to continue this privately
I definately know how to use the private messaging feature. No messages for me from you!!. Maybe you are shuffling to many user names to get it straight MR. Brown/Mattingly/Rossignol. that should have covered it11
Themis
New Member
I definately know how to use the private messaging feature. No messages for me from you!!. Maybe you are shuffling to many user names to get it straight MR. Brown/Mattingly/Rossignol. that should have covered it11
You too seem to have a number of pseudonym's. I sent my invitation to one of your other ones. I have corrected my error.
It's bad enough you keep calling me Brown, or Mattingly but Rossignol is going too far. Every one knows that Rossignol is a scum sucking low life, and I know that Rossignol is standing on your shoulders.
Why no comment on my accurate analogy of your earlier statements?
"I shot the Sheriff, but I DID NOT shoot the Deputeeeeeee"
Last edited:
itsrequired
New Member
You need to start your apologies then.
Themis
New Member
Was Walter Dorsey lying about Fritz when he made his statements in 1998.
I am a gentelman sir, and will not allow you to have me speak ill of the dead.
Your reply speaks volumes about what you think.
Because as you said, your not a friend, just an aquaintance. So you are the only person he shared this sentiment with, some aquaintance.
I'm know that there are plenty of other people who know about Mattingly's ambitions concerning the SAs office in 06, in and out of Leonardtown. The Legal Professionals in Leonardtown are known to have selective memories. Maybe it soothes their conscience's, and maybe it helps them protect the guilty. They don't want anyone to turn over their honey pot.
Right.... so tell me exactly what he did to Joe Mattingly who ran against him? Tell me what he did to the Legal Eagle who was running against him? Tell me what he did to Shane who you said was seeking the position?
I don't know that he did anything to Joe Mattingly in 98.
I do know what his former boss told people Fritz had done to slander Eddie Bailey, and Wayne Pettit before an election,(which they both lost) and then was proven to have lied about requesting the State Police to investigate their activities when the letter of request Fritz sent the State police was uncovered.
Never said Shane was running for SA, said he was running for election in 06
He was running for a Judgeship.
Let me ask you a question
Why do you think your hero suddenly resigned his job as Asst. SA when his boss insisted after months of being stonewalled that he account for over $3,000.00 in missing state funds that only Fritz had access to?
Well, we agree that there is nothing credible from Rossignol. Why you would use him as a source is beyond belief.
Never said his stories weren't credible. The information he used against Mattingly months ago was given to him by the SA's office. How was he to know that the informatin he received from them was fabricated. I said he distorted facts with personal opinions, and conjecture, and by doing so
clouded many of the facts he was reporting. He was the only local news source that would print stories about controversial subjects, and people.
If he had just printed the stories without over sensationalizing them he probably would have been more respected, and sold more papers because the subject matter alone was enough to hold peoples interest. To his discredit nobody ever accused Rosslignol of being any thing but what he was. He was the one who decided to run is paper like a rag.
Why do you think that not one word, good, bad, or otherwise about your hero has appeared in that paper ever since the unsentenced ex felon purchased it ( I'm surprised he isn't buying full page ads).
You said before that the first trial would have turned out differently if the original prosecuter had tried it. I agree with that because if you were referring to Fritz he would have at best, been made to look like a man who didn't know what was going on in his office, right under his nose.
If you were referring to Danny White there would have been no ensuing trials, because he would have left that court room in hand cuffs and facing his own indictments for his actions in the Mattingly case. The trial that opens next week will end the same as the first one because Danny White couldn't find the evidence he needed. So he manufactured it. With the help of a sheriffs investigator (at least in the land theft case) I may add.
You need to start your apologies then.
I think you're asking me to do that a bit prematurely.
Now that you've decided to inject your "I Don't have a dog in this fight, but".
I said before that I think the sheriff is doing a great job with his department.
But he still has a problem with some of the investigators in his department who have proven to be bad apples. We read about their transgressions, and then no more. Why!
Voorhaar, Fritz, Alioto, Doolan, Long, Merican, Meyers, Willenborg, Young
Your's wouldn"t happen to be one of the names listed above would it?
I am a gentelman sir, and will not allow you to have me speak ill of the dead.
Your reply speaks volumes about what you think.
Because as you said, your not a friend, just an aquaintance. So you are the only person he shared this sentiment with, some aquaintance.
I'm know that there are plenty of other people who know about Mattingly's ambitions concerning the SAs office in 06, in and out of Leonardtown. The Legal Professionals in Leonardtown are known to have selective memories. Maybe it soothes their conscience's, and maybe it helps them protect the guilty. They don't want anyone to turn over their honey pot.
Right.... so tell me exactly what he did to Joe Mattingly who ran against him? Tell me what he did to the Legal Eagle who was running against him? Tell me what he did to Shane who you said was seeking the position?
I don't know that he did anything to Joe Mattingly in 98.
I do know what his former boss told people Fritz had done to slander Eddie Bailey, and Wayne Pettit before an election,(which they both lost) and then was proven to have lied about requesting the State Police to investigate their activities when the letter of request Fritz sent the State police was uncovered.
Never said Shane was running for SA, said he was running for election in 06
He was running for a Judgeship.
Let me ask you a question
Why do you think your hero suddenly resigned his job as Asst. SA when his boss insisted after months of being stonewalled that he account for over $3,000.00 in missing state funds that only Fritz had access to?
Well, we agree that there is nothing credible from Rossignol. Why you would use him as a source is beyond belief.
Never said his stories weren't credible. The information he used against Mattingly months ago was given to him by the SA's office. How was he to know that the informatin he received from them was fabricated. I said he distorted facts with personal opinions, and conjecture, and by doing so
clouded many of the facts he was reporting. He was the only local news source that would print stories about controversial subjects, and people.
If he had just printed the stories without over sensationalizing them he probably would have been more respected, and sold more papers because the subject matter alone was enough to hold peoples interest. To his discredit nobody ever accused Rosslignol of being any thing but what he was. He was the one who decided to run is paper like a rag.
Why do you think that not one word, good, bad, or otherwise about your hero has appeared in that paper ever since the unsentenced ex felon purchased it ( I'm surprised he isn't buying full page ads).
You said before that the first trial would have turned out differently if the original prosecuter had tried it. I agree with that because if you were referring to Fritz he would have at best, been made to look like a man who didn't know what was going on in his office, right under his nose.
If you were referring to Danny White there would have been no ensuing trials, because he would have left that court room in hand cuffs and facing his own indictments for his actions in the Mattingly case. The trial that opens next week will end the same as the first one because Danny White couldn't find the evidence he needed. So he manufactured it. With the help of a sheriffs investigator (at least in the land theft case) I may add.
You need to start your apologies then.
I think you're asking me to do that a bit prematurely.
Now that you've decided to inject your "I Don't have a dog in this fight, but".
I said before that I think the sheriff is doing a great job with his department.
But he still has a problem with some of the investigators in his department who have proven to be bad apples. We read about their transgressions, and then no more. Why!
Voorhaar, Fritz, Alioto, Doolan, Long, Merican, Meyers, Willenborg, Young
Your's wouldn"t happen to be one of the names listed above would it?
Last edited:
You too seem to have a number of pseudonym's. I sent my invitation to one of your other ones. I have corrected my error.
It's bad enough you keep calling me Brown, or Mattingly but Rossignol is going too far. Every one knows that Rossignol is a scum sucking low life, and I know that Rossignol is standing on your shoulders.
Why no comment on my accurate analogy of your earlier statements?
"I shot the Sheriff, but I DID NOT shoot the Deputeeeeeee"
Lets see! As far as your analogy of my statement goes I cant comprehend the need to invest so much to defend my freedom or livelihood because of multiple indictments because I would never place myself or my family for that matter in that unlikely position. Our Justice system is set up to be fair and just for the public(even though it does not always function correctly). If multiple Grand jury's felt that Mr mattingly/Mr. Brown were guilty there was some magnitude to these accusations. The only reason Mr. Mattingly avoided felony charges in the last trial was because of uncredible witness's. I believe next week will provide a completely different ending. I guess we will soon see!!
Clem_Shady
New Member
Lets see! As far as your analogy of my statement goes I cant comprehend the need to invest so much to defend my freedom or livelihood because of multiple indictments because I would never place myself or my family for that matter in that unlikely position. Our Justice system is set up to be fair and just for the public(even though it does not always function correctly). If multiple Grand jury's felt that Mr mattingly/Mr. Brown were guilty there was some magnitude to these accusations. The only reason Mr. Mattingly avoided felony charges in the last trial was because of uncredible witness's. I believe next week will provide a completely different ending. I guess we will soon see!!
You know, when I watch all those cop and lawyer shows like Law & Order, it's always the "prosecution's" job to screen the witnesses and decide if the case will hold up before going to court. If not, it doesn't go forward.
Some real genius at work on this Mattingly thing.
Themis
New Member
Lets see! As far as your analogy of my statement goes I cant comprehend the need to invest so much to defend my freedom or livelihood because of multiple indictments because I would never place myself or my family for that matter in that unlikely position. Our Justice system is set up to be fair and just for the public(even though it does not always function correctly). If multiple Grand jury's felt that Mr mattingly/Mr. Brown were guilty there was some magnitude to these accusations. The only reason Mr. Mattingly avoided felony charges in the last trial was because of uncredible witness's. I believe next week will provide a completely different ending. I guess we will soon see!!
LOOK EVERYBODY "THE-TRUFF" has admitted that our justice sytem doen't always function properly. she is admitting that John Mattingly is innocent
killingme Sorry, I just couldn't resist).Your lack of comprehension is obvious. I'm sure John Mattingly feels the same way you do about putting his whole life in jepardy.
Let me try to splain this one last time Luceee.
YOU ARE ACCUSED OF SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T DO. YOU ARE GIVEN THE CHOICE OF (A)- LYING,BY SAYING YOU DID It, AND GETTING OFF WITH A SLAP ON THE WRIST BUT RUINING YOUR REPUTATION IN THE PROCESS, OR (B)- FIGHTING THE CHARGES TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENSE.
I'm sure you would have taken option (A), as I believe most people would do when faced with the choice of (A)- realizing what it will cost them to fight the charges, and (B)- If they do spend the money there will still be a chance they could be found guilty(unjustly) anyway. I hope you don't think that Fritz's office isn't aware of the things I just said. Every prosecutor in the country uses these tactics with charges they think are legitimate, but aren't sure their evidence will prove them right in court. Prosecutors like Fritz, and White also use them unjustly as they have done in the Mattingly case. Mattingly has been offered a number of deals by the prosecutors in his case since before the time of his first trial, and he has rejected them all.
One of the provisions of the Fifth Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution called for the Grand Jury process to determine if a prosecutor has enough evidence to to obtain an indictment in a crime that is considered greater than a misdemeanor. The Grand Jury does not determine innocence or guilt in a case.
Modern Grand Juries are concidered nothing more than a rubber stamp for prosecutors because even though they have the power to question evidence presented by a prosecutor, they rarely do so. They leave the decision about the validity of evidence presented to a Petit Jury to decide. The Grand Jury's in Mattingly case had nothing to go on except the evidence presented to them by Danny White's witness's, many of them such as yourself had been coached on how to testify by White before they appeared before the Grand Jury's.
Unlike you, most of the other witness's didn't have a previous friendly relationship with Mr. White, and weren't stupid enough to file a false claim against Mattingly before the results of the case were final. That stupid mistake is going to cost you dearly.
Here are some links verifying the Grand Jury process on a federal level, and in maryland
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-1135.pdf
http://www.courts.state.md.us/juryservice/grandjury.pdf
Mattingly didn't "avoid the felony charges" at his first trial. Thats why there was a trial. He proved the charge were false. The reason Mattingly was aquitted at the first trial wasn't because of "unreliable witness's", or because the special prosecutor screwed up the case. The testimony of the states own witness's and a sheriffs detective proved that Danny White had changed the evidence so that it would fit the charges he had made against Mattingly. These facts are now a matter of public record.
The results of the next trial will be the same because Danny White got the states evidence in the upcoming case case the same way he did for the first trial.
When Mattingly is aquitted next week, the rest of the charges will be dropped to save the State further embarrassment.
So why don't you please shut up until after the results of next weeks trial
are known.
After that we won't hear from you for another 6 years
P. S. I've been forgettin to tell you to say "HI" to Mr. S for me Mrs. S.
Last edited:
You know, when I watch all those cop and lawyer shows like Law & Order, it's always the "prosecution's" job to screen the witnesses and decide if the case will hold up before going to court. If not, it doesn't go forward.
Some real genius at work on this Mattingly thing.
Mr. Rossignol.... it appears you have way to much time on your hands now.
Your opinion is worthless. I base that assumption on your literary prowess in your past business endeavor and the videos you've been posting recently.
Themis
New Member
Didn't forget them, didn't need them!
LOOK EVERYBODY "THE-TRUFF" has admitted that our justice sytem doen't always function properly. she is admitting that John Mattingly is innocent
Your lack of comprehension is obvious. I'm sure John Mattingly feels the same way you do about putting his whole life in jepardy.
Let me try to splain this one last time Luceee.
YOU ARE ACCUSED OF SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T DO. YOU ARE GIVEN THE CHOICE OF (A)- LYING,BY SAYING YOU DID It, AND GETTING OFF WITH A SLAP ON THE WRIST BUT RUINING YOUR REPUTATION IN THE PROCESS, OR (B)- FIGHTING THE CHARGES TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENSE.
I'm sure you would have taken option (A), as I believe most people would do when faced with the choice of (A)- realizing what it will cost them to fight the charges, and (B)- If they do spend the money there will still be a chance they could be found guilty(unjustly) anyway. I hope you don't think that Fritz's office isn't aware of the things I just said. Every prosecutor in the country uses these tactics with charges they think are legitimate, but aren't sure their evidence will prove them right in court. Prosecutors like Fritz, and White also use them unjustly as they have done in the Mattingly case. Mattingly has been offered a number of deals by the prosecutors in his case since before the time of his first trial, and he has rejected them all.
One of the provisions of the Fifth Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution called for the Grand Jury process to determine if a prosecutor has enough evidence to to obtain an indictment in a crime that is considered greater than a misdemeanor. The Grand Jury does not determine innocence or guilt in a case.
Modern Grand Juries are concidered nothing more than a rubber stamp for prosecutors because even though they have the power to question evidence presented by a prosecutor, they rarely do so. They leave the decision about the validity of evidence presented to a Petit Jury to decide. The Grand Jury's in Mattingly case had nothing to go on except the evidence presented to them by Danny White's witness's, many of them such as yourself had been coached on how to testify by White before they appeared before the Grand Jury's.
Unlike you, most of the other witness's didn't have a previous friendly relationship with Mr. White, and weren't stupid enough to file a false claim against Mattingly before the results of the case were final. That stupid mistake is going to cost you dearly.
Here are some links verifying the Grand Jury process on a federal level, and in maryland
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-1135.pdf
http://www.courts.state.md.us/juryservice/grandjury.pdf
Mattingly didn't "avoid the felony charges" at his first trial. Thats why there was a trial. He proved the charge were false. The reason Mattingly was aquitted at the first trial wasn't because of "unreliable witness's", or because the special prosecutor screwed up the case. The testimony of the states own witness's and a sheriffs detective proved that Danny White had changed the evidence so that it would fit the charges he had made against Mattingly. These facts are now a matter of public record.
The results of the next trial will be the same because Danny White got the states evidence in the upcoming case case the same way he did for the first trial.
When Mattingly is aquitted next week, the rest of the charges will be dropped to save the State further embarrassment.
So why don't you please shut up until after the results of next weeks trial
are known.
After that we won't hear from you for another 6 years
P. S. I've been forgettin to tell you to say "HI" to Mr. S for me Mrs. S.
I beleive you are the one that is confused. Wake up and smell the coffee or did John not wake you up in time!!
Explain this according to this link John Mattingly, Jr. v. Richard Fritz :: Justia Dockets & Filings Here is a a cival case John Mattingly brought to the US Circuit court charging The SA office along with the Sheriffs office, Tim Cameron, Danny White, Rich Fritz etc. This case made it NO WHERE! why because it has no validity!
Now this is a Federal Judge that threw this case out imediately. So the only thing Mr. Mattingly can do is appeal, appeal, and appeal. So When the convictions drop next week maybe you can get a cell right next to your partner! and we wont be hearing any more nonsense from you or the rest of your alter egos!
Say hello to John, Daniel, And of course Ken!!
Themis
New Member
I beleive you are the one that is confused. Wake up and smell the coffee or did John not wake you up in time!!
Explain this according to this link John Mattingly, Jr. v. Richard Fritz :: Justia Dockets & Filings Here is a a cival case John Mattingly brought to the US Circuit court charging The SA office along with the Sheriffs office, Tim Cameron, Danny White, Rich Fritz etc. This case made it NO WHERE! why because it has no validity!
So When the convictions drop next week maybe you can get a cell right next to your partner! and we wont be hearing any more nonsense from you or the rest of your alter egos!
Say hello to John, Daniel, And of course Ken!!
Having a case dismissed in Federal Court at the first proceeding is not an unusual occurance, especially when the defendants are masquerading as Law Enforcement Professionals. Most Judges don't want to upset the
"Brotherhood".
The same thing happened when Rossignol's Lawsuit went to trial.
He won on appeal.
You seem to be running out of things to say that pertain to the actual
cases comming up
Since you have already found them guilty in the court of Sp---ger what are you planning on sentencing them to Judge Crystal?
If you really want to punish them you could give them a choice of having to listen to your idiotic, demented ravings for 24 hours, or the more humanitarian choice of life in prison.
I think that they woiuld choose life in prison. But if they decided to listen to you for more than one second, they could get the sentence overturned because it would be considered "Cruel and Unusaual Punishment"
I started out mad at your husband for being a part of your extorton scheme. Now I just feel sorry for him for being married to you. That's more punishment then any man deserves
Its amazing that you really feel like you know who i am when in fact you are greatly mistaken(you are are on most subjects).I have told you before I have no Idea who the Sprangers are other than I see they have a cival case against Mr. Mattingly and Mr. Brown on Maryland Judiciary site. Obviously you have big issues with this person and you feel the need to post this in retaliation of some sort. The fact is you post slanderous threads against Fritz on a daily basis but take offense when anyone post's the same against Mr. Mattingly, Whle maintaining the story that you are only an accuaintance. I believe everyone on this forum would agree YOU are Directly affiliated with Mr. Mattingly, Mr. Brown, Ken Rossignol.
Anyone care to Chime in??
Anyone care to Chime in??
Themis
New Member
I don't denie being connected with them, but I still am not a close friend of either . I explained to them my purpose for becoming involved in this mess, and they agreed to give me information to make public because if thay had done so themselves the reaction would have been negative, especially toward Mattingly because of his candidacy.Its amazing that you really feel like you know who i am when in fact you are greatly mistaken(you are are on most subjects).I have told you before I have no Idea who the Sprangers are other than I see they have a cival case against Mr. Mattingly and Mr. Brown on Maryland Judiciary site. Obviously you have big issues with this person and you feel the need to post this in retaliation of some sort. The fact is you post slanderous threads against Fritz on a daily basis but take offense when anyone post's the same against Mr. Mattingly, Whle maintaining the story that you are only an accuaintance. I believe everyone on this forum would agree YOU are Directly affiliated with Mr. Mattingly, Mr. Brown, Ken Rossignol.
Anyone care to Chime in??
As it turns out there are still a few people who think I am one of them.
When you started responding to my threads about Fritz I believed that you were Fritz/White or someone in the SA's Office doing their dirty work for them to discredit my threads because you seemed to actually have enough information about the case to present counterpoints that someone who was just an observer to this debate could undrerstand, and give thought to.That ended when you started attacking Brown and his family personally. I don't know anything about the Spranger's personally, and wouldn't know them if they passed me on the street today, nor would they know me. You started sounding dumber, and dumber(like the movie made a number of years ago with you in mind). I called Daniel and asked him who could have a personal hatred for him bad enough to slander not only him, but everyone they knew was related to him. Daniel could think of only one name(CS). He then went on to tell me about his former friendship with you. He told me what you told him about your relationship with Danny White and that White had made the dog biting your neighbor incident that you were charged with disappear, and that your huband worked on Whites personal vehicles. He told me about your business arrangement on the property, and that it had started off being a partnership to subdivide and improve the property, and that you had wriiten a letter asking that he and Mattingly buy out your remaining interest in the land.
He told me that they had lived up to the terms of buying you out until White had you perjure yourself to the Grand Jury so that you could file the lawsuit charging them with fraud. Your call to Mattingly some weeks ago, and your visit to Daniels home where you put on your vulgar, pitiful display to him in front of his children, and a number of his friends because your husband had found out about yours and Daniels brief personal interlude.
If you check the case files on the lawsuit filed by the Sprangers in Dec. 2009 there is now a counter suit filed 8/27/10 by Mattingly/Brown that everyone can see, but you already knew about because you were served with the papers last week. The only other people that I thought could have a motive to get personally involved in this affair as you have done might be relatives of Fritz or White but they wouldn't know some of the personal information about Brown that a former friend would. Ive noticed in your rants that you don,t have much to say about Mattingly, or his family and you don't seem to know much about him personally..
If by some small chance I am wrong about who you are it's because it's such a logcal conclusion to come to.
I thought I was wrong once before, but then I discoverd I was mistaken.
So please excuse me if I don't buy what you're trying to sell.
I just found out that according to a story on the Bay Net your hero (Fritz) is accusing the Town Hall Alliance of sample ballot fraud (?)
his next move will probably be to sic the sample fraud gestopo on them.The man see's fraud everywhere.
Fritz must be pissed off because he thinks he's the only elected official in Leonardtown who's allowed to commit fraud.
I'm sure it would have nothing to do with his love affair with Rossignol.
Yeah Right!
Last edited: