Anon Sparrow - Criminal Trial Scheduled to begin Feb. 22 2011

Court date is set at 9 am tomorrow morning.

https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

Honestly? I thought you were talking about me. I thought I forgot doing something bad. I cried a little.

DC Anons rooting for our Sparrow to win and return to protests soon.

Very few? By the FBI's own reckoning, approximately 8% of all rape accusations are false, while the UK came up with a figure of 9% in 2005/2006. I wouldn't call 2 out of every 25 or 1 out of every 11 "very few". And remember, these are people who actually deal with investigating crimes, not people with an agenda to advance. Those numbers are horrifying when you think of the permanent damage to the innocent men and women whose lives have been ruined by false allegations of rape, and even more horrifying when you think of the innocents in prison because of false accusations.

I don't like you all that much, as I find you shrill and annoying. However, aside from that, I had to call bullshit when the facts demanded nothing less.

Oh, and Rockyj, if you want to find people who have really been raped... by the justice system, lick this ling:

The Innocence Project

Here's one particularly heartbreaking case you may want to review:

Haynesworth

End the derail, please.

Fair enough, but outrageous claims demand a reasoned response.

As for Sparrow, I hope you win court costs and other punitive damages from those CoS bastards, after a justifiable summary judgment in your favor tomorrow, of course.

Sparrow FTW!

Uh...guys...or Tikk?

Am I reading this correctly? I don't recall wearing a mask or hood ever being a crime in DC except in a residential sector during a protest...but such a law didn't exist while Sparrow was still protesting...wtf is going on?

looks like that charge was newly filed on 2/15 wtf?

I saw that and wondered too. Guess we'll know tomorrow

Good luck Sparrow.

Dark forces are at work here, I fear. 'Domestic violence', additional charge ('wearing a mask or hood'). Sounds like they may be trying for aggravated attempted stalking.

Must hold back RAEG until some facts are established, but this looks more and more like a travesty in the making, citizens.

What the HELL?

Look I like you even though we don't agree on a lot of issues so I really don't want to go there with you.
And respect that its okay to agree to disagree on this issue.

Okay, maybe "don't like you all that much" was going a bit too far, and I apologize. But you have to admit that you can really get going sometimes. One thing we can agree on is that every false rape, false domestic violence, and false other sexual crime allegation makes it harder for the legitimate victims. I deal with numbers and cold, hard facts. It's my nature. I also stay awake many a night worrying about the wrongfully convicted clogging up our prisons, so that is where the bulk of my concerns will lie. Then again, my main focus is on civil liberties for all.

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

It's a non jury trial according to DC site. See 12/30/10 note on the site. The judge will be hearing the case. I haven't a clue if that's good bad or indifferent. Anyone know?

Based upon my years of expertise from watching Law and Order, I expect things will go well for Sparrow barring the prosecution having some sort of damning evidence of which we are all unaware.
I'm sure he'll be back to being a drunken spirited jackass in front of that org sooner than later as the charges, based on what I have seen, appear to be totally bogus.

anyone?

Looks to me like they deliberately filed it at the last moment, to give Sparrow the choice between waiving his right to a speedy trial, or going to trial facing a charge he had no notice of whatsoever and his lawyer had no time to prepare to defend. Very sleazy and unprofessional lawyering by a prosecutor whose whole handling of this case has been incredibly questionable from the outset.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did this just to delay the proceedings on purpose and keep Sparrow away for longer. Cult bastards.

Thinking of you on today, Sparrow. Hope you are able to get a bit of sleep.

It's the defendant's decision whether to have a jury trial or not. Evidently, Sparrow's attorney is comfortable with the judge presiding over the case.

Don't forget how batshit Thomas Paine was.

He is confident?

Interestingly, your cold hard-facts approach does not mention the victims that cannot access the legal system. Might deprive you of some extra sleep hours.

The Church of Scientology can't amend the charges...

bumping for confirmation of poss. slapdown of prosecutors for misconduct - withholding exculpatory evidence from the defence?

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

BTW, Co$ can't amend, but they can file new complaints.

I think so far it just says that the prosecution didn't disclose some evidence they had to the defense soon enough. Sounds like a discovery thing maybe?

Good point, but would a new complaint be amended to the ongoing charges? I don't know how these things work.

Dunno, Herro - was on irc, and there was more info there, suggesting the judge had censured the prosecutors in some way (or re-scheduled the trial to consider what to do about the non-disclosure...something like that.

From Sponge on OCMB:

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. I don't have access to the court documents in Sparrow's case. I speak from experience as an aged paralegal. and understanding of case law. There are numerous refererences to the precedents in Brady v. Maryland, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/brady_v_maryland.htm

Moar delay. Expect the rap sheet to include 'enslaving a planet(attempted)' by April 28.

GOOD LORD WHAT IS THIS MASK BULLSHIT!

In the videos I've watched Sparrow's usually got the Guy Fawkes mask sitting on *top* of his head. He seems to use it as a recognizable symbol of the protest movement more than anything else.

I hope the judge can hear the HOLLOW SOUND OF THE BOTTOM OF A VERY EMPTY BARREL BEING SCRAPED BY CRAZY DESPERATE WANKERS. It's pretty loud over here where I'm sitting.

It is exactly this kind of legal shenanigan that *justifies* wearing a mask at any protest of the Church of Scientology.

even though this is another delay for Sparrow
Can this end up being WAY in his favor?

Brady issuue:
"Evidence or information favorable to the defendant in a criminal case that is known by the prosecution. Under the United States Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland (1963), the prosecution must disclose such material to the defendant if requested to do so. Under subsequent United States Supreme Court cases, the material must also be disclosed, even if not requested, if it is obviously helpful to the defendantÂ’s case. These requirements are collectively known as the Brady rule."

Come on Judge Nash! Use good judgement!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k

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

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

The cult will argue that Kim was in fear of her safety because Brian wore a mask and his only reason for doing so was to harass her. If Brian's attorney can get across to the judge the purpose for wearing masks - given OSA's reputation for identifying & threatening critics, i.e., the cease & desist letter from cult attorneys - I think the judge will see the writing on the wall and dismiss the charge.

Prosecutors have been known to regularly pull this crap. It happened in AGP's Santa Monica case as well. The trial, scheduled for this week, was rescheduled by the judge after Graham Berry filed a motion forcing the prosecutor to turn over evidence he deliberately withheld from the defense.