Thursday, January 15, 2009
A few weeks later (after I got the letter from Edwin) the attorney, Mike called the ex-wife to see what her and her daughter (who was there the day the allegations were brought forth) had to say. The daughter told the same story that she told NCIS in 2004-that the mother of the child told the child it was Edwin who did this to her.
Funny thing is, the ex-wife contacted my sister-in-law on January 3rd saying the she feels bad about what happened and also wants a copy of all the evidence and record of trial to "point out the inconsistencies". She also said that her life was ruined after the trial in August 2007, HELLO!!!! How the hell was this narcissistic bitch's life ruined!!??!!
First of all the "victim" also accused her of witnessing the alleged sexual assault, yet the mother of the child, her "best friend"-never told her about i in the 3 years it took to go to trial.
The "victim" got on the stand at court and lied again by stating that she never told anyone that her mom's friend saw anything. It's all on video tape taken on June 9, 2004 by NCIS.
This idiot had the nerve to contact me via e-mail and ask for all the information I had on everyone. She said that she is not friends with the family anymore since they ruined her life as well as Edwin's.
She got to leave with her kids and is living free from their lies everyday. Edwin got a one-way ticket to Leavenworth for the next 19 years.
It was brought to my attention that the vindictive ex-wife is rumored to have done this to someone else as well. Apparently she had lost custody of her kids because of drugs and rather than pay her court ordered child support, she decided the best way to get the kids back (and get money from her ex) was to accuse her former brother-in-law of sexually assaulting her son. She couldn't use her daughter as a tool because she was older and knew better, but also because there would be more signs of sexual assault on a girl than a boy.
There is a CASA case somewhere in Alabama on this whole event. She eventually got her kids back when she met and married my husband, I guess all she saw was a free meal ticket and benefits. It was because of Edwin's military status and employment (she does not like to work, and says so on her myyearbook page) that she was able to obtain her children. My mother and father-in-law also had to take out a loan of over 4k so she could pay off the courts because she was in arrears on her child support. They have yet so see any re-payment of the loan for her and her brats. When Edwin and the ex were married when he was 20 (and drunk) and she was 32.
Talk about a Mrs. Robinson complex.
I asked my husband why he married her to begin with, his only answer was that he was young and stupid. I've heard Edwin talk to my brother when he had just got out of boot camp. Edwin told my brother that he may have to take one for the team-meaning that he might get stuck with the ugly fat chick for the night. My response was "well you married the one you took for the team". I will never let him live this one down.
Anyway she contacted me recently. I honestly did not believe she had the guts to do it, but she did. May I just add one thing-GRAMMAR-GRAMMAR-GRAMMAR! If you are going to contact someone and try to make them believe you are on their side so you are able to get information from them, at least use punctuation and spellcheck before sending anything in writing. Proofreading is a must also.
I got a good idea (based on her spelling and grammer techniques) that she is highly uneducated and lacks the basic grammar skills that it takes to have an intelligent conversation.
I wrote back to her and plainly asked, what do you know. She sent me a few e-mails, but when i kept asking what she knew I realized she likes to cause drama and now that she was caught in several lies, she has no comment.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Does this not also apply to the United States military personnel?
Just because they took an oath to uphold our laws, defend our constitution, and go to war when called to action, does not mean that they are stripped of their civil and constitutional rights.
Why then, is the military allowed to "get away" with being deceitful, fabricating evidence and covering for the real criminal while making a scapegoat of some innocent man or woman because the military is afraid of admitting fault?
This is exactly what happened to my husband, Edwin.
After more than 10 years of service in the United States Marine Corps, tours of duty in Cuba and Iraq, his welcome home was a vindictive ex-wife, her friends, their child, and unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against this child. He now sits for 19 years in Leavenworth for a crime that I have documented proof, he did not commit. He has been stripped of his rank, dignity, and respect for the military, while the person who is abusing this child remains free and active in the United States Navy.
How can this be called justice? I realize that justice is blind, but it's the black and white on paper that brings more than just reasonable doubt in to play.
This all started in January 2004 when Edwin moved out of base housing that he shared with his now ex-wife and asked for a divorce. The ex-wife started taking all of his money every payday until he was finally able to have his direct deposit changed in February 2004. She continued to enjoy the life of a military spouse (i.e. benefits, housing, etc.). The ex-wife's mother, brother and children from her first marriage enjoyed them as well. In April 2004, Edwin quit sponsoring her mother and brother and they were removed from the base housing unit that was supplied to Edwin and his ex-wife.
The accusation did not take place until June 2004, when the ex-wife's children were visiting their mother's friends and the child in Beaufort, South Carolina.
The father of the alleged "victim" told NCIS in a sworn statement that he took his child to the Beaufort Naval Hospital, spoke to several staff members about her allegations and checked her into the emergency room. This did not happen. HE LIED. I have documentation from the Beaufort Naval Hospital stating the he was never there in the month of June 2004. Where did he take his daughter, if not the hospital? And why lie about it?
The father then proactively contacted NCIS several hours after returning from the hospital, but did not give a statement to them until the next afternoon. Had he actually taken his daughter to the Beaufort Naval Hospital, would they not have contacted NCIS for him?
The child's mother told NCIS in a sworn statement that while living on base at Camp Pendleton, her daughter was taken to the hospital. She went on to state that while nurses were holding her daughter, the child started screaming about her privates, and not to touch them. The mother also said that this incident occurred AFTER meeting Edwin. SHE LIED. The child's medical record reflects that the incident happened 7 months prior to meeting Edwin and his ex-wife. NCIS used this statement to help solidify the allegations against Edwin.
A witness to the discovery of the allegations in June 2004, told NCIS that when the mother questioned the child about the allegations, the mother told the child that Edwin was the one who did this to her-otherwise the child refused to say anyones name. The child would only say that if she told "her mommy would be mad at her".
During a taped interview, 6 days after the allegations were reported to NCIS, the child stated that Edwin's ex-wife, the ex-wife's mother, and another child were witnesses to the sexual assault when they allegedly occurred in 2002. NCIS verified with the child that Edwin's ex-wife was there and interacted with Edwin during this alleged incident of sexual assault. Edwin's ex-wife was neither questioned about the incident nor was she ever brought up on charges associated with this discovery. In fact she told the court in August 2007 (3 years later) that she did not even find out about the allegations until recently and if the child said she was there, then the child was lying.
In the infinite wisdom that only NCIS agents possess, it was discovered that they failed to report the allegations of the sexual assault of a child to the Family Advocacy Program (FAP), local police, or anyone outside of NCIS. This is in direct violation of DoD Directive 6400.1, federal reporting requirements and applicable state laws. By not reporting this to the FAP, NCIS avoided involving the Department of Social Services, who would have looked at the family structure and probably have got the truth out of the child as to who actually committed this crime. My suspicions are mirrored by anyone who has read the case file-dear Ol' daddy has been touching his daughter for several years, and mommy knows about it.
NCIS also stated at trial that they received a full confession from Edwin and he admitted to doing this same crime to a "cousin" of his-it's a coincidence that the "cousin" who was mentioned,
1. Has the same name as the alleged victim
2. Does not even exist.
Can't NCIS come up with a more creative name than the same one as the "victim"?
The alleged confession was neither video or audio recorded, and the subsequent polygraph has conveniently disappeared. I have in my possession, a copy of the case file and in it are NCIS documents dated 14 months after the alleged confession that state there is no confession, Edwin-even after his polygraph-continued to deny wrongdoing. It states that it was the OPINION of the examiner that Edwin was being deceptive when denying the allegations.
NCIS is aware that I have these documents. I contacted NCIS in Parris Island, SC and was told by a supervisor, that the Family Advocacy Program was not available in June 2004 and all reporting requirements would have to be completed by NCIS in California, where the alleged incident took place. When it was brought to his attention (after he gave me his credentials of 25 years of service with NCIS), he then said he did not want to speak to me anymore.
You would think that with 25 years experience, before making such a statement he would utilize his resources. I used mine and found that the Family Advocacy Program has been available for 20+ years.
Moving on to the trial counsel. It was discovered that the assistant trial counsel, who happens to be a Major and an officer-in-charge of legal services at Camp Pendleton has been suspended from the practice of law through the State of Indiana since 2002 and also is an inactive member of the State of Nevada since 1999. Nevada rules are very clear: inactive members MAY NOT practice law.
It says this right on their website for your viewing pleasure.
I have been in contact with the State of Nevada since June 30, 2008, where I contacted their member services division and got, in writing a statement that says inactive members may not practice federal or state law.
It will not surprise you to know that after I filed a complaint with the State of Nevada and the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OJAG), both have come back and stated that trial counsel is allowed to practice law while being inactive. Little do they know (or conveniently forgot) the while being in an inactive status in the military might make you eligible to practice law (as long as JAG certifies you), being an inactive member with the State of Nevada does not.
It was put in writing from the State of Nevada that according to their understanding of military law, inactive members may practice law. As stated before, this only applies to being inactive for duty within the military, not an inactive member of a state bar. Per JAGINST 5803.1C what the Major is doing is the unlawful practice of law, the JAG does not care.
The military can do no wrong.
So Nevada is pointing the finger at OJAG and OJAG is pointing the finger at Nevada, either way, this Major is still not able to practice law-but he is. I guess this is going to be another Colonel Michael D. Murphy case, the more stripes on your arm and ribbons on your chest means the law does not apply to you.
I have not included everything in here that I have against these people, that will come out in a court of law. I also know that good things happen to good people, and these people are going to rot in hell when I'm finished with them.
I understand now why the Marine Corps and the Navy do not want to admit what really happened. If they admit that one of their Religious Program Specialists (a man of the cloth) has been touching his daughter and they put an innocent man in prison instead of the pedophile, that would undermine their creditability.
Well USMC and USN, here's your black eye!
So in closing, there is a saying from Sir Walter Scott that I would like to share. I hope that you agree that it holds true in this case "O' what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"