UPDATED
EXPANDED SERIES PART TWO:
Mary Cummins aka Mary Cummins-Cobb harassment of LA citizens on her psycho blog (that she wrongfully claims LAAS GM Ed Boks "forced" her to write) @ http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com would endure for more than a year.
Sometimes the posts were so nutty and cracked like when Mary Cummins claimed her "life is in danger." Many posts were flat-out libelous and other posts were so heavy handed that these were felt by some to smack of blackmail, or maybe even extortion, like Mary Cummins threats to the AGM candidates, her threats to post "dirty deeds" and Mary Cummins threasts to a reporter--all around Mary Cummins STATED plan that she would cease her harassment and/or libel of these individuals if they would do what she CLEARLY STATED she wanted.
The AGM candidates, as we have said, were threatened with exposure of their "dirty deeds" if they didn't withdraw their candidacy from the city job; One candidate, who was seriously ill with asthma, was cruelly threatened by Mary Cummins her insane Mary Cummins blog that everyone should report this person for having handicapped license plates, which Mary Cummins alleged were "illegal". The rescuer had legally gotten the handicapped plates for extremely serious breathing problems, which made it hard for the person to walk. That is correct. Mary Cummins tried to cause a legitimately handicapped person to loose their handicapped license plates.
The malice and threats and the CRUELTY went on and on. A reporter was constantly threatened with ongoing harassment, libel and arrest. Mary Cummins posted that Mary Cummins would stop her (flat-out lies and libel) about the reporter if the reporter "stopped writing articles." The reporter's editors recieved multiple calls from Mary Cummins that Mary Cummins was calling the police on the reporter, HAD CALLED THE POLICE ON THE REPORTER, as well as having the reporter arrested for ASKING QUESTIONS AND WRITING ABOUT LAAS. Mary Cummins posted to the DAW newsgroup that she had called the police on this writer. Mary Cummins registered another website http://laanimalfriends.blogspot.com that the reporter "committed extortion" when writing articles and that her editors "allowed it."
(That blog has since been released by Psycho Mary Cummins and our team has registered it so as to prevent any more libel and harassment by this insane nutcase against innocent people on that blog.)
Mary Cummins was the web designer during the time that LAAS scheduled an event, "Hooters for Neuters." The poster on the city website--a busty woman in a skimpy bikini--raised eyebrows and subsequent complaints. At approximately 7 PM on a Sunday night, several citizens sent emails complaining about Hooters for Neuters. Within an hour the poster was changed to that of a dog in a T-Shirt, signaling to many that Mary Cummins--the LAAS website designer--was at the computer following the entire critical email dialogue. Within minutes of this, one of the vocal Hooters for Neuters critics who had contributed to the email complaint--an attorney--received an OMINOUS ANONYMOUS email from a violent website "Target of Opportunity" with a copy of the attorney's DUI and the question "Is this your criminal record? Still a liberal now?"
Several days later, that DUI about the attorney was featured on Mary Cummins Psycho blog LA's Animal Friends.
HERE IS THAT LA CITY ETHICS CODE AGAIN, WHICH WE BELIEVE APPLIES TO MARY CUMMINS AT THE TIME SHE WAS LAAS WEBSITE DESIGNER AND "VOLUNTEER"
CITY OF LOS ANGELES CODE OF ETHICSXII...
"No officer or employee of the City shall directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the authority or influence of such officer or employee for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or influencing any person with the intent of interfering with that person’s duty to disclose improper activity.”
(In a city where even ex-mayor Richard Riordan has a DUI, don't ask us WHY this insane nut Mary Cummins gets SUCH A THRILL when she finds DUIs, but she does. Mary Cummins actually PAYS MONEY to run these background checks and post this information on her victims in cyberspace, as well as send it to their employers and friends.)
Target of Opportuniy (www.targetofopportunity.com) is a CHILLING website with the stated mission to "rid the world of liberals, one at a time." It features aerial views of activists homes, such as anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan (who lost her son in Iraq) with the caption "How to do the job."
Sometimes Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates posts as the LA Animal Lover on LA's Animal Friends crossed over to outright violence: On one post, Mary Cummins questioned whether Daniel Guss had been "beaten" by one of her friends at the time. Sounded like she was happily expecting it.
Which was what folks had feared for Daniel Guss, as the result of threatening phone calls allegedly being made to his bosses from Cummins or her associate. In one of the comments Mary Cummins (yeah, she was her comments section, too) suggested that ADLLA leader Pamelyn Ferdin needed to be "euthanized."
Of course in this nut Mary Cummins' world, everyone who criticized her and stood against her treachery was also, to nutty Mary Cummins, a "member of the ALF" about to be arrested. Mary Cummins posted to Mayor Sam's Sister City blog that her detractors were members of the ALF. "Call the FBI." None of this was true and Mayor Sam removed the posts. Mary Cummins also posted on Mayor Sam as Daniel Guss, accusing him of wanting to kill folks. Mary Cummins has posted numerous homophobic posts on Mayor Sam, but that is no surprise. This wacko hates everyone.
And Nutcase Mary Cummins has posted REPEATEDLY that her victims were criminals and that she was getting her victims arrested and investigated by law enforcement. IT NEVER HAPPENED. These were innocent people who where TELLING THE TRUTH about what a psycho nutcase Mary Cummins is. When Mary Cummins went to LAPD to get these people arrested, SHE GOT FIRED, INSTEAD. When Mary Cummins complained that she was being "threatened by animal activists" the LA City Attorneys investigated Mary Cummins and had her BANNED FROM CITY PROPERTY.
And then, Mary Cummins has lied that she's had the FBI working with her for years. It's an old stupid story with no proof whatsoever, in much the same way that Mary Cummins has the old stupid lie that she is married(Mary Cummins-Cobb actually put THAT LIE in her lawsuit against LA City and Ed Boks. Who lies about their marital status on a lawsuit? Well this wackjob does.) Interestingly, Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates has also posted to Silicon Investor that she got pizza deliveries in the middle of the night from animal activists. If that were true, why isn't there a police report. Mary Cummins didn't file a police report. She blogged about it instead!
As the LA Chicken, Mary Cummins dressed in a chicken costume with a hatchet and fake blood around her neck, and took a protest to a Temple on Yom Kippur. Mary Cummins posted a press release on the LA City Website titled "Jewish Chicken Killing Ritual" and then posted the same press release with a phone number to the Kentucky Fried Chicken Headquarters in Louisville Kentucky.
The City Council and Mayor's office were swamped with phone calls for hours from furious Jewish community leaders, Rabbis, the Anti Defamation League...And according to a man at the temple that Mary Cummins picketed, the protesters shouted at the worshippers that they were "Palestinian children killers." He stated that they also said, "Why don't you kill your own children instead of the chickens".
But, when Mary Cummins posted her version of this story (pretending to be "a Jewish boy") according to this nutcase, the protesters were subjected to violence, the worshippers backed a car over the boy, and the protesters made a citizens arrest. IT NEVER HAPPENED. LAPD WAS THERE. IF THIS HAD HAPPENED, WHERE WAS THE POLICE REPORT. Why would they have to make a "citizen's arrest" with the LAPD present?
Fact is, the harassers at the temple that day were the protestors, LED BY THE LA CHICKEN MARY CUMMINS, and not the worshippers. But that is what we mean when we say that Mary Cummins turns the tables, victimizes people, and then pretends that she is the victim. Sick stuff.
A reporter who attended wrote about the LA Chicken protest. That version and Mary Cummins' version were miles apart...this was just a crazy sick anti-Semitic rant by INSANE MARY CUMMINS. (we will have more about this LA Chicken story in upcoming posts, including photos of nutcase Mary Cummins in her "full chicken costume," and how she outed her identity on LA Voice.)
And then, Mary Cummins spent a lot of time sending emails to City Council that some of her critics were about to be arrested. She posted on her blog animalnutz.blogspot.com that LAPD was on their way to several individuals homes. Mary Cummins called LAPD to get a court process server arrested, AND THIS IS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT who was doing his job, trying to LEGALLY serve Mary Cummins a summons in a lawsuit. Instead of accepting the summons, in a legal orderly fashion, Mary Cummins says she "got her gun." And then Mary Cummins tried to get the process server fired. His boss' response to Mary Cummins indicates that they thought Mary Cummins was nuts, too. Mary Cummins tried repeatedly since 2000 to get her neighbor Jason Simas arrested. AGAIN, IT DID NOT HAPPEN. LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT ARREST INNOCENT PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE LOONY RANTINGS OF A NUTCASE.
And then there is this famous post, lampooned by bikers in rec.motorcycles.harley. Please note: IT WAS ILLEGAL! AND THE PROOF IS THAT ANTHONY ELGINDY (the subject) IS LOCKED UP IN THE FEDERAL POKEY. That sounds illegal enough to us! Also, as one of the posters pointed out to Crazy Mary Cummins, the FBI asks questions. They tend not to share classified investigation information on racketeering and securities fraud with lunatics.
To: semperfijarhead who wrote (77018) 5/28/2002 8:36:47 PM
From: was mmmary Read Replies (2) of 101666
I wasn't a member of the club
so I can't answer your questions. I don't believe he ever posted that information on a public thread or in his site or PRs. Also, I've spoken to FBI guys and they're shared information with me that I've even posted on the boards. I've had others tell me what FBI agents have told them. If this is illegal, why'd did they tell me this information and why didn't they tell me it was illegal for them to do so. I believed they were sharing information with me so I could help them with their cases. Same with SEC agents. They also never told me not to share the info or make it public. Who's in the wrong here?
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=17525752
Today, it came to our attention that one of Mary Cummins few supporters on the stock boards, a New Jersey man named Floyd, is back defending Mary Cummins with the old LIE that the FBI is investigating the victims of Mary Cummins. Now, we've said this before. We feel bad for poor Floyd, having to defend this lunatic nutcase. HE HAS SO LITTLE TO WORK WITH. But Floyd needs a history lesson. If Mary Cummins is spending time with law enforcement lately (and according to her post on Mayor Sam, she was "dragged down" to LAPD anti-terrorism)we're guessing that MARY CUMMINS IS THE ONE THEY'RE INTERESTED IN. NOT OUR VICTIMS AND OUR VICTIMS BLOGS.
Why? Mary Cummins has a website where she posts the phone numbers and addresses of the mayor, his children, the Deputy Mayor's ex-wife and children, Ed Boks girlfriend, and numerous others. The language on that website is PURE HATE. Maybe law enforcement has an issue with that. Certainly, we can see where they might.
And Mary Cummins was a supporter of Anthony Elgindy. Maybe the FBI is interested in that. This wouldn't surprise us, either. Mary Cummins has called the mayor of Los Angeles a "murderer" as well as "guilty of animal abuse." Mary Cummins posts home addresses of wives and children with words that look very inciteful to us. LAPD anti-terrorism has strongly told some of Mary Cummins victims that she is a concern. So maybe they're interested in that.
And then there are the infamous Mary Cummins blogs, threatening decent LA citizens from APPLYING FOR A CITY JOB. Maybe they know things we don't. (Could be. But on the other hand, we KNOW A LOT.)
As for poor Floyd, we think he needs to take a rest from defending this indefensible maniac Mary Cummins; maybe he might try spending less time bashing stocks and name calling on Silicon Investor where he appears to tag intelligent people as "loons" and more time on the rest of the Internet researching Mary Cummins LONG AND SERIOUS HISTORY of malicious behavior and stalking online and offline. Tough as it might be for Floyd to face, it's a wasted effort to say that Mary Cummins, who was DRAGGED DOWN TO LAPD ANTI-TERRORISM, has now turned the tables and is having her victims arrested. The reason it sounds dopey and illogical is BECAUSE IT IS DOPEY AND ILLOGICAL.
Besides, as we just pointed out, Mary Cummins already tried that before. And since Mary Cummins returned to bash stocks as anniebonny she's already busted her alias by showing that she knows a lot more than a newcomer ever would about stocks. So there is that, too.
And then, if you call LA City Council and ask each Councilmember what they know about Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates you will hear "wackjob" and "terrorist" tossed around.
Of course it is possible the FBI can't find the LA Mayor, Deputy Mayors, LA City Councilmembers, Animal Control Officers, LAAS GMs, Union Leaders, City Attorneys, LAPD anti-terrorism squad, LAPD anti-threat, and all the victims of Mary Cummins, including the bikers, neighbors, rescuers, reporters, attorneys and Ramones fans. (A broker that went to list Mary Cummins house was told by Mary Cummins that the "Ramones brothers" are stalking her and that the "Ramones wife wants to rape" her.) Mary Cummins has sent emails to the City Council, Fish and Game and copied the Mayor and Ed Boks that a group of rescuers want to "Rape and kill" her. Mary Cummins has also sent emails to City Council that an attorney wants to "rape and kill her" Face it, this Mary Cummins is a SICK NUTCASE. And maybe the FBI can't find all the victims and figure it out. But let's have a little trust here. After all, they are the FBI.
By the way, the Ramones aren't brothers. And most of them are dead.
PART THREE COMING SOON!
To read Part One, Cut and Paste this link in browser:
http://animal-nutz.blogspot.com/2007/11/mary-cummins-aka-mary-cummins-cobb-sues.html
December 03, 2007
August 30, 2007
Mary Cummins vs Los Angeles City, Ed Boks Et Al; What Is The Definition of "Witness Tampering"?
The Los Angeles City and the City Attorneys office is now looking at more than 25 potential witnesses who are willing to step forward, or answer subpoenas to speak out against Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates frivolous lawsuit for wrongful termination against the City of Los Angeles, Ed Boks et al. These witnesses are people from all walks of life who know ALL ABOUT Mary Cummins and do not want her to practice her treachery and intimidation EVER again against LAAS employees, volunteers and the city's homeless animals.
Three days ago, Mary Cummins (posting in her idiotic alias Ann Angeleno or AnnAngeleno) had her "article" stripped down from LA Voice. The site now says that the post "has been deleted because of alleged copyright infringement and misappropriation of identities. We're keeping an eye out for any further attempts to hijack this site." Maybe former LA Voice Publisher Mack Reed--who was harassed by Mary Cummins and had his wife defamed by Mary Cummins ON HIS OWN BLOG--contacted the new publishers when he realized AnnAngeleno is a fake name and also that Cummins had the temerity to post one item in his name.
But we digress. Today we were contacted by Mary Cummins victims who post to the closed blog http://mary-cummins.blogspot.com. Many were concerned about Mary Cummins latest post to her wacko lying blog http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com, as there are many nasty emails now posted there.On her blog, Animal Advocates' Mary Cummins now admits to speaking about ALF-like actions against decent citizens, some of whom aren't even in the humane community. She admits her knowledge of a proposed campaign of terror against HER critics by posting fliers and contacting their neighbors and to multiple trips to LAPD to get these citizens arrested. FOR WHAT? For figuring out what a nut she is! That is right folks! Deputy Mayor Jim Bickhart's girlfriend Mary Cummins did this AND MORE, all the while Jim Bickhart was sponsoring and defending his girlfriend Mary Cummins, disgracing the Mayor, the City of Los Angeles, his position. Jim Bickhart acted with total disregard for the citizens of Los Angeles and to the detriment of all.
Moreover, the witnesses expressed concerns that Mary Cummins, who is A KNOWN EMAIL FORGER, spammer and computer identity thief, would continue on this path AGAINST THE CITY'S POTENTIAL WITNESSES with the possible result of terrifying or dissuading the city's witnesses against testifying in this case by using her infamous Mary Cummins nonsense, lies, defamation, libel, slander, harassment, contacting their employers, families and friends, DEFAMING their employers, families and friends, fabricating emails, fabricating false criminal records and threats to have her detractors fired and/or arrested (ALL KNOWN MARY CUMMINS TOOLS).
Is this witness tampering? We honestly don't know. However, one of the City's key potential witnesses had his attorneys fax over this definition this morning. We are posting it, without making any comments to how the content pertains to Mary Cummins latest crazy posts on http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com. You will have to go there and read them for yourself. And we will continue to take information--as well as monitor the tides in cyberspace--for the brave folks who have decided to speak out about this bogus Mary Cummins lawsuit that is packed with lies and inaccuracies.
Other avenues worth exploring:
Board of Animal Services Commissioner Kathleen Riordan learned from Mary Cummins that she was planning to sue LA City and Ed Boks for wrongful termination in early March, 2007. Kathleen Riordan expressed her delight about the proposed Mary Cummins lawsuit against Mr. Boks to witnesses who balked at any suggestion or allegation that Mary Cummins was wrongfully terminated. They declared to Kathleen Riordan that they would go forward in defense of the city, as there were numerous affiliates of the rescue and humane communities that believed Mary Cummins was rightfully terminated by The City of Los Angeles. One day later they informed Kathleen Riordan that they had indeed informed other LA city officials, including city councilmembers, of their intention to give declarations and court testimony if necessary on behalf of The City of Los Angeles in what they felt would be a frivolous lawsuit.
At that point, Kathleen Riordan and Jim Bickhart fed personal information (including conversations Kathleen Riordan had had with the witnesses under the guise of "friendship") and emails from several of these declared witnesses to Mary Cummins, which appeared as distortions of the truth to harass abuse and libel these witnesses in emails from Mary Cummins to said potential city witnesses, their friends, employers and family members, and on Mary Cummins' various libelous and abusive blogs. Does this fit the definition of "witness tampering" or "conspiracy" as set forth by the state and federal codes cited below? Again, we don't know. We will be keeping a close watch on this situation, presenting the facts as they come available and then leaving it up to the courts to decide.
(And due to the fact that some of these witnesses have been libeled and harassed by Mary Cummins friend Edward Muzika, we will also keep an eye out for potential interference with city witnesses on Muzika's blog @ http://laanimalwatch.blogspot.com.)
Meanwhile, here is the California statute regarding WITNESS TAMPERING...(the Federal definition follows below:
West's Annotated California Codes Currentness Penal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments
Title 7. Of Crimes Against Public Justice
Chapter 6. Falsifying Evidence, and Bribing, Influencing, Intimidating or Threatening Witnesses (Refs & Annos)§ 136.1.
Intimidation of witnesses and victims; offenses; penalties; enhancement; aggravation
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who does any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(2) Knowingly and maliciously attempts to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(3) For purposes of this section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the act was without malice.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), every person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from doing any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge.
(2) Causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.
(3) Arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization.
(c) Every person doing any of the acts described in subdivision (a) or (b) knowingly and maliciously under any one or more of the following circumstances, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the act is accompanied by force or by an express or implied threat of force or violence, upon a witness or victim or any third person or the property of any victim, witness, or any third person.
(2) Where the act is in furtherance of a conspiracy.
(3) Where the act is committed by any person who has been convicted of any violation of this section, any predecessor law hereto or any federal statute or statute of any other state which, if the act prosecuted was committed in this state, would be a violation of this section.
(4) Where the act is committed by any person for pecuniary gain or for any other consideration acting upon the request of any other person. All parties to such a transaction are guilty of a felony.
(d) Every person attempting the commission of any act described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) is guilty of the offense attempted without regard to success or failure of the attempt. The fact that no person was injured physically, or in fact intimidated, shall be no defense against any prosecution under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section precludes the imposition of an enhancement for great bodily injury where the injury inflicted is significant or substantial.
(f) The use of force during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (c) shall be considered a circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a term of imprisonment under subdivision (b) of Section 1170.
CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1980, c. 686, p. 2076, § 2.1. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 1098, p. 3997, § 1; Stats.1990, c. 350 (S.B. 2054), § 10; Stats.1997, c. 500 (S.B.940), § 1.)
FEDERAL CODE 18 U.S.C. § 1512
The federal criminal statute governing witness tampering is 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
Relevant provisions from section 1512 include subsections (b) through (f).
Subsection (b)
Pertinent language from subsection (b) includes the following: (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to – (1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; [or]
(2) cause or induce any person to –
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.Certain of the terms used in subsection (b) are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515. The term “official proceeding” includes civil litigation in federal court. The term “corruptly persuades” does not include “conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.
”The AAEM rules on expert testimony are manifestly implicated by this provision, inasmuch as the rules exist entirely for the purpose of “influencing” testimony in civil proceedings (or preventing it altogether, at least in the case of witnesses not meeting the rules’ criteria on qualifications). Whether the AAEM rules also satisfy the statute’s criteria for “intimidation,” “threat[s],” “corrupt[] persua[sion],” or “misleading conduct” will be addressed later – as will the question whether measures taken in abstract contemplation of future, unidentified cases should count as involving any “official proceeding” for purposes of triggering the statute.
Subsection (c)
Subsection (c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly – (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.For present purposes, the distinction between subsections (b) and (c) would seem subtle. Almost by definition, one who has influenced testimony in a proceeding by intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness (as subsection (b) already proscribes) has also “corruptly” obstructed, influenced, or impeded the proceeding itself (as subsection (c) forbids). Subsection (c)(2), however, also sweeps in conduct that corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes a proceeding, even if that conduct would not count as intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness.
Subsection (d)
Pertinent portions of subsection (d) provide:
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from – (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; . . .or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.This sweeps “harassment” into the arena of prohibited conduct, insofar as the harassment involves an intentional attempt to hinder, dissuade, or prevent a witness from testifying.Subsection (e)Subsection (e) provides: (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant's sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.Subsection (e) makes purity of intent a defense. Mere professions of innocent intent, however, obviously do not confer immunity. Whether the “sole intention” of the actor’s conduct was to promote truthful testimony is a question of fact, and one to which the surrounding circumstances and the actor’s methods may be relevant.
Subsection (f)
Subsection (f) provides:
(f) For the purposes of this section –
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.Under subsection (f)(1), it is not a defense that no proceeding was pending or imminent at the time of the offense. From a policy standpoint, this is eminently sensible. It has no less deleterious an effect on the administration of justice, if potential witnesses are threatened or intimidated before judicial proceedings are even in preparation. Indeed, witness tampering at that early stage may exert especially pernicious effects, by successfully preventing the subject matter of potential proceedings from ever coming to light in the first place. The statute’s mens rea requirements may demand that the actor have undertaken his conduct with the potential for official proceedings in view. But that is another matter.
A “harmless tampering” defense might also be imagined, in which the offender seeks exoneration on the theory that the evidence he sought to suppress would not have been admissible in any event. Subsection (f)(2) bars such a defense. Thus if a criminal defendant threatens to break the knees of the prosecution’s polygrapher if the polygrapher testifies, the defendant has violated the witness tampering statute even though the trial court may well exclude the polygrapher’s testimony anyway for want of reliability under Daubert.
Three days ago, Mary Cummins (posting in her idiotic alias Ann Angeleno or AnnAngeleno) had her "article" stripped down from LA Voice. The site now says that the post "has been deleted because of alleged copyright infringement and misappropriation of identities. We're keeping an eye out for any further attempts to hijack this site." Maybe former LA Voice Publisher Mack Reed--who was harassed by Mary Cummins and had his wife defamed by Mary Cummins ON HIS OWN BLOG--contacted the new publishers when he realized AnnAngeleno is a fake name and also that Cummins had the temerity to post one item in his name.
But we digress. Today we were contacted by Mary Cummins victims who post to the closed blog http://mary-cummins.blogspot.com. Many were concerned about Mary Cummins latest post to her wacko lying blog http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com, as there are many nasty emails now posted there.On her blog, Animal Advocates' Mary Cummins now admits to speaking about ALF-like actions against decent citizens, some of whom aren't even in the humane community. She admits her knowledge of a proposed campaign of terror against HER critics by posting fliers and contacting their neighbors and to multiple trips to LAPD to get these citizens arrested. FOR WHAT? For figuring out what a nut she is! That is right folks! Deputy Mayor Jim Bickhart's girlfriend Mary Cummins did this AND MORE, all the while Jim Bickhart was sponsoring and defending his girlfriend Mary Cummins, disgracing the Mayor, the City of Los Angeles, his position. Jim Bickhart acted with total disregard for the citizens of Los Angeles and to the detriment of all.
Moreover, the witnesses expressed concerns that Mary Cummins, who is A KNOWN EMAIL FORGER, spammer and computer identity thief, would continue on this path AGAINST THE CITY'S POTENTIAL WITNESSES with the possible result of terrifying or dissuading the city's witnesses against testifying in this case by using her infamous Mary Cummins nonsense, lies, defamation, libel, slander, harassment, contacting their employers, families and friends, DEFAMING their employers, families and friends, fabricating emails, fabricating false criminal records and threats to have her detractors fired and/or arrested (ALL KNOWN MARY CUMMINS TOOLS).
Is this witness tampering? We honestly don't know. However, one of the City's key potential witnesses had his attorneys fax over this definition this morning. We are posting it, without making any comments to how the content pertains to Mary Cummins latest crazy posts on http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com. You will have to go there and read them for yourself. And we will continue to take information--as well as monitor the tides in cyberspace--for the brave folks who have decided to speak out about this bogus Mary Cummins lawsuit that is packed with lies and inaccuracies.
Other avenues worth exploring:
Board of Animal Services Commissioner Kathleen Riordan learned from Mary Cummins that she was planning to sue LA City and Ed Boks for wrongful termination in early March, 2007. Kathleen Riordan expressed her delight about the proposed Mary Cummins lawsuit against Mr. Boks to witnesses who balked at any suggestion or allegation that Mary Cummins was wrongfully terminated. They declared to Kathleen Riordan that they would go forward in defense of the city, as there were numerous affiliates of the rescue and humane communities that believed Mary Cummins was rightfully terminated by The City of Los Angeles. One day later they informed Kathleen Riordan that they had indeed informed other LA city officials, including city councilmembers, of their intention to give declarations and court testimony if necessary on behalf of The City of Los Angeles in what they felt would be a frivolous lawsuit.
At that point, Kathleen Riordan and Jim Bickhart fed personal information (including conversations Kathleen Riordan had had with the witnesses under the guise of "friendship") and emails from several of these declared witnesses to Mary Cummins, which appeared as distortions of the truth to harass abuse and libel these witnesses in emails from Mary Cummins to said potential city witnesses, their friends, employers and family members, and on Mary Cummins' various libelous and abusive blogs. Does this fit the definition of "witness tampering" or "conspiracy" as set forth by the state and federal codes cited below? Again, we don't know. We will be keeping a close watch on this situation, presenting the facts as they come available and then leaving it up to the courts to decide.
(And due to the fact that some of these witnesses have been libeled and harassed by Mary Cummins friend Edward Muzika, we will also keep an eye out for potential interference with city witnesses on Muzika's blog @ http://laanimalwatch.blogspot.com.)
Meanwhile, here is the California statute regarding WITNESS TAMPERING...(the Federal definition follows below:
West's Annotated California Codes Currentness Penal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments
Title 7. Of Crimes Against Public Justice
Chapter 6. Falsifying Evidence, and Bribing, Influencing, Intimidating or Threatening Witnesses (Refs & Annos)§ 136.1.
Intimidation of witnesses and victims; offenses; penalties; enhancement; aggravation
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who does any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(2) Knowingly and maliciously attempts to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(3) For purposes of this section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the act was without malice.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), every person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from doing any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge.
(2) Causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.
(3) Arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization.
(c) Every person doing any of the acts described in subdivision (a) or (b) knowingly and maliciously under any one or more of the following circumstances, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the act is accompanied by force or by an express or implied threat of force or violence, upon a witness or victim or any third person or the property of any victim, witness, or any third person.
(2) Where the act is in furtherance of a conspiracy.
(3) Where the act is committed by any person who has been convicted of any violation of this section, any predecessor law hereto or any federal statute or statute of any other state which, if the act prosecuted was committed in this state, would be a violation of this section.
(4) Where the act is committed by any person for pecuniary gain or for any other consideration acting upon the request of any other person. All parties to such a transaction are guilty of a felony.
(d) Every person attempting the commission of any act described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) is guilty of the offense attempted without regard to success or failure of the attempt. The fact that no person was injured physically, or in fact intimidated, shall be no defense against any prosecution under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section precludes the imposition of an enhancement for great bodily injury where the injury inflicted is significant or substantial.
(f) The use of force during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (c) shall be considered a circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a term of imprisonment under subdivision (b) of Section 1170.
CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1980, c. 686, p. 2076, § 2.1. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 1098, p. 3997, § 1; Stats.1990, c. 350 (S.B. 2054), § 10; Stats.1997, c. 500 (S.B.940), § 1.)
FEDERAL CODE 18 U.S.C. § 1512
The federal criminal statute governing witness tampering is 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
Relevant provisions from section 1512 include subsections (b) through (f).
Subsection (b)
Pertinent language from subsection (b) includes the following: (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to – (1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; [or]
(2) cause or induce any person to –
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.Certain of the terms used in subsection (b) are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515. The term “official proceeding” includes civil litigation in federal court. The term “corruptly persuades” does not include “conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.
”The AAEM rules on expert testimony are manifestly implicated by this provision, inasmuch as the rules exist entirely for the purpose of “influencing” testimony in civil proceedings (or preventing it altogether, at least in the case of witnesses not meeting the rules’ criteria on qualifications). Whether the AAEM rules also satisfy the statute’s criteria for “intimidation,” “threat[s],” “corrupt[] persua[sion],” or “misleading conduct” will be addressed later – as will the question whether measures taken in abstract contemplation of future, unidentified cases should count as involving any “official proceeding” for purposes of triggering the statute.
Subsection (c)
Subsection (c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly – (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.For present purposes, the distinction between subsections (b) and (c) would seem subtle. Almost by definition, one who has influenced testimony in a proceeding by intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness (as subsection (b) already proscribes) has also “corruptly” obstructed, influenced, or impeded the proceeding itself (as subsection (c) forbids). Subsection (c)(2), however, also sweeps in conduct that corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes a proceeding, even if that conduct would not count as intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness.
Subsection (d)
Pertinent portions of subsection (d) provide:
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from – (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; . . .or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.This sweeps “harassment” into the arena of prohibited conduct, insofar as the harassment involves an intentional attempt to hinder, dissuade, or prevent a witness from testifying.Subsection (e)Subsection (e) provides: (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant's sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.Subsection (e) makes purity of intent a defense. Mere professions of innocent intent, however, obviously do not confer immunity. Whether the “sole intention” of the actor’s conduct was to promote truthful testimony is a question of fact, and one to which the surrounding circumstances and the actor’s methods may be relevant.
Subsection (f)
Subsection (f) provides:
(f) For the purposes of this section –
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.Under subsection (f)(1), it is not a defense that no proceeding was pending or imminent at the time of the offense. From a policy standpoint, this is eminently sensible. It has no less deleterious an effect on the administration of justice, if potential witnesses are threatened or intimidated before judicial proceedings are even in preparation. Indeed, witness tampering at that early stage may exert especially pernicious effects, by successfully preventing the subject matter of potential proceedings from ever coming to light in the first place. The statute’s mens rea requirements may demand that the actor have undertaken his conduct with the potential for official proceedings in view. But that is another matter.
A “harmless tampering” defense might also be imagined, in which the offender seeks exoneration on the theory that the evidence he sought to suppress would not have been admissible in any event. Subsection (f)(2) bars such a defense. Thus if a criminal defendant threatens to break the knees of the prosecution’s polygrapher if the polygrapher testifies, the defendant has violated the witness tampering statute even though the trial court may well exclude the polygrapher’s testimony anyway for want of reliability under Daubert.
Mary Cummins vs. City of Los Angeles, Ed Boks, Et Al: What Is The Definition Of "Witness Tampering"?
The Los Angeles City and the City Attorneys office is now looking at more than 25 potential witnesses who are willing to step forward, or answer subpoenas to speak out against Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates frivolous lawsuit for wrongful termination against the City of Los Angeles, Ed Boks et al. These witnesses are people from all walks of life who know ALL ABOUT Mary Cummins and do not want her to practice her treachery and intimidation EVER again against LAAS employees, volunteers and the city's homeless animals.
Three days ago, Mary Cummins (posting in her idiotic alias Ann Angeleno or AnnAngeleno) had her "article" stripped down from LA Voice. The site now says that the post "has been deleted because of alleged copyright infringement and misappropriation of identities. We're keeping an eye out for any further attempts to hijack this site." Maybe former LA Voice Publisher Mack Reed--who was harassed by Mary Cummins and had his wife defamed by Mary Cummins ON HIS OWN BLOG--contacted the new publishers when he realized AnnAngeleno is a fake name and also that Cummins had the temerity to post one item in his name.
But we digress. Today we were contacted by Mary Cummins victims who post to the closed blog http://mary-cummins.blogspot.com. Many were concerned about Mary Cummins latest post to her wacko lying blog http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com, as there are many nasty emails now posted there.On her blog, Animal Advocates' Mary Cummins now admits to speaking about ALF-like actions against decent citizens, some of whom aren't even in the humane community. She admits her knowledge of a proposed campaign of terror against HER critics by posting fliers and contacting their neighbors and to multiple trips to LAPD to get these citizens arrested. FOR WHAT? For figuring out what a nut she is! That is right folks! Deputy Mayor Jim Bickhart's girlfriend Mary Cummins did this AND MORE, all the while Jim Bickhart was sponsoring and defending his girlfriend Mary Cummins, disgracing the Mayor, the City of Los Angeles, his position. Jim Bickhart acted with total disregard for the citizens of Los Angeles and to the detriment of all.
Moreover, the witnesses expressed concerns that Mary Cummins, who is A KNOWN EMAIL FORGER, spammer and computer identity thief, would continue on this path AGAINST THE CITY'S POTENTIAL WITNESSES with the possible result of terrifying or dissuading the city's witnesses against testifying in this case by using her infamous Mary Cummins nonsense, lies, defamation, libel, slander, harassment, contacting their employers, families and friends, DEFAMING their employers, families and friends, fabricating emails, fabricating false criminal records and threats to have her detractors fired and/or arrested (ALL KNOWN MARY CUMMINS TOOLS).
Is this witness tampering? We honestly don't know. However, one of the City's key potential witnesses had his attorneys fax over this definition this morning. We are posting it, without making any comments to how the content pertains to Mary Cummins latest crazy posts on http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com. You will have to go there and read them for yourself. And we will continue to take information--as well as monitor the tides in cyberspace--for the brave folks who have decided to speak out about this bogus Mary Cummins lawsuit that is packed with lies and inaccuracies.
Other avenues worth exploring:
Board of Animal Services Commissioner Kathleen Riordan learned from Mary Cummins that she was planning to sue LA City and Ed Boks for wrongful termination in early March, 2007. Kathleen Riordan expressed her delight about the proposed Mary Cummins lawsuit against Mr. Boks to witnesses who balked at any suggestion or allegation that Mary Cummins was wrongfully terminated. They declared to Kathleen Riordan that they would go forward in defense of the city, as there were numerous affiliates of the rescue and humane communities that believed Mary Cummins was rightfully terminated by The City of Los Angeles. One day later they informed Kathleen Riordan that they had indeed informed other LA city officials, including city councilmembers, of their intention to give declarations and court testimony if necessary on behalf of The City of Los Angeles in what they felt would be a frivolous lawsuit.
At that point, Kathleen Riordan and Jim Bickhart fed personal information (including conversations Kathleen Riordan had had with the witnesses under the guise of "friendship") and emails from several of these declared witnesses to Mary Cummins, which appeared as distortions of the truth to harass abuse and libel these witnesses in emails from Mary Cummins to said potential city witnesses, their friends, employers and family members, and on Mary Cummins' various libelous and abusive blogs. Does this fit the definition of "witness tampering" or "conspiracy" as set forth by the state and federal codes cited below? Again, we don't know. We will be keeping a close watch on this situation, presenting the facts as they come available and then leaving it up to the courts to decide.
(And due to the fact that some of these witnesses have been libeled and harassed by Mary Cummins friend Edward Muzika, we will also keep an eye out for potential interference with city witnesses on Muzika's blog @ http://laanimalwatch.blogspot.com.)
Meanwhile, here is the California statute regarding WITNESS TAMPERING...(the Federal definition follows below:
West's Annotated California Codes Currentness Penal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments
Title 7. Of Crimes Against Public Justice
Chapter 6. Falsifying Evidence, and Bribing, Influencing, Intimidating or Threatening Witnesses (Refs & Annos)§ 136.1.
Intimidation of witnesses and victims; offenses; penalties; enhancement; aggravation
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who does any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(2) Knowingly and maliciously attempts to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(3) For purposes of this section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the act was without malice.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), every person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from doing any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge.
(2) Causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.
(3) Arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization.
(c) Every person doing any of the acts described in subdivision (a) or (b) knowingly and maliciously under any one or more of the following circumstances, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the act is accompanied by force or by an express or implied threat of force or violence, upon a witness or victim or any third person or the property of any victim, witness, or any third person.
(2) Where the act is in furtherance of a conspiracy.
(3) Where the act is committed by any person who has been convicted of any violation of this section, any predecessor law hereto or any federal statute or statute of any other state which, if the act prosecuted was committed in this state, would be a violation of this section.
(4) Where the act is committed by any person for pecuniary gain or for any other consideration acting upon the request of any other person. All parties to such a transaction are guilty of a felony.
(d) Every person attempting the commission of any act described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) is guilty of the offense attempted without regard to success or failure of the attempt. The fact that no person was injured physically, or in fact intimidated, shall be no defense against any prosecution under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section precludes the imposition of an enhancement for great bodily injury where the injury inflicted is significant or substantial.
(f) The use of force during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (c) shall be considered a circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a term of imprisonment under subdivision (b) of Section 1170.
CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1980, c. 686, p. 2076, § 2.1. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 1098, p. 3997, § 1; Stats.1990, c. 350 (S.B. 2054), § 10; Stats.1997, c. 500 (S.B.940), § 1.)
FEDERAL CODE 18 U.S.C. § 1512
The federal criminal statute governing witness tampering is 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
Relevant provisions from section 1512 include subsections (b) through (f).
Subsection (b)
Pertinent language from subsection (b) includes the following: (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to – (1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; [or]
(2) cause or induce any person to –
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.Certain of the terms used in subsection (b) are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515. The term “official proceeding” includes civil litigation in federal court. The term “corruptly persuades” does not include “conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.
”The AAEM rules on expert testimony are manifestly implicated by this provision, inasmuch as the rules exist entirely for the purpose of “influencing” testimony in civil proceedings (or preventing it altogether, at least in the case of witnesses not meeting the rules’ criteria on qualifications). Whether the AAEM rules also satisfy the statute’s criteria for “intimidation,” “threat[s],” “corrupt[] persua[sion],” or “misleading conduct” will be addressed later – as will the question whether measures taken in abstract contemplation of future, unidentified cases should count as involving any “official proceeding” for purposes of triggering the statute.
Subsection (c)
Subsection (c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly – (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.For present purposes, the distinction between subsections (b) and (c) would seem subtle. Almost by definition, one who has influenced testimony in a proceeding by intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness (as subsection (b) already proscribes) has also “corruptly” obstructed, influenced, or impeded the proceeding itself (as subsection (c) forbids). Subsection (c)(2), however, also sweeps in conduct that corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes a proceeding, even if that conduct would not count as intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness.
Subsection (d)
Pertinent portions of subsection (d) provide:
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from – (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; . . .or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.This sweeps “harassment” into the arena of prohibited conduct, insofar as the harassment involves an intentional attempt to hinder, dissuade, or prevent a witness from testifying.Subsection (e)Subsection (e) provides: (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant's sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.Subsection (e) makes purity of intent a defense. Mere professions of innocent intent, however, obviously do not confer immunity. Whether the “sole intention” of the actor’s conduct was to promote truthful testimony is a question of fact, and one to which the surrounding circumstances and the actor’s methods may be relevant.
Subsection (f)
Subsection (f) provides:
(f) For the purposes of this section –
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.Under subsection (f)(1), it is not a defense that no proceeding was pending or imminent at the time of the offense. From a policy standpoint, this is eminently sensible. It has no less deleterious an effect on the administration of justice, if potential witnesses are threatened or intimidated before judicial proceedings are even in preparation. Indeed, witness tampering at that early stage may exert especially pernicious effects, by successfully preventing the subject matter of potential proceedings from ever coming to light in the first place. The statute’s mens rea requirements may demand that the actor have undertaken his conduct with the potential for official proceedings in view. But that is another matter.
A “harmless tampering” defense might also be imagined, in which the offender seeks exoneration on the theory that the evidence he sought to suppress would not have been admissible in any event. Subsection (f)(2) bars such a defense. Thus if a criminal defendant threatens to break the knees of the prosecution’s polygrapher if the polygrapher testifies, the defendant has violated the witness tampering statute even though the trial court may well exclude the polygrapher’s testimony anyway for want of reliability under Daubert.
Three days ago, Mary Cummins (posting in her idiotic alias Ann Angeleno or AnnAngeleno) had her "article" stripped down from LA Voice. The site now says that the post "has been deleted because of alleged copyright infringement and misappropriation of identities. We're keeping an eye out for any further attempts to hijack this site." Maybe former LA Voice Publisher Mack Reed--who was harassed by Mary Cummins and had his wife defamed by Mary Cummins ON HIS OWN BLOG--contacted the new publishers when he realized AnnAngeleno is a fake name and also that Cummins had the temerity to post one item in his name.
But we digress. Today we were contacted by Mary Cummins victims who post to the closed blog http://mary-cummins.blogspot.com. Many were concerned about Mary Cummins latest post to her wacko lying blog http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com, as there are many nasty emails now posted there.On her blog, Animal Advocates' Mary Cummins now admits to speaking about ALF-like actions against decent citizens, some of whom aren't even in the humane community. She admits her knowledge of a proposed campaign of terror against HER critics by posting fliers and contacting their neighbors and to multiple trips to LAPD to get these citizens arrested. FOR WHAT? For figuring out what a nut she is! That is right folks! Deputy Mayor Jim Bickhart's girlfriend Mary Cummins did this AND MORE, all the while Jim Bickhart was sponsoring and defending his girlfriend Mary Cummins, disgracing the Mayor, the City of Los Angeles, his position. Jim Bickhart acted with total disregard for the citizens of Los Angeles and to the detriment of all.
Moreover, the witnesses expressed concerns that Mary Cummins, who is A KNOWN EMAIL FORGER, spammer and computer identity thief, would continue on this path AGAINST THE CITY'S POTENTIAL WITNESSES with the possible result of terrifying or dissuading the city's witnesses against testifying in this case by using her infamous Mary Cummins nonsense, lies, defamation, libel, slander, harassment, contacting their employers, families and friends, DEFAMING their employers, families and friends, fabricating emails, fabricating false criminal records and threats to have her detractors fired and/or arrested (ALL KNOWN MARY CUMMINS TOOLS).
Is this witness tampering? We honestly don't know. However, one of the City's key potential witnesses had his attorneys fax over this definition this morning. We are posting it, without making any comments to how the content pertains to Mary Cummins latest crazy posts on http://laanimalfriends.eponym.com. You will have to go there and read them for yourself. And we will continue to take information--as well as monitor the tides in cyberspace--for the brave folks who have decided to speak out about this bogus Mary Cummins lawsuit that is packed with lies and inaccuracies.
Other avenues worth exploring:
Board of Animal Services Commissioner Kathleen Riordan learned from Mary Cummins that she was planning to sue LA City and Ed Boks for wrongful termination in early March, 2007. Kathleen Riordan expressed her delight about the proposed Mary Cummins lawsuit against Mr. Boks to witnesses who balked at any suggestion or allegation that Mary Cummins was wrongfully terminated. They declared to Kathleen Riordan that they would go forward in defense of the city, as there were numerous affiliates of the rescue and humane communities that believed Mary Cummins was rightfully terminated by The City of Los Angeles. One day later they informed Kathleen Riordan that they had indeed informed other LA city officials, including city councilmembers, of their intention to give declarations and court testimony if necessary on behalf of The City of Los Angeles in what they felt would be a frivolous lawsuit.
At that point, Kathleen Riordan and Jim Bickhart fed personal information (including conversations Kathleen Riordan had had with the witnesses under the guise of "friendship") and emails from several of these declared witnesses to Mary Cummins, which appeared as distortions of the truth to harass abuse and libel these witnesses in emails from Mary Cummins to said potential city witnesses, their friends, employers and family members, and on Mary Cummins' various libelous and abusive blogs. Does this fit the definition of "witness tampering" or "conspiracy" as set forth by the state and federal codes cited below? Again, we don't know. We will be keeping a close watch on this situation, presenting the facts as they come available and then leaving it up to the courts to decide.
(And due to the fact that some of these witnesses have been libeled and harassed by Mary Cummins friend Edward Muzika, we will also keep an eye out for potential interference with city witnesses on Muzika's blog @ http://laanimalwatch.blogspot.com.)
Meanwhile, here is the California statute regarding WITNESS TAMPERING...(the Federal definition follows below:
West's Annotated California Codes Currentness Penal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments
Title 7. Of Crimes Against Public Justice
Chapter 6. Falsifying Evidence, and Bribing, Influencing, Intimidating or Threatening Witnesses (Refs & Annos)§ 136.1.
Intimidation of witnesses and victims; offenses; penalties; enhancement; aggravation
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who does any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(2) Knowingly and maliciously attempts to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(3) For purposes of this section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the act was without malice.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), every person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from doing any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge.
(2) Causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.
(3) Arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization.
(c) Every person doing any of the acts described in subdivision (a) or (b) knowingly and maliciously under any one or more of the following circumstances, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the act is accompanied by force or by an express or implied threat of force or violence, upon a witness or victim or any third person or the property of any victim, witness, or any third person.
(2) Where the act is in furtherance of a conspiracy.
(3) Where the act is committed by any person who has been convicted of any violation of this section, any predecessor law hereto or any federal statute or statute of any other state which, if the act prosecuted was committed in this state, would be a violation of this section.
(4) Where the act is committed by any person for pecuniary gain or for any other consideration acting upon the request of any other person. All parties to such a transaction are guilty of a felony.
(d) Every person attempting the commission of any act described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) is guilty of the offense attempted without regard to success or failure of the attempt. The fact that no person was injured physically, or in fact intimidated, shall be no defense against any prosecution under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section precludes the imposition of an enhancement for great bodily injury where the injury inflicted is significant or substantial.
(f) The use of force during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (c) shall be considered a circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a term of imprisonment under subdivision (b) of Section 1170.
CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1980, c. 686, p. 2076, § 2.1. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 1098, p. 3997, § 1; Stats.1990, c. 350 (S.B. 2054), § 10; Stats.1997, c. 500 (S.B.940), § 1.)
FEDERAL CODE 18 U.S.C. § 1512
The federal criminal statute governing witness tampering is 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
Relevant provisions from section 1512 include subsections (b) through (f).
Subsection (b)
Pertinent language from subsection (b) includes the following: (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to – (1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; [or]
(2) cause or induce any person to –
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.Certain of the terms used in subsection (b) are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515. The term “official proceeding” includes civil litigation in federal court. The term “corruptly persuades” does not include “conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.
”The AAEM rules on expert testimony are manifestly implicated by this provision, inasmuch as the rules exist entirely for the purpose of “influencing” testimony in civil proceedings (or preventing it altogether, at least in the case of witnesses not meeting the rules’ criteria on qualifications). Whether the AAEM rules also satisfy the statute’s criteria for “intimidation,” “threat[s],” “corrupt[] persua[sion],” or “misleading conduct” will be addressed later – as will the question whether measures taken in abstract contemplation of future, unidentified cases should count as involving any “official proceeding” for purposes of triggering the statute.
Subsection (c)
Subsection (c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly – (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.For present purposes, the distinction between subsections (b) and (c) would seem subtle. Almost by definition, one who has influenced testimony in a proceeding by intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness (as subsection (b) already proscribes) has also “corruptly” obstructed, influenced, or impeded the proceeding itself (as subsection (c) forbids). Subsection (c)(2), however, also sweeps in conduct that corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes a proceeding, even if that conduct would not count as intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading a witness.
Subsection (d)
Pertinent portions of subsection (d) provide:
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from – (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; . . .or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.This sweeps “harassment” into the arena of prohibited conduct, insofar as the harassment involves an intentional attempt to hinder, dissuade, or prevent a witness from testifying.Subsection (e)Subsection (e) provides: (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant's sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.Subsection (e) makes purity of intent a defense. Mere professions of innocent intent, however, obviously do not confer immunity. Whether the “sole intention” of the actor’s conduct was to promote truthful testimony is a question of fact, and one to which the surrounding circumstances and the actor’s methods may be relevant.
Subsection (f)
Subsection (f) provides:
(f) For the purposes of this section –
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.Under subsection (f)(1), it is not a defense that no proceeding was pending or imminent at the time of the offense. From a policy standpoint, this is eminently sensible. It has no less deleterious an effect on the administration of justice, if potential witnesses are threatened or intimidated before judicial proceedings are even in preparation. Indeed, witness tampering at that early stage may exert especially pernicious effects, by successfully preventing the subject matter of potential proceedings from ever coming to light in the first place. The statute’s mens rea requirements may demand that the actor have undertaken his conduct with the potential for official proceedings in view. But that is another matter.
A “harmless tampering” defense might also be imagined, in which the offender seeks exoneration on the theory that the evidence he sought to suppress would not have been admissible in any event. Subsection (f)(2) bars such a defense. Thus if a criminal defendant threatens to break the knees of the prosecution’s polygrapher if the polygrapher testifies, the defendant has violated the witness tampering statute even though the trial court may well exclude the polygrapher’s testimony anyway for want of reliability under Daubert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
