Two alarming things occurred in the past week, which by themselves could appear unrelated, but when you take into the greater picture in it’s entirety….. Then bingo: A sociopath, an authority hating one trying to charge the cops who criminally investigated her. Enough.
Nevermind the elections, the suspicious resignation of yet another Judge in this County, or the ongoing entanglement unfolding with Kathleen Kane and Sandusky.
Forget all that for now, and let’s look at this:
- Jury selection for the grand jury proceedings began. The grand jury involves further upcoming drama soon to unfold under the vengeful and retaliation bent hand of megalomaniac DA Stacy Parks Miller in Centre County. She had previously warned us of this in her angry press conference, to be fair. She had warned us she would be seeking revenge by prosecuting anybody who was a “whistleblower”, lawyer, politician or law officer that participated in the investigation of her criminal activities. She had, in fact, announced that she would be calling this witch hunt/investigating grand jury to examine, particularly: a “recent series of cases the scope of which cannot be determined without the powers granted to a county investigating grand jury.” We were warned of the impending witchhunt! (Centre Daily Times, “Judge Grants Parks Miller’s Request”, August 13, 2015)
- Stacy Parks Miller bought a gun:
Today I voted and picked up my new handgun at J&E guns. Exercising all kinds of rights! It is great to be an…
THE FIVE REASONS STACY FELT SHE NEEDED A GUN & WHY WE SHOULD FEAR A GRAND JURY CONVENED UNDER HER AUTHORITY
- The purpose of a grand jury is to examine evidence presented by the prosecutor to determine if criminal charges should be leveraged against potential criminal Defendants named by the prosecuting attorney: To explain the grand jury process in Pennsylvania we spoke to Francis T. Chardo, first assistant district attorney in Dauphin County. We also spoke to the Office of the Attorney General, who gave The PLS Reporter a detailed explanation of the grand jury process in Pennsylvania. The grand jury process is a “multistep process” that occurs prior to indictment and does not determine guilt or innocence, but whether criminal charges should be filed, explained Chardo. (http://www.plsreporter.com/Home/TabId/56/ArtMID/472/ArticleID/469/A-secret-no-more-Pennsylvania%E2%80%99s-grand-juries.aspx)
- The proceedings of the Grand Jury occur in secret, and the subjects of the investigation, witnesses, attorneys, judges and any participants are sworn an oath of secrecy, which if violated is punishable under the law: The traditional justifications for secrecy include preventing escape of investigation targets, preventing tampering with witnesses or grand jurors, encouraging free and open witness testimony and juror deliberations, and protecting the identities of targets who are exonerated after investigation but before indictment. (https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2015/grand-jury-secrecy-comes-co)
- “The Ham Sandwich Effect” – Grand juries are presented a One-Sided prosecutorial version of events with a single prosecutorial design criminal incitements against the subject(s) of the proceedings: The old adage is that a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich”. In fact, in 2010 there were 70,0000 felony cases that went before a grand jury and only 11 of those cases did not result in criminal indictments. It is likely that every subject (who will not be publically disclosed as subject of these investigations, until he/she is formally charged, will likely be charged with a crime in this case – statistical odds indicate such). Anyone subject of an investigation in on of the DA’s grand juries is more likely than not to be charged with a felony crime.
- No Defense lawyers are permitted to be present, and little judicial oversight is allotted to the judges: This is the Stacy Parks Miller show. The rules of evidence in traditional criminal court do not apply. The defense gets no rebuttle, and the witnesses get no forum to respond or explain. The Judges have little recourse to challenge or prohibit outrageous or abusive behavior on the prosecutor, and the evidence that is presented (or not presented) is chosen specifically by the prosecuting attorney. The story presented to these grand juries will be the DA’s version of events, and her’s alone. And since the criminal investigations surround the DA as the “victim” to the defendant’s in the proceedings, you better bet these proceedings will contain presentments slanted to support just such. The victim and the prosecutor are one in the same here, and no Defense lawyer is permitted on the floor of the court to respond. This is a one woman show and one version of events, with the design to criminally prosecute those who participated in “ruining” the reputation of the DA, “embarrassing” her, “invading her privacy” by releasing phone records where it was revealed she was engaging in ex parte communications, participating in any way shape or form (directly or indirectly) to the criminal investigation of Stacy Parks Miller: If you did that, you will likely be charged.
- Collateral Damages of Witnesses: The witnesses who testify, and are put in a negative light by the grand jury collaterally, are not legally permitted any judiciary forum to respond. This clause ruined Joe Paterno: Although Paterno was not the subject of the state’s criminal investigation against Sandusky, that did not satisfy the court of public opinion. And, although Paterno was denied the opportunity to legally respond—there existed no venue for him to file any kind of response or seek to strike portions of the Sandusky presentment—Penn State fired him on November 9 and he died just sixty-four days later. (http://works.bepress.com/brian_gallini/12/) It could also ruin lawyers, politicians, private citizens and anyone Stacy Parks Miller deems worthy of her retaliatory and spiteful bent malice on revenge against those who she perceives to have harmed her.
WHO IS SHE TARGETING? WHO WILL BE CHARGED?
- Rest assured that the person making these false allegations will ultimately be prosecuted by the fullest extent of the law –STACY PARKS MILLER
I.e.: everyone she can possibly charged who was involved, will be charged.
In order of obviousness:
- Michelle Shutt – A non-lawyer, private citizen, former paralegal in the DA office: Shutt exposed the forgery of the Judges signature, quit her job working for Stacy to go work for one of Stacy’s adversaries, and initiated with her new employer a police investigation surrounding the forgery of Judge Ruest’s signature. The police, and a Judge who executed law enforcement’s search warrant, approved a police investigation that resulted in the search of the DA office and the seizure of Park Miller’s cell phone, tablet and personal electronic devices. Shutt has little defenses offered as a non-lawyer private citizen, little financial resources and is the easiest and most vulnerable and likely target of the witch hunt.
- Police Chief and Investigators: Law enforcement easily ranks as second in line to be criminally charged as they report directly to the district attorney, are subject to her rules and orders, and are most easy to attack. They are also the charges will likely be the state police. I would expect to see the Chief of Bellefonte Police investigated and charged in the proceedings, along with any law enforcement officer or personel that participated in the search of the DA’s office or the investigation of the forgery.
- Private Lawyers: These lawyers are offered more levels of protection under the law, and are more difficult to charge. The prosecution will attempt to charge any lawyers who disseminated or shared the emails from the DA office (involving the forgery) as a breach of duty, and/or aiding and abetting, and/or – …. There are numerous loosely worded criminal statutes that could be applied. The private attorneys will be charged second, the testimony of the first grand jury proceedings used to indite law enforcement and the whistleblower will be used to build an evidenciary case against them. If the DA could get away with investigating and charging them in the first round, she would. Chances are, the criminal cases for the private attorneys will be built through the testimony of witnesses in the first round of grand jury proceedings.
- Politicians: This was carefully done: Exarchos and Dersham were sued in their professional and individual capacities (chance they should lose the election). Pipe was sued in his professional capacity. Parks Miller intends to criminally prosecute the politicians in addition to suing them. As in the case of the private lawyers, she will collect evidence and testimony in the first round of proceedings in order to leverage a criminal case in the second round. If you think this is wholey absurd or impossible, kindly revisit “breakfastgate” where Bruce Castor successfully managed to levy criminal charges against his peers on the board of commissioners over violations of the sunshine act. The “sunshine act” will be at the heart of Parks Miller’s criminal grand jury investigations. You can expect two out of the three commissioners who presided during Parks Miller’s own criminal investigation to be charged in the second wave of grand jury proceedings in centre county. Whether or not taxpayer dollars will pay for their criminal lawyers, as well as their civil lawyers, is yet to be seen.
So first she will charge the private citizen and police, then she will take whatever evidence she can gather from the testimony of these proceedings and charge anyone else she can who was involved. NOBODY is exempt, if your name is on it or near it, you may be charged. Whether you’re a subordinate to law enforcement or a politician, if you have contact with this case, then you are likely going to be charged. The whistle blower and members of the police force will be first, the private attorneys will come in the second wave.
Everyone who escapes a criminal prosecution, will likely face a civil law suit. So if you are not prosecuted, expect to be sued for any public dissent and/or participation with law enforcement, investigators or otherwise in the previous criminal investigation of DA Stacy Parks Miller. Many people have already received letters of impending likely lawsuits. If you can’t be criminally charged for perceived “harm” to the DA involving the criminal investigation, than you are likely to be sued in civil court. Tax payers will pay the civil penalties for your actions, IF YOUR NAME IS ON OR NEAR THIS, YOU WILL BE SUED OR CHARGED OR BOTH, DEPENDING ON WHAT SHE CAN GET AWAY WITH.
PUBLIC INTEREST AT LARGE
- What is interesting and little remarked upon by the press or flurry of uproar on social media is this: That if Stacy Parks Miller, as District Attorney, can prosecute someone for initiating a criminal investigation that results in an exoneration, then does it follow that if this criminal investigative witch hunt she is pursuing results in exoneration, that she herself can be prosecuted?
- Secondly, there are two cases going on here. In effect, Stacy Parks Miller has managed to find a legal loophole, in this utterly unique situation, where she can both sue and prosecute those she has percieved have harmed her. What a vindictive dream it must be for her? Imagine being able to both run your enemies bankrupt and have them thrown in jail? At what point, do we (or more appropriately, the supervising judiciary agency of these antics) call into question the inherent moral question: Is this not a CONFLICT OF INTEREST?!!! Will she be permitted to take the evidence she gathers in the criminal investigation and use this to build her civil case in order to accrue more sizeable damage (more amounts of money)?
- Thirdly, what is this fight even about? The public is sick of hearing about it, and sick of reading it almost weekly in the papers. If any Joe Smith could sue whenever a criminal investigation was wrongfully initiated against him, taxpayers would be broke. How is Stacy Parks Miller unique and special in her rights as a private citizen (seperate from her privileges in elected offices) that gives her the audacious authority to sue when a criminal investigation was launched against her that levied no findings? Where does it stop?
WHERE DOES IT STOP?