Joel K. Barr
Read the rest of Joel's story at: http://www.joelbarrsstory.com/
Introduction
I have never lived in a more openly corrupt place than Apache County, Arizona. In the following account of Joel K. Barr, you will come to know how corrupt the whole state is. And how the State colludes with corrupt judges, sheriffs and county attorneys to imprison the innocent and how the Apache County Attorneys Office, headed by Criss Candelaria, turn civil matters between citizens into criminal charges. To quote Dr. Jack Kervorkian; "Prosecuting Attorneys are disrupters. They will lie to get a conviction." I agree. And you may agree with me also after reading this bone chilling account of cold blooded malicious prosecution, false arrest and the "trial" that followed Joel K. Barrs arrest in January of 2002.
The following is not complete as far as actual facts are concerned, nor is it complete as far as the level of corruption is concerned. The facts presented here are the highlights of what lead up to the malicious prosecution and false imprisonment of Joel K. Barr.
I also have been threatened by this system, both before and after I testified in Joels "trial". The State of Arizona and the judges, courts, sheriff departments have all colluded to keep Joel K. Barr in prison for life for crimes never committed. To say that these elected officials act as though they were trained up by Hitler is an understatement. Joel is not the only person harmed by these "officials". This corrupt system now has current residents in their sights.
Joels Story
Joel K. Barr is a decorated Vietnam veteran. He received an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps in 1970, and then he moved to Arizona. Then Nixon became President and he began to lose faith in the integrity of the government.
It was on Super Bowl Sunday in 1979; Joel became a political activist when he realized that our "democracy" is bogus. In reference to the legislators in Arizona; how could they "vote their conscience" if they did/could not read all of the pending legislation or all of the letters from the people they "represent". Every year in Arizona, more than 1,000 pieces of legislation are submitted. Joel did the math in 1979; if the staff of a legislator did nothing but read letters from constituents, at the rate of one letter per minute, it would take over two years! Thats when he realized that true democracy does not exist anywhere and that his brother had died in Vietnam for nothing!
Shortly thereafter, Joel began working on 1-800-THE-VOTE. This was a toll free number for voters in Arizona to call to express their opinions on pending legislation. The voters loved it and the legislators hated it! As one legislator from Tucson put it: "This is not some Greek city/state democracy. This is a republic. If my constituents dont like the way I vote, they can elect someone else."
At the time, Joel owned a lot in Showlow Pines, Apache County, Arizona. There was a very deep well on that lot and Joel had decided to start a water company to supply the residents in the area water that was piped to their houses. But the State had another idea.
Joel was contacted by the Arizona Corporation Commission. He thought it was positive recognition for his water company business in Apache County. He sold well shares to lot owners and used some of that money to fund 1-800-THE-VOTE. The first indication Joel had that something was wrong was at the meeting of the Corporation Commission that they had arranged for him to attend. After introducing the people around the table, one of whom was an attorney from the Attorney Generals Office, he was read his MIRANDA RIGHTS! Knowing he had not committed any crime, everyone shook hands after the meeting, and Joel returned to his home.
Several weeks later early in the morning, there was a knock at Joels front door. It was a woman he recognized from the Corporation Commission meeting. She handed Joel a packet of documents and turned and left. The papers accused Joel of selling securities without a license. But the real reason for the legal documents was that the Arizona Attorney General was seeking an order from the Corporation Commission commanding me to "CEASE AND DESIST FUNDING 1-800-THE-VOTE." At that time, a well owner could, by law, do anything with the well they wanted to do.
Then the Corporation Commission created a press release to all of the news media in Arizona wherein they announced that Joel was under investigation for fraud. The very next day, the Arizona Republic newspaper reprinted the press release as a front page article, the prosecutor, Wendy Coy, from the Attorney Generals Office, made hundreds of copies of the newspaper article and mailed them to every person with whom Joel did business with, along with a letter inviting them to contact her with any complaints they might have against him. Not one person complained. But the article and the letter left the distinct impression that they had been the lucky ones, and that Joel may have defrauded many others.
Then a bogus trail was held at Corporation Commission Headquarters in closed session. Joel was found guilty of fraud and fined $15,000, by Donna Hamm, wife of a convicted murderer. Sounded as if the State was saying that if Hamm found Joel guilty, her husband would be freed apparently ahead of schedule.
At the time, the Arizona Republic newspaper had bought out the Phoenix Gazette and was holding town hall type meetings to get Gazette readers to buy the Republic newspaper. At one of those meetings Joel asked why the Arizona Republic did not publish the entire menu of pending legislation for the voters to review. Joel was told that it was considered a waste of paper and ink because the readers werent really interested in that kind of thing. And that is when the Grapevine Newspaper was born; to print the entire menu of pending legislation so that the voters could actually participate in "democracy". That was in either 1993 or 1994.
After the first print run of the Grapevine, a new strategy to distribute the newspaper had to be devised. The resultant solution, following the Arizona Republics example, was to employ vendors to stand by the road sides advertising the newspaper. Only Joel had a better idea; hire the homeless. The back page of the Grapevine read: "Help the homeless. Buy the Grapevine. 50 cents. The Grapevine became wildly successful with the public and many of the homeless vendors were able to earn enough money in tips and sales of the Grapevine to get them off of the street. At the height of the Grapevines popularity, the weekly circulation topped 60,000 newspapers. And the city of Phoenix and the State of Arizona would have none of this. They began arresting the homeless vendors in an attempt to stop the Grapevines success. Eventually, the Phoenix City Council outlawed the Grapevine and the offices had to be given up and we all had to move to Apache County, Arizona in order to have any place at all to live. We lived for a few months in the winter up in Apache County in a tent and slept on the frozen ground. Well, so much for freedom of the press!
Jump ahead two years. By now the living conditions were much better. There were two pickup truck campers to live in with propane heat and a place to cook meals. We had extended a hand to a couple we had met through the Grapevine, as they had come upon hard times and needed a place to stay so they could get their lives back together. Their names are Edward and Marjorie Gaudreau. Joel provided a place for them to park their mobile homes so their healing could begin. This episode provides the very beginning of the States conspiracy against Joel in Apache County, Arizona.
Since Joel didnt know the Gaudreaus all that well, he made it a point to visit with Edward while his wife was at work in Show Low. What Joel didnt know was that Ed had a drinking problem that started out as only Eds
problem, but in the end ended up as Joels problem with a little help from the "legal authorities" of Apache County, Arizona.
During one of Joels visits to get to know Ed, Ed made a statement to Joel that ended up in civil litigation. The case number is: "CV- 2000-121 Joel K. Barr v. Edward and Marjorie Gaudreau, husband and wife."
The statement that Ed Gaudreau made to Joel was that "ALL MEN HAVE A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR DAUGHTERS". This lead Joel to call the Apache County Sheriffs Office to report possible child molestation charges to be filed on Ed Gaudreau. The investigating Deputy Sheriff was Matrese Avila. (Remember this name, it will come back later in the story). Supposedly she found no evidence that Ed Gaudreau was molesting his own daughter. At the time Ed disclosed this information to Joel, he acted offended when Joel pressed him on the validity of Eds statement and Ed evicted Joel from his mobile home and gave notice of his intent to vacate the property. After the Gaudreaus had left, Joel realized that Ed had told some of the people Joel did business with had been told by Ed Gaudreau that the statement HE had made was actually made by Joel. Apparently, this is where Matrese Avila got the idea to have Victoria Ries circulate throughout the area the slanderous statement that Joel had indeed molested his own daughter to prejudice the potential jury pool. Why did no one EVER ask when Joel K. Barr was convicted of that crime...
Sometime in this period as we started up the well business, we met a woman named Victoria Lesley (Maiden name, Shoebridge) Ries and her children, Victoria Roderick and her full brother Travis Roderick. Then there was Hunter Ries and the youngest Tyler Ries, everyone elses half brother; he got his last name from his mother as he is not the child of Mr. Ries.
Upon making acquaintance with Victoria L. Ries, a British Subject, here on a green card, she announced that she had run away from home at the age of 14 to become a "London Call Girl" which she seemed very proud of indeed. Later, years later, I was informed by persons who seemed to know, that she had never given up her "Call Girl" occupation and supplemented her welfare income with the "generosity" of the neighboring men who appreciated her toothless upper jaw. Her teeth having rotted out with meth use. She has relocated to Climax Springs, Missouri and has an adult web site called; " www.lulu.com/victoriaries ", which has the caption on the webs main page reading, "Beware the demon of the night". Nice, no longer can she pretend to be the "concerned" mother who was "outraged" that her daughter was "molested" by Joel.
In fact, Victoria Ries has proven her penchant for lying by getting her daughter, Victoria Roderick to falsely accuse three or four other men of molesting her, including her very own father! When Child Protective Services investigated those accusations, they found no evidence to support the accusations, and none of the men accused ever faced prosecution. That is, until those lying mother and daughter, Chelsea Hoffman-Farris and Tammy Stothart found themselves in a position to kill several birds with one stone. Clever people, these liars are, indeed!
And now, Tammy Stothart is Victoria Ries legal daughter in law, as she married Victoria Ries oldest child, Daniel Owen whom is also a British Subject. So is Tammy. Tammy and Chelsea Hoffman-Farris are best buddies and you will see how split personality these relationships are as we progress with this story.
At the time Joel filed the lawsuit against Ed Gaudreau, Joel was loaned a computer (which had shipped to Joel from Phoenix), and Joel had to find a place with electrical power where he could work on his cases.
At this time, Victoria Ries joined our Limited Partnership to obtain water from our well. Victoria lived about 2 miles from our place and had electricity to her house, but her telephone service had been recently disconnected for non payment of her phone bill. She and I became friends, as well, and soon there was talk of installing the loaned computer at her house for Joel to use to work on his civil case, in exchange for Joel installing two telephones at Victorias house. One line for the computer, and the other for our mutual telephone usage. As part of the deal, Victoria would have complete use of the computer and phone whenever Joel was not there. We all agreed, and when the computer arrived, it was immediately delivered to Victoria Ries house and she hooked it up to the new phone system which we used on the nascent Arizona Democrat newspaper whose trade name Joel had already registered with the Arizona Secretary of State; and on Joels lawsuit against Ed Gaudreau which was filed on October 2nd of 2000 (CV-2000-121 Barr v. Gaudreau). Victoria Ries was aware of Joels litigation with Ed Gaudreau and why Joel had filed the law suit. Joel let her read his pleadings as he wrote and edited them. She was aware that Ed Gaudreau had claimed (to people we both knew) that Joel had had a sexual relationship with his own daughter. This is where, I believe, Victoria Ries got the idea, later on, to accuse Joel of having molested her then 12 year old daughter, Victoria Roderick.
Daves computer stayed at Ries house until we finally managed to get electrical power installed to the well site in the fall of 2001. Then the computer was moved to Joels property.
Back to the false accusations; they were acted upon by Sheriff Brian Hounshell just 90 days after Joel filed a lawsuit in Federal court for false arrest. The arrest was completed by Deputy Sheriff Scruggs. Somewhere in this time line, Chelsea Hoffman-Farris was evicted from Joels property for failure to pay the agreed upon rent and she had run up the phone bill and the electrical bill. Days later, through Chelsea Hoffman-Farris and Tammy Stothart, it was learned that little Victoria Roderick had accused Joel of molesting her; of driving her in Joels truck and threatening to hurt her and her family if she told. She claimed that this happened on December 29, 2002. Well, apparently, the Chief Deputy Assistant Apache County Attorney, Bradley Carlyon had told Tammy Stothart to "pick a date, any date" to accuse Joel Barr of molesting Vic Roderick. The date that was chosen was December 29, 2002. On that day, two of Joels neighbors came to get Joel to celebrate a birthday and on the way to Joels house, passed his truck which was frozen to the road and had been for a week or so, and remained there until around the middle of January, 2003. The same date little Vic Roderick swore that Joel had driven her about in the truck; how is THAT possible???
After Joel evicted Chelsea Hoffman-Farris is when the accusation of molestation surfaced. As Joel had filed suit on Chelsea for her damages, and her grandparents for collusion, everything blew up. Joel was arrested the following January, for crimes never committed. For images of child porn that Joann Kennedy, the Apache County Sheriffs Office "computer expert" downloaded onto the hard drive of the computer loaned to Joel. By the way, the "computer expert" didnt find the child porn until after the Sheriffs Office had executed its SECOND search warrant. Clever. Or so they think!
There are other law suits that Joel filed to preserve his freedom and you should check them out. The reason is that they hold evidence of a pattern of practice by the office of the Arizona Attorney General to shut Joel up. If you go to; www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/notfication/search.asp?id= and put in Joel Barr, the cases will pop up.
Remember the A. G. Corporation Commissions litigation in 1991 seeking an Order for Joel to "cease and desist funding 1-800-THE-VOTE"? And then the $15,000 fine?
They did it by filing a lawsuit in Apache County Superior Court (I dont remember the year, 1997 or 1998?) captioned as : "State of Arizona ex rel the Arizona Corporation Commission v. Joel K. Barr and Showlow Pines Water Utility Corporation..." The purpose of the lawsuit was to renew their $15,000 judgment. Joel defended himself by arguing that the state had waited too long to renew the judgment (judgments of this kind have to be renewed every four years or they become uncollectible), but the courts ignored Joels arguments and renewed the judgments anyway. Then, in 1999, after Joel had contracted for, and paid in full for, the extension of power lines to our property, the local power company, Navopache Electric Cooperative [N. E. C.]), suddenly stopped construction at Joels property line, reneged on the contract, and removed the half mile of power lines they had installed to my property line!
In Joels subsequent lawsuit against N. E. C. for breach of contract, a witness statement would reveal that someone in the Arizona State Government had contacted a high ranking official in Apache County and had asked that official to interfere with Joels lawsuit against Navopache Electric Cooperative, an electric utility regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission.
I believe that is why Joels mailbox on Hwy. 61 was staked out and he was arrested and held in jail for several days (for driving on a suspended license) at the same time an important hearing was scheduled in Joels law suit against NEC. Which raises an interesting subplot.
Joels driver license had been suspended following a hearing that the state had failed to notify him of. Since the Sheriffs Department knew this, they used that knowledge to arrest Joel for driving on a suspended license just about the time there was a hearing on the suit filed against NEC. It appeared that Joel would miss his upcoming court date, and would lose by default. But I got on the phone and made a few politically threatening phone calls, intimating that I feared that Joels life might be in danger if he remained in jail on such a petty charge.
The phone call to J.P. Mineers office had the desired result; Joel was released on his own recognizance. At Joels release, Joel told me that Herman Mineer told him; "Your release doesnt have anything to do with your girlfriends telephone calls." Yeah, right!
Eventually, as usual with most law suits against Arizona big business and those in cahoots with the legal system, the suit was dismissed to keep Joel from receiving justice.
It was about this time that Chelsea Hoffman-Farris joined the community and became "best friends" with Victoria Roderick. Apparently, Chelseas grandparents and Victoria Ries were as thick as thieves. According to Joel, Chelsea also participated in "trade-outs" with men in the community just so she could raise money for a party time in Show Low.
For a young woman, Chelsea Hoffman-Farris has a past that most adults would be glad to have no part of. She grew up in Hackleburg, Alabama and was for a time a suspect in the decapitation murder of her "best friend" and the weird thing is that the girls head was never found. The police wanted to question her a second time, but her grandparents, Frank and Shirley Hoffman, Sr., spirited her off to their place in the Showlow Pines area after supposedly giving Chelseas mother about $2,500 for "some" reason or another and apparently the police in Hackseburg, Alabama "decided" not to bother with questioning Chelsea again. Were they bought off? Chelsea also admitted to Joel that she had burned down a "friends" house in Hackleburg and had recently poisoned her grandmothers poodle. Seems she cant get enough violence. She now lives somewhere near Tammy Stothart Owen and Dan Owen, perhaps in Lovelock, Nevada. The Owens live in Winnemucca, Nevada with Tammys son from a previous relationship and a daughter she shares with Dan Owen.
Chelsea became thick with a young man named Steve Wheeler. Soon thereafter, Steve hooked up with a woman once his fathers live in. She had two young daughters. Then one of her daughters accused Chelsea of "putting her finger up her privates" and when Steve threatened to turn Chelsea into the Sheriffs Department, Chelsea called her ex-convict father, Frank Hoffman Jr., and he told Steve Wheeler to retract his statement regarding his daughter, Chelsea Hoffman-Farris, or he would make sure that Steve Wheeler (himself a registered sex offender) would end up in prison for life. Steve Wheeler corrected his statements and got Frank Hoffman, Jr. off of his back.
Soon thereafter, as Steve Wheeler was waiting for Dan Owen to get home from work, he overheard Tammy Stothart, Chelsea Hoffman-Farris AND Victoria Roderick talking about "setting someone up" and apparently they were talking about Joel K. Barr. This was after Joel had filed paperwork to sue Chelsea and her grandparents.
As far as I can ascertain from what I have gathered from those once close to Victoria Ries, Victoria Roderick, Tammy Stothart Owen and Chelsea Hoffman-Farris is that they were in constant contact with Matrese Avila and Chief Deputy Apache County Attorney, Bradley Carlyon probably directed by not only ex -Sheriff Brian Hounshell but Criss Candelaria as well.
Criss Candelaria
Apache County Attorney
Bradley Carlyon
Assistant Apache County Attorney
After Joels arrest in January of 2003, with motions needing to be made in Joels federal court complaint against Sheriff Hounshells Deputy Sheriff Scruggs for false arrest, any legal paper work had to go through Sheriff Hounshells hands. Therefore, Joel knew it was only a matter of time before Joels legal standing would no longer be a threat to ex-Sheriff Hounshell; thats one of the reasons Joel was arrested. Another reason was that the grandparents of Victoria Ries son, Hunter Ries, are supposedly of high standing in the Mormon Church. It has been alleged by some that this is the reason that no matter the number of people calling Apache County Child Protective Services on her for being a neglectful mother, she is never bothered by the "authorities" and is given a clear path no matter what direction she desires to take. I believe Victoria Ries used Joel to get at "victim witness" monies so that she could buy a vehicle and land in another state and leave before she found herself in really hot water with her neighbors.
Back to the legal hocus-pocus the "authorities" were pulling on Joel.
It didnt take long for Sheriff Brian Hounshell to capitalize on that fact. First of all, the day of Joels arrest had been a significant day in his lawsuit (CV-02-1585, PCT JAT. BARR v. STATE/HOUNSHELL) against Hounshell. It was the deadline for preparing his response to his lawyers motion to dismiss Joels case. Now that Joel was under Hounshells arrest, he could not complete his response on time, even with a five-day, automatic grace period for mail. He risked losing his case against Sheriff Hounshell, unless he could file another motion - quickly - explaining the circumstances to the Federal Court, and asking for an extension of time.
After much struggle to obtain paper, pencil and an envelope from Hounshells jail, Joel quickly prepared a hand written pleading to the Federal Court in Phoenix, Arizona, and gave it to one of Hounshells officers to mail for him before the grace period ran out.
Over a week later - after the time to file the motion had expired - the letter to the Federal Court in Phoenix came back to Joel. It had never been mailed! Instead of mailing it as the envelope was addressed, "someone" in the Sheriffs Office had hand-carried the letter to the Clerk of the Apache County Superior Court, which is next door to the Sheriffs Office. The Clerk of the Superior Court date/time stamped the pleading before realizing it was captioned for the Federal District Court. (Thats how Joel eventually knew what happened). Several days later a detention officer returned the date/time stamped pleading to me.
Within the month, Joels case against Sheriff Hounshell would be dismissed in the Federal Courts. His only chance to save the case was to take it to the U. S. Supreme Court, and he was in no position to seek such a review. Hounshell would win, besides, he had a more serious matter to deal with, now. The charges of child molestation were not being dropped!
By now, Joel had been informed by a hearing officer, Chloe Mineer (daughter-in-law of Herman Mineer, the former Justice of the peace whom Joel had, also, previously sued), that Joels accuser was, in deed, Victoria Roderick.
"I saw the video tape," said Chloe. "How could you do that to that little girl?!"
"What little girl?" Joel shot back.
"Victoria," said Chloe.
"Which Victoria?" Joel asked. "Big Vic or Little Vic?"
"Little Vic," replied Chloe seemingly growing irritated with Joels questions.
But, at least now Joel knew there was a video tape! All he had to do was get his hands on a copy of it, then he could proceed to disprove whatever Roderick had claimed, and move to dismiss the case against him. Immediately, Joel prepared another handwritten motion. This time, demanding his right to view the videotape of his accuser making her claims. He intended to get to the bottom of this outrageous stunt, immediately. All he had to do was view the videotape.
But his motion to view the videotape never made it to the Judge. Instead, it was returned to Joel by the Clerk of the Court stating the court would accept no further motions from me unless he could come up with a way to produce photocopies of the motions and serve those photocopies on the office of the newly elected County Attorney, Criss Candelaria. And Sheriff Hounshell certainly wouldnt make those copies for Joel. So Joel had to send those motions - including the Motion requesting an Order to let Joel view Rodericks videotape - to a friend outside the jail to have copies made. It took over a month to get those copies made and returned to me in jail.
That delay of several weeks was precisely what Criss Candelaria and his Chief Deputy County Attorney (what a title for someone who has not yet prosecuted his first case!), Bradley Carlyon, wanted. They had already seen the videotape, and knew how obvious it was that Roderick was making up her entire story about being molested. But it wasnt the molestation charge that the Sheriff and the County Attorney wanted to prosecute, anyway. Rodericks stories were so unbelievable... for example, her claim that she and Joel had to be treated at a local hospital for injuries, mutually inflicted, during an alleged molestation attempt... which included her dog, Harley who was supposedly attended to in the emergency room... they never expected a jury to believe her.
What they were betting their careers on was something else that Chelsea Hoffman had told them. Chelsea had told them that there was child pornography on the computer Joel was using to publish the Arizona Democrat, a political newspaper which Joel owned. And Roderick said on the videotape that Joel had forced her to watch it while Joel allegedly molested her.
Rodericks story about molestation was, simply, the Sheriffs excuse to seize the computer, claiming it was part of the molestation investigation. And as long as the molestation investigation was ongoing, the State could retain the computer and search it for the alleged child pornography that Roderick claimed Joel forced her to watch. If any child pornography would be found on the computer, the State could then dismiss the bogus molestation charges, and file new charges for the possession of child pornography, and have real evidence that could be shown to a jury to win their first conviction. Chelsea Hoffman-Farris, who had unrestricted access to the computer when she was still a renter of Joels, and Roderick, gave a file name and password to the computer in which the child pornography could allegedly be found - "C:\...Net Porn Story;" "democrat1."
There was just one nagging problem. What if there were no images of child pornography on the computer?
Fraudulent Schemes
"Please cover for me by pretending that the computer analyses experts found the
evidence while working on Joels computer." (Record on Appeal - CR 2003-017,
document 32). See attached three page document. Those are the words of Victoria Ries, the mother of Victoria Roderick, in an email, sent to Deputy Matrese Avila on Friday, February 1, 2003, after the Apache County Sheriffs Office had failed to find evidence of child pornography on the computer that Barrs newspaper had borrowed to researchand write a series of articles about pornography on the internet. The series was entitled, "Net Porn Story."
The Apache County Sheriffs Office (ACSO) had been led to believe by Victoria Ries and her daughter, Victoria Roderick, and Rodericks best friend, Chelsea Hoffman-Farris (who had recently been evicted by Barr), that evidence of child pornography would be found on the computer in a file labeled "C:/.../azdem/netpornstory." But when personnel at the Sheriffs Office examined the file, there was no evidence of child pornography.
This posed a serious problem for the ACSO which was already being sued by Barr for a previous false arrest. Personnel at the Apache County Sheriffs Office realized they were betting their careers on finding evidence of child pornography on the computer Barr used to publish the Arizona Democrat newspaper. In the meantime, Barr sat in his cell preparing his new lawsuits.
Victoria Ries was very concerned, too, when she learned from Deputy Avila that no child porn had been found where Ries had assured Avila it would be found. Thats when Ries asked Avila to cover for her by having the computer analysis experts pretend they found the evidence on the computer used by Barrs newspaper.
Easier said than done. Up until that time, the ACSO had never - or perhaps only once (if then) - employed the services of an outside agency to obtain evidence from a confiscated computer. They had always handled that forensic task using their own ACSO personnel.
Deputy Avila: "We go ahead and put, first of all we log it that we took it and give it, you know, give it an item number. And then we take it and have the computer where we can work it." (Transcript of Prelimi- nary Hearing 4/4/2003 Day 1. Volume 2, page 207).
Thats because finding evidence on a computer is relatively simple when the file name and password are known. The ACSO had been provided the file name and password by Victoria Roderick and Chelsea Hoffman-Farris..
But putting evidence on a computer, without getting caught, is a different matter. Thats when Deputy Matrese Avila decided she had to find someone who would be willing to bend the rules (or break the law) in a forensic examination of the "Azdem" computer. Thats when the "Rocky Mountain Information Network" (RMIN) and its ambitious employee, Joann Kennedy, came into the picture.
Forensic examinations of computers for Arizonas law enforcement agencies, when not conducted by the police agency, itself, are routinely conducted by the Arizona Department of Public Safetys forensic Laboratory. It is standard procedure, when a seized computer is received by a forensic laboratory, to remove the hard drive and make a duplicate copy of that hard drive before doing anything else. If it is later discovered there is any variation between the two, then it is proof that somebody has done something to either the copy disk or the source disk.
Deputy Avila wanted to find someone who would be willing to examine the images on the hard drive before acquiring a forensic image (duplicate copy) of the hard drive. That way, in case no illegal images were found, some could be put on the hard drive, and would appear to have been there when the computer was confiscated. Thats why Deputy Avila avoided the Department of Public Safety, and hired Joann Kennedy of Rocky Mountain Information Network, instead.
Joann Kennedy was a relatively new, young, computer technician who was looking for a fast track to be promoted. Up until that time, Kennedy had examined only five computers, and had never testified as an expert witness at any trial.
After a half dozen telephone conversations (an unusually large number of calls to hire a forensic examiner, according to Rick Garsha, a former deputy sheriff who is now a private investigator) with Deputy Avila, Joann Kennedy was hired to be the computer analysis "expert" who would pretend she found evidence of child pornography on the "Azdem" computer.
When the computer was transferred for forensic examination to Joann Kennedy at the Rocky Mountain Information Network by the Apache County Sheriffs Office on February 12, 2003, a forensic image of the computers hard drive should have been made by Kennedy as part of the standard forensic procedure for the intake/inspection of evidence. It wasnt! Instead, the forensic imaging of the hard drive did not take place for another two weeks!
During that two week period, the computer remained in the office of Joann Kennedy where she had constant, unmonitored, access to it - instead of being locked up in the RMIN Property Room as it should have been for security purposes. (See Kennedys "Supplemental Report," page 4 of 13, paragraphs 1, 3 and 8.)
At the trial the prosecutor, Carlyon, asked questions - and Kennedy gave answers - that made it appear to the jury as if Kennedy had followed the normal procedures when examining the "Azdem" computer, when in fact she had not.
To the jury it appeared that the forensic image of the hard drive occurred on the same day, that the external and internal examinations occurred (February 12, 2003). But, in fact, according to Kennedys "Supplemental Report" (which the jury did not see), Kennedy did not acquire a forensic image until fourteen days later! Why? Heres what the Supplemental Report said:
"Examination Process:
On 2/10/03, I was assigned to complete the forensic analysis for Apache County Sheriffs Office... originally requested by Chief Deputy County Attorney Brad Carlyon...
On 2/12/03, at approximately 15:25 hours, I conducted an internal and external examination of Item 5 , a white Nexstar desktop computer...
On 2/26/03, at approximately 14:56 hours,... I acquired a forensic image of the hard disk drive (HDD) located in "Item 5"... (see Kennedys "Supplemental Report", page 4 of 13)
Although Kennedy says she did not review or tamper with the images on the computers hard drive during those two weeks, her statement cannot possibly be true. Why? Because in order for Kennedy to have reviewed the 43,097 images she said she reviewed in a "long, tedious, manual process... [in which] there are no shortcuts:" it would have required almost 24 consecutive hours to review those images (Kennedy testified that she viewed each image for approximately two seconds).
However, her Supplemental Report (again) states that she reviewed all 43,097 images in approximately three minutes on February 27, 2003.
Cross Examination
"BARR: Q. Okay. You mentioned that you had to examine a lot of images on that computer; is that correct?
KENNEDY: A. Yes.
BARR: Q. And you said you had to do this one at a time... How much time do you think you spent examining each one of those images?
KENNEDY: A. A couple seconds."
BARR: Q. Over 40,000 images at 2 seconds a pop, over 80,000 seconds. Anybody want to do the math on how many hours that is?" (See transcript, Jury Trial, Day 2, Vol. 2, pages 177-179).
Where did Joann Kennedy find the time to examine 43,097 images, for two seconds each, for 24 hours? Certainly not on February 27, 2003, as she claimed in her Supplemental Report (28,202 images from "13:28 hours until 13:30 hours," and the remaining images "at approximately 13:30 hours").
Barr maintains that Kennedy spent more than two hours a day, 5 days a week, for the two weeks the computer remained in her office (2/12/03 - 2/27/03), searching for child pornography she never found. Then, on February 27, 2003, between the hours of 07:35 and 16:25 (as indicated on pages 4 and 5 of her Supplemental Report) Joann Kennedy "pretended she found the evidence on Joels computer" as Victoria Ries and Matrese Avila asked her to do.
Why did Joann Kennedy choose to keep the computer in her office where she could examine its 43,097 images for two weeks before capturing an image of its hard drive, instead of locking it in the RMIN Property Room as she should have done?
"On 2/27/03, at approximately 12:35 hours, all evidence items were resealed in their original packaging. The packages were initialed and transferred to the RMIN Property Room for storage [for the first time]".
(See Kennedys Supplemental Report, page 4 of 13)
Barr asserts that Kennedy did that to preserve her option to put postage-stamp-size illegal images (from RMINs forensic inventory from other computers) on the computer if she found none during her secret, two-week, forensic examination of the computer.
Sound ridiculous? Not when you consider that Barr had already served the Arizona State Attorney General and the Apache County Attorney with "Constructive Notice of Intent to Sue" for false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, slander, and libel, demanding damages of several million dollars! And they knew Barr was capable of following through on his threat, because he had already sued the State and Apache Countys Sheriff in Federal Court (CV-02-1585) for the identical charges, (stemming from a traffic incident) the previous October, 2002.
The State and Apache County were deeply concerned about the possibility that there may be no illegal images on the hard drive, because personnel at the Apache County Sheriffs Office had failed to find any such images, even though Deputy Avila had been informed by so-called "witnesses" (Chelsea Hoffman and Victoria Roderick) of the password and file name where such images should allegedly be found.
Joann Kennedy knew she must find illegal images if they were there, or put them there if they were not! And she must do it without getting caught. Which brings us to another issue: the obstruction of justice by Joann Kennedy and Matrese Avila.
Barr had sensed something illegal was going on the moment he read the Prosecutors motion to hire RMIN to do the forensic examination, instead of the Arizona Department of Public Safety Forensic Laboratory. The motion was challenged by Barr on February 25, 2003. Barrs "CHALLENGE" pleading read:
"[T]he witness, Victoria Roderick, is conspiring with Apache County Deputy Sheriff Matrese Avila to fabricate evidence and pretend that the computer analysis experts at the Rocky Mountain Information Network [find] the evidence while working on Joels computer. "
Why would Joann Kennedy of Rocky Mountain Information Network falsify evidence for Matrese Avila of the Apache County Sheriffs Office?
(1) She was asked to do so by Matrese Avila, prompted by Victoria Ries plea to "cover for me by pretending the computer analysis experts found the evidence while working on Joels computer;" (Record on Appeal CR-2003-017 document 32.)
(2) Joann Kennedy knew that in exchange for her false testimony and evidence tampering (see transcript of Preliminary Hearing, pages 20-23 and 32) she would be rewarded by being offered a better paying "Computer Forensic Analyst" position with another Arizona law enforcement forensic laboratory.
On April 26, 2003, - three weeks after her false testimony resulted in a finding of "probable cause" - Joann Kennedy resigned from Rocky Mountain Information Network, and accepted a "Computer Forensic Analyst" position at the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.
Kennedy wrote:
"NOTE: On April 26, 2003, I resigned from Rocky Mountain Information Network (RIMN) and accepted a Computer Forensic Analyst position at the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office."
(See Kennedys Supplemental Report, page 6 of 13).
Subsequently Barr filed a "Motion for Scientific Examination and Report" on 6/30/03 asking the court to appoint a computer expert to examine the evidence that Joann Kennedy claimed to have found on the computer.
On July 29, 2003, the court wrote in its Minute Entry:
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the [Defendant Barrs] Motion for Scientific Examination and Report" ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Apache County Sheriffs Office shall transport Mr. Barr and have him present for that examination."
The Apache County Sheriff disobeyed the courts order. Barr was never transported to the Scientific Examination. Furthermore, his court appointed Forensic Examiner, Bob Biance, was denied access to the information he sought by Joann Kennedy.
Bob Biance wrote in a letter to Barrs legal advisor, Pat Patterson:
"Please pass this information on to Joel Barr... As instructed by [the prosecutor] Mr. Carlyon, I brought a blank disk to the DPS Computer Crime Lab. I was told to wait fifteen minutes while the disk was copied.
I was told by Mrs. Kennedy that they could not provide a copy of the disk without an additional court order.... I offered to bring my forensics computer to examine a copy of the disk at their lab, and was refused. I offered to bring a CD with a copy of my tools to examine a copy of the disk. This was also refused... Because the reports are in such a different format than the data on a copy of the disk, standard forensics tools cannot be used to answer Mr. Barrs key question, Is it probable that the disk evidence was altered and that files were added at a later date? "
What other reason does Barr have to believe that Joann Kennedy altered evidence by adding files containing illegal images? The following is a transcription from a letter by Joel Barr to another attorney:
When you review Joann Kennedys En Case Examination Report (pages 243 - 263) which lists and describes all of the Charged Images, you will note at the beginning of each paragraph the terms File Created and Last Written.
Following each of these terms is a date and a time written in the following format example:
File Created 12/04/02 11:08:50 and
Last Written 12/04/02 11:09:02.
Please note that each notation of time is written out to the exact second.
I want you to notice something about these exact times that is statistically impossible. They all end in even numbered seconds. For example, the above referenced times (which were copied from the first Charged Image) end in the even numbered seconds of 50 and 02 instead of 51 and 03.
That occurrence is not unusual when taken out of context from the other [120] Charged Items. However, when considered in context with the other charged images, statistically speaking, approximately half of the notated times should end in odd numbered seconds. None do.
Since there are [121] charged items, and each charged item, contains two entries of times (File Created and Last Written), there are 242 notations of times of which approximately half should have occurred at odd numbered times. None do.
This is evidence of something artificial going on in connection with the creation of these files. It is not an anomaly of the computer, as you will see by examining the Recycle Bin Information and Unallocated Clusters data on pages 264 - 268, or the Search Sessions found on pages 270 - 272 of the En Case Examination Report, which contain 191 notations of time (of which 95 occur on odd numbered seconds).
As you will see from the enclosed letter from my computer expert, Bob Bianca, the Apache County Prosecutor and Joann Kennedy actively interfered with and prohibited Mr. Bianca from examining the computer to answer the question:
Is it probable that the disk evidence was altered and that files were added at a later date? ... in defiance of the court order of July 29, 2003 [!]
But where is the smoking gun? It is in the email from Victoria Ries (the mother of the so-called victim) to [Deputy] Matrese Avila in which Ries wrote:
... please cover for me by pretending that the computer analyses experts found the evidence while working on Joels computer." (ROA - 017 doc. 32)
Under these circumstances the evidence from the computer should never have been permitted to be used against me."
So, Joel said he girded his loins about himself, and prepared to do battle. He did, however, ask the Court to appoint a lawyer to act as his Advisory counsel. G.L."Pat" Patterson was appointed to act in that capacity.
Pat appeared to be in his late sixties or mid seventies in age, and had not, from the records Joel obtained from the Court, defended anyone at trial in Apache County. Joel would soon learn why.
In March, 2003, Joel was called into the chambers of Apache Countys only Superior Court Judge, Michael Nelson. The occasion was for a hearing regarding an ongoing civil lawsuit Joel had filed two years earlier. After the hearing, as Judge Nelson and Joel sat alone in his chambers, Joel asked him how many criminal trials had been conducted, so far, in his court that year (2003).
The judge looked stunned at the question. His jaw dropped open. Joe; was surprised that he was surprised. Then he said, "I cant say."
Joel thought to himself that there must have been so many trials, so far, that year, that he couldnt be sure of the exact number. Then a detention officer came in and escorted Joel back to his cell.
On March 15, 2003, Joel wrote a letter to the Clerk of the Apache County Superior Court asking her how many criminal trials had been conducted, so far, in 2003. A week later he received a response. The Clerk wrote: "There have been no trials, so far, in 2003."
Then she went on and volunteered: "There were only two trials in 2002."
Now it was Joels turn to be stunned. Why had Judge Nelson not told Joel that? Its not like he didnt know! How much uncertainty can there be in the number "zero"?
Joels further investigation of the two trials held in 2002 showed that Joels advisory counsel, Pat Patterson, had been appointed, originally, to represent one of the defendants - a man who had also been charged with child molestation - but had been removed from the case because the defendant claimed that Pat wasnt doing enough to prepare for trial.
Eventually, Joels trial was the only trial conducted in Apache County in 2003. And that was only after Joel had filed more than half-a-dozen motions demanding that trial. Even then, the trial was conducted only after the "speedy trial" time limit had expired, and several "hostile" witnesses who were important to Joels defense were enabled to leave the State of Arizona - even though Joel had filed liens against their property to prevent them from doing so.
Along the way, Judge Nelson was arrested and removed from office for beating and threatening to kill his
wife! She had caught the Judge having an affair with a female prosecutor. The prosecutor had used her sexual influence over the Judge to unlawfully double the lengths of the sentences of some female defendants whom the prosecution disliked.
Things were not faring well, either, for the lower (Justice Court) judge in the same courthouse. There, Judge R. Bruce Overson was under investigation for misconduct in public office. Joel had sought to have Judge Overson removed as the presiding judge over his Preliminary Hearing, but Pat Patterson would not file the paperwork to do so, which Joel had prepared.
Let me tell you a little bit about Judge Overson. Better yet, read what the White Mountain Independent Newspaper has to say at its web site http://www.wmicentral.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18933621&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=8.
Judge Nelson was replaced by Judge John Taylor who was called out of retirement after 14 years to preside over Joels trial. A lot can happen in fourteen years. Memories fade. Laws change. And besides, Judge Taylor had spent the last six years of his career in the Court of Appeals. It had been twenty years or more since he had sat on a trial.
Joels decision to act as his own attorney created an additional, political, problem for Judge Taylor. And for the County Attorney as well.
The new County Attorney, Criss Candelaria, had just been elected in November after the former County Attorney had resigned from office. Judges are political beings, and Judge Taylor knew the impact on Criss Candelarias career (and that of his prosecutor, Bradley Carlyon) that would occur if his office was to lose its very first prosecution... to a non-lawyer who was representing himself. Candelaria and Carlyon would be viewed as greater fools than Joel - regardless of their degrees. At all costs Candelaria and Carlyon knew they had to win a conviction or lose their jobs. Joels trial became a make-it-or-break-it ultimatum for the offices of the County Attorney and the Sheriff, Hounshell, as well. More lies would become necessary.
First and foremost the Sheriffs Office and County Attorney would have to find ways to postpone Joels "speedy trial" until some of the witnesses crucial to his defense could leave the state. The trial date was set for April 29, 2003. Joel was ready to go to trial. He had already submitted to the Sheriffs Offices of Apache and neighboring Navajo Counties, all of the subpoenas to be served on my witnesses.
Navajo Countys Sheriffs Deputies promptly served all of their subpoenas in a matter of a few days. But not a single subpoena was served on any of Joels witnesses in Apache County! Why?! Because Judge Nelson, before he was defrocked, assigned all of his subpoenas (to be served in Apache County) to Deputy Matrese Avila!
On April 2nd, 2003, - after three weeks - Deputy Avila, returned unserved all twenty-two subpoenas that had been issued to compel witnesses in Apache County to testify at Joels upcoming trial. The reason given by Avila for returning the subpoenas, without ever having attempted to serve them, was written on the face of the cover sheet with the words, "new trial date," and was signed, "Matrese Avila."
A new trial date?! Impossible! The trial date had not been changed, and no motion had been made to do so. How, on April 2, 2003, did Deputy Avila know that on April 14, 2003, Judge Nelson would set a new trial date without a motion to do so ever being filed?
Joel was prepared to go to trial and the trial date was set. The prosecutor, Carlyon, did not want to go to trial because he had no case. No jury would believe Rodericks fantastic story claiming Joel had broken her finger, and that her dog had torn a bone out of his leg, in an attempted molestation that supposedly landed all 3 of them in the hospital! Apache County knew it would be sued for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Careers would end. They had to postpone the trial!
In the meantime Joel was closing in on Deputy Avila. He had submitted a list of written questions called "interrogatories" that Joel wanted her to provide written answers to. Bradley Carlyon objected.
Then he did something unusual. He made a motion, and claimed it was on Joels behalf (even though he didnt have the right to do so). In it he said he would not object to my interrogatories if the Court would allow a return to (called a "review" of) the Preliminary Hearing we had held on January 29, 2003. Huh?
He wasnt asking for a new Preliminary Hearing because he couldnt. He had filed no new charges that could require one.
He was asking the Court to reopen the Preliminary Hearing and continue where we had left off, which was highly unusual. In fact, unbeknownst to Joel (and possibly Carlyon) at the time, Carlyons motion to review the Preliminary Hearing was an illegal motion because it was made more than 25 days after the completion of the Preliminary Hearing on January 29, 2003.
"Timeliness. A motion under Rule 5.5(a) [Review of preliminary hearing; Grounds] may be filed no later than 25 days after the completion of the preliminary hearing." Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 5.5 (b). Carlyons motion was made on March 13, 2003. The preliminary hearing had been completed on January 29, 2003.
Smelling a rat, though, Joel stipulated that he wouldnt object to the review if the Court would agree not to postpone the scheduled trial date of April 29, 2003. Judge Nelson had no problem with that.
Then all hell broke loose. At the continuation/"review" of the preliminary hearing on April 4, 2003, I met Joann Kennedy of RMIN for the first time. It was then she displayed for the, now ex-justice court judge, Bruce Overson, the 121 images of child pornography she claimed to have found on the computer used by the Arizona Democrat newspaper to write the series of articles known as "Net Porn Story."
I was stunned! I didnt think we had images of child pornography saved on the computer. How could we? Although we had visited the home pages of some pornographic web sites, we had never downloaded any images for several reasons: (1) we didnt need to; (2) it cost money; (3) it required a credit card; (4) none of us had a credit card.
Joel was so stunned, in fact, that it did not register with him at the time, that none of the 121 images alleged to have been found by Kennedy bore the file name of "Net Porn Story." They bore the name of the "Temporary Internet File."
The file names were critically important for several reasons: (1) Chelsea Hoffman and Victoria Roderick claimed that the child porn was in the computer file "Net Porn Story;" (2) Roderick swore that she was forced to look at images of child pornography that bore the file name of "Net Porn Story" - not "Temporary Internet File;" (3) if these images Kennedy claimed to have found were not the images Roderick claimed she was forced to look at, then they could not be used as evidence to support her claim of molestation (she had claimed that she had been forced to watch child pornography while Joel allegedly molested her!). And without the images of child pornography to inflame the jury, Joel would never be convicted of the ridiculous charges fabricated by Roderick. And Avila, and Carlyon, and Candelaria knew it.
They knew also, that a separate trial, by a different jury, for the possession of their child pornography wouldnt work either, because there was no way to prove that Joel, or anyone associated with him, "knowingly possessed" those images. It wasnt Joels computer they were found on (it was on loan to the Arizona Democrat newspaper from another person). It wasnt Joels camper the computer was seized from. It wasnt Joels property the camper was on when the computer was seized (Yes, Joel was a shareholder in the company that owned the land. but so were 20 other people). Joel was just one of a dozen people who knew the computers password and had 24/7 access to it. And there was no way to identify who may have viewed such images.
Carlyon needed to have both trials rolled into one, before the same jury, so the child porn could be used to inflame the emotions of the jury so they would disregard the impossibility of Rodericks story. And once the jury would begin to believe that Joel had molested Roderick, they wouldnt care if there was no evidence tying Joel to the child porn. They would go on their gut feeling - their emotions - based upon what Joann Kennedy wanted them to believe.
According to NEWSWEEK Magazine (10/29/07 page 39):
"Nobody is saying American voters are crazy [and all jurors are voters], just that we are not especially rational. When reason and emotion collide, we go with our gut - roughly four out of five times." Carlyon was counting on this reaction from jurors.
At the conclusion of the "review" of the preliminary hearing, Judge Overson found that there was probable cause that I knowingly possessed the child pornography. And Joel found out that he and Matrese Avila had worked together during the 20 years he had been the Chief of Police of St. Johns, Arizona. No wonder Avila knew, weeks in advance, that there was going to be a new trial date! She knew Kennedy was going to appear at the review, and would pretend she had found the evidence of child porn on the computer (as Avila had asked her to do.) And Avila knew that her friend, Judge Bruce Overson, would rule in her favor. [Two years later (September of 2005) Judge Overson would be censured by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for his bias and favoritism.] Amy Moss of Florence, Arizona, posted the following statement on www.wmicentral.com on 10/21/07: "Did everyone forget that when Overson was Chief of Police in St. Johns he and the entire police force was removed due to incompetence?"
Joel moved to have the charges of child molestation and the possession of child pornography tried as two separate trials, but the motion was denied on a technicality. That technicality was that such a motion for separate trials has to be made two times, not just once. My advisory counsel didnt advise me of that.
Joels next strategy was to keep the jury from becoming emotionally incensed by the child porn Kennedy had placed on the computer. Joel didnt come to the conclusion, by himself, that the images of child pornography would irrationally inflame the jury. Joel got help from the editor of another local newspaper, The Apache County Reporter, who happened to be the cousin of the Apache County Attorney, Criss Candelaria!
In his letter of July 7, 2003, Glenn Jacobs wrote to Joel:
"I spoke to my cousin about your case. ...I really do expect that they [the jury] will be so incensed... that they will not care to check whether you did it... that fact will probably go right over their heads..."
The only way Joel could keep the jury from becoming inflamed by the child pornography would be to keep them from seeing it. And to keep them from seeing it, Joel had to remove any need for the jury to see it.
Joel knew the jury would need to see the images of child porn for only one reason, and that would be so they could determine if the images were truly images of child pornography and not cartoons or adults dressed up and posing as children.
By now, Judge Nelson had been replaced by Judge Taylor. Joel proposed to Judge Taylor that he would be willing to stipulate that all 121 images were, indeed child pornography, thus removing the need for the jury to see the images in order to make that determination. All the jury would need to do would be to consider the States evidence (if any) indicating whether Joel "knowingly possessed" those images.
Of course, Carlyon objected. His entire case relied upon emotionally inflaming the jury - not on valid evidence or credible witnesses.
The Judge considered the arguments. He then told Joel and Carlyon he wanted to think about it, and informed us that he would give us his decision during the trial when the issue came up again. "Whew!" Joel thought. "Im halfway there."
Carlyon knew his case was in jeopardy. And with it, his new job and career. Without child porn to inflame the jury, he knew that no one would believe Rodericks outrageous claims that he had chased her down, molested her, broken her finger and fought with her dog - who allegedly tore a bone out of Joels leg, thus requiring all 3 of them (including the dog) to go to a hospital for treatment of their injuries!
Where were the doctors? Where were the nurses? Where were the ambulance drivers to corroborate her stories? Further, where was the report made by the emergency room personnel, required by law, accusing Joel of molesting Victoria Roderick? How could there be such a report when no such trip, or molestation EVER occurred.
If the Judge were to accept Joels stipulation, thus removing the need for the jury to view the States child porn, Carlyon and Candelaria would lose their very first trial - and to a non-lawyer to boot! It would be devastating to their political careers.
Holes were forming in the States case faster than they could fix them. Deputy Avila had been caught in several lies; Kennedys evidence didnt hold water; Rodericks stories were obvious fabrications; one of Candelarias prosecutors got caught having an affair with the Superior Court Judge; the judge was arrested and defrocked for beating his wife, who caught him (no jail time for a judge, though); and new reports were coming in from someone inside the courthouse that the Justice court judge, Bruce Overson, was showing favoritism to his friends and was about to be sanctioned by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. And, as I write this, Sheriff Hounshell is under indictment in Maricopa County for eleven felonies including fraudulent schemes and artifices!
Deputy Matrese Avila (friend of Judge Bruce Overson) had changed the date of the alleged molestation twice during the first week after my arrest. Then she colluded with Victoria Ries and Bradley Carlyon to cover for Ries by having the computer analysis expert, Joann Kennedy, pretend she found evidence of child pornography on the Azdems borrowed computer. Then she refused to serve Joels subpoenas, and had "inside information" from one of the judges (Overson) that the outcome of the upcoming review of the preliminary hearing was a "done deal" that would result in the postponement of Joels trial.
Next, at the review of the preliminary hearing, during Joels cross examination of Deputy Avila (who claimed to be an expert in child molestation cases), Joel asked her how many trials she had testified at the previous year (2002). I already knew the answer, because the Clerk of the Superior Court had informed me that there had been only two trials in 2002: one was a child molestation case and the other a drunk driving case. So, when Avila answered "four", Joel knew she was lying.
"Youre lying!" Joel said, "There were only two trials in Apache County last year!" Avilas face flushed. She was obviously embarrassed being caught in a lie, on the stand, under oath.
Immediately, Carlyon objected, stammering that Joel was "harassing the witness." The Judge called for order in the Court. Carlyon then asked Judge Overson to order our entire exchange regarding Avilas false statement to be stricken from the record (April, 4, 2003). Carlyon and Judge Overson discussed striking our exchange, and then court recessed for the weekend.
The following Monday ( April 7, 2003) Joel continued with his questioning of Deputy Avila. At one point Joel and Avila referred back to the verbal exchange on Friday (April 4, 2003) in which Joel had called her a liar. Joel was pressing Avila for a more precise answer to a question, and asked her why she was avoiding a direct answer? Avila expressed that she didnt want to get into another predicament as she had done on the previous Friday.
Joel is glad he brought it up again because when the transcript of the preliminary hearing was published, Joels question, and Avilas answer, and Joels accusation of her as a liar, had been stricken from the record so carefully, that there was no way to tell, from the record, that such an exchange had occurred - except from our comments referring back to it the following Monday... but they are still on the original audiotape of the hearing.
As far as Judge Oversons bias and favoritism resulting in misconduct is concerned, the White Mountain Independent Newspaper reported on 09/20/2005;
"A complaint filed with the State of Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) has resulted in a finding of misconduct in office by Judge R. Bruce Overson who has served as both a municipal court judge and as Justice of the Peace in St. Johns since June 2, 2003.
"Filed earlier this year, the complaint cited many examples where the judge ignored mandatory sentencing guidelines, made repeated clerical errors, showed both bias and favoritism in his case handling and demonstrated a demeanor inappropriate of a judge."
Judge R. Bruce Overson
To read the complete article, go to: http://www.wmicentral.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18933621&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=8 .
As to the corruption in Apache County Sheriffs Office, the Arizona Republic newspaper (azcentral.com) reported on January 3, 2007:
"Investigations and prosecutions of corruption in the Apache County Sheriffs Office are continuing. A deputy sheriff pleaded guilty this week to several counts of lying to a state grand jury, which has been investigating the Sheriffs Office."
The White Mountain Independent (wmicentral.com) reported on January 16, 2007, that Sheriff Hounshell will stand trial in Maricopa County on eleven felony charges, including the charges of fraud, fraudulent schemes, and fraudulent schemes and artifices. It is not ironic that several of these crimes were committed, allegedly, by the Sheriff while I was under his arrest and during my trial. I will allege, someday, that my arrest and trial were, in fact, more of his fraudulent schemes and artifices!
EX-Sheriff Brian Hounshell
As this story goes to press: (1) Sheriff Brain Hounshell has resigned and has pled guilty to a felony count; www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19095902&brd=2264&pag=461&dept_id=505965, (2) * Judge R. Bruce Overson was removed from the bench and temporarily reassigned to other duties pending an investigation by the Commission on Judicial Conduct (3) And it appears that an investigation may be gearing up against Apache County Attorney, Criss Candelaria, and his Chief Deputy County Attorney, Bradley Carlyon.
The White Mountain Independent Online Edition carried the following commentary from October 2, 2007:
"[A]s a county employee I would like to know why Mr. Candelaria is not being investigated also. I have personal knowledge of the following... Your chief deputy (Brad Carlyon) and his wife (Anna Atencio) both work for you in the county attorneys office. Husband and wife in the same office is a violation of Apache County Human Resource manual. Specifically, Section 1.26 states that no person shall be supervised by a relative. Please do not try to wiggle around the question by saying that your chief deputy does not supervise her. I am frequently in the court and see him supervising her all the time. It appears you are in violation of the law.
... [A] search of your criminal record indicates you have been arrested or investigated for crimes in at least 3 counties. Apache for assaulting an elderly man. Navajo for child abuse, and Mohave County for assault and a few other crimes which are not specified on your public records search. You seem less law abiding than most Apache County residents. Correct? Who is going to investigate you? (www.wmicentral.com 10/02/2007).
To see what charges have been filed on Candelaria, go to; Court Information for the Public at: www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/notfication/partylist.asp?id=.
(4) Matrese Avila has been promoted to the position of Commander of the Apache county jail, and according to the White Mountain Independent Newspaper (09/27/2007) has "denied a subscription to a Sunday newspaper because the swimsuit and underwear ads are too suggestive."
The article goes on to say:
"Ms. Avila is just promoting her brand of morality... And that is what is scary. She actually believes she is right and sees nothing wrong with banning newspapers. It seems that total sensory deprivation of anything outside the walls of the jail is her goal."
After two postponements (over Joels objections), the trial finally began. But not until after several witnesses Joel wanted to call had, finally, left the state. Just like Carlyon had planned.
The Hoffmans were a family of six witnesses I wanted to compel to testify. And had they been served subpoenas by Matrese Avila, they would have. They all lived in the same house. Everybody knew where they lived. They were easy to find twenty-four hours a day, 7 days a week. But Deputy Avila would not serve them with their subpoenas.
According to Victoria Rodericks videotaped interview with Matrese Avila, Victoria had told the Hoffmans (specifically, the grandmother, Shirley Hoffman) the same story/stories about my alleged attempt(s) to molest her (which purportedly resulted in a broken finger for Roderick, a third degree fracture from a dog bite for me, and a trip to the hospital for both of us), as she had told Deputy Avila in their videotaped interview.
"Avila: Q. Okay. So everything weve talked about here has only been the truth.
Roderick: A. Ive told all of this to my Mom, Chelsea, David, and Tammy, Shirley, the Grandma, and my friend Bertha. What Im telling you now, Ive told them, and thats all I can remember for now.
Avila: Q. Okay.
Roderick: A. Okay."
But lets go back to the beginning of this videotaped interview of Roderick by Avila.
"Avila: Q. Okay. What did you come to tell me about Joel Barr?
Roderick: A. Well, he, like, molested me... he made me sit on his lap and watch porn with him on his computer... and I just say No and get off his lap and start running and he tries to catch me and I say No.
Now, lets take a quick recap of this interview between my accuser, Roderick, and Apache County Deputy Avila. Well take Rodericks accusations and her self-contradictions in the order in which they occurred.
(1) "Avila: Q. Okay, and when did he show you this [pornography]?
Roderick: A. Like a few days ago.
Q. ... Was it Sunday he showed you the porn?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Did he do anything that time, this past Sunday? [January 19, 2003]
A. ... He was just watching porn, and whenever Id look away, hed put my head onto the screen and make me look at it..."
Roderick also testified at trial that this alleged forced viewing of pornography occurred on Sunday, January 19, 2003. However, under cross examination Roderick was confronted with evidence and witness statements that she had spent the entire 24 hours of Sunday, January 19, 2003, with her coconspirators Chelsea Hoffman, Tammy Stothart and the Hoffman family... writing the statements claiming to have been sexually harassed and molested by me.
(2) "Avila: Q. How many times did Joel do this [molest you]?
Roderick: A. About, I forgot to count. I just stopped counting.
Q. More than five? More than ten? A bunch of times?
A. (Nods)
Q. Okay. Every time, did he just sit you on...
A. Uh-huh.
Q. ...his lap and have you watch the porn...
A. Uh-huh.
Q. ... on the computer?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay, and how many times did he put his finger down there?
A. A couple of times. Maybe five or six.
Now, compare those answers with the answer Roderick gave when she was asked the same question on the witness stand at trial.
"Barr: Q. Just once or a whole bunch of times?
Roderick: A. Just once."
(3) In her videotaped interview with Deputy Avila, Roderick claimed that she had told her mother, several times, that I had molested her.
"Roderick: A. ...Mom didnt believe me the first time I told her, but my brother Travis... when he told Mom it really did happen, Mom started believing it."
... rub me with baby oil and get me up in the bed... And I told her then, and she believed me...
Avila: Q. She asked Joel about it?
A. Joel said, I never did anything like that."
But when her mother, Victoria Ries, was questioned on the witness stand, Ries denied having ever been told any such thing until 3 days before my arrest. And then, not by her daughter, but by Chelsea Hoffman.
The following excerpts are from the Preliminary Hearing (April 7, 2003: Day 2, Volume 1, pages 278-279).
"Barr: Q. ... Sunday, the 19th of January, 2003, was in fact the first time you heard anything from your daughter regarding any sexual improprieties?
Ries: A. Yes, it was.
Q. ... Had you, from time to time, inquired, just to be a diligent mother, as to whether or not there may have been improprieties going on?
A. Yes.Q. And what were the answers you were given?
A. None. She said, No.
Q. ... Did Tammy Stothart say anything to you on the 19th, or about the 19th?
A. They were the ones who actually told me that Victoria had admitted to them, Chelsea and Tammy, that she had been molested by you.
Q. Did they tell you when she made those statements to them?
A. On a Sunday.
Q. So all this happened on Sunday the 19th?
A. Yeah."
So, if was Chelsea and Tammy who first told Victoria Ries about the purported molestation of her daughter, Victoria Roderick; when did Ries actually talk to Roderick about the allegations? Read the following cross examination of Victoria Ries by the Prosecutor, Bradley Carlyon.
"Carlyon: Q. It sounds like you talked with Little Vickie, about what happened to her with Mr. Barr, on the 19th, after you learned of it from [Chelsea or Tammy], is that correct?
Ries: A. Well, I didnt actually talk to her that day.
Q. Okay, when did you talk to her?
A. I talked to her, like, about midweek, I think it was."
Now, doesnt it strike you as unusual that the conspirators, Chelsea Hoffman and Tammy Stothart, would be the only ones to speak with Ries about the supposed molestation of her daughter? Why didnt Ries or Roderick make any attempt to speak to each other about such a traumatic experience for 3 more days? Unless, Ries was, by then, part of the conspiracy as well as Hoffman, Stothart and Roderick - and soon to include Deputy Avila with Ries request for Avila to "please cover for me by pretending the computer analyses experts found the evidence while working on Joels computer."
What did Ries think she could gain by participating in the conspiracy? According to telephone conversations with a lawyer, Emily Danies, and Joels editor (and fiancι), Pamela deSpencer, and a mutual friend, Steve Johnson: Ries anticipated receiving five to fifteen thousand dollars, in cash; and the deed to my property (valued at over $100,000) as compensatory damages for the alleged molestation of her daughter.
(4) Next, compare Rodericks descriptions of the location where she claimed I made a threat to harm her family if she didnt let me molest her. In the videotaped interview of January 22, 2003, she told Deputy Avila that I said, "Fine. Ill hurt your family,: as I was dragging her out of her house. But on the witness stand, at trial, Roderick testified that the alleged threat against her family was made as she and I stood next to a pond of water near my house.
Well, by now I am sure you are getting the picture! Joel was sent to "trial" with two female jurors who were "in your face" convinced that he was guilty or he never would have been arrested. One is a woman whose name is unknown, the others name is Florence Sopko. Joel had had a serious disagreement with her supervisors in the government agency she works/worked for and yet he was not "allowed" to have her removed from the jury pool!
At the beginning of the trial, before one word was spoken, Bradley Carlyon struck his winning move. He showed on a large screen, images of children from child porn sites. The verdict was already in. Joel moved for a mistrial, but Judge Taylor, (of Taylor, Arizona) denied that motion. The course correction that got Joel into prison.
The subpoenas that Joel had for the Child Protective Services, to get the file on Victoria Roderick to show there was/is a pattern of her and her mother, Victoria Ries, falsely accusing men of molesting Victoria Roderick, and to interview CPS workers about this pattern, were quashed by the Assistant Attorney General in Flagstaff, Arizona. So Joel was left with no way to prove his innocence.
Donna Grimsley
Superior Court Judge
Then, the now presiding Superior Court Judge Grimsley, who sat in for Judge Taylor, gave incorrect instructions to the jury when they asked a question as they were deliberating. I was there and heard what she said. They asked how to define "on or about" as to whether an exact date should be "an exact date" or whether it would be considered "on or about". The answer Judge Grimsley gave was implying to go with the "on or about" when in fact, Victoria Roderick had stated that it was on December 29, 2002. There was no "on or about" involved. But then, thats the way things are done in Arizona, not just Apache County.
In Joels appeals case, NO. 1 CA-CR 03-0881 (Apache County Superior Court Cause No. CR 2003-069), In the Court of Appeals, State of Arizona, Division One, Joel presented seven arguments.
Argument One;
The trial court erred in allowing unduly inflammatory photograph of child pornography to be shown to the jury, despite a stipulation by the parties that the photographs were child pornography; such photographs were more prejudicial than probative and prosecutorial misconduct occurred when the state impermissibly showed child pornography in their opening statements...
Argument Two;
Appellant was not guilty of violating A.R.S. 13-3553 as the statute makes exceptions for educational use of child pornography.
Argument Three;
The court erred in denying appellant the right to review CPS records/interview CPS workers and to question the alleged victims mother about prior false accusations of molestation made by her daughter pursuant to A.R.S. 13-1421(A)(5).
Argument Four;
The Portillo instructions given by the court violated appellants rights under the United States Constitution, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
Argument Five;
Fundamental error occurred as impermissible hearsay statements by States witnesses which improperly bolstered the credibility of alleged victim.
Argument Six;
The court committed reversible error in answering a jury question during deliberations with erroneous law seriously prejudicing appellant.
Argument Seven;
The court erred in denying appellants motion for a new trial and motion to vacate Judgment and sentence.
Joels conviction was only upheld by this Appeals Court, choosing to ignore the Constitutional issues. This is basically "business as usual" in Arizona!
Eight months ago, or so, as Joel was walking back to his bunk in general population, he was jumped and beaten by "inmates". Since the nature of Joels conviction and subsequent failed appeal, I feared that Joel was actually beaten by Arizona Department of Corrections Officers, and not inmates. So I called the F.B.I. in Phoenix and asked for my right to file a complaint. The "Officer of the Day" said he didnt believe that was possible. I asked that he prove me wrong by investigating. He hung up on me. End of "justice" in Arizona.
When Joel was beaten he lost his front teeth as they were kicked out and more severe than that was that he suffered a brain hemorrhage and lost over half of his blood! If he had died as a result of these injuries, everyone who had a hand in this bogus prosecution would be responsible for his death.
To say that these "government officials" are anything but liars, thugs and criminals is the understatement of the century...
And according to present residents of Apache County, the Sheriffs Department is terrorizing residents with a new "law". This part of Arizona is mostly open, albeit, owned land. No paved roads, basically wilderness that stretches on forever. This new "law" requires a land owner to conform to certain parameters imposed upon them, or the land owner will have his land taken by Apache County. And the land owner has to pay Apache for this "privilege".
Where is the justice? Where is the public outrage? Where are the government agencies that could put a stop to this corruption? Sadly, I must say that in Arizona no such government agency exists, because even the courts uphold what these lying criminal thugs do.
This family keeps being harassed.
|
---------- Forwarded
message ----------
From: Chelsea F <chelseagonnasmacku@hotmail.com> Date: Feb 4, 2008 11:10 PM Subject: RE: get on To: Pamela deSpencer <xxxxxxxxxxx>
Howz Joel leyek
whr hes hangn
 He
shudnt hv F'd w me.2 bad bout Ur puppy that died 4m poison n 2003. I njoyd that Who U gona kill w a dull butr knife now manlywoman? U want suma me Ima waytn Huntsville, AL 35806
|
