Thursday, January 28, 2010
TEEN ADDICTION STATISTICS
According to www.samhsa.gov, in 2008 22 .2 million teens, 12 - 17 years old, were classified with substance dependence (addiction) or substance abuse. Of these 22.2 million teens, 3.1 million were classified with addiction or abuse of both alcohol and illicit drugs. 3.9 million teens were addicted to or abused illicit drugs but NOT alcohol. 15.2 million teens were addicted ot or abused alcohol but NOT illicit drugs. The 2008 report further provides statistics indicating 60.6 percent of 12 - 17 year old teens, not only were addicted to or abuse drugs, but were the largest percentage of people addicted to or abusing drugs. In comparison, 37.4 percent of adults ages 18 -25 years old, were addicted to or abused drugs. What does this report convey to parents, teens, families, and professionals working with teens? It conveys to us that teens are the highest "risk" age group to become addicted to alcohol or drugs It is an alarming statistic. Imagine, a 12 year old playing baseball or cheerleading. Now imagine that same 12 year old, addicted to oxycontin and the chaos it causes for the teen and family. Teen lives are destroyed by the overwhelming availability of alcohol and prescription narcotic drugs and marijuana. It is imperative that we (as a society), become informed of the increasing availability of alcohol and drugs in the teen population. We need to recognize the peer pressure for teens to engage in alcohol and drug use, and the lack of teen coping skills, which often lead a teen to using alcohol and drugs and subsequently results in teen addiction. We must educate ourselves on the signs and symptoms of teen addiction and act quickly to restore a teen to a healthy life and preserve their future opportunities. If you are seeking information on teen drug abuse or teen addiction, education on teen drugs, or if you are ready to consider a teen addiction treatment center, for your teen, please go to: www.inspirationsteenrehab.com.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Teen Marijuana Addiction
Teen Marijuana Addiction is common and overlooked as a serious teen addiction. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, regarding marijuana in 2007, teens are four times more likely to use marijuana as compared to adults. Marijuana alters mind and mood. It is addictive. Teens abusing marijuana demonstrate the same behaviors as teens abusing prescription narcotic drugs and non-prescription narcotic drugs. Behaviors include changes that interfere with the teens ability to fulfill the demands of his/her daily routine, mood changes, decline in school grade point average, change in friends, reduced time spent with family, change in body weight, and notable unpredictable behaviors. Statistics continue to report that marijuana is still the"gateway" drug. Teens using, abusing, or addicted to marijuana are more likely to seek additional narcotic drugs to continue the search for another "high", ultimately increasing a teen's probability for becoming a teen drug addict. If a parent or family member suspects or knows a teen is abusing or addicted to marijuana, it is advisable to intervene and seek the help of an adolescent addiction treatment center.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Good Cop
If there is one main lesson that I have learned in the last ten years, it is that no matter what the situation and regardless of factual evidence, a cop will always back-up another cop. The perspective is that a fellow officer can't be wrong. It is an "us v. them" philosophy wherein if you are not a cop, you are a perp; period. There are no other options.
Once in a blue moon we encounter someone that is different and doesn't have such a black or white mindset. That person thinks in shades of gray and is open to other possible theories, weighing the evidence without bias or disregard for facts damaging to his own cause. That person is the one that keeps me from despising all cops for the actions of a small group. He is the good cop.
There was a good cop involved in my case. Since I refuse to out him by name, I'll refer to him as "Joe" the good cop.
I had no clue who Joe was or what part he played in my case, but for whatever reason the officer was on the defense witness list as we approached trial time. My attorney never said much about Joe except that he really did not want to be called as a witness; however, would be honest on the stand if he was. My attorney knew that calling Joe as a defense witness would be a career killer for Joe as Joe could counter the testimony of other agents in the case, exposing the group as the liars that they are.
When it was time for the decision, after the prosecution had presented its case, my attorney stated that we didn't need to call Joe, but could if I wanted to as long as I realized the repercussions that Joe would face for his honesty. Steve (my attorney) didn't feel that the prosecution had presented a valid case, and if we didn't call any defense witness except me, the defendant, he would have the final fifteen minutes to address the jury. That is how Florida trial law works and Steve felt that he needed the last word in the courtroom so I agreed. Joe never had to testify and I learned little about Joe until several months after the trial was over and I was acquitted by the jury.
My chance encounter with Joe came late one night when my son was outside our apartment building talking on his cellular phone. You see, the building is concrete block and most wireless phones do not work well inside and drop calls. Apparently there had been some issue with people in a nearby building selling drugs – I mind my own business and do not really care unless it affects me, and it did that night as Joe and two other cops were bothering my son for standing outside.
I immediately instructed my son, then 15, to not speak to the officers. Joe is a big guy, perhaps 6'8 to 6'10", and jumped right in front of me. He demanded, "Who are you? His lawyer?" I responded that, no, I was his mother, he was 15 years old, and they did not have my permission to speak to him. Even at 15 my son was big, around 6'2", so this most likely surprised the officers.
Joe practically screamed down at me, "How about if I arrest you for obstruction of justice?" I responded in a calm and quiet voice that he must do whatever he felt he had to do, and I would respond accordingly. Suddenly Joe stepped back, looked at me questioningly, and asked: "What is your name?" I responded that my name is Vicky Gallas. That moment it all transformed into something like a reunion between two people that never met, but realized that they knew plenty about each other.
Joe informed me that he was in charge of the task force in Brevard County that worked with Orlando/Orange County's MBI in my case. Agent misconduct was not appreciated by Joe, and he actually resigned from his position on the task force to get away from the bad cops at the MBI. It was all the more believable as Joe was driving a patrol car that night. Demoted to patrol cop for his refusal to watch fellow agents commit various acts of misconduct, Joe and I developed an unspoken understanding of the lasting effects that bad cops can have on a victim.
Joe is the only good cop that I have ever encountered in my life. Unwilling to back his fellow agents in a false persecution, he stood alone, obeying the law that he swore to uphold and defend. Joe the good cop will always be my hero.
Once in a blue moon we encounter someone that is different and doesn't have such a black or white mindset. That person thinks in shades of gray and is open to other possible theories, weighing the evidence without bias or disregard for facts damaging to his own cause. That person is the one that keeps me from despising all cops for the actions of a small group. He is the good cop.
There was a good cop involved in my case. Since I refuse to out him by name, I'll refer to him as "Joe" the good cop.
I had no clue who Joe was or what part he played in my case, but for whatever reason the officer was on the defense witness list as we approached trial time. My attorney never said much about Joe except that he really did not want to be called as a witness; however, would be honest on the stand if he was. My attorney knew that calling Joe as a defense witness would be a career killer for Joe as Joe could counter the testimony of other agents in the case, exposing the group as the liars that they are.
When it was time for the decision, after the prosecution had presented its case, my attorney stated that we didn't need to call Joe, but could if I wanted to as long as I realized the repercussions that Joe would face for his honesty. Steve (my attorney) didn't feel that the prosecution had presented a valid case, and if we didn't call any defense witness except me, the defendant, he would have the final fifteen minutes to address the jury. That is how Florida trial law works and Steve felt that he needed the last word in the courtroom so I agreed. Joe never had to testify and I learned little about Joe until several months after the trial was over and I was acquitted by the jury.
My chance encounter with Joe came late one night when my son was outside our apartment building talking on his cellular phone. You see, the building is concrete block and most wireless phones do not work well inside and drop calls. Apparently there had been some issue with people in a nearby building selling drugs – I mind my own business and do not really care unless it affects me, and it did that night as Joe and two other cops were bothering my son for standing outside.
I immediately instructed my son, then 15, to not speak to the officers. Joe is a big guy, perhaps 6'8 to 6'10", and jumped right in front of me. He demanded, "Who are you? His lawyer?" I responded that, no, I was his mother, he was 15 years old, and they did not have my permission to speak to him. Even at 15 my son was big, around 6'2", so this most likely surprised the officers.
Joe practically screamed down at me, "How about if I arrest you for obstruction of justice?" I responded in a calm and quiet voice that he must do whatever he felt he had to do, and I would respond accordingly. Suddenly Joe stepped back, looked at me questioningly, and asked: "What is your name?" I responded that my name is Vicky Gallas. That moment it all transformed into something like a reunion between two people that never met, but realized that they knew plenty about each other.
Joe informed me that he was in charge of the task force in Brevard County that worked with Orlando/Orange County's MBI in my case. Agent misconduct was not appreciated by Joe, and he actually resigned from his position on the task force to get away from the bad cops at the MBI. It was all the more believable as Joe was driving a patrol car that night. Demoted to patrol cop for his refusal to watch fellow agents commit various acts of misconduct, Joe and I developed an unspoken understanding of the lasting effects that bad cops can have on a victim.
Joe is the only good cop that I have ever encountered in my life. Unwilling to back his fellow agents in a false persecution, he stood alone, obeying the law that he swore to uphold and defend. Joe the good cop will always be my hero.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
State as a Con Artist
I wrote about the big MBI con in Operation Plastic Empire (MBI) and Skeletons in the Closet and figure that it is time for an update and a plea to the current representatives of the State of Florida in the case to resolve the argument. It is a simple argument, after all is said and done, at least in the case of Trevor Banks Campbell. It's also a 1996 case, so let's get to work for true justice people. No more excuses and hidden agendas; those days are over. The case that I am referring to is Orange County, Florida case # 1996-CF-011913-B – the "B" means that Trevor is defendant B out of A through I.
I sometimes doubt that Trevor is still speaking to me as he really does not want me to write about the case until it is resolved with the conviction and sentence judgment vacated. But then it was my reference to this case in Memoirs that prompted him to contact me, listen to my legal points and advice to retain an attorney, and finally do something about this con job by the State of Florida. I am a prolific legal researcher, and absolutely enjoy aggravating the guilty parties herein.
Trevor did speak with an attorney that obviously agreed with my points as the case is now reopened and motions are filed. The case is currently in front of Orange County Circuit Court Judge Bob Wattles. From what I do know of Judge Wattles he is a fair man, so it is unlikely that this case will be swept under a rug as it was in the past. I knew his nephew Wayne; however, have not spoken to him in many years. I once bailed Wayne out of jail on a DUI charge. He said that he was the black sheep of the family and spoke very highly of his uncle. That is a good sign for this long overdue pursuit of justice in the referenced case.
The defendants in Operation Plastic Empire were arrested on a slew of felony charges in relation to an MBI-created false case. The main problem that I have with the entire mess is that none of the many defense attorneys involved exposed the con job. I have since been told that an attorney takes their life in their hands when they go against these false prosecutions, but is that really an excuse? Maybe I should have gone to law school and just let the cards fall wherever they were supposed to.
These defendants were prosecuted and pled guilty to charges based on an MBI operation that sought to prosecute for a legal activity. Okay, so prosecutors managed to coerce guilty pleas to non-offenses by setting excessive bonds and/or holding each defendant indefinitely in jail while awaiting trial. The resulting guilty plea, at least in Trevor's case, involved getting out of jail with a time served sentence that included probation. It was the better option at the moment, no doubt, as he spent over a year sitting in a jail cell.
The remedy today is simple too, and any attorney reading this knows that I am correct. I defer to the Michael J. Peter case. There is no time limitation when the conduct with which he (Trevor) was charged is not proscribed by the statute he was convicted of violating.
The Peter case revealed the remedy, but it was a Tampa area State of Florida case that exposed the con job of the entire operational agenda of criminally charging a non-offense. "Credit card factoring" and "money laundering" were the base(less) offenses of the "racketeering" and "conspiracy to commit racketeering (RICO)" charges. The MBI, in Operation Plastic Empire, solicited the commercial business of each defendant in the case as each operated escort services. The defendants were prosecuted for what was really only commercial behavior. In the Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida case the state lost when the defendants appealed their convictions. The cases that were consolidated are: 2D98-3398; 2D98-3581; and 2D98-3634. The convictions and sentences were reversed by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The wheels of justice do indeed grind slow – it has been 14 years now. Better fix it people, because it won't go away, and I am getting ready to contact each defendant in the case. Trevor only contacted me as a result of what he read in Memoirs.
I sometimes doubt that Trevor is still speaking to me as he really does not want me to write about the case until it is resolved with the conviction and sentence judgment vacated. But then it was my reference to this case in Memoirs that prompted him to contact me, listen to my legal points and advice to retain an attorney, and finally do something about this con job by the State of Florida. I am a prolific legal researcher, and absolutely enjoy aggravating the guilty parties herein.
Trevor did speak with an attorney that obviously agreed with my points as the case is now reopened and motions are filed. The case is currently in front of Orange County Circuit Court Judge Bob Wattles. From what I do know of Judge Wattles he is a fair man, so it is unlikely that this case will be swept under a rug as it was in the past. I knew his nephew Wayne; however, have not spoken to him in many years. I once bailed Wayne out of jail on a DUI charge. He said that he was the black sheep of the family and spoke very highly of his uncle. That is a good sign for this long overdue pursuit of justice in the referenced case.
The defendants in Operation Plastic Empire were arrested on a slew of felony charges in relation to an MBI-created false case. The main problem that I have with the entire mess is that none of the many defense attorneys involved exposed the con job. I have since been told that an attorney takes their life in their hands when they go against these false prosecutions, but is that really an excuse? Maybe I should have gone to law school and just let the cards fall wherever they were supposed to.
These defendants were prosecuted and pled guilty to charges based on an MBI operation that sought to prosecute for a legal activity. Okay, so prosecutors managed to coerce guilty pleas to non-offenses by setting excessive bonds and/or holding each defendant indefinitely in jail while awaiting trial. The resulting guilty plea, at least in Trevor's case, involved getting out of jail with a time served sentence that included probation. It was the better option at the moment, no doubt, as he spent over a year sitting in a jail cell.
The remedy today is simple too, and any attorney reading this knows that I am correct. I defer to the Michael J. Peter case. There is no time limitation when the conduct with which he (Trevor) was charged is not proscribed by the statute he was convicted of violating.
The Peter case revealed the remedy, but it was a Tampa area State of Florida case that exposed the con job of the entire operational agenda of criminally charging a non-offense. "Credit card factoring" and "money laundering" were the base(less) offenses of the "racketeering" and "conspiracy to commit racketeering (RICO)" charges. The MBI, in Operation Plastic Empire, solicited the commercial business of each defendant in the case as each operated escort services. The defendants were prosecuted for what was really only commercial behavior. In the Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida case the state lost when the defendants appealed their convictions. The cases that were consolidated are: 2D98-3398; 2D98-3581; and 2D98-3634. The convictions and sentences were reversed by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The wheels of justice do indeed grind slow – it has been 14 years now. Better fix it people, because it won't go away, and I am getting ready to contact each defendant in the case. Trevor only contacted me as a result of what he read in Memoirs.
Friday, January 8, 2010
More Show Trials
We have more U.S. show trials coming soon to a theater [court] near you. Why pay to go to the movies when you can view surrealistic fictional events in courtrooms all over the country any week day?
The odds are set high against any defendant that opts to go to trial in a U.S. kangaroo court. Court participants are often angered at the audacity of the defendant to exercise the right to trial, and if that defendant loses, the sentence is usually 10 times any previously offered plea deal. This is, of course, why 95% of defendants in criminal cases succumb to the plea bargain; regardless of innocence or guilt.
If the defendant wins in a jury trial the intelligence level of the jurors is questioned and often the win is attributed to the inability of prosecutors to include specific evidence in the presentation to the jury. What about the defense being denied the inclusion of evidence favorable to the defendant? In my own trial jurors never got to read Dusty's Sworn Statement, and prosecutors proceeded on the pretense that all witnesses were there voluntarily knowing that it was a lie. Of course that was far from the only false pretense of this trial.
Admittedly, taking a case to trial is scary from any defendant's perspective. The trial has little to do with innocence, guilt, or anything in-between. It is all in the presentation to the jury and the jurors' perception of the presentation by defense attorneys and prosecutors. Perception of the level of deceit proffered by either side is what sways the opinion of most jurors, though there are some that decide the case before the trial actually begins – this is the problem juror that a defense attorney must weed-out and exclude during voir dire.
Choosing the jury is of main importance in any trial. It has been stated that once the jury is selected the trial is almost over. Indeed this is true as defense attorneys and prosecutors are not necessarily seeking total impartiality. There are not many people that are absolutely impartial. Our past experiences in life make us the people that we are, thus eliminating total impartiality. Selecting the jury is an exercise is psychology, a give and take, and an understanding that open-minded fairness is probable for the potential juror.
I often wonder what type of jury my attackers believe that I had. From the moment that I was acquitted I have heard a variety of misconceptions concerning the trial jury. I rarely, if ever, speak about the jury in the case in respect for their privacy, but there's nothing disrespectful about offering a general fact now and again. One of my jurors was in her sixties and retired from the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Remember now – the jury reached "not guilty" verdicts on both counts in less than an hour after listening to the state for 8 days and me for 1 day, and of course the opening and closing statements.
What does that tell you about jury perception of the State of Florida's case and its prosecutors?
Coming soon - a discussion of trial witnesses
The odds are set high against any defendant that opts to go to trial in a U.S. kangaroo court. Court participants are often angered at the audacity of the defendant to exercise the right to trial, and if that defendant loses, the sentence is usually 10 times any previously offered plea deal. This is, of course, why 95% of defendants in criminal cases succumb to the plea bargain; regardless of innocence or guilt.
If the defendant wins in a jury trial the intelligence level of the jurors is questioned and often the win is attributed to the inability of prosecutors to include specific evidence in the presentation to the jury. What about the defense being denied the inclusion of evidence favorable to the defendant? In my own trial jurors never got to read Dusty's Sworn Statement, and prosecutors proceeded on the pretense that all witnesses were there voluntarily knowing that it was a lie. Of course that was far from the only false pretense of this trial.
Admittedly, taking a case to trial is scary from any defendant's perspective. The trial has little to do with innocence, guilt, or anything in-between. It is all in the presentation to the jury and the jurors' perception of the presentation by defense attorneys and prosecutors. Perception of the level of deceit proffered by either side is what sways the opinion of most jurors, though there are some that decide the case before the trial actually begins – this is the problem juror that a defense attorney must weed-out and exclude during voir dire.
Choosing the jury is of main importance in any trial. It has been stated that once the jury is selected the trial is almost over. Indeed this is true as defense attorneys and prosecutors are not necessarily seeking total impartiality. There are not many people that are absolutely impartial. Our past experiences in life make us the people that we are, thus eliminating total impartiality. Selecting the jury is an exercise is psychology, a give and take, and an understanding that open-minded fairness is probable for the potential juror.
I often wonder what type of jury my attackers believe that I had. From the moment that I was acquitted I have heard a variety of misconceptions concerning the trial jury. I rarely, if ever, speak about the jury in the case in respect for their privacy, but there's nothing disrespectful about offering a general fact now and again. One of my jurors was in her sixties and retired from the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Remember now – the jury reached "not guilty" verdicts on both counts in less than an hour after listening to the state for 8 days and me for 1 day, and of course the opening and closing statements.
What does that tell you about jury perception of the State of Florida's case and its prosecutors?
Coming soon - a discussion of trial witnesses
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)