AGENTS: BUSH OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE IN FIRINGS

This story made me sick - I want to vomit when I hear about our babies stolen then used as sex toys. What kind of person is turned on by an innocent child? Sick pigs!

How the *&^% do they get away with this?

No, I know how they get away with this they "legally" kidnap them!

What I want to know is are there any non sociopaths in upper management? because only a sociopath could sleep at night knowing this was going on and they didn't stop it!

Foggo sex ring probe linked to forged Iraq dossier, Israeli espionage, convicted lobbyist Abramoff
by Tom Flocco

Washington—March 19, 2007—TomFlocco.com

According to U.S. intelligence sources, President Bush obstructed justice last December when he had senior advisor Karl Rove and White House Counsel Harriet Miers instruct Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire eight U.S. attorneys who were among several others conducting ongoing public corruption and secret national security grand jury investigations connected to an espionage–linked prostitution / pedophile sex ring operating at the Washington Ritz-Carlton and other DC hotels, whose clients included U.S. senators and congressmen, elite Washington news reporters and high government officials—some of whom were named by an intelligence insider.

Central to the scandal is fired U.S. attorney Carole Lam of California who was reportedly conducting testimony before grand juries linking indicted former Bush CIA Executive Director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the sex ring, Israeli espionage, GOP Under Secretary of Defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, a forged British intelligence dossier used by Mr. Bush to deceive Americans into supporting war against Iraq and an attempt to plant weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq before the war via an intelligence pipeline through Dubai and Turkey.

During her House testimony before Democrat Chairman Henry Waxman’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Friday, “national security” concerns were given as the reason for prohibiting covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson from revealing that her CIA energy front company Brewster-Jennings had prevented the planting of WMD in Iraq by the White House-linked intelligence pipeline, resulting in the forged British dossier being used for building an artificial case for war against Iraq.

Curiously, intelligence operatives said yesterday that Valerie Plame-Wilson recently had dinner with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Lam, widely known for recently sending Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison in a major government corruption case, garnered “glowing performance ratings” along with the other fired attorneys who were career professionals according to Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer (D-NY) who declined to confirm whether sealed indictments of White House officials at the highest levels of government already existed under national security protocols.

Judiciary Committee Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) confirmed Lam’s Foggo and Abramoff probe on ABC News Sunday, while she also implicated Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-41-CA); but Feinstein also told ABC that Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo—and........but the next day on May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief-of-staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sent an email to William Kelley in the White House counsel's office saying, "Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following," referring to the "real problem we have right now with Carole Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

Those Republican and Democrat members of Congress who may have been in the crosshairs of Lam and the other prosecutors can be assumed to have an important stake in facilitating presidential obstruction of justice and soft congressional hearings—if only to protect their own careers and potential criminal liability of prosecution for bribery, blackmail, compromised legislation or a corrupt vote to send American troops to die in Iraq based on lies.

Two days prior to leaving office after being fired, Lam won criminal indictments against # 3 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official Foggo and GOP businessman and top Bush contributor Brent Wilkes; but Lam’s firing due to “performance issues,” prevented her from completing her investigation which will now fall to successors hand-picked by Mr. Bush which career law enforcement officials may probe in a case against the President.


Before the scandal broke publicly, federal intelligence agents said Senate Democrats permitted President Bush to obstruct justice regarding the firings which could delay or quash indictments against former Bush CIA Director Porter Goss, who agents say is implicated in the Capitol prostitution ring with Senate Judiciary Ranking Republican Arlen Specter according to daily U.S. intelligence Special Operations Group (SOG) reports seen by intelligence authority Thomas Heneghan.

Capitol Hill sex ring

In an interview with TomFlocco.com last week, Heneghan alleged that federal agents have linked Michael Duffy of Time, John Meacham of Newsweek, George Stephanopoulos of ABC, Mike Allen, John Harris, Mark Halperin—of the Washington Post, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, Anderson Cooper of CNN, Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), former CIA Director Porter Goss and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the sex ring.

Given Heneghan’s explosive allegations culled from U.S. intelligence reports, we sought additional clarification by asking the insider if it was accurate that federal agents with whom he was in contact were in possession of 1) electronic transmissions, 2) video/photographic evidence and 3) whether operatives had observed the U.S. senators, reporters and other high government officials participating in prostitution or pedophilia at the Ritz Carlton and/or other Washington, DC hotels, to which Heneghan replied, “yes—for all three.”

There have been no public investigations or hearings to determine the extent to which the controversial vote for war or other U.S. legislation may have been compromised by senatorial or congressional blackmail related to the sex ring or the number of important news reports which may have been diluted, slanted, or eliminated if any reporters were compromised; and given the extent of the corruption, Congress will be hard-pressed to investigate their fellow members involved:

AGENTS SAY FOLEY SCANDAL TIP OF ICEBERG

PROSTITUTES SERVICED HOUSE, SENATE MEMBERS, MEDIA HOSTS, TOP MILITARY, OTHER FEDS

Last December the San Diego Union-Tribune partially confirmed the sex ring allegations, reporting that a source close to the San Diego U.S. attorney’s grand jury investigation said lobbyist Mitchell Wade—indicted for bribery—“periodically helped arrange for a prostitute for then-congressman Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham,” that former business associates “were present on several occasions when Shirlington Limousine & Transportation of northern Virginia brought prostitutes to suites” at the Watergate and Westin hotels which had “several bedrooms where lawmakers and other guests could ‘relax.’ ”

TomFlocco.com has also reported extensively regarding actual court testimony and state child protection agency documents linking former President George H. W. Bush and U.S. legislators to Washington, DC child abduction and pedophilia obstructed for years by Congress:


WITNESS SAYS 20-30 LEGISLATORS ABUSED ABDUCTED CHILDREN

PHOTOGRAPHER TIED TO WH CHILD SEX RING ARRESTED AFTER THOMPSON SUICIDE

“George W. Bush is trying to obstruct justice on a massive scale involving pedophilia, blackmail, homosexual whorehouses and the espionage scandal which engulfs the entire Bush administration regarding the Fitzgerald inquiry which is the conspiracy to take the United States of America to war based on a lie via the forged British intelligence dossier,” said Heneghan.

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann went so far as to say that parts of the Patriot Act have nothing to do with national security as originally designed, but have instead been used by the Bush administration to neuter Congress, in effect rendering Democrat and GOP oversight capacity as relatively inconsequential since the Act permits the Chief Executive to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without oversight or consent from Congress among other stipulations.

The legislation enabling the curious firing of eight federal prosecutors late in a presidential term was a little–noticed provision in the Patriot Act allowing interim appointments, an amendment sponsored and endorsed by then Senate GOP Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), known historically for his lone gunman, single magic bullet theory promulgated in the John F. Kennedy assassination probe and employed by the Warren Commission to cover up substantial evidence of a government conspiracy.


BUSH 41 REVIVES LINKS TO JFK WARREN COMMISSION OBSTRUCTION

Obstructing espionage and Franklin grand jury?

Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, resigned last week after reports linking him to the firings through White House counsel Harriet Miers began to surface, even as Senator Schumer charged the White House with “a breach of trust and abuse of power,” adding, “Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the next fall-guy.”

This, as Capitol news reports revealed on March 5 that Michael Battle, Executive Head for U.S. Attorneys, also resigned, perhaps to distance himself from coming repercussions forced upon Congress as more documents, allegations and resignations surface.

“Congress is reportedly considering a subpoena for Battle to testify whether he was forced to fire the Little Rock and San Diego attorneys due to the “Dusty” Foggo case and its accompanying sex ring links to espionage and ongoing investigations of criminal acts involving the Bush-Clinton crime families,” said Heneghan.

Several agents who spoke with long-time federal whistleblower Stewart Webb [StewWebb.com] said Miers’ original plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys was hatched because the White House is aware that other national security grand juries are hearing testimony, but Mr. Bush and Karl Rove wanted to ensure that all were either obstructed or shut down by attempting to fire everyone—a plan that ultimately gave way late in Bush’s term, likely the result of ongoing and ill-timed scandals—to firing eight who they felt would probably give Bush the most trouble politically and criminally.

SOG intelligence reports say that Douglas Feith is still being probed regarding his use of subordinate Larry Franklin, convicted of espionage and sentenced to 12 years in federal prison in 2005 for passing classified information to Israeli diplomat and American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby group employee Steven Rosen from 1999 to 2003 before the Iraq invasion.

Feith has reportedly refused comment on the investigation regarding Franklin who was employed in Feith’s Pentagon office—while Feith used Franklin repeatedly for national security sensitive meetings in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans involving foreign citizens overseas which federal agents say are linked to an Israeli cell in Iraqi Kurdistan that was involved in attempting to plant weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq via an intelligence pipeline through Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

Heneghan said the espionage investigations are also linked to GOP operative Mel Sembler and the Bay Point School in Florida where Choice Point software was used in the Bush-Gore 2000 election fraud ultimately endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision placing George Bush in the presidency despite reportedly damaging testimony by one of the Justices and several Supreme Court clerks, some of which was reported in Vanity Fair Magazine.

Largest corruption case in U.S. history

Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carole Lam is best known for acquiring the conviction of Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, now in federal prison for tax evasion, conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, after the GOP representative admitted to accepting $2.4 million in bribes, making his case many times larger than the next biggest public corruption case in the history of the United States—and the case indicated Cunningham participated in the Foggo and Abramoff sex ring.

Those Republican and Democrat members of Congress who may have been in the crosshairs of Lam and the other prosecutors can be assumed to have an important stake in facilitating presidential obstruction of justice and soft congressional hearings—if only to protect their own careers and potential criminal liability of prosecution for bribery, blackmail, compromised legislation or a corrupt vote to send American troops to die in Iraq based on lies.

Executive Director of the CIA Dusty Foggo ran day-to-day operations of the agency, but also had responsibility for all CIA contracts and procurements, while “occasionally hosting poker parties at his house in northern Virginia” and is under investigation by the CIA inspector general regarding CIA contracts.

Intelligence reports seen by Heneghan reveal that some taxpayer funds Foggo procured for Halliburton via the Pentagon were diverted for use in the Washington, DC prostitution and pedophilia ring instead of medical care and commissary operations for U.S. troops in Iraq, said the intelligence authority.
In a September 13, 2006 e-mail to Miers, Sampson listed one prosecutor, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, as “in the process of being pushed out.” Five others—in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, San Diego and Seattle—were listed as U.S. attorneys “we should now consider pushing out.”

Read all the documents

http://judiciary.house.gov/

While some cable news reporters attempted to spin the firings by saying “Bush just got greedy, wanting to make wholesale changes,” Schumer called the firings “a blatant manipulation of the U.S. attorney system and purely biased politics, despite their glowing performance ratings,” indicating that some legislators on Capitol Hill may be aware that the real reason for firing so many at once was an administration attempt to obstruct grand jury probes of White House criminal acts.

Republican Senator Pete Domenici, who has reportedly hired a defense attorney, raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall regarding New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias who told House members that Domenici called him to move forward on indictments of a high-profile corruption case involving a Democrat before the November, 2006 election.

Kenneth Gross, a Washington lawyer who specializes in congressional ethics rules, indicated that Domenici’s conduct may have violated Senate ethics rules which generally bar communications between members of Congress and federal prosecutors about ongoing criminal investigations, according to reports.

Iglesias told reporters that New Mexico GOP Congresswoman Heather Wilson called him before the November, 2006 election, asking, “I want to know if there are any sealed indictments,” to which Iglesias answered, “Sealed indictments? We only do that for juvenile cases or national security cases. It’s fairly unusual,” adding later to the reporters, “I know that members of Congress should not be making phone calls about pending matters, pending investigations, indictment dates—things of that nature.”

Wilson’s question “raised red flags in my head,” said the fired prosecutor, raising serious questions as to Wilson's knowledge of congressional corruption cases serious enough to be classified under national security protocols.

This also raises serious questions regarding how Representative Wilson became aware of sealed indictments which are only sealed in national security cases and child welfare cases and whether Wilson may also have violated House ethics rules.

U.S. attorney Bud Cummins said in an email released by the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, had called and expressed his displeasure that the fired prosecutors were talking to reporters about their dismissals.

John Kroger, a federal prosecutor under Clinton and Bush now teaching a Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, was quoted in reports as saying, “It’s really remarkable to have a wholesale removal of an administration’s own U.S. attorneys, particularly this deep into the term,” adding, “Clearly there was a concerted decision made to ask a bunch of them to leave. It suggests a desire to more tightly control policy.”

Original Article

AGENTS: BUSH OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE IN FIRINGS

I refuse to be ignored

I will write and write until the fraud that destroyed my children's lives is exposed ON EVERY LEVEL and my chidlren are returned.

Perhaps I'll let up when all those responsible are held accountable!

An open letter to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.


Louise Uccio
148 Belknap Ave
Yonkers New York
Cell- 917-806-8301
Home- 914-965-3823

New York State
Commission on Judicial Conduct
61 Broadway,
New York, NY 10006

November 26, 2007

Dear Sirs:

I have written to your commission and any other person/agency available to litigants on numerous occasions asking for an investigation into the "legal" kidnapping of the children in the Uccio v Argenziano case disguised as a custody/visitation case.

It has taken me years to put together all the pieces.

I have asked Judge Minardo and the D.A. for a judicial and criminal investigation into this case focusing on Judge Barbara Panepinto, for her possible role in the blatant intrinsic and extrinsic fraud that has taken me out of my children's lives since 2003.

I am respectfully asking once again please investigate this case.

Any reasonable person would deduce that there are two links to Judge Barbara Panepinto and Mr. Argenziano.

(1) Mr. Panepinto and Mr. Argenziano's working/personal relationship is undeniable.

(1a) Mr. Panepinto is the Director of CYO, able to be proven and undeniable.

(2b) Mr. Argenziano has worked for the CYO for at least 10 years, able to be proven and undeniable.

(2) Mr. Panepinto and Judge Barbara Panepinto's marriage is undeniable.

(3) Mr. Argenziano and Ms. Aggie Panepinto own one possibly two homes and a business together; also able to be proven and undeniable.

"Custody" of my children was obtained by Mr. Argenziano via his attorney Catherine Bridge, by keeping me away from my children for eighteen months in 2003.

This blocking me from my children was possible by what I believe was a conspiracy involving Ms. Amerose from the family court services, and ex hearing officer Gallet. I believe this was carefully orchestrated and now that I have figured out the political connections Mr. Argenziano has to Judge Barbara Panepinto I respectfully ask your commission to find out if she had a role in this fraud.

I was labeled a dangerous drug addict who should have no contact with my children, while all players involved concealed a false ACS "indicated" case and denied me drug testing.

The false "indicated" case was over turned as soon as I became aware of it in February of 2006.

I feel this apparent conspired "legal" kidnapping further involved, Judge McElrath and once again, the family court services, in 2006, this time with Mitch Rousies compliance.

This case has evolved into a divorce case and is scheduled to be heard before Judge Barbara Panepinto on November 27, this is ludicrous!

In closing I ask once again for both a criminal investigation by a special prosecutor and a judicial investigation into the Uccio v Argenziano case.



Respectfully submitted,



________________________

Louise Uccio

Page 3 of FBI Letter

Faces and names of innocent people have been erased partialy with a paint eraser.

I waited paiently for the FBI to contact me, after the complaint went from Westchester [my hometown] to Manhattan where it would need to be investigated due to my complaints of possible child porn taking place and much to my shock I felt like I was playing yet another "the papers have been lost game"

That happens in this case OFTEN.

But as you can see in the above picture of page 3 to the FBI these are serious complaints that need to be investigated!

So- what's going on?

Page 2 of FBI Letter

What would make an attorney with these kind of %^$# back off ?

When I say he backed off, at first he said we wouldt stop short of nothing but FULL CUSTODY!

As he went on and on about political connections, and he understood why I went to Glenn Sacks in the first place, and on and on and on ...

Then out of nowhere after the letter to the FBI it was joint custody and he needed me to sign those papers by the morning chop chop everything was hurry up hurry up. No I refused. He re-wrote the papers

So what happened?

Page One FBI Letter

Click on the picture above to enlarge it, after you have read this blog.

[I have erased all identifying names of innocent by-standers that were on the original letter]

My attorney [The author of this letter to the FBI] came highly recomended by Glenn Sacks [From within the Fathers Rights movement] he was a real go getter, as you will see from the letter he wrote to the FBI above.

So what happened?

Apparently after this letter, he backed off, and if I had to take a wild guess it almost seemed like he was threatened.

To be cont...

Update on Open Letter..

November 13, 2007

Office of the Richmond County
District Attorney
130 Stuyvesant Place
Staten Island N.Y. 10301

Dear Sirs;

This letter will serve as a follow up to my letter to your office last week regarding the “legal“ kidnapping by intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and coercion of the children in the Uccio v Argenziano case, disguised as a custody case. As I predicted, I was just notified by my attorneys office that a preliminary conference was scheduled for November 27, 2007 before Judge Panepinto. This is ludicrous!

I have clearly stated my concerns and warned that I felt this case was going to end up before Judge Panepinto as I feel my divorce has been pre-determined to further cover-up the “legal kidnapping” as well as to destroy me during the divorce so that I do not obtain any of the assets of the marriage to Mr. Argenziano, which now bear the name of Aggie Panepinto as well.

I request an immediate transfer of this case to a special Judge, and an immediate appointment of a special prosecutor. Judge Panepinto hearing this case would be violating Judicial Conduct rules, She should have never had this case in front of her to begin with, I feel this is to further obstruct justice and deny me adequate access to the courts. My children were fraudulently given to Mr. Argenzinao in 2003, and I was taken out of their lives by the courts with a concealed false ACS case. Then denied adequate access to the courts for the next four years.

Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

Judicial Cannon 2a

The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.

Judicial cannon 2b
A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge's judicial position to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge's family. In contracts for publication of a judge's writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge's office.

Commentary: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety and must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on personal conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.



Respectfully submitted,



________________________
Louise Uccio

An Open Letter..

To my Babies, [Including the older babies that have aged out of the system Steven Uccio, Dawn Uccio, Louie Uccio and Nicholas Uccio.] know I've never stopped loving you or doing whatever I can to be back with you! No matter what happens know I did all I could possibly do to have my babies back in my life where they belong!

The holidays are here again, my heart is even heavier than it was last year, I thought with my figuring out about the false ACS case and having it overturned, I would finally be with my babies that I have desperately fought non stop for, and who I desperately adore today as much as the day they were born.

[even though they have been lied to a told I do not love them- they will eventually find out the truth!]

Borrowing money for an attorney who came highly recomended for cases that reek of corruption as mine does.

Apparently I had a few more hurdles to overcome before I would figure out the reason they have been "legally" kidnapped from me.

Below will explain what I feel has happened in my case, and why a mother who diligently* took care of her children has been taken out of her children's lives since 2002. No contact what so ever, no matter how many times I've pleaded with the courts.
*according to her daughters Cardiologist.

An Open letter ...



November 8, 2007

Office of the Richmond County
District Attorney
130 Stuyvesant Place
Staten Island N.Y. 10301


Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you because I feel there needs to be criminal corruption investigation as well as a breach of Judicial conduct investigation into a "legal" kidnapping of the children in the "Uccio v Argenziano" case disguised as a child visitation/custody case, by a special prosecutor.

In this request, I am alleging corruption in the Richmond County Court system, starting with Administration of Children's Services, the family court and possibly including Supreme court Judge Barbara Panepinto, as well as Staten Island Family Court Services. Custody was transferred with no visitation using intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and coercion. To date I have been unable to obtain any relief via an investigation into my allegations by the Richmond County D.A. the FBI or any of the Judicial remedies available to litigants.

Judge Barbara Panepinto's husband Joseph Panepinto is the youth director with the Catholic Youth Organization [CYO] where my estranged husband has worked for over 10 years. My estranged husband is living with Aggie Panepinto who is an alleged child pornography photographer. I feel the "family like" connection is obvious. Moreover, given the blatant fraud involved in this case, and the apparent numerous players involved in this fraud, it cries out for an investigation from a special prosecutor. This case thus far has caused a civil lawsuit against the City and ACS for Malicious Prosecution and Negligent Misrepresentation.

Since I am formally asking for an investigation into a Richmond County Matrimonial Judge and numerous players within the Richmond county court system, I feel the Divorce summons and complaint awaiting appointment in the Supreme Court must be taken away from that part and given to a specially appointed Judge who can be unbiased.

My attorney informed me last week that he feels I should voluntarily give up my parental rights, and hope my children come running back to me when they see I have given up. He stated "Catherine Bridge will win everything." When I asked how that was possible with such obvious fraud, he claimed "she is a power house, she wins all of her cases." I have been up against Catherine Bridge Pro Se in front of Judge Ajello and I know she is no power house. I have heard that Judge Barbara Panepinto is the power house.

I see no other way to take this statement other than to mean my Divorce has been pre determined, as were the Garson cases.
Therefore I ask that a special prosecutor and a special Judge be appointed to this case, to avoid any further appearances of improprieties, and malfeasances.

Respectfully submitted,



__________________________

Louise Uccio

Cc Hon. Philip G. Minardo
Cc Representative(s) XXX xxx XXX

What if ..

REFRESH - Go to Home-Page

(1) In October 01, an Agency for Children’s Services case was falsely “Indicated” for attempted suicide allegedly with an over dose of prescription drugs. Case was “indicated” despite medical documentation [in patient psychiatric unit discharge papers], along with the treating psychiatrists evaluation and other physical evidence disproving the “indicated” suicide theory. Estranged abusive, vindictive husband had called ACS three times prior to this “indicated” case all unfounded.

(2) Thirty eight thousand dollars out of 40 thousand something dollars in back child support owed to subject mother of said false indicated case by estranged husband disappeared behind closed doors, without mothers knowledge, permission or signature. twenty five hundred or so had been sent to mother in September 03.

(2) Said “indicated false case was then “concealed” by the Richmond County Court and Staten Island Family Court Services for the next five years, while the subject of this false case was accused of being a dangerous drug addict who should have no contact with her children, yet repeatedly denied drug testing. [Intrinsic and extrinsic fraud]

(3) Subject mother of indicated case frustrated with allegations of her being a drug addict, desperate to see her children, and being denied drug testing went for her own private hair drug test through her place of employment using Quest Diagnostic Labs, test was 100% negative.

(4) Subject mother then desperately attempted to have this negative hair drug test entered onto the record, hearing officer refused to accept the test, or to allow subject mother any visitation with her children. [There was an appearance of an attempt at ONE supervised visit where children claimed they did not want to see subject mother.] Children told a witness the following day they were afraid their father would get angry if they saw the subject mother, so they declined.

(5) After eighteen months of the estranged husband and the court keeping subject mother and her children apart, estranged husband via his attorney Catherine Bridge had filed for custody, subject mother had no money to retain an attorney; she was given a court appointed attorney Mario Acunzo.

(6) Subject mother was now being charged with child support yet her industry was destroyed by 9/11. Child Support was building, and arrears were being applied.

(7) Subject mother was threatened by her court appointed attorney with never seeing her children again if she fought her estranged husband on the custody issue. Subject mother was desperate to see her children, she agreed to allow her estranged husband to have custody. Mother could not figure out how her estranged husbands “word” along with the family court services “word” that she was a drug addict was accepted yet her proof [negative hair drug test] that she was not a drug addict was deliberately kept off the record. Mothers biggest mistake was trusting her court appointed attorney.

(8) Subject mother and her children were never reunited, court gave mother “visitation” only at sports games and after school activities, ordered father to keep mother informed of such events.
(9) Father refused to allow mother to visit with children, by refusing to send her any information on after school activates and or sporting events. (2002-2007)

(10) Despite numerous motions by mother pro se, pleading with the court over the next three years to give her visitation/custody, the court refused to reunite mother and children.

(11) Despite numerous letters to James Veloce, [deputy court clerk,] William Quirk [court clerk,] to the grievance committee, Office of Professional Discipline, The Commission on Judicial Conduct, Sherrill Spatz [The special inspector general for bias matters] The Bar Association, Martin F. Horn, Commissioner and Chief Judge Kaye mother and children are still not reunited.

(12) Mother finds out about false indicated case from a Social Worker with ACS after mother contacted them, to plead with them to investigate the alienation as child abuse.
Mother contacted Albany and had an administrative review opened wherein case was over turned on the original evidence available to them from the beginning.

(13) Mother via her civil rights attorney sues the Administration of Children’s Services and the City for Malicious Prosecution and Negligent Misrepresentation.

(14) Mother found out that father is living Aggie Panepinto.

(15) Mother finds out that estranged husbands coaching job with the CYO is under the direction of Joseph Panepinto. Mother becomes curious as to the connection.

(16) Mother finds out that Joseph Panepinto is married to Supreme Court Judge Barbara Panepinto. Mother begins to wonder if this could be considered a political connection or is it just a suspicious coincidence.

(17) Mother finds something [in writing] stating that Aggie Panepinto uses her camera for child pornography.

(18) Mother borrows 15k from a friend to hire an attorney, and a psychologist to act as a consultant to the attorney to rebut the lies and to pay off arrears after she was put in jail for the third time on Child Support arrears. Mother is now not able to work she is suffering horrendous stress from this situation.

(19) Mother’s attorney files a summons and complaint for a divorce in January 2007, along with a Pendenti Lite motion to bring the custody case up to her home town [Westchester] along with the Divorce. Mothers Attorney fills out papers with joint custody, knowing joint custody WILL NOT WORK with a severe alienator, and he asks me to sign and agree, I REFUSE!

(20) Estranged Husbands attorney Catherine Bridge, submitted her answer, claiming that Jospeh Panepinto, works for catholic charities and she claims that the CYO is not part of the catholic charities. [Please entertain me and type in catholic charities and notice under youth- it clearly states CYO Director Jospeh Panepinto.

(21) Judge Lubell in Westchester granted estranged husbands motion via his attorney in estranged husbands absence; a motion for forum non-conveniens. The case has been in limbo with lost papers or other mishaps since then. My attorney who is well versed in Parental Alienation and is an alienated father himself suggests that I voluntarily terminate my parental rights, and that once I do that my children will come running back to me.

I REFUSED!

(22)Then what if the case got sent back down to the original jurisdiction and ended up in Judge Barbara Panepinto's lap?

(23) Then imagine your reaction when your own attorney, opposing counsel, and Judge Panepinto decide behind closed doors that she will NOT consolidate the divorce with the custody case, nor will she recuse herself!

(24) Finally after 2 court dates in front of Judge Panepinto she finally recuses herself, but not before arguing with your attorney from the bench, arms flailing all over the place, (attitude must have been "going back to her roots) "If your client wants me to recuse then file a motion!"

Blah Blah yadda yadda, the scandal, I mean saga continues.. I'll fill in the rest tomorrow...

How can I not wonder what the hell is going on here?

What if you were the judge and this case was sent to you, how would you rule?

What would you think is going on here, incompetent court system/child protective system?

Suspicious coincidence?

Political Connections and perhaps much more?

Are your children victim's of the system?

Gail Head
Awareness Quilt Project

***** PERMISSION GRANTED to distribute this information which may or may not include posting it to other websites and groups. *****


==========================================================================================
UPDATED INFORMATION IS BELOW
==========================================================================================


This Awareness QUILT Project is being created for display to bring attention to the plight of so many innocent children who have been VICTIMIZED BY CORRUPT Family Courts, and or STOLEN by CPS and placed into Foster Care, and some even SOLD into Adoptions by these same state agencies via the family courts. There is NO age limit nor restictions for being included if the child has been "victimized", they are WELCOME to be included in this quilt . It matters not whether the child was or is still in Foster Care, is or is not now home, or was in Foster Care but aged out of the system and was released, is or was or remains in Kinship care, or was SOLD into State arranged adoptions, they "should" be included in this quilt to show that they are NOT isolated cases and that this IS a National Problem . If your child/ren has been a victim of Governmental Corruption, then this QUILT Project INCLUDES your child/ren.

There are NO charges to you for the participation, unless you wish to have your child's photo included in this quilt. Having each child represented with his or her own square, costs you $ 0.00 which equals "ZERO".

SPECIFICATIONS: If you wish to make the squares youself, there should be ONE 5-inch x 5-inch square for EACH child. The fabric may be new or used and taken from old clothes, sheets, baby blankets, or even purchased new at a local store where fabrics are sold. If you wish to cut the squares from something that your child/ren used or wore, that will be fine. We ask that you please put EACH child's first name or initial and last name, date of birth or age, State case is/was in (town NOT needed), date they became victims of Family Court Corruption, or were STOLEN by CPS and placed in Foster or Kinship care, Date they returned home/aged out of system/SOLD into adoption or indicate if still in out of home care, or whatever applies, on the square that is representative of them. You may hand-write the information on the square with a permanent magic marker or ink pen, embroider it, use fabric paints, or even scan a picture on the computer, print it out, and transfer it to the squares. You are also welcome to cut the squares a little larger then 5-inches by 5 inches --- I will trim them down when I start to use them.

If you wish to just submit your child's information for inclusion in this quilt, all you need to do is send (mail or email) the above information for the child and they WILL be included in the quilt
If you wish to have the child's photo included in the quilt, the cost for the photo square is $ 3.00, which is to cover my cost of materials for making this. It is NOT a money-making scheme. Examples of these squares are visible in the posted photos of this quilt. You may mail the photo you wish to have used, or email the photo. Please mail your payment for the photo squares to the address given below.

We want these squares to be "personal" for your child so that when seen, people will realized that these are and were REAL children who have been victimized by Government Corruption in Family Courts and or Child Protective Services Agencies. I will post and make photos of this quilt available throughout the construction of it.

This QUILT will make its DEBUT in Washington DC on August 18, 2007, at the national Rally being held there to bring attention to the plight of our families and our children. It will also be displayed wherever there are other rallies, conventions, or affairs in which it has the chance to raise awareness about what is going on and happening to our children and make it known to our elected Public Officials that WE WANT CHANGE and PROTECTION for our families.

To participate in this project, Please send the squares representative of your child/ren to, or email the information to ghead@wccs.net

Quilt Project
c/o Gail Head
PO Box 392
Paradise, TX 76073

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT~!!! DO IT for the love of your child/ren.

Sincerely,

Gail Head

Until my children are returned..

REFRESH - Go to Home-Page

It seems from my site meter readings that this is one of the more popular blog entries from my blog being shared via email and saved in favorites, around Staten Island, Brooklyn and New York so this blog entry was UPDATED.

Apparently when I originally wrote this... I didn't consider that the legal kidnapping of my children disguised as a custody/divorce case was, could be, or is larger than what it looks like on paper...

Alternatively, what it looks like when you put all the pieces together... a R.I.C.O case!!

Stupid me thought there would be justice in the courts.

Never did I consider that court employees including attorneys, judges, Secretaries, forensic evaluators and hearing officers would or could engage in R.I.C.O. Duh.. I'm learning my lesson being naieve dosen't work when your dealing with evil forces.

The more I research my case the more I'm convinced it is nothing short of a R.I.C.O. case - here you decide for yourself.

(R.I.C.O. Act ... then if the shoe fits.. what's that they say?) Wear it?

I didn't realize that my own attorneys would sell me out but now that I believe this is a RICO case ... of course they would or they wouldn't ever prevail in their legal professions)

I had no idea that a domestic violence judge Judge Silber, would let my attorney off the hook for an apparent B.S. break down in communication after my attorney demanded that we ask for visitation for me with my children to INCLUDE at all times my abusive estranged husband among many other things and I refused to sign the half assed bullshit motion to modify custody. But hind site being 20/20 now that I believe this is a R.I.C.O. Case I have to believe ... of course she would.. there were so many players before her This apparent RICO case involved to many people to allow my attorney to totally expose it.

Keep in mind the apparent fraud and preclusion of critical evidence (a false ACS case) used by Ms. Catherine Bridge Esq., Ms. Amerose., the late Mr. Mario Accunzo esq., and Hearing Officer Gallet in my estranged husbands custody being over turned.

Keep in mind this is the same estranged husband that has alienated kidnapped the children from me for the last SIX YEARS and refused me ANY CONTACT..

DUH if I thought about it they were kidnapped why would I have contact!

Keep in mind that I have a final and forever Order of Protection, which since his apparent political connections I might as well wipe my (&%$ with it, the police REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE his stalking me. Another DUH! Keep in mind R.I.C.O. then this all makes sense.
UPDATE finished, back to the original blog entry...

I will blog and talk about and demand justice for my family..

I'm sure they would like to put a gag on me..

But while I still have a voice I will do whatever it takes to educate the public on what is happening to families behind closed doors.

FYI mr wonderful is what I call my estranged ex.

I have a My Space account MySpace.com that my estranged husband and his side kick stalk me on, I'd like to share some of the intimidation tactics they are trying to use to silence me.

In responce to this blog,

Current mood: determined
Latest Comments

From
Subject
Time Posted
1 NEW!» AggieWhat's up with this? 09 Apr 07 1:42P..

Tomorrow it will be THREE WEEKS since Mr. wonderful (ex) has made it concrete clear for the record that he is stalking me.

Today he felt the need to respond with more psycho babble to my blog dated April 6th, as if anyone wants to hear what he has to say, but nonetheless he feels the need continue his stalking and harassing, despite my asking NUMEROUS times for him to stop, also despite my warning him that I have a valid O.P.

I'm begining to wonder if the political influence/connection it appeared he had, has figured out that my lawyer and I are on to what has been going on in Staten Island, with my case. (Proven with records or the lack thereof) and left him flat on his face to deal with the 200+ pages of a divorce motion.

A divorce motion in which my lawyer makes it clear that we feel all the civil rights violations (Proven in Exhibits A-Z then AA-ZZ) that I have had to endure over the last SIX YEARS may be connected to Supreme Ct Judge Barbara Panepinto, who happens to be married to Joseph Panepinto Director of the CYO, who BTW is my ex's boss and happens to share the same sir name as Aggie Panepinto (Ex's GF).

I am also wondering why it is, that no matter how many times I blog (here or on my Google bloger acount) about the suspicious coincidence with the Panepinto name, Mr wonderful pretends he never read that part of the blog, yet he will try desperately to distract from the meat and potatoes of this case which is the numberous civil rights violations, I feel were set into place because of this possible political connection.

Now another thing that makes ya go hmmmmmmm...

It's been SIXTY SIX days since he's been served with a Divorce action yet he has not answered.
(1) Could it be that his incompetent lawyer refused to stay on with him, given what has been exposed in the divorce papers?

(2) Could it be that he can't find a lawyer stupid enough to take on a case with such insane proven civil rights violations?

(3) Could my lawsuit against the City and ACS have spread thru the system?

(4) Could it be that someone somewhere is concerned that the county I have brough this case to is under Federal investigation?

(5) Could he think I'm stupid enuff to take his bait and arguee with him?

Or (D) all of the above?

They posted this,

i like to know wherre you come up with this carbage. how your mind works. they took your kids away face it thats all you have to do face it. instead you use every excuse in the book like corruption in the courts there is none wake up there is no realtionship with barbara panepinto and me . why dont you call her and ask. you know what let me call her and let her know that her name is all over the computer what do you call that slander.
Posted by Aggie on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 5:22 AM

Which inspired me to post this,

Libel and slander Category: News and Politics

It appears that my Stalker estranged husband and his side kick aggie panepinto are misinformed once again...

FACT- AGGIE's Surname is PANEPINTO

FACT- MR WONDERFUL- is or was for over TEN YEARS EMPLOYED

(if that's the proper term for his being paid as a referee)

with the CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION aka CYO

FACT- MR JOSEPH PANEPINTO- is or was the DIRECTOR of THE SAME CYO where mr wonderful is or was EMPLOYED

FACT- JUDGE BARBARA PANEPINTO- is or was a JUDGE IN STATEN ISLAND SUPREME COURT and is or was married to CYO DIRECTOR JOSPEH PANEPINTO

FACT- This case was in the Staten Island family court

FACT- ACS (agency for child protective services) and NYC ARE the defendants in a CLAIM BY MS. LOUISE UCCIO AND HER ATTORNEY- FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION and NEGLIGENT MISREPSENTATION derived from a FALSE "SUBSTANTIATED" ACS CASE - wherein LOUISE UCCIO was FALSELY ACCUSED of being a drug addict who attempted suicide, ON JULY 12, 2006 CASE WAS OVERTURNED!

FACT- mr wonderful called ACS NUMEROUS TIMES in 2001- trying to have MS. UCCIO's children taken from her-all but the last one WERE UNFOUNDED and ACS workers PUT IN WRITTING mr wonderfuls claims were NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE!

FACT- mr wonderful's ATTORNEY CATHERINE BRIDGE- was able to LEGALLY KEEP MS. UCCIO's CHILDREN FROM HER- AND HAVE CUSTODY FLIPPED TO mr wonderful WITH LIES -USING A FILED FOR BUT NOT RECIEVED ORDER OF PROTECTION AGAINST MS. UCCIO FOR HER DAUGHTER- ALSO BY USING THE FALSE SUBSTAINCIATED ACS CASE WHICH INDICATED MS. UCCIO WAS DRUG ADDICT WHO ATTEMPTED SUICIDE- THAT WAS HIS TRUMP CARD THAT WAS NEVER TRUE OR REVEALED IN COURT!

FACT- MS. UCCIO LOST CUSTODY WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST HEARING OFFICER BONNIE COHEN GALLET, AND MS AMEROSE'S ACCUSATIONS OF DRUGS. IN FACT MS UCCIO WAS DENIED DRUG TESTING, ALSO A FACT MS. UCCIO's VOLUNTARY NEGATIVE HAIR DRUG TEST WAS DISMISSED BY HEARING OFFICER GALLET.

FACT- MS. UCCIO AND HER CHILDREN'S CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TRAMPLED ON!

FACT- mr wonderful and his side kick aggie panepinto HAVE NOT ENCOURAGED ANY CONTACT BETWEEN THE CHILDREN AND MS. UCCIO. IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS SINCE THEY HAVE HAD A VISIT WITH THEIR MOTHER!

FACT- The children HAVE BEEN TURNED AGAINST MS. UCCIO SINCE 2002.

FACT- mr wonderful is unable to show respect for the childrens mother MS. UCCIO.

FACT- mr wonderful's inability to respect or even tollerate MS. UCCIO along with mr wonderful's NEED FOR REVENGE has led to an ESTRANGED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILDREN!

FACT- EVERY WORD OF THIS IS IN A 200+ PAGE DIVORCE ACTION served upon mr wonderful on february 2, 2007 which mr wonderful has not answered -45 days and counting.

MY OPINION- mr wonderful isn't smart enough to have pulled this off without someone's guideance and or help.

MY OPINION- mr wonderful underestimated me again, and never thought I would put 2 (aggie-panepinto) and 2 (Jospeh-panepinto) and 2 (Barbara panepinto) and 2 (CYO) and 2 (civil rights violations against my children and I ) together, and see these as possible red flags

FACTS- A PSYCHIATRIST and A PSYCHOLIGIST and A THERAPIST' as well as my LAWYER's OPINION- "ALL THESE FACTS ADD UP TO A VERY SUSPICIOUS COINCIDENCE." and "EGREGIOUS CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS"

FACT- I have always stated facts and let anyone reading it or hearing it decide for themself.

FACT- mr wonderful and his sidekick ARE STALKING ME, BREAKING A VALID ORDER OF PROTECTION!

MY OPINION- There isn't a lawyer on this planet that would take mr wonderful's case and attempt to defend him, especially in westchester where the FBI are still investigating corruption in the courts.

MY OPINION- All these FACTS have put mr wonderful into a corner and he feels trapped, and this "IN MY OPINION" is why he appears to be out of control, and why I fear for my life!

Slander and libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Slander and libel
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

"Libel" comes from Latin : libellus ("little book")[1][2]
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.
Truth
Libel is studied in forensics. In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving a defamatory statement to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel.

Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however. If the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines and the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.

Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in," but rather that which is in the interest of the public. [4]

See also: Substantial truth

Privilege and malice

Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:
"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it was made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).

"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made maliciously.
Similar but different delicts and torts

Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," or "convicium," involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement.

[edit] Criminal libel
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. For example, in Zimbabwe, "insulting the President" is, by statute, (Public Order and Security Act 2001) a criminal offense. The European Court of Human Rights has in some instances placed restrictions on libel laws by reason of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[5] An important example is Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407. Lingens was fined for publishing in a Vienna magazine comments about the behavior of the Austrian Chancellor, such as 'basest opportunism', 'immoral' and 'undignified'. Under the Austrian criminal code the only defense was proof of the truth of these statements. Lingens could not prove the truth of these value judgments. The European Court of Human Rights stated that a careful distinction needed to be made between facts and value judgments/opinions. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The facts on which Lingens founded his value judgments were not disputed; nor was his good faith. Since it was impossible to prove the truth of value judgments, the requirement of the relevant provisions of the Austrian criminal code was impossible of fulfilment and infringed article 10 of the Convention.

Origins of defamation law
In most early systems of law, verbal defamations were treated as a criminal or quasi-criminal offense, its essence lying not in pecuniary loss, which may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be atoned for: a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By the law of the Twelve Tables, the composition of scurrilous songs and gross noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offenses of the same class seem to have found their place under the general conception of injuria, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression which involved abuse or insult.

In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt with in the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria.

The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.

[edit] English law

[edit] Development of English defamation law
Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law.
The earlier history of the English law of defamation is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been tolerably frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). There was no distinction drawn between words written and spoken. When no pecuniary penalty was involved such cases fell within the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, which were only finally abolished in the eighteenth century. It seems, to say the least, uncertain whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use.

The crime of scandalum magnatum, spreading false reports about the magnates of the realm, was established by statutes, but the first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law is one tried in the Star Chamber in the reign of James I. In that case no English authorities are cited except a previous case of the same nature before the same tribunal; the law and terminology appear to be taken directly from Roman sources, with the insertion that libels tended to a breach of the peace; and it seems probable that not very scrupulous tribunal had simply found it convenient to adopt the very stringent Roman provisions regarding the libelli famosi without paying any regard to the Roman limitations. From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.

[edit] English admiralty law
In admiralty law, a libel was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit. The plaintiff was referred to as the "libellant". The verb "to libel" means "to sue [in admiralty]". Similar terminology was used in the United States legal system. The term has been rendered obsolete by the merger of the admiralty courts with tribunals of general jurisdiction and the adoption of simplified rules of civil procedure that specify "one form of action" for all claims.

[edit] Modern law
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
A statement can include an implication. A large photograph of Tony Blair above a headline saying "Corrupt Politicians" might be held to be an allegation that Tony Blair was personally corrupt.

The allowable defenses against libel are:
Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defense fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defense to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages.

Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.

Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defense of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published. The leading modern English case on qualified privilege in the context of newspaper articles which are claimed to defame a public figure is now Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45,[6] and the privilege has been widened by Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe 2006 UKHL 44, which has been described as giving British newspapers protections similar to the US First Amendment.[7]

An offer of amends - typically a combination of correction, apology and/or financial compensation - is a barrier to litigation in the courts.
The 2006 case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that discussions on the Internet were public enough for libel to take place.[8]

[edit] Burden of proof on the defendant
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. In criminal law, he or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas in civil law, he or she is presumed innocent until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities. However, the common law of libel contains a kind of reverse-onus feature: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. In New York Times v Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710 (1964)), the United States Supreme Court changed this traditional feature of the common law with respect to public figures, and ruled that in cases where a public figure was libelled the burden of proof would be on the libeled person (the plaintiff). Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice. The definition of "public figure" has varied over the years.

The English laws on libel have traditionally favored the plaintiffs. A recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (in the so-called "McLibel case") held that, on the (exceptional) facts of that case, the burden on the defendants in the English courts was too high. However, it is unlikely that the case will provoke any considerable change in substantive English law, despite strong academic criticism of the current position.[9]

In 1990, McDonald's Restaurants sued Morris & Steel (called the McLibel case) for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What's wrong with McDonald's: Everything they don't want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sells unhealthy food, exploits its work force, practices unethical marketing of its products towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald's won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald's announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.

This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution.

For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech had no impact on the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system.

This changed with the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the
Supreme Court of the United States announced constitutional restrictions to state defamation law. The court held that where a public official was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The "actual malice" standard was subsequently extended to public figures in general, and even to private figure plaintiffs seeking punitive or presumptive damages.

One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.

Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.

In the various states, whether by case law or legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected the opinion privilege outright and has declined to hold that the "fair comment" privilege is a Constitutional imperative.

[After Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), applied the standard publisher/distributor test to find an online bulletin board liable for post by a third party, Congress specifically enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. §230(c) states that "that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties. Thereafter, cases such as Zeran v American Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998), have demonstrated that although courts are expressly uneasy with applying §230, they are bound to find providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings. This immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, due to the fact that provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet.]

In November of 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 USC § 230(c)(1) does not permit web sites to be be sued for libel that was written by other parties.[10]