It needs to be noted the criminal documents he obtained on Noel are for cases that never went to trial. There was no conviction, only probation for offenses that allegedly took place. In my extensive research, I uncovered some tangible facts.
The first two case files were continued without a finding. The charge of credit card fraud is misleading because what was involved were MCI phone calling cards. This means no monies were lost by any of the parties involved.
The second series of case files show Noel was accused of threatening to commit a crime. No physical crime was actually committed and the threats were allegations made by other parties involved. Does this prove guilt? Absolutely not!
My research turned up proof that the alleged threats were generated electronically via a computer. My research also proved Noel did not own or have access to a computer or any other internet device during the period in which the original charges were presented. Noel did have a "WebTV" device prior to the original charges and there was a brief interval before a computer was obtained.
The charges were filed during that time frame. A rental contract from "Rent Way" corroborates these facts. The original charges relating to the alleged threats have since been dismissed after Dennis attempted to get Noel in trouble for a Probation Violation.
He told the courts Noel was stalking him and after a careful review of the materials he furnished the courts, the judge opted to dismiss everything including Dennis's false claims.
Incidentally, Judge Content chuckled and referred to the situation as "Odd" before absolving Noel of all responsibility. It pays to do your homework people and I hope you do before entertaining what Dennis P. McCann tells you. A good judge and jury listens to both sides of the story before delivering a verdict. I suggest the same be done by those Dennis has misled with his tall tales about Noel.
The above is an excerpt from one of Noel Bednaz' numerous blogs, this one written under the pseudonym 'Mark Smith.' Because it will undoubtedly change after this post is published, here is a screenshot of that excerpt and here is the entire blog, as it appeared at the time of this writing.
In this excerpt it claims that the cases never went to trial, that there was no conviction, that there was probation (probation without a conviction? Really?) and that I furnished the courts with materials in some attempt to charge Noel with stalking, but it was dismissed.
For the record: I never filed any charges against Noel, in MASS or elsewhere, and I received these dockets a full two years after the date on the last docket. This stuff was all over before I ever saw the dockets. I had nothing to do with any of it, and I'll prove that right here and right now.
The last docket is numbered 0044CR001389. It is dated March 9 2001. The disposition is 2.5 years probation ending September 5, 2003, with the following conditions: $500 bail, no threats, violence or contact. This was a charge of criminal harassment (Threat to Commit Violence). Real life, not internet. I do not know who the victim was, as the docket doesn't say, but probation is a sentence that is meted out in lieu of prison time. People who have been acquitted - innocent people - do not get probation. So, Noel was sentenced to probation and a fine on March 9, 2001.
Now, knowing that is the last docket, and all others came before, (easily verified by checking the dates on the other dockets, here) for the above blog excerpt to be true I would have had to know about all these proceedings before March 9, 2001.
Here is the letter I wrote to the the Clerk Magistrate of the Westfield District Court requesting the Criminal Dockets under the Freedom of Information Act. Please notice the date - May 18, 2003. More than 2 years after the date of the last criminal docket. My second letter to the Clerk Magistrate, on June 1, 2003, thanked her for her response, and included a payment of $8.50 for printing and postage costs... and here is the postmark from the envelope in which I received the Criminal Dockets.
This disproves the claim that I had any part whatsoever in the court proceedings. This disproves the claim that Noel Bednaz was not convicted of harassment. This disproves Noel's past claims that I obtained the Criminal Dockets illegally.
And, in the past, Noel has claimed that it is illegal for me to have the Dockets on this website, so...
Here is a letter from a representative of Who@ complaining to my then hosting company, CI Host, about the Dockets being on the site, and here is the response from CI Host's Chief Corporate Counsel.
The Attorney's response?
I have received your email to our abuse department. I have reviewed the email and the web site.
Criminal docket sheets are public information under state and and federal law. Placing public information on the internet is not a crime. Anyone who sought information about this person could probably obtain the same from online public information records maintained by the state, county or local law enforcement.
Because there is no violation of law, we will take no action against our customer. The web site will remain online.
And this disproves the claim that the Dockets are on this site illegally. So much for the veracity of Noel's statements. Their truth, like her credibility and her claimed innocence of criminal harassment, is non-existent.
Addendum: I have only discussed the disposition of the last docket. I haven't discussed the previous seventeen. This one Docket disproves all her claims, while proving that she is a convicted criminal and a liar - what would all the others show?
Some people just don't know when to quit. As I said above, the blog post written about here would surely change when this post was published, and right on cue, it did just that. Here is the new version.
This new version is an attempt to backpeddle away from the bullshit I disproved above - by providing even more bullshit. Notice the following text:
While Dennis may not have filed charges personally against Noel, his falsified letter to the courts prompted them to drag her back into court on a potential violation of her probation. Once this occurred, all of the original charges she was wrongly accused of previously were brought back to light and ultimately dismissed when Dennis's false statements about her failed to add up.
While now admitting that the original post was untrue, Noel is now claiming that the letter I wrote was "falsified," that the charges she was convicted of were a case of being "wrongly accused" and that she was "dragged back into court" where the charges were "ultimately dismissed" despite my "false statements."
First of all, you've read the letter. It's linked above. It simply requested her Criminal Dockets under the Freedom of Information Act. It contained no statements of any kind, nor was it falsified in any way. It was simply a standard request for documentation from the Westfield District Court Department of Records.
Secondly, Noel had already been convicted, fined and sentenced to probation. How then, could the charges be "ultimately dismissed?" That would require a new trial - and one can't be tried twice for the same offense. That's double jeopardy, and is unconstitutional.
So once again we have an example of Noel attempting to lie her way out of a lie after being caught lying. Is anyone surprised?
And, of course, the 'last final update' after the last 'last final update,' from Noel Bednaz still pretending to be 'Mark Smith.'
Nice to know I am right on cue. (Smiles) I Mark Smith, (Not Noel Bednaz) would have it no other way. Perhaps Dennis should explain why the Westfield District Court had a disc with all the contents of his maniacal website on it which led to them hauling Noel back into court on what they referred to as "new discovery." Perhaps Dennis should additionally check his lies at the door and give up this fourteen year crusade. Naw, he can not do that. He will just lie some more to his devotees to add value to his own diminished life. Who can do that any better than Dennis P. McCann? Nothing more that he writes deserves any further response from me as it is all juvenile now and my writings are far more superior. This is officially the final update.
Sure, I can explain that. Ready? Here we go: Didn't happen.
There, that was easy.
And you know how I can say that with complete confidence? First of all, the sentence (terms of probation) were no contact, threats or violence with the victim of the original case. My website would not qualify as new discovery since I was not that victim, and Noel's harassment of me wouldn't violate those terms. Secondly, in a court of law a defendant has the right to face their accuser. Had my website been used as evidence of any kind, I would have had to have been there, and finally, neither the Police Department nor Court System notified me of any proceedings involving my website, which would have been a violation of my rights.
But you know, it's not too late. I'm still being harassed, maligned and libeled, my copyrights are still being infringed (just today a Facebook Page was taken down for that very reason) - all this harassment and stalking by you, Noel, is ongoing. A simple flight to MASS and a cab ride to the Police Dept. in your town and we could see what all this evidence would really amount to.
Or you could just grow the fuck up.
(to be updated when Noel posts her next last, last, final update).
No comments:
Post a Comment