Mary T. Prantil keeps lieing telling everyone out here she is some MALE from Houston but everyone knows who she is despite that. She is also very touchy and angry calling us scum for posting a Superior Court record stating FACTS about her crooked attorney father, Frank G. Prantil and keeps coming up here posting smut on us trying to cover it up, but she is not doing very well, is she?
The Superior Court record for Mary T. Prantil's father was not written by us, so what Mary Prantil SHOULD do is click the links to the Superior Court records and tell the Superior Court Of California that FILED THIS REPORT and published it on attorney web sites on the Internet that THEY are scum, right?
Mary Prantil's tiny mind cannot see beyond the fact that we posted the Superior Court record on her father so we can show how she grew up and learned how to be the horrible evil and wicked person that Mary T. Prantil really is. Her father must be so proud of her for continuing to make a total ass out of herself!
mary t. Prantil is following in her criminal father's footsteps while trying to cover up the truth, and hide behind all of her lies. Contact Jan Windglows and she will forward true records all about this to anyone who asks her for proof.
Mary T. Prantil has her proof... And Mary T. Prantil IS GOING TO JAIL for fraudulent and criminal activities and many other crimes she has committed against innocent people.
Jan Windglows is the most beautiful and kindest lady I have ever met, and so is her husband James.in fact, Jan is home and happy running her business give her a call - just go to her web site and her phone number is there because I just spoke to her.
These ongoing LIES of Mary Prantil saying that Jan Windglows was arrested for larceny is utter HOGWASH and more lies and SMUT made up out of the crazy drug fried out rotten brain of criminal Mary Prantil.
Look like Mary Prantil is running out of lies to tell about Jan and James so she is making up MORE LIES, and guess what? NOBODY believes you anymore, Mary!
ALL the information about Mary Prantil's deceased father is CORRECT. He has his name listed all over attorney's websites on the internet, and is not spoken of with any type of respect whatsoever. Type Frank G. Prantil into your browser and you will find out all about it.
The fact of the matter is, Mary Prantil is up here shooting off her mouth telling lie after lie about Jan Windglows and James Morgan - who only tried to help her in times past when she was a client of theirs long ago.
They terminated her case because she broke all the rules and regulations she promised to keep when Jan first took her case, so who's fault is that? It is Mary Prantil's fault.
Actually I heard that Mary Prantil DID get her spell manifested with Jans' services, THEN PRANTIL MESSED EVERYTHING UP between herself and her then boyfriend, then was OUT OF CONTROL so Jan had to drop her case completely.
I know a lot of people that are involved in this Prantil scandal, so Andromeda, do not get up here and come across to the public like you know it all, because you don't. Mary Prantil is a criminal, she is a stalker, she is a computer hacker, a phone hacker, a liar, she has been arrested several times and currently is IN A LOT OF TROUBLE, and SHE IS GOING WHACKO BECAUSE SHE KNOWS SHE WILL BE IN JAIL SOON.
Jan Windglows and James Morgan did NOTHING wrong - they are defending themselves against this MONSTER Mary Prantil.
Have you ever read all the postings here about Mary Prantil and how she steals from businesses? Apparently NOT. Jan and James only deal in FACTS they are not liars or thieves that have to make up stories because they have FACTS AND THEY HAVE PROOF and back their facts and everything they say on this forum up with FACTS and NOT lies like Mary T. Prantil does.
Prantil is going as far as to post lies such as Jan Windglows being arrested for larceny, which is another lie on Prantil's part. All the posts on Mary Prantil and her father are TRUE.
Jan and James have every right to defend themselves against Prantil—so if Mary Prantil does not want any more information being posted about her or her family that can incriminate her even MORE, IF SHE CAN'T TAKE IT SHE SHOULD NOT DISH IT OUT.
Unfortunately for Mary Prantil, she feels she has to rely on lies to the public to try and discredit the names of Jan and James because she does not have anything else except the lies she dreams up in her attempts to cause trouble for Jan and James.
I do defend the innocent - yes it is true that Mary Prantil's father is deceased, but that is NOT the point - the point IS, that Mary Prantil learned her criminal behavior from her father whether he is deceased or not.
Mary Prantil is a criminal, and so was her father. If Mary Prantil does not like information about her deceased father being posted here, then she should STOP slinging mud constantly at two innocent people and telling lies about them on the internet.
It is OBVIOUS that Mary Prantil is getting what is coming to her. Jan Windglows is not guilty of any crimes neither is James Morgan. But Prantil certainly is.
In fact, Mary Prantil started this scandal. Jan and James did not come up here on this forum out of the blue for no reason or to hurt anyone, but only to defend themselves.
Jan and James were not attempting to pick on Mary Prantil's deceased father, but by showing the FACTS (not LIES or false information) about Mary Prantil AND her deceased father, the public now knows where Mary Prantil learned to be a criminal and indeed Prantil IS following in her father's footsteps.
Mary Prantil brought this upon herself. If she would have left these two innocent people alone to begin with, all of this could have been avoided.
Everyone who comes to this forum - you should read these posts again. Mary Prantil is the one at fault here.
You apparently do not know Jan or James but I will tell you that they are forthright, Jan runs an honest and successful business, and they do everything to help their clients. Anyone that reads this should call Jan and James and see what caring and honest people they are.
Mary Prantil lies, and lies, and lies... Posting such GARBAGE up here like Jan and James are idolaters and that they drink their own blood.
The only other thing I have to say is that Mary Prantil's deceased father is probably rolling in his grave and looking down on his daughter with disappointment and disgust for all the trouble she is in, and has attempted to get other innocent people into.
MARY T. PRANTIL SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU for who and what you are. You are TRASH so go crawl into a trash can somewhere and stop running your liar mouth about Jan and James.
Mary Prantil is in a LOT OF LEGAL TROUBLE RIGHT NOW and if anyone that reads this feels sorry for this vicious woman Prantil, I DARE anyone who reads this forum posting to call Mary Prantil and give her your email address and your phone number.
YOU WILL THEN SEE for yourself what kind of TRASH Mary Prantil REALLY is, and what she is capable of, because Mary Prantil will do all the same things to YOU, so watch out about what you are saying.
If anyone reading this has any doubts about what I am writing here, and think that Mary T. Prantil is NOT a criminal, call Mary Prantil and see what a whacko she is for yourself. Just type in Mary Prantil in your Internet browser, I DARE YOU and get her phone number and write her an email.
Then come back and post on this forum after she has stalked you, harassed you, threatened you, etc. Then Prantil will be on this forum making up all kinds of lies about you too, AND posting them all over the Internet!!!
If you decide to email Mary Prantil, make sure you have a good anti virus program on your computer. She is mean and vindictive and outright EVIL and she is known all over the Internet for sending people viruses to try and destroy their computers.
So... Are you going to take my dare and give Mary Prantil a call and give her your phone number?
If you DO, Mary Prantil will harass and stalk you until you are forced to change your phone number and block her from your emails.
Or mabie after Prantil emails you will not even HAVE a computer because she is a phone and computer hacker and loves to send viruses and loves to harass and stalk because she is in so much trouble she cannot even get a JOB.
Matter of the disbarrment of criminal attorney frank g. Prantil
(mary t. Prantil keeps posting lies about innocent business and top spell casters blood love and lust spells, jim morgan and jan windglows of blood love and lust spells...
It is no WONDER that Mary T. Prantil is such a CRIMINAL and SCAM CON... Hey public take a look and read below and click the links to verify that Mary T. Prantil and her father are the same birds of a feather - criminals, liars, and drug addicts!!!
After you THE PUBLIC read the information below, you will learn all about Mary T. Prantil's father getting disbarred TWICE as a lawyer, that he caused a MISTRIAL for a famous HIGH PROFILE murder case, that he charged several times for misconduct, mis representing his clients, all about his cocaine addictions, his lies, schemes, causing a mistrial for a famous controversial murder case, stealing money in the amount of $750,000 from a safe from inside a client's house...
Mary T. Prantil apparently learned everything she knows about being a criminal from her criminal father. Prantil get off the internet and stop showing your ugly liar face because everyone knows all about you and your criminal father. Take a hike, you rotten liar scum gutter trash.
supreme court of the united states
no. D-787
110 S. Ct. 493,493 U.S. 972,107 l. Ed. 2d 497,58 U.S.L.W. 3351,1989. Sct. 45677
november 27,1989
in the matter of disbarrment of frank g. PRANTIL
For earlier order herein, see Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
It having been reported to the Court that Frank G. Prantil, of Fair Oaks, California, has been disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of California and this Court by order of May 15,1989, having suspended the said Frank G. Prantil from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;
And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued;
It is ordered that the said Frank G. Prantil be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.
Disposition
Disbarrment entered.
19891127
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.
Http://wi. Findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer. Aspx/xq/fac. Sctsct2198919891127_0045677. SCT.htm/qx
Powered by VersusLaw, Inc. Home | Advertise | About | Feedback | Terms | Privacy Policy | FAQ All contents © Copyright 2008 - 2009 VersusLaw, Inc. Bellevue, WA, USA. All rights reserved
On trial before the bar court in San Francisco, FRANK PRANTIL [#35155], 67, of Sacramento is charged with multiple counts of failing to perform legal services competently. Prantil was disbarred in 1989, reinstated in 1994 and charged with misconduct in 2002. The trial on the new charges was ongoing at press time and although the bar had not formally asked for his disbarment, it is a possible penalty.
The 1989 disbarment was the result of convictions for forgery and being an accessory to possess cocaine.
Http://www.calbar.ca. Gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj. Jsp? SCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney Resources/California Bar Journal/ June&sCatHtmlPath=cbj-06_TH_03_2nd-disbarments.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top Headlines
In a case two miles across town at the State Bar offices on Howard Street — and at the other end of the world of privilege — 67-year-old defense attorney Frank Prantil is facing a task he's already performed numerous times — defending himself against accusations that he's acted unethically as an attorney.in 1979, Prantil was suspended from practicing law after he was accused of improperly representing a client. While on probation, Prantil was alleged to have participated in a check-fraud scheme. He was convicted of forgery and disbarred, according to the California Supreme Court opinion confirming Prantil's disbarment.
Prantil later took advantage of California rules that allow disbarred attorneys to ask for reinstatement after five years. Prantil successfully argued that he had rehabilitated himself, and resumed practice in 1994.
Prantil is now facing State Bar disciplinary charges, which could potentially get him disbarred again, alleging that he failed to competently defend a client, then improperly charged the client for his services.
Prantil's case, along with three cases decided earlier this year in which California attorneys were disbarred for a second time, has added steam to a nine-year-old bureaucratic proposal to give judges the option of disbarring the worst attorneys for life.
In California, there now exists no legal concept of permanent disbarment. A State Bar committee on Nov. 15 will consider the possibility of changing that, if only slightly. Rather than making all disbarments permanent, it would extend from five to seven years the amount of time disbarred attorneys would have to wait before requesting to be reinstated, and would give judges the option of forever banishing the worst of California's worst attorneys.
The fact that it's taken nine years for such a mild proposal to reach this preliminary step hints at a lack of seriousness the California legal establishment lobby applies to abuses by its own members.
Http://www.sfweekly.com-11-09/news/baring-equality/
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank G. PRANTIL, Defendant-Appellant. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
June 25,1985
764 F. 2d 548
Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., argued, Peter K. Nunez, U.S. Atty., Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Eugene G. Iredale, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
AMENDED OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of California.
Before FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:
1 The defendant, a criminal defense attorney, appeals his conviction on eight out of eleven counts alleged in an indictment for the offenses of perjury, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623; false statements, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001; and being accessory after the fact, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3. All of the defendant's convictions are predicated on actions he took while representing a criminal defendant, Betty Powell, in a separate criminal prosecution. After a seven-day trial the jury found the defendant not guilty on two counts of harboring a fugitive and perjury. The district court had previously dismissed the misprision of a felony count before the trial began. On appeal, the defendant raises a host of issues which, for the most part, we need not address. Three of the defendant's challenges, however, require reversal of the defendant's convictions for the reasons explained herein.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 The defendant was retained by Ronald Powell to represent his wife, Betty Lou Powell, and her son in a federal criminal prosecution on various drug-related charges. 1 Mr. Powell had been a previous client of the defendant in unrelated criminal proceedings. After Mrs. Powell and her son were arrested at the Powell residence on April 23,1982 in connection with the narcotics charges, Mr. Powell, who was also named in the felony arrest warrant, remained a fugitive until his apprehension on August 10,1982. On the day of his wife's arrest, Mr. Powell telephoned the defendant, Frank Prantil, and retained his services for the criminal proceedings against his immediate family. Throughout Mr. Powell's fugitive status, the defendant periodically telephoned Mr. Powell and met him on at least two occasions.
3 During their first meeting after the incarceration of Mrs. Powell, Mr. Powell presented the defendant with a partial payment of the retainer agreement and directed the defendant to the whereabouts of other sources of cash in various bank accounts and at the Powell residence. Mrs. Powell, unable to make a $750,000 bond, remained incarcerated until the completion of her criminal trial. She gave the defendant the power of attorney to collect the funds from the various bank accounts. The defendant also retrieved a substantial sum of money from a floor safe at the Powell residence that had been overlooked at the time of the Powell family arrest. Although questions over the capacity in which Mr. Prantil retained custody of these monies (as attorney fees or in bailment for Mrs. Powell) occupied a substantial portion of the defendant's trial, we need not parse the evidence on this subject here. Pursuant to the retainer agreement negotiated by Mr. Powell, the defendant represented Mrs. Powell for the duration of her criminal trial. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Charles Gorder.
4 Mr. Prantil succeeded in obtaining an acquittal on all but four of the fifteen criminal counts leveled against his client Mrs. Powell. During the course of his representation of Mrs. Powell, the defendant also sent his sister-in-law, Malvina Schmidt, to meet the fugitive Ronald Powell for reasons not relevant here. Within the same time frame, the defendant, on several occasions, acted as the conduit for negotiations between the fugitive Ronald Powell and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gorder for Mr. Powell's surrender. During the period when Mr. Powell was a fugitive, the defendant was summoned before a grand jury and questioned by Mr. Gorder concerning his contacts and relationship with Mr. Powell. Three of the defendant's five perjury convictions rest on responses he made to Mr. Gorder's grand jury examination. The remaining two perjury charges and the two false statement counts stem from the events surrounding the defendant's efforts to obtain Mrs. Powell's release on bond pending the appeal from her criminal conviction. For purposes of this appeal, however, we need only discuss the evidence presented on one perjury count.
5 One of the defendant's perjury convictions rests on grand jury testimony the defendant gave under questioning by Mr. Gorder regarding a trip to Omaha, Nebraska.in his testimony the defendant stated that he was picked up by a blonde woman at his hotel in Omaha, Nebraska who took him to meet Mr. Powell and then transported the defendant to the airport. The defendant further testified that he did not know the identity of this woman. At trial the government contended that the defendant committed perjury when he denied knowing the name of this woman.
6 Under the government's theory, the defendant falsely denied knowing the identity of this blonde woman in order to protect the woman from the grand jury's investigation. The government unsuccessfully sought to prove that the blonde woman who met the defendant at his hotel was Malvina Schmidt, the defendant's sister-in-law. The evidence at trial revealed that although the defendant had been met and transported to a different airport by a blonde woman on a different occasion, no one picked up the defendant at his Omaha hotel. The evidence did demonstrate that the defendant eventually met his sister-in-law at a restaurant in the Omaha area. Accordingly, on appeal the government has shifted its perjury allegation by recasting the defendant's denial of knowledge about the name of the blonde woman who met him at his hotel into a denial of "knowing who was with [Mr.] Powell in the Omaha area." In response, the defendant claims his conviction should be reversed because the identity of the woman whom he incorrectly recalled to have met at his Omaha hotel is immaterial to any matters then before the grand jury and thus not perjurious.
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
7 The defendant has raised several challenges to his convictions on appeal. We reach only three of his challenges. The defendant's first allegation of error involves the refusal of the trial court to grant a pretrial motion to have the prosecutor, Mr. Gorder, recused from the case so that the defendant could call Mr. Gorder as a witness. The defendant also claims that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of proper argument during closing argument and the defendant was thereby prejudiced. The final contention of error challenges the materiality of the defendant's allegedly perjurious statements regarding the blonde woman at the Omaha airport.
8 The defendant has also raised a claim of insufficiency of the evidence as to counts seven and eight of the indictment which charged the defendant with violations of the false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001.in essence, the government presented evidence that the defendant attempted to secure the release of his client Betty Powell through the submission of an appeal bond form that the defendant knew was not authorized by the named bond company. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution we find the evidence presented sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,319, 99 s. Ct. 2781,2789, 61 l. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed in the balance of the opinion, we reverse the defendant's convictions on these and the other counts of the indictment.
A. The Propriety of a Prosecuting Witness
9 The prosecutor in this case, Assistant United States Attorney Charles Gorder, was also the prosecutor in the previous trial of Betty Powell. Mr. Gorder not only opposed the defendant in that trial but also conducted the examination of the defendant in both the grand jury and bond proceedings that are the subject of defendant's perjury convictions in this case. Mr. Gorder was also involved in the discussions with the bond agency as to the adequacy of Mrs. Powell's bond collateral which gave rise to the defendant's false statement convictions. Finally, on several occasions Mr. Gorder negotiated directly with the defendant for the surrender of Ronald Powell, the fugitive whom the defendant was accused of harboring and giving aid. Thus, although he never took the stand, Mr. Gorder was a witness to, and indeed a participant in, some aspect of all of the events alleged in the indictment.
10 The defendant was charged and convicted of being an accessory after the fact to Mr. Powell's criminal offenses in that the defendant did "receive, relieve, comfort and assist Ronald Lee Powell in order to hinder and prevent his apprehension, trial and punishment, " in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3. During trial the principal defense asserted by the defendant to this count, and the harboring a fugitive charge, revolved around the defendant's efforts to successfully negotiate Mr. Powell's surrender with Mr. Gorder. Rather than harboring or assisting Mr. Powell, the defendant contended he was actively conducting the ongoing negotiations for Mr. Powell's timely surrender through direct communications with both Mr. Gorder and Mr. Powell. Obviously, this defense hinges substantially on the availability of evidence detailing the defendant's role in these surrender negotiations.
11 Both before and during the trial defense counsel unsuccessfully moved the court to recuse the prosecutor to enable the defense to call him as a witness. After final argument the defendant moved for a mistrial because the prosecutor's remarks "reaffirm[ed] Mr. Gorder's role as a witness in the case without cross-examination, because they appeared to be, in the way that they were framed, assertions of personal knowledge based on his dealings with Mr. Prantil." At every juncture, the prosecutor refused either to recuse himself or to testify. The trial court declined to disturb the prosecutor's decision and denied, without comment, all of the defendant's motions on this matter.
12 The prosecutor defended his decision, and the trial court concurred, on the grounds that his testimony was unnecessary and cumulative to the defendant's case. We recognize that a defendant has an obligation to exhaust other available sources of evidence before a court should sustain a defendant's efforts to call a participating prosecutor as a witness. United States v. West, 680 F. 2d 652,654 (9th Cir. 1982). Nonetheless, the defendant's obligation to resort to alternative means of adducing factual testimony is not absolute. Both the quality and quantity of the alternate sources of evidence are proper subjects for comparison with that sought directly from the participating prosecutor. For example, in this case the prosecutor contends that his testimony on the defendant's efforts to arrange for the surrender of the fugitive Ron Powell was unnecessary and cumulative because the defendant could have presented some testimony on this point through an FBI agent who listened to some, but not all, of the relevant discussions. The prosecutor also avers that the defendant himself was available to testify as to any conversations for which there are no other witnesses besides the defendant and the prosecutor. The true worth of the prosecutor's generous suggestion that the defendant himself testify in order to "exhaust" all other sources of testimony, however, becomes self-evident when the prosecutor subsequently portrays the defendant's testimony as self-serving and "sleazy" in his summation before the jury.
13 Regardless of the prosecutor's view of the utility of his own testimony, the district judge is charged with the responsibility of making determinations as to the materiality of witness testimony.in so doing, the court must honor the defendant's constitutional rights under the confrontation and compulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment. The unequivocal admonition of the Supreme Court on this point bears repetition here:
14 The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.
Mary prantil has been running around this forum stating this and that under false names and places while not really producing any solid evidence to these same claims made by her against us. No validity and or substance at all to her claims other then her venting accusations coming at us out of nowhere.
Here's where Mary Ripped Off Another Spell Caster By Charging Back On Them After The Worked Was Performed. More Fraud On Mary's Part. Who's The Real Fraud Here I ask you? MARY PRANTIL WOULD BE THE ANSWER. She says that she pays for her work but apparently doesn't according to this spell caster below. MAKES YOU WONDER ABOUT THE OTHER STATEMENTS THAT MARY PROFESSES AS TRUTH HUH?
Jan: I've forwarded you two e-mails in regard to Mary Prantil. Yes, I did read for her, also she spent over 3 1/2 hours on the phone to me. During said time she cried, cused and begged me to do a spell for her. I said that I don't usually do spells for people that I do not know. Also I told her that usually people charge 1,000.00 for the type of spell that she wanted, as that is High Magic, not something simple.
Also the first card I got for her situation was the Heirophant, follwed by the four of wands. I asked Mary if H _ _ _ _ was married, she said "No, not my H".
Well she begged me so many times, interrupted my other business, called at all hours. She cried so much to me. I finally gave in and said I'd do the spell. Then she bargined with me to do it for 800.00. Later she said that she had soooo many bills and could I do it for 500.00.
I did it. It worked immediately, as her e-mail proves. Then she found out that H— is a drug addict and that he is married and has several other girlfriends. I told her it was a moral choice, she admitted that in the past she "was no angel" with Jans service when I ask her what happened. She charged me back on her credit card with Paypal and tryed to claim that the "merchandise" was not the quality that she expected.
I said I would reverse the spell if she didn't pay me, I told her that she should get professional therapy and I even arranged free drug counseling for her boy friend; all of which she refused. I sent her a photo of part of the spell and a paper tailsman as proof that I performed the service.
Here's where mary reported jim morgan to pay pal for fraud. My question for mary is (how can you steal something that doesn't exists?). These invoices were never paid by mary prantil to start with lol.
Mary Prantil tried to screw up Jan's Pay Pal account by attempting to pay her own invoices until Jan found out what she was doing and informed pay pal as to Prantil's fraudulent activities. Prantil was going to pay off on her own invoices only to cancel them OUT soon after so she could place a claim of Fraud against Jim Morgan on this account. Again, Jim Morgan doesn't even own the company nor does he have anything to do with the administrative functions of this company such as receiving monies for anything especially spell work.
Of course Pay Pal laughed at this little Prantil Con Game and Denied Prantil's fraudulent claims against us. Mary also was confused in the way that she was trying to report Jim Morgan to pay pal for running and or owning a company to which he has no connections to other then helping out with the counseling part of the operation to which he doesn't get paid for.
See how miss-informed Mary Is. Basically what Mary was trying to do was get her work performed for free by paying Jan with checks and then attempting to get her money back for these cashed checks through pay pal. Notice where this email originated from below and who it was sent to under the original message heading. To those of you that know how to check IP Addresses this should clear up any doubts that this is her actual communication to pay pal. So Much for Mary Prantil's claims of fraud & Tax Evasion on our part.
—Original Message— From: m prantil To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Tue, 19 Jun 11:12 pm Subject: Invoice From James Morgan
PayPay,
I wish to report James Morgan for internet Fraud. There is a $1200 invoice currently on my PayPal account form this site Loe lust and Blood spells.
I will forward emails to Payapal saying he is going to refund me. I will also call directly to file my complaint to prevent others form getting conned by him.
Thanks,
Mary Prantil
HERE'S WHERE MARY TRIED TO RIP JAN OFF BUT FAILED. Mary is a rip off scam who likes to commit fraud. Mary likes to accuse others of this to throw suspicion from herself. So Much for Mary Prantil's claims of fraud & Tax Evasion on our part.
Forwarded Message: Subj: STOP BOTHERING US
Date: 6/19 8:36: 31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time From: Passionspells To: Prant99
Mary,
your pay pal invoices were never processed— And this is my business - James is retired. How dare you say anything about him in a derrogatory manner after he went out of his way to help you. It is only because of the grace of Divinity and casting your spell that you have been getting along with H_ as well as you have been especially after you messed up your case and sent him nasty e-mails, etc.
We just sent you an e-mail and I strongly suggest you back off. I am getting ready to forward all of your e-mails to the FBI as I write this. You have, for one thing (just one of many) already violated Federal Internet Law.
In addition, I will report you to our cell phone company immediately for harassing phone calls and telephone stalking.
In closing here are copies of the Pay Pal invoices you NEVER paid. You sent cash, and two personal checks. Here is a copy of your e-mail stating that:
6/14 2:12: 54 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time From: Prant99
Reply To:
To: Passionspells, Wizardmorgan2
I sent you 1. Cash, and a 2. Citibank check and a 3. Bank of America check.
—Original Message— From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, 14 Jun 4:08 pm Subject: Verification Needed
Dear Mary,
This is Jan writing, dear. Could you please verify your method of payment with me when you initially came in for your spell work?
I am going through all of my client records doing verification, etc. For my records.
Thank you dear, I really appreciate it.
Sincerely, Jan
Here is a copy and paste of the pay pal invoices that you never paid. I will write pay pal and forward them all of your abusive e-mails so that they will be aware of the nonsense you have caused us. You have no credence in that matter.
From:
Janhett T. Windglows To:
Mary Prantil ([email protected])
Amount:
$1,250.54 USD Status:
Pending Date Requested:
May 6
Subject:
Spells Invoice Invoice Janhett T. Windglows [email protected] Qty Item ID Description Unit Price Amount 1 050607 30 Day Spells Package For Mary 1,200.00 1,200.00 T
Subtotal: 1,200.00
Shipping: 46.80 T T = 0.299%tax applied to item Tax: 3.74
Currency is in U.S. Dollars (USD) Total: $1,250.54 USD
Request Sent
From:
Janhett T. Windglows To:
Mary Prantil ([email protected])
Amount:
$500.00 USD Status:
Pending Date Requested:
May 8
Subject:
Revised Invoice
Note:
Here is the first 500 will send the next one right after this one thanks dear
Request Sent
From:
Janhett T. Windglows To:
Mary Prantil ([email protected])
Amount:
$500.00 USD Status:
Pending Date Requested:
May 8
Subject:
2nd one
In closing, I will now forward your e - mails to the F.B.I. For harassment, abuse, and stalking. Also your spell work is now being reversed. You should have listened to us and things would not have turned out this way for you. Perhaps you will learn a lesson from all of this, however if you do not, that is no longer our problem.
—jan
here's one example of how mary conducted herself throughout her entire spell process lol. And she wonders why no one likes her and or laughs at her lol.
Subj: Jim - Sex spell on Hani - Disruption Spell on Tony
Date: 7/3 1:37: 39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time From: Prant99 To: Wizardmorgan2 CC: Passionspells
Jim, (and Jan)
H - - - actually said he is NOT sexually attracted to me last night... H - - - - is prob mad at me too bcs I made out and kissed 2 of his friends this is one of the reason I think he is upset and fri I was a raging drunk lunatic... Fri - I was upset about the email and I started drinking around 7pm and saw H - - - - by 11pm totally wasted... Then his Egyptian friends are making fun of me or so H - - - - says... It may not be true the gossip but H - - - is acting discusted with me... Saying all will be OK if I just accept that... He confessed about T - - - - and the email.
T - - - - is the negative influence... For the last 2-3 weeks H - - - - has been around T - - - again now look... Please talk with Jan about these 2 spells.
Let me know.
Mary
here is where jan reported mary for email abuse to the aol and yahoo web masters and had her blocked as a result of their findings. More fraud and harassment to us carried out by mary prantil.
Subj: ABUSE
Date: 8/21 4:13: 33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time From: Passionspells To: [email protected]
I wish to report an abusive e-mail sender. I have numerous copies of her e-mails. We have blocked her from our e-mail addresses, however she continues to send us more mail under different e-mail addresses.
Her name is Mary Prantil, and she has sent to us via the following e-mail addresses:
[email protected]
mary. [email protected]
I have all of her contact information, home address and telephone number. I really do need this abuse from her to stop.
My other screen name is [email protected]
in which she has also been blocked from.
Sincerely,
jan windglows
this is mary begging jan to take her case back after she totally messed things up with her guy. At this point we didn't want to do anything for mary and further rejected anymore funds from her. We had offered to refund her $1,200.00 and moreover to eat the cost of her spell work just to get rid of her however she declined the refund as you can see in her statement below.
Subj: Sorry I want U on my case...$250 more 2 send T. F last phase...
Date: 6/15 3:56: 00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time From: Prant99 To: Wizardmorgan2 CC: Passionspells
Jim, I am sorry for any character defect in me that has got again "reared it's ugly head". I respect you and Jan and I truly want your help. Yes. I am needy, Yes I need to let go and let Divinity. Please do not give up on me. No time is lost if we just get thru this 24 hr bump of mine. Help me please!
I believe in you and your expertise and your morals as a caster are so pure and high.
I do not want you to send me back any money.
I want to send you the $250 discussed to complete the disruption spell with T.F. I also want you to please make H. So uncomfortable without me, that he can't stop thinking about me and what a great friend I am and lover. To be so sexually frusterated without me... Who ever he fucks or has a one night stand or bi-sexual 3-way with H. Will think of me. How lucky he was to have my love... That he f - - - - - - it up between us not me... That he can't rest until he gets me back - even if it means leaving T. F and the office.
Are you still willing to help me?
I truly want your help - I am done today at 1pm I will call you then I can send the $250 today.
Mary the needy brat... But lovable and willing to let go...
This is where i conferred with jan and we both decided at the time to fully terminate mary's case after giving her several chances to straighten up and follow the rules. This is the letter we sent her after going through two months of hell with miss chaos.
Mary,
Due to you ongoing harassing to Kim, Matilda and myself, I have decided counseling with Matilda is not in anyone's best interest. I have instructed Matilda not to have any further communications with you. After I send this e-mail, I will also instruct Kim not to have any further contact with you either.
Your spell work with James and myself has been finished, and Kim is finishing your spell work that you hired her for. I paid for your counseling with Kim. Since I paid for your counseling, which I did not have to do, for some reason you think that Kim's spell work included your counseling, which it did NOT. I paid for your counseling. The 400 that you paid Kim was FOR SPELL WORK—NOT FOR COUNSELING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???
I am officially ending all contact with you right after I send this e-mail. I do not want you for a client from this point on. You have exhausted all of your resources of obtaining any further help with any of us, because of your RUDE DEMANDING rebellious controlling attitude, and constantly continuing to break the rules of the spell criteria.
How dare you say anything to me about my honesty and integrity.
JUST SO YOU KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR SPELL WORK HAS BEEN DONE SO WE DID YOUR WORK THAT YOU PAID US FOR. We did even more than that—numerous boosters, and re casts also.
We do not want you for a client ever again.
Concerning any further possible counseling, i do not have one single counselor that is willing to work with you. You are obnoxious, demanding, and rude—this is why all of this has come to this point.
Good bye mary. You are by far the worst client i have ever had in all my years of spell casting.
0 comments