VALERIE CARLTON CASE
PART I – BACKGROUND, PARTIES:
Valerie, Russell, Winnifer, Ken Judd, Mildred Judd ("Millie")
Valerie Judd ("Valerie") married Russell Carlton ("Russell") in October, 2000 and they had Winni¬fer ("Winnifer") on August 29, 2002. They lived in a house in Harford County that was apparently purchased for them by Valerie's father, Kenneth Judd, MD ("Ken Judd"). That is the house that Valerie continued to live in until she was arrested. [Docu-mentary evidence available in divorce file and real estate records of Harford County]
Valerie sued Russell for divorce in 2005 based on physical assault/domestic violence. She was awarded protective orders against him between 2004 and 2006. Apparently, he pled guilty to second degree assault against Valerie in December 2005, although had his sentence immediately "stayed" by higher court judge, William Carr until the verdict was reversed in a highly suspicious appeal trial. Russell lived in his mother's house in Anne Arundel County, while years of contested hearings evolved in Harford County between Russell and Valerie, especially with regard to Winnifer's welfare.
There is a suggestion that Valerie's step-mother, Mildred, who reportedly "hates her, "offered financial assistance to help retain a lawyer for Russell to reverse his conviction on appeal, and to turn the tables on Valerie in the divorce. There is also some recorded evidence that Ken Judd was involved in the effort to exonerate his son-in-law for abusing his daughter, and slander his daughter with his "medical expertise" with regard to her mental fitness. (Dr. Judd is a licensed Dermatologist). At any rate, we believe that Russell, with help, hired an attorney named Michael Hickey who got the protective order over¬turned and then represented Russell in the divorce and custody case. The divorce was granted on February 7, 2006. [Documentary evidence available in divorce file, District Court, Harford County] Custody was litigated during and after the divorce was granted. Valerie had been awarded $1,000.00 by the Harford County Bar Association, via a local Legal Aid office to secure an attorney to assist her with her divorce, after her prior attorney, who had been retained by Ken Judd, admitted that Dr. Judd had hired her to work against Valerie and Russell in an effort to enable Dr Judd's son, Michael Judd and Michael's wife Jill Judd to win sole custody of Dr. Judd's granddaughter, Winnifer. [Witness evidence available via subpoena from Kimberly Flemming, esquire, Bel Air, Maryland]
On January 16, 2007, Russell was awarded sole custody after a custody battle in which Russell claimed that Valerie was an unfit, mentally ill mother and took Winnifer to the doctor constantly for no reason, and Valerie claimed that Russell was an unfit and abusive father, who was phy¬sically violent and medically neglect¬ful. Valerie's father, Ken Judd, was glad that Russell won custody. He has maintained a very friendly relationship with Russell over the years and is equivocal, at best, toward Valerie. Repor¬t¬ed¬ly he forced foreclosure of Valerie's house while aware that she was falsely incarcerated and later forced to seek refuge in New York. In addition, Ken Judd worked out a scheme to legally protect "squatters" who had illegally taken occupancy of Valerie's home, possessions, and forced Valerie's' pets homeless, in order to gain their assistance with stripping clean all remnants of Valerie and Winnifer having ever lived there. [ie: to do Dr. Judd's dirty work for him]
The judge was not very compli¬mentary to either parent but said, when he gave custody to the father, that the mother had taken the child to the doctor 200 times before her 4th birth¬day (not accurate but it appears in the deci¬sion) and that the father would be the parent more likely to allow the other parent to maintain a good relation¬ship with the child as a noncustodial par¬ent despite volumes of documentation supporting otherwise. The judge believed the mother would not encourage a good relationship with the father, if she had custody? [Documen¬tary evidence in divorce file]
At any rate, the father did not seem at all "encouraging" of the mother's visi¬tation, and by fall 2007, when Winnifer was four, he was very much discour¬ag¬ing the visitation and traumatically interfering with it as much as possible. He got neigh¬¬¬¬bors and friends into the struggle, he tried to get Valerie's visitation can¬celed or eliminated and made a very vocal case for her not being allowed to see or even telephone Winnifer, He verbally threatened Valerie in front of their daughter and physically abused Winnifer in front of Valerie, or whenever Winnifer would cry that she missed her mother. When Valerie did "parent visits" at school, he apparently complained to the teachers and made very disturbing, or threatening allegations against Val¬erie there too. Meanwhile Valerie made allegations of abuse against him (bruises, medical neglect, and so forth, but never sexual abuse directly. However, Valerie did try to report that Russell was not protecting their daughter from being fondled by Russell's nephew, and that it appeared Russell was possibly encouraging such sexual misbehavior.) and Russ and his mother made allegations of various sorts against Valerie. [Documentary evidence, possibly not available because of confiden¬tiality, in Harford County, and Anne Arundel County CPS files] Meanwhile, although Valerie had mentioned that her daughter was being sexually fondled by Russell's nephew over the years, Harford County CPS, Anne Arundel County CPS, and Maryland Victims services among other agencies ignored Valerie's concerns because the nephew was a child himself, and they suspected that Valerie was simply vindictive from having lost custody of her daughter.
Karen Anders and her daughter Natalie Anders, the "complaining witness"
In the midst of this, Russell took Valerie to court to try to get her visits can¬celed because he claimed she tried to kidnap Winnifer and take her out of the country. He enlisted the help of Karen Anders, a neighbor of Valerie's who bore a grudge against her, and voiced witnessed anti-Semitism. Anders tried to testify against Valerie to say she was planning an international child abduction, but the hearings master dismissed the motion without allowing Anders to testify because he said it was clearly not a kidnap, just a visitation squabble which the parents should work out. [Documentary evidence available in divorce files, attorney records, and subpoenaed testimony of witnesses]
Jacob Gendelman, father of Valerie's now deceased baby Max
In 2008 Valerie conceived a son with an affluent Israeli-German businessman who had been courting her while discussing the idea that they should remarry, to secure international family law assistance in addition to providing a more financially secure marital home for Winnifer. The idea was that she would again provide a nuclear family for Winnifer while Russell would just have a one-parent family. Her idea included the plan that the home would be Modern Orthodox Jewish in a near-by, well-established, Baltimore, Orthodox community, since under Jewish law, the child is the religion of the mother, not the reli¬gion of the father (Russell is a Christian from a Christian evangelical background). Valerie had created a profile page for herself on an online Orthodox Jewish dating site, which is how Jacob Gendelman found her.
Gendelman is an Israeli and German citizen who runs the European, Africa, and Asian Divisions of an American founded company by the name of Rhinolinnings. He travels back and forth between the US, Germany and several other countries; he speaks fluent German, Hebrew, and English. He flew Valerie to Germany and other countries to meet him throughout 2008; he visited her; he got her preg¬nant; but he would not marry her. She wanted to get married at first, and actually told him that her plan was to create the perfect family home for Winnifer. There is evidence that Gendelman agreed at one point, but apparently, Gendelman did not show signs of matrimony once their son was conceived. [Documentary evidence probably available in Roger Malik's public defender file, Harford County along with witness testimonies from Andy Yrowitz, Avrum Kowalsky, Leora Rosen, Valerie's mother Lenna Gordon, and others.]
Roger Malik, Public Defender for Valerie on the CINA Petition for Max
Roger Malik was appointed as the public defender to defend Valerie against charges being made by Jacob Gendelman with respect to her infant, Max, which charges were apparently in progress even before the birth of the child. Malik was very much on Valerie's side while defending her in the Child in Need of Assistance Petition ("CINA") Proceeding in Harford County CPS. Once baby Max was buried several actions took place both in and out of court with Gendelman, The Judds and Mr. Malik most suspiciously. Valerie was never made privy much less represented or present in all proceedings involving her son. The last conversation Valerie ever had with her attorney; just before she was transferred from The Harford County Detention Center to Spring Grove, a state psychiatric hospital and facilities, Mr. Malik was also peculiar and concluded in some sort of word puzzle for Valerie to decipher.
Transactional Background of the Charges
In late January or February, 2009, apparently Winnifer had chicken pox, missed some school, and missed visits with her mom. In addition, other excuses were given and Valerie's visitation was forcibly "missed" more times than not. At the time, Winnie was experiencing and displaying problems at school and possibly at Russell's house, both because she missed her mother and was not being allowed to see her, and we suspect for other even more disturbing reasons. Russell tended to blame all Winnifer's problems on the fact that she still visited her mother. Winni-fer's telephone calls with her mother were also not going through predict¬ably and there was interference, stress, tension, and "something brewing." [Testa¬men¬tary evidence]
In the first two weeks of February, 2009, the whole Russell Carlton family made a trip to Disney World, in spite of the fact that there had been extreme financial difficulties in the prior couple of years and Winnifer had already missed allot of school from illness, non-specified absences, and Christmas vacation time. The trip was relatively lavish and there is some indication that it was paid for by someone outside the family (We are aware that Mr. Gendelman had attorneys acting on his behalf, making phone calls to find out as much "dirt" on Valerie as possible at this precise time as well). Included in the trip were Russell, his sister Molly, her husband and her children (one of whom, a seven-year old at the time, was described by Winnie in her interview as having the habit of excessively masturbating in front of her, which she did not like), and Winnifer. During this period of time Valerie's visitation was simply skipped and no "make-up visitation" was arranged or permitted, despite Valerie submitting contempt motions and change of circumstance requests to the Harford County Circuit court. Valerie had also tried to open a child welfare case in Anne Arundel County, having filed an emergency motion there sometime in August or September 2008. Later Mr. Malik and his Harford County supervisor wrote Anne Arundel County to not dare close this case. However, it appears that the Anne Arundel County court disregarded this written plea. [All document evidence can be obtained via a few cases in different counties, and different plaintiffs who have tried to refer back to this ignored child welfare paper trail.]
Anne Arundel County CPS, David Ladd, and Margaret Candler
Meanwhile, there had been so much reporting of allegations back and forth in the Anne Arundel County CPS division that the head of that division, David Ladd, told Valerie that he was thinking of bringing in a retired CPS worker named "Margaret Something" [as reported by Valerie] to handle the case, because he was becoming concerned about the child's welfare in the midst of the struggle. We are guessing that this person was Margaret Candler, who lives in Annapolis, a well-known child's rights advocate. [Testamentary evidence]
Father's friend and Neighbor, Denise Figueiredo, and her daughter Isabella
When Valerie's pregnancy became obvious, the relationship with Russell's family (and friends and neighbors) deteriorated. Dissatisfaction was ex¬pressed that Valerie continued to have access to Winnifer. Russell, who is still single and re¬portedly has had "no girlfriends" after Valerie, nor before his marriage, has a sort of "following" of women who leave their children with him ("without his hav¬ing asked") and who regard him as the "father of the year?" They think of him as being in need of their support and protection from the "bad mother" – Valerie. These women include, but are appar¬ently not limited to, the hostile neighbor named Karen Anders (who lives next door to Valerie over an hour away from Mr. Carlton) and another neighbor, Denise Figueiredo who, coincidentally, is a close friend of Margaret Candler. Denise lives in a duplex that shares a wall with Russell's house. Denise's daughter Isabella, was in Winnifer's first-grade class with Mrs. Priscilla Metcalfe and in the second-grade class with Winnifer the following year. (Apparently this was arranged in order to keep the girls together because it was believed that Isabella could be helpful to Winnifer in all she was going through. Winnifer has described Isabella in unfriendly terms even abusive to the social worker at Child Protective Services, though. Valerie also reports most disturbing testimony in this matter, which she claims was confessed to her by her daughter Winnifer through much emotional pain and anxiety. We hear that Denise does not want the two girls to be in the same third-grade class; we do not know the reason for this.) EXHIBIT A – E-mail exchange among Michelle Etlin, Margaret Candler, Denise Figueiredo and Leora Rosen [Documentary evidence, also testamentary]
Denise believes firmly that Valerie is dangerous, abusive, insane, and unfit even to have telephone visitation with her daughter, although the only time these two women ever met was in a brief encounter in their daughter's public school where neither of the two realized who they were speaking to at that time. Denise has no evidence of any sexual abuse by Valerie of any child. However, her own child, Isabella, interestingly, in Winnifer's interview with Harford County CPS on March 23, 2009, when asked if anybody touched her inappropriately in her private body areas, she named Denise's daughter Isabella, who, she said, "always does stuff like that" in the shower. Winnifer also says, unsolicited, that Isabella is "a friend on my dad's side" who is "not a very good friend," and that she, Winnifer, always hopes that Isabella will be nice to her next time they play but that she is repeatedly disappointed because Isabella is "very mean to her." She contrasts this to her "best friend" whose name is Mimi, whom she says she has known since they were babies, and who would "never do anything like that; I don't know her to." Strangely, Winnifer does not mention in her interview that Isabella is in her class at school, or that she lives next door, or that Winnifer spends many nights at Isabella's house and/or travels with Isabella's family in near daily arranged visits by her father.
Karen Anders, of course, has expressed herself as absolutely hostile to Valerie. She has tried several times, before the arrest, to have Valerie arrested on other charges, and never was successful. Anders' background includes several interesting legal proceedings, showing that she is no stranger to courts and criminal complaints and that she is more or less surrounded with true or false allegations of domestic violence, drugs, sexual abuse, and turmoil.
* She made domestic violence complaints against both of her own parents when she was 20 years old (in 2002) and had a three-year-old daughter, Bridgette, who is now apparently 12 years old. In these com¬plaints she alleged that her father had sexually abused her for ten years and that her mother had sexually and otherwise abused her (for ten years) AND HER THREE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER and that her mother was stalking her and threatening to subject her to more abuse. This daughter was later taken from Anders and placed in her father's custody at some point AFTER these domestic violence complaints were made. The custody battle between Anders and Bridgette's father included allegations against that father for dom¬estic violence, but he was acquitted and thereafter was awarded custody of the child. There is still litigation over Bridgette's custody and visitation even now. The last hearing was in March 2010 and it appears possibly that the parents have agreed on joint custody, but during the period when she was neighbors with Valerie, Bridgette was in her father's custody, and the allega¬tions Anders made against him were considered by the court to be false.) EXHIBIT B – Court filings by Karen Anders against both of her parents [Documentary evidence]
* A criminal complaint was lodged against Anders, soon after the 2002 domestic violence complaints she filed against her own parents, for "making a false police report." This complaint was lodged against Anders by Officer Christine Reddish (now Christine Mullins), the police officer who had taken the informa¬tion for the above-mentioned domestic violence com¬plaints made by Karen Anders against her parents. The charge was nulle prossed at some point in time, probably at the same time as the domestic vio¬lence complaints referred to above were also dismissed; this could have been a comprehensive settlement. EXHIBIT C – Court filings [Documen¬tary evidence]
* Anders lodged a criminal complaint against Brian Steven Morris, one of her boyfriends, for assault; he was convicted and served jail time in 2007. Anders got back together with Morris after he got out of jail and they were apparently cohabiting for a while (when Natalie was a baby and Bridgette was in her father's custody). We cannot be absolutely sure of the time frames here. We believe that Brian Steven Morris has since died. EXHIBIT D – Court filings [Documentary Evidence] There is some question if there may have been two Brian Steven Morris's in Harford County?
* Natalie's father is yet another of Karen Anders' many boy-friends, Joe Clevenger. Clevenger is not presently living with Anders although apparently he was living with her at the time that Natalie was interviewed and gave her "disclosures" of sexual abuse by Valerie. He is listed in the press reports (anonymously) as one of the "revengeful" neigh¬bors whose child was molested. There is no record of any criminal com¬plaints or domestic violence complaints against him by Anders; she has only made complaints against him for nonpayment of child support. He does not appear to want custody of Natalie. EXHIBIT E – Court filings [Documen¬tary Evidence] Anders does not appear to be gainfully employed and it is not clear that she ever has been to any appreciable extent. We do not know the source of her income other than child support from the fathers of her children; it is unlikely that Bridgette's father pays support, though, since he has custody. Valerie witnessed that there were illegal activities (drugs and prostitution) at Anders' house when she lived next door to Valerie.
OK, now the parties are more or less identified and the action that leads to the present situation is the next part of this rendition.
PART II – THE PROSECUTION, THE SET-UP, THE "NCR" PLAN
1. March 2009: Valerie met Leora Rosen in early spring 2009 and appealed to her for help from one Orthodox Jewish woman to another. Leora began to help her. This included speaking with Jacob Gendelman, with whom Valerie was still trying to communicate with and convince Jacob that their soon-to-be-born baby and his sister Winnifer, of whom she hoped to regain custody, need a stable, Jewish home. Gendelman, however, had made it clear that he wanted Valerie to just "sign over" custody of the baby to him and he would not help her in any way, shape or form unless she did so, not even to pay any medical expenses nor her hospital bills to give birth to the baby. Gendelman alternately made various charges against Valerie ("she threatened to harm him and the baby") and speculated about her mental health. Gendelman had hired Karl Goodman, a Baltimore law¬yer, to get custody away from Valerie for him, even well before the baby was born. Gendelman told Rosen, in May, before Valerie was arrested; that there would be criminal charges against Valerie, but they were "all non¬sense" and they would "go away" if Valerie gave him sole custody of the baby (once it was born as a scare tactic). This was memorialized by Rosen in a contempor¬a¬ne¬ous affidavit which she got notarized in order to prove the date that it was said to her. EXHIBIT F – Affidavit of Leora Rosen. [Testamentary and Documentary Evidence]
2. May 27, 2009: Jacob Gendelman told Leora Rosen, the day that Valerie was arrested, that "everyone" was "on board with the program" except Public Defender Roger Malik. He added that, because Malik would not "get on board," Valerie would become "a hunted animal." (Valerie was assaulted and worse at The Harford County Detention Center while this statement was being made) This was memorialized by Rosen in a contemporaneous memorandum. EXHIBIT G – Affidavit of Leora relating to the conversations she had around the time of Valerie's arrest. [Testamentary and Documentary Evidence] Apparently, during early spring 2009, Gendelman began to work together with Russell to provide, or even cook up, evidence against Valerie that they believed could be used against her to bring criminal charges. The idea was that she would be persuaded that her only recourse was to plead "NCR" to avoid a long prison term. An idea that Dr. Ken Judd had presented Russ with years prior as a possible solution for "properly controlling Valerie" once and for all. Gendel¬man obviously believed this was a good idea and did not hide it from Rosen. He began to tape tele¬phone con¬versations with Valerie and to construct his arguments with her in such a way as to entrap her saying that she wanted to flee the country with Winni¬fer, which would be a felony kidnap under Maryland law. He appar¬ently amassed a number of telephone conversations on tape. It appears that the plan did not take into account the fact that under Maryland law, taping telephone conversations with someone without their knowledge is itself a felony. (This issue had come up in the Monica Lewinsky/Linda Tripp/Bill Clinton scandal years ago.) Although the prosecutor's office spent their resources having hours and hours and HOURS of the tapes transcribed, when Rosen began to agitate with the State Prosecutor's office about various irregularities in the prosecution's case, the prosecution announced that they were not intending to use the tapes. ( Realize that this "evidence" was presented at the CINA hearings, used in charging statements, and was even cited as a reason to have Valerie's new born son taken from her, in addition to being part of state discovery evidence) [Testamentary evidence, possibly some documentary evidence of this in the PD's files, which may or may not have been tuned over in their entirety to Valerie's private counsel. Evidence of tampering]
3. From 2007 ongoing: Apparently, Winnifer had been experiencing various medical and psychological problems soon after being placed in her father's custody and by 2008, she was displaying some troubling behaviors, including throw¬ing severe tantrums [mentioned in Denise's e-mails] and masturbat¬ing frequently [mentioned in CPS interview and by both parents separately]. By early 2009 she was masturbating even in school and this was noticed by her first-grade teacher, Priscilla Metcalfe. Metcalfe, an Anne Arundel Coun¬ty teacher in an Anne Arundel County public school (Windsor Farms Ele¬men¬¬tary School), turned in a mandated report of suspected child abuse to the wrong county. This was mentioned in the charging document as if it was a com¬mon and ordinary occurrence for a public school teacher to make a man¬da¬ted child abuse report to the wrong county, but it is extremely unusual and frankly there is no reasonable explanation for it. EXHIBIT H – charging document. [Documentary Evidence] EXHIBIT I – E-mail exchange with Priscilla Metcalfe to and from Rosen/Website. [Documentary and Testa¬men¬tary Evidence]
4. March 23, 2009: Pursuant to the "mandated report" from the wrong county, rather than referring it to the correct county, Harford County CPS worker Leanda Daniels inter¬viewed Winnifer (with Officer Michelle Workman watching), specifically asking if anyone touched her inappro¬pri¬ate¬ly. Winnifer made no disclosure of sexual abuse against her mother or father. Daniels "made the case" anyway stating that a clear disclosure was made. The transcript of the interview, which is not very accurate but which does clearly show that Winnifer did not disclose sexual abuse by her mother, is EXHIBIT J – Tran¬script of Winnifer's interview, March 23, 2009. [Documentary Evidence]
5. March 23, 2009: That interview was video-recorded and is avail¬able on DVD. EXHIBIT K – March 23, 2009 CPS Interview of Winnifer Carlton in which she discloses no abuse by her mother and in which she says she wants to see her mother more and loves her a lot. [Documentary Evi¬dence -- electronic]
6. Refer back to EXHIBIT H – the charging document. This charg¬ing docu¬ment actually admits that the child did NOT MAKE ANY DIS¬CLO¬S¬URE of sexual abuse (or any other abuse) against her mother. It says that Winnifer said her mother put "cream" on her genitals and this is hinted at as if it were a sexual act, but that is a semantic trick. The "cream" is an over-the-counter medication used to soothe irritated skin ("diaper cream") and is simply zinc oxide. The interview makes it clear that when Winnifer told her mother that her "pee pee" was red, her mother would put Desitin on it and it would return to its "normal color" and feel better. Winnifer did go on to implicate her cousin Jacob and neighbor Isabella as acting sexually inappropriate towards her at best but all allegations were ignored by CPS and agents involved with the "investigations'".
7. April 15, 2009: Inexplicably, Harford County CPS then brought in another child (Natalie Anders) to see if she had "also" been molested, although Natalie had never alleged sexual abuse or been the subject of any mandated report. Natalie is the daughter of Karen Anders, the avowed "revengeful" [her own word expressing her own feelings] enemy of Valerie since the time they were neighbors. Anders had been working with Russell to try to get Valerie's visitation with her daughter canceled by the court, and she had been unsuccessful in that en-deavor. Harford County CPS (again Leanda Daniels) inter¬viewed Natalie on April 15, 2009 and extracted a biz¬arre description of three allegations against Valerie. Also inexplicably, Bruce Smith was involved in that interview, although there did not seem to be any reason a prosecutor would take time to participate in a CPS interview of a five-year-old neighbor of someone whose own child had already denied abuse? In this interview, Natalie claimed that she wit¬nessed or experienced the following:
(a) She saw Valerie rape Winnifer in the bathtub with the beak of a rubber duckie;
(b) She herself was raped by Winnifer with a "telescope" while Valerie stood in the room and said, "That's who I want my little girl"; and
(c) Valerie made Winnifer and Natalie put make up all over her, Valerie's, naked body, while they were in her room and she and Natalie had their eyes closed. (Please refer back to EXHIBIT H, charging document.)
8. April 15, 2009: During the interview, Daniels called Smith on an intercom telephone to see if there was any¬thing more she needed to ask, and then she said: "No, she said ' long time ago'...no, I can try again. ... Mmmm...let me see what I can get." Then Daniels returned to her chair and said to Natalie, "I need to figure out when these things happened."
9. Clearly, Daniels was working with the prosecutor to try to "get" something on Valerie. This was no normal mandated-report interview of a child to see if the child had been abused. Very clearly, it was a fishing expedition to see if there could be criminal charges drawn for someone who had never done anything to come under suspicion for committing any crime. In fact, once the prosecutor gave Daniels the assignment of establishing when the allegations were supposed to have happened, Daniels' questions to Natalie, and Natalie's answers, were beyond comprehension and actually failed to establish WHEN these three events allegedly occurred. Natalie claimed they happened: (a) all on the same day, which was (b) a year before the inter¬view, and was (c) on a weekend school day (before Natalie was even IN school) which was warm but during which there was a thunderstorm. The transcript of this bizarre inter¬view was not typed up on the standard CPS form and appears on plain white paper, also not tran¬scribed very accurately. EXHI¬BIT L – April 15, 2009 interview of Natalie Anders, age five. [Documen¬tary Evidence]
10. April 15, 2009: This interview was also recorded on a DVD. In that DVD it is quite easy to hear that Natalie, when she was asked at first about someone touching her inappropriately, actu¬ally answers that there was someone who did that twice (holding up two fingers). She then mumbles about someone she refers to as "he" – clearly, a male – and says, "but I'm not in trouble for that, Sissy is." Daniels does not follow up on this disclo¬sure. Evidently, some male (probably adult male) did inappropriately touch Natalie together with someone else Natalie calls "Sissy," but Daniels delib¬erately ignored that fact. EXHIBIT M – DVD of Natalie Anders interview. [Documentary Evidence, electronic format] It is possible, although very sinister, that Karen Anders asked Daniels to agree not to record or evaluate any disclosures Natalie might make unless they involved Valerie, because her own (Karen Anders' own) history suggests that there is a certain prob-ability that Natalie has in fact been molested by someone at Karen Anders' house. There were many adults (some unrelated) living in Anders' house (including one adult male that Natalie identified as being "a little bit preg¬nant"). Anders herself has had two children and never has been married. She accused her parents of molesting her and her older daughter. She has had several live-in boyfriends, some of whom have been to jail for various things. It is possible that at least one of her live-in boyfriends was involved with illicit drugs. Not a pretty picture.
11. By January 2010: Both interviews have been carefully examined by a nationally recognized forensic psychiatrist, Mark J. Mills, JD, MD, [CV attached] who was previously the Massachusetts Commissioner of Mental Health. Dr. Mills critiqued the interviews done by Harford County CPS and prepared a report for the defense. He believed, and still believes, that this report could be used to either get the charges dropped or to bring on speedy trial and obtain an almost certain acquittal. His report, however, was rejec¬ted by Janowich, who did not even dis¬cuss it with Dr. Mills except to ask him if he really wrote it. At this point Valerie's advocates realized that Jano¬wich actually was collaborating with the prosecution to "throw" the trial – for he chose to ignore a valuable defense resource. We in¬clude this report to show not only the weakness of the prosecution case against Valerie, but also to demonstrate how we discovered that there was both a bad faith pro-secution AND unethical collusion by the public defender's office. EXHIBIT N – Report of Dr. Mark J. Mills on the lack of credible evidence in the CPS inter¬views of the two chil¬dren. [Documentary and Testamentary evidence including via Valerie herself]
12. May 20, 2009: The police executed a search war¬rant against Valerie on May 20, 2009 and seized her computer (which was the computer of both Valerie and Russell when they lived together in that house before the divorce, and which had a lot of porno¬graphy on it downloaded by Russell, all depicting anal sex among adults although all of the "adult porn" was never mentioned by the state), a rubber duckie, toys including a toy stethoscope – but NO TOY TELESCOPE -- from a play-doctor kit, and various non-criminal items. EXHI¬BIT O – Search Warrant and List of Items seized. [Documentary evidence]
12. On or about April 12, 2009, Valerie gave birth to Max Carlton at a Harford County Hospital. He was healthy. She was diagnosed as having a pre-cancerous condition requiring a re-examination in six weeks. Four days later, Har¬ford County CPS, accompanied by both Gendelman and Officer Michelle Workman, came and seized Max from Valerie, saying that he was declared a child in need of assistance because she was dangerous to herself and the baby, and adding that she was not going to be able to raise him in any case because she was going to prison for a long time for numerous felony charges. Max was placed in foster care over Gendelman's objections – he wanted to take the baby and fly to Israel immediately without any court battles – but because Malik opposed the CINA finding against his client, they had to go to court, which was scheduled for May 27, 2009. Malik pre¬pared for the hearing and Valerie was given one hour of visitation with her baby in foster care the entire time of their separation while Valerie had to be supervised and could not touch her son other than hold him loosely in some blankets. About two weeks later Max was transferred from the foster care fam¬ily he was with to the home of Michael and Jill Judd, Valerie's brother and sister-in-law -- a highly suspicious "kinship placement." Upon information and belief, Ken Judd was very much in favor of the baby being placed with Michael's family rather than being either retained by Valerie mother or staying in the foster care home where he was first placed – a home previously qualified by Harford County Social Services Department for foster care. (Michael's family had never pre¬viously been considered for placement of foster children and Jill Judd had been reported to CPS by a baby-sitter, of neglecting her own three children.) [Docu¬mentary evidence in Harford Co. CPS files and Malik's file on the CINA petition]
13. May 2009. The hearing on the CINA petition for Max was sche¬duled for May 27, 2009. Valerie knew that her arrest was also imminent on felony charges, although she did not have the details. Before Valerie's arrest, however, Malik wrote an e-mail to Rosen in which he told her that the "other" side of the public defen¬der's office (appointed to defend Valerie on criminal charges, which had not yet been brought) already had a plan in place to defend her by plead¬ing her out "NCR" which means "not crimin¬ally responsible by reason of insanity." Malik expressed to Leora, in writ¬ing, the hope that the "other" side of the PD's office would "change their mind" about this strategy. Malik did not seem to consider this information a secret; it appears that the idea that the entire prosecution was a "set-up" to force Valerie into a "back-door civil commitment" by misuse of the criminal law did not shock the conscience of any of the attorneys in the PD's office. The informa¬tion, furthermore, is un¬canny in that it directly confirms both the advice given by Gendelman to Rosen that the charges were "nonsense" and that they were being brought for the pur¬pose of forcing Valerie into a mental hospital, after which they could "go away." Realize that Dr. Ken Judd, Valerie's father and Russ Carlton had already attempted to commit Valerie once before in 1999. EXHIBIT P – E-mail exchange between Malik (who, remem¬ber, was the one person Gendelman said was "not on board with the prog¬ram") and Rosen, dated before Valerie's arrest. [Documentary Evi¬dence]
14. May 26, 2009: During the day on May 26, 2009, Janowich appar¬ently called Valerie and informed her that she had been charged with 28 felonies, and that she must turn herself in to Harford County Police, and ONLY HARFORD COUNTY POLICE, AFTER 5:00 p.m. that day. Valerie was not in Harford County at the time, though, and did not have transporta¬tion to get there. She was at Rosen's house in Rockville. Michelle Etlin offered to help Valerie turn herself in, but said she could not help her get all the way to Harford County to do so. Michelle came to pick Valerie up at Rosen's house. She spent 5 hours with Valerie, who told her the following:
(a) She thought Janowich was "dirty" although she thought Malik was "clean" and was defending her zealously;
(b) Janowich had told her that she MUST not turn herself in to any jurisdiction other than Harford County and she MUST turn herself in that very night after 5:00 p.m.;
(c) Janowich had told her that there were 28 serious felony charges against her but that she was going to plead out "NCR" to those charges so she would not go to prison, only to a hospital; and
(d) The prosecution's case was very strong and the charges were so very serious that she would definitely do best to plead NCR quickly.
For all this, there is only testamentary evidence, but that evidence is the same from Etlin and from Valerie. It has some confirmation in the Malik e-mails to and conversations with Rosen, as well.
15. May 26, 2009: Michelle called the Rockville police at around 1:00 a.m. and asked if a person charged with 28 felonies in Harford County could turn herself in in Rockville. They said yes, she could turn her¬self in to any police department. They said if she was charged with felonies, the NCIC would list the felonies and she could come in and get arrested at the near¬est police station. Michelle established where that was and took Valerie to the police station at around 3:30 a.m. on May 27, 2009. The police took her name and i.d. and told her there was nothing on the NCIC; therefore they could not arrest her. [Testamentary Evidence only, but cross-corroborated]
16. May 27, 2009: The next morning Leora drove Valerie into court for the CINA hearing and she was arrested in court. Apparently, by 9:00 a.m., 28 felony charges had come down including sexual abuse of Winnifer (based on Natalie's wit¬nessing it), sex¬ual abuse of Natalie (based on her in¬terview about her experience a year before the interview was done), attemp¬ted kidnap¬ping, extortion, vari¬ous other crimes involving phone conversa¬tions with Gendelman, and one felony charge of "child endangerment" for "pro¬vid¬ing tainted breast milk to a newborn." This bizarre charge apparent¬ly related to the fact that Officer Michelle Workman had seized some frozen breast milk from the freezer of Valerie's house during a search, and it was claimed that the milk was unfit for infant consumption, although no forensic tests had been performed on it. EXHIBIT Q – The Indictment. [Documen¬tary evidence] This gives an example of the absurd "stretch" and "reach" of the charges against Valerie.
18. May 27, 2009: Valerie was arrested by a white man slightly over 6 feet tall with brownish blond hair and a courteous demeanor. Officer Mi¬chelle Workman was at the hearing, dressed in street clothes. She stayed with Gendelman and his lawyer and she was laughing openly when Valerie was arrested, as were Gen¬¬delman and his attorney Karl Goodman, they made sure to be as close as possible while Valerie was being chained and shackled and severed from her mother and advocates. Later that day, when Rosen was at home, she spoke with Malik by telephone. He told her that the officer who had arrested Valerie had come to him after arresting her and told him, as her lawyer, that he had been instructed by Workman and Gendelman to "rough her up" while arresting her. This officer told Malik words to the effect of: "I didn't do it; I treat pri¬¬soners with respect unless they get violent with me." When Malik told Rosen about this, she asked him if he was going to report the incident. He said, "I'm not defending her on the criminal charges, John Janowich is." Leora then reported this to Jano¬wich, who did nothing nor did he express any emotion on the subject at all. As a consequence of this inaction, we tried to deter¬mine who the arresting officer was, although we understood that police do not like to testify against other police. We still felt that it was extremely im¬portant to report this, espe-cially in view of the fact that Gendelman had said Valerie would become "a hunted animal" if Malik didn't stop defending her parental rights to her baby. When we got around to trying to find the name of the arresting officer, we discovered that the arrest report had apparently been disposed of and a fraudulent arrest report was substituted for it, signed by Michelle Workman as if SHE was the arresting officer. SHE WAS NOT. EXHIBIT R – Arrest Report signed by Michelle Workman, which is neces¬sarily fraudulent; Michelle Workman did not arrest Valerie. [Documentary and Testamentary Evidence]
19. May 27, 2009: The night that Valerie was arrested, she was appar¬¬ently beaten by several inmates, who had been instigated by one or more guards or police who apparently told them that she was a pedophile and child molester. It is well known that in jails and prisons, pedophiles and child molesters are en¬dangered because many if not most of the inmates of jails and prisons are people who have themselves been molested as children. Upon information and belief, a female warden or guard who was in charge of the jail that night was somewhat injured in the fracas but she did manage to protect Valerie to the extent possible. Weapons were not apparently used and none of the attackers was apparently brought up on charges of assault. Valerie was never allowed access to necessary paperwork during the entire brutal length of her incarceration. [Testamentary evidence and possibly documentary evidence in the form of an incident report; we are uncertain about that at this time.]
20. Early in June, when Valerie had been in jail for about a week, the prosecutor placed four articles in the local and Baltimore media about hav¬ing arrested Valerie for molesting little girls. He did not abide by the Canon of Ethics for lawyers, much less prosecutors, in his statements to the press. For instance, he included the following violations of law:
* He did not refer to Valerie as the suspect, but gave the distinct impression that she was guilty as charged;
* He lied about a major piece of information (that two little girls were masturbating in class and the teacher had told THEM many times that they shouldn't but they continued to do so;
* He gave misleading information about other major facts, lead¬ing people to believe that Valerie had molested more than one child who was not her own child, and that the investigation had originated when "the parents" became concerned;
* He gave out knowingly false information that was not included in the charging documents at all (that Valerie had performed oral sex on children);
* He deliberately withheld the information that the allegations had arisen in the context of a custody dispute.
These articles created a huge furor in the community and there were calls, on the internet, for vengeance and even for burning Valerie alive. These reports were calculated not only to deprive Valerie of the possibility of a fair trial, but also to scare her into accepting Janowich's pressure to plead out NCR thus avoiding the need for the prosecutor to prove his case. EXHIBIT S – Press reports and Michelle Etlin's analysis of the Internet free-for-all resulting from those reports. [Documentary evidence]
21. June 2009: Rather than counteract any of the false information being promul¬gated, Janowich (who had an absolute RIGHT to make state¬ments to the press because HIS position – that the client was innocent – was the official position that every criminal defendant has a right to publicize, because every criminal defendant is presumed innocent until PROVEN guil¬ty) remained essentially silent, not even issuing a statement that said the charging docu¬ments had admitted that only one child alleged anything, and that the allega¬tions were groundless, and that the whole thing was a divorce case trumped up into preposterous false allegations. In other words, Jano¬wich held back from saying what EVERY defense lawyer has always said about sex abuse allegations – including Woody Allen's defense lawyer back in 1992. This was extremely suspicious. Janowich then made a half-hearted, almost "pro forma" motion to change venue that was so inadequate that all the prosecu¬tion did to counter it was to say they had given out the informa-tion because the public clamored for information – when the public had never even heard of the case before his lurid announcements. Naturally, the motion was den¬ied, giving Janowich the excuse to fail to deal with the pre¬judicial quality of all the press reports and the deliberate misconduct of the prosecutor's office. Truly, it was pathetic at best in addition to his having ignored all of Valerie's defense requests.
22. June 2009: AFTER Valerie was already in jail for allegedly mol¬esting her daughter and Natalie Anders, the Harford County CPS officials finally made a "FOUNDED CASE" of sexual abuse against Valerie on be¬half of Winnifer and separately another "FOUNDED CASE" of sexual abuse against Valerie on behalf of Natalie. No hearings were set up; no PD was assigned to either case; no plans were put in place either for family reunification or for assist¬ing either child to deal with what had allegedly been done to them! Also, these notices of the FOUNDED CASES were not served on Valerie in the jail, but sent to her home. Naturally she couldn't respond to them. It is unknown what Anne Arundel County DSS was told about Winnifer's need for services, if anything. No case has been opened in Anne Arundel County on behalf of Winnifer, so there is not even any assur¬ance that she is being followed up on or checked by state-approved social workers. [Documentary evidence is avail¬able but it may be withheld by Harford County CPS who will allege that they are withholding it to protect Winnifer's and Natalie's privacy whereas in fact they will withhold it to protect themselves from discovery of the result of their own conspiratorial and unlawful conduct.] In addition to other mistreatment in jail, Valerie was denied medical care because when she needed gynecological follow-up after the precancerous condition was discovered, she was forced to submit to a pelvic medical exam in the presence of male guards, which is forbidden to an Orthodox Jewish woman (and by all correctional facility policies); she had to refuse that medical exam and was not given another one with female guards instead.
23. From May 27, 2009 – present: Please see the information for-ward¬ed by Leora Rosen as to the mistreatment in jail, generally. I will include in this write-up the informa¬tion about the restraint-chair incident that relates to the prosecutor's office interfering in the Chaplain's job of inform¬ing a prisoner of a death in the family, but the rest of the information is to be found in Leora's documents.) *Clear evidence of conspiracy to do harm.
24. On June 12, 2009, in the early hours of the morning, Valerie's (and Gendelman's) baby Max died in mysterious circumstances in the Dela¬ware vacation home of Michael and Jill Judd. According to reports, the baby was sleeping in a regular bed with the "nanny," ________ ________, [fill in name] when somehow he suffocated to death. The death went unno¬ticed for some period of time and then, appar¬ently, both the baby-sitter and Jill Judd became aware of it. (No crying? How does a new born crawl? Where was the crib, where was CPS?) Upon informa-tion and belief, both Jill Judd and the baby-sitter immediately checked them¬selves into a psychiatric facil¬ity as suffering from shock as a result of the baby's death. This was the death of a baby in FOSTER CARE, something that usually gets onto the front page of a newspaper, but there was a resounding press silence about it. Within days an autopsy report iden¬tified the death as "accidental asphyxi¬ation." [Docu¬men¬tary evidence is available in the form of the autopsy report but that may be in the official possession of the State of Delaware, where the baby died.]
25. June 12, 2009: Ordinarily, and according to jail policy, when a family member of a prisoner has died, the Chaplain informs the prisoner and handles the neces¬sary pastoral care and death arrangements with and for them. Chaplain Richard Roberts, however, received a phone call from some¬¬one from the prosecutor's office, telling him that he would not be permitted to inform Valerie of the death of her baby. He was told to vacate his office so that when they brought Valerie down to receive the news of the death, they could have someone from the prosecutor's office, Deborah Bradley, inform Valerie of the death, instead of him. They said, apparently, that they wanted to do that to "see her reaction." Chaplain Rob¬erts said, reportedly, "I know Debbie Bradley. She's not from your office, she's with victims' assis¬tance in the Sheriff's Office!" That means that someone representing the interests of the crime victims (in this case, that would be someone represent¬ing the interests of Russell Carlton, Jacob Gendelman, Winnifer Carlton as a victim of sexual abuse by her mother, and Natalie Anders as a victim of sexual abuse by her mother's enemy) was now going to inform the alleged perpe¬trator of all those crimes of the death of her baby, and to "watch her reac¬tion." Before Debbie Bradley informed Valerie of the death, she and/or someone else brought out into the hallway outside the Chaplain's office a restraint chair, which is a punishment and physical restraint device charac¬terized by Amnesty International as a torture device. It has been implicated in the deaths of several prisoners within the last decade in this country. Almost as soon as Debbie Bradley informed Valerie of the death of her baby, guards locked Valerie into the restraint chair and she was not released until medical apparently got approval to let her out. This caused massive psychological and physical trauma to a traumatized woman whom the state had already decided was mentally ill. EXHIBIT T – Incident Report and Complaint written to the State Prosecutor's office and Sheriff's office re¬garding Restraint Chair Incident; also see Testamentary Evidence of Chap¬lain Richard Roberts, summarized by Leora Rosen and Michelle Etlin from conversations after the fact. [Documentary and Testamentary evi¬dence] Leora Rosen later made a complaint to the Office of the State Prosecutor of Maryland concerning this incident, but Mr. Rohrbach's office told her that this was to be investigated by the Sheriff. In other words, this was a fraudu¬lent investigation, in which the Sheriff was given the duty of investigating his own office's conduct, conduct that he obviously not only approved of, but probably also conceived of, for improper purposes. This occurred (the incident itself, not the investigation) one day after a homeless man, one Jerome Madison, was arrested by the police and taken to HCDC and killed while in custody; the charge was "trespassing." The Sheriff's office had also apparently investigated that death and found "no wrongdoing" on the part of the individuals who caused the death. The County is now being sued for $45 million as a result.
26. June 2009: Valerie was not permitted to attend her baby's fune¬ral. There was a very strange situation occurring at, before, and even after the funeral. Appar¬ently, Karl Goodman brought some kind of motion to have the court award Gendelman retroactive "custody" or "guardianship" or control over the baby for the period of time that the baby was alive, so that this would establish Gendelman's right to make unilateral decisions about the baby and even about his burial without Valerie having a right to any decision-making. Again, Roger Malik was responsible to represent Valerie's position. Valerie did not want the baby's body taken to Israel where she would not even be able to visit and pray at the grave. That was exactly what Gendelman wan¬ted to do, so that his Israeli family could visit and pray at the grave without having to travel to the States. Instead of simply defending Valerie's position with respect to the body of her dead baby, Malik seems to have chosen to "cut a deal" with Valerie's FATHER and Gendelman, on her behalf, to pre¬serve the right to have the baby buried in the US. Reportedly, Gendelman deman¬ded $50,000, which continued to be negotiated down to $25,000.00 from Ken Judd to agree to bury the baby in Baltimore (as if he would not have lost his bid to remove the body of an American baby who was born and died on American soil!). Apparently, as ridiculous as this appears, Ken Judd actually paid Gendelman $13,000 to agree to the Ameri¬can burial, which deal was consummated by the public defender (!) and which took place. In attendance at the funeral were: Gendel¬man, his Rabbi (who officiated), Michael and Jill Judd, Ken Judd (the grandfather), and, strangely, Russell Carlton and other Carlton family and friends! Absent were the mother and the maternal grand-mother, Lenna Gordon. [Hoards of Testamentary evidence, also documentation from the CINA proceeding including motion made after the death of the baby.]
27. June through September, 2009: John Janowich "worked" on the case by doing almost nothing for several months. He then gave the prosecu¬tor a three month extension – without getting any consideration for it – to enable the prosecutor to go through Valerie's (and Russell's) computer for "more" pro¬secution evidence. [Documentary evidence is available in the court file; we do not have it.]
28. July 16, 2009: Unbeknownst to Valerie, Janowich entered a plea of NCR against her will in mid-July, and had her shipped to Spring Grove Hospital, the state mental hospi¬tal, in the second or third week of August. Valerie had not agreed to plead NCR and speci¬fically refused to do so, for to do so is to tacitly admit that she committed the crimes alleged, but that she did so under the influ¬ence of some sort of mental insufficiency or insanity. Valerie still main¬tained that she had not commit¬ted a single one of the crimes charged, and there was no evidence that she did. Janowich was aware by this time that Leora and Michelle knew he wanted Valerie to plead NCR, and that they also knew that she opposed it. He was also aware that Michelle and Leora were mistrustful of him and had tried to replace him. He told Valerie numerous times that no other lawyer was going to be permitted to take her case, and that if any pro bono lawyer tried to assist in any way, even to do a bail reduction hearing, then she would have NO COUNSEL because he would be off the case and nobody else could get on the case. While he was threatening Valerie like this, he was being cagey with Leora, telling her that he just wanted Valerie to be EVALUTED to see what he could do as her defense counsel, and that he was having a problem defen¬ding her in that she "would not concentrate on the serious charges against her" when he spent time with her in the jail. Each time this came up, Rosen pointed out to him that there was no valid pro¬secution evidence AGAINST her and that in view of the lack of evi¬dence, there was not much she had to do to defend herself since any lawyer, faced with a paucity of prosecution evidence, can make his defense of his client out of that fact alone. Mean¬while, Rosen and others were trying to locate other counsel for Valerie because of the recent indica¬tions that Janowich was malfunctioning. They also appealed to the head of the Public Defender's Office to transfer the case from Janowich to Liza Lazear, who worked for the PD's office and had a good reputation for defending sex abuse charges. In the meantime, a paralegal in the PD's office informed Leora "on the QT" that: (a) Bruce Smith, the prosecutor, had joined the prosecutor's office in anger at the PD's office because he used to be a PD and he was in line for promotion, but when the boss retired, he was passed over for promotion and was resentful; (b) that ever since he joined the prosecutor's office, he was running what they called a "sex abuse assembly line" in the prosecutor's office, making frivolous charges against parents and locking them up for as much as two years before either dropping the charges or losing the trials after the damage had been done, if he couldn't get them to plead guilty for "time served"; (c) that he was doing this out of rage in order to make the PDs all work very hard on messy cases so that they were overworked and stressed out; (d) that Janowich was a very good lawyer but he was depressed because of this situation and he was not functioning well but he meant well; and (e) that Janowich was not going to get zealous in his defense of Valerie because he thought she should plead "NCR" and get it over with. [Testamentary evidence only, but credible] Meanwhile, Rosen, Valerie and Roger Malik had insisted that Valerie be re-tested for her learning disability to at the very least argue needed accommodation's while working with her on her defense. Janowitch had told Valerie that the competency evaluation was simply the first step in her disability retesting to further deceive Valerie on his true intentions.
29. Early August, 2009: On August 11, 2009, Roger Malik and John Jano¬wich met with Lenna (Valerie's mother) and Leora shortly after having met with Valerie in the jail. They said that they had come away from the meeting "ecstatic" because there was "no credible evidence" against Valerie. They gave the transcripts of both little girls' interviews, and the DVDs of the two interviews, to Rosen at that meeting, as the materials the prosecution had provided to them as "evi-dence." [Docu¬mentary evidence mentioned above] Janowich said he was giving this information to Rosen so she could assist in the preparation of Valerie's defense. This was in preparation for a trial date in late September. Three days later, Rosen found out that Janowich was planning to have Valerie shipped to Spring Grove Psychiatric Hospital (state psychiatric facility) as "not criminally responsible by reason of insanity." This was very peculiar, since it basically means that the defendant agrees she did the crimes but enters a plea saying she was not committing the crimes because of criminality, but because of insanity. It necessarily applies only if the crimes were actually committed.
On August 19th, I retained Mark Mills. From August 20th to 24th we tried to get Mark Mills in to see Valerie in the jail, and you were trying to work things out with Capasso, and Janowich was not thrilled.
August 25th Valerie was transported to Spring Grove.
August 27th Mark Mills did his evaluation.
30. August 2009: On August 17, Janoch had some doctor's report used to declare Valerie "incompetent" to stand trial because, he said, he had trouble communicating with her. When her mother found out and demanded to know what was going on (still not having been told that the NCR plea was entered on July 16), Janowich e-mailed her that it was necessary to send Valerie to Spring Grove because he couldn't communicate with his client, despite she had already passed the competency evaluation with "flying colors". (Leora had already tried to have him replaced by a PD who COULD communicate with her and he refused.) In order to forestall the headlong rush of the prose¬cution and de¬fense to obtain a plea of NCR from Valerie (which would prob¬ably mean that she could be kept in a mental hospital until her children had both reached age 18, at STATE EXPENSE!), and still not realizing that Janowich had already entered the plea on his client's behalf, Leora privately retained a for¬ensic psychiatrist, Mark J. Mills, JD, MD, on August 19, to do a proper competency evaluation. Dr. Mills tried to get Janowich to help arrange for him to evaluate Valerie but Janowich blocked it instead. Janowich had Valerie transported to Spring Grove Hospital on August 25, 2009; she was horrifically injured by the guards who transported her out there. Dr. Mills drove out to Spring Grove Hos¬pital on august 27 and performed his evaluation and also demanded, and got, medical attention (including X-rays) for Valerie's injured wrist and ankle, and got pain medications prescribed for her. He did his evaluation without the cooperation of the defense lawyer, and after doing a complete work-up, including administering a comprehen¬sive standardized forensic test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Dr. Mills wrote a preliminary report addressed directly to Dr. Rosen to inform her that he had come to the conclusion that Valerie Carlton was not psychiatrically unable to stand trial. He also included, in his report rendered a few days later, that he had made a preliminary evaluation of the evidence against Valerie and did not believe it would be difficult to defend her on the issue of actual innocence, because the evidence against her was so weak and easily controverted. EXHIBIT U – Two defense reports from Dr. Mills, rendered to Dr. Leora Rosen and forwarded by her to Janowich. [Documen¬tary evidence backed up by testamentary evidence available pro bono]
31. Relating back to June 2009: Meanwhile, in the various press reports issued by the prosecutor in June 2009, there had been a public call for parents to bring their children in to Harford County CPS to be inter¬viewed about Valerie possibly having molested them at some point in time. Ron Wilson, the father of Winnifer's best friend Mimi, who spent a lot of time playing with Winnifer at Valerie's house over the course of several years, brought his daughter in to CPS for an interview, as requested. Mimi was interviewed and her father was told that she revealed no sexual abuse by Valerie. CPS has refused to turn over that exculpatory interview. Rosen and Valerie herself have several times notified Janowich of that interview and actually insisted that he put in a demand for the prose¬cutor to produce that interview, but to date, apparently that was not done. It is probably not only exculpatory but probably also "gives the lie" to the interview of Natalie Anders, who was at the house much less frequently and for much less time. [Documentary evidence must be available but the prose¬cu¬tor and CPS are apparently still hiding it; there is testamentary evidence that the interview was done and that the parent was informed that the child had revealed NO ABUSE.]
32. Late 2009, early 2010: As the trial date approached, Rosen gave to Dr. Mills the materials Janowich had given her to help with Valerie's defense, and Dr. Mills per¬formed an in-depth eval¬uation of the transcripts and tapes. He concluded not only that the charges were utter¬ly preposterous, but also that the interviews were serious¬ly flawed. Dr. Mills opined that Winnifer's interview was indi¬cative of a child whose needs were being neglected by the fact that she was being deprived of her mother's love and company. This report was handed to Janowich personally by Leora in January 2010, but instead of being pleased to have his case enhanced so beautifully without the need for any work on his part, Janowich was utterly non-responsive to her and failed to discuss the matter with Dr. Mills, even after all the work was done for free and Dr. Mills indicated that he would testify for free as well. EXHIBIT V – Dr. Mills' report debunking the evi¬dence and demonstrating what testi¬mony he was prepared to offer at trial. [Documentary evidence backed up by testamentary evidence] The paralegal said at this point that the wording of the report was too "verbose" and the report was considered "too long," although it had only been prepared for the defense to see what the expert's testimony could cover at trial.
33. January 2010: Although Janowich sent a subpoena to Dr. Mills for January 8, 2010, the date set for trial, he the told Dr. Mills not to bother showing up because the trial would be postponed again. Leora questioned this because it was obvious that the defense was ready and that the prosecu¬tion had no evidence. The tapes had already been thrown out – they were illegally recorded and could not be used as evidence in a criminal trial -- and it appeared that Gendelman probably did not want to testify. It was under¬stood that Karen Anders did not want her daughter to be on the stand to tes¬tify, and she herself might not want to be on the stand either. It looked like the prosecution's case was falling apart, even as weak as it had started out. Yet Janowich calmly asserted that the trial would not take place because the court's calendar was too full. This was very suspicious, because as de¬fense counsel for an incarcerated prisoner who was innocent, Janowich should have already issued a demand for a speedy trial, which would have kicked in the Constitutional law that the prosecution had to go to trial in ten days or fold. Yet Janowich did not even put in such a motion AFTER the trial was, predictably, postponed yet again. Janowich obviously knew that this was the plan because he had not even prepared Dr. Mills for his tes¬timony, some¬thing that would have taken a maximum of two hours.
34. A combination of factors began to convince Valerie's advocates that Janowich probably was actually "dirty" as Valerie had initially insisted. (They had not believed her because she seemed paranoid when she spoke like that, and one doesn't ordinarily think of public defenders as collusive with the prosecution against their own clients.) But the evidence became impossible to ignore:
(a) Janowich had entered an NCR plea against Valerie's interest and without her knowledge or consent;
(b) Janowich had almost blocked Dr. Mills from evaluating the client in her own interests;
(c) Janowich had allowed the prosecutor to put off the trial in spite of the fact that there was no real evidence against Valerie and he could have gotten her out of jail very quickly if the prosecutor had to follow Constitutional law requiring speedy public trials;
(d) Janowich's weak and inadequate motion for change of venue was woefully substandard;
(e) Janowich had failed to register a complaint when his client was repeatedly mistreated in the jail;
(f) Janowich did not even try to use the Mills report to good effect and did not try to get his client out on bail, although the state's case was practically laughable;
(g) Janowich had opposed another member of the PD's office taking over the case when it was suggested, and that other member of the PD's office had a very good record defending sex abuse charges;
(h) Janowich had failed to demand the exculpatory evidence even when it was pointed out to him;
(i) Janowich had not countermanded the bad press his client was receiving, when he was free to do so; and
(j) Janowich had failed to make a "speedy trial demand" when the trial was put off unreasonably and he was asked to make such a request; had he made it, the trial would have to come on within ten days or the charges could be dismissed.
Meanwhile, Valerie actively and vocally called for John Janowich to be sued but she couldn't find anyone to help her sue him. Rosen made a complaint against Janowich to the Bar Association but it was rejected because Rosen was not the defendant in the case. The fact that Valerie and Leora were eager to sue Janowich got around, either inside the jail or outside the jail, and Janowich found out about it. On or about February 4, 2010, Janowich visited Valerie in the jail and said to her that he had heard she had tried to hire another lawyer, and asked her if she had another lawyer. She was noncommittal because she did not trust him. (She did know, by that point in time, that another lawyer had been retained for her by a group of people from three different countries who had donated money to her cause.) Janowich told her that he was aware that she wanted to sue him, but he said, "Good luck with that, because you're going to prison for a long time." She asked why he would say such a thing, since there was no serious evidence against her, the phone tapes had been thrown out (Gendelman had made the phone tapes illegally) and Mark Mills had "trashed" the interviews. Jano¬wich answered that although there were 33 potential witnesses, he would only call three, and "Mark Mills is NOT going to be ONE of them." She asked why he would not call Mark Mills, who was donating the testimony for free. His answer was that "Mark Mills is a lunatic" based on the fact that his report, exonerating Valerie, was so strong, and was written in such unequivocal language. [Testamentary evidence, but well corroborated]
35. February 2010: Leora worked together with a national organiza¬tion, the Aleph Institute, and with individuals in England and South Africa, to raise funds to hire a decent defense lawyer for Valerie. They located Isaac Klein, Esq. of Baltimore, who agreed to take the case. He had not filed his appearance in the case by the time Janowich threatened Valerie with long imprisonment and essentially admitted that he intended to "throw" the case. Klein later filed his notice of appearance in the case, on or about February 17, 2010. [Documentary evidence]
36. February, 2010: Klein's first act when he got on the case was to pay a visit to the prosecutor in order to talk about either dropping the charges, working out a bail reduction or personal recognizance, etc. He spoke with Bruce Smith. Smith apparently said that Klein should give him a proposal as to what he would suggest for an alternative to incarceration. There was an offer from Rabbi Krantz in Silver Spring that he could place Valerie, in his custody, in a halfway house that he maintained for Jewish women, and Klein apparently told Smith that he would bring him a proposal in several days so that Valerie could get out of jail pending trial. [Testamen¬tary evidence, available from Mr. Klein]
37. March 7, 2010: On a Saturday night, Valerie phoned Leora at approximately 10 o'clock p.m. and told her that she had been essentially attacked physically by a guard and that he and she had wrestled for 12 minutes, that she was hurt, and that she had defended herself with her ballpoint pen (which she wrapped in saran wrap, as did all the other priso¬ners, to make it easier to write with) by trying to stab him as he lay on top of her. She said they refused to allow her to call her lawyer, Isaac Klein, and told her that she was being charged with new felonies for assaulting a guard and that she would have a public defender, not her own lawyer, on the new charges. She said someone from medical had allowed her to call Leora, but they had specifically forbidden her to call Isaac. Leora did not know what to do and did not immediately realize that Valerie's rights were violated by that in and of itself, since
(a) the public defender's office now had conflict in representing Valerie, since it was known that Valerie was going to sue them for at least malpractice if not for other tortious conduct against her; and
(b) They were denying Valerie's Sixth Amendment rights by forcing her into her court appearances in a criminal charge without her chosen counsel.
While Leora spent several days trying to arrange that Isaac would enter an appear¬ance on the new charges, Valerie was arraigned while being "defended" by the public defender, an unconstitutional deprivation of her right to effective assistance of counsel, and she was jailed in solitary on a "no-bail" so that she would not be able to get out of jail pending trial. It was almost laughable how obvious this ploy was on the part of the prosecutor and the Sheriff. They could not risk Valerie getting out of jail pending trial because then they would have no more opportunity to mistreat and abuse her into a coerced "NCR" plea. The officer she allegedly assaulted had been "assaulted" by three other prisoners before; his career path seemed to in¬clude frequent victimization by prisoners, even before the dangerous pedo¬phile stabbed him with a pen. EXHIBIT W – charging documents and indictments for assault of Officer Jouracek; public defender's office file on new charges; history of assaults upon Officer Jouracek. [Documentary evidence]
38. When Klein noticed his appearance on the new charges of assault against an officer with a dangerous weapon, he asked for the videotape that the jail alleged it had of the incident. He was told that it could not be deli¬vered to him yet because it was "between the Sheriff's office and the prose¬cutor's office." That distance is about 100 yards. It still has not been delivered. Valerie was placed in solitary confinement on May 7, 2010 and has been kept there ever since. Dr. Mills wrote to the warden to say that this was psychologically contraindicated but the jail personnel pretended that they could only terminate these brutal conditions if Dr. Mills would "guaran¬tee" that Valerie would not again become violent. Of course that is a ridicu¬lous request and could not be acceded to by any medical professional. In addition, since the video tape has not yet been delivered, it is not known whether the prior "violence" was self-defense on Valerie's part or not. There are indications that the HCDC personnel have in the past attacked inmates and even raped inmates; Valerie has no record of having been vio¬lent in over 40 years of her life and it is unlikely that she would attack a guard with a pen when the guards are armed and dangerous.
39. Klein was of the opinion that it was possible that there actually was a basis for a defense of NCR to these new charges, for several reasons:
(a) Jail policy says that an officer of the opposite gender as a prisoner is not permitted to lay hands on a prisoner without another officer present, and Jouracek was there alone with Valerie when he lay hands on her;
(b) Although Valerie had asked for a supervisor to come to deal with the situation between herself and the officer, it apparently took 12 minutes for the supervisor, or another guard, to show up, and when they did show up, she was underneath Jouracek and both he and she were "struggling"; and
(c) Valerie was still experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder and flashbacks because of the restraining chair incident the day she was in-formed her baby died, and she may have lost control of her senses temporar¬ily when she was being groped or attacked by a large male guard. Klein wanted Valerie re-evaluated by Dr. Mills, so he called the jail to arrange it. He was told that he could not bring in Dr. Mills without first obtaining a court order. This proved to have been untrue. It caused a delay of more than a week in getting Valerie examined. Finally, Michelle phoned around to four different counties in Maryland and asked the wardens' offices of the jails what was needed for the defense counsel to bring in a medical doctor to evaluate an inmate; every single one of them said that no court order was needed and that defense counsel could do that any time he wanted to, by simply notifying the warden's office that it was defense personnel. Finally, pressure from the Aleph Institute and four private rabbis AND the gover¬nor's office AND the County Executive caused the Sheriff's office to back down and allow this obvious right to be exercised, and Dr. Mills evaluated Valerie. He then said that he would have to view the videotape to determine exactly what he thought about the incident, from the point of view of the patient's mental health. He still has not been given that videotape. It is perfectly clear that this is obstruction and that it is deliberate and that the point of it is to deny Valerie a fair trial and to coerce a plea from her on all the counts against her.
40. Shortly after filing his appearance in the new assault charges, Klein happened upon Bruce Smith in the hall and began to chat with him. He mentioned that it was possible that Valerie was going to NCR to the assault charges. He suggested, "that way you get what you want anyway and you can drop those other charges." Smith said he HAD TO HAVE Valerie NCR to all the original charges as well. Klein said to him, "That will never happen."
41. Since that time, Valerie has been kept in Solitary confinement, allegedly because she is violent and dangerous, but it is obvious that she is not and it is also obvious that the purpose of this confinement is to coerce a plea from her and to drive her mad if she doesn't comply with this plan, which was the plan since the original obviously false charges were leveled against her. Various advocates and Rabbis have called the Sheriff and asked that this cruelty be stopped, but the Sheriff's department has made various cosmetic demands in order to let her out of solitary, such as demanding that Dr. Mills send them a letter guaranteeing that she will not be violent again. This is an obvious ploy on their part to try to set it up so that they can des¬troy the testimony of Dr. Mills, by saying that he falsely claimed that she was not going to be violent, when they will simply set up another incident to prove that she is. While they have coercive control over her, and have already demonstrated prosecutorial misconduct, deliberate corruption and abusive ill will, frank torture and mental torment, they can do as they please. Furthermore, the jail has a reputation for killing people when they are seri¬ously challenged because of prior wrong-doing. Their purpose in the begin¬ning was to cause Valerie to enter an NCR plea so that they could keep her away from her children forever; they have only changed their tactics and not their goals.
42. Meanwhile, Leora Rosen put up a webpage in January 2010 and this has stirred up quite a bit of excitement, positive and negative, in the community, about the case. Information has come in through the web-site that has revealed or highlighted the following points:
(a) Russell Carlton has told people that not even HE believes Valerie molested Winnifer; He has admitted this, for instance, to Valerie's brother Michael Judd, who wanted it to be kept a secret. (Michael Judd and his wife have, in fact, insisted that Valerie's own mother not divulge this informa¬tion, as critical as it is in an ongoing criminal case! When information came out that this fact was known and even publicized, Jill Judd became incensed at Valerie's mother for revealing this secret.)
(b) Nobody else has any real evidence that Valerie ever molested any children, but they believe that the underlying purpose of keeping Valerie in jail or in a mental hospital is laudable in itself and therefore justifies the false charges and whatever else it takes to accomplish that goal.
(c) Although the alleged abuse of Winnifer by her mother was never really investigated properly according to the laws of the State of Maryland applicable to the social service agencies responsible for the protection of children, there is no serious effort anywhere in the community to organize or effect a genuine child protective services evaluation of the situation in which Winnifer now lives. There was apparently no real concern about her as an allegedly molested child.
(d) It is generally believed that Winnifer should not be forced to tes¬tify in court against her mother, and it is clear that it has been impossible for the prosecutor to actually MAKE Winnifer testify against her mother; this has caused the child to endure all kinds of negative pressure from her father's family and from the prosecutor and she is having a negative reaction to this kind of mental abuse. Her neighbor Denise describes her as "going off of control" because of the effort to force her to testify against her mom.
(e) It is generally understood that Valerie is going to sue many people for making false allegations, for obstructing justice, and for the wrongful removal and then negligent death of her baby, and they want to prevent her from being able to sue by making sure she is either in prison or in a mental hospital for many decades. This was specifically mentioned by her own counsel in the public defender's office.
(f) It is generally understood that there are not many people who are willing to stand up to the forces that are aligned against Valerie Carlton, and individuals, such as the child's first-grade teacher, who may actually care about what is done and whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust, are not likely to throw a lot of money or energy into defending Valerie's rights. It seems that most people are not being told whole stories or accurate stories; when the web-page makes revelations about what is really happening, the state objects to the information being promulgated and the wrong-doers carry on about the inappropriateness of trying to defend Valerie Carlton.
(g) Gendelman has now decided that the best course of action for him is to get Valerie to cooperate with him in suing the state for the wrongful death of HIS baby. Since he was not able to obtain custody post mortem, he will have to have Valerie's cooperation to some extent in order to profit from this tragedy; this throws a new twist into the proceedings.
(h) The entire case was brought because the two fathers wanted Valerie to be out of the lives of their (and her) two children; they do not even seriously pretend that this is about the actual criminal charges against her; their defense of what has been done to her is that she was a bad mother, so they needed to get her contact with THEIR children stopped and the custody courts would not do that for them, or at least, would not do it for them completely or cheaply.
(i) The situation with the dead baby, Max Carlton, has given rise to much speculation, most of which has been promulgated by either Russell Carlton (to "prove" that Valerie is "insane") and/or by Gendelman (to "prove" that he should have had sole custody of HIS baby rather than being forced to go to court to get his heir away from the mother).
43. Actual confirmed information about the death of the baby:
(a) One article appeared, in the local Delaware newspaper (the DelMarvaNOW), of Dewey Beach, Delaware, where the baby died on June 12, 2009. Written by staff writer Alex Ruoff, it described the death as hav¬ing taken place in the wee hours of the morning of June 12, 2009, in the summer house of Jill and Michael Judd, in Dewey Beach, Delaware. The article said that the infant was found suffocated in blankets, where he had been sleeping with the nanny in a bed, rather than in a crib, and apparently he had fallen between the bed and the wall, in blankets. Later, the coroner apparently pronounced the death "accidental asphyxiation." Yet the follow¬ing false and patently ridiculous stories have been told recently by various individuals who have written comments in to the webpage or whose version of events has reached Leora and Michelle through personal e-mails from various outraged citizens who oppose the defense of the defendant:
(i) That the child died of neglect because Valerie hired an alcoholic baby-sitter to care for her baby;
(ii) That the child died because the foster father (Michael Judd), foster mother (Jill Judd) AND the baby-sitter were all three drunk on the night of the death (this told to Leora by Gendelman himself);
(iii) That Valerie reacted to the news of her baby's death in an "insane" way (probably told to Russell by Debbie Bradley, and there¬after promulgated to others along with many other derogatory myths about Valerie);
(iv) That Valerie tried to extort money out of the father of the baby so that he could pay her for the privilege of removing the baby's body from this country and transporting it overseas for burial; this was said to have been Valerie's plan so that she could "get money to get out of jail";
(v) That Valerie's criminal behavior resulted in the death of the baby and caused terrible grief and suffering to the innocent father, and this was a result of her bad behavior when she was not in jail, so she de¬serves to be in jail and in solitary confinement whether or not she actually committed any of the crimes with which she is charged;
(vi) That Valerie caused suffering to her daughter who was not only abused by being forced to say that she loved her mother, but who was also abused by having lost her baby brother (whom she never met because her visitation with her mother was taken away before he was born);
(vii) That the death of the baby boy was some sort of divine punishment of Valerie for some if not all of her sins; and, last but not necessarily as untrue as the others,
(viii) That the baby-sitter has now been indicted for some kind of negligent homicide or child endangerment, and that the trial of this charge has not taken place because the foster mother, who discovered the body together with the baby-sitter, is too mentally disturbed by the event to be able to testify in a trial.
44. A former enemy of Valerie's (now converted to a supporting citizen because of information she gained from our web-page) has come forward with the information that although her daughters played with Winnifer often and were with Valerie a lot, she did not even take the children in to be interviewed by CPS because she KNEW they were never molested or mistreated by Valerie. EXHIBIT X – E-mail correspondence from anonymous ex-friend of Valerie's whose children never experienced any untoward behavior on Valerie's part. [Documentary and Testamentary] This woman has contacted Valerie's lawyer and offered herself as a witness for the defense when and if this goes to trial.
Perhaps we should not put conclusions on the end of this document. For the present, they are here; they may be omitted.
I. This is a bad faith prosecution, brought to accomplish civil goals.
A. It is possible that it is a "back door civil commitment" that went wrong.
B. It is possible that it is a "termination of parental rights" action that does not have a chance in normal civil court, and therefore is being done improperly and unconstitutionally by means of a prosecution on false charges.
C. It is possible that it is simply the result of corruption and/or bribery, extortion, or other criminal conduct on the part of people who may have ways to profit from it or benefit from it.
II. This is a bad faith CPS action that has seriously, and probably irreparably, harmed at least two children, and killed one outright.
A. Anne Arundel County should intervene and open a CINA action on behalf of Winnifer Carlton immediately because, if nothing else has hurt her, the prosecution's attempt to get her to testify against her mother is obviously hurting her.
B. Winnifer had not had a guardian ad litem pending this entire case; Valerie has not been represented in the child abuse case brought against her with respect to either Winnifer or Natalie Anders. This case has denied her Sixth Amendment rights wholesale, and not just in the criminal action but also in the civil actions attendant to it.
*TO BE CONTINUED.......