Massachusetts: Raped and Impregnated at 14, Girl Must Now Share Parental Rights with Her Attacker

Martha Coakley is GRANDSTANDING in her campaign for Governor....just in case you hadn't noticed. And Martha will loose just as she did last time!

Her campaign motto? "Don't Make Waves!"

Don't expect any significant statement from the AG....she wouldn't want to alienate any potential campaign supporters! And she's not even doing her job!  

The AG's Office ignored the ILLEGAL PLAINRIDGE RAFFLE for more than ONE YEAR!
REFUSED TO PUT ANYTHING IN WRITING!

In the wake of the Piontkowski/Plainridge/misused funds, MARTHA DUCKS!
Even though a thorough investigation is needed.

This goes far beyond disgusting!


Courthouse News / By Iulia Filip

 

Raped and Impregnated at 14, Girl Must Now Share Parental Rights with Her Attacker

 

Rapist's paternity rights locks victim into 16-year relationship with him.

Photo Credit: Chameleon's Eye/Shutterstock.com

August 21, 2013 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

 

BOSTON (CN) - A rape victim sued Massachusetts to stop it from subjecting her to "a court-ordered 16-year unwanted relationship with her attacker" by giving him paternity rights over the child born from the rape.

     H.T., of Norwood, Mass., sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Federal Court.

"The plaintiff, a rape victim in a state criminal matter, became pregnant in 2009 at age 14 as a result of the crime and gave birth to her attacker's child," the lawsuit states.

"The defendant in the state criminal proceeding, age 20 at the time of the impregnation, was convicted of rape in 2011 and was sentenced to 16 years probation. Conditions of probation include an order that he initiate proceedings in family court and comply with that court's orders until the child reaches adulthood. The plaintiff here seeks to enjoin enforcement of so much of the state court's order as violates her federal rights by binding her to an unwanted 16-year legal relationship with her rapist."

H.T., who recently graduated from high school, says the order forces her to participate in unwanted court proceedings for 16 years with the man who raped her, and to spend money on legal fees.

     "The plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without relief from this court because she cannot choose not to participate in said family court proceedings without risking serious consequences, including the loss of custody of her child," the complaint states.

"Even if the family court ruled in the plaintiff's favor on issues currently in dispute, such as whether the criminal defendant should be granted visitation rights to the plaintiff's child, the plaintiff will suffer harm from the constant threat of new issues arising in family court until her child reaches adulthood, including, for example, efforts by the criminal defendant to seek to modify child support orders and enforce his parental rights at the trial court level and on appeal."

H.T. was 14 when 20-year-old Jamie Melendez raped her in the fall of 2009, making her pregnant, according to the complaint.

H.T. says she lived with her mother, who had to quit her job to care for the baby.

"The plaintiff and her mother repeatedly informed state officials that they wanted no contact with Melendez for any purpose and that they did not want the child born of the crime to have a relationship with Melendez," the complaint states.

"Melendez pleaded guilty to rape in September, 2011 (Norfolk Criminal Docket No . CR200900499) and was sentenced to probation for 16 years. As a condition of probation, Melendez was ordered to initiate proceedings in family court, declare paternity as to the child born of his crime, (paternity had already been determined in the criminal case, via DNA testing), and comply with the family court's orders throughout the probationary period. The plaintiff and her mother were adamantly opposed to participation in family court proceedings and repeatedly expressed this sentiment to state officials." (Parentheses in complaint).

In June 2012, H.T. found out that Melendez was seeking visitation rights with the child.

After a family court judge ordered Melendez to pay $110 a week in child support, he Melendez asked for visitation rights, and offered to withdraw his request in exchange for not having to pay child support, according to the lawsuit.

"Melendez had no prior contact with the child and had expressed no interest in the child, but no Massachusetts law forbids the enforcement of visitation rights by a biological father who causes a child's birth through the crime of rape," the complaint states.

The sentencing judge in the state criminal court denied H.T.'s request to order Melendez to pay criminal restitution instead of child support, and release her from any legal proceedings involving him.

H.T. asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to review the decision, but the single justice of the court found that she lacked standing to challenge the order. The justice agreed with the state court that H.T. could appeal any adverse rulings in family court.

H.T. appealed the ruling, but the full court affirmed the single justice's decision in June, according to the complaint.

H.T. says she never asserted an interest in the prosecution of Melendez. On the contrary, she seeks to be released from having any authority over his probationary conditions, according to the complaint.

"Through this action, the plaintiff requests that she be liberated from a state court order that not only imposes unlawfully on her liberty for 16 years, but also obligates her with the unwanted and inappropriate responsibility for ensuring Melendez's compliance with the conditions of his probation; an obligation that should rest exclusively with state officials," the complaint states.

H.T. claims the order subjects her to an unwanted legal relationship with her attacker, and violates due process and other constitutional rights.

"An estimated 35,000 babies are born from rape every year," the complaint states. "No state court has ever issued an order such as the one at issue here. Granting the plaintiff's requested relief will inhibit state court judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere from similarly depriving rape victims of their liberty, personal autonomy and due process."

H.T. seeks an injunction and annulment of the order.

She is represented by Wendy Murphy, co-director of New England Law School's Women's and Children's Advocacy Project.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the state had not yet reviewed the filing.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/raped-and-impregnated-14-girl-must-now-share-parental-rights-her-attacker

 

Scott Brown.....running for President?.....

WCVB Channel 5 Boston

 

Former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown says he may be exploring the possibility of a presidential bid in 2016. Would you like to see him run? http://ow.ly/o2l4g

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scott Brown

Searching for an unrelated article, the entry below appeared....posted in this forum...cross posted elsewhere ....a gentle reminder of Scott Brown's active lobbying while a U.S. Senator, for his bed bud, Gary Piontkowski, now a publicly recognized CROOK.

Mr. Piontkowski didn't need a gun or sophisticated plan....he just took it! When caught, the 'investors' even gave him more...such a deal!

Senator Scott Brown's other best buds were among those connected to Framingham's New England Compounding Center


These were not merely anonymous campaign contributors....the relationships go beyond and raise doubts about Scott Brown's judgement, as well as his lock-step endorsement of the Republican push for DE-REGULATION....well, until something horrific happens. Then they scream.....or ignore the death toll.

OTHER: Senator Scott Brown's Poor Judgement

Arizona Calling Out The Insane REPUBLICANS

Thirty years of trickle down economics hasn't worked; free trade has send 30 million factory jobs overseas where labor earns 25 cents on the dollar when compared to the American worker; they've taken away labor union benefits from workers and have stripped labor unions of their political power. Workers have no human rights in 26 of the 51 states in the USA.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Middleboro Remembers: A Senator Lobbying for Predatory Gambling?

Middleboro Remembers: A Senator Lobbying for Predatory Gambling?


Massachusetts voters are historically known for correcting their errors in the next election.
When you vote, please consider the letter to the editor below.

Senator Scott Brown returned from Washington, D.C. - a sitting Senator - to lobby for his buddies at Plainridge.

Is that what we want? A Senator lobbying for a Slot Barn? For Predatory Gambling?

 

Gráinne O'Malley

Here's a great letter to the editor about the connection between Scott Brown and expanded predatory gambling:

October 28, 2012
To the Editor,

When the two anti-casino candidates won the Foxboro selectmen races in May 2012, many thought the casino-in-Foxboro issue had been put to rest, particularly when the Kraft Group issued a press release stating it was "suspending" their efforts. However, "suspending" raised a red flag in my mind that they would be back, particularly if the Suffolk Downs location in East Boston and Revere ran into problems.

An article in the October 18th Foxboro Reporter, stated the Kraft Group submitted to the Planning Board on October 11th a set of "draft zoning clarifications/revisions." The article went on to say that a "resort, conference and/or entertainment facilities" and "resort amenities and personal services for occupants of the facilities" would be allowed in the Route 1 economic development area.

The Foxboro Reporter article also said that several people asked the Kraft Group representative if these proposals would allow for a casino. He would not answer their question.

An article in the October 25th Foxboro Reporter notes that a Foxboro Advisory Committee member wants the Kraft Group to sign a legally binding no-casino pledge in order to resolve the casino issue once and for all: "...All it (Kraft Group) needs to do is enter into an agreement...that is legally binding and that runs with the land, and can be recorded with the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds."

The article said that "a spokesman for the Kraft Group declined to comment Tuesday on the proposal."

You know, there's a saying: Sometimes no answer is an answer.

Given the above, a cautious person would have to believe that whatever casino activity was "suspended," no longer is.

I lived in Norfolk when the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority attempted in the 1990's to locate a Sludge Dump on the boundary line between Norfolk and Walpole. After several years of intense opposition to it, we finally stopped it.

A key factor in our success was having elected officials, both state and federal, being in our corner and going to bat for us.

This raises a very important question about the casino issue and the upcoming U. S. Senate race. Where does Scott Brown stand on having a casino on Route One in Foxboro? We can get a pretty good idea by traveling down Route One just four miles from Patriot Place to the Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville.

On April 26, 2012, at Boston.com, Jose Martinez, Boston Globe correspondent, said, "The track owners hope to expand their gambling operation to include the first slot-machine parlor in Massachusetts." They have a "$160 million plan to expand the racetrack."

August 9, 2012 was the opening day to submit applications to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. On August 9, 2012, at www.sunchronicle.com, Jim Hand of the Sun Chronicle, posted that "Plainridge Racecourse formally began the process of applying for a slot machine license by submitting a check for $400,000 to the state Gaming Commission." He said the deposit was non-refundable, and "Plainridge wants the only license the state is offering to operate 1,250 slot machines...." Hand's posting on August 16, 2012, notes that the Plainridge Racecourse is in the process of building a 1,000 car parking garage. "The hope is the garage will serve future customers of a racino the track owners want to build if they win the only state license for a slot machine parlor."

How does Scott Brown fit into the above picture?

On July 20, 2010, over two years ago, at Boston.com, Noah Bierman and Frank Phillips of the Boston Globe staff posted the following: "As a state senator, Brown was a strong advocate for Plainridge Racecourse, whose owner, Gary Piontkowski, has given, with family, $3,250 to Brown's political campaigns since 2003, who attended Brown's swearing-in as a (United States) senator, and who co-owned a horse with Brown's daughter."

"Senator Scott Brown has lobbied both Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray to legalize slot machines at the state's race tracks according to the governor and a legislative official on Beacon Hill....Brown called Murray in April (2010), shortly after the House passed a bill allowing slots at the race tracks, to voice his support and suggested that the Legislature authorize 1,500 slot machines at each track."

Harness Tracks of America's Executive Newsletter of July 31, 2008, noted that Scott Brown's daughter became a partner in ownership of a racing horse in April 2008 with Plainridge Racecourse president Gary Piontkowski. This was raised during a session of the Massachusetts State Senate when it was considering extension of the Massachusetts simulcasting law. The Newsletter stated that Scott Brown "pointed out that he had worked on behalf of Plainridge long before his daughter owned a horse..."

On January 26, 2009, at www.sunchronicle.com Michael Gelbwasser of the Sun Chronicle staff posted an article about a public meeting held at the race tack by Plainridge Racecourse President Gary Piontkowski to promote slot machines at race tracks. Gelbwasser wrote that Piontkowski "invited Plainville residents, town and state lawmakers and horsemen to the session."

State Senator Scott Brown attended the session and said: "If you folks are going to continue to support it, then we'll support it in the Legislature." Gelbwasser also wrote, "Plainridge Racecourse President Gary Piontkowski said Sunday he and his partners are ready to fund a $100 to 125 million renovation and expansion of the Route 1 track immediately if state lawmakers allow 1,500 slot machines there." It's interesting that in the above Boston Globe article about Scott Brown discussing slots at race tracks with Governor Patrick and Senate President Murray, that he suggested the same number of slot machines, "1500."

 

 

http://olmosfoundation.blogspot.com/2012/11/middleboro-remembers-senator-lobbying.html

Martha: Too busy running for Governor to do your job?

Attorney General Coakley:

While I realize that you're pre-occupied with running for Governor....I know! I know! It's just so time-consuming!

But maybe you could do your job?

The disqualification of Plainridge from holding a Slot Barn License raises FAR MORE QUESTIONS than were answered.

Your office ignored, then buried the ILLEGAL RAFFLE conducted by Plainridge for many years in clear violation of Massachusetts clearly written laws.

To allow

'we promise we won't continue to break the clearly written statute as we have for MANY, MANY years....'

is NOT ACCEPTABLE.....unless you want to soft-peddle BREAKING THE LAW.

Don't want to make waves in your run for Governor by upholding the law?

Don't want to put it in writing?

Let's just sweep this little puppy under the carpet!

Too many unanswered questions remain about the PLAINRIDGE CORRUPTION SCANDAL!

 

WHO IS ASKING? 

Just a few.....

1. What duties does the person in the 'MONEY ROOM' bear as far as disbursing Piotkowski's Piggy Bank?

2. If records were kept, who had access and was privy to those records?

3.Were taxes paid on Mr. Piontowski's CASH WITHDRAWALS?

4. Isn't the RACING COMMISSION supposed to audit the financial records of a race track? Who is?

5. If the CASH WITHDRAWALS were disclosed, who knew? who questioned? What's the governing statute?

6. If the Commonwealth is supposed to receive the FUNDS from Plainridge for disbursal, how was that accounted for? Who got short-changed? Was it the Commonwealth who was supposed be paid based on the 'HANDLE'? Was Plainville short-changed?

7. If this is CRIMINAL, can we count on more than 'we promise not to do it again' from the Attorney General's Office?

8. If Gary Piontkowski resigned in APRIL and the Town of PLainville negotiated and accepted a "Host Community Agreement" subsequent to that time, does that invalidate the Agreement? Doesn't that constitute 'NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH'?

9. Who is going to raise questions about the BLIND FAITH, LOYALTY and DEDICATION Plainville Town Officials seem to have placed in a bunch of CROOKS?

10. Plainville abutters were forced to endure MONTHS of endless BLASTING while Plainville Town Officials turned a deaf ear.....

The PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT of their property was superseded by Town Officials genuflecting to Plainridge as a PARKING GARAGE was erected in their backyards.

 11. Plainville lackS WATER, yet Joe Fernandes has dedicated himself to silencing questions and FACTS about WATER.  Doesn't he seem OVERLY DEDICATED to cramming ANY flawed deal through, surrendering any pretense of PROFESSIONALISM.

Where is the protection of Plainville's FUTURE?


Many more questions come to mind.....maybe you can interrupt your campaigning.....



 

Senator Scott Brown's Poor Judgement

Senator Scott Brown traveled from Washington to lobby Governor 'Slot Barns' Patrick for his best BUD, Gary Piontkowski who ingratiated himself with many others, unless, of course, you were an abutter he was forced to intimidate and bully.

There does seem to be an inordinate amount of BULLYING going on in Plainville.....

While former Senator Scott Brown's choice of friends and fund-raisers may seem questionable in regards to Plainridge/Piontkowski, don't ignore the Senator's connection to the New England Compounding Lab and his support for DE-REGULATION in all sizes and colors.

The Perennial Candidate Scott Brown might choose his friends more wisely. Even if the name Piontkowski is easily forgotten next election cycle, the avoidable deaths caused by his other best BUDS are not.

Scott Brown’s Pal Deemed Too Sleazy For Slots By State Commission

The Gaming Commission finds former Plainridge president Gary Piontkowski so corrupt that the racetrack is ineligible for slots.

By David S. Bernstein|Boston Daily|August 6, 2013

 

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission decided yesterday that Plainridge Racecourse’s recently-booted president Gary Piontkowski was so insanely sleazy and corrupt that the track had to be deemed ineligible for a slot machine license.

 

This result will be celebrated by the many Beacon Hill folks who have, over the years, described Piontkowski to me as someone who they feel dirty being in a room with. But it must be a bitter disappointment for Piontkowski’s No. 1 superfan and booster, Scott Brown.

 

The Plainridge facility is in Brown’s old state senate district, and over the years, the two developed a close friendship. Brown was well known to frequent the racecourse and enjoy a drink with his pal Gary. Piontkowski became a big donor and fundraiser for Brown; Brown became a hardy advocate for the racing industry—and in particular, for allowing Plainridge to fill its halls with slot machines.

In 2008, Piontkowski sold a 50 percent share in a trotter he owned to Brown’s younger daughter, Arianna, for $3,000. They co-owned the horse together, as it ran and won money, but that wasn’t seen as a potentially compromising business partnership for Brown because it’s perfectly normal for a successful businessman to go sharesies with a 16-year-old girl.
 

When Brown went on to become a US Senator in 2010, he demonstrated a weird fixation in his conversations with political leaders back in Massachusetts, including governor Deval Patrick and senate president Therese Murray. They would want to discuss issues of importance to the Commonwealth going on in Washington, like Republicans filibustering huge chunks of Medicaid funding. But all Brown wanted to talk about was how they should pass a gaming bill that put slot machines at Piontkowski’s track. The Globe‘s Joan Vennocchi dubbed him “Senator Slots.”
 

This April, as the Gaming Commission was doing its required investigation into Plainridge, Piontkowski abruptly retired as president, citing “health reasons.”
 

As we learned recently, the “health reasons” were that Piontkowski had been literally stuffing wads of the track’s money into his pockets for years, which is enough to make you sick. This revelation, uncovered by the Commission, came as a total surprise to Piontkowski’s business partners and fellow executives, because every time the track’s CFO had tried to tell them about it, they stuck their fingers in their ears and sang “My Old Kentucky Home” at the top of their lungs.
 

Once the Commission received testimony about the casual theft of well over a million dollars by the track’s president, however, the Plainridge powers leapt into action to save their chance for a slot machine license: they allowed Piontkowski to leave under a false “health reasons” pretense, without penalty or punishment and without repaying any of the money plus a full buy-out of his shares and an extra two years’ salary for his troubles. Because that’s exactly what you would expect any gambling establishment to do for somebody who stole $1.4 million out of their money room.
 

And they seem startled that the Commonwealth has decided that Plainridge shouldn’t be chosen as the recipient of the state’s only slots-only license.
 

I wonder what Scott Brown has to say about that decision. Is he sad that all his years of advocating for Plainridge to get slot machines has come a-cropper? Or does he not care, now that his buddy is no longer president and part-owner of the place?
 

And is Brown bothered by the fact that the guy he shared so many good times with—and accepted so much funding from—turns out to have been so sleazy?
 

I doubt we’ll hear much from the former US Senator on these questions. And if he is planning to run for something in 2014 (the latest scuttlebutt is that he wants to take on Ed Markey for Senate), he’s probably hoping that the media will have forgotten all about this by the time he gets around to announcing. I, for one, plan on remembering.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/06/scott-brown-pal-gary-piontkowski-plainridge-racecourse/



New England Compounding Lab, De-regulation and Jeopardizing Human Lives:

Framingham Pharmacy Contributed to Brown

Toyota and the Tea Baggers: Did you ever notice......

NECC owner bought $2.4M home here this spring

Dirty shoes? How did steroids get contaminated?

Putting Lives At Risk For Deregulation
The human cost of 'deregulation' and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
And some call themselves 'Christians'!.....
Patriotism

Compounding problems with health and safety oversight

Goose-Stepping Against Regulations

Plainridge: “a culture of fear and concealment pervasive in the operations”

A very special thanks to Mary-Ann Greanier who continued to ask the Attorney General's office about their investigation of the ILLEGAL Plainridge Raffle that violated Massachusetts Cahritable Gaming Laws, for researching the deed restriction that Plainridge used to intimidate and silence abutters forced to endure ENDLESS BLASTING in their backyards, for T.J. for standing up to the SLAPP suit brought by Plainridge intended to silence any opposition......

and dubious appreciation for Gary Piontkowski for revealing his inability to be trusted.....that most of us recognized long ago.

Dishonorable mention for the town leaders who failed to act to protect Plainville's Future, ignoring complaints, silencing the public and to Town Manager Joe Fernandes who genuflected too deeply....

Dishonorable mention to the media for ignoring concerns, and falling in love with the 'charismatic' Gary Piontkowski, as Mark Aresenault described him.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley REFUSED to do her job!

Gaming Commission Disqualifies Plainridge Slots Parlor

August 5th, 2013

 

BOSTON (AP) — The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has disqualified the owners of the Plainridge Racecourse from pursuing the state’s sole slots parlor license.

 

The commission issued a statement Monday saying Plainridge’s owners failed to present “clear and convincing evidence as to business practices that will likely lead to a successful gaming operation.”

 

The decision leaves four other slots applicants.

 

Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby said the decision to disqualify Plainridge followed a comprehensive background investigation and deliberations by the five-member commission.

 

The commission said the investigation revealed what it called “a culture of fear and concealment pervasive in the operations” of the Plainville facility. They said the most notable problem was former Plainridge head Gary Piontkowski’s withdrawals from the money room.

 

Also Monday, the commission allowed a slots proposal by Raynham Park to move forward.

 

http://www.wggb.com/2013/08/05/gaming-commission-disqualifies-plainridge-slots-parlor/