The meeting went well in many respects, according to Rebecca's sister Barbara and family friend and interpreter, Lucie.
Rebecca's Public Defender did not attend as was previously discussed. He indicated that the meeting with the judge should have a non legal emphasis; more of an emotional appeal from Rebecca and family. That seemed to be good advice in the end and both Barbara and Lucie report that the judge was very open and receptive to them and to what they had to say.
Barbara talked from her prepared notes and Lucie interpreted. Additionally, Barbara had the opportunity to present Rebecca's Lloyd's Bank statements. Those should have been made available to her in the case file, but it was uncertain if that had been done. So, now we know that the judge has accurate and complete information regarding the flow of money through Rebecca's accounts. Remember, the prosecutor has stated that numerous transactions had been made through Rebecca's accounts and that just was not the case.
Barbara says that the Judge seemed genuinely involved and it looked like she got "it". She was very receptive and gracious to them. She asked questions and they answered them.
Barbara also left a letter from Rebecca for the Judge to consider. In the end, she said that she will study the case and probably in 6-8 months will have her decision. Apparently, the judge is overwhelmed with her workload and will not have an answer back by November, as she had promised before. I was very disappointed to hear that.
With the possibility that an innocent woman is sitting in such an environment, for no reason, I was hoping the judge would place a higher priority on reviewing her case. I was hoping that this meeting would prompt the judge to be motivated in resolving the situation immediately. That is apparently not the case. So, although Barbara and Lucie had a good meeting, the additional time frame leaves me with mixed feelings.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
A meeting with the Appeal Judge
On Wednesday, Sept 10th, Rebecca's sister, Barbara, along with Rebecca's Public Defender and a family friend serving as an interpreter, will meet with Ms. Maria del Pilar Parra, the judge for the appeal, to present the emotional and personal side of Rebecca Roth's case.
We have heard that this woman is above reproach. We hope this is true and that she vindicates Rebecca's claims of innocence and acquits. She could do this in spite of possible repercussions from her own system and colleagues. It will take great courage and resolve for her to acquit in the face of the prosecutor who is asking for an even higher number of years in Rebecca's sentencing in his prosecution appeal. He is asking, in his appeal for a total of 23 years!
The prosecutor feels that the original judge went lightly, only sentencing Rebecca to 9 years. Keep in mind that Alyn Waage, the mastermind behind this whole fraud case was sentenced to 10 years by the US Federal Court in their prosecution of him in what was considered an international case.
We also understand that this appeal judge does not fear the Mexican AFI, which is the equivalent of the US FBI. In many cases, when a judge in an appeal case rules against a previous judge and prosecutor, the Mexican AFI will haunt that judge and make life very difficult. This is done through intimidation, the creation of false claims of wrongdoing, and even threats to family. It's kind of a no holds barred free for all system that feeds on it's own when deemed necessary.
In June, we hired an attorney that is very familiar with the Tri West case and the Mexican judicial system to visit the Secretary of the Court and the Appeal Judge in hopes of having him highlight the evidence of Rebecca's innocence in the final conclusions of the prosecution's case against her.
Much of that 325 page document contains many pages of interviews, descriptions of properties, financial documents and such that have nothing to do with the case against Rebecca Roth. They were presented to make the case convoluted and difficult to sort through, concealing the lack of involvement or participation of any wrongdoing on her part. Many references were made to facts that had nothing to do with her. In other words, the case file was over documented and meant to obscure the truth.
In the meeting on Wednesday, Rebecca's Public Defender will have an opportunity to briefly point out some of the important items that do document Rebecca's innocence and her sister Barbara will have an opportunity to tell the part of the story that has never been really heard. The emotional side. The part of the story that tells of Rebecca's decision to move to a country she saw as Paradise and how she struggled to succeed in her own business and by taking a part time job with a wealthy Canadian, she became a victim and was deceived, just like the hundreds of investors in over 60 countries, by the organizer of one of the largest Internet fraud schemes in history.
I will have news of how this meeting went soon and hope to write of a positive reception by the judge. With that positive reception could come the acquittal that Rebecca Roth deserves and the end of her being a Prisoner in Paradise.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Canada knows
A quick question and answer email in March 2008 between Rebecca's sister, Barbara Moodhe and Glen Bradbury, assistant to the Honorable Dan McTeague, Official Opposition Critic for Consular Affairs, in Canada provided some very insightful answers. We have failed to receive any of this information from our own Consulate Officials or US Representatives.
The following is a transcript of that email:
Q.) Have you heard of Rebecca Roth, I am her sister. I am impressed with your efforts to help your Canadian citizen. My family and I have tried everything we know of to get the US Government involved and we have not succeeded. Feb. 13th was the 2nd year anniversary of Rebecca’s imprisonment.
A.) Yes, we are aware of Rebecca Roth.
Q.) Who is your counterpart in the U.S.? Could you help us get in touch with that person?
A.) Mr. McTeague is the Official Opposition Critic for Consular Affairs. There is no equivalent to this position in the US presidential/congressional government system. We have the British parliamentary system in Canada. In the U.S. the lead authority for the government on foreign affairs is the US Secretary of State (Ms. Rice). However, congressionally speaking, you also have some very influential representatives on the Congress and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees. Then, you have the regular congress and senate representatives.
Q.) Could you help form a coalition between the Canadian and U.S. governments to demand some sort of resolution?
A.) It would be virtually impossible to form a political coalition with U.S. and Canada governments. For one thing, Mr. McTeague is not in the governing party. He is in opposition.
Q.) There are 2 employees involved in this. Not just the Canadian. Mexico had 5 years to build a case against these two women and they didn’t do it. They started only after they arrested them.
A.) Yes, the case is a travesty in so many ways. One could argue that the authorities just filled in the blanks with Rebecca’s and Brenda's names on the charge sheet and eventually got around to taking them in - once there was no one else left to give them bribes.
Q.) They had both of these women listed as Pres. Fox’s achievements while in Office. They waited to arrest them until 2006, shortly before he went out of office. Why did they wait until then? Was it just to make it look like he had done something about the Alyn Waage scandal? An attorney uncovered something on the internet that showed this list of achievements. Until that was discovered, we were totally in the dark for why these two women were arrested. We have not been able to get answers to questions from our own government.
A.) Again, it appears that the arrests were motivated either by a quest for money or to advance the career of the prosecutor. It may also be politically motivated to uphold the former president's boast about the Waage fraud scheme being a tremendous victory in the fight against crime in Mexico.
Q.) In the realm of International Law what should the US Consulate and the Mexican Government have done that they didn’t do? Or what shouldn’t they have done that they did do?
A.) Under International law this case would have been thrown out long ago. To begin with, neither Rebecca nor Brenda should be in a general prison population while their trial is progressing. Fundamentally, their rights of due process and under the universally accepted principle of "national treatment" throughout the Mexican judicial process to date were fundamentally ignored. They were not provided with interpretation; they were not informed they were suspects prior to being interrogated by police; they were denied appropriate legal counsel; they were not given ample time or resources to receive and respond to the charges; the right to supply witnesses or cross-examination were limited or denied outright. In short, this case has been a travesty from the outset. The judge had already written the verdict without any consideration of the defense and, finally, it is clear that if money were offered in bribes, there would not even be a case.
(end of email transcript)
This dialogue is interesting in many ways.
It shows how politics can muddy the waters for the citizens it is intended to serve, how the Mexican legal system is run amok and needs a complete overhaul, how Consulate and Embassy officials neither serve nor communicate with others that can serve. You have to ask yourself why wouldn't the US Consulate take a more active role from the outset and then why, considering the magnitude that Mr Bradbury states how Rebecca's rights were abused, wouldn't the Consulate get the State Department involved?
This whole mess and the response of the US Consulate and State Department and the continuing lack of interest on the part of the US Reps in Congress to help a US citizen should serve as a loud and clear message. Anyone thinking of travelling abroad better realize that they will be on their own and that the belief that most people hold that our government is always there to protect us in times of need is indeed a trust misplaced.
The following is a transcript of that email:
Q.) Have you heard of Rebecca Roth, I am her sister. I am impressed with your efforts to help your Canadian citizen. My family and I have tried everything we know of to get the US Government involved and we have not succeeded. Feb. 13th was the 2nd year anniversary of Rebecca’s imprisonment.
A.) Yes, we are aware of Rebecca Roth.
Q.) Who is your counterpart in the U.S.? Could you help us get in touch with that person?
A.) Mr. McTeague is the Official Opposition Critic for Consular Affairs. There is no equivalent to this position in the US presidential/congressional government system. We have the British parliamentary system in Canada. In the U.S. the lead authority for the government on foreign affairs is the US Secretary of State (Ms. Rice). However, congressionally speaking, you also have some very influential representatives on the Congress and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees. Then, you have the regular congress and senate representatives.
Q.) Could you help form a coalition between the Canadian and U.S. governments to demand some sort of resolution?
A.) It would be virtually impossible to form a political coalition with U.S. and Canada governments. For one thing, Mr. McTeague is not in the governing party. He is in opposition.
Q.) There are 2 employees involved in this. Not just the Canadian. Mexico had 5 years to build a case against these two women and they didn’t do it. They started only after they arrested them.
A.) Yes, the case is a travesty in so many ways. One could argue that the authorities just filled in the blanks with Rebecca’s and Brenda's names on the charge sheet and eventually got around to taking them in - once there was no one else left to give them bribes.
Q.) They had both of these women listed as Pres. Fox’s achievements while in Office. They waited to arrest them until 2006, shortly before he went out of office. Why did they wait until then? Was it just to make it look like he had done something about the Alyn Waage scandal? An attorney uncovered something on the internet that showed this list of achievements. Until that was discovered, we were totally in the dark for why these two women were arrested. We have not been able to get answers to questions from our own government.
A.) Again, it appears that the arrests were motivated either by a quest for money or to advance the career of the prosecutor. It may also be politically motivated to uphold the former president's boast about the Waage fraud scheme being a tremendous victory in the fight against crime in Mexico.
Q.) In the realm of International Law what should the US Consulate and the Mexican Government have done that they didn’t do? Or what shouldn’t they have done that they did do?
A.) Under International law this case would have been thrown out long ago. To begin with, neither Rebecca nor Brenda should be in a general prison population while their trial is progressing. Fundamentally, their rights of due process and under the universally accepted principle of "national treatment" throughout the Mexican judicial process to date were fundamentally ignored. They were not provided with interpretation; they were not informed they were suspects prior to being interrogated by police; they were denied appropriate legal counsel; they were not given ample time or resources to receive and respond to the charges; the right to supply witnesses or cross-examination were limited or denied outright. In short, this case has been a travesty from the outset. The judge had already written the verdict without any consideration of the defense and, finally, it is clear that if money were offered in bribes, there would not even be a case.
(end of email transcript)
This dialogue is interesting in many ways.
It shows how politics can muddy the waters for the citizens it is intended to serve, how the Mexican legal system is run amok and needs a complete overhaul, how Consulate and Embassy officials neither serve nor communicate with others that can serve. You have to ask yourself why wouldn't the US Consulate take a more active role from the outset and then why, considering the magnitude that Mr Bradbury states how Rebecca's rights were abused, wouldn't the Consulate get the State Department involved?
This whole mess and the response of the US Consulate and State Department and the continuing lack of interest on the part of the US Reps in Congress to help a US citizen should serve as a loud and clear message. Anyone thinking of travelling abroad better realize that they will be on their own and that the belief that most people hold that our government is always there to protect us in times of need is indeed a trust misplaced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
