ARTICLES:
Hyne's Foe Snubbed Me: Undercover Mother
Latest Developments: People vs. Giuca
Hyne's Foe Snubbed Me: Undercover Mother
Then and Now
September 11, 2005- May 5, 2009
The brave mother who went undercover for Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes to expose judicial corruption charged that she first tried to report the wrongdoing to the office of a state official at the time vying for Hynes' job.
Frieda Hanimov said she phoned a general number for the Albany office of state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in October 2002 after she learned Judge Gerald Garson was going to take her kids away in what turned out to be a fixed custody case.
She wanted her case investigated by the Public Integrity Unit, which at the time was run by Mark Peters, who was trying to unseat Hynes in the Democratic primary. "I called the attorney general's office," Hanimov, 36, recalled. "They told me, 'OK, we will send you an application.' "
"But I needed action right away," she said, explaining how she then turned to Hynes.
Hynes gave her the green light to investigate and assisted her along the way. Hanimov exposed the truth of the corrupt Judge. Frieda had to be deceptive to uncover the judicial corruption, so you may say to yourself, why is this any different than exposing a corrupt juror, who committed perjury, contempt of court and a bias crime to push a conviction on a very weak case.
Doreen Giuliano went undercover and exposed a corrupt juror in her son John Giuca’s case.
Why did the Judge reprimand Doreen and the prosecutors deny her request for a fair trial? Is this not a truth seeking system or is it all about just winning a case regardless of the truth? Doreen said. “I needed action right away,” Doreen Giuliano said, explaining how she believed in the system and at first hired private investigators.
When they repeatedly came up empty handed and Doreen knew the conviction was wrong, she went undercover and exposed the juror herself. Doreen calls upon the Public Integrity Unit to view her evidence and decide if she found serious corruption with the Judge the DA and the juror on her son’s case. Her son’s trial Judge Alan Marrus didn’t even hold a hearing.
"He based his decision on the prosecutor's rejections of my evidence," Doreen Giuliano said. "He even called me names. I did nothing different then what Frieda did. I have all the evidence of corruption and they buried it, its all there."
"I will continue my search for justice and my faith in finding an honest Judge to take a closer look at this case. I will be my son’s voice."
Latest Developments: People vs. Giuca
The most recent development in People vs. Giuca was the denial of the juror related motion by hack Judge Alan Marrus. In a 22-page decision he arrogantly attacks Doreen Giuliano, the grief stricken mother desperately trying to prove her sons innocence, and labels her a “Vigilante.”
Marrus makes several credibility determinations without even ordering a hearing and refers to Mrs. Giuliano’s actions as nothing more than the “Malicious intention of a convicted murderer's mother to discredit the verdict.” (pg 13 of the decision)
He also says the undercover operation “was conducted by a woman, with a clear motive to generate a claim, not to exonerate her son…” (pg 21 of the decision)
While practicing his mind-reading abilities, Alan Marrus must have missed the fact that John Giuca is only a murderer because Jason Allo pushed the jury to convict him. Doreen Giuliano’s motive has always been to exonerate her son and if Marrus wasn’t so busy trying to bury this, he would have at least held a hearing to assess the facts.
Every American deserves a fair trial with an impartial jury. This decision has us all wondering if Marrus actually wrote the decision or if the D.A wrote it for him. If a juror committed all this misconduct in the reverse circumstances, such as:
- Commit perjury and contempt of court.
- Disobey the courts instructions
- Lie during jury selection to sneak onto a jury.
Then this particular juror convinces the rest of the jury to come back NOT GIULITY, and eventually he is exposed, do you think the D.A would let him get away with that?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! So why when the tables are turned, not only are they letting him get away with it but they are actively trying to cover it up?
A juror who commits perjury is just as damaging to our truth-seeking process as a juror who accepts bribes. How can someone who does not comply with the duty to tell the truth stand in judgment of others people's truthfulness? Judge Marrus and the Brooklyn district attorney’s office are brazenly telling the public that they are only concerned with convictions, not with the truth, and not with justice.
Judge Marrus spends considerable time in his decision questioning the authenticity of the tapes (the secretly recorded conversation between Jason Allo and Doreen Giuliano).
This is peculiar since Allo himself has appeared on both Nightline and Geraldo and doesn’t even bother to have an expert review the tapes or order voice analyzer tests. Instead his agenda is to arbitrarily throw a cloud of suspicion on the recordings authenticity.
Alan Marrus also stresses the need for a law to protect juror’s privacy. This is a diversion tactic to take the focus off the real issue at hand: THE FACT THAT JOHN GIUCA DID NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL.
What happen to fair trials in this country??? This is a battle of “Truth vs Power”. Judge Marrus job was to apply the Law, not make it up.
This was a tainted conviction bought in by a biased juror. Now it’s clear why a man who should have been acquitted is serving life in jail.
|
