I awakened earlier than normal probably in anticipation of what would occur during this day. I ate a breakfast I already had in my room knowing when I would be let out there would be rushing along with the others. When the guard opened my door to announce to me I had court, he saw me already dressed and ready. He, too, was aware of my legal situation, he, and several other inmates wished me well as I left the Unit headed for court, some thinking they will never see me again and I hoping they were right.
Upon arrival to court, instead of being ushered to the regular holding area I was brought to the holding pen just outside the courtroom. A familiar face I had seen before called my name and indicated he would now be representing me, and informed me Joannie Plaza had a son and mother and child were fine. I was glad to hear but wondered just how fine I would be. This attorney, Juan Matos, recently lost a case, in all respect, demonstrated his incompetence. I know because I heard an inmate’s complaint against him and helped write his argument against the Government and this particular attorney, whose Judge was my own, delayed his sentencing phase to give him time for a new attorney to be assigned to assist him in refuting the Government’s attempt to convict him and later bring charges against the Prosecutor and this attorney for collusion! So, now he was here to represent me!
He introduced himself and began to tell me he reviewed my case and assured me the argument I raised regarding my criminal classification for sentencing which would give me the chance of receiving more prison time as a sentence could be argued and he would raise the issue but he did not believe it would hold much bearing. Already he was admitting defeat! So I asked him what would he be asking for in terms of a sentence and he stated the time would be between 30 and 37 months. Again, I asked him, what he would be asking for. He hesitated long enough for me to tell him what I wanted him to ask the Judge, in their closed discussions, prior to my sentencing and that was to be free based upon the Government’s violation of my civil rights as well as in support of my previous attorney’s motion of October 29, 2003 discussing exculpatory evidence not being admitted. I wanted no confusion regarding this. I was not asking for the lower number of thirty months opposed to a higher number. At this point it made no difference to me. He wanted to discuss where I wanted to go, when sentenced, so the Judge could make the recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons. I told him that question would very likely be moot since I had so much time already logged and even if I were sentenced, I’d be headed for half-way housing instead. Apparently, he had not apprised himself of my case and how could he? How could anyone, who just told me he was the recipient of two large boxes of case matter and in two weeks absorb the details? He was here for my sentencing and as far as he was concerned it was a gift. In and out and his job is done. I’m sure he has other cases to study to see how to lose them properly and quickly! The end result of our conversation, before he went to the courtroom and before I was brought in was,
“Roy, it seems you are a very articulate person who knows your case well, so I’m going to inform the Judge you will be the one speaking on your behalf.”
Great! It’s what I wanted anyway. I told him I did not anticipate any sentence at all.
Later that morning he returned to inform me there was a development in the case and the Judge ordered the Prosecutor to produce the evidence, the photos, regarding Count 2, and the hearing was postponed until March 15! When he left, after letting me know he would see me sometime next week, I began to think it was a victory because I was not sentenced so I could continue avoiding the guards having more authority over me. A victory because apparently my letter gave credence to my argument that my rights were violated and there was not enough proof or proper conduct on the part of the Prosecutor to merit the Judge to pronounce sentence.
Count 2! Count 2! Whatever happened to Count 2? It had never been discussed! All focus had been regarding Count 1. Of course, if the Judge dropped the charges, now, the Government would appeal based on Count 2 being ignored. It was an excellent move by the Judge. It also gave the Prosecution time to bow out gracefully by not producing the photos since obviously they lost the relevance of Count 1. Why have the Government sanctioned when the case could be overturned by lack of evidence? Their egos would be less bruised, but I needed to address this count more fully and thoughts began to flood my mind. I needed to check one thing as soon as I got back to my cell. When I got there, I was right! I checked the Pre-Sentence Report prepared by the U.S. Probation Department and to my pleasant surprise, Count 2 was never addressed in terms of the offense. Everyone, including myself, attention was on Count 1 since it was the case. Count 2 was completely ignored.
In my letter of January 30th, I discussed the photos to some degree questioning their “lascivious” nature. Admittedly, I had not seen the pictures, so I was addressing the description offered by the Prosecutor in the Grand Jury transcripts and in court on October 29, 2003. The Judge wanted to see them for content, for himself.
I need to mention when I arrived back in my unit, those who expected me to have left wanted to know what happened and were surprised my status had not changed. They were glad to see me but a little sad their man who seems to be closer to victory was still with them. There is a community formed between inmates who actively pursue their cases. When I was arrested and held the first time there was no partnership formed to discuss cases. Here, we consult each other, read prepared motions and other court papers to give balance to our expectations. Someone who is fighting their case will be quite biased and need someone to offer a differing opinion. When you go to court you’re only going to get one shot at setting forth your defense and being thoroughly prepared helps. You cannot, I repeat, cannot trust your attorney to handle all the details. They may have tens of cases pending and you are simply one of them, especially if you are using a Public Defender. They lose a case, but it’s your life which goes affected. You must do the thinking and if necessary “direct” your attorney, if you see it going in a way which is not pleasing and you cannot be afraid to do so.
Now, I began to question that third “word”, I believed, I heard from God:
“Go to trial”.
I could see how I may have won this argument, Count 1, and could it be I made a mistake? Could it be I did allow my feelings for Mayra prevent me from going home in November, last year, when God asked me, if I believe He could set me free? It bothered me to wonder if God will still have the victory but did I lengthen the time? By lack of faith? I wrote in my prayer list for God, one day, show me the results of what would have happened if I had gone to trial. You might think this is funny, but I’m believing heaven to be a place while during the millennium I can go to a viewing room and sit in front of a monitor and will be able to find out, “What if I had done this…”, show me the results, and out comes a video. I have already made my request for September 4, 2002, the day of the missing computer. I want to see the events of that day and who entered my room. (Note: Interesting that during October 16, 2007, while exercising by walking across the Newburgh/Beacon Bridge, I thought about this scenario and I think now God doesn’t deal with fantasy and what if’s. He deals with what is and form events around this.)
The text: “No weapons formed against thee shall prosper…” began to become more real for me as I began to see God in action—again. I might have been wrong but there were reasons for my being wrong. We are covered in His righteousness because we are His and He will not allow anything to happen to us. He does actually get involved and defeat the enemy in areas we could not be prepared for. I haven’t consulted with the Judge. I do not know what goes on in chambers when I am being discussed. I have to trust God. It reminds me Pilot’s wife had a dream and she warned her husband to have nothing to do with this man, Jesus. Oh God, is my Judge married?
The Sabbath came and I determined to rest. Thankfully, I did have a roommate at this time because I know I would have been in gross violation of breaking the Sabbath. Those lights would have been on and I would have been writing. Before, when a thought occurred, I just got up and in the dark scribbled notes. I could not ask for God’s help and just flagrantly break His requirements. He’s doing everything for me, I could ever have hoped for, so I wanted to keep His day because I love Him. Yes I do. I love Him.
When the Sabbath passed then began the strategy session. I needed to do one thing immediately. I needed to delay the court procedure again. I did not know if I could prepare a second document as I did when I refuted the videotape in Count 1. So, I began to think about a motion. I had to use convincing arguments to merit the Judge putting off time of sentencing for a couple of weeks. The Judge delayed it for the Prosecution ten days, now the Defense will ask the same. You have to keep a balance. I would request the hearing to be on March 29. This would also make the Judge aware it wasn’t counsel doing this but an inmate who’s been held for almost nineteen months, requesting the Judge for more time, when in fact, because of Count 1, I could have been gone sooner!
Another argument would be, I have a new attorney and two weeks is not enough time for preparation. Plus we need to verify the photos were the ones my original attorney had been shown. As of this date, only the Prosecutor had seen them and could very well substitute any and put worse ones than found in my possession to appeal to the Judge’s disgust. Yes, you’re correct if it seems I do not trust them. They have already demonstrated they would do improper tactics to get this conviction. I included a copy of the motion which was completed and mailed immediately the following Monday morning.
Here is the motion sent to the Judge:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
United States of America
vs Criminal Case #02-456(DRD)
Roy A. Martin
To The Honorable Daniel R. Dominguez
United States District Judge
MOTION TO POSTPONE SENTENCING
COMES NOW Defendant, Roy A. Martin, represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office attorney, Juan Matos, who requests from this Honorable Court a postponement of sentencing of ten (10) days, from March 15, 2004 until March 29, 2004, or whatever is convenient for the Court’s calendar, due to the following reasons:
- The Court on March 5, 2004, during the Sentencing Hearing, so wisely ordered a delay until March 15, 2004 to allow prosecutor Maritza Gonzalez de Miranda time to produce the evidence of photos, as per Count 2 of the Indictment.
- As per United States vs. Alcantera (2003, District Court of Puerto Rico), defendant was brought to prosecutor’s office to view said evidence of photos being charged as in his possession. The first showing had photos of another case and Defendant was therefore requested to go to another monitor! This Defendant, Roy Martin, wishes to ensure there is no mistake regarding what he is being charged with, since he was never shown the photos, only a copied sheet with the photo area darkened.
- To have the attorney-of-record, Juan Matos, to confer and verify with prior attorney, JoanniePlaza, that the photos she saw are in fact what was presented previously. The Defendant does not request nor require his own viewing, preferably, but will trust his counsel’s judgment.
- This case has mostly been focused on Count 1, of which the Defendant has shown convincing arguments as to its prosecutorial viability and believes if Count 2 is to be considered, time should be given to demonstrate to this Court there are questions which need to be answered. Note: The Pre-Sentence Report never discusses the Offense Conduct regarding Count 2. Again the focus is on Count 1.
- Defendant has repeatedly requested from the Prosecutor’s office all evidence. To date there has never been made available a copy of the Search Warrant which was issued September 4, 2002, as mentioned in the Criminal Complaint written by Ivette O’Neill. Defendant wishes to review this document with all supporting documentation. The warrant was directed to my Isla Verde address: 94 Uranio Street. Defendant wishes to make this Court aware that the prosecutor/agent’s office has not returned property sought for by the warrant which was so ordered by the Court.
THEREFORE, the Defendant prays this Honorable Court will grant this petition to prepare a document directly addressing Count 2, and allow counsel additional time in familiarizing himself with the case thereby allowing for a speedy, fair and accurate representation and disposition regarding the sentencing phase.
This date, March 7, 2004, in the city of San Juan, Puerto Rico
Now the document. It had to be just as concise, thorough without leaving any holes. It had to contain enough information to qualify me as an above average computer user, but not too smart, to need admonishment like “you should have known better if you knew this”, and I had to use the Prosecutor’s own expert reports and turn them into my defense weapons. I did not have anything of my own device or creation of evidence, and since I did not have any, I would only use theirs exclusively and use it against them. After pulling out every page and re-reading it again for I don’t know how many times, the document began to take shape. By Saturday night, after midnight, the rough draft was completed and during the night, I believe, God provided me with additional insight to support it, so I was up at various times, in the dark, scribbling more notes. Sunday morning those scribbled notes became inserts and now it was time to type the finished product. I have included it here:
March 7, 2004
Roy A. Martin
Register Identification #25516-069
Honorable Daniel R. Dominguez
United States District Judge
for the District of Puerto Rico
RE: Criminal Case No. 02-456(DRD) – Sentencing Consideration as pertaining to Count 2 of the Indictment
Dear Honorable Dominguez,
Just as I provided you with documentation (January 30, 2004) regarding Count 1, I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate fully on Count 2.
June 2001 while working at MRI (Management Recruiters, Inc.) as their Technical Assistant, responsible for their computer network and reported directly to the president, I received during a chat session an obvious abusive child pornographic picture, of which I immediately downloaded. I tried to get the person to provide their email address for further contact; however, the person posted another picture and went offline. There was no way to gain any record or path of locating this individual.
I received this intrusion about the time I had been notified of my grandchildren’s death by a fire tragedy. Due to my own sexual abuse issues, I aborted two children because I was afraid and understood abusive behavior can be repeated whereas the victim now becomes the victimizer and since I did not understand my own condition, was fearful to have any of my own; however, due to a moment of indiscretion at age 16, I impregnated someone two years older than I am, unbeknownst to myself, died six years later never informing me I was a father of a daughter, who I met in 1998, she being age 25 with two children of her own. This was a hope revived! Not only was I a father, a long desired with but a grandfather too!
When the abusive pictures were sent to me, I was angered because not only after having lost my own grandchildren but it sparked anger regarding my own sexual/emotional abuse issues. I determined if it ever occurred again, I would aggressively seek an arrest and possible prosecution. It was during this time I found a website which informed of a government operation to track and prosecute persons who distributed child pornography. At the time, all the states were listed including Puerto Rico, indicating the amount of arrests for each. Puerto Rico, at that time had none. Now I may be added to the list!
Unable to handle my grief and anger constructively I relapsed into drug addiction after being sober for six months and binged, staying away from my home and job from Monday afternoon until Thursday morning. While on my way to my psychologist, Carlos Rodriguez, president and owner of MRI went on my computer to acquire some data and noticed these photographs in the registry. I was summarily terminated. I was there about six months.
This was to provide you with additional background information you would not be made aware of. Now I shall address Count 2’s historical matter.
Count 2 regarding the possession of photos considered illegal child pornography has been just as conflicting as Count 1 regarding the videotape if not more so.
On September 11, 2002, after being arrested during the interview, U.S. Postal Inspector Reldys Torres, as well as Special Agent Ivette O’Neill and in the hearing of one additional officer, I mentioned belonging to at least 84 Yahoo sexual groups/communities. This is documented by Postal Inspector Torres’ memo dated January 13, 2003. Note: My interests were:
- Exhibition photos – because of my own established lifestyle and arrest in 1979 and 1991 for committing the act.
- Nudism photos – from nudist website as Defendant has established having been a member of the ASA, American Sunbather’s Association, and practiced lifestyle at Birch Acres, Hancock, Massachusetts.
- Voyeurism photos – established from lifestyle and documented by an arrest in 1996.
- CFNM (Clothed Female Naked Male) photos – from my lifestyle of having been an exotic dancer from 1985-87, having ads published in the Poughkeepsie Journal newspaper, Dutchess County, New York.
- Webcam photos – Defendant owned and utilized webcam to trade his own photos with that of females with like interests.
And Defendant maintained a database of this type of material when uploading diskettes from office or direct from emails, if at home, from previously mentioned groups/communities, deleting unwanted material after uploading into computer.
Note: In fact, I had two (2) accounts on MSN and two (2) accounts on Yahoo which had me as a member of close to 300 groups/communities.
September 18, 2002, I received an indictment which read in Count 2 that Defendant had at least two (2) diskettes in his possession. When the charges were dropped, without prejudice because the government failed to provide evidence to my attorney, 47 (forty-seven) days from the date of arrest, the government re-filed their complaint and evidence was given to my attorney at the time of the arraignment. On November 21, 2002, I was re-indicted with Count 2 now having one (1) computer diskette in my possession! Note: I can understand if you have one (1) diskette and in time gain an additional one but how do you begin with two (2) and later have one (1)? Where did the other one disappear? Had I waited longer would the remaining one find it’s way missing?
On September 11, 2002, the day of the arrest, a laptop computer, in my car, in pause mode, working adequately was seized for evaluation. Later in the same day, two (2) computers owned by my then wife, (we have subsequently been divorced in July 2003) were seized. I owned another Compaq desktop which had been stolen/”seized” from my apartment in Isla Verde on September 4, 2002. Previous reference has already been made to this computer. Also seized were videotapes, about twelve (12) and an assortment of diskettes. Subsequently, the computers and videotapes and diskettes were returned except for what they determined were applicable to the case; however, it still remains if it were one (1) or two (2).
Note: Also returned was a diskette which contained pictures of myself in various states of undress and this Defendant is wondering if the prosecutor saw them and can remain objective?
Later, the laptop was returned with the note that the hard-drive was damaged! The drive was sent to the lab stateside and still determined inoperable and a broken laptop returned! One in which cost nearly $3,000.00 and I had since July 1999, and working well in the presence of my direct employer, a principal of F. E. Corporation and an attorney. Obviously, content was more valuable than the machine itself and now I have no recourse to recover damages!?! So, two (2) computers of mine, one missing and one worthless for a total of nearly $5,000.00, and a damaged Cadillac Sedan de Ville, the alternator being destroyed by the agent starting it improperly to tow it from the arrest site, all due to this investigation! Quite unfair. Yet, my wife’s pc’s survived unscathed. Thank God.
The computer at work, of which during the investigation, I revealed as the one I used to further communicate with the undercover agent, unbeknownst to myself at the time, was then seized at work on September 18, 2002, exactly one (1) week from the date of my arrest. This computer they evaluated and found what they determined photos germane to this case.
It should be noted this is the computer the government did not show the emails in their Criminal Complaint, the email which requested them not to send me anything; yet, they want to use the pictures which were found on this machine. If they want to use the pc for their purposes, can we not use it for our defense? This computer would never have been added had I not been willing to cooperate—fully—with the investigation. I had nothing to conceal from the authorities, in fact, I divulged everything. My father, brother and cousin are involved in law enforcement. My father a former sheriff’s deputy later ran for Town Justice in our community and now is a licensed court mediator for the states of New York and Georgia. My brother is a detective for the Cleveland Police Department in Ohio for more than 20 years, and I have a cousin who is on medical leave due to a beating he suffered at the hands of six individuals. I have always treated any and all law enforcement officials as I would have wanted everyone to treat my family. Had I resorted to legal counsel, this information of the computer would have been withheld and there would not have been a Count 2 in terms of the office computer, probably.
Note: January 10, 2003 a Discovery package was delivered to my attorney’s office listing eight (8) items. Why the Grand Jury transcripts not included? Why so late in the process? as well as the photo listings which were completed weeks before? Why a whole year later?
The report provided by Hector X. Colon shows what is called a diagnostic of my hard-drive. In addition, in a motion submitted by the prosecutor, October 22, 2003, (Note: five (5) days after jury selection and seven (7) days before trial.) called Designation, I was provided with a listing of the photos, ten (10) of them which were found on the hard-drive. If you compare the two (2) reports, you will this result: (Note: It should be understood that there was no exclusive selection of child pornography made at any time by me; however, as related to this case, other pornographic material is not mentioned in consideration of diskette content. The prosecutor has opted to be selective in reporting content.
On the computer’s hard-drive, the location of where the photos are said to be residing are not there! The reason for it is because these photos were deleted as per Mr. Colon’s report further establishes. It establishes the fact that the Defendant did not keep these photos residing on the computer nor were these photos found on any diskettes purportedly found on said diskette #4 in the Defendant’s home. The Defendant did what could only be called proper behavior by deleting offensive/illegal material. Therefore, if technology is such where government technicians are able to restore what has been deleted, is it still the defendant’s property?
Neither has it been determined how these photos came into being. Can it be proven the Defendant obtained these photos by actively pursuing for the intent of procuring? No. Not unless the Defendant is provided with: cookie listing, history listing and search word key listing, which has not been given to the Defendant. Although this should be a prosecutorial project to determine how a particular photo was acquired, however, I would be more than willing, if provided the materials, to trace the photo to its original source, an email, from a group, not an Internet website. However, it should be noted, Defendant belonged to a larger number of communities/groups than already mentioned, who had requested a copy of photos submitted to the groups mailed directly without necessarily accessing the groups manually. Is the Defendant responsible for the receipt of an email from any person who decides to send improper email to the group? of which, the program automatically sends from the group to those requesting automatic receipt of new entries? The best you can do is delete any unwanted material such as discarding any junk mail you receive in your postal box at your home. Are you responsible for what you receive? Unsolicited? No. But certainly you are responsible for the proper disposal of such material, and currently all that is available to a pc user is the “delete” function.
Note: Yahoo has had so much trouble monitoring their groups at one point they shut down those servers to flush out the garbage. On MSN, currently they have changed the availability of their options and now only serve a selected group: US, Canada, Britain and other selected members to keep out child pornographers and pedophiles who reside in countries who moral standards are not considered healthy or wanted by our own.
An arrest was recently reported where a man had discarded in his trash some illegal pictures, in Puerto Nuevo. Prior to the garbage being disposed, his trash can apparently was knocked down spewing the contents which someone saw and reported. A search warrant later revealed a collection of material. Good policing.
Hypothetically, I or anyone could address an envelope to you containing illegal matter and include a nicely prepared receipt saying, “Thank you for your recent order of 10 photos,” indicating an amount paid and received and some scribbled non-readable name from the sender, and then contact the FBI to report the probability of your mailbox containing illegal material, anonymously. The FBI could have you in surveillance and when you pick up your mail and with a warrant ask to see your mail after it is in your possession. Even you, Sir, would have a bad day if not months. And, let’s suppose on your pc, you had received an inappropriate email the day before but you discarded, yet it could be brought back by technology! I think it is called “bad acts” which might support an indictment. Good policing?
Is there a similar situation with my receiving emails?
It should be requested from the prosecutor exactly how many CD’s were seized and how many diskettes to demonstrate there was no collection available. Defendant suggests at least 30 CD’s and perhaps 50 diskettes were taken and evaluated for content, all returned.
Regarding images found on the labeled diskette #4, Defendant can only determine this is what might have occurred: These groups often send a lot of email during the evening/night hours. Due to the quantity and the limited storage space on these email services, (MSN – 2 megs and Yahoo – 3 megs) space runs out quickly resulting in a “bounce-back” of messages. In order to keep viewing of material hidden while at work, the Defendant programmed his computer to download all photos onto the hard-drive in the created folder “mine” which was given a hidden characteristic preventing those who have access to the network server from seeing inappropriate filenames during a backup. This program would extract the photos from the emails and place them in the folder, then I would manually transfer to a diskette and transport to upload on my computer at home. The office environment was Windows 98 and does not have the file viewing options found on Windows 2000 (XP), or even Windows Millennium Edition, therefore, Defendant does not ever see photos until placed on home computer. Once uploaded to home computer the diskette is deleted and reused. This diskette may have gone undeleted and undetected due to not being uploaded at all. An omission. Therefore, images: 18.jpg, 10.jpg, 38.jpg, 43.jpg, 142.jpg were found. Note: these five (5) were contained in a grouping of downloads, in other words, these were not separate to exclude an interest in this particular type of photographs. A diskette will hold 1.4 mB of data. A photo will generally be 25 kB. One could safely store between 40-60 pictures on one (1) diskette. It should not be inferred Defendant selected these photos and downloaded to diskette. The agent’s report does not include all photos listed on the diskette; therefore, I wish to avoid any characterization.
Defendant states having accessing the Internet/email function from July 1999 until the date of my arrest September 2002. There will not be a history of data, inappropriate data, found prior to March 2002 and after September 2002. So any and all photos ever collected was during this period of time. Yet on one of the reports, from the computer at work, it is suggested I am responsible for dated material 9/11/2001 & 3/14/02 (before I was hired!)
My employment in this company was from March to September 2002. Only by having the computer’s Internet history could one ascertain the regularity and content of my activity. This cannot be made otherwise.
Also, it should be noted that my office computer was in an unsecured area, often turned on, or able to be bypassed regarding my access code to gain access to the Internet by anyone wanting to use it. I had no key to the office and my job duties often had me away from the office at times up to six (6) hours a day. It would have to be determined when I was there and coordinate with the actual log on the history in order to substantiate downloads and my being the individual to have done so. My computer was an old one, I merely following a long line of prior users. It should be noted that it was available for exactly one (1) week after my arrest and anyone wishing to view it’s contents or create additional linkages and history if curious. Therefore, I would have to question what could really be determined as mine. Even if a picture is accessed during my time there, which was due to someone before me, unbeknownst to myself, the pc will automatically update the date and time to the current date. ALL my files were contained in a folder called “mine”.
It should also be noted that if you enter any website which has a grouping of photo’s, and immediately log-off, if you then check your history listing, it will show all the particulars and listing of all photos. Could it be determined that you have viewed each of them? No. If someone has placed obscene material in a link, folder or system briefcase, are you responsible for what you cannot see or requested?
Spam has and is causing major problems often because of its pornographic content. When you clear your screen of the spam or sessions it created because inadvertently you depress the wrong key, your history will reflect you visited all those sites or viewed the photos. Have you? No. Unfortunately, the computer software does not differentiate what you have actually seen versus what the site contained and available for viewing.
- Show me what I am being charged with and sentenced by, which is directly related to my intent to gain this type of material?
- Did I act inappropriately or responsibly by deleting anything I have seen? Obviously, like the videotape in Count 1, I could not have known the contents of Diskette #4. No computer in my possession or access was found to have had these pictures stored. Like having the bullets but no gun.
- If you order the Diskette #4’s content printed, provided it has not been manipulated and it contained all the pornography, with those five (5) photos, they said are offensive and illegally embedded, this will prove my intent. If it contains only those offensive pictures, then sentence me accordingly. Let us see if they can resurrect those deleted ones as well!
Allow me to make a comparison of persons either I have met or have read about in the newspapers:
Enoc Alcantara 900 pictures
Anibal Hernandez 1,400 pictures
Jose Robles Videotape held two (2) weeks in personal possession. I held the one delivered to me less than two (2) minutes
Leslie Holt 28,000 pictures
Miguel Torres Cruz San Juan Star reported a large amount which I do not now recall.
Roy Martin 15 – (10) deleted on computer, (5) diskette
From the beginning of the arrest to now, for nineteen (19) months I have been cooperative, patient and forgiving. I went through a time of anger, anxiety, depression and disappointment. I lost a wonderful wife and marriage, yet, we remain friends to this day, an excellent job opportunity for someone who is not bilingual starting at $30,000. My predecessor was being paid $50,000 and was dismissed in order for me to assume his position. Just the week before the arrest, my employer made overtures of raising my salary. I had been there only six (6) months.
During my incarceration I have had to struggle with those who have problems with inmates with cases related to children and coupled with my not being able to communicate in Spanish, it has not been easy. I have had fruit and bread thrown at me, my door banged by brooms and no support from some officers, yet, I have persisted to remain in population. I’m the only inmate permitted to eat in his room. I could not imagine being held in solitary confinement as long as I have already been held here. I have spent my time helping those who needed help with producing documents, motions or reading their legal papers and explaining it to them through an interpreter. In fact I edited and typed a 20 page motion for one of your cases. The inmate wishes to remain anonymous but it deals with Rule 29.
I have used this time constructively in dealing with my addiction issues both sexually-related and substance, and am very grateful for this opportunity to have done so.
I came to this island with a computer to a wife who is a native Puerto Rican. I shall leave this island with neither upon my release, but one thing I do have and will be taking with me, my dignity.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to present these issues regarding my case. Now, I’d like to go home now to somewhere. Even the undercover agent wished me well after the change of plea hearing. No anger or bad feelings for any principals in this case. Just a grandfather trying to help the children.
PS. Next time I’ll invite a police officer to go with me. It’s just that my experience with the police here in Puerto Rico has not been good. I reported a possible break-in on a neighbor’s home across the street. The police rapidly came in response and we found out it was the estranged son of the owner. He was told to leave. After the police left, he did leave the residence but shot a gun, five times, in front of my house! I re-called the police and they never came to retrieve the shell casings I picked up. I had to go to the station and speak to a lieutenant and he assured me his sergeant, who acted as his interpreter would be there that day. He never showed up!
I called about another incident which occurred on my street. They hung up on me because I couldn’t speak Spanish, eventually someone did talk to me and they came to break up a loud group several houses down from my own.
The night I contact the police dialing 911 when my computer was stolen, I was hung up on because I couldn’t speak Spanish. So, my attitude regarding the local police here in Puerto Rico is not too good. I determined if I brought them the evidence of the tape then maybe I could get some attention.
Something, of course the Holy Spirit, had me to wait until the following day, when I retyped it twice more with additional information before I put a copy in the mail to the Judge, informing him I was able to prepare it quickly and now could rest. I wanted him to receive this document even before he saw the photos. In fact, I wanted him to see it was written in advance of the photos and not in response, and I was confident in my explanation and needed no further time or desire even to see them to refute them, and not actually knowing their content. I decided to mail the document even before consulting with the attorney who I wanted to physically present the Judge with the document; however, listening to his efforts in the case he lost (Matos), I decided I needed to do the best I could in ensuring delivery in a timely manner and I would provide the attorney with a second copy for his personal delivery effort. Either way, I would be covered. When I’d see him later in the week, he and I would have a candid conversation of what my expectations were of him and how he would do exactly as I say. I have been involved in it too long for it to come crashing down because his not being able to effectively handle any objections by the Prosecutor. She’s good but my side has to be better. I got my wish, after all, and that was to have the Judge ultimately decide my case and not a jury.
When the work was completed, I felt a peacefulness which escapes definition. I was finished. Nothing more I could do. I was prepared now to face whatever the outcome of this lengthy process. I even surprised the inmates by going to the yard and actually sit on the ground among them. I apologized to one inmate I had a problem with offering to help him again with his case. I even apologized to the Unit Counselor for a disagreement and my actions we had the week before. He obtained another typewriter ribbon for me, hoping as he said, it would help in furthering my goal of getting out of here. Hey, this Christian-thing really works! I even taught my roommate to play “Rummy” and now want to make it a nightly game before bed. Why not? I have the time now.
Now, I can rest. It is all up to God. Actually, it has always been.
I just needed to know that!