2008 – Veronica was having a great deal of trouble with authority figures at Eastern Guilford Middle. We encouraged her to go to the school counselor and even got special permission for her to be able to leave class to speak to them because she was having issues with bullying, as well as abusive actions by her math teacher. We went to several meetings to advocate for her and to help with her defiance and refusing to cooperate. We also had two incidents of a math teacher abusing her by not only making fun of her in class, but making her stand at the front of the class holding a penny in each hand for over twenty minutes for not doing her classwork, so we got her removed from that classroom to a different teacher. I have always gotten off of work to participate in IEP and other meetings for her. These records of meetings and my attendance could have been subpoenaed, again to help establish my authenticity as a caring parent, and to establish past patterns of the main witness.
2007-2009 Various doctor’s records to show where she had female pediatricians and had been examined by one in PA after staring menarche and in yearly follow-up check ups
Also because of now two erroneous news articles involving my case, it will be close to impossible to find old friends or other family members who would even have the money to put up the necessary collateral, and I will have to sit even longer unlawfully imprisoned.
II. Candor Toward the Tribunal
a. 1. As my wife mentioned in her grievance, James, Judy, Haley and Haley’s mom Shelley gave her permission to come inside the Crawford house and speak to Haley and her grandparents about what they knew Veronica had said. In the investigative notes, Shelley mentions she knew that my wife had spoken to Haley, although some of the wording was not true, as James and Judy were in the kitchen with Haley. James then proceeded to get on the stand and to deny that my wife had come in his house. Although Mr. Hubbard obvious wanted this testimony for his own gain, it would have been an important part of the presentation of material fact, especially if he had pursued his line of questioning to get James to admit that my wife had been welcomed in the home to speak with them. My wife had no idea the family knew for over a year that Veronica was making allegations, and was stunned to find out in a conversation with James that they had never been concerned over Veronica’s allegations. She was known to tell exaggerated stories.
2. In the investigative notes, Marcel Edwards, the CPS worker, noted that the parents kept talking about actions the children would do to get to go live with their mother, and how they had tried to get us trouble in the past by making false accusations, (see document 1). We also disclosed to Ms. Edwards that we had concerns about Daniel Jr. sexually abusing Veronica, as well as the possibility that Veronica had been molested by Carolyn’s former boyfriend, David Laughlin (her mother). We also relayed a story where my wife Rochelle had taken Veronica, Daniel and Nicholas to private swimming lessons one year. Veronica got a bruise on her leg while learning to dive, yet her mother drug her down to the Randleman Sheriff’s Department and coerced Veronica to falsely state that my wife had beat her with a belt. The intake person dismissed it, noting that it was not consistent with a belt mark. Veronica held that in for over six months, and then called in tears because she wanted to tell my wife she was sorry for doing that. Mr. Hubbard would have been aware of these notes, yet did nothing in the pursuit of justice to see what past issues there could have been, and the potential of an alternative suspect.
We told Ms. Edwards that there were signs that Veronica was being sexually abused from as early on as two years old. I had a past girlfriend, Shann Long, who could testify to what she noticed about Veronica when she was still in diapers. My wife, Rochelle also disclosed that she had caught Daniel Jr. acting out sexually on Veronica in the closet when she was seven and he was nine, and that’s why we started therapy in 2002. Our information was more or less discarded.
III. Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Comment
[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate; the prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence… A systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.
[2…; the prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of available evidence known to him or her that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.
a. Responsibility of a minister of justice – I was told during one of my consultations with the defense attorney, Sabrina Bailey, that Mr. Hubbard had intentions to attempt to prosecute my wife if she testified on my behalf. As you can see from the large list above, my wife could corroborate my alibi, as well as create a pretty strong case for my innocence. She could also create a pattern of past issues that Veronica had which would establish strong issues as to the credibility to Veronica’s testimony.
b. Intentionally avoiding pursuit of evidence was seen, when I was on the stand, Sabrina was giving me a chance to speak about my wife’s disability and our sons – all of whom have Asperger’s. (this documentation was provided in my wife’s grievance) Not only would this be crucial to creating a place for my wife to be able to testify by clarifying the one statement she made that Mr. Hubbard was holding over our heads, but it help the tribunal to have better understanding of the dynamic of our home, and the complications that we faced. He objected to my giving any information, and then waved away the defense’s attempt to bring pertinent information to the jury, especially as one juror worked with autistic people.
A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence… yet Mr. Hubbard does just that by threatening my wife to keep her from testifying. He is also obstructing justice by interfering with my right to an unbiased jury because my wife would have released pertinent information to not only establish alibi, but present to the Court and Tribunal. This also furthers the issue of respect to third parties, as she received no such respect.
IV. Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.
Comment
Misrepresentation
[1] A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see Rule 8.4.
Statements of Fact
[2] This Rule refers to statements of fact. Whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances. Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party’s intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a claim are ordinarily in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except where nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations under applicable law to avoid criminal and tortuous misrepresentation.
However, Mr. Hubbard states over and over in terms of the allegations as being true, and to the honesty, credibility and straight-forwardness of the main witness. Not only is he misrepresenting me as already being a criminal (See p.549 of Mr. Hubbard’s closing argument, document 14), he covers up the differences found in the variety of testimony Veronica gives in different situations by stating on p. 567(see document 2),
Lines 20-25 And I contend to you that if you apply those tests to the testimony of Veronica Palacios that you heard from that witness stand, that you won’t have any doubt that she is telling you the truth and that she is absolutely credible.
p. 575 Lines 2-3 Her trial testimony, I contend to you, is remarkably consistent with her statements.
(caselaw is mentioned later)
But, if one looks at Veronica’s testimony, it becomes obviously just how much changes between investigative reports, and also changes within minutes of the earlier testimony before it when she is on the stand.
Note the discrepancies in her testimony. See document 3:
She said she was putting away her clothes when her father approached her from behind and…
Document 4:
Para. 4 Veronica said the sexual intercourse occurred either in her bedroom or Mr. Palacios’ bedroom, and also a (sic) on a couple of occasions in her brother’s bedroom. All three bedrooms are on the upper level of the home. (She later testifies that some of the bedrooms are downstairs and there is a fourth bedroom because my mother lives with us during most of the time she has made the allegations in North Carolina.)
Para. 8 Veronica said she could not give an exact number of times her father sexually abused her while in
North Carolina, but said it was sometimes as often as two or three times a week, then sometimes would not occur for a few weeks.
Document 5:
Lines 1-2 And where would it happen? In either in my room or in his room.
Lines 14-16 It was maybe every other day, maybe it was every day one right after another, or it would have been a week in between.
Document 6:
Lines 19-25 Would any of them be around when this was going on? No sir. Do you know where your step-mother was when this would happen – this would happen? No, sir.
Document 7:
Lines 23-25 It – he would come in my room sometimes at night or during the day. It depended on who was in the house or if he had the chance to, I guess…
Document 8:
Lines 7-9 He would come in my room during the day, at night, or whenever and he would take off my clothes…
Document 9:
Lines 2-3 He would – he would come in my room at night and during the day if – sometimes if my stepmom wasn’t there or if she was outside with the boys or in the backyard
Document 10:
Lines 4-6 And sometimes he would catch me off guard and I would be by myself and he would just – he would come-he would come towards me.
Lines 15-17 And he would come over to the bed and he would start – if I was asleep – it – it mostly occurred when I was asleep.
Now, under duress and the stress of keeping up with her variances she says something completely new.
Document 11:
Lines 9-11 How often did-did these events happen? They would happen maybe once a week, twice, I mean, every other day, every day. It varied.
Lines 12-14 And did that continue – you said it started how long after you moved back to Greensboro? Maybe a month, a month and a half.
Yet, she told Ms. Edwards the first time was maybe seven or eight months after the move to Greensboro.
Mr. Hubbard, in his desperation to cover up Veronica’s mistakes, creates statements of fact in his closing over the entirety of Document 12, the crux of which is stated on lines 14-19:
I mean, she can say, well, he had…but it happened sometime. It happened, you know, once-once in a week, sometimes it happened two days in a row, sometimes it, you know, went for a while and then it happened several times. It varied, she said. Again, he had the control, he had the access.
Again, he gives the pretense of stating fact.
Looking at Document 13,we see Kristal’s view:
Kristal said she spent the night with Veronica for the first time in November 2008 when she told her of the sexual abuse. Veronica told Kristal that her father would come in her bedroom when her mother was gone or asleep and make her do it…Kristal said Veronica told her the assaults happened almost every week, and usually occurred in her bedroom.
This will further be evidenced below in the discussion involving how Mr. Hubbard is leading the various witnesses’ testimony. He interrupts, manipulates and controls the testimony to the point that he takes over most of what is said on the stand, and puts himself in the role of witness, speaking at some points in the first person, which will be discussed specifically further down.
V. Rule 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
Comment
[1] Responsibility to a client requires a lawyer to subordinate the interests of others to those of the client, but that responsibility does not imply that a lawyer may disregard the rights of third persons. It is impractical to catalogue all such rights, but they include legal restrictions on methods of obtaining evidence from third persons and unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships, such as the client-lawyer relationship.
VI. Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
Comment
[1] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer’s behalf.
[2] … Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category.
A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
[3] For this reason, to establish a violation of paragraph (b), the burden of proof is the same as for any other violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct: it must be shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the lawyer committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty
…………to be continued………
chicanogets113years 