| VOLUSIA EXPOSED.COM |
|
|
Public Defender Files A Motion To Dismiss Within The Cristina March Criminal Prosecution In Order To Silence A Government Critic? |
February 12, 2020 |
|
On February 10, 2019 - VolusiaExposed attended the pre-trial hearing attached to the misdemeanor criminal prosecution of social activist, Cristina March. County Judge Belle Schumman continued that case into next month (March), in order to give state prosecutors a chance to respond to a recently filed Motion for Dismissal by the Public Defender's Office (PD). ---> As covered within our December 2, 2019 article, "The Silencing Of Social Activist Cristina March", our publication explored, and questioned, whether city (NSB), county (Volusia), and state officials were misusing the criminal justice system, in an attempt to silence a government critic. |
Click On Image To Download A FULL SIZE PDF Copy  |
Based on her on-line postings, there is little doubt that Cristina March is a critic of New Smyrna Beach (NSB) city goverment, with particular attention given to the NSB police department.
Evidence suggest (evidence linked within December 2 article), that in January 2019, NSB city employee Cayla Bartolucci had illegally restricted Ms. March's access to one of the city's social media accounts (see below deputy body cam videos). Mrs. Bartolucci thought that she was justified in restricting the account, due to March's usage of offensive language. Bartolucci's supervisor instructed her to reactivate Ms. March's access to the city's social media account, and to simply ignore Ms. March.
NSB officials found themselves caught between a "rock and a hard place". The "rock" being Mrs. Bartolucci's April 8, 2019 two hundred (200) plus page complaint filed with the city's human resource office, stating that she was being subjected to "harassment and defamation" regarding Ms. March's criticisms against her. The "hard place" being Ms. March's U.S. Constitutional right to seek redress from her government, commonly known as the first amendment.
According to a November 2019 email to this publication, NSBPD Police Chief Mike Coffin, stated that he apologized to Ms. March regarding the short lived social media restriction. Ms. March has advised this publication that she received no such apology.
By June 14, 2019 - Mrs. Bartolucci had endured her limit of Ms. March's criticism / comments, Bartolucci wanted Ms. March criminally prosecuted (supported by the below linked June 14, 2019 Deputy Walsh body cam videos).
Since Mrs. Bartolucci was a NSBPD employee, city officials correctly determined that it would be a conflict of interest in having the city's police department determine whether probable cause existed in order to charge / arrest Ms. March for cyberstalking. Therefore, city officials called in the Volusia County Sheriff's Office (VCSO).
As memorialized within the below VCSO body cam videos, on June 14, 2019, Volusia County Sheriff Deputy Brian Walsh responded to the NSB police department to interview Mrs. Bartolucci, in order to investigate her concerns.
The videos are very clear, initially, Deputy Walsh did NOT desire to file a charging affidavit against Ms. March. Rather, he recommended that Mrs. Bartolucci seek an "Order of Protection" from the Court. Court records indicate that Bartolucci did file for an "Order of Protection" - but the Court ultimately denied it.
The body cam videos, along with an August 2019 Volusia County Sheriff's office's (VCSO) internal investigation, support that after Deputy Walsh's initial departure from the NSB police department, he was ordered to return, and file a criminal charging affidavit against Ms. March.
Question - did Deputy Walsh file a SWORN charging affidavit against Ms. March, in which he did not honestly believe that "probable cause" existed? During Ms. March's pending trial - this publication will be interested in hearing the answer to that particular question.
It is of some further interest, that both the NSB police chief, and the deputy chief were ranking supervisors within the VCSO prior to assuming their positions within the NSBPD. Was a "favor" called in, in order to soothe the hurt feelings of a "rock", and to soften up, or ignore, the constitutional rights of a "hard place"?
U.S. President Abraham Lincoln once said "It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest." Therefore, we (VolusiaExposed) chose to question (protest) the criminal prosecution of social activist Cristina March.
The Court has scheduled a March 17, 2020 hearing to hear arguments attached to the PD's dismissal motion.
Stand by to stand by ....... there is surely more to come of this......
DEPUTY WALSH'S JUNE 14, 2019 BODY CAM VIDEOS
Evidence suggest (evidence linked within December 2 article), that in January 2019, NSB city employee Cayla Bartolucci had illegally restricted Ms. March's access to one of the city's social media accounts (see below deputy body cam videos). Mrs. Bartolucci thought that she was justified in restricting the account, due to March's usage of offensive language. Bartolucci's supervisor instructed her to reactivate Ms. March's access to the city's social media account, and to simply ignore Ms. March.
NSB officials found themselves caught between a "rock and a hard place". The "rock" being Mrs. Bartolucci's April 8, 2019 two hundred (200) plus page complaint filed with the city's human resource office, stating that she was being subjected to "harassment and defamation" regarding Ms. March's criticisms against her. The "hard place" being Ms. March's U.S. Constitutional right to seek redress from her government, commonly known as the first amendment.
According to a November 2019 email to this publication, NSBPD Police Chief Mike Coffin, stated that he apologized to Ms. March regarding the short lived social media restriction. Ms. March has advised this publication that she received no such apology.
By June 14, 2019 - Mrs. Bartolucci had endured her limit of Ms. March's criticism / comments, Bartolucci wanted Ms. March criminally prosecuted (supported by the below linked June 14, 2019 Deputy Walsh body cam videos).
Since Mrs. Bartolucci was a NSBPD employee, city officials correctly determined that it would be a conflict of interest in having the city's police department determine whether probable cause existed in order to charge / arrest Ms. March for cyberstalking. Therefore, city officials called in the Volusia County Sheriff's Office (VCSO).
As memorialized within the below VCSO body cam videos, on June 14, 2019, Volusia County Sheriff Deputy Brian Walsh responded to the NSB police department to interview Mrs. Bartolucci, in order to investigate her concerns.
The videos are very clear, initially, Deputy Walsh did NOT desire to file a charging affidavit against Ms. March. Rather, he recommended that Mrs. Bartolucci seek an "Order of Protection" from the Court. Court records indicate that Bartolucci did file for an "Order of Protection" - but the Court ultimately denied it.
The body cam videos, along with an August 2019 Volusia County Sheriff's office's (VCSO) internal investigation, support that after Deputy Walsh's initial departure from the NSB police department, he was ordered to return, and file a criminal charging affidavit against Ms. March.
Question - did Deputy Walsh file a SWORN charging affidavit against Ms. March, in which he did not honestly believe that "probable cause" existed? During Ms. March's pending trial - this publication will be interested in hearing the answer to that particular question.
It is of some further interest, that both the NSB police chief, and the deputy chief were ranking supervisors within the VCSO prior to assuming their positions within the NSBPD. Was a "favor" called in, in order to soothe the hurt feelings of a "rock", and to soften up, or ignore, the constitutional rights of a "hard place"?
U.S. President Abraham Lincoln once said "It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest." Therefore, we (VolusiaExposed) chose to question (protest) the criminal prosecution of social activist Cristina March.
The Court has scheduled a March 17, 2020 hearing to hear arguments attached to the PD's dismissal motion.
Stand by to stand by ....... there is surely more to come of this......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drop us a line to let us know what you think.
EMAIL US