Thursday, May 16, 2013

Rory Smith vs. Town of Greece & PD

 
Recently SCATS requested that Rory Smith contact us to update us about the specifics of a lawsuit he filed against the town & PD related to allegations/charges against him that were ultimately dropped. This response was received today:

Anonymous said...

This is Rory. I am writing you as you requested, to bring you up to date on the status of my case against the Greece Police and Greece. My case is progressing, and we have served all parties. Here is a brief outline of the malicious prosecution case facts:
 
INCIDENT 1- Arrested at gunpoint for the very first time in my life on December 22, 2010, at my sick, elderly mother's Long Island home. Complaints for Rape, Sodomy, Assault, and Strangulation lacked the victim's signature, and no evidence was submitted by GPD. Treated like a dangerous crminal and jailed for 2 days until my mom bailed me out for $15K. 8 months of pure hell

OUTCOME: A Grand Jury dismissed all charges at the end of August 2011 because I proved I was never even there. That month, Monroe County had 4 Grand Jury Risings, and addresed 18 felony complaints from GPD. Only 5 of 18 were indicted! These stats seem to indicate the Greece complaints (over 72%) were defective in some very serious way.

INCIDENT 2- October of 2011, charged with Criminal Contempt by the same woman and the GPD. The GPD advised an arrest warrant, falsely claiming that I sent messages to the woman violating an active Order Of Protection (OOP) which did not exist. They never produced the messages or IP information and never produced the OOP.
OUTCOME: All charges were dismissed by the judge in November 2011. Another month of hell.
 
INCIDENT 3- November 2011, the GPD and the woman charged me with Aggravated Harassment, submitting printed email messages lacking any IP info. The GPD again advised a warrant for my arrest.
 
OUTCOME: All charges dismissed in July 2012. 8 more months of pure hell.
 
 My attorney, a great professional named Robert W. Wood, obtained subpoena info showing that the emails were sent by the woman herself, using her employer's network. On one of the email printouts the woman had sent a message to the Chief Of Police at the beginning of Sept. 2011 which contained an email she falsely said I had sent to her. The printout contains a response from Chief Baxter, where he asks the woman, "Can we not lock him up? Do you have an OOP?"
 
So, a month before I was charged with violating a non-existing OOP for allegedly sending this woman emails I never sent, and a few days after the Rape/Sodomy/Assault/Strangulation case was found bogus by a Grand Jury, the Chief asked her this question. It seems that this woman may have been running the police department, since the Chief is asking HER if HE can lock ME up.     5/16/2013 10:31 AM

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unrelated, but I hear tell of one of our former BOE superstars was nabbed boozin and cruisin... Again. WE WANT MEG! WE WANT MEG! The BLOB never fails to disappoint, does he?

SCATS said...

To 3:44PM ~~ Was that the one written up in the Greece police reports of the current Greece Post? I saw the name and wondered if it was him.

Anonymous said...

Yep.....Billy Boy got nabbed for DWI. "William Russell, 59, North Church Rd." Greece Post today.

Wonder if the big bully Phelan bailed him out?????

I feel sorry for Rory. The woman he got mixed up with is a wing nut in my opinion. Dealt with her a few times. Kept far away from her after that.

The Chief needs to watch out who he gets cozy with. And to have the vast majority of felony cases dismissed by a Grand Jury? Makes me wonder what all the detectives on our Police Force do? We are not some podunk town with a few hundred residents. We are almost 100,000 residents and we pay millions for our police force. What the hell is going on?

SCATS said...

To 7:37PM ~~ Actually, we are a podunk town, just a huge podunk town ;)

Anonymous said...

Actually, this case may not be as wrongly handled as it appears.

The standard in New York is not that a person make a signed complaint, but that they make a sworn written complaint. A signature is customary, and its omission is curious, but it is probably a minor technicality of limited consequence. As long as the complainant was sworn in by their interviewers, that should suffice.

That our Grand Juries are dismissing over half the cases brought to them is a sign of vigorous oversight by citizens. The Grand Jury system is not meant to judge guilt or innocence – that is for trial, if a case goes to trial. The purpose of Grand Juries is to restrain prosecutors from bringing defective cases to trial, which seems to be working. The normal complaint about Grand Juries is not that they reject too many cases but that most of them are rubber-stamps, trusting prosecutors and passing every case on to court.

That Rory was allowed to plead his innocence before the Grand Jury is also encouraging. Because of how the system works (only the prosecutor is in the dock, so to speak), the accused has no right to present a defense. That he got to do so anyway means that either the prosecutor or the Grand Jury itself called him to testify. Good for them.

There are discouraging signs in Rory’s complaint, e.g. that the Chief seems too personal, too informal, in dealing with the complainant. But the Grand Jury system seems to be working just fine.

Anonymous said...

Actually he did Not testify before the grand jury. Hate to tell you this, but there was physical evidence. The guy is nuts if he thinks there was no PHYSICAL evidence. Probable cause is the legal term. What he does not realize is the prosecutor can re present the case again to a grand jury. No bill does not mean innocent. His lawyer would be best to advise him to refrain from talking about the case on any level including this blog. But his attorney is best known as a debt collector for Greece Dental.


SCATS said...

To 4:05PM ~~ I don't know WHAT you're talking about.

#1 - he never said he testified.

#2 - Nothing has been said about "physical evidence." WHAT WAS IT (since you claim to know so much!)?

#3 - WTH are you referring to about "no bill"?? I don't see ANY REFERENCE to a bill!

#4 - Are YOU the "crazy woman"?? You sound as if you might well be!

Anonymous said...

4:05 seems to know the claimants’ side of the case, so good, we can sort through her writing, combine it with Rory’s, and get a fuller picture.

4:05 is correct, the prosecutor can present the case to the grand jury again. What she is saying about “no bill” is probably a reference to no indictment yet. That’s all part of the process. The grand Jury did not find probable cause despite whatever the prosecutor presented, so the prosecutor has to come up with more, or just try again with the same old same old and hope for a different result. Either way will probably take months. Publicity will make the prosecutor more cautious, which is possibly part of why Rory is speaking out in public. Given that the prosecutor has failed once it is to Rory’s advantage for lots of eyes to be on the prosecutor should he try again.

Probable cause does not mean guilt, not even probable guilt – it is not a standard of judgment like preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.

Probable cause is a standard for advancing to the next level of due process, it is what a cop needs to search your car, and what a prosecutor needs to bring you to trial. It protects citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of official power, i.e. it protects against abuse of process as a substitute for punishment. It implies no guilt, it just means that criteria to proceed have been met. It is a very low standard, and it is very telling that the prosecution couldn’t meet it.

My guess (totally uninformed – I have no inside info) is that Rory will not be indicted, but his lawsuit against the town will also go nowhere. The mistakes, if any, made by the police are probably excusable as routine and understandable abundance of caution given the seriousness of the claimants’ allegation. The wildcard in the whole situation is whether the claimant can be brought up on charges for lying to investigators. The lack of signature on her complaint may have been rather deliberate, to protect her from later charges. It may not be enough to cover her, if what she alleges is detailed enough to be specifically refutable and Rory’s defense is convincing enough on the refutable details. We’ll see if it all unfolds in public, but it very well may not.

SCATS said...

To 1:36AM ~~ While you might be technically correct with your legal points, you've ignored another major factor: Whether or not the judgement of GPD's chief was clouded by becoming too chummy with this "crazy woman" who already had a history of some past problems. This is not the first time where it appears his personal relationships have resulted in some very negative headlines and costly issues for our town to deal with. Don't forget, the so-called "victim" here has now been charged with multiple counts of perjury, filing false documents and for misleading a public servant, presumably the chief. It seems as if he sets aside his internal radar that most cops develop, and it has cost him and us.