Archive for September, 2008
Seems some wrestling fans over at WrestlingClassics.com have developed an interest in the emails sent to me by former professional wrestler Billy Jack Haynes almost a year ago. Check it out.
Some pretty crazy stuff, huh? Actually, maybe not so crazy. Wouldn’t it just be a hoot if Billy Jack Haynes really was telling me the truth to the best of his ability after all these years?
Yeah, they have something now called an fMRI Lie Detector Test. The company who conducts the test has agreed to perform testing for free on any witnesses connected with the Francke/Gable case. Just one of the reasons why Billy Jack has clammed up. Billy was also a no-show when he was scheduled to talk to a fed attorney about his Francke claims.
Oh, he’s still lurking around here, so if anyone wants to send him a shout-out, feel free to do so.
Yo Billy…these folks seem to think your emails are right in character for you, as if you’ve got priors on slingin some crazy-ass shit.
Sundance: You just keep thinkin Butch, that’s what you’re good at.
Butch: Boy I got visions, and the rest of the world wears bifocals."
LOL! I know what you mean Butch.
Thanks for the memories Paul.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid Montage
Cool Hand Luke
LOL! No, I don’t really think so. Maybe she was trying to tell me something. Who knows? Anything is possible. Did the Mexican Mafia have something to do with Natividad’s murder as Rooster’s own brother inquired of Liz?
The following is a transcript of a text message exchange I had a few days ago with Liz Godlove/Francke.
Rob: So, any reason why you can’t have Krasik petition the court for your trial transcript on CD? Should only take a couple of days, and I can have it up on the site in a week. Should help to squash all that crap bein said about Tim’s death, dontcha think?
Liz: #1…You haven’t shown yourself to be fair and upfront. You have abused people’s trust just for you.
Liz: #2…You write into facts stated with your own opinions, which are just stabs, but those stabs hurt mean Rob. Bad for you and the Free Frank Gable thing. I was found not guilty so the records are gone. Kevin got them from the court reporter for judge West. Try her, you are out of luck here.
Rob: LOL! Would love to hear specifics on those thoughts of yours, or Kevins’, but no matter.
Liz: You’re right, me too. LOL! Kevin will be home soon, so why don’t you try him.
Rob: I wasn’t questioning your innocence Liz. That’s why I want the transcript. I’m trusting you that they will help to dispel the myths that granny posted anonymously at Willamette Week, and for which I stuck up for you. So I don’t know what opinions of mine you mean.
Rob: You should call me so we can iron this out. Then again, it’s much easier not to bother, right?
Rob: Frankly, your reluctance to provide me transcript making lame excuses making it all about me speaks volumes.
Rob: Oh, by the way, how’s that t-shirt thing for Frank you were gonna do comin along? Yeah, uh-huh?
Liz: You got me there.
Rob: No matter who gets who, the only one who loses is Frank. And if I say you lied about doing that t-shirt thing for Frank, is that a fact or just my opinion?
Rob: And a beddy-by treat for ya to sleep on…they found OJ not guilty also. LOL!
Liz: As I said, you are that close to being Tim. From this text, maybe too close. Nite-nite
Rob: That sounded like a death threat. LOL!
end of transcript…
As I said above, I don’t know specifically what Liz is basing her allegations of my character on until she takes the time to explain herself. I would rather not have to assume.
What I do know is I can cite plenty of examples of just how fair and upfront I have been, and not just in matters concerning the Francke case. Matter of fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of a single MF’er that even comes close to being as fair and upfront as I am. As for abusing people’s trust…who? The bad guys or the good guys? And just who are the bad guys and the good guys?
For now I will cite one example of just how fair and upfront I am, just in case anyone missed reading it at the Portland Tribune. Last week the Tribune contacted me seeking permission to publish a post I had made with regard to the James Chasse incident in Portland. It was published yesterday in their Insight/Opinion section, and got chopped up a bit…probably due to word count limitations. In my original post I mistakenly claimed one of the cops had 78 reports of using "excessive" force, and asked them to edit it to just "use of force." They did.
I trust this is a good example and/or evidence of just how upfront and fair I am. As for opinions, they’re like assholes, we all have one. What do we base our opinions on? How about actions, or non actions?Hmmm…
How about personal experiences? Yeah, that’s a good one! Affords me the opportunity to be even more upfront or transparent or whatever you wanna call it, even though, until I injected myself into this case, I was so ridiculously detached from it as one could be. Therefore, I’m not the one who really needs to be so upfront. I can’t possibly have anything to hide, and I don’t. As you will soon see even more.
Very soon I’m going to share a story concerning my ex-wife. When you read this story I am quite confidant you will understand better why I have simply no other choice than to come to the conclusion that the possibility exists that Liz Godlove/Francke could be lying about the facts of the Natividad murder.
I say this because I have given Liz the benefit of the doubt up to the point where she actually refused to comply with my request of providing her trial transcript. Once she refused, my opinion changed. That’s all there is to it. You can even see it reflected in the content of the text message exchange we had.
Still, I had some doubt. I like to call it being objective. Why should Liz, or Kevin for that matter, feel insulted because I seek documentation to back up claims being made? They shouldn’t, unless they have something to hide.
Two months ago I had an Oregon attorney submit a request for the Liz Godlove trial transcript after obtaining the case number and being told it was available. I had an attorney submit the request with the hope of obtaining the transcript on CD. According to Jesse at the courthouse, the CD was only available for the attorney of record (AOR). The AOR, Charlie Burt, is dead. Therefore, Liz would have to appoint another AOR to submit the request. I had the attorney do it just to see what would happen. As it was told to me, if I petitioned the court for the transcript I would only be able to obtain printed copies at a costly expense. Fruitless to even attempt in my financial situation.
The attorney just recently received a response from the court. It consists of a form letter that no-one apparently even took the time to fill out, but clearly provides a response. The letter informs me that the transcript was destroyed in the courthouse fire of 11/12/05. I trust everyone remembers that incident.
I phoned the courthouse once again to inquire of the transcript. This time they asked my name. Informed me once again of the procedures to obtain the transcript. So I asked, "then it is available, correct?"
"Hold the line sir while I check on something…………..sir, my supervisor is unavailable but I’m pretty sure it’s available. I can take your request now if you like."
I explained I had already jumped those hoops through an attorney and had received a form letter explaining the transcript had been destroyed by the 11/12/05 fire.
"Well that’s possible too."
Naturally I called her on her contradiction. "Which is it? You just told me it was probably available and now you’re telling me it’s possible it was destroyed in the fire."
"Sir, if you’d like to submit another request…"
"No, I’ll call back later."
Summed up folks, chop it, slice it, dice it however you want. The decision the jury rendered in the Godlove trial was based on nothing more than Liz’s story, and there were no witnesses or anybody else to dispute Liz’s version of the murder. Has anyone even presented any evidence of domestic violence priors in Natividad’s criminal history? I’m not aware of any.
Look, the jury was wrong about Frank Gable.
The jury was wrong about OJ as I’m sure the majority of the population would agree.
Isn’t it possible the jury was misled in the Godlove trial as well? And that just opens up a whole new can of worms that the Francke’s IMO, have been successfully keeping a lid on.
Anything’s possible. Maybe Granny is on to something.
One thing’s for sure, it doesn’t make any difference if I’m wrong about Liz. Quite frankly, Shorty Harden and his family were more open and honest, and afforded me more respect than the Francke’s ever did. I’d sooner have any member of the Harden family at my dinner table than the Franckes, excluding their children of course.
I’m reminded of that time I met the Francke brothers at the bar to see if they were gonna pay Shorty. When I practically had to slam my fist down to get them to stop drinking and telling war stories, and explained Shorty and Traci had just left after being in the bar for 20 minutes without either of them recognizing him, I learned right then just how open and honest they were being with me. Learned it while I watched them excuse themselves from the table and have their own private conference. And the Franckes want to accuse me of not being upfront. The Francke’s are frauds and have been playing a charade with this case.
To be cont….
"Rooster" is a song written by guitarist Jerry Cantrell of the band Alice in Chains. It’s dedicated to his own father. The song is about his father’s survival of his tour in Vietnam. Jerry’s father’s nickname in Vietnam was "Rooster". It is not known where the nickname came from, but many believe that it may have been in relation to the 101st Airborne Division, in which Cantrell’s father served. The 101st Airborne wore patches on their arms featuring a bald eagle. There are no bald eagles in Vietnam, so the closest thing the Vietnamese came to an eagle was a chicken. They referred to Americans as "chicken men", hence the "Rooster".
"Course, I can’t help thinking about another "Rooster" when I listen to this song.
"Yeah, they come to snuff the Rooster…and Liz Godlove had to play along, or else.
This series, including the original Oscar-nominated short, from Brown Bag Films is based upon the 1960s recordings of young children telling Bible stories in a classroom to their schoolteacher. When a film crew arrives at an inner city Dublin National School to record the children, the result is a warm, funny and spontaneous animated documentary, featuring young children telling the story of John the Baptist, The birth of Jesus, the Crucifixion, Saint Patrick and others. Give Up Yer Aul Sins combines simple humour with clever
animation to create films with a timeless quality and appeal to a family audience.
animation to create films with a timeless quality and appeal to a family audience.
Since I’m getting slow-played on obtaining Liz’s trial transcript I decided to just ask Liz herself through text messaging to have their family lawyer Steve Krasik petition the court for the CD which I’ve of course confirmed is available.
I must say it was quite an interesting exchange of text messages. I’ll be posting them soon, but for now I just want to inform everyone she denied my request claiming it wasn’t available anyway, and tossing in a couple of other lame excuses.
Much more to say but I’m out of time. Enjoy the new song playing on the "What’s Happening" page now.
Quite appropriate if I do say so myself. I’ll be moving it to the "Tim Natividad" page as soon as I finish it.
In June of 2005, Portland attorney David Celuch argued to the Oregon State Court of Appeals that Frank Gable’s trial lawyers, Bob Abel and John Storkel, were ineffective on several grounds, including not adequately investigating evidence that Tim Natividad killed Michael Francke. The argument contended that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief, raising six assignments of error.
Of those assignments, the judges appeared to focus most of their attention on Celuch’s argument that Frank didn’t waive his right to object to having the jury consider the no-parole sentence. The law allowing for that sentence was passed after Mike Francke was killed. Courts generally rule that handing down more severe penalties that did not exist when a crime was committed violate constitutional protections against ex post-facto penalties unless defendants waive their rights. Celuch said since the no-parole sentence didn’t exist at the time of the murder, Frank should be resentenced to life with a possibility of parole.
In January of 2006 the court released their opinion and rejected all but one of Frank’s assignments (the opportunity to have a jury consider the no-parole sentence) and remanded the decision of whether or not Frank should be eligible to be resentenced back to the Marion County Circuit Court and Judge Frank Yraguen.
Click here to read a copy of that decisionEleven months later, on Monday, 11/27/06, Judge Yraguen held court at 9am to address the motion once again. Frank testified by phone.
On 12/5/06, the Judgment on Remand from the Court of Appeals was signed by Judge Yraguen denying Frank relief. Judgment was in favor for the defendant, the State of Oregon.
On February 20, 2007, Frank’s lawyer, Ken Hadley, filed a notice of appeal from the judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief entered on December 12, 2006.
Realizing that he had not filed the notice of appeal within the proper time limits, Mr. Hadley filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal pursuant to ORS 138.071(4).
By order dated March 20, 2007, the court denied appellant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal pursuant to ORS 138.071(4) on the ground that ORS 138.071(4) does not apply to post conviction relief cases and dismissed the appeal as untimely filed.
Enter Portland attorney Harrison Latto, who petitioned the court for reconsideration on Frank’s behalf on the ground that legislation enacted during the Oregon Legislature’s 2007 session amended ORS 138.650 to allow late filing of notices of appeal in post-conviction relief cases. Appellant argued that even though the legislation did not become effective until January 1, 2008, it applied to appeals that were pending on the effective date.
By order dated April 29, 2008, the Commissioner determined that the legislation was not retroactive and, therefore, did not apply to this case, citing Rhodes vs Eckelman, 302 Or 245,728 P2d 527 (1986) (no evidence of intent that provision apply retroactively).
Petitioner again petitioned on the ground that this case is distinguished from Rhodes because here, unlike in Rhodes, there is evidence that retroactive application was intended.
The petition was granted on September 15, 2008.
According to the court, the amendment to ORS 138.650 did not contain a retroactivity clause, however, unlike the legislation at issue in Rhodes, it was determined there is legislative history relating to the issue of retroactivity respecting the adoption of ORS 138.650.
Testimony of the bill sponsor before both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee showed that the amendment to ORS 138.650 was intended to apply to all appeals then pending before the Court of Appeals.
Frank’s petition for reconsideration was granted, and the court’s order of dismissal dated March 20, 2007 has been vacated.
The appeal is reinstated.
It will most likely take a year before this appeal is heard and a decision rendered. If Frank wins it will probably take an additional year or more to prepare for the new trial where a new jury would be convened to decide only on the penalty phase…death or life with the possibility for parole.
This would not by any means be a trial to once again determine guilt or innocence.
As I’ve said many times before, Frank’s federal appellate process is on hold until this lingering issue in the state court is resolved, and the best that can come from it is he gets a new sentence with the possibility of parole. A parole straight to a federal prison to serve his other 6-8 year sentence which runs consecutive to his murder conviction.
Frank didn’t have to pursue this appeal. His other claims have already been preserved for federal habeas review, so he could have dropped this appeal and gone right to federal court where most people feel he has the best chance of getting his murder conviction overturned.
Presumably, Frank feels that life with the possibility of parole (even to some other sentence) is preferable to life without the possibility of parole.
And so it goes…
I have just received word from one of Frank’s lawyers that two days ago, the Court of Appeals (through its Appellate Commissioner) granted reconsideration, and granted the motion for leave to pursue a late appeal. This means that the appeal is back on track. The appeal relates only to Frank’s sentence.
Be sure to check out Phil Stanford’s recent column in the Portland Tribune. Wouldn’t want anyone to miss my comments.
Free Frank Gable 