Home > divorce, Due Process, Uncategorized > We Don’t Need Any Stinking Due Process… (Do We?)

We Don’t Need Any Stinking Due Process… (Do We?)





AUGUST 7, 2012 (

(Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.)

I am a sad to say people I respect have no problem with this nasty piece of  business. I do.

The ways in which the Felicia Amos case violated due process boggle my mind. Contempt is a CRIMINAL (or “quasi-criminal) matter resulting in loss of liberty.The Constitution affords every citizen protections against loss of liberty without the protections we call “due process.”

Felicia (pro se but clearly with help) appealed her being jailed for criminal contempt in a family law case.  From the appellate transcript: “She [Felicia] asserts the trial court erred by punishing her for summary contempt and that the summary proceeding violated her right to due process by failing to afford her notice of the charge against her, a full hearing, assistance of counsel, and the ability to confront witnesses.” Summary means short or expedited. Summary contempt is not available in  California–nor is one party consent to recordings like these. Not to mention they  were hearsay.

The facts, per the appellate transcript,  are as follows:

  • By final order dated July 30, 2010, the trial court convicted Antonio Amos (“Antonio”), appellant’s former husband, of assault and battery of appellant. The trial court sentenced him to – 2 – six month[sic] s in jail, suspended for one year on the condition that he not have contact with appellant except for visitation exchanges of their child, and ordered that he not “harass” appellant.

“On October 30, 2010, appellant wrote a letter to the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Arlington County (“Commonwealth’s attorney”), asserting that Antonio violated the terms of the trial court’s final order.1 Appellant asserted that, on two separate dates, Antonio “intimidate[d], harass[ed], and threaten[ed]” her during an exchange of their child for visitation at a fast-food restaurant.’”

She wrote: “This constant communication and intimidation is causing so much stress for me. I want to believe that the ORDER is not just a piece of paper but carr[ies] the weight and authority as it was stated by the [trial court]–NO EXCEPTIONS. Please do not let my situation become some comment with a bad ending. I have done all that I know how to do. . . . I honestly believe that the threatening behavior is ESCALATING. Help me.  “

(My personal take in this language is that it is not consistent with manipulation—it is articulate and does not overstate the claim, as manipulators commonly do. It is the voice of frustration, not BPD, in my seasoned opinion.)

The Commonwealth attorney wrote to the court, which set an OSC (order to Show cause) why Defendant Husband should  not go to jail for violating his parole.

The die is cast.

“December 3, 2010, the trial court issued its order… The show cause hearing was held on June 10, 2011.”

This guy had SIX MONTHS in which to create his “defense”. (Remember his original trial involved all the usual due process protections-and he was CONVICTED. This was not a Family Law DV finding, it was a full on criminal conviction.) SIX MONTHS go by. Six  months of visitations, each of which was an opportunity for this lovely chap to plan his escape from jail time. Six months of NOTICE and a full awareness that his liberty was at stake.

At the hearing—the outcome of which meant husband might go back to jail, so he was highly motivated to lie—we know that “Antonio testified that he videotaped one of the visitation exchanges about which appellant complained. He stated he used a camera mounted to the dashboard of his car.”

Bingo– he had PROOF—right?

Not right. There was no authentication of the video tape, there was no foundation laid, there was no cross examination. He could have taped that at any time during the six months. (As I mentioned this would have been illegal in California in any case.)

Also similarly: “Antonio testified that prior to entering the restaurant to pick up his son, he “wired” himself with a tape recorder”. How odd that he should do so, how utterly convenient –and yes—again—how nicely devoid of  any authentication,  or cross examination.  Felicia had NO ATTORNEY, no clue this alleged evidence even existed. Think Gideon v Wainwright. The court just pounced on this and indicted the unsuspecting wife. get this straight–Husband knew he might go to jail. WIFE HAD NO CLUE.

And thus, with no cross examination and  no representation by any attorney—no notice or opportunity to have any due process afforded her, this august court acted to convict her. not of perjury. but of “contempt”-and jail. “At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court dismissed the show cause order against Antonio, stating, “[t]here’s no question that [Antonio] has not violated this [c]ourt’s orders.”

“ NO QUESTION”??? I have many questions. The court did not even say “in this case”—it made a sweeping statement, which, I think we can all intuit, is indicative of bias. (Again, in my seasoned opinion.) My questions are “how was this video authenticated”” “How was this audio authenticated?” (As to date in each case.) “Why did you wear a “wire” on the date in question?” How is is that these two recordings were the EXACT visitations, out if some 36 (9 month’s worth) visitations, that y9ou recorded?” These are the questions counsel would have asked.

“The trial court then found appellant in summary contempt.” (See above.) Felicia filed (possibly incorrect) motion to vacate—in which “appellant asserted she testified truthfully about the events that took place during the visitation exchanges. She contended the trial court failed to give her an opportunity to “explain, respond and/or object to being held in contempt,” to have counsel present, or to have notice and a hearing,”

(All the “contentions” are true.)

“Finally, appellant asserts the trial court “conspired with the Defense Counsel and the Commonwealth of Virginia to prevent [her] from receiving any notice of the potential outcome” and the trial court “should have recused himself” before ruling on her contempt charge.” I wish I found that hard to believe.

But there’s more. The court upheld this travesty on appeal –wait for it–because the unrepresented appellant didn’t properly raises the issue at trial!!! “Rule 5A:18 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.”: She got blindsided and has no remedy because .. she got blindsided? Does this not offend anyone else as it does me?

So—I see gross corruption. Yes, I know women use false allegations to manipulate the system. They do. But this in no way proves THIS woman did. The facts show this is more likely than not NOT such a case. (I know my assessment of the credibility of the initial letter by this women is not an “expert” one. But the fact that she has an opponent who was strongly motivated to lie , given every opportunity to do so,  had credibility with the court because of  his prior military service and was never subjected to the rigors of proof beyond a reasonable doubt–—that is undeniable.)

I frankly have a huge amount of heartburn with women who use false DV allegations. I have seen it over and over. I also know what they sound  like—and this doesn’t have the ring of BS.  But I can’t prove that, and she wasn’t allowed to.

But here  are the undisputed facts:

1. Husband was CONVICTED of assault and battery WITH full due process.

2. Husband had time to “dummy up” these oh so convenient recordings,

3. These recordings were in no way authenticated and,

4. The person deprived of her liberty had no representation,  no notice of the jeopardy, no ability to cross examine witnesses or examine the evidence. NONE.

She was railroaded. No matter who you favor in the dispute, the fact is we cannot know who fabricated what—that is what due process is for,  and that did not take place. Given that NOT ONE SHRED OF DUE PROCESS was afforded this woman–who may have been battered–we cannot know

And we  never will. This, my friends, a was a travesty of justice.

  1. August 20, 2012 at 7:09 am

    UPDATE: “). Like Carroll Straus said in her online article about your case, the importance of your case goes far beyond just you, and affects so many other people. And I hope that you never lose sight of this as you continue down your appellate court road, since I think it can be the fuel needed to stay the course.:)”

    From an interested party to Felecia Amos. Stay tuned.

  2. Attorney
    October 23, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Motion for Rehearing En Bance was granted by the Virginia Court of Appeals on October 23, 2012. See: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1667114.pdf

  3. Attorney
    October 23, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Motion for Rehearing En Banc was granted by the Virginia Court of Appeals on October 23, 2012. See: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1667114.pdf

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: