The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

if this were an online program of some sort, rather than a timeline, it would be called a "beta" version. The timeline works as it is. However, there is a lot more to add. This "beta" version is intended solely to provide you with the beginnings of an assessment of the case of one Elsa Newman, of the Baltimore area in the state of Maryland, in the United States of America.

Having offered my apologies for its shortcomings, I now offer the timeline itself. It records the story of an inexcusable injustice done to Elsa Newman and her children by a justice system she trusted implicitly. It contains information about her trial and imprisonment for a crime that did not even exist. It further contains brief mention of her fight to save her children from the hands of a pedophile custodial parent, their own father. I will go further into this matter of sexual abuse as I add to the timeline.

All that said, here is the timeline.

 

Timeline of events: Elsa Newman case, Baltimore area, state of Maryland, United States of America.

               

1990   Elsa newman married Arlen Slobodow. Overheard at the wedding: “Married a girl with lots of money. That’s what we like to see.” (comment from father of the groom)

*********************************************************************************

18 May, 1993  Herbie was born

**********************************************************************************

March, 1996  Lars was born

**********************************************************************************

Pre-1998 Doug Gansler was a federal prosecutor and in private practice.

Note: This information is included here, because Gansler was state’s attorney for Montgomery County at the time of Newman’s trial.

***********************************************************************************

1998   Gansler entered  the political scene in Montgomery County, Maryland; became State’s Attorney for the County.

*************************************************************************************

1999   Katherine Winfree became Montgomery County’s second-ranking prosecutor

************************************************************************************

December, 1999 Newman separated from Slobodow—began custody battle in family court

Newman obtained  a protective order against Slobodow for domestic violence. It was later renewed.

***********************************************************************************

May, 2000    Newman was assaulted by Arlen Slobodow, despite the protective order against him.

***********************************************************************************

28 December, 2000  Elsa Newman met with Sandra Ashley, an employee of Stephen Friedman, Newman’s lawyer.

After her conference with Newman at the steak house, Ashley emailed her employer, Stephen Friedman. The entire content of the email read thus:

---Original Message—

From:      Sandra K. Ashley

Sent:       Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:09 p.m.

To:          Stephen Friedman

Subject:  Elsa Newman…

The children have been w/father for past several days and w/be returning home tomorrow evening, Fri. She wants to have them examined and was in search of a pediatrician who “will tell it like it is.”

Comment on email: Why…if Elsa Newman disclosed plans for murder to Sandra Ashley, did Ashley not disclose such plans to her employer? Why did no word of this supposed disclosure appear until nearly four years later, when Ashley would step forward to testify after her employer’s testimony was ruled inappropriate?

And if the employer’s testimony was inappropriate, then so was Ashley’s, since Ashley was acting in her capacity as Friedman’s employee when she met with Newman.

Spring, 2001                 Stephen Friedman claims he asked Landry to be present in his meetings with Elsa, for a “cool head in the room.”

Reality check: Landry had a full-time job, could not attend meetings with Newman on any regular basis. Newman recalls perhaps two occasions when Landry might have been present during a conversation with Friedman.

Friedman claims Landry and Newman discussed in his presence various plans that involved harming Elsa’s children and blaming Slobodow.

Reality check: 1) Elsa is not a mother who would harm her children; 2) What was Friedman doing all this time the two women were having this discussion? Just sitting there listening? 3) Landry worked full time and was not available for more than one or two meetings.

Question: Why did Friedman claim that Landry was often present and that he had many times heard them discuss plans for crimes?

*******************************************************************************

Spring, 2001                 Friedman took no notes when Elsa talked to him. She made complaints about this, and about is apparent lack of attention to what she was saying.

Despite Newman’s complaints, when Friedman appeared in court to testify against Newman, he carried page upon page of notes, which he consulted and from which he spoke.

Question: what was the source of these supposed “notes” from his conferences with a client, when he had taken no notes at his meetings with Newman?

***********************************************************************************

31 August, 2001   Friedman claims he met with Newman in preparation for 9/4/2001 hearing by Circuit Court Judge James Ryan. He claims that Newman stated, “You know, I don’t have to kill both children. I only need to kill Lars because I can save Herbie, and then Arlen [Slobodow] will go to jail and get what he deserves because he is a criminal, and I can at least save Herbie.”

Reality check: Elsa Newman is not a mother who would even joke about killing her children, let alone say this in earnest.

**********************************************************************************

September, 2001  Friedman told Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge that Newman had told him that if she lost custody, she would hire someone to kill her husband.

Reality check: As an attorney, Elsa Newman had complete faith in the law to provide justice for herself and her children.

QUESTION: Which was it? Newman was going to hire someone to kill her husband? Or she was going to kill one or both of her kids and blame her husband, so that he would “get what he deserved.” The two things you accuse her of saying, Mr. Friedman, are mutually exclusive.

Friedman disclosed to another circuit court judge the statement he attributed to Newman as of the previous Friday [August 31]. That judge informed Judge Ryan.

*********************************************************************************

4 September, 2001          At the scheduled custody hearing, Judge Ryan announced the substance of Friedman’s disclosure.

**********************************************************************************

4 September, 2001  Based on Friedman’s allegations, Newman was limited to supervised visitation.

*************************************************************************************

4 September, 2001              Friedman’s appearance as Newman’s counsel of record was stricken.

**********************************************************************************

4 September , 2001            Family court “trial on merits” was postponed until December 7, 2001.

**********************************************************************************

Sometime after 4 September, 2001   “Trial on merits” was again postponed, until January 28, 2002.

 

7 January, 2002       Margery Landry broke into the home of Arlen Slobodow about 3:30  in the morning. She wore a homemade ski mask, tan pants, green shirt and tan shoes. She carried pornographic material she intended to “plant,” if she could not find evidence of child pornography in the house. She also carried a 9mm handgun, with two bullets loaded. She had additional ammunition in a box, but these were not loaded in the gun, and were probably left in a fanny pack at the point of the break-in.

Landry found Slobodow sleeping in the master bedroom with his five-year-old son. The father was nude from the waist down; the child was completely nude. Slides of the crime scene would show a bag containing what appeared to be sex toys. The slides would also show a small pair of shoes and socks beside the bed.

It was at this point that Landry apparently lost control of herself. She entered the master bedroom and attempted to separate the man and his son.

As the two of them struggled, the gun went off, one bullet striking Slobodow in the thigh. There were both entrance and exit holes in the thigh; however there were no matching holes in Slobodow’s pajama bottoms, although that item of apparel was soaked in blood.

After further struggle, Landry fled. Slobodow called 9-1-1 and informed the operator that his estranged wife had sent someone to kill him—although, even had this been true, there was no way he could have known it.

Slobodow informed questioners that his son had been in his bed because the boy had been unable to sleep and thus had made his way to his father’s room. The boy’s bed, however, had not been slept in. So the scenario the father presents seems to suggest that this  five-year-old boy woke; climbed out of his bed; made the bed; took off his pajamas; put on his shoes and socks; made his way, naked, into his father’s room; removed his shoes and socks and climbed, naked, into bed with his father, who was naked from the waist down.

Note: As a parent of three sons, and having consulted with other parents of sons, I would like to note that little boys do not ordinarily sleep naked.

Later that day Landry was arrested outside her home.

Within hours of the crime, Stacy Talbott, Slobodow’s attorney, went to the authorities with a quantity of  materials she had prepared for use in the family court appearance scheduled for January 28. Talbott apparently offered these materials as evidence in the case that the prosecutors would devise against Newman.

Note: These files of Talbott’s would serve the prosecution well. Newman had hired a lawyer accustomed to dealing with criminal cases, as indeed, she should have done. Insertion of the family court materials provided some considerable difficulty for criminal attorneys, however, unaccustomed to working with family court matters.

***********************************************************************************

9 January, 2002       The state of Maryland filed charges against Newman for conspiracy to commit first degree murder and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree.

***********************************************************************************

10 January, 2002    Elsa Newman was arrested

***********************************************************************************

11 January, 2002    Press briefing: US Department of State

Question: “…[Margery Landry has been charged…” is she an employee of this building?

Answer:  (Richard Boucher) Margery Lemb Landry is a career Foreign Service officer. Her rank is FO—01….She entered duty with the Foreign Service in August, 1980. She was assigned to the Bureau of Consular Affairs to the office of Children’s Issues.

*************************************************************************************

Sometime after 10 January  Landry pled guilty to assault, burglary, reckless endangerment, use of a handgun in commission of a felony and obliterating the serial number on a gun.

*************************************************************************************

28 January, 2002    Newman/Slobodow divorce was final

************************************************************************************

4 March, 2002  Doug Gansler was quoted in People Magazine: “The boy was having trouble sleeping….Can you imagine how difficult it’s going to be for him to sleep now?

Note: It appears to me that Gansler little understood just how prophetic his statement was. A small boy, molested by his father, as part of his daily life and routine,  surely would be expected  to have considerable problems with sleep. And the courts of Maryland were about to turn him over to the custody of a pedophile father.

**********************************************************************************

4 April, 2002  Elsa Newman appeared before the Circuit Court of Montgomery County and entered a plea of not guilty.

*************************************************************************************

28 June, 2002  Pre-trial hearing. The Circuit Court considered the State’s motion to compel Friedman to testify.

State called Friedman to the stand.

Newman requested that the courtroom be cleared during Friedman’s testimony to preserve confidentiality  until the court had ruled on the question of attorney-client privilege.

Judge rejected that request.

Newman stated that attorney/client privilege precluded Friedman’s testimony.

Newman was granted a standing objection.

After Friedman’s testimony, the court ruled that he had acted reasonably and that his disclosure nullified attorney/client privilege about the disclosed statements.

**********************************************************************************

Summer, 2002          It was reported in the media that “This summer [Montgomery County State’s Attorney, Doug] Gansler drove to Annapolis at 8:45 p.m., just in case the current Democractic AG in Maryland had withdrawn his re-election bid by the 9 p.m. deadline.” Presumably, this would have given Gansler time to step in and file for a run for state office.

************************************************************************************

2 August, 2002      Friedman testified against Newman at her trial.

Appeals Court later ruled that this testimony exceeded the scope of his testimony at the pre-trial hearing.

*************************************************************************************

September, 2002  Landry pled guilty to assault, burglary, reckless endangerment, use of a handgun in commission of a felony and obliterating the serial number on a gun. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Landry did not plead guilty to conspiracy or attempted murder.

************************************************************************************

End of October, 2002        The Washington area snipers were arrested. Gansler appeared on TV, detailing his plans to prosecute.

Federal authorities turned the suspects over to the state of Virginia.

*************************************************************************************

25 October, 2002  Gansler announced  charges in the sniper case.

[Note: is this the same as the item immediately preceding?]

************************************************************************************

7 November, 2002               Meeting held, where decisions were made as to where to try the D.C. snipers. Doug Gansler did not attend.  Instead, Montgomery County’s prosecutor attended a meeting with Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan, Chief Moose and perhaps others.

*************************************************************************************

11 December, 2002            Police spokesperson reported that Katherine Winfree had been arrested and charged with drunk driving on the previous Saturday night. Winfree was then the principal Deputy State’s Attorney. She was, at the time of her arrest, driving a county issued car. She was charged with:

•             Driving under the influence

•             Driving while impaired

•             Driving an unsafe vehicle (her county-issued car had a flat tire)

According to the police spokesperson, a police officer spotted a car moving unusually slowly on a road in Bethesda, Maryland. The officer “detected the odor of alcoholic breath” after Winfree was pulled over in the 9200 block of Fernwood Road, about 11:55 p.m.  Winfree is said to have refused a breathalyzer test.

This seems to have been during the time of Elsa Newman’s original criminal trial.

Note: in other words, Elsa Newman’s future lay in the words of a drunk driver. Ptooee!

*************************************************************************************

Late 2002 or early 2003—during trial of Elsa Newman Prosecutor Katherine Winfree showed a series of slides of the crime scene. One slide showed what appeared to be a bag of “sex toys” in the room. Another showed a small boy’s shoes and socks beside the bed.

During this slide presentation, Newman leaned forward in her seat, examining each slide as it was shown. It was her first chance to picture exactly what was supposed to have occurred in that room. She knew, of course, that she was charged with conspiracy. She knew that she was innocent of the charge. She fully expected to be exonerated. Nevertheless, she was interested in the slides because they provided the first details about what family friend Margery Landry had done at that scene.

When Winfree’s slide presentation reached the slide with the little shoes and socks, Elsa gasped audibly, realizing that they were beside the bed as silent witnesses to what had happened to the child in that bed, where he slept naked beside his father,  who was nearly naked.

At Elsa’s horrified gasp, Winfree turned and looked at Elsa, long and hard. No words were spoken. Then Winfree—either unaware or uncaring or both—turned continued her presentation.

Note: It is incomprehensible to me that a woman of the obvious intelligence, debating skill and attention to details that made upWinfree’s prosecutions case would have failed to note the significance of those shoes and socks.

The slides were never shown again. During the second trial, Winfree replaced them with slides showing Arlen Slobodow in the hospital. Not nearly so telling, I suppose.

************************************************************************************

17 December, 2002            Margery Landry was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment, with all but 20 years suspended.

***********************************************************************************

25 January, 2003  Elsa Newman was sentenced to life in prison, with all but 20 years suspended.

**********************************************************************************

December, 2004    Maryland’s highest court heard Elsa’s case on appeal.

Maryland’s highest court voided the decision in the first trial, saying there was no clear evidence to tie her to any conspiracy. They apparently ordered a new trial.

The appeals court ruled that the circuit court should not have allowed Elsa’s former attorney to testify about Elsa.

**********************************************************************************

December, 2004    Doug Gansler, upon hearing the results from the appeals court, said, “They’ve let out the woman who wanted to kill her kids.” 

New trial ordered [why wasn’t this double jeopardy?], new testimony to be presented. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” In the U.S. these days, one seems to have to prove one is innocent, rather than the prosecution needing to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note: I’d also like to know what happened to Gansler’s respect for the legal process of which he was a part.

***********************************************************************************

2005   Doug Gansler announced that although the two men had already been found guilty in Virginia courts, he wanted to prosecute John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo in Maryland.

Note: Nice sense of timing—or  “choreography” of his political career, as the media put it.  Nothing like a good trial of national interest to keep you in the spotlight during aplanned run for office.

 ***********************************************************************************

Tuesday, 24 May, 2005—about 2:30 p.m.    Antoinette Starks was released from the Maryland Correctional Institution at Jessup, after serving sixteen months for malicious destruction of property.

**********************************************************************************

Wednesday, 25 May, 2005          Less than 28 hours after being freed, Starks was back in police custody. She had attacked several women in a Nordstrom’s store, using four butcher knives. She had stabbed two of the women.

**********************************************************************************

25 May, 2005 or shortly thereafter    Doug Gansler’s response went like this: “The attacks were a random set of events and an absolute aberration in an otherwise safe mall and neighborhood of Bethesda.” [Not a precise quote, although it contains some phrasing from a Washington Post article.]

Notice that he made no mention of jail or prison time in the past of the offender. And there was no mention of working with police and/or mall owners to increase safety.

Note: What bearing does this have on the Newman case? It seems to me that this indicates that the man who was to become Attorney General of the state of Maryland was more than a little defensive in this case.

So this defensiveness is significant to Elsa Newman? Of course it is. It shows a man who does not like to have his opinions and stances and probably his courtroom victories challenged—even when the victory came at the hands of an assistant.

******************************************************************************

Monday, 15 August, 2005  Katherine Winfree emailed Susan Mercer, the detective working with her on the Newman case.

The entire text of the email follows:

From:       Winfree, Katherine

Sent:         Monday, August 15, 2005, 7:20 AM

To:            Mercer, Susan

Subject:    Re: Newman [Notice that the subject line indicates that Winfree was responding to an email from Mercer, and Mercer’s email had had “Newman” in the subject line.”

Hi, Susan. Welcome back. I think Frederick will be fine—it is just a bit inconvenient and I am hoping Judge Donohue does not gut our case before we even get to the jury!!  I don’t think the Fredneck rednecks will think much of Elsa’s Birkenstock 60’s look, especially if they conclude she and Margery were more than friends.

Elsa is claiming that we still have a bunch of her property—including some jewelry, papers and even a table she says her sewing machine was attached to. She is so nuts. [Note: Interesting comment, to say the least.] Can I fax you the letter to take a look at? [Note: The letter to which Winfree refers was apparently about missing property of Elsa’s. It was not written by Elsa, but by her attorney, Barry Helfand.]

Also, we would like to try talking to John Landry. Can you see if you can locate him [sic]

Kay

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Further note: It seems to me that Winfree’s email to Mercer demonstrates a distinct dislike for Newman, both in referring to her as “nuts,” and in referring to “Elsa’s Birkenstock 60’s look,” as well as in the statement that the jury in Fredrick County might conclude that Elsa “and Margery were more than friends.”

OMG! Is this tough, angry prosecutor  afraid to say the “L” word???

*********************************************************************************

Monday, 15 August, 2005   Susan Mercer responded to Katherine Winfree’s message. The entire text of Mercer’s message follows:

-----Original Message----

From:  Mercer, Susan            Susan.Mercer@montgomerycountymd.gov

To: Winfree, Katherine         Katherine.Winfree@montgomerycountymd.gov

Sent: Mon Aug 15 07:22:34 2005

Subject: Re: Newman

Kay,

Fax the letter to 301-840-2317. This list of property that I gave to you from our property section is all that was taken. We did not take the table, it was entirely too big and we only needed the sewing machine itself. We also had no reason to take any jewelry.

I will try to track down John Landry and get back to you. Did they get divorced do you know?

Susan

Note: They needed the sewing machine? Why? To determine whether Margery Landry’s homemade ski mask might have been put together on that machine? It obviously was not, or that information surely would have been used in the trial. However, the fact that Newman’s machine was not the source of the mask was never mentioned, since that information would only have served to distance Newman from the crime committed by Landry.

*************************************************************************************

Monday, 15 August, 2005   Another email from Katherine Winfree to Susan Mercer. Complete text follows.

From:       Winfree, Katherine

Sent:         Monday, August 15, 2005, 7:32 AM

To:            Mercer, Susan

Subject:    Re: Newman

Susan, I know there isn’t any remaining property—i [sic] am wondering if some of this stuff got sold when the house was sold. Do you recall the name of the lawyer we dealt with to get access to the sewing machine and kit?

I believe they are divorced. I think Arlen told me that. I also think he sold their house, but Arlen seems to think he may still live and work in the area. Was,t [sic] he a civilian employee for the Army?

By the way, Rob Grimes is giving us only a 30% chance of conviction. When I told him we were going to Frederick he upped it to 50!! And he is supposed to be on our side!!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

Note: the information in the second paragraph of Winfree’s email refers to John Landry and Margery Landry, i.e. “Are they divorced?” It is John Landry, not Arlen Slobodow, who sold his house. It is John Landry, not Arlen Slobodow who may still live and work in the area. It is John Landry about whom Winfree asks, “Wasn’t he a civilian employee for the Army?”

************************************************************************************

Tuesday, 27 September, 2005   Trial of Elsa Newman began.

************************************************************************************

September, 2005—on or about the 27 th     Barry Helfand: “Elsa Newman has worked within the system. She is a lawyer. She is a mother fighting for her children’s safety thoughout this entire matter.”

27 September, 2005          Katherine Winfree again prosecuted the case. She called Elsa a “domineering personality” who pushed Landry around.

Winfree further stated “Elsa Newman wanted Arlen Slobodow to die. She couldn’t bear to lose custody of her children.”

Notice: IMHO, if a woman of the quality and intelligence of Newman wanted Slobodow dead, then he would be quite dead.

Further notice: If Elsa so feared the loss of her children, why would she be a part of something which could only result in the loss of her children? The very argument argues against itself.

Winfree showed the jury snippets of email correspondence between Newman and Elizabeth Moran. According to Winfree, Morgan had advised Newman to do one of three things: 1) obey court orders, 2) flee with her children or 3) kill the abuser.

Reality check: If the snippets of email had not been taken out of context, the jury would have known that what Morgan was saying was clearly not advice to do one of those three things. Rather, Morgan was saying that there were no good choices, only bad ones, namely, the three things above.

Note: Amazingly, to me, in the face of Morgan’s own story and Morgan’s claim that there were no good choices, Newman had continued to believe in the American justice system, which was to treat her and her children with such grave injustice.

*************************************************************************************

27 September, 2005          Katherine Winfree continued the prosecution attack on Elsa Newman.

 

Winfree introduced Sandra Ashley, legal assistant to Friedman. You will remember that Friedman had been Elsa’s attorney for divorce proceedings. Friedman had disassociated himself from her and testified against her during the first trial. It was his testimony that Maryland’s highest court had ruled inadmissible when it overturned the verdict in the first trial.

So…now Winfree is going to use other so-called testimony, by another person whose presence on the witness stand should also have been covered by attorney-client privilege, since Ashley was employed by Friedman at the time of which she testified.

Note: It is highly interesting to me, at this point, to note that Ashley had once been employed by Stacy Talbott’s father, a man who was disbarred for accepting money illegally. Stacy Talbott was the attorney for Arlen Slobodow. You remember her from earlier in this timeline: she was the one who virtually stumbled all over herself to turn her records over to the police when she found out about Landry’s crime.

When Katherine Winfree called Sandra Ashley to the witness stand, Ashley testified that Newman had met her at a steak house before the break-in and described the plan Newman and Landry had made to kill Slobodow. This supposed “revelation” had been made nearly four years earlier, if it was in fact made at all.

Note: Such a revelation was never made. Elsa Newman is not that stupid!

Another note: After her conference with Newman at the steak house, Ashley emailed her employer, Stephen Friedman. The entire content of the email appeared earlier in this timeline. It said merely that the children had been with their father for past several days and would be returning home the following evening, Friday. Ashley also stated in the email that Newman “wants to have them examined and was in search of a pediatrician who ‘will tell it like it is.’”

Comment on email: Why…if Elsa Newman disclosed plans for murder to Sandra Ashley, did Ashley not disclose such plans to her employer?

Another note: There was no “plan”—except one of Margery Landry’s own private concoction. There was no conspiracy.  Landry’s plan was to look for evidence of child pornography and, in the event she could not find any such evidence, she intended to plant such evidence. Newman didn’t even know what Landry had in mind, and in fact had told Landry to keep out of the developing mess in family court.

**********************************************************************************

3 October, 2005     Defense case in Newman trial expected to start this day.

*********************************************************************************

7 October, 2005                Elsa Newman was again convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

*********************************************************************************

10 October, 2005              America’s CBS noted that the Newman trial had been moved to Frederick County from Montgomery County.

CBS also noted that Doug Gansler refers to the new site for the Newman trial as “Fredneck County.”

Note: Could such a disparaging remark actually be credited to a man who knew or hoped he would be running for state office [Maryland Attorney General] the following year? Remember the email from Katherine Winfree to Susan Mercer? Winfree used the same terminology. And Winfree is now Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State.

**********************************************************************************

21 November, 2005            Commentators at WTOP news in Washington, D.C. stated that Elsa Newman had been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Notice: I find this highly interesting. Newman was sentenced to prison for a crime that did not exist. There was no conspiracy. Landry was not charged with conspiracy. By definition, a “conspiracy” that involves only one person is not a “conspiracy” at all. “Conspiracy” demands at least two persons, and no other person was convicted of the same crime.

**********************************************************************************

25 August, 2006     Steve Vogel of the Washington Post reported that Gansler had said about his run for state office, “We think this is it—the primary is going to be the whole ball of wax.”

************************************************************************************

20 October, 2006  Philip Rucker of the Washington Post reported watching and speaking to Doug Gansler as Gansler watched his son play flag football. According to what Rucker said, it sounds like Gansler was playing catch with another father, rather than keeping his mind on his son and the game.

Rucker reported that Doug Gansler is ambitious and doesn’t see anything wrong with it.

During the flag football game, when his son’s team scored, Gansler reportedly shouted, “Goodbye, thanks for coming! Goodbye, thanks for coming!”

Note:  None of my sons were active in sports, but my daughter lettered in three sports in high school and went on to play college soccer. I’ve met many parents with this kind of nefarious attitude toward young people who want to play a game for love of the sport—and are hassled by parents they must learn to ignore in order to enjoy a game.

Back to Rucker: Gansler was talking politics some of the other parents as he watched the game.

*******************************************************************************

7 November, 2006               Gansler was elected to the position of Maryland Attorney General.

*******************************************************************************

January, 2007            Doug Gansler became Attorney General of the state of Maryland.

*******************************************************************************

July, 2007      Margaret Candler observed Arlen Slobodow and his two sons in the parking lot of the Maryland Correctonal Institution in Jessup.

Candler stated that she observed the trio leave after a visit with Newman. Arlen Slobodow walked ahead in seemingly companionable conversation with his older son, Herbie, leaving the younger son, Lars, to shuffle behind, head down,crying,  obviously excluded from the companionship of the other two.

**********************************************************************************

12 October, 2007  Margaret Candler wrote to Marecia Tolbert of the Hillsborough County, Florida Child Abuse Unit.

Candler copied that letter to Robert A. Butterworth, Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families.

*************************************************************************************

29 March, 2008     The Castillo children—three of them, very young—were killed, drowned by their father in a bathtub during an unsupervised visit at his hotel.

This occurred after the children’s mother, Amy Castillo, implored the judge in family court not to permit unsupervised visits. She insisted that the children were not safe with their father.

Note: This occurred in the same state, the same county, the same court, and with the same judge and psychologist who had ruled against Elsa Newman and who had turned Elsa’s sons over to their father, a man who had, according to disclosures by the children themselves, been guilty of indescribable sexual abuse when they were in his custody.

************************************************************************************

9 April, 2008              Gansler plays the race card. Concerning the 2006 election, he stated that problems at the polls reminded him of literacy tests and poll taxes as obstacles to voting.

Reality check: authorities were not prepared for such a large turnout.

**********************************************************************************

28 April, 2008           Maryland Court of special appeals hearing to decide if Newman would be required to pay Arlen Slobodow’s attorney’s fees in the child custody case.

Newman argued that Judge Ryan should have recused himself for bias against her.

She also requested that Ryan recuse himself based on a series of rulings denying her requests to visit her children.

Both requests were denied. The court stated that Ryan’s frequent rulings against Newman in the past did not indicate a bias requiring recusal.

Paul Victor Jorgenson represented Newman in appealing the requirement that she pay attorney’s fees for Arlen Slobodow.

************************************************************************************

28 April, 2008           Stacy B. Talbott argued for Slobodow.

Note: You remember Talbott? She was the one who raced to authorities with her collection of materials just hours after Margery Landry was arrested. Does this defense attorney have some kind of fascination with pedophiles that she defended this man?

************************************************************************************

28 April, 2008           This same Maryland Court of special appeals says Elsa Newman must pay Arlen Slobodow’s attorney’s fees in the child custody case. The reasoning? They assumed Newman’s reasons  for insisting that Arlen Slobodow was molesting her children were arbitrary reasons, not backed by reality.

Note: This ruling was made despite the certainty of many medical and professional people, including the treating psychiatrist for the two boys, who had carefully documented evidence of such abuse.

Further Note: Even Stephen Friedman, Newman’s former family court attorney who ended up testifying against her stated that he believed that the father was molesting at least one of Newman’s sons.

************************************************************************************

Undated: Source is Mark Plotkin, a commentator on WTOP radio in Washington, DC, who says that Gansler is a “great choreographer” of his own political career.

Plotkin also says that Gansler plans to be the first Jewish President of the United States and hopes to be inaugurated in 2017.