Timeline: Parole and CC-2 Charges Against Stuart Dizak, a Mockery of Justice, Defying Logic

September 28, 2020, Several parole officers come to my residence. My parole officer, Samantha Roll, asked me for my cell phone and laptop computers. She then asked me if I had sent a Facebook friend request to my ex-wife, Judy Nanni. I respond, No, do you think I’m stupid? She would be the last person that I would send a friend request to.

PO Roll points to my cell phone, displaying the Facebook activity report for 9/17/20 and 9/2020, then quickly turns my cellphone towards another parole officer, telling him, “See, he is lying. There’s the request.” I respond, “Not so, they are only searches. There is no friend request, and the 9/20/20, 5X repeat searches are not from me.” On 9/17/20, I did search for Judy Nanni for a pending federal lawsuit. Then as there were many Judy Nanni’s, followed by Judy M. Nanni. There was very little information, and no photograph. Therefore, no reason for me to do 5 repeat searches on 9/20. Regardless, all of the above was meaningless. I could search to doomsday as a search is not a friend request. All of the above was audio video recorded by the home security system.

Something rather odd, rather than taking my cellphone which was the alleged source of the charges,  PO Roll takes my laptop computer. I was then taken downtown and also charged with a contempt of court, 2nd. Roll told me she would call my friend, Michelle Buyea, in one hour, to pick up the laptop. (She never did) I was then given in a court appearance ticket dated 9/28/20 for a court appearance date of 9/13/20 which was 15 days prior to the date of the ticket!

Not only does PO Roll state the friend request was on 9/20/20, so does the CC-2 court appearance ticket and more significantly, the police incident report taken from Ms. Nanni, adding the time as 8:50 PM.  A later signed statement, where MS Nanni requests that criminal charges be placed against me, is dated 9/25/20.  Still missing however, is the original Facebook friend request of 9/20/20 that all the charges were based on.

At a preliminary parole hearing held on October 13, 2020, PO Roll finally admits there was no friend request on the 9/20/20 cell phone screenshot. (Again, which all the charges were based on.)  However, instead of requesting that the charges be dismissed, she comes up with a new charging instrument, a notice from Facebook to Nanni, dated 9/21/20 at 8:04 AM stating, “Stuart Dizak wants to be your friend.”  There are significant problems here. First, all the accusing papers state that the incident occurred on 9/20/20, but of far greater significance, how could Nanni report the incident as occurring   the evening of 9/20/20 at 8:50 PM, that she was not aware of until the Facebook Notification sent to her following day, 9/21/20 at 8:04 AM?  Moreover, all 3 steps, the missing step 1, my friend request to Facebook, step 2, the notice from Facebook to Nanni, and step 3, the confirmation from Facebook back to me, that I have a friend request pending, all occur virtually instantaneously, not a day apart.

It gets worse yet, contrary to law, I was not allowed to participate in the above hearing, but was permitted to listen by phone in a separate room.  I did overhear my attorney, Christine Seppeler, tell the hearing officer a most telling comment,  MS Nanni had deleted the new primary charging document, step 2, the 9/21/20 notice from Facebook to her, from her cellphone and laptop computer.*  Additionally, still missing to this day, is step 1, my friend request to Facebook and step 3,  Facebook’s return confirmation back to me, that I have a friend request pending.  In other words, Step 2, cannot legitimately occur without step 1.  Attorney Seppeler had also informed me prior to the 10/13/20 hearing, that if MS Nanni did not appear at that hearing as per my 6th amendment right to confront my accusers, the parole hearing officer was required to dismiss the charges.  Nanni did not appear or participate in the hearing, yet the charges were not dismissed.

For some inexplicable reason, in over 5 months, none of the attorneys involved ever contacted Facebook’s legal department to verify the authenticity or existence of any Dizak/Nanni communications.  First, because they were aware that no such documents existed, and secondly, such a request would in all probability, have resulted in a Facebook investigation, resulting in numerous repercussions including possible criminal charges against those individuals responsible.  Oh, perhaps I should add that none of the accusing parties, ever ran an IP Address check to locate the address of the originating source of the 9/20/20 cell phone searches, this for the same reasons as above.  I was able to locate the origin of those multiple Judy Nanni searches and again, because of the possibility of criminal charges against those responsible, I will have to address this at a later date.

*Note: For some inexplicable reason the comment from attorney Seppeler to the hearing officer, informing her of Nanni’s deletions, was deleted from the transcript, as was a substantive segment of the actual parole trial held on December 4, 2020. This will be addressed in a separate report. Also to be addressed in a separate report, the Rochester City Court proceeding where the judge chastised the prosecutor for failing to come up with any legitimate evidence after granting him several delays. Additionally, informing him that Facebook copies are unacceptable to a court as their accounts are easily hacked.

 

Stuart Dizak