Newsitorial: Schair's Failed Application for Habeas Corpus Confirms Indictment, Implicates Jesters
Wed Sep 9, 2009
world-news, prostitution, shriners, royal-order-of-jesters, masons, freemasonry, freemasons, child-sex-tourism, indian-rights, brazilian-judiciary, under-age-prostitution, masons-and-prostitutes, masonic-sex-crimes
By Sandy Frost
Exhibit 55, client list submitted by Richard Schair as part of his application for Habeas Corpus. It names three members of the Royal Order of Jesters who booked a fishing trip with Schair August 31 - September 9, 2005.
Exhibit 69, Judge's initial denial of Richard Schair's application for Habeas Corpus.
Exhibit 76, page 1 of the police report submitted to the judge as she investigated Schair's application.
Exhibit 77, page 2 of the police report submitted to the judge as she investigated Schair's application. It details their charges.
A failed application for habeas corpus has made public a court file that details the evidence for which former fishing tour operator Richard W. Schair was indicted by the Brazilian federal police as they investigated the sexual exploitation of minor Indian girls living along the Amazon. The file includes a client manifest that names three members of the Shriners secret sub-group, the Royal Order of Jesters (ROJ).
Exclusive coverage of this and the conviction of three other Jesters who were caught in a FBI human trafficking sting can be found here.
Schair's application was an attempt to avoid prosecution as he asked a Brazilian judge to throw out the case against him.
His application included customer lists that named clients who’d submitted affidavits claiming they never witnessed any girls or prostitution while on his Wet-a-Line fishing trips.
One of these lists (photo 1) includes three members of the Royal Order of Jesters, guests of Schair’s from August 31 - September 9, 2005. They are Donald W. Anderson, R.W. Keers and R.R. Kirby, all members of the ROJ Albuquerque court # 24.
They provided no such affadavits.
These statements were solicited in an attempt to discredit depositions provided by five Indian girls who told the Brazilian federal police that a North American named "Richard" illegally lured them off their reservations into prostitution with tourists aboard his fishing boats. One girl testified that she'd been left pregnant at age 13 after such a trip.
The Jesters involvement with Schair was first reported here. Schair had sued a competitor, Philip Marsteller, for alleging he was involved in prostitution. A witness list for the defense named 19 Jesters who were expected to testify about their fishing trips to Brazil and:
"their first hand knowledge of prostitution, minor prostitution, use of illegal drugs and/or entry into Indian reservations by Schair (plaintiff) and/or his customers."
Schair's application for habeas corpus in part blamed Marsteller for his legal troubles but the judge didn’t buy it. Her first decision to deny alludes to Schair's pleas that he not endure further financial and psychological hardship, including the scrutiny of his parents. She continues that though Schair claimed his application was urgent, she failed to see why because the police report she had asked for spelled out why he'd been indicted. She decided Schair's application lacked urgency and the evidence proved it lacked merit so she denied it.
The police report (photos 2 and 3) explains that they'd been investigating how Schair allegedly used underage prostitutes to attract tourists to his fishing business in Brazil.
The report continues that the materially criminal information included police files, declarations, audiovisual materials and registered documents that support penalties and sanctions against Schair for:
• having sexual relations with a minor under 14
• enticing minors under age 18
• attracting the girls to facilitate prostitution
• keeping boats as destinations for prostitution
• promoting the recruitment, transport of and lodging of girls on the boats to practice prostitution, among other things
The judge's five page final denial cites these violations in addition to those of Brazil's Statute of the Indian, using words like sexual violence and Indians.
Indigenous rights were first legislated in 1811, nine years after Brazil became independent of Portugal. According to "Indigenous Rights in Democratic Brazil" by Maria Guadalupe Moog Rodrigues published in Human Rights Quarterly 24, the Portuguese Crown had authorized a "total war" against indigenous peoples to wipe them out and claim their resource rich lands. The new Brazilian law was a step toward protecting Indian's rights but really considered them too stupid to make their own decisions, thus legislating that the Indian's material and personal rights be protected under the "Justice of Orphans" and be administered by the government.
In 1919, the Brazilian Civil Code included "Indians" and considered them "relatively incapable" of exercising their rights as they were lumped together with minors and the mentally ill. The 1973 Indigenous Peoples' Statute exerted more control over their property, income and land, to include mineral rights. This changed in 1988 with a new Brazilian constitution as they abandoned military regime in favor of democracy.
Today, indigenous rights groups continue to fight for citizenship rights that protect all of Brazil's first peoples.
So, in the end, what does this all mean?
Richard W. Schair is in a lot of trouble, especially if the extradition treaty between Brazil and the United States is enforced. His attempt to clear his name in Brazil blew up in his face. His attempt to proclaim his innocence made public evidence that, indeed, he'd been indicted and, if the police report and judge's denials stand up in court, he'd probably be found guilty as charged for luring underage Indian girls into prostitution for his customers in addition to having sex with one under the age of 14.
As this was unfolding in Brazil, Schair attempted to clear his name in the United States by suing Newsvine for defamation and libel. His complaint focused on my articles, especially the one that reported he’d been indicted in Brazil.
This was his second such lawsuit after Schair sued a competitor for alleging that he was involved with prostitution. Mounting evidence substantiated the defendant’s claims so Schair settled out of court by paying him $15K.
Likewise, Schair withdrew his lawsuit against Newsvine after his complaint was moved to federal court.
None of this bodes well for the Royal Order of Jesters, especially since the last of three who pleaded guilty to violating the Mann Act was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. The three, a former New York state Supreme Court judge, his law clerk and a retired police captain, were caught in a FBI human trafficking sting out of Buffalo, NY for taking illegal aliens to weekend parties in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Florida so their Jester brothers could have sex with them. The judge’s plea agreement states that he worked with national court officers to coordinate prostitutes for a national meeting in Ontario, Canada.
The Jester's constitution and bylaws state that members must first obtain a letter of approval from the national court before taking trips overseas, so logically, somewhere exists such a document sanctioning these fishing trips to Brazil.
Then there are other issues such the violation of Indian rights and nonprofit abuse, since the Jesters, the Shriners and their Masonic parent groups are all classified by the IRS as tax exempt or nonprofit.
Above all else, these guys are Master Masons, sworn to defend and protect each other in the name of charity, love and brotherhood except in the cases of murder and treason. One of the depositions from Schair’s first lawsuit was from a fishing guide who stated that the Jesters asked to be called Masons and asked for girls over 13.
Things could get a little messy once federal investigators identify Jesters who are supposed to enforce the law instead of using their positions of influence to protect those who break it.
I suspect that in this case, the cover up will be worse than the crime since these guys think they are above the law.
In fact, Shriner bylaws state that their law does not include the law of the land.
At this point, it’s just a waiting game to see if there is a convergence between the investigation, prosecution and conviction of those Jesters busted in Buffalo for the prostitution of illegal aliens and those Jesters associated with Schair, especially since the denial of his habeas corpus application makes possible his extradition to Brazil for the prosecution of prostituting of underage Indian girls to attract more business.