From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | En Español | Police State and Prisons
DA Dean Flippo: Dismiss all charges against Eva Ruiz Gomez!
by via Friends of Eva
Sunday Sep 30th, 2012 11:39 PM
Eva Ruiz Gomez was falsely arrested in September 28, 2010, for the felony kidnapping of her own son, despite that in 2002 she was given full legal and physical custody of her son and permission by the Family Law Court in Monterey to move to Mexico with him.

Eva Ruiz Gómez fue arrestada bajo falso pretexto el 28 de septiembre de 2010, acusada del secuestro de su propio hijo, un delito grave, a pesar que en 2002 el Tribunal de Familias de Monterey le había otorgado plena custodia legal y física del niño, y permiso para mudarse a México con él.

[photo: Eva Ruiz Gómez and her family]
Eva’s Story

Eva Ruiz Gomez was falsely arrested in September 28, 2010, for the felony kidnapping of her own son, despite that in 2002 she was given full legal and physical custody of her son and permission by the Family Law Court in Monterey to move to Mexico with him.

On that day in September 2010, Eva’s son was forcibly taken from Carmel Middle School, by his biological father and the DA’s investigator with a court order that was issued without Eva’s knowledge, and hidden from Eva for 11 days. With the promise of telling Eva where her son was, the DA investigator lured Eva to a location in Salinas where she was brutally arrested under false charges and taken to jail, leaving her husband Mailo holding their 11-month-old baby.

Since Eva’s arrest, the charges against her have changed numerous times, judges have recused themselves, and the case has been passed to four different district attorneys. Eva has traveled from Big Sur to Salinas, with her baby in tow, over 60 times in the past two years to appear in court. Eva’s case is an egregious miscarriage of justice on the part of law enforcement and judiciary, with her right to due process violated in too many ways to enumerate.

Eva and Mailo moved their family to Mexico in 2003. They opened and ran a very successful bed & breakfast in the tourist town of San Miguel de Allende. When the economy crashed in 2008, American tourism dried up, they closed their bed & breakfast and returned to Monterey in 2009 to find work where they had established connections and family.

Since the day of Eva’s arrest two years ago, her family’s lives have been turned upside down in an irreversible way. Eva faces three years in state prison, if found guilty. As you would expect, their family’s reserves (financially and emotionally) are depleted. Most people have no idea how expensive it is to defend oneself in a court of law, even if you are innocent. Eva has shown tremendous personal integrity and courage in refusing to “cop to a plea bargain,” despite enormous pressure from the authorities to do so.

As dire as Eva’s situation sounds, there are many bright spots in this story: Eva has a great team working with her (a brilliant lawyer, top-notch investigator and dedicated family and friends), but money is also needed. All the love and hard work in the world won’t substitute for the funds needed to effectively defend oneself in court.
So, the Friends of Eva Ruiz Gomez are doing what we would want our friends and neighbors to do if we were in dire straits and what each of you would do if this were someone in your own family. We’re telling Eva’s story and rousing community support. We’ve set up the Eva Ruiz Gomez Legal Defense Trust, and we are asking for your help. Please go to our Donate page and make any size contribution that you can. Thanks for the support!

Petitioning District Attorney, Monterey County, California
DA Dean Flippo: Dismiss all charges against Eva Ruiz Gomez!

Who is the criminal?

This is an update on the case of Eva Ruiz Gomez, a devoted mother and wife, with no prior criminal record, who may be looking at time in prison and her son taken from her. As Eva’s case nears the two-year mark, her friends, family and community supporters continue to have more and more questions and concerns.

Besides our obvious concern for Eva and her family, we wonder what is this costing Monterey County to continue this unjustifiable prosecution? Eva has appeared in criminal court 60 times already, with no end in sight. She’s appeared in the Family Law Court an equal number of times. What’s going on? Why does the District Attorney refuse to dismiss this case? Despite conflicting court orders, the charges against Eva changing numerous times, growing evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as countless violations of Eva’s civil rights and right to due process, this travesty continues.

This is Eva’s story in a nutshell, according to court documents and first-hand accounts. Fourteen years ago, Eva had a child with a man who proved increasingly abusive. She was granted full custody of her son by the court; he was given visitation rights. Eva wanted to relocate to Mexico, which she did in 2003, starting up a bed & breakfast business. She had court approval to do so. She said she provided the father her contact phone number and address in Mexico; he said she didn’t. She maintains he was never interested in the boy until child support, which he hadn’t paid, became an issue.

The father, Ramon Munoz, with advice and assistance from Monterey County DA’s investigator Mr. Infante, filed a motion to change custody and visitation in 2004, but didn’t serve Eva with papers, so she wasn’t at the hearing (or even aware it was happening because she was in Mexico). A different judge from the ones at prior hearings granted the father joint custody plus a visitation schedule in Monterey County. Why didn’t the new judge look at the court records and see that Eva had been given permission to go to Mexico and had full legal and physical custody?

In 2009, Eva and her family returned to Monterey County, and her son was enrolled in Carmel Middle School. On September 28, 2010, Infante went to the school and, using the bogus custody order from 2004, and without notifying Eva, took the child and handed him over to Mr. Munoz in Salinas. Infante left his business card with the school secretary who immediately contacted Eva to let her know her son had been taken. When Eva called Infante, he told her to meet him in a portable building behind the courthouse. She arrived as soon as possible with her husband Mailo and their baby, looking for her son, but instead she was handcuffed, arrested and taken away, leaving her husband holding the baby.

The great irony is that Eva’s lawyer has uncovered evidence revealing that the DA’s office committed so many legal violations in the lead-up and in the process of snatching Eva’s son and arresting Eva that DA investigator Infante appears to be the one guilty of child abduction—the crime they originally charged Eva with. This outrageous conduct on the part of the prosecutor’s office requires dismissal of this bogus case on the grounds of due process violation.

When the “Pitchess Motion” became public, we read it and were certainly appalled at the chain of events leading from the original court orders on child custody and visitation rights and permission from the court for Eva to move to Mexico. You’re thinking: “What is a Pitchess Motion?” (We asked the same question.) It’s derives from the California Supreme Court’s landmark 1974 decision in PITCHESS V. SUPERIOR COURT, that a defendant is entitled to discovery of “all potentially relevant documents” or information in the personnel record of a peace officer accused of misconduct against the defendant on a showing of “good cause.”

Besides the Pitchess Motion, Eva’s lawyer twice filed a Request for Discovery to get, among other things, something as basic as a look at the arrest warrant. What we saw in court was Eva’s lawyer asking in every way possible for the arrest warrant and police records of the arrest so he can effectively defend his client. The District Attorney refuses, and the judge won’t make him. Why not? And it’s not just the arrest warrant, but also where’s the protective custody warrant and the protective custody order and the Order to Show Cause, giving Eva her rightful opportunity to contest? All of those are required by law before an official of the criminal justice system goes into a school and takes a child away from the parent who has custody.

Can this really happen in Carmel, CA? Well, it did on September 28, 2010, when Mr. Infante took Eva’s son and for 11 days, until the Family Court gave her son back to her, she had no knowledge of his whereabouts. Doesn’t that sound like child abduction? It does to us.

Also Mr. Infante appears to have possibly perjured himself, concerning the whereabouts of Eva while she was living and working in Mexico. According to documents in the case, Investigator Infante, at the February 4, 2011 preliminary hearing, under penalty of perjury, told Deputy District Attorney Patterson that Munoz was deprived of visitation because he had no knowledge of his son’s location over the Christmas holidays in 2005 or for the years 2006-2009. But on September 28, 2010, Investigator Infante had stated, under penalty of perjury, that: “In January of 2008, via the internet, I located Eva Ruiz Gomez in San Miguel de Allende, running a Bed and Breakfast.” (He stated the address and phone number of the B&B in Mexico).

But even earlier than that, in a 2005 declaration to the court, Munoz stated that Eva was making $4600/month at her B&B in Mexico—information he said was given to him by the DA investigator! Did Infante and Munoz know where she was or not? And was Munoz using that information to get out of paying child support?

Another peculiar item to this case, which we’ll quote from the Pitchess Motion: “Investigator Infante leaves the court with the false and misleading impression that he diligently established that the child had ‘last attended’ the Captain Cooper Elementary School in Big Sur, California in ‘June of 2004.’ The child never attended the Captain Cooper Elementary School and actually was resident in and attending an elementary school in Mexico during 2004 from which he graduated in July 2004.”

Why is this important? Because Infante was trying to establish that Eva and her family were in Monterey County in 2004, when they were not—they were in Mexico. And because in the summer of 2004 Mr. Munoz went to Family Court, asking for a change in custody and visitation. He gave the court the impression he’d served Eva notice to appear in court when he had not, and he did not disclose that Eva was in Mexico with permission of the court.

That’s when Munoz, in an incredibly brief hearing, got a court order giving him joint custody and visitations with the exchanges to take place at the Seaside Police Department, where his brother-in-law worked. Also the court order stated that neither party was to remove the child from Monterey County for more than three days without the written consent of the other or an order from the court. Despite the fact that Munoz had a criminal record and was still on probation, the judge granted Munoz everything he asked for, no questions asked and without Eva present. That 2004 court order is most likely the basis for the illusive arrest warrant, thus making the warrant invalid, because the court order was invalid, because Eva was never properly served notice to go to court and the important legal procedures necessary for changing custody status were not followed.

And what happened next? In September of 2004, Munoz and Infante opened up a child abduction case against Eva, based on her not showing up with her son for the “scheduled” visitation exchanges at the Seaside Police Department. Does that sound like a set-up? It does to us. Does Eva’s case need to move outside of Monterey County so she can get a fair trial? It appears to us that’s exactly what’s needed.

One last thing: according to what we understand, apparently Eva was originally investigated and arrested under the bogus 2004 court order and charged with felony child abduction. But the charges changed several times, probably because the defective service made the 2004 order invalid, and so now the charge, based on the previous court orders, is deprivation of custody and visitation. That deprivation charge is not usually a felony crime but, for some reason, in Eva’s case it is. What’s really going on? That’s what we want to know.

Open Letter to DA Flippo

Dear Mr. Flippo,

Is the continuing prosecution of Eva Ruiz Gomez an intelligent use of court time? NO.
Is it the best use of Monterey County taxpayer money? NO.

Eva Ruiz Gomez has been branded a criminal because she missed one custody hearing –
a custody hearing that was set up and held without her knowledge.
Why did she not know about the hearing?
Because she was living in Mexico and was never properly notified.

This woman is not a criminal. Eva is the hard-working, loving and conscientious mother of three children.
She has a daughter in her third year of college, a son in his first year of high school and a 3-yr-old daughter. She has a devoted husband of 10 years, who works 2, sometimes 3, jobs to provide a decent life for their family.
She has no prior record of breaking any laws.
Yet she now faces a mother’s nightmare of being torn from her children,
Of being torn from her husband,
and imprisoned for three years.

Ten years ago, the Monterey Superior Court gave Eva full legal and physical custody of her son.
And they gave her permission to move to Mexico with him.
After seven years of running a successful business in San Miguel de Allende, Eva and her family returned to the Monterey Peninsula for a temporary stay.
Shortly after that, Eva was arrested for felony kidnapping of her own son, based on a change in the custody order –
a change that happened without her knowledge –
and without her participation.

Meanwhile, the boy’s biological father – the same man who filed the kidnapping charges that started this case against Eva,
A man who has made numerous false accusations against her in the past,
And who has a long history of harassing Eva and her family,
A man who has spent his share of time in Monterey County jail for drinking and driving convictions,
who did not want to be part of his son’s life until he needed a tax deduction,

A man with family members in local law enforcement who have involved themselves in this case,
this man has been allowed to fall $28,000 behind in child support payments while he pursues an endless string of frivolous legal filings against Eva.

Mr. Flippo, why is the Monterey Superior Court coddling a deadbeat dad while it persecutes a hard-working mother?
Why do the courts look away while a deadbeat dad spends his money on attorneys instead of the $28,000 he is court-ordered to pay in child support?

There are three conflicting court orders in this case,
two which Eva followed and one unknown to her until her arrest.
Currently Eva is supposed to be “free” on $50,000 bail,
but almost weekly she is forced to appear in court.
Over sixty hearings so far, and another one scheduled tomorrow.

This is a civil dispute that should never have been made subject of a criminal prosecution.
Since the day of Eva’s arrest in 2010, hers and her family’s lives have been turned upside down in an irreversible way.
They are daily and constantly under enormous stress.
They have been pushed to the edge of financial ruin, borrowing thousands of dollars to keep Eva’s defense going.

With Eva caught in the court system, her family’s lives are in limbo.
They are unable to return to their beloved Mexico.
They are being driven into a pit of stress and debt as they fight to keep Eva out of prison.
Yet two years into this case, the prosecutor has never told which court order Eva violated.
Mr. Flippo, we ask you to spell out exactly how Eva violated a court order, and which order she violated.
We ask you to look closely at the documents and evidence of this case.

This woman is not a criminal. Give her back to her family, and give them back their lives. FREE EVA! EVA LIBRE!

La historia de Eva

Eva Ruiz Gómez fue arrestada bajo falso pretexto el 28 de septiembre de 2010, acusada del secuestro de su propio hijo, un delito grave, a pesar que en 2002 el Tribunal de Familias de Monterey le había otorgado plena custodia legal y física del niño, y permiso para mudarse a México con él.

Ese día de septiembre de 2010, su hijo fue sacado por la fuerza de la escuela Carmel Middle School por su padre biológico y un investigador de la Fiscalía sobre la base de una orden judicial conflictiva, y su paradero le fue ocultado a Eva durante 11 días. Con la promesa de informarle dónde se hallaba su hijo, el investigador de la Fiscalía citó a Eva a un lugar en Salinas donde fué brutalmente arrestada bajo acusaciones falsas y llevada a la cárcel, dejando a su esposo Mailo con el bebé de 11 meses.

Desde el arresto de Eva, los cargos contra ella has sido modificados múltiples veces, varios jueces se han recusado, y el caso ha pasado por las manos de cuatro fiscales. Eva se ha trasladado de Big Sur a Salinas, con su bebé a cuestas, más de 60 veces durante el último dos años a fin de comparecer ante la corte. El caso de Eva es una injusticia atroz por parte de las autoridades civiles y judiciales, en que se ha violado su derecho al proceso de ley innumerables veces.

Eva y Mailo se mudaron a México con la familia en 2003. Abrieron una hostería en San Miguel de Allende y tenían mucho éxito con el turismo. Cuando la economía colapsó en 2008, se acabó el turismo estadounidense, y ellos cerraron la hostería y regresaron a trabajar en Monterey en 2009 donde tenían familia y relaciones establecidas.

Desde el día del arresto de Eva, las vidas de esta familia se han visto alteradas de forma irreversible. Eva es pasible de prisión si la hallan culpable. Como es de suponer, las reservas tanto financieras como emocionales de la familia están agotadas. Poca gente sabe cuán caro es montar una defensa legal, aunque uno sea inocente. Eva ha demostrado una enorme integridad personal y gran valentía al negarse a aceptar una sentencia negociada a pesar de la insistencia de las autoridades.

Así como suena de difícil la situación de Eva, hay esperanza: Eva tiene un buen equipo a su favor (un abogado brillante, un investigador de primer nivel, y familiares y amigos que la apoyan), pero también hace falta dinero. Todo el amor y el empeño no substituyen los fondos necesarios para una defensa legal efectiva. Así que los Amigos de Eva Ruiz Gómez estamos haciendo lo que nos gustaría que nuestros amigos y vecinos hicieran si nosotros estuviéramos en dificultades, y lo que cualquiera de ustedes haría si se tratara de algún familiar. Contamos la historia de Eva y pedimos ayuda de la comunidad. Hemos organizado el Fondo de Defensa Legal de Eva Ruiz Gómez (Eva Ruiz Gomez Legal Defense Trust), y les pedimos su ayuda.

Por favor ayúdennos a recolectar los fondos necesarios para ayudar a Eva a defenderse y llevar esta historia a un final feliz. Agradecemos mucho su contribución.

¿Quién es el delincuente en este caso?
–29 de julio de 2012

Esta es una puesta al día del caso de Eva Ruiz Gómez, una esposa y mamá dedicada, sin antecedentes delictivos, que podría recibir una sentencia de prisión y ser pasiva de que le quiten a su hijo. En el caso de Eva, que ya lleva dos años, los amigos, familiares y miembros de la comunidad que la apoyan tienen cada vez más dudas.

Aparte de la preocupación evidente por Eva y su familia, nos preguntamos cuánto le cuesta al Condado de Monterey continuar este enjuiciamiento injustificable. Eva se ha presentado en tribunales penales unas 60 veces, y no se ve el final. Se ha presentado en el Tribunal de Familias otras tantas veces. ¿Qué está sucediendo? ¿Por qué el Fiscal de Distrito se niega a cerrar el caso? Esto sigue adelante a pesar de órdenes judiciales conflictivas, repetidos cambios en las acusaciones contra Eva, creciente evidencia de falta de conducta por parte de la policía y la fiscalía, así como innumerables faltas contra los derechos civiles de Eva y su derecho al proceso de ley.

En resumen, la historia de Eva según los documentos de los tribunales y las versiones de primera mano, es como sigue. Hace catorce años Eva tuvo un hijo con un hombre que se volvió cada vez más abusivo. El tribunal le otorgó a Eva custodia plena de su hijo; al padre le otorgaron derechos de visita. Eva quería mudarse a México, y lo hizo en 2003, donde abrió un negocio de hostería. Tenía la aprobación del juez para hacerlo. Ella dice que le dio al padre del niño el número de teléfono y la dirección de México; él dice que ella no se lo dió. Ella sostiene que a él nunca le interesó el niño hasta que tuvo que pagar alimentos, cosa que nunca había hecho.

El padre, Ramón Muñoz, bajo consejo y asistencia del Sr. Infante, investigador de la Fiscalía del Condado de Monterey, presentó una moción para cambiar la custodia y las visitas en 2004, pero no le hizo notificar la orden a Eva, de manera que ella no estuviera presente en la audiencia (y ni siquiera sabía lo que estaba pasando ya que estaba en México). Un juez diferente a los que habían tratado el caso anteriormente le otorgó al padre custodia conjunta más un programa de visitas en el Condado de Monterey. Pero este nuevo juez no miró los antecedentes del caso donde constaba que Eva tenía permiso del juez para ir a México y tenía plena custodia legal y física.

En 2009, Eva y su familia regresaron a Monterey, y el niño fue matriculado en la escuela Carmel Middle School. El 28 de septiembre de 2010, Infante fue a la escuela con la orden de custodia inválida de 2004, y sin notificarle a Eva, se llevó al niño y se lo entregó al Sr. Muñoz en Salinas. Infante le dejó su tarjeta de presentación a la secretaría de la escuela, quienes inmediatamente llamaron a Eva para avisarle que se habían llevado a su hijo. Cuando Eva lo llamó a Infante, éste le dijo que lo encontrara en un edificio portátil detrás de la corte. Ella fue sin demora en busca de su hijo con su esposo Mailo y el bebé de ellos, pero la esposaron, la arrestaron, y se la llevaron, dejando al esposo con el bebé.

La gran ironía es que el abogado de Eva ha encontrado pruebas que revelan que la fiscalía ha cometido tantas violaciones de la ley en la preparación y en el proceso de secuestrar al hijo de Eva y arrestarla a ella, que el investigador Infante parece ser culpable de secuestro del niño, delito del que acusaban originalmente a Eva. Esta conducta inaceptable por parte de la Fiscalía exige que cierren este caso falso sobre la base de la violación del proceso legal.

Cuando se hizo pública la Moción Pitchess, la leímos y nos desconcertó la cadena de sucesos que van desde las órdenes judiciales originales sobre la custodia del niño y los derechos de visita y el permiso del juez para que Eva se mudara a México. Se preguntarán, “¿Qué es una Moción Pitchess?” Deriva de una decisión de la Corte Suprema de California del año 1974 en el caso Pitchess vs. Superior Court, que dice que el acusado tiene derecho, con causa justificada, a ver todos los documentos relevantes y la información pertinente en los récords de un agente de justicia acusado de falta de conducta contra el acusado.

Aparte de la Moción Pitchess, el abogado de Eva presentó dos veces una solicitud de vista para ver, entre otras cosas básicas, la orden de arresto. Lo que presenciamos en la corte fue al abogado de Eva pidiendo de todas las maneras posibles la vista de la orden de arresto y los antecedentes policiales del arresto para poder defender efectivamente a su cliente. La fiscalía se niega, y el juez no lo obliga. ¿Por qué? Y no es sólo la orden de arresto, sino también la orden de custodia protectiva y otros documentos que le dan a Eva la oportunidad de defenderse. Todos estos documentos los exige la ley antes que un oficial de justicia pueda ir a la escuela y llevarse a un niño, quitándoselo a quien tiene la custodia legal.

¿Es posible que esto suceda en Carmel, California? Pues sucedió el 28 de septiembre de 2010 cuando el Sr. Infante se llevó al hijo de Eva y durante once días, hasta que el Tribunal de Familias se lo restituyó, ella no supo nada de su paradero. ¿No es eso un secuestro de menores? Para nosotros es exactamente eso.

Aparentemente el Sr. Infante también ha cometido perjuria con respecto al paradero de Eva cuando ella vivía en México. Según los documentos legales del caso, el Investigador Infante, en la audiencia preliminar del 4 de febrero de 2011, bajo pena de perjuria, le dijo al Fiscal Patterson que a Muñoz le habían negado el derecho de visitas porque no conocía el paradero de su hijo durante las Navidades de 2005 ni en los años 2006 al 2009. Pero el 28 de septiembre de 2010, el Investigador Infante había dicho, bajo pena de perjuria, que en enero de 2008, por medio del internet, había localizado a Eva Ruiz Gómez en San Miguel de Allende gerenciando una hostería, incluyendo la dirección y el teléfono de la hostería en México.

Y aún antes que eso, en una declaración ante la corte en 2005, Muñoz dijo que Eva estaba ganando $4600 por mes en su hostería en México, información que le había facilitado el investigador de la fiscalía. Infante y Muñoz sabían donde estaba ella. Y Muñoz usó esa información para evitar pagar alimentos para el niño.

Otro tema importante en este caso, que citamos de la Moción Pitchess: El investigador Infante le da al juez la falsa impresión que había establecido diligentemente que el niño había asistido a la escuela Captain Cooper Elementary School en Big Sur, California, en junio de 2004. Cuando en realidad el niño nunca asistió a dicha escuela y en realidad residía y asistía a una escuela primaria en México durante 2004, de la que egresó en julio de 2004.

¿Por qué es esto importante? Porque Infante estaba tratando de establecer que Eva y su familia estaban en Monterey en 2004 cuando en realidad estaban en México. Y porque en el verano de 2004 el Sr. Muñoz fue ante el Tribunal de Familias a pedir el cambio de custodia y visitas. Asimismo, le dio al juez la impresión que había notificado a Eva que debía comparecer en la corte cuando no lo había hecho, y no informó al juez que Eva estaba en México con permiso del juez.

Fue entonces que Muñoz, en una audiencia brevísima, obtuvo la orden que le daba custodia conjunta y visitas con intercambios en el Departamento de Policía de Seaside donde trabaja su cuñado. La orden también indicaba que ninguno de los dos padres podría sacar al niño del Condado de Monterey durante más de tres días sin el consentimiento por escrito de la otra parte o bien una orden del juez. Esto a pesar que Muñoz tenía antecedentes delictivos y se encontraba aún en libertad condicional, y aún así el juez le otorgó a Muñoz todo lo que pedía sin preguntar nada y sin que Eva estuviera presente. Esa orden judicial de 2004 es seguramente la base para la orden de arresto ilusoria, con lo cual la orden es inválida ya que la orden judicial era inválida porque Eva nunca había sido notificada de la necesidad de comparecer, y porque no se siguieron las formalidades procesales de rigor para cambiar la custodia.

En septiembre de 2004 Muñoz e Infante iniciaron un caso de secuestro de menor contra Eva basado en que ella no se había presentado con el niño para el intercambio de visitas programado en el Depto. de Policía de Seaside. Nos huele a emboscada montada. Creemos que el caso de Eva debe proceder fuera del Condado de Monterey para que se haga justicia.

Una nota final: Según entendemos, cuando Eva, bajo la orden inválida de 2004 fue investigada y arrestada, fue acusada de secuestro de menor como delito grave. La acusación fue modificada varias veces, probablemente porque la no notificación invalidaba la orden de 2004, y entonces el cargo, basado en órdenes judiciales anteriores, es de privación de custodia y visita. El cargo de privación no es un delito grave en general, pero por alguna razón sí lo es en el caso de Eva. ¿Por qué? ¿Qué es lo que está sucediendo? Es lo que queremos saber.

Aclaración y deslinde de responsabilidad: Cualquier error en esta página web es nuestro. Nadie nos ha pedido que nos involucráramos en el caso de Eva. Lo hacemos porque nos importa y nos preocupa esta joven inocente y su familia. Gracias por leer esto, y por favor consideren efectuar una donación para el fondo de defensa legal de Eva, y por favor compartan esta página con amigos y familiares. Es nuestra esperanza que más personas saldrán a su defensa y que, con suficiente apoyo público, la Fiscalía dispensará los cargos y cerrará el caso, dejando limpio el nombre de Eva para que ella pueda seguir con su vida. Muchas gracias.

Petitioning District Attorney, Monterey County, California
DA Dean Flippo: Dismiss all charges against Eva Ruiz Gomez!

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Curious
Monday Oct 1st, 2012 11:24 PM
If she was given permission to take him to Mexico, why was he in Carmel? Was she given permission to take him and keep him in the US?