FreeCharlieNow
...was organized by The Norman Partnership, Inc.
A non-profit Florida Corporation that conducts public, transparent and active campaigns of support to restore the
inalienable rights of Americans who have been wrongfully convicted.  
These wrongful convictions are due to deliberately vicious unethical practices used by the very institutions of our society
that
ostensibly assure constitutional rights for all.
FreeCharlieNow
FreeCharlieNow and The Norman Partnership, Inc. are dedicated to the goals of educating the public about the issues of false arrest,
malicious prosecution, and the wrongful conviction of innocent people by an unchecked justice system, along with developing strategies
for combating such abuses of power all the way to the Federal level.

As a public non-profit charitable organization,
The Norman Partnership, Inc. is dependent upon the financial support of those interested
in fighting injustice and freeing the innocent. We need your help. Besides monetary support, we seek volunteers with a variety of skills to
help further our goals, whether it is letter-writing, research, computer skills, legal knowledge, public relations, phone calls, or prayers.

The Norman Partnership, Inc. is a new endeavor and welcomes your suggestions and feedback. Do not hesitate to contact us, spread the
word and tell your friends to visit www.freecharlienow.com. Your efforts could help free innocent people from unjust imprisonment.

WE CAN ASSIST OTHERS...
ABOUT US...

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Our primary focus is on cases in which there is no DNA evidence. There are many other causes of wrongful conviction. Following, from
"The Innocence Project," are facts of just one method regularly used:

"Informants/Snitches"
In more than 15% of cases of wrongful conviction overturned by DNA testing, an informant or jail house snitch testified against the
defendant. Often, statements from people with incentives to testify – particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury – are the
central evidence in convicting an innocent person.

People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which snitches:
•Have been paid to testify
•Have testified in exchange for their release from prison.
•Have testified in multiple distinct cases that they have evidence of guilt, through overhearing a confession or witnessing the crime.

DNA exonerations have shown that snitches lie on the stand. To many, this news isn’t a surprise. Testifying falsely in exchange for an
incentive – either money or a sentence reduction – is often the last resort for a desperate inmate. For someone who is not in prison
already, but who wants to avoid being charged with a crime, providing snitch testimony may be the only option.

In some cases, snitches or informants come forward voluntarily, often seeking deals or special treatment. But sometimes law
enforcement officials seek out snitches and give them extensive background on cases — essentially feeding them the information they
need to provide false testimony.

Snitches continue to testify in courtrooms around the country today. In some cases without biological evidence, the snitch testimony is
the only evidence of guilt.

Vital reforms are needed to ensure that these unreliable witnesses are not given undue weight by juries.

ISN'T PERJURY UNLAWFUL?
IT'S APPARENTLY DECIDED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE PROSECUTOR...

Landmark Study:
In 2005, the Center on Wrongful Convictions in Chicago issued a report, "The Snitch System: How Incentivized (INCENTIVE-BASED)
Witnesses Put 38 Innocent Americans on Death Row." The study provides a comprehensive look at the problem of snitch testimony,
and describes in detail how the use of snitch testimony contributed to the conviction of specific innocent defendants.

More Resources:
Two Canadian cases led officials to conduct studies of the use of in-custody informants.
•        The Kaufman Commission (Guy Paul Morin case) – Ontario
•        The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow – Manitoba"

The use of informants was the primary method utilized by police and prosecutors to wrongfully convict
Charles Norman.

Larry Rae Wingate and Keith Michael Chee-A-Tow were two violent drug dealers well-known to police, convicted felons, partners, who admitted
their knowledge and involvement in the drug store robbery and shooting of security guard Steve Bluffstone in the early morning hours of
February 17, 1975.

Wingate and Chee-A-Tow were given "immunity from prosecution for first degree murder" in exchange for their false testimony that Charlie
Norman
told them he had shot someone.

Only the guilty are given immunity -- the innocent don't need it.

There is much more information about this unique case that will be added soon. Please check this site
frequently for updates.

Delia Anderson, Esquire..............Dade City, FL
Rev. Robert Anderson..................DeLand, FL
Vivian Barnard.............................Dade City, FL
Dan Faulkner................................Issaquah, WA
Marlin Johnson.............................Los Angeles, CA
James J. Kilpatrick.......................Washington, D.C.
Ron Kuntz......................................Cleveland, OH
Rick Nielsen..................................Des Moines, IA
Dick Rivett.....................................Tampa, FL
Gary Smigiel, Esquire...................Lake Worth, FL
Alice Walker..................................Tampa, FL
Sister Ann Wood, SSJ....................Tampa, FL