Monday, July 23, 2007

Never Be the Same (07-04-07)

In the story of Isaac and Abraham we know Isaac was the promised legacy. Every man of faith is attached to the promises of God. Sometimes and I should say almost always we are placed in a position where God demands the promise back. Abraham obeyed the sacrificial call but Isaac was spared and returned. Only in his return he would never be the same. Forever God was the mediator between father and son. There is no day of Isaac’s life that was not owed to God. From the moment of faith’s decision the natural future is obliterated from the supernatural one that takes its place. My wife and father are in this place. They each have given son and husband over to God’s service and if God shall return me back to them from the alter it will not be the same as before. Forever God is the intervener of our futures. For my wife she has to thank the Lord for giving her the altered husband to be honest before Him. My father now obtains an altered son and I can be nothing other than altered because my life will either be offered to God or in self preservation I will avoid the alter completely. This will be obvious to all those who know the God of the alter. Each of you needs to pay attention to these alter opportunities when they appear before you. Not only is your knowledge of God altered but your whole life, future and relationships are all altered. Nothing will ever be the same again. Thank you pop and darling for trusting God with my life and yours.


justice7777777 said...


How much of the discovery in this case have you or anyone seen?

My guess is not any, which means the only thing you have to go by in this case is the propaganda that Johnson has put out.

Which leads to the question, how many times has Johnson been right about anything he stated since this process began?

The facts show that he has been wrong at every turn, so I can see why everyone believes all that he says.

Why did Julian run and try to fight extradition, and why did Magoon run and not come back?

Maybe because this case is not what people on the outside looking in think. This may be why Tobias and Lecompte cut deals, you think?

mogel said...

Justice: Is there something in the discovery process you would like to point out that is important in your view? How much discovery have you seen? I've seen enough discovery to know the prosecutions case is BS.

Johnson has not been wrong at every turn. Did he or did he not say that the Utah case would be dismissed and that the final battle would be decided in the Federal Court, so your 100% losing propaganda is incorrect. Where has Johnson been wrong where it's been relevant to the issues at hand?

I have no evidence that Julian fought extradition, do you, & as far as I know he was simply on business in Panama. I don't know why Magoon left to Canada, do you? Have you spoken with her personally? I don't believe her actions have anything conclusively to say about what is the truth of the real issues are at hand.

How would you know what is in the mind of Lecompte? I could only guess what his motivations were in cutting a deal.

You're going to have to do better than that since you're having a tough time in distinguishing facts from guesses.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Dear Deletion god. Please show sop that you still answer prayers. Show sop that you are the god of deletion.




Pauligirl said...

On Julian....


No. CR05-0611 WHA (BZ)
On June 6, 2007, I heard the government's motion to
detain William F. Julian. Defendant was present and
represented by Michael Berger. Assistant United States
Attorney James Keller appeared for the United States.
Pretrial Services submitted a report that recommended
detention. Proffers and arguments regarding detention were
submitted by the parties at the hearing.
Having considered the parties' proffers and the Pretrial
Services Report, I find that the government has met its burden
of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant is a flight risk, and that no conditions of release
will reasonably assure his appearance. In so finding, I have
considered the following factors:
1. The defendant is charged with mail fraud under 18
U.S.C. § 1341, bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, contempt of
court under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), and forfeiture under 18 U.S.C.
§ 981(a)(1)(C)and 28 U.S.C. § 2451(c). He faces a substantial
sentence if convicted, providing some incentive to flee.
2. He has no real ties with this district. His home is
in South Carolina, where he would live if released. This
would require him to travel cross country for all his court
appearances, putting him in situations where means of flight
are readily available.
3. The government proffered that shortly before he was
indicted in this district, he told his wife that he was
expecting an indictment and, directly thereafter, traveled
first to Orlando, Florida and then by plane to Panama City,
Panama. He remained in Panama until he was extradited to the
United States earlier this year.
4. That he knew about the indictment while in Panama is
evident from the "Notice of Abatement" contesting the charges
filed in this case bearing his signature.
5. The government proffered that the scheme with which
he is charged involved the use of offshore accounts and that
all the money has not been accounted for, raising the
possibility that he may have means of financing flight.
6. The conditions proposed for his release were
inadequate to reasonably assure the court that he would make
his appearances. Essentially, it was proposed that he be
released on a bond with little or no security to live in South
Carolina with his wife. I do not consider his wife an
adequate custodian inasmuch as she was aware that he had
traveled to Panama and traveled there herself to be with him.
I am also troubled that his stepmother, who apparently owns a
home, has declined to act as his surety.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The defendant be, and hereby is, committed to the
custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a
corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from
persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody
pending appeal;
2. The defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for
private consultation with counsel; and
3. On order of a court of the United States or on
request of an attorney for the government, the person in
charge of the corrections facility in which the defendant is
confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States
Marshal for the purpose of any appearance in connection with a
court proceeding.
Dated: June 8, 2007
Bernard Zimmerman
United States Magistrate Judge

Full docket text for document 395:
MOTION to Sever Defendant Julian's Trial from Codefendants' by William Julian. Motion Hearing set for 7/31/2007 02:00 PM. (Berger, Michael) (Filed on 7/9/2007)

No. CR 05-00611 WHA
Declaration of Counsel in
Support of Defendant Julian's
Motion to Sever
Date: July 31, 2007
Time: 2:00 P.M.
Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup
Michael R. Berger declares as follows under penalty of perjury:,
I am an active member of the State Bar of California and the attorney appointed
to represent defendant William Julian in the within action. I have practiced in the area of
criminal defense for more than thirty years.
Mr. Julian has represented to me his firm intent to testify at trial that he believed
Mr. Heineman and Mr. Johnson when they claimed that the Dorean Group offered a
legitimate service. Further details of his projected testimony are contained in a
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 396 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
declaration which he has executed, which declaration I will seek leave to file under seal
or present to the court in an in camera session.
In preparing for Mr. Julian's defense, I interviewed Mr. Heineman and Mr.
Johnson on June 28, 2007. Both substantially affirmed Mr. Julian's account of events.
Both Mr. Heineman and Mr. Johnson declared themselves willing to testify for Mr.
Julian in a separate proceeding. However, both declared themselves undecided as to
whether they would testify in a joint trial with Mr. Julian.
In my professional opinion, Mr. Julian's best hope of acquittal lies in persuading
the jury that he never intended to violate the law as the government has alleged. I also
believe that Mr. Julian requires the testimony of Mr. Heineman and Mr. Johnson to
corroborate his account of events.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Oakland, California on July 9, 2007

Acting United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-6840
Facsimile: (415) 436-7234
Chief, Fraud Section
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
1400 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 353-4378
Facsimile: (202) 514-7021
Attorneys for United States of America

No. CR 05-00611 WHA
Hearing Date: July 31, 2007 2:00p.m.
Honorable William H. Alsup
The United States of America, through Scott N. Schools, Acting United States Attorney
for the Northern District of California, Assistant United States Attorney James E. Keller, and
Mary K. Dimke, Trial Attorney, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
hereby responds in opposition to Defendant Julian's motion to sever in the above-captioned
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 9

CR 05-0611 WHA 2
On July 9, 2007, Defendant William Julian filed a motion pursuant to Rule 14 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Defendant's Motion") requesting this Court sever his trial
from that of his remaining codefendants, Dale Scott Heineman and Kurt F. Johnson, and to grant
him a separate trial. Defendant Julian alleges that his codefendants might present exculpatory
testimony on his behalf at a separate trial but would probably not testify at a joint trial because
they may exercise their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Because Defendant
Julian has not shown sufficient prejudicial impact to require a severance, the government
requests that the Court deny the motion.
From approximately November 2002 until July 2005, defendants Heineman and Johnson
operated a mortgage elimination program ("Program"). Defendant Julian was a broker who
assisted the Dorean Group in recruiting clients for the Program, which operated as follows:
(1) The client transferred his property interest to the Dorean Group.
(2) Johnson and Heineman created a trust in the surname of each client (e.g., The
[surname] Family Trust") and appointed themselves as trustees.
(3) As trustees of the trust, Johnson and Heineman mailed a demand letter ("Presentment
Packet") to the lender who possessed a mortgage on the Dorean Group's client's property.
Unless the lender satisfied the Dorean Group – that is, Johnson and Heineman – that its loan was
valid within ten days, Johnson and Heineman acted as the lender's agent/attorney-in-fact
regarding the property securing the loan.
(4) After the demand letter was mailed to the lender and ten days lapsed, Johnson and
Heineman – or Dorean Group employees acting at Johnson's and/or Heineman's direction – sent
false recordations affecting the title of the property to the local county clerk's office. These
recordations were generally: (a) a Notice of Intent to Correct Title, (b) a Substitution of Trustee,
and © a Full Reconveyance. Either Johnson or Heineman personally endorsed the recordations,
or they instructed a Dorean Group employee to affix the stamp of Heineman's signature on the
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 9

CR 05-0611 WHA 3
recordations. As part of the fraud, Johnson and Heineman endorsed the recordations purportedly
as the lender's agent/attorney-in fact, even though the lender had not authorized either of them to
act on the lender's behalf. The Full Reconveyance falsely represented that mortgage secured by
the property had been fully satisfied or repaid, when it had not. Through these recordations, the
Dorean Group transferred the lender's property interest to the corresponding trust established by
Heineman and Johnson. This was accomplished even though lender had not authorized any such
transfer and the mortgage remained outstanding. As a result the title to the property appeared to
be free and clear of any encumbrance when the mortgage on the corresponding property was in
fact outstanding.
(5) Pursuant to the Dorean Group client agreement, the Dorean Group client was then
required to seek a second loan – identified as a "refinance loan" – from a separate lender secured
by the seemingly free-and-clear property title. When a refinance loan was obtained, it was split
as follows: 50% to Johnson and Heineman, 25% to the Dorean Group broker, and 25% to the
Dorean Group client. The refinance loan was then submitted to the same process set forth above,
with the understanding that it would be eliminated through the Program as was the initial
mortgage loan. Johnson and Heineman successfully obtained distributions of at least five
refinance loans because the false recordations made the title on the property appear to be
On February 16, 2006, a 68-count superseding indictment was returned, charging
defendants Johnson and Heineman with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire
fraud and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349); 36 counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341); 26 counts
of bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344); two counts of contempt of court (18 U.S.C. § 401(3)), and
seeking forfeiture from the defendants. In April 2007, based on a motion by the government, the
court dismissed 15 counts of bank fraud. Defendant Julian is also charged in ten of the
remaining counts (Count 1: conspiracy; Counts 2-5: mail fraud; Counts 6, 8: bank fraud; Counts
66-68: forfeiture). The conspiracy count relates to the defendants' operation of the mortgage
elimination scheme. The mail fraud counts relate to the mailing of the demand letters
("Presentment Packets") to the lending institutions. The remaining bank fraud counts relate to
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 9

CR 05-0611 WHA 4
the filing of the false recordations, which stated that the mortgages had been satisfied, to the
county clerks' offices.
Defendant Julian fled to Panama from the United States less than a week after the
superseding indictment was returned, in February 2006. The trial in this matter was originally
scheduled for January 8, 2007. The Court continued the trial several times, for a total of 10
months in order for defendant Julian to be extradited to the United States and tried with his
codefendants, based in part on judicial economy considerations.
"There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted
together." Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993). This is true particularly when they
allegedly have been part of the same conspiracy. See United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 926
(9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Silla, 555 F.2d 703, 707 (9th Cir. 1977). A district court should
grant a motion for severance "only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial will compromise a
specific trial right of one of the defendants or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment
about guilt or innocence . . . Defendants are not entitled to severance merely because they may
have a better chance of acquittal in separate trials." Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539-40. Instead, "less
dramatic measures, such as limiting instructions, often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice."
Id. at 539. Rule 14(a) leaves the "tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court's
sound discretion." Id. at 538-39.
Defendant Julian moves for severance, alleging that his codefendants might provide
exculpatory testimony. When a defendant requests severance because of the need for a
codefendant's exculpatory testimony, a defendant must demonstrate that "he would call the codefendant
at a severed trial, the co-defendant would in fact testify, and that the testimony would
be favorable to the moving party." United States v. Hernandez, 952 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1991)
(quoting United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S.
855 (1986)); see also United States v. Pittner, 307 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2002); United States
v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 892 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Gay, 567 F.2d 916, 920 (9th
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 4 of 9

1 In his motion, Julian stated that he intended to file a declaration under seal or in camera
to establish the need of his codefendants' testimony. First, the government does not believe such
a declaration has been filed. Second, the government opposes such declaration being submitted
in camera. Such submission prevents the government from arguing the factors the Court must
consider to resolve this motion, for example, whether the testimony is substantially exculpatory
or cumulative of other evidence that will be presented at trial.
2 The defendant's failure to submit affidavits by Heineman and Johnson describing their
anticipated testimony distinguishes his case from that of the Fifth Circuit cases cited in his brief.
In United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1047 (5 th Cir. 1994), the codefendant had submitted an
affidavit stating that he would testify that the two defendants had not participated or helped with
his amphetamine business. The court noted that the defendants "have established a bona fide
need for Jacky Pace's testimony, the substance of that testimony and its exculpatory nature, and
that Jacky Pace would in fact testify." Id. at 1047. In the Julian case, the co-defendants have not
submitted such an affidavit.
CR 05-0611 WHA 5
Cir.1978), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 999 (1978). Here, defendant Julian has utterly failed to meet
the exacting standard required to justify severing his trial from that of codefendants Johnson and
1. Defendant Julian has failed to show that he would call codefendants Johnson and
Heineman and that his codefendants would in fact testify.
First, the defense has failed to file an affidavit authored by Julian (not his counsel),
establishing that he intends to call his codefendants in a separate trial and identifying what the
proffered testimony is.1 Second, Julian has failed to file affidavits of his codefendants verifying
that they would in fact testify on his behalf and what the proffered testimony is. Without such
information the Court cannot make an informed ruling as to whether this case meets the stringent
standard required to grant a severance. See, e.g., United States v. Mariscal, 939 F.2d 884, 886
(9th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court's denial of motion to sever because codefendant failed to
present an affidavit stating he would testify on behalf of Mariscal and the suggested testimony
would serve only to contradict one government witness, leaving other inculpatory evidence that
in and of itself would be sufficient to support a conviction).2
Furthermore, the government questions the good faith of Johnson and Heineman in
asserting (through Mr. Berger) that they would testify on behalf of defendant Julian. Any
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 5 of 9

CR 05-0611 WHA 6
statements that defendants Heineman and Johnson would make during testimony in defendant
Julian's trial would be admissible in their trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). It is
impermissible for defendants Johnson and Heineman to condition their testimony on being tried
first. See Mariscal, 939 F.2d at 886 ("A district court does not abuse its discretion ‘in refusing to
accede' to a codefendant's offer to testify when that offer is conditioned upon his trial being
completed first."); United States v. Curozzo, 962 F.3d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 1992).
2. Defendant Julian has not established that his codefendants' testimony would be
substantially exculpatory.
Defendant Julian claims that his codefendants will present evidence supporting his claim
that he believed in the legitimacy of the Dorean Group mortgage elimination program. When
making a determination to grant severance based on codefendant's exculpatory testimony, the
Court also must consider the credibility and possible weight of the predicted testimony, the
probability the testimony will occur, and the economy of a joint trial. United States v. Castro,
887 F.2d 988, 998 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 956 (1977). Finally, a district court must take into account the
"exculpatory nature and effect of the desired testimony – in other words, the degree to which the
asserted codefendant's testimony is exculpatory." Mariscal, 939 F.2d at 885. To reach this
threshold, the testimony must be "substantially exculpatory," not just beneficial. See id. at 886
(citing United States v. Ford, 870 F.2d 729, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1989); United States v. DeLuna, 763
F.2d 897, 920 (8th Cir. 1985)) (emphasis added).
This is a very heavy burden of proof for the moving party. See United States v. Cella,
568 F.2d 1266, 1288 (9th Cir. 1977) (noting that "the burden of proof rests on the moving party,
and is a difficult one to meet, i.e., the defendant must show more than the fact that a separate trial
might offer him ‘a better chance' of acquittal.").
Again, because Julian has failed to file a affidavits by codefendants Heineman and
Johnson, the Court cannot determine whether the proffered testimony would be "substantially
exculpatory." See United States v. Pittner, 307 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming
district court's denial of motion to sever because the codefendant's proffered testimony was
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 6 of 9

CR 05-0611 WHA 7
"carefully-described" and only arguably favorable). Here, Mr. Berger, counsel for defendant
Julian, states in a conclusory fashion that "Mr. Julian has represented to me his firm intent to
testify at trial that he believed Mr. Heineman and Mr. Johnson when they claimed that the
Dorean Group offered a legitimate service." Berger Decl. at P.1. Mr. Berger further states that
defendants Heineman and Johnson "substantially affirmed Mr. Julian's accounts of events."
Berger Decl. at P. 2. These conclusory statements are wholly insufficient to establish such a
stringent test.
The summary statements offered by defense counsel indicate that Julian intends to
advance a defense based on lack of criminal intent and that Heineman and Johnson will support
Julian's defense. Heineman and Johnson's potential testimony that Julian thought the program
was legitimate is of minimal value because it is subject to extensive impeachment. In United
States v. Curozzo, 962 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 1992), three defendants were charged with participating
in a fraudulent investment scheme. Defendants Stella and Morani moved for severance, arguing
that their defense theory was an absence of criminal intent, and the only witness in a position to
corroborate their defense was codefendant Cuozzo. Id. at 950. Defendants Stella and Morani
contended that Cuozzo would have testified that Stella had no knowledge of any illegal activity
and that Morani was an innocent investor who lost money herself in the loan deals. Id. The
court found that "the proffered testimony of defendant [] Cuozzo lacks substance and is subject
to substantial impeachment. Therefore, Cuozzo's testimony, if ever given, is of minimal value to
the other defendants." Id. at 950.
Here, even the conclusory allegations offered by Julian's counsel are subject to
substantial impeachment. First, the government will obviously challenge the credibility of
Heineman's, Johnson's and Julian's belief that the program was legitimate. The scheme
involved (1) paying a fee of $1,000 to alleviate mortgages, some as high as $400,000; (2)
Heineman and Johnson filing documents on behalf of lender's without their express permission
to do so; (3) filing documents with county clerks' offices which stated that the mortgage had
been paid off when they in fact had not; and (4) then encouraging clients to obtain refinance
loans that the clients had no intention of paying back. The credibility of any witness who says he
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 7 of 9

CR 05-0611 WHA 8
believed in the legitimacy of such program is clearly suspect. Particularly, both codefendants
have not committed to testifying to these facts on their own behalf, which increases the
unreliability of such statements. In addition, such testimony by Heineman and Johnson will not
rebut other evidence that the government intends to offer. For example, a witness will testify that
he had conversations with defendant Julian, prior to indictment, where Julian was already
planning his defense, which was lack of criminal intent.
Furthermore, defendant Julian will not be prejudiced by being tried with codefendants
Johnson and Heineman. They have indicted in prior court appearances that they intend to
advance a defense theory of lack of criminal intent because they believed in the legitimacy of the
Program. If so, the defense they present will be entirely consistent and potentially give support to
Julian's theory of defense.
3. Judicial Economy weighs in favor of trying the defendants in a joint trial.
"Considerations of Judicial economy merit serious attention when defendants move for
severance." United States v. Hernandez, 952 F.2d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 1991). According to the
government's calculations, a trial in this matter will last at least four weeks. Count one, which
charges all three defendants with an overarching conspiracy, involves ten different properties.
Thus, if the court grants defendant Julian's motion to sever, essentially the same trial, in
substance and duration, would have to be conducted twice.
Witnesses who have knowledge as to the properties and/or conspiracy charged in the
conspiracy count and the remaining counts of the superseding indictment are located throughout
the country. The witnesses the government will likely call are located in California, Florida,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. In addition, the
representatives of the lenders that issued the loans charged in the superseding indictment are also
located throughout the United States.
If defendant Julian were to be severed from the remaining defendants, witnesses
throughout the country would have to travel back to this district to testify in a subsequent trial.
Lenders' representatives, as well as accounting/banking experts, would also have to testify in two
separate trials. Furthermore, the Court continued the trial several times, for a total of 10 months
Case 3:05-cr-00611-WHA Document 401 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 8 of 9

CR 05-0611 WHA 9
in order for defendant Julian to be extradited to the United States so he could be tried with codefendants,
based in part on judicial economy considerations. The defendant has not established
that he would be prejudiced by being tried with his codefendants and certainly has not
established prejudice to overcome how such a result – holding two four-week trials arising from
the same superseding indictment and same conduct – would undermine the Court's economy.
By failing to file appropriate affidavits, which clearly articulates the testimony that
codefendants Johnson and Heineman would give, the government and more importantly, the
Court, are unable to determine the degree to which his asserted codefendants' testimony is
exculpatory – and if it is substantially exculpatory. The government requests leave to file a
supplemental response in the event that defendant Julian files an affidavit articulating the nature
of the anticipated testimony.
In short, Defendant has failed to substantiate that any prejudice exists, much less to the
degree of prejudice necessary to warrant severance. Moreover, judicial economy and the
inconvenience and expense to the United States and witnesses of separate trials clearly outweigh
the speculative assistance that the testimony of Julian's codefendants would provide. For the
reasons set forth above, the government requests that the Court deny defendant Julian's request
to sever his trial from the trial of co-defendants Heineman and Julian.
Dated: July 23, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
Acting United States Attorney
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Fraud Section
Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice

GYHOOYA said...

justice7777777 said...
mogel said...
That must be the reason why Kurt & Scott were also charged with this too. LOL

Not that funny at all, moogs. Why don't you call down to your local US Dist Court and ask a prosecutor about the conspiracy law and whose favor it was written for. You might be unpleasantly surprised.

7:38 PM


It's very clear by your post that you see the Gov't for what they are now. The facts that you have stated here are that the law was writen in a way that would more to favor the Gov't and less towards the people is that correct?

If so then by your own admition here your saying the law you so uphold and want in waiting to convict Kurt and Scott is so unfair that know one could have the chance of a FAIR trial and that if any conviction is granted that it would have come from only law that was one sided and know one Right or Wrong could have a chance to win is that waht your saying?

It would seem that by hook or crook the one's we call naysayers here are out for nothing more that to be able to say they were right even if that means that JUSTICE IS NOT SERVED!



The building blocks of the law and order must be such that are delt out without any onesidedness or it will olny cause the breakdown and colapes of the faith needed by the people to keep it running.

As with the money system that is in place is so fragile so is the legal system and only hold's it's power to keep the peace by the faith the people have in it.

If the basic is to be looked at with this hole thing and all do fairnes is given to both side's then we nmust look at this as the banks having oversteped their rights and the law in thier businessin a way as such. The bank's making loans by way of paper and noot by concideration ids their down fall here and they know it they paly the game and someione stood up to expose it for all to see. If there was some foorm of consideration on their part it would be with the risk of loss. As the bank's are so quick to say they are lending these monies and the interest rate they charge is fair do to the est. amount that they would have made from that same monie if it was'nt lent to any given person in the form of an loan. We have heard this said many time to justify the amount of interest the bank charges us which is outrages when you look at it with anfair eye.

The fact that the banks say this is what that money could earn them over the same time as the loan to us is the bullshit in the soup when it comes to the loan because there is nothing that the bank's are lending as far as money from their pocket not even if they were to carry on as before and fractionalize the amount's they have in holding would this be a fair assesment of their risk or the amount the monies would make over 30 years time because it has been broken up into 9's and there for every dollar lent is only that of .09 cents of real money being at risk the rest is all made money or better made-up monies and the only risk is something like what the Dorean group has done and that is their being exposed for the other 8 cents their lending they don't really have to lend.

So when you say that the system is stacked that my freind is the understatment of the year.

to expose and have all the cards laid to see the bank's have walked right over the intented law around how lending should be done and they know it so dose the Gov't but now what?

The Gov't has tied their hands altogether in this by siding into bed with these crooks and now that they have let this to go on for so long the banks have the power and the Gov;'t must do what ever to keep up the lie so as not to have the PEOPLE LOSE FAITH AND THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS WE all know would be caused by that with the money system and such today.

So how hard is it to understand that the two guy's are getting the shit end of the stick and all FAIRNESS has been left by the roadside long ago when it comes to this topic and the FED's shady deal with the banks.

It's just not that hard to understand unless you have a system that is hell bent at any cost to make sure that most people in this country hav'nt a clue how the hole thing works so they may stay the lemmings that they are and the Gov't can have their crums thrown them by the banks for their part. The only time you hear or see any kind of action by the Gov't to look like their correcting some issue with the bank's ids when the banks have gone so far with their B.S. that the effect has a wide spred result and so many are exposed to be a victom of it. As we see right now with the Sub-Prime lending issue.

Tell me why is it that 90% of the people asked about the Fed REs Banks and their workings hav'nt a clue to the correct answer or anything of the sort's that take place in our money system today?

You would think that as a leading world power we would as a people be better informed by our Gov't as to just what is the real deal and how it all works. Then there would be a lot less need to spend our money on cases in the courts like this do to the fact that most would know how it worked and the banks following what was set down in the law of how it should be done. In fact the hole Fed REs bank would most likly be non exsistant as it is today if The People wer'nt fooled by the Gov't and thr truth be told clear and basic so all understood the cost of the rights they give or don't give up to outside forces and banking.

That that in a nut shell tell me if I have overlooked somthing that should point to this being a fair process and not as it is so very unfair.
unjustics77777 carry on with your brand of law and fair play it will one day bite you in the but and I only wish I could be there to see your spin on how it's only unfair to you and not the rest of the persons who have been brought under it's arm.

GYHOOYA said...

justice7777777 said...

How much of the discovery in this case have you or anyone seen?

My guess is not any, which means the only thing you have to go by in this case is the propaganda that Johnson has put out.

Which leads to the question, how many times has Johnson been right about anything he stated since this process began?

The facts show that he has been wrong at every turn, so I can see why everyone believes all that he says.

Why did Julian run and try to fight extradition, and why did Magoon run and not come back?

Maybe because this case is not what people on the outside looking in think. This may be why Tobias and Lecompte cut deals, you think?


So where has it been seen that you have anything but what your feed by the system anything but lies?

How is it that you make yourself out to be someone on the inside or of the knowing in this case?

All I have seen is your lack of any justice or fair play when it come's to this case. Your oneside view in all of this onlt stands to show you for what your true intentions are and that is to do anything to dissrupt the goings on on here.

You post have know backing what so ever and are just your O.P. and wishes.

The facts as clear as day are seen for everyone when it comes to the court and the Gov'ts fair play in this case other wise there would not be all the bullshit goings on that short change Kurt and scott from receiving a fair trial.

If the court and the Fed's are so sure in their case then why would there be need for causeing the RIGHTS of the accussed to be stepped on?

Why dose the court go to extra steps to make it more difficult for the truth to be seen ? for example where the bank's are concernd you have the courts doing everything they can to keep their butt's out of it well at the same time you have people like yourself on here saying frist that this is a criminal case and the banks are not involoved, then again your saying that it's a case as writen in the charges that said these two were charged with conspiering, fraud filing false documents recording the same and so on that were a direct cause of damage and lose to the bank's requiering ther be some kind of payment by the defendents to the victioms.
you can't have it both way's

you have either a case that is one of criminal intent & damages that were done to a victim such as the client or the bank. or you have a case thta is charged as a crime that involoved act's of fruad, and diseption for which were directed at the system.

in tghe documents read so far we see that the two are charge with a mulit count that span over many different areas one's that would incluld the bank's and there fore it is well within the two defendents right to bring up all related to show their intent and the facts of that mean bringing up the bank to answer some very important questios that revolve around their business in thge lending feild.

Lets face it the facts that the court, Gov't the bank's not wanting or not willing to stand up and give their side of the story in this case only show's that they are hiding something and that would be their wrong doing's the only fact's that are very clear here are trhat the two person's that are accussed have been willling two explain theiir actions as long as the one's who say they were doing wrong are willing to explain how they do their's and or what it is exactly that they see as wrong in the paper that was filed asking they yto explain themselfs in the first place.

The bank's the credit reporting companies and the the hole system that the Goov't is out to protect in this case are nothing more than underhanded liers and do there business in a way that is more to keep the everyday person from know what's involved so they can take advantage of them then any other business I know of.

Why do you think that is oh mr. all knowing one?

If the banking businesss was so up & up why would it have to hide anything. the fact's around the b.s. that they put out for this crap is so old and so unreal these day's it would have a child thinking twice before dealing with them.

"Oh we hgave to hide these numbers because there is so much compation out there"

"Oh we can't tell the customer the real story because they would not understand it and that would hurt the industry"

"Oh there are only a few bad apple's out there that spoil it for everyone but for the most part the brokers and lenders are looking out for the best interest of their customer "

"As a broker I look out for my customers best intestest in all dealing and alway's work to get them the best deal they can get given their posion at the time.

Oh we have to have the apperasial asigned to us so we can do are job that what the bank's want and it's for the best. we would never use it as a tool to pervent the customer from finding a better deal if they chose to look around and then cause any delay in reassigning it over to a new one if they chose to do business with another company seeing how it has a 90 day time limit or the'll have to paqy to have it updated"

"Oh we would never think of our own interest over that of our customers nor would we lie or hold back anything that could be seen as teling them the truth that we get paid from the lender and were going to go with the one that pay's us the best all the time well telling the customer that they could'nt find a better deal no never would ewe do that."

"Oh we would never hide the important facts about the loan or how the workings of the hole deal go just so we can line our own poockets at the customers expence".

Oh and we having been place in a possion with so much power and haveing much more knowledge they most customers being that we do 10 20 or more loans a year well making seem like we do more and make less they we do to them we would never take and use that to get us paid more"

No the banking industry is one great big buddy to the customers they serve that's why when you have a problem they are so helpful to get it fixed (well if you have enough money in acount with the at the time that is)
or that's why they have so many secrect's they don't want the customer to know about because they will always be there to help any of them out of a jamb.

let's see about that

secrects of bankinng
they hide the way the broker lender payment is done.

they have many way's to keep the customers from knowing the real story around how they are the ones paying for everything one way or another

they have secrect codes to aid in this effort

they take advantage when someone is showing signs of hardship in ways such as higher rates more fee's and underhaded business terms that are more out to cause someone on the edge to go over then toi help them get back on track (how many times have we heard that phrase" help to get you back on track")

You know what the more and more I hear out of you the easier it is to see exactly who you work for and what a JACKASS YOU REALLY ARE for your support of this kind of business.

You know I will be the first to say that the system can't be cahnged over night because the effect would be a negitive in and of it's self but the fact's remain it must be changed no matter what.
This is do mainly from the actions of the banking inbdustry and their miss use of the inteneded system and laws they have at every turn over reached their given power and have gotten to the point where they have so much power that even the Gov't fears the reprisal of making them do THE RIGHT THING and that s really all there is to it your either someone who want's to support something like the bank's and how they do busiiness or your not.

It's like if you lived in small town and your contiuied to take advantage of the customer in that town soon word would get around that you were'nt a very nice businessperson and the work would stop unless you had a business that everyone Had to use then I guess you would be just talked about intill some other replacement came along and made a cahnge fro people to chose from but for now will just call your business a local bank cause that's what we see now even if you pick another there pretty much all the same.

you have the banks who set you up and take advantage of people who are having some bad luck making things worse for they and then you have the credit reporting businesses that don't follow the law and make it as hard if not imposable for the everyday joe to get things corrected without having to take steps that are out of reach or to complicated for most to understand and take them to Fed court and sue them to get the correction and for what some little $2000.00 fine thats a joke compaired to what we all know the cause of something bad on your credit will cost you in a home loan Right?
Lets see $2000.00 plus against the cost and effort to file a case in federal court and try having the know how to do that without a lawyer so add that to the cost pot and the time it will take like easy two years and all the time that wrong repeorting that the credit companies would'nt correct even when given proof of it's being wrong because geuss what they get paid by the creditors so why would they help the consumers who they have to give things to for free?

The system in place is bullshit and unfair to the laymen of this conntry and the banker keep getting richer from all that is wrong and the Gov't is become a bunch of pussy's who can even sand up to them for fear they might cause there check book to close and the upset of the nations Eco. system fro a while . well gusess what when the bucket runs dry the bank are going to doo that anyway so why wait?.

You my bank suppoorting ass hole can kiss my asss with your better then thuo kind of shit you post. You don't know jack about anything more than helping the banks to keep stealing from most of the people in this contry and the sad thing is your most likly just as dumb as the rest know just enough that get's you by in what ever field you work as ypour part. because most banker I talk to don't have aclue of how the system works and just go about their day in their little offices with the limited know how that they have been given to do thier job.

Funny how more people from outside this country know more about how the workings of the money here then most people born here do.

Wonder why that is it could'nt be that the bankers and Giov't have made it that way or could it?

Justice777777 you an asshole and you don't even disserve the time it takes to call you that realy but I'm happy to take the time to do it just for you Jackass take your crap and go bury yourself with it because you don't no know jack about this case other then what your fed by the one's your paid by.

but I hope your happy in your work to help such a upright for the betterment of the people and this country kind business such as banking is to bad there not more people like you around cause it sure would help to bring the country to it's knees that much faster if there were.

If you ever want to see how the banking and this hole busineess works for rael you just ask pal and I'll shoiw you frist hand just how they do their act's of breaking the law and use the system to cause unrepairable damage to someone without any room for you not to see how wrong it is and you won't beable to sit there and say that the facts are mixed up because it will be out right up frount and on the table to see just how these bankers you defend work for real every day and what they cause in their wake of business.

Just ask pal and show some good faith with it and I'll shoew the real deal not any made up shit not one bit and then see if your's is such a great sid eto be on.

you just make me more pist then words can say every time I read your crap along with the rest of it..
You know what I don't have to aggree with eveything that the dorean group has done t o side with them to win this , you why because I have seen enough that the banks and the Gov't have done that has beed wrong and underhanded to fill many court rooms and jail's so even if it isn't all just right when it come's to these two there is enought that show's they were trying to do something and not just cheat in this and if you don't see that then your a blind man or just don't want to and or have something to gain by it not being seen as ddo the bank's and the Gov't and the court's all do in this.

if it's right it's right if it's wrong then someone hides it. take a good look at who's iis trying to hide thing in this case and then see who's right and wrong here.

that all I'm sure it's is a waste of time to type all of this when it come's to you but it's allways good to vent what one's is feeling and start a new.

So screw you jackass.

Have a nice day!

justice7777777 said...

GYHOOYA said...
So screw you jackass.

I can't believe I am responding to you, but to show whom the "jackass" really is, please read and comprehend what I am about to communicate:

I didn't ask about your "opinion" of banking, etc. I asked if anyone has seen discovery in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ie. witnesses that will testify, documents being presented.

If anyone has not seen this material that will be presented at trial, then everything on here is speculation, and moogie is a master at speculating, given his previous experience in law and the practice of law.

Yetter said...

Well said selective justice. The law and the truth have nothing to do with each other

mogel said...

Justice: I answered your question & mentioned that I had seen much of the discovery that has been presented & most if not all of the motions that have been filed in the court already, yet you still said I was speculating even though I affirmed I had read & seen much of this, so you're the jackass. Comprehend my answer first before you assume false things that have already been answered for you which you purposely disregarded. Have you personally seen all the evidence that will be presented by the prosecution at trial?

By the way I didn't ask you to answer or speculate what kind of law experience or court room experience you think I have had, did I?

After reading Pauligirls post, it appears to me that the trial might be postponed again past Oct. 2007 considering the court will still have to figure out whether separate trials are justified and necessary & I can see that fighting going on for a while just to resolve that issue, not to mention not all motions have been decided.

If the court is so interested in judicial economy & time factors by not having two separate trials, why haven't they tried to resolve this "economy issue" by tracking down or extraditing Sarah Magoon or why don't they seem to care to involve her in the trial too? It seems like the prosecution is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. I heard that Sarah Magoon's attorney has been talking with the prosecution, so it's unreasonable to conclude that they can't find her, so why hasn't she been extradited? Or has she signed a plea arrangement too?

One would think all the bad publicity against Kurt & Scott is evidence enough to grant a separate trial for Bill since there ALREADY EXISTS aN EXTREME prejudice against the Dorean Group that has been created unfairly. I remember talking to person that I know that works at a Title Company & the name of Scott & Kurt came up in our conversation & she asked me , "oh they are crooks, what do you really know about them" AS IF SHE REALLY KNEW THEM WELL ENOUGH TO LABEL AND KNOW THEM AS CROOKS. This statement represents how most view the Dorean Group I think. They don't know the Principals at all, or spent time to study both sides of the issue, or spent any time trying to understand the basis behind the Dorean Process, all they know is what they have heard or read about from 3rd party sources. There's a word describing that condition, it's called "gossip" because you don't have all of the facts, you can only speak to what has been conditioned upon you.

Justice, I can't believe I'm answering you at this point because you haven't responded AT ALL to my last several posts about who the "real victims" and why or even attempted to refute Kurt's latest post with any convincing evidence otherwise. All you can seem to muster is that in sarcasm you say that Kurt has always been wrong at every turn even though you refer to him as "God". I don't believe anyone is wrong all the time, not even you!!! When you make universal statements like that, it just shows your extreme prejudice.

GYHOOYA said...

justice7777777 said...
GYHOOYA said...
So screw you jackass.

I can't believe I am responding to you, but to show whom the "jackass" really is, please read and comprehend what I am about to communicate:

I didn't ask about your "opinion" of banking, etc. I asked if anyone has seen discovery in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ie. witnesses that will testify, documents being presented.

If anyone has not seen this material that will be presented at trial, then everything on here is speculation, and moogie is a master at speculating, given his previous experience in law and the practice of law

I did'nt say you asked my O.P. on banking. what I offered was the fact's around the working's of that industry and how there is more actions taken in it to hide their what it is they do then any other I know of. I offer this up because you seem to suport they and all they stand for.

The working of what the dorean group has done were not hidden from anyone, their actions were right out there for all to see and make a chose as to be in or out.

As I said I can show you personaly how the banking industry works as cheats and liers and they do this to gain with unfair dealings

Lat me ask you this do you think that because a banks who carried a loan and who was paid off by their own 'payoff demand statment' but then after the closing of said loan came back and said they were owed another 7,000 and demanded that be paid but were told by thge title and the broker company that theye were paid in full and shown this by the payment and their own demand amount, do you think they should then be able to report on my credit that they Foreclosed when they had not do anything of the sort?

whould you concider this to be the acts of a upstanding business?

The facts remain that I can have this removed but the time it takes and the effort and the damage that it has caused me is still there and will take me the extra effort to go after them for these damages at a cost of who know's how much.

This is just one of many act's that I have proof of that te banks have done in the dealings with me .

So talk about criminal let's see the bank's knowingly file false information with thge treee major credit reporting companies with the intenet to cause damage to any of my future credit offerings (and have) with hope of gaining monies that they are not intiled to and with the intenet to extort theese by the use of there power and the asstance of the credit companies all full knowing of their misuse of their system.

what do you say about that and the fairness that is there in.

I ask this because it gives the veiw about the banking industry that most don't get to see on any large scale because of the system in place to make it as hard for the consumer to make them responcable for the unfair and underhander actions.

But you suport them with all do effort's.

The act's of the dorean group may not have been altogether so right and good but for the most part they offered up what they were going to do and left the choses to there customer to choose. Thats more then I can say for the banks and the hole process the loan involves .

So tell me are you up for the insight of just how unfair this industry with full truth proff and fact's to show what I say is what happened and the truth be seen know one could say that the bank's and the credit companies with the reporting companies along side are anything but crooks out for as much monies they can take from their customers and will to and say anything to get it?

Cause what I have to say about it is alll back by paper and factt's noy hearsay and b.s.

so even though you may not have asked my O.P. about this subject you have made yourself very clear that you suport thta banking industry and so being this gives to their and your credability in this hole thing is why it was offered.

I do beleive this is still a free form and a free country last I checked and that one can say and offer their o.P. on any given subject. at least last I checke dit was. The fact is you don't get to make ststments that put down someones intended point of view about something and chose and pick what you get for a responce seeing how what I did rrespound with is still on topic.

Or are you trying to control waht is said for fear of the truth getting out and see by others like the court and the Gov't are trying to do in this case.

given all that has taken place with all of the facts being known and thr truth in it laid on the table I would say it would be hard for the aveage person not to see that the court's and the Gov't have made extra effort to hide or stop something 's from being seen in this case (who know's why for sure) along with the extra effort they have maddeto try and keep these guy's locked up and silent in it all and not for this forum they would have done just that now would'nt they after 2 going on three years of being locked up. One last thing if you were to have all the facts around anything that KUrt has filerd with the court and the reasons behind them not just what your feed here and around you could see that most were inn responce to actions taken by the court and such that had a neg. impact on the tow and their trying to mountg a defence to these charges. Not the actions thta you and others have posted as dsome kind od delay or b.s. to just do such to the courts.
Seeing how you brought it up what is next the court delaying this trial when the time come to extradite Magoo as they did with Julian you know the added defendent after over a yera and ahalf time to the case of the two who were indidted. Now thats fair play maybe if the court were to be locked up and could not do anything that involved regular life events and family interaction this trial would'nt be taking so long or thing like that just mentioned would'nt be happening. to delay.

The real story will be told and in print for all to see when the time comes and beleive me the people in this country still hold alot of faith in what they read in the newspaper one of the last best forums of the people for the people if you ask me.

so we will see how all the paliers fare out when the carfd s fall on this so called fair process.

I would love to hear you take on my question if your up for it but I'm sure you'll side step it oor down play it some how anyway.

justice7777777 said...

mogel said...
Justice: I answered your question & mentioned that I had seen much of the discovery that has been presented & most if not all of the motions that have been filed in the court already, yet you still said I was speculating even though I affirmed I had read & seen much of this, so you're the jackass.

Besides motions, what other discovery? Who are the witnesses for the defense and prosecution (especially this side), and what will they provide during trial, since I have a funny feeling this will be major issue for the jury?

Tell us moogie, since you've seen "much of the discovery".

Unfortunately, what you've provided previously hardly accounts for "much of the discovery".

Now's your chance to shine and prove me a "jackass".

Side Note: No one said Magoon was hiding in Canada, only that she fled the US for Canada. Here is a perfect example of moogie twisting fact into fiction.

mogel said...

Justice said: "No one said Magoon was hiding in Canada, only that she fled the US for Canada. Here is a perfect example of moogie twisting fact into fiction."
Her attorney knows where she's at. Tell me would the attorney's noncooperation in answering her whereabouts if demanded by the prosecution or court be considered, "harboring a fugitive" or "contempt of court"? Do you think they have asked or demanded her whereabouts? If not, how come? Do you think the attorney would lie about her whereabouts? Do you think her attorney can adequately represent her by not knowing her contact information such as phone number, email & current whereabouts? Do you think it's unreasonable to believe that she is not in Canada?

Maybe you would like to shine by answering those questions since you're making her current residence a material issue & you were so keen about the necessity to try all of the Defendants all at once by your many previous posts on this subject. Why is her sudden nonappearance to her charges now, not material anymore?

As far as who are the witnesses for the prosecution & what they intend to say is concerned, I know a few of them that have been subpoened, but whether they have anything relevant to say pertaining to the real issues may be something entirely different. Just because someone is subpoened, still doesn't mean that they'll be called to say anything in court too. Also, how could a Dorean client help at all in testifying about bank fraud? That's the central issue in this trial for if that can't be shown, all the other charges fall by the wayside.

If the witnesses for the lenders are so keen in testifying about something, why haven't they testified to date by answering any one of the many Dorean Presentments in the form of a real affadavit of facts, allowance of bank records to be audited, or even a serious reply and claim on the Dorean bond?

What are the witnesses going to testify to?....that maybe the lenders give real loans by risking their own assets & hence they can show a financial damage if the loan isn't paid back? LOL Or are they going to show that because certain documents were filed, the banks were unable to still foreclose on their perceived interest & suffered a loss?

What evidence to date has been shown to date that bank fraud has been committed by the Dorean Group & that the banks suffered a real financial loss & who can really testify with first hand knowlege of that and will as a credible expert witness?

The signed confessions of the Dorean Brokers doesn't make it bank fraud just because they agreed with the prosecution assumption that the process is an illegal scam, for example, the conclusion that the filing of certain recorded documents without permission or agency from the banks, such as the "notice to substitute the bank trustee", "notice to correct title", the "power of attorney" or "deed of mortgage discharge or deed of reconveyance."

The agency or permission or estoppel or justification of these recorded documents filed by Dorean, is still a legal issue that hasn't been adjudicated upon, regardless of the rhetoric provided by the prosecution & press.

The prosecution still hasn't answered the "Letters Rogatory, offer of stipulations, offer of settlement, affidavit in support" which basically defines key issues of who is the (1) victim, (2) who is the real lender, (3) what is considered to be money, (4) issues regarding the loan contract, (5) issues regarding exemption/settlement raised, & (6) The state of mind of the Defendants, "mens rea". (7) Plaintiffs legal standing to bring a lawsuit & (8) illegality of the Dorean administrative judgment. All these things need to be defined & discussed & shown in order to have a fair & meaningful trial, however, it appears the prosecution doesn't want to discuss the material issues.

They would rather hear testimony of clients that are angry due to the bad behaviour of their lenders, or Brokers who were forced into a confession through fear, to show some sort of bank fraud or conspiracy that really doesn't exist.

Justice, why don't you show how you shine by answering Kurt's previous post about the ridiculousness of the damages & existing charges in causing any jail time for Kurt & Scott & why they are entitled now for punishment when all the alleged damages have been already claimed by Farrell & Dewey? When you can do that, I'll further supplement your challenge. Unless you can do that, why bother?

As far as I can tell, the prosecution really needs to dismiss this case now & hope that they aren't involved in a lawsuit down the road for "abuse of legal process" & false testimony, by offering a fair settlement now to the Dorean Group for their injuries and those of their clients.

mogel said...

Justice said: Side Note: No one said Magoon was hiding in Canada, only that she fled the US for Canada. Here is a perfect example of moogie twisting fact into fiction.
Do you have personal knowledge of where Magoon is at? If not, you CERTAINLY can't speak of fact or fiction, in reference to this matter either, but your guesses don't stop you from coming to judgments about my statements of fact or fiction, in regards to where she is at, now does it?

If Magoon is in fact in Canada, than my statement is true, is it not & you are wrong in your assessment. That's right, "no one said", but it's reasonable to believe she is still there somewhere in Canada if she fled to Canada. What other choices does she have that are nearby of countries to go to that are adjacent, or are you saying she fled from the US to Canada, only to come back to the U.S. by car? Since Magoon as I remember is from Montana, I believe it was, where is the closest country and least expense to flee to without fleeing by plane?

You don't think she flew to some other country other than the U.S. or Canada, do you? Would you fly without false I.D. if you were fleeing from the US government by plane, or would you show your real I.D. if your intentions were to flee undetected knowing that US authorities were looking for you?

Is it harder to be traced by an airplane ticket, & through airports, or by fleeing in a rental car for example? If you were in fact fleeing, wouldn't you think to travel to a country where there isn't any current extradition treaties with the U.S. to make yourself the most undetectable?

Is Magoon's leaving Montana considered fleeing the law & authorities being a fugitive now, a fact also? Is there a reason why she hasn't been charged with that too at this point in time or why a bounty has not been put on her? Or is she considered not really important & considered a small fish to fry with no relevant testimony?

If that were her intentions,to flee to Canada, wouldn't it have been easier to initially fly and flee to her intended destination country in the first place?

I pointed out that her lawyer most probably knows where she is currently living, so why hasn't he been forced to answer, at the peril of his law license, or does the Court really NOT CARE if all Defendants are tried together, but again, just want to deny Julian of his right to be tried in a separate trial & be severed from the other Defendants. The US marshalls made the extradition of Julian a big deal, so why not the extradition of Magoon to be a big deal too? You want me to believe the authorities can find Julian clear off in Panama, but they can't find Magoon in Canada a neighboring country? If the authorities knew she fled to Canada, do you want me to believe they lost her trail & flight at some point when the authorities have been investigating her from day one?

GYHOOYA said...

I see that Justice7777 has not the ball's to answer my questions.

he only like's to present his own twisted shine on thing's, like wheather someone is in one place or another the fact remains still that there has been know attempt as of yet to have this person returned as there was with Julian at the last min. and so it will be with Magoo I'm sure so the courts can delay thei trial even more.

Justice777 your an ass that's all there is to it and the only thing that one could find open on your end is the screen door not your mind to fair play. So with that said don't let the screen door hit in the ass on your way out Pal. Your brand of Justice is one this country could use a lot less of. You must be a Banker, Title agent or Broker something to do with making money off the people you cheat.

But I see you don't want anyone to know what yoou do for a living now do you?

You must be to embarest to say.

Now let's see you'll either respound with some crap like "i can't understand what your trying to say" or some other form of sidestep instead of answering the questions with some kind of real honesty.

What a jerk you are and you sound just like the many other posting names you have been on here with as well. Only to hide or stop the onslot of questions your unwilling to enetertain for fear you might be wrong!

Again I can only hope you find yourself one day being treated the same way as you would like the courts to treat these guy's