UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 08-10147, No. 08-10258 [consolidated]
District Court No. 05-cr-00611
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff/Appellee
v.
KURT F. JOHNSON and DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN
Defendants/Appellants
Appeal From the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Honorable William H. Alsup, Judge Presiding
APPELLANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF1
KURT F. JOHNSON
Appellant/Defendant
FCI Herlong
P.O. Box 800
Herlong, CA 96113
DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN
Appellant/Defendant
FCI-1 Victorville
P.O. Box 5300
Adelanto, CA 92301
Filing Supplemental Brief Pro Se
1 Appellants’ Supplemental Brief is raising additional issues to be considered with the
issues raised in the previously-filed Opening Brief prepared by Counsel. Appellants
continue to be represented by Counsel in all other matters.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………….vi
POEM………………………………………………………………………..1
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW……………………………………...1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT.……………………………………...…3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.……………………………………………..2
STATEMENT OF FACTS……..…………………………………………....4
ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………..5
I. THE FRAUD STATUTES ARE VOID FOR VAGUENESS...5
A. The Fraud Statutes Are Void For Vagueness…………………5
B. The Vagueness in the Statutes Permitted the Trial Court to Use
Special Verdict Forms to Find Overt Acts………………..…13
II. THE DISTRICT COURT LOST JURISDICTION WHEN IT
VIOLATED THE SPEED TRIAL ACT…. ………………....14
A. Summary of Relevant Facts……………………………...…14
B. The District Court Violated the Speedy Trial Act………….15
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….16
Certificate of Compliance…………………………………………….……18
Circuit Rule 27-8.2 Statement.…………………………………………..…18
Certificate of Service…………………………………………………….…19
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Kilpatrick,
487 U.S. 250 (1988)……………………………………………..…..14
Black v. United States,
__ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2379 (2009)………………………………...….6
Bloate v. United States,
__ S.Ct. __, 2010 WL 757660 (U.S. Mar. 8, 2010)…………….…….8
Carlisle v. United States,
517 U.S. 416 (1996)…………………………………………………14
City of Chicago v. Morales,
527 U.S. 41 (1999)…………………………………………………....5
Cleveland v. United States,
531 U.S. 12 (2000)……………………………………………………6
Connally v. General Construction Co.,
269 U.S. 385 (1926)…………………………………………………..7
Durlan v. United States,
161 U.S. 306 (1896)…………………………………………...….6, 12
Fasulo v. United States,
272 U.S. 620 (1926)…………………………………………………..6
Grayned v. City of Rockford,
408 U.S. 104 (1972)…………………………………………………..7
Green v. United States,
365 U.S. 301 (1961)………………………………………………...13
Kolendar v. Lawson,
461 U.S. 352 (1983)…………………………………………….….5, 7
iv
McNally v. United States,
483 U.S. 350 (1987)…………………………………………………..6
Papchristou v. City of Jacksonville,
405 U.S. 156 (1972)……………………………………………….….7
Skilling v. United States,
__ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 393 (2009)…………………………………..6, 8
Smith v. Goguen,
415 U.S. 566 (1974)……………………………………………..1, 5, 7
Sorich v. United States,
__ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1308 (2009)…………………………………6, 8
United States v. James,
432 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1970)………………………………………...14
United States v. Loud Hawk,
474 U.S. 302 (1986)…………………………………………………15
United States v. MacDonald,
456 U.S. 1 (1982)……………………………………………………15
United States v. Marion,
404 U.S. 307 (1971)…………………………………………………15
United States v. Reese,
92 U.S. 214 (1875)…………………………………………………6, 7
United States v. Rodriquez,
553 U.S. 377, 128 S.Ct. 1788 (2008)…………………………………2
United States v. Rush,
738 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984)………………………………………...16
United States v. Spock,
416 F.2d 165 (1st Cir. 1969)…………………………………….13, 14
v
United States v. Thomas,
788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986)……………………………………….16
United States v. Whitley,
529 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008)…………………………………………..2
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,
455 U.S. 489 (1982)…………………………………………………..7
Weyhrauch v. United States,
__ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2863 (2009)……………………………………6
Zedner v. United States,
547 U.S. 489 (2006)…………………………………………………15
Federal Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 401(3)…………………………………………………………..3
18 U.S.C. § 1341…..…………...……………………………3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13
18 U.S.C. § 1344…..…………...……………………………………………3
18 U.S.C. § 1346…..…………...………………………………………1, 6, 8
18 U.S.C. § 1349……………….………………………………3, 4, 5, 11, 13
18 U.S.C. § 2161…..…………...……………………………………………2
18 U.S.C. § 3231…..………………...………………………………………2
28 U.S.C. § 1291………….…………………………………………………3
28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)………….………………………………………………3
Federal Constitution
vi
SIXTH AMEND.……………………………………………………….……15
Federal Rules
FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)…………………………………………………………3
Miscellaneous
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 831 (9th ed. 2009)………..…………………….8
M. Bassionuni, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW 53 (1978)………..…………..7
1
POETIC JUSTICE
Haiku, iambic pentameter, the sonnet are laws for poetry
rhyme and reason can also be binding
regulations upon creative imagination can be legalistic
but realistically can never be considered a judicial finding
Placement and selection of every word does a poem justice
misplacement and mis-selection of legal words does a man
injustice
Though a judge is authorized to regulate
he is bound by separation not to legislate
Imagination seems infinite to the creative thinker
while law seems finite to deal with finite creatures
the opposite is true for law must have an infinite source
or it is just imagination of course
If law is just a collective imagination of the mind
it will not be long before justice is a crime
Appellant Kurt Johnson, Poetic Justice (2010)
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Void for Vagueness: Personal predilections, Lack of guidance, and
Standardless Sweep are all ingredients of a vague statute. The second
principle element of the vagueness doctrine involves the requirement
that congress establish minimal guideline to govern law enforcement.
When the guidelines are absent, a criminal statute may permit “[a]
standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to
pursue their personal predilections.” Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566,
575 (1974). Here Appellants Kurt F. Johnson (“Mr. Johnson”) and
Dale Scott Heineman (“Mr. Heineman”, collectively referred to as
“Appellants”) foster the term[s]: “Scheme or artifice to defraud”
permits the government, in this case, to pursue their own predilections
because there is simply no guidance providing a standardless sweep of
unincluded conduct. Take for example 28 U.S.C. § 1346 and the term
“includes” which is followed by “honest services.” When “include” is
utilized, the participle including typically indicates a partial list. Only
2
in the fraud statutes here contain no such list. Instead, the statute
leaves to the government a blank check to add words to the statute
despite the fact that the Supreme Court has recently condemned the
insertion of words into a statute as, not faithful to the statutory text.
See United States v. Whitley, 529 F.3d 150, 157 n.5 (2d Cir. 2008)
(quoting United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377, 128 S.Ct. 1788,
1789 (2008)). Overall, the lack of guidance in 'Scheme or artifice to
defraud' allows the government to create an imaginary list of terms to
produce a federal crime with a standardless sweep of facts known
only to the prosecutor. As applied, are the fraud statutes here void for
vagueness?
2. Speedy Trial Act Violation: Did the district court lose jurisdiction to
prosecute this indictment in this case when it failed to observe the
Sixth Amendment as applied through 18 U.S.C. § 2161 et. seq.?
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Heineman were charged by superseding
indictment with 68 felony criminal offenses in the Northern District of
California E.R. 211[Docket sheet, entry 14], which is a matter within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231. On
November 14, 2007, the jury found Appellants guilty of 35 counts. E.R. 19,
DS 525. On March 18, 2008, the district court entered a final judgment after
imposing a 300-month sentence on Mr. Johnson (a 240-month sentence on
the conspiracy count to run consecutively to the 20 months imposed on each
mail fraud count) and a 260-month sentence on Mr. Heineman (a 240-month
1 “E.R.” refers to Appellants’ Excerpts of Record, which were filed with
Appellants’ opening brief. References to the Docket Sheet will be labeled
“DS.”
3
sentence on the conspiracy count to run consecutively to 60-months imposed
on each mail fraud count). E.R. 3-4; E.R. 11–12. On March 18, 2008,
Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 4(b).
E.R. 1. This Court thus has jurisdiction to review Appellants’ appeal of the
district court’s final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
By a superseding indictment filed on February 16, 2006, in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California, Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Heineman were charged with 68 felony counts, involving 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 three counts of forfeiture (28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)). E.R. 21–63. Prior to
trial, 26 Counts were dismissed by the Government. E.R. 537, G.E.R. 21.2
On October 15, 2007, Appellant’s jury trial commenced. DS 484.
On November 13, 2007, the Government dismissed with prejudice seven
additional counts (Counts 31, 32, 64–65, 66, 67, and 68). DS 517, 513. On
November 14, 2007, the jury found Mr. Johnson and Mr. Heineman guilty of
2 “G.E.R.” refers to the Government’s Excerpts of Record, which were filed
with the Government’s Answering Brief.
4
35 counts contained a special verdict form. E.R. 19, DS 525. In particular,
the jury rendered guilty verdicts with respect to one count of conspiracy (18
U.S.C. § 1349, Count 1) and 34 counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341,
Count 2–5, 8–14, 19–25, 33–34, 38–52) E.R. 19, Special Verdict Form, DS
531. With respect to Mr. Heineman, the Court imposed a 240-month
sentence for Count 1 to run consecutive to the 20-month sentence for the
mail fraud counts, for a total 260 month term. E.R. 11–12. With respect to
Mr. Johnson, the court imposed a 240-month sentence for Count 1 to run
consecutive to the 60-month sentence for the mail fraud counts, for a total
300 month term. E.R. 13–14. In addition, the Court assessed a special fine
of $3,500 and ordered both men, jointly and severally, to make restitution in
the amount of $512,911.63 to the victims. E.R. 7, 15.
On March 18, 2008, the district court entered a final judgment. E.R.
3, 11. On the same day, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Heineman filed a timely
notice of appeal. E.R. 1.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In Appellants’ Opening Brief, they set forth a detailed statement of
facts. Appellants wish to respectfully incorporate by reference the statement
of facts into this Supplemental Brief.
//
5
ARGUMENT
I. THE FRAUD STATUTES ARE VOID FOR VAGUENESS
A. The Fraud Statutes Are Void For Vagueness
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341 is void for vagueness. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1349
in that it is a predicated attachment that garners its elemental strength from
other fraud statutes as section 1341 in this case is likewise void for
vagueness. The structure of the argument by circumstance is in the nature of
first impression.
“A penal code is void for vagueness if it fails to ‘define the criminal
offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what
conduct is prohibited' or fails to establish guidelines to prevent 'arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement' of the law.’” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527
U.S. 41, 64–65 (1999) (quoting Kolendar v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)).
Of these, “the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine ‘is . . . the
requirement that the legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law
enforcement.'' Id. at 358 (quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 574
(1974)).
Notice to appellant is not raised because it is understood as likely
being automatic if the second and more important prong of the vagueness
doctrine is satisfied.
6
The government in this case has shown all the symptoms of a lack of
guidance along with the idea that Durlan v. United States, 161 U.S. 306
(1896) is still good law. “The statute is broader than is claimed. Its letter
show this: ‘Any Scheme or artifice to defraud’. . . In the light of this the
statute must be read, and so read it includes everything designed to defraud. .
.” Id. at 313 (emphasis added). Cases like Fasulo v. United States, 272 U.S.
620 (1926), McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), and Cleveland v.
United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000) have by now most certainly dispelled this
imagination.
Congress in response to the McNally case, fully enacted 18 U.S.C. §
1346 to further define “a scheme or artifice to defraud” to include honest
services. Whether they accomplished their goal is a question Justice Scalia
thought ripe for review in Sorich v. United States, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct.
1308 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of petition for certiorari) and
the Court has now taken up in Skilling v. United States, __ U.S. __, 130
S.Ct. 393 (2009) (granting petition for certiorari); Weyhrauch v. United
States, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2863 (2009) (same); and Black v. United States,
__ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2379 (2009) (same).
These concerns are nothing new as far back as United States v. Reese,
92 U.S. 214 (1875) the Supreme Court has recognized the dangers in a
7
vague penal statute. The statutes on this case, as applied, have no more than
a general meaning that permit the government “to cast a net large enough to
catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say
who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.” Id. at
221.
The Constitution is designed to maximize individual freedoms within
a framework of ordered liberty. Statutory limitations on these freedoms are
examined for substantive authority and content as well as for definiteness or
certainty of expression. See generally M. Bassionuni, SUBSTANTIVE
CRIMINAL LAW 53 (1978). As generally stated:
The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute
define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness the
ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and
in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement.
Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357. See also Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside,
Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566
(1974); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972); Papchristou v.
City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972); Connally v. General Construction
Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391–92 (1926) (citing cases).
Section 1346 added “Honest services” as a definite addition to be
included in an absent list with the controlling statute 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
8
“When 'include' is utilized, the participle including typically indicates a
partial list.” Bloate v. United States, __ S.Ct. __, 2010 WL 757660, at *13
(U.S. Mar. 8, 2010) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 831 (9th ed. 2009)
(emphasis in Black’s Law). “A scheme or artifice to defraud” throughout
section 1346 supposedly clarified a particular elemental category, Congress
categorically ignored the fact that the list they were amending was blind to
law enforcement and that enforcement was left to their personal
predilections to divine a list. What we have is the hypothetical statute
prohibiting anything bad discussed by Justice Scalia during the oral
argument for Skillings operating in reality. See Skillings v. United States,
Oral Argument Transcript, pp 44 lns. 11–26.
“Though [section 1346] consists of only 28 words, the statute has
been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a broad swath of behavior.”
Sorich, 129 S.Ct. at 1309 (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of petition for
certiorari). Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben in oral arguments before the
Supreme Court in Black argued that the reach of section 1346 is to any act of
deception for personal gain. Even an employee calling in sick to attend a
ballgame would have been captured by the net of this statute for having
deprived his employer of honest services through fraud. Later in oral
arguments of Skilling, Dreeben changed his position to a more narrow
9
position of fiduciary obligations. In this case the Assistant United States
Attorney Hall (“AUSA Hall”) in direct examination adapting to testimonial
answers took his personal predilections to even a new theory that “honest
services” was now a property interest of the alleged victims.
The moving target of personal predilections free to roam in
standardless sweep in this case are not limited to this one shining example.
AUSA Keller alleges financial institutions as affected and controlling. See
E.R. 323–24 and being defined by the statute. By closing arguments AUSA
Hall has switched victims to “clients.” See E.R. 557, 560, 563. Then
patches up this change with an amalgamation theory. See E.R. 565. AUSA
Martin in closing does some more patchwork roaming on the definition of
financial institutions. See E.R. 655. Then by sentencing the allegations
have completely morphed into unnoticed and unimagined accusation on the
part of appellants by AUSA Martin. See E.R. 705, 726. Even the judge is
untethered by any guidance of the legislature when instructing the jury that
“banks” are simply irrelevant to their decision. See E.R. 665, 666. What is
relevant is really the unanswered question. Is the term “banks” now a
synonym of “financial institution”? Was this a word added to the test that
was faithful or unfaithful? Was it thrown out as a hook to reel in the
personal predilections of the jurors?
10
This case began when the sitting Judge Alsup referred Appellants to
the prosecutors out of a civil matter. Alsup functioning as a one-man grand
jury formulated a theory about Appellants’ conduct that fell easily within his
persona predilections interpreted through this “anything bad” fraud statute.
The FBI did a cut and paste investigation in deference to the rank of the
referral. They had no guidance from Congress to rein in another theory.
The probable cause affidavit of the lead investigator Agent Ernst was 90%
the words of Alsup. Now Appellants are secretly brought before a grand
jury. What was used to inflame them to indict? Were they instructed with
definiteness as to “scheme and artifice to defraud,” “Money,” “financial
institutions,” “Property,” and “victims” or were they seduced into their own
personal predilections being let loose upon the vast landscape of the
“anything bad” statute? Are they any different that the grand juries who
passed on the McNally and Cleveland indictments? From bark to core the
entire process was fundamentally flawed by, unknown to Appellants,
personal predilections. Which predilection was controlling and which
required a justified defense still remains a mystery to Appellants.
Throughout these proceedings Appellants were constantly informed by
various judges, magistrates, and prosecutors that “facts don't matter.” It was
not until absurd sentences were cast that Appellants could comprehend the
11
veracity of that statement. Facts don't matter because in the indiscriminate
net and trolling advantages of the government afloat upon the sea of process
can sell their haul to the appetites and predilections of any juror, law
enforcement, or judge out of the void unaddressed by Congress.
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1349 as presently drafted and construed
by the courts, contain no construed by the courts, contain no standard of
determining what constitutes a scheme to defraud, or for that matter any
element applicable here that makes it a crime. As such, these statutes vest
virtually complete discretion in the hands of law enforcement, federal
prosecutors, and jurors following their personal predilections.
The problem with the lack of definiteness is not the missing
definitions per se but that due process cannot be obtained out of the
vagueness because law enforcement has not been able to implement any
standards of review that assure congressional intent governs. The courts
cannot continue to be asked to function as a piecemeal federal register where
each ruling clarifies another predilection false as an element of public policy
and procedures.
“Money”: credit is the postponement in payment of money, money
factually cannot be the postponement of itself. Is money a separate interest
and prong distinct from 'property' in this statute or are they merged?
12
“Financial institutions”: is a bank a financial institution under all
circumstances and in all forms? Is a ban the limiting definition of a financial
institution within this statute? “Property”: having qualities of tangibility
and transferability being in the possession of the victim can now become
intangible or another victim's? “Scheme or artifice to defraud”: is
Durland's everything bad interpretation the definitive guideline offered by
Congress? “Loans-mortgages”: are they a property interest, a money
interest, or added in a way faithful to the statutory text? “Debt elimination”:
finds its way into the prohibition textually or by predilection?
Regardless of these answers Appellants are basically foreclosed from
presenting any other arguments by the lack of guidance supplied by
Congress through these statutes. With not textual foundation from which to
launch fatal variance or constructive amendment to the accusation and
indictment how does one proceed? Where is the footing for causation and/or
reliance? Where does one stand on evidentiary issues and their sufficiency
when proof is packed upon a wandering dromedary in the parched desert of
predilection? Can one even ask if the 2002 amendment to this statute adding
financial institutions and disaster relief added new elements to create say an
“aggravated” mail fraud if the original statute fails to state an offense? Is
this statute a glorified run on sentence elucidating an overt act of use of
13
mails to some fraud crime not listed? The problem for Appellants is a twoedged
sword. On one side a very powerful and resourceful government is let
loose ungoverned to entertain its imaginary whims and equally sharp
Appellants are likewise unguided by any notice of prohibited acts,
governmental restraint, or accusations to defend. To raise any of these
arguments would be a circumvention and couched argument for vagueness
so they have all been laid subordinate to the over arching problem in this
case. Sections 1341 and 1349 fail to govern law enforcement or to provide
reasonable notice to an accused.
Regardless of this Court's ethical or moral assessment of Appellants
garnered from this record it should be noted, that “bad men, like good men,
are entitled to be tried and sentenced in accordance with law.” Green v.
United States, 365 U.S. 301, 309 (1961).
B. The Vagueness in the Statutes Permitted the Trial Court to Use
Special Verdict Forms to Find Overt Acts
It is Appellants position that vagueness in these statutes permitted the
trial court to create a procedure that does not exist in any statute, special
verdicts. Special verdicts pose a serious risk to criminal defendants, they
lead the jury through a “step by step . . . progression of questions[,] each of
which seems to require an answer unfavorable to the defendant, special
verdicts can coerce a reluctant juror to convict.” United States v. Spock, 416
14
F.2d 165, 182 (1st Cir. 1969); United States v. James, 432 F.2d 303, 307
(5th Cir. 1970). In fact, even though no federal court has “the power to
develop rules that circumvent or conflict with federal rules,” the vagueness
and lack of guidance provides the court in this case a way to circumvent
these decisions. Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 426 (1996); see
also Bank of Nova Scotia v. Kilpatrick, 487 U.S. 250, 255 (1988).
II. THE DISTRICT COURT LOST JURISDICTION WHEN IT
VIOLATED THE SPEED TRIAL ACT
A. Summary of Relevant Facts
Appellants were each taken into custody on related charges from the
State of Utah. Mr. Heineman on May 28, 2005 and Mr. Johnson on July 21,
2005. It is the position of Appellants that this state prosecution was a ruse
for mere tactical advantage for the Feds to take Appellants out of their
liberties while the motions to indict moved too slowly for the prosecution.
On September 22, 2005 a federal indictment was passed and made public
upon Appellants, and a federal detainer placed. At that time Utah's
usefulness had passed and an agreement with federal prosecutors was made
to have the state case dismissed on October 20, 2005. On that date at the
unction of federal prosecutors, a 60-day continuance was granted and the
case was dismissed on December 20, 2005. Appellants were now placed
into federal custody. On December 22, 2005, Appellants were taken before
15
magistrate Samuel Alba in the Utah District. Appellants have never left
federal custody since entering it. On or about February 9, 2006, Appellants
appeared in the Northern District of California where the indictment was
passed. While in court on February 17, 2006 a superseding indictment was
passed, made public, and served upon Appellants. 27 counts of the
indictment in final relativity carried forward. The first appearances before
any officer of the court that made any exclusionary finding upon the record
was Judge Alsup on March 3, 2006. A period of 74 days from the latest
attachment to the Sixth Amendment guarantee.
B. The District Court Violated the Speedy Trial Act
The Supreme Court has held that the Speedy Trial protection is more a
promise to the public than to the individual and therefore cannot be waived.
Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006).
Where that right attaches to the individual has clearly been determined
to revolve around the deprivation of liberty interest. United States v.
Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971); see also United States v. Loud Hawk, 474
U.S. 302, 312 (1986), United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 (1982).
For Appellants that is December 20, 2005. But this right is not a precise
right that cannot be applied without some balance of the circumstance.
Though 74 days passed between federal custody and the first exclusion it
16
could be reasonably argued that the behavior of the federal prosecutor in
obtaining the 60-day extension before dismissal of the Utah charges did so
in a way that was a prejudicial circumvention of their duties and obligations
under the Sixth Amendment. Leaving behind whether the entire Utah case
was a puppet and master ruse to circumvent many rights and due process.
No motions were presented by either side during this period and to
Appellants’ knowledge no actions that would qualify for an automatic
exclusion transpired. This Court will find from the record that no exclusions
were made upon the record during this time frame in accordance with policy.
The 27 counts that were carried forward from the indictment to the
superceding indictment were not prosecuted within the protection and
provisions of law. The superseding indictment did not exempt the
government from its obligations at law to bring appellant to trial in a speedy
fashion. See United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), United
States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984).
CONCLUSION
The speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment were violated in
this case through no fault of Appellants. It is not their right to waive and the
burdens are clearly to be borne of the government. The 27 counts carried
forward should be dismissed in accordance with law. With or without
17
prejudice a product of this Court's discernment. The error is structural and
requires a dismissal and vacation of the relevant sentence.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine as applied in this case is fundamental
in that it completely undermined due process at every single stage of the
proceedings. The integrity, fairness, and confidence in the system was
always impaired, marred, and circumvented. What transpired in this case
shocked the conscience of reasonableness while pricking every restraining
barrier offered by the canons of constitutional avoidance. The convictions
should be vacated and Congress should be put on notice that they must speak
with clear guidance for law enforcement's benefit and for proper
adjudication.
In the end this court can separate the justice poetry can bring to words
and the justice words can bring to the law. In poetry the imagination is a
friend, at law predilections are a specter of injustice.
Dated: April 6, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kurt Johnson
Defendant-Appellant
/s/ Dale Scott Heineman
Defendant-Appellant
18
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
We certify that: Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) & (C) and
Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, the attached opening brief is proportionally spaced,
has a typeface of 14 points or more, and contains approximately 3,860
words, exclusive of the table of contents, table of authorities, and certificates
of counsel, which does not exceed the 14,000 word-limit.
CIRCUIT RULE 27-8 STATEMENT
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Heineman each filed a writ of habeas corpus in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The district court
denied Mr. Heineman’s habeas petition in case number 08-02462. Mr.
Johnson’s petition is still pending in case number 08-02461.
Mr. Johnson has not sought or received any bail, remains in custody
of the United States of America, and is located at the federal detention
facility in Herlong, California.
Mr. Heineman has not sought or received any bail, remains in custody
of the United States of America, and is located at the federal detention
facility in Adelanto, California.
Dated: April 6, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kurt Johnson
Defendant-Appellant
/s/ Dale Scott Heineman
Defendant-Appellant
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to
the instant action. I am in good standing with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the State Bar of California, and the State Bar of Oregon. My work
address is 1300 Clay Street, Suite 600, Oakland, CA 94612 and 256 Cajon
Street, Suite H, Redlands, CA 92373.
On the date-listed below, I served one copy of the attached document,
entitled Appellants’ Supplemental Opening Brief to the following
individuals:
Laurie K. Gray, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Brigid S. Martin, Antitrust Division
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: laurie.kloster.gray@usdoj.gov
Email: brigid.martin@usdoj.gov
[ xx ] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. On the date listed below, I filed a
copy of the attached motion with the Court using the CM/ECF system. The
parties above who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the
appellate CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and
that this declaration was executed on April 6, 2010 in Redlands, California.
/s/ Kari Hong
LAW OFFICE OF KARI E. HONG
Appointed Attorney for Appellant
Dale Scott Heineman
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
236 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 236 of 236Well shit howdy where is my surprise face??? Along with being the worlds largest heroin dealer look at what else we have stumbled into while keeping you safe from terror. Goldman and Buffett must be some where near by, load up on some options.
WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials. The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys. The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said. While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war. “There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
WOW!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu6dWGfOy2k&feature=related
sops is yo's booby's bgs one's or litle tity's. Yu's cloooo less my lady friend.
i'sssss be all ovr yo's azz like a blk man on fried chickin an watermelon. HA HA HA.
hey what faggot keeps deleting my posts stop it sop.
Make sure you thank your Trustee's regularly for getting the ball rolling. The bought off Federal Judges are fighting back, we need to keep throwing their shit right back in their face's. God's speed gentlemen.
Salt Lake City, UT) – St. George attorney John Christian Barlow appeared to hold his own against the legal team of the Bank of America led by attorney Roy Arnold of the Pittsburgh office of Reed Smith, LLP in federal court Thursday morning before Judge Clark Waddoups. At issue is the validity of a state court injunction stopping all foreclosures in Utah by the Bank of America. The preliminary injunction remains in effect as Judge Waddoups reviews the written and oral arguments present in the federal hearing.
Under intensive questioning Barlow was asked by Judge Waddoups to explain why the bank should not be excluded. Barlow said the issue is not about the federally chartered Bank of America but its subsidiary ReconTrust Company. The injunction stopping foreclosures was issued specifically to Recontrust Company, a Bank of America subsidiary, which has no office or business registration in Utah as required by state statute. The plaintiff, Peni Cox, claims her rights for remedies under Utah law were taken from her by ReconTrust Company which is operating illegally in Utah, Barlow said.
The Bank of America operating as a nationally chartered financial institution is not at dispute, he said, it’s the bank’s subsidiaries which have been foreclosing on homeowners without legal standing in Utah. Barlow provided the court evidence of proper notice to all of the defendants in the case; Recontrust Company, N.A; Bank of America Home Loans Servicing, LP; Bank of America FSB; New Line Mortgage, a division of Republic Mortgage Home Loans and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The St. George attorney filed an amended petition to remand the case to Fifth District Court with exhibits showing proper service had been made. Amended Petition Proper notice and proper service was a fundamental issue to the bank’s motion to move the case to federal court and the emergency hearing before Judge Waddoups asking the court to dissolve the injunction, modify it to apply only to ReconTrust, or delay its effect until such time as the defendants have had an opportunity to defend against it with a properly-noticed motion.
ReconTrust Company has 903 Utah homeowners in foreclosure this month and 155 Utah homes already foreclosed, according to their website at Recontrustco.com
Judge Waddoups is expected to issue his ruling by Friday according to the federal court docket record.
hey Judge Waddoups....
what up??
did they slop the oil yet??
no?
ok.
i'll kum next week and check?
Hey sop u like fried chicken and watermelon like them there negro's do?
Hey sop u like fried chicken and watermelon like them there negro's do?
Hy sop yo lks thm's watrmeln's an fryed chken lke thm's negro's do? Hey grl yo a negro ait ya?
Kurt gave a great "class in session" lesson back in Oct 2006
PRLog (Press Release) – Jun 01, 2010 – An investigation on behalf of investors in DJSP Enterprises, Inc (NASDAQ:DJSP) securities over possible violations of Federal Securities Laws by DJSP Enterprises was announced.
If you are an investor in DJSP Enterprises, Inc (NASDAQ:DJSP) securities, you have certain options and you should contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc by email at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1 (858) 779 – 1554.
DJSP Enterprises, Inc., located in Plantation, Florida, through its subsidiary, DAL Group, LLC, engages in providing non-legal services supporting residential real estate foreclosure, other related legal actions, and lender owned real estate services in the United States.
hey girlfriend
sop u like the fried chicken and watermelon like the negro's do?
Crime syndicate drops dow by a thousand points,clowns whimper, ok just kidding.
WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve scored a political victory on Wednesday as Democrats mulling financial reform backed off measures that would expose monetary policy to audits and make the head of the New York Fed a political appointee. The U.S. House of Representatives had approved a bill in December that included a provision, championed by Texas Representative Ron Paul, that would have opened the Fed’s interest rate policy to congressional audits. But in a statement on Tuesday, House Democrats participating in negotiations over a final financial reform bill signaled a willingness to live with a narrower Senate audit provision that does not cover monetary policy.
Better buy more Federal Judges.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
v.
JUDITH MENDES DA COSTA
CASE NO.: 09-142-CA
“While U.S. Bank alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the copy of the mortgage attached to the complaint lists ‘Fremont Investment & Loan’ as the ‘lender’ and ‘MERS’ as the ‘mortgagee.’ When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibit control over the allegations of the complaint … Because the exhibit to U.S. Bank’s complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing and the exhibit does not show that U.S. Bank has standing to foreclose the mortgage, U.S. Bank did not establish its entitlement to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law. Moreover, while U.S. Bank subsequently filed the original note, the note does not identify U.S. Bank as the lender or holder.” BAC Funding Consortium Inc. v. Jean-Jacques, 2010 WL 476641 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010).
Likewise, a copy of the mortgage and two riders are attached to the complaint in the instant case. A copy of the mortgage, two riders, the note, and an addendum are attached to the amended complaint. The original note has also been filed. Every one of these exhibits and the original note identify an entity other than Plaintiff as “lender.” The mortgage identifies an entity other than Plaintiff as “grantee.” None of the documents identify Plaintiff as “holder.” Moreover, the language in these exhibits, including the note, indicates that Plaintiff does not have standing, and that language controls over contrary allegations contained in the complaint. Further, there are two endorsements on the note, each to a specific entity other than Plaintiff. Therefore, possession of the original note, in and of itself, does not vest Plaintiff with standing. Rather, Plaintiff must necessarily rely upon a valid assignment, which does not exist.
The assignment attached to the amended complaint is from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS”) to Plaintiff, and that assignment is completely ineffective. As nominee for the lender, MERS serves in a very limited capacity. Specitically, MERS records the mortgage and tracks ownership ofthe lien. MERS has no substantive rights itself and, therefore, cannot assign what it does not have. “A nominee of the owner of the note and mortgage may not effectively assign the note and mortgage to another for want of an ownership interest in said note and mortgage by the nominee.” LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Lamy, 824 N.Y.S.2d 769, 2006 WL 2251721 (Sup.2006).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that MERS was authorized to assign anything to Plaintiff, and therefore, the assignment was invalid. Even if the assignment were valid, it was not executed until after the complaint was filed. Therefore, Plaintiff s standing at the inception of the case was based entirely on the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto. It appears on the face of those exhibits that an entity other than Plaintiff has standing, and those exhibits control over contrary allegations contained in either version of the complaint. Plaintiff lacks standing now based on the substantive deficiencies with an assignment from MERS. Plaintiff lacked standing at the inception of the case based on those substantive deficiencies and the timing of the execution of the assignment. Absent standing, there is no justiciable controversy between the parties, and this case must be DISMISSED.
blog this?
have they slop the oil yet??
no.
ok. kum back next weak.
wile yo are watting, watch see if sum nook plant go
***************
***OFFLINE****
****************
dats next.
then yo will haf to yoze
************
**DIALUP*****
************
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Don't know quite what to think of this article:
FLORIDA IS ABOUT TO DIE!
This is a sad day for Florida and I wish I did not have to send this warning out. But as a watchman on the wall I must let you know what is happening right now to you.
The government has been lying to us about the oil spill in the gulf all along. It is a disaster that BP & the government will not be able to stop, in spite of the Obamanation's lies that it will be cleaned up 90% by this fall.
Here's why, they have drilled down into the strata 6 miles below the ocean floor and tapped into a high pressure cavity. At this level the oil is called A-Biotic oil, it is being created by chemical reaction and will produce an endless supply of oil, sounds like the oil shortage is over , right, wrong. You see the pressure coming up from that well casing is up to 70,000 psi and we have no way to stop it. We do not even possess the science to contain that kind of pressure, let along stop it. On a normal oil rig there are two reading's that are read immediately after they hit oil, the first is flow rate & the second is well head pressure and on a normal rig it is about 1,500psi. At that level all the safety systems work to keep everything safe.
On the Horizon rig in the gulf the well head pressure hit 70,000psi +- and blew the rig apart and every safety system with it. BP was told by the rig engineers that the fail safe valve needed to be replaced, but they told the crew to keep drilling anyway and Boom, off it went. The valve probably would not have stopped the oil at 70,000psi any way.
The amount of oil blowing into the gulf every day is about 4,000,000 gallons and increasing daily. With the pressure so high no body knows what to do to stop it, everything they have tried has failed and relief wells will not help only increase the problem. Here's why, you see the well casing is down 6 + miles into the earth and the pressure has broken through in several places and continues to erode the well casing, it was 4 inches thick it is now aprox 1 inch thick and soon will be gone leaving the 70,000psi pressure to open the whole wider and spew out faster and faster. But according to the NOAA ( National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration), the pressure is opening up holes all over the ocean floor up to 20 miles away and releasing oil plumes into the gulf, it is estimated by oil industry experts and the government NOAA that as much as 40% of the gulf is now covered with underwater oil clouds and growing.
Now comes the really bad part, oil is not the only thing coming out of the well head and the plume leaks. Deadly gases are escaping into the atmosphere. You will hear in the days to come about " Volatile Organic Compounds" in the air, the EPA has now begun to let out their research and readings on the deadly gases escaping into our air here in Florida. Number one, Benzine (C6H6) gas, the amount one breathes should not go pass 0 to 4 PPB, ( parts per billion) the reading this week in the gulf was 3,000 PPB, this gas is now moving over Florida and will cause problems with the brain, the stomach, and especially for pregnant women to name a few problems. Gas number two, Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S) It is a colorless, very poisonous, flammable gas with the characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs. what humans can breath and survive is 5 to 10 PPB, the EPA reading this week 1,200 PPB, we die. Gas number three is Methylene Chloride ; human exposure is 61 PPB to survive, the EPA readings this week, 3,000 to 3,400 PPB. Its health risks is high volatility which makes it an acute inhalation hazard,. It is also metabolized by the body to carbon monoxide potentially leading to carbon monoxide poisoning. Acute exposure by inhalation has resulted in optic neuropath and hepatitis. Prolonged skin contact can result in the dissolving some of the fatty tissues in skin, resulting in skin irritation or chemical burns. It may be carcinogenic, as it has been linked to cancer of the lung, liver, and pancreas in laboratory animals. It may be time to start thinking about moving out of the state, at least get on your knees and pray, pray, pray for God's direction.
IF YOU DO NOTHING ELSE PLEASE, PLEASE, I BEG YOU LISTEN TO THIS TWO HOUR INTERVIEW WITH LINDSEY WILLIAMS ON POLITICS 101 FROM JUNE 16TH LAST NIGHT. LINK IS: http://www.livestream.com/newchannel/popoutplayer?channel=wafstv&clip=pla_9c76be2b-633e-420f-ab6f-f4e5606f96e7
YOUR LIFE AND YOUR FAMILIES LIVES MAY DEPEND ON IT!
I have ordered the video and it will be shipped out in about three weeks they told me. At that time I get it, I will host a screening here in Apopka for all. Also, we will be asking everyone to make copies and send it out to your friends and families.
http://dailybail.com/home/oil-guru-matt-simmons-says-bp-relief-wells-will-fail-underse.html
http://johndotyjr.blogspot.com/2010/06/oil-disaster-will-be-end-of-life-as-we.html
The times are grave, you will see gas at $6 to$8 a gallon by the end of this year, our dollar devalued by 50%, and by 2012 the dollar will be worthless as a world currency, most Americans will be working for the government as the free enterprise system will be gone. Regionalism will be in full force with states gone and the federal territories will be instituted, by the way we live in region 4. You say what proof? It would take me a book to explain it all to you and show all the documents, which I don't have the time to do now. Just look for yourself it's all online on youtube, and the many patriotic radio and internet programs like WAFS.TV. See my attached web sights for more.
My last bit of information for you, which you may not know. The Luciferian doctrine is being instituted as we speak and preparing the way for the return of Lucifer, (Anti-Christ) which by the way is the head of the Illuminati and every system on earth outside of Christianity. If you are a christian you need to REPENT and turn from your sins, but you say where have I sinned? Then see attached file, Individual Sins, read and repent and maybe God will forgive us and save Florida and our country!
Yours for freedom,
Richard C Wilmot
Pastor & Chairman
Orange County Constitution Party
Matt 4:17
noone bleef slop when he sayed that:
"maybe god will just let the oil continue to run and let it kill everyone"
mabye they bleef him now?
god that is, not slop
jimmy noone the only none dat bleef him.
"maybe god will just let the oil continue to run and let it kill everyone"
yo can figur dat if it cuntinue to run, by abut 2012, everynoone will be dayed.
*****BRAKING!!!*****
THEY SLOPPED THE OIL!!!!
NOT!!
KUM BACK NEXT WEAK.
IT WILL BE SOP THEN.
I GARANTIE JUST LIKE JOE NAMELESS DID IN THE STOOPOR BOLL.
look like they neva gonna slop the oil now....
the head just kum da well...
now yo relly fkd.....
it spew a big load in da water....
everyday, look like slop was right afta all when he say....
"maybe god will just let the oil continue to run and let it kill everyone..."
where all dose 2012 douters now???
running scared eh?
because even if they dun bleef it, there jus a little bit part of them, maybe starting to think, if this kepp up, we f*cked fo real.
it aint so far off no mo now...it getting close...
cause now if they say sumthiing, it just 'false bravado' like wistlin' in da graveyard....ho they kiddin? they be scarred chit wile they wistlin....
fo reel.
mabye seein as they so relgious, maybe they shud go back and read
REV. 16:3,4
da sea be like that of a deds man...
waht yo fraid of??
yo bleef in god...god will save yo?
right?
i sayed, right???
now we gonna find to true bleefers like slop sayed from 5 years ago.
not just dose ho bleef when everythins goin' good, but late in the 4th qtr. when yo down by 3 touchdowns....
put to the "test"
maybe god let the oil continrue to run?
WHY??
what did slop say 5 years ago, but NOONE BLEEF HIM?
THEY STILL DONT BLEEF HIM EVEN NOW??
???WHOSE KINGDOM IS THIS???
THE EARTH, THAT IS???
ANYONE??
SPEKK UP, I CANT HEAR YO.
sloop say it agian.
WHOSE KINGDOM IS THIS????
if yo dont know, take a ride to the beautiful beaches of PENSACOLA, FL
goregious white sand beches...
NOT NO MO.
dont dose ppl bleef in god??
what?
god dont like pencilcola??
why he let all they beches get f'kd up???
now it even raining oil in LA
search yotoob for "raining oil in LA"
yo fine it.
A BLOW TO ALSUP BULL SHIT!!!
The U.S. Supreme Court scaled back a favorite tool used by prosecutors in fraud cases, ruling in favor of Jeffrey Skilling on his conviction for leading the Enron Corp. accounting fraud while stopping short of granting him a new trial. The court also sided with former Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black, telling a lower court to reconsider his corporate fraud conviction. With both men, the effect on their convictions will be determined by lower courts. Skilling’s lawyers said before the ruling that a victory on the honest-services question would give them grounds to seek reversal of the rest of the conviction, along with his 24-year sentence. The government has said even the conspiracy verdict that was directly before the high court might not have to be overturned.
“We’re back in the game,” Daniel Petrocelli, Skilling’s lead lawyer, said in a telephone interview. He said today’s ruling would be “fatal to the government’s case.”
Black was convicted of mail fraud and obstruction of justice and sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison. As with Skilling, his lawyers will have a chance to seek invalidation of the entire verdict, while the government can argue that the entire conviction should stand. Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law, which covers fraud schemes to “deprive another of the intangible right to honest services,” was so vague it could be constitutionally applied only to cases involving bribery or kickbacks. The ruling raises questions about potentially hundreds of other convictions and pending prosecutions. The justices were unanimous in saying the honest-services law couldn’t be applied to Skilling and Black. Three justices -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy -- would have gone further and struck down the law even for bribery and kickback cases.
Skilling’s Conviction
Skilling, Enron’s former chief executive officer, was convicted on 19 counts. The honest-services ruling directly concerns only one of those: for conspiracy to commit fraud. He was convicted in May 2006 alongside Kenneth Lay, the former Enron chairman who died less than two months later. A federal appeals court upheld the conviction. Skilling is serving his sentence in a federal prison in Colorado. The Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote rejected Skilling’s contentions that he couldn’t get a fair trial in Houston and that the trial judge who oversaw the case didn’t adequately explore indications that some jurors were biased against him. skilling’s lawyers argued that the atmosphere in Houston when the trial began in January 2006 was one of hostility toward him, fed by unrelenting, negative media coverage.
Fair Jury
The federal government countered that the trial judge, after questioning the jurors, was satisfied that each could assess the evidence impartially. The high court today agreed with that reasoning. Enron was the world’s biggest energy-trading company, with a market value of as much as $68 billion, before it collapsed, wiping out more than 5,000 jobs and $1 billion in employee retirement funds. The bankruptcy spawned criminal charges against 34 defendants, including Arthur Andersen LLP, the now-defunct accounting firm whose conviction the Supreme Court overturned in 2005. Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, joined a brief filed by media companies urging the court not to adopt the legal standard sought by Skilling. The brief argued that press coverage alone shouldn’t be grounds for transfer of a trial.
The honest-services statute is being used against former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, now on trial on an indictment that includes allegations that he tried to trade the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama for campaign cash or personal favors. U.S. District Judge James Zagel, presiding over Blagojevich’s trial, said the high court ruling “may not offer a lot of hope” for the former governor, the Associated Press reported.
The case is Skilling v. United States, 08-1394.
"He was convicted in May 2006 alongside Kenneth Lay, the former Enron chairman who died/was poisoned less than two months later.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
the only way that you can ever go into "commerce" is get a not guilty verdict, is if the "bond" that is created by you being not guilty is greater than the "bond" created by you getteing a guilty verdict.
tahts why most jury trials end in guilty as the most money is generated by guilty verdicts.
appearance bonds, prison bonds, appeal bonds, etc, etc.
AS
CFR 72.11
"ALL CRIMES ARE COMMERCIAL VIOLATION OF LAWS"
opps...left out a word.
REVENUE
"ALL CRIMES ARE COMMERCIAL VIOLATIONS OF REVENUE LAWS"
We're on the verge of collecting more than chump bonds. Mean while good to see Billy Alsup's favorite
stock is thriving.
Bank of America Boosts Staff Handling Troubled Loans
By David Mildenberg – Jun 23, 2010
Bank of America Corp., the second- largest U.S. home lender, added 2,000 employees since April to work with borrowers having trouble paying their mortgages, a senior executive said. The lender now has more than 18,000 workers in “default management,” a 60 percent increase since January 2009, Barbara Desoer, president of Bank of America’s home-loan and insurance unit, said in testimony prepared for a congressional hearing on U.S. housing policy tomorrow. Those workers handle 100,000 calls a day, she said. Wells Fargo & Co., the largest U.S. home lender, Bank of America and other companies have hired thousands of employees or shifted staff from other departments to work with borrowers who have lost jobs or experienced declining incomes. Banks repossessed a record 257,944 homes in the first quarter, 35 percent more than a year earlier, according to Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc. More than a fifth of U.S. mortgage holders owed more than their homes were worth, Seattle- based real estate data provider Zillow.com reported last month.
Post a Comment