The purpose of this blog listing is to encourage you as the
reader, to ask yourself some simple rhetorical questions regarding due process,
or the lack thereof, as exercised in the case of United States of America vs.
Thomas Joseph Petters, PCI and PGW (08-364 RHK/JJK). Below, you will be
presented with officially filed federal court transcripts and documents,
empowering you to draw your own informed conclusion, as well as to take any
appropriate action, within your rights and circles of influence. My heart and
motive in this matter is for the victims of this case to see true justice, as
well as the upholding of the Constitution of the United States of America, to
protect the innocent and the guilty. I am independently sending this
information, according to the passion that Jesus Christ has given me for Truth,
Justice and Love, on all sides of the Bench, the Aisle and the Pulpit.
The following document is a transcript
of the conversation that occurred in Court chambers on 11/24/2009, just before
the jury suspended deliberation for the Thanksgiving holiday. The jury had sent
a note to the judge, and this portion of the transcript was the result. Please
read the following document and ask yourself if there is perhaps something
wrong with this picture? There are hundreds of tangents to be had in this case,
but my focus is the grand jury indictment, and its amendment before being given
to the jury, as well as its apparent disappearance from the Federal
Court record. Please read the transcript, which has correlating post-it notes
listed on the page after the post-it note icons appear, and then consider the
questions that follow:
***IN CHAMBERS TRANSCRIPT*** à https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gtHQFvYcSKNnNFV2gwWU0wQWM/edit?usp=sharing
Would it be just to convict someone of fraud, by
using a fraudulent document?
By the laws and principles of the United States
of America, is a defendant to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Is it legal for the Court or a prosecutor to
amend a grand jury indictment? à https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gtHQFvYcSKS3ZOTTBza1RYX3M/edit?usp=sharing
Should a jury receive an illegally amended
indictment for deliberation?
Shouldn’t the actual physical document indictment
that was given to a jury, also be the one filed in the official U.S. Federal
Court record?
Where is the altered and amended indictment that
was given to the jury in the case of United States of America vs. Thomas J. Petters, PCI and PGW
(08-364 RHK/JJK)?
Here is the original indictment (unsigned), but filed with the
federal court: àhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gtHQFvYcSKNmVIVk9HVzdxU3M/edit?usp=sharing
Here is the superseding indictment (unsigned), but filed with the
federal court: àhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gtHQFvYcSKTUhCSWlpUnNiRkE/edit?usp=sharing
Where is the scanned record of the amended 11 page version that
was given to the jury for deliberation?
Why are they now giving out the pre-amended version as the court
certified version, as recently as December 2013? àhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gtHQFvYcSKWTQ0VnFUYkZjdkE/edit?usp=sharing
Pioneer Press 11/25/10 (NOW REMOVED):
Jurors deciding Tom Petters' guilt
or innocence in a St. Paul courtroom have sent questions to U.S. District Judge
Richard Kyle, asking about the companies involved in the alleged fraud scheme.
Just before 3 p.m. Tuesday, the
panel of seven women and five men sent a handwritten note to Kyle asking why
Petters Group Worldwide and Petters Co. Inc. are "both stated in the
(indictment). Isn't PGW the umbrella company for Polaroid, Sun Country,
etc.," the note said.
For the first question, Kyle referred them back to the 11-page
indictment and the jury instructions given to them Monday after
closing arguments.
If PCI and PGW were only considered "background," as was
stated on the chambers transcript page 3497, lines 8-11, then why was there a
plea agreement for each on 9/9/2010, 10 months after they were removed from the
superseding indictment?
What indictment was used to instigate the need for PCI and PGW to
have plea agreements on 9/9/2010?
Is there any case precedent that can be found, where a
defendant's formerly retained criminal defense attorney signs off as
the defendant on a plea agreement, while exercising judicial immunity, as the
estate receiver for the same defendant?
What indictment was used for the subsequent co-defendant plea
agreements on 09/09/2010, for co-defendants PCI and PGW?
PCI plea agreement signed 9/9/2010: àhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gtHQFvYcSKc2pBOEppalpmWFk/edit?usp=sharing
PGW plea agreement signed 9/9/2010: àhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gtHQFvYcSKSy1xN04wOHVuSHM/edit?usp=sharing
Is it common practice to make criminal plea agreements that are
independent of all other collateral and overseeing courts, as well as
governmental agencies?
Who is overseeing the Federal District Court, if there are plea agreements being made that are independent of other agencies, other courts and the government?
ADDITIONAL LEGAL LINKS:
1TOM PETTERS MOTION DEC 30 2013_201401081619
2TOM PETTERS MOTION PART B_201401081622
3TOM PETTERS PART C_201401081626
4TOM PETTERS PART D_201401081628
5 TOM PETTERS CERTIFIED INDICTMENT POST CONVICTION
Amending GJ Indictment Links
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_13859210
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=829220
DOJ Attorney's Manual 236
Judicial Decision 12-5-13
Jury Question Court Answer
Motion to Dismiss - Release
PCI Plea Agreement
Petters Trial Transcript Excerpt 3496
PGW Plea Agreement
TJ PETTERS US CRT APPEALSMARCH 2015_201504061133
Tom Petters Motion for Appeal EXHIBITS
Tom Petters Motion for Issuance of Appeal
TOM PETTERS MOTION MARCH 2014 PART ONE
TOM PETTERS MOTION MARCH 2014 PART TWO
TOM PETTERS MOTION MARCH 2014 PART THREE
TP Indictment - Original
TP Indictment - Superseding
TP Transcript In Chambers - Comments Listed
TP Transcript in Chambers - Orig
TPETTERS JAN2015 APPEAL_201501021142 (1)
Transcript--US v. PCI-PGW-9-29-10 hrg
US v. Petters--Verdict
USAM 9-12.000-236 Amending Indictment
USCODE-2009-title28-partI-chap16-Judicial Discipline
No comments:
Post a Comment