Can They Have It Both Ways?

I have always wondered why some of the most obvious inconsistencies in my case were never investigated, or made issue of while going through all the pre-trial hearings or eventually brought up in the trial, especially since they involved Constitutional Rights and Intellectual Property Law.  They are so glaringly obvious it is even beyond an incompetent defense attorney and a malicious prosecutor.  These stand out like very ripe fruit (of the NON poisoness tree) waiting to be plucked before it falls and hits you in the head.

Illegal Seizure of Property: My false accusers manufactured a contrived confession, which I have been squawking about since Day One when it was first brought to my attention by the DPD Detective.  The date on the contrived confession is October 11, 2003.  It was illegal seizure to come to my home after the contrived confession date and take anything from me without a proper warrant and without the appropriate authorities doing it.  Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution!

There was never a search, I handed everything over to my soon-to-be-ex-clients.  BUT, and this is a VERY BIG BUT, had I known there was a contrived confession and that I was about to be falsely accused, I would have copied everything I needed to support the approval of the contributions made to The NOAH Project and the disclosure on financial statements, would have contacted an attorney, would have asked for a warrant and would have required authorities be there so as to have a clear record of what was taken.  You see, they did not want that!  They wanted to cherry pick the files, destroy what they didn't want authorities to see (the approvals, disclosures and correspondences) and make up whatever other lies they needed to support their false accusations.  As best as I can tell the authorities never went through all the contributor's personal records but just accepted whatever they were handed, taking their word for everything.  So, the contributor was not audited, nor was The NOAH Project audited, which should have been because, as a non-profit organization, its accountable to the citizens.  At the very least the State's Attorney General should have been involved since The NOAH Project was a non-profit.  Never happened!  Why not?  Doesn't make sense!  Here is just one example, I heard of a case while incarcerated where someone took $2,000 from the petty cash of a non-profit, then paid it back, and told her boss what she had done when she paid it back.  It was never missed for those few weeks.  She was convicted and doing two years State Jail and there was somebody from the Attorney Generals office present at every hearing and her trial because a non-profit was involved.  Not true in my case and we were disputing approval on $3,775,000.....slightly more than $2,000.

Part of what they picked up from my home was the computer, the divorce files in progress (approximately 30+ file boxes), the accounts payable files (with all approved contribution requests) and monthly personal financial statements of contributor for 2001, 2002 and 2003.   Yet, in the trial the ex-wife of the contributor to NOAH was able to testify that I had not done hardly any divorce work and had only completed "six notebooks" (whatever that means).  She may have been lead to believe that but it was not true.  There was at least twenty boxes of files delivered to her divorce attorney by me, with the help of my son, and there was another 30+ boxes awaiting completion once I received the missing document (Separate Property Partition) from my client.  What she testified was at best "hear-say" and could have been challenged as an outright lie.  After her testimony she was whisked off to a "long planned vacation at Disney World with her children" (who were - by the way - grown up! and without children of their own!).

So, as you can see what they (my ex-clients) picked up from my home was all of what was in question: computer, divorce files, accounts payable files (check copies and approved contribution requests), personal financials with appropriate footnotes and explanations disclosing the contributions.  Since the computer had all the contributor's financials deleted, it was impossible to confirm what was disclosed in the financials.  Yet, my ex-client was able to testify that he did not ever open his bank statements and brokerage statements (a lie) but "relied" on his financials as I prepared them.  The suggestion was that they were fraudulent, yet not one page of financial statements were entered into evidence to support his suggestion NOR was he questioned about his reliance or where these financials were that he "relied" upon.  If  they had been presented, along with the bank and brokerage statements it could be seen that every single penny was accounted for accurately. BUT, not a possibility when the condition of the computer was allowed to deteriorate by letting the battery go dead.  This happened AFTER the case began because in the civil suit depositions they said they got into the computer and went through all my files ..."no problems, in fact there was a whole lot of nothing". Yet, he was allowed to say he relied upon something that was not produced.  Substantial exculpatory evidence was withheld.  Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution! They got away with that!

Had the seizure been done legally....the case would have never happened.  Can they have it both ways?  There is a contrived confession dated October 11, 2003 and an illegal seizure of property from my home on October 28, 2003?  Apparently so.  Then to further complicate the matter, they illegally seized all the NOAH assets two days later on October 30, 2003.  By law, the non-profit assets should have been seized by the state and distributed (in some form) to its citizens.  They produce what they called a "receipt" that I signed so they would not get "arrested for taking NOAH assets" while I was not present.  But given state law, that "receipt" was not legal since they had no right to the assets and I had no authority to give the NOAH non-profit assets to them.  Of course, at the time they were saying they would just store the assets while we reorganized...but in trial they changed the nature of their activity....and got away with it.  If I had truly confessed on October 11, 2003, why doesn't the "receipt" just say I am giving the assets to them as restitution?   Because that is not what was happening!

Another blaring inconsistency....I had worked on a consulting basis for my clients since I left The Trammell Crow Company in 1986.  I was not ever an employee of theirs therefore all files on that computer were my intellectual property and as such they should have NEVER been allowed to withhold the contents of those files.  Had I been an employee of theirs then it would be their intellectual property and belonged to them.  They claimed I was an employee thus keeping those computer files from me (see prior blog A DEAD BATTERY?).  Can they have it both ways?  Can they claim I am an employee so as to withhold key exculpatory evidence from my defense and make a fraudulent claim on their employee theft policy WHILE never paying any payroll taxes on me or withholding Federal Income Tax or Social Security?  All the quarterly and annual payroll reports could have been retrieved to prove I was not their employee and had a right to all files, but my attorney refused to do anything.  In addition to "relevance" and "privilege" they argued that they did not want to let a "thief" see all their highly confidential computer records.  That was crazy because I have a photographic memory and know the pertinent Social Security numbers, account numbers, etc. and they know that about me.  And, hey in this country are we innocent until proven guilty?  So, how is it the "thief" argument worked?  And, can they have it both ways?  In the deposition my "computer had a whole lot of nothing in it" and now they don't want me to see all their highly confidential, "privileged" files?  Which is it?

I could not get that computer off my mind.  Not getting all its files into evidence was the final nail in my coffin.  It just haunted me.  I wrote this short book excerpt a few months following the trials end while incarcerated.

A computer is like a person's brain.  A person with childhood-onset diabetes can run low on thiamine and must make certain all their life to get daily supplements of thiamine rich foods (i.e. celery) in their diet.  Without proper levels of thiamine, memory is partially erased, creating a permanent form of amnesia.

Like the thiamine deficient brain of a diabetic, a computer's brain (the hard drive), when allowed to go battery-dead has a memory that becomes fragmented (intermingled with code).  Add to that the intentional massive override of disassociated files confounding the fragmented but relevant information, the result is the same as a diabetic's thiamine-starved memory.  Bits and pieces of information, while in some ways deficient, still exist providing a bridge between the time before the imposed deficiency and the current day.

This is the situation with the computer I used for all the years I consulted with my false accusers.  It appears their method of tampering with this key evidence was to override my files with other accountants' computer files to add to and cover up their deletion and alterations of many files relevant to my defense.  Then taking what remains of this pertinent evidence to clear my name, they allowed the battery to go dead, fragmenting the contents of the remaining files and altering date stamps.

Fortunately a forensics expert was able to defragment the computer files in my case.  But, the court allowed my false accusers to decide, of what was remaining, what computer files I could use in my defense.  So what wasn't accomplished by altering and starving the computer's brain was finished off by a battalion of smooth talking, slick attorneys.  Civil attorneys were engaged by my false accusers and a prosecutor guided by these men banned together in the pre-trial hearings to eliminate my defense, while my public defender laid down and allowed it to happen. (He waited until the trial to throw me under the bus.)

If we could get all files from the computer I used as a consultant (my intellectual property), I know there will be a form of time stamps and trails of my innocence retained.  This likely can be found in the body of the documents and in a pattern of the altered date stamps (did I mention, not all date stamps were altered).  There will be a  footprint or series of footprints within the remaining files that can be followed, there always is.  We used to call the computer a black box when I first started in the audit /accounting profession.  It is not a black box anymore.  We know what's in there and how to pull that information together logically.  It is no longer a mystery.  The audit trail DOES exist...  Otherwise, why would they spend so much money and time to keep the tampered evidence away from me and the courts.  They know there is information there that I can decipher.  Information that can be tracked to support my innocence.

When a person has been falsely accused and wrongly convicted, there is just so much in the details of how that came about that can never be laid to rest until it is reconciled.  I have tried, believe me.  When I watch and read about the men who have received DNA exonerations after so many years of being incarcerated for a crime they did not do, I relate.  I can imagine their thoughts of turmoil over all those years.  The computer files in my case are very much like a DNA test....it's just the computer's DNA, not mine.  But in this age of technology there sometimes is very little separation between the two.

 Intellectual property...Intellectual DNA...My computer files 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived at that point in our technological advances.  You know they would not hesitate to use that computer's contents against me so why can't its contents be used for me?  Computer DNA: a fruit of evidence used to exonerate!  Habeas Corpus ....do your job!

Did I mention the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the right to competent Counsel?  That is huge in my case and the heart of my Habeas.