Opposition to Continuance

The Assistant U.S. Attorney just filed the Government’s Opposition to Defendant Feuerborn’s Motion to Continue Trial (“Opposition Motion”).  First and foremost, this is Neil Evans’ fourth attempt to continue the Criminal Case.  In the Opposition Motion the Government states, “Mr. Evans informed government counsel of his intent to request a continuance the morning of January 5, 2011, and filed his request shortly thereafter. Although government counsel has contacted defense counsel over the past two months regarding a number of issues, including proposed jury instructions, the proposed joint statement of the case, proposed stipulations, and reciprocal discovery, Mr. Evans never indicated he would seek to move the January 18 trial date. Indeed, Mr. Evans has not responded to any of the government’s communications” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 738).

“An eleventh-hour continuance will force these witnesses to once again rearrange their schedules to accommodate a new trial date” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 739).

I couldn’t agree more.  I know numerous ESS investors that have made arrangements to fly from Texas, Louisiana, and Northern California to attend the hearing.  Additionally the Government agrees with my logic on Neil’s hypocritical statements in his Continuance Motions:

“It does not appear that Mr. Evans has been unable to practice law during the last two months, including representing defendant Feuerborn in a matter arising out of similar facts presented in this case. On November 17, 2010, Mr. Evans appeared at a motions hearing in a civil case in the Northern District of Texas, in which he represents defendant Feuerborn, defendant Jennings, another individual, and defendants’ company. Freestone Resources Inc. v. Shultz, et al., No. 10-cv-01349-O (docket entry #17). About two weeks later, on November 29, 2010, Mr. Evans filed a motion to dismiss the civil complaint for failure to join an indispensable party and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (docket entry #18). On December 6, 2010, Mr. Evans appeared at a motions hearing in this criminal case, but did not request a continuance of the trial date. (CR 61.)” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 739).

It’s clear to me that David Feuerborn’s attorney is more active, and devoting more time to the Civil Case rather than the Criminal Case (probably because there is money involved in the Civil Case).  I have to assume it’s because he knows nothing about Criminal Law.  He is only Dave’s attorney in the Criminal Case because he knows all about Dave’s con, because he has been representing Dave since 1998 according to documentation I have seen on PACER.     

“Defense counsel have now had approximately eight months to review the bulk of the discovery, over two months to review the draft summary charts, and a month and a half to review a significant portion of the government’s trial exhibits” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 740).

Does anyone know if Neil Evans’ statements are, in fact, true?  I think Evans should produce some evidence that his father and father-in-law are as sick as he claims they are.  I only ask because birds of a feather…  

I wonder if Evans will fly back to Texas if the Texas Judge orders another hearing for his second frivolous Motion to Dismiss in the Civil Case?  That will truly be a tell tale sign of Evans truthfulness.  

The Judge will hear Evans Motion to Continue on January 10, 2011.  I will keep everyone posted.

-ESS Investor