I find the latest tactic to dismiss David Feuerborn’s tax evasion charges very convoluted. His original motion to dismiss and the follow up memorandum are very contradictory to one another.
“Loans” or not “Loans”, that is the question
The Government is alleging that David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings created a Bogus Eco-Logic bank account at Wells Fargo Bank in order to funnel investor money to themselves. Further, the Government is alleging that Feuerborn and Jennings used the funneled money to make lavish purchases such as condominiums, exotic sports cars, jet skis, motorcycles, interior decorating, etc.
Then you have David and Tom that are alleging that the money which was funneled to them through the Bogus Eco-Logic Account was paid to them in the form of loans. This is their sole defense, because if the money was paid to them in the form of a “loan”, and not as income, then it would not be subject to federal income tax laws. If this is their defense then why would Neil Evans state the following in his Criminal Motion to Dismiss, “[t]here were also ledgers showing how David Feuerborn and Tom Jennings spent cash and cashier’s checks for legitimate business purposes (and not as loans), contained in Mr. Feuerborn’s vehicle” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID# 805). Well, they can’t have it both ways. Here you have a motion filed in the Criminal Case by David Feuerborn’s attorney where he specifically admits that they were not loans!
The Mysterious Computers
In the same Criminal Motion to Dismiss mentioned above, Feuerborn states that certain computers were confiscated from his BMW which contain “exculpatory” evidence. In this motion Neil Evans states, “[t]he Prosecutor had access to the subject computers since 2007 or 2008 – but claims that he had no duty to turn same over to Defendants, or even disclose their existence, because he had no intention to rely upon these computers for any purpose”(Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID# 815). This statement is contradictory to his Neil Evans’ previous statement that Assistant U.S. Attorney Vandevelde made available a “forensic copy” of the computer’s drives!
The above statement is also contradictory to David Feuerborn’s Declaration which was attached to the follow-up memorandum. David Feuerborn states, “I then asked an attorney to seek the recovery of the BMW, Sylvia Scott of Freeman and Freeman in Los Angeles. I learned from Ms. Scott that my car was supposedly part of the case in Louisiana and that it would not be released to me. I also requested of Ms. Scott that she obtain the release of all items, records, cash and computers from the car” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID# 1122). Thus Feuerborn knew about the computers since 2005, but he is just now bringing it up. Also, for the first time, Feuerborn is claiming that the records seized from his BMW were illegally seized by police officers. I find this odd because Feuerborn also states, “I knew from attending this Court Hearing in Louisiana, that financial records which were in my car were seized on August 12, 2005, were transported by Deputy Schierman to Louisiana for this hearing. During this hearing on 8/22/05, I personally observed Deputy Schierman hold in his hands, while testifying, copies of green ledgers which were contained in the Blue Milk Crate contained in the trunk of [m]y BMW on 8/12/05” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID #1123). Why didn’t Feuerborn claim that his Fourth Amendment Right had been violated during this hearing? If Feuerborn knew about the BMW since 2005, which he readily admits, then why is he just now claiming that his Fourth Amendment right has been violated? He also had two California attorneys (Sylvia Scott and Ron S. Bamieh) attempt to get the release of the BMW and the items Zackary Barkery concealed within it. In Feuerborn’s Declaration there is not one mention that either attorney made the claim that the search and seizure was illegal. Thus, it is evident that this is just another frivolous attempt to get Feuerborn and Jennings off the hook for committing fraud.
Let’s hope the Judge sees through this ploy. This hearing will occur on Wednesday, February 23, 2011.
-ESS Investor
No comments:
Post a Comment