Well folks, Feuerborn’s attorney, Neil C. Evans, filed Defendant Feuerborn’s Rule 33 Motion for New Trial: Request for Evidentiary Hearing on This Motion and on the Motion to Suppress and Related Motions (“Motion for New Trial”), as well as Defendant Feuerborn’s Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (“Motion to Acquit”). In Evans’ Motion for New Trial he claims that (i) the Prosecution failed to disclose material evidence, (ii) the Honorable Judge S. James Otero denied Feuerborn a fair trial because he refused to hear a Motion to Suppress that was filed in an untimely manner, (iii) Judge Otero did not fully consider possible prosecutorial misconduct on behalf of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and (iv) that the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department and Internal Revenue Agency engaged in activity to purposely destroy “exculpatory evidence”, and intentionally stole items from David Feuerborn (to name just a few of the outrageous claims made in said Motion). In the Motion to Acquit Evans states that the Prosecution did not establish “mandatory willfulness element beyond a reasonable doubt” and that the Prosecution “failed to establish the high standard of proof for a conspiracy charge” (Case 2:10-cr-00346-SJO; Page ID 1479 and Page ID 1481).
The Good
Feuerborn is so bold that he contends that the Honorable Judge S. James Otero did not give him a fair trial, and that the Judge should have granted a fifth continuance! (Or was this number six? There were so many continuance requests that I am beginning to lose track.) Feuerborn’s attorney cites the fact that the Judge delayed the trial by 24 hours, and that if the Judge can do that then Neil Evans should have the same right!
This is a Judge that was appointed by the President of the United States of America. I can’t believe that Neil Evans and David Feuerborn have the gall to say that this Judge did not give them a fair trial, and that he intentionally overlooked prosecutorial misconduct. Once again David is blaming others for his problems. This Judge worked hard to get where he is today. Unlike David, the Judge didn’t scam investors to make a quick buck. Stop trying to scapegoat your criminal activity by blaming The Good!
The Bad
The Motion for New Trial goes on to say, “[t]he Court improperly allowed the Prosecution to use demonstrative exhibits, including about 10 demonstrative exhibits containing Defendants’ Mug Shots. By doing so, the Prosecution improperly ‘inflamed the jury’s passions and fears,’ in violation of due process” (Case 2:10-cr-00346; Page ID 1467). This is another example of David’s contempt for the jury, and his belief that the jury didn’t have the intellectual ability to impartially examine the plethora of evidence against him. The Motion for New Trial goes on to state, “[i]n this case, using the ‘Mug Shots’ of the Defendants in the context of their alleged ‘frivolous purchases’ was clearly designed to inflame the jury’s passions – suggesting that the jurors should convict these ‘obvious criminals’ because they look like criminals and they are ‘ripping the government off’ by these ‘seedy looking individuals’ buying expensive cars, motorcycles, etc” (Case 2:10-cr-000346; Page ID 1468). I’m sorry Neil, but if it quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.
Another portion of the Motion for New Trial attempts to defame one of the Government’s witnesses, John Staniforth. The Motion for New Trial states that, “he admitted that his alleged source of information regarding the ‘Ecologic LLC’ account, was ‘snooping’ where he did not belong. His testimony, in this regard, was not credible and appeared to have been ‘staged’ and ‘prepared’” (Case 2:10-cr-00346; Page ID 1466). Who cares if this witness found the documents by “snooping” around? He took this action in order to protect the shareholders when he noticed that money was quickly disappearing! How else would he have learned that these con artists were hiding investor money in secret bank accounts?!?! Clearly Feuerborn and Jennings were using devious methods to hide the Ecologic bank account. It sounds to me like Staniforth just fought fire with fire! He is a hero to all ESS investors and definitely The Bad-ass who helped uncover this massive fraud.
The Ugly
In the Motion for New Trial Feuerborn states that the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, as well as the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department intentionally withheld evidence that is exculpatory in nature. Feuerborn goes on to make the claim that the Sheriff’s Department intentionally lost key evidence and lied about the existence of certain evidence. All I have to say to this claim is that I hope the Sheriff’s Office gets to pick the bunk mates (The Ugly) for Feuerborn and Jennings while they spend their R&R in prison.
These new motions should show the Judge the true colors of Feuerborn and Jennings, and I hope he sees why they need to spend the statutory maximum behind bars!
-ESS Investor
As a member of the jury I would like to respond.
ReplyDelete"...about 10 demonstrative exhibits containing Defendants’ Mug Shots. By doing so, the Prosecution improperly ‘inflamed the jury’s passions and fears,’ in violation of due process”
**The jury never discussed the "mug shots". No need to. We could look across the courtroom and see the defendants. We did not need a "mug shot" to tell us who they were. This statement would be really laughable if this wasn't such a serious case**
"This is another example of David’s contempt for the jury, and his belief that the jury didn’t have the intellectual ability to impartially examine the plethora of evidence against him."
**It is the plethora of evidence that convicted Mr. Feuernborn and Mr. Jennings. The jury played Devil's advocate on all of the evidence. There were a couple of jurors who, although believing the defendants were guilty, would not cast a guilty verdict unless they saw solid evidence. We went strictly on the evidence in front of us as that was pure fact and not anyone's opinion trying to deceive or confuse us.**
"The Motion for New Trial goes on to state, “...‘Mug Shots’ of the Defendants in the context of their alleged ‘frivolous purchases’ was clearly designed to inflame the jury’s passions – suggesting that the jurors should convict these ‘obvious criminals’ because they look like criminals and they are ‘ripping the government off’ by these ‘seedy looking individuals’ buying expensive cars, motorcycles, etc”
**The jury did not care what the defendants spent their money on. The verdicts would have been the same even if they had spent the money on a heart transplant. The discussion was not even how ESS received it's money (sorry investors). This case was based entirely on tax fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy.
Before the jury could rule on any of the counts we had to first decide whether we believed the money the defendants received were bonafied loans or not. The jury concluded these were not bonafied loans, based on ESS's own paperwork. Our next decision had to be on the conspiracy charge. This is where the bogus account reared its ugly head. The evidence in this was overwhelming. There was more than enough evidence to prove money was being funnelled to a bogus account. Once we determined this was a bogus account we had to decide if there was a conspiracy. The evidence was overwhelming therefore a guilty verdict on the conspiracy charge was reached. The next task was to decide if there was tax fraud/evasion. Although the jury had to look at both defendants when reaching the verdict for the conspiracy charge we now had to separate each defendant on each count. We began breaking down each year as to what each defendant had filed compared to what he should have filed had he included the bogus Ecologic income.**
"Another portion of the Motion for New Trial attempts to defame one of the Government’s witnesses, John Staniforth. this regard, was not credible and appeared to have been ‘staged’ and ‘prepared’” ..... He is a hero to all ESS investors and definitely The Bad-ass who helped uncover this massive fraud."
**I will only speak for myself on this statement. With all due respect to the ESS investors, Mr. Staniforth, in my opinion came across more as a disgruntled employee than a fighter for the cause. If the case had stopped with Mr. Staniforth I would have voted in favor of the defendants as Mr. Staniforth stated part of the reason he worked against the defendants was because he felt he should have made as much money as the defendants did. I even remember writing in my notepad that "my children lie better than this witness". I recall closing my notepad up and sitting it to the side of me as I was done with this witness and would not believe him if his tongue came notorized. Mr. Staniforth, in my opinion was the worst witness for the prosecution.
The jury worked entirely on evidence and it is the evidence that ultimately convicted the defendants.
Jurist, I appreciate your posts, as they give an understanding of the trial for those that could not attend.
ReplyDelete