P2,L1-3&10-11,P3,L1-16&21-25,P4,L1-10&22-25,P5,L1-8)
COMMENT: The following are excerpts from the SENTENCING HEARING ON April 10, 2003. Note that years of Al Petty's sentence was determined by a "collusion" between the prosecution, Probation officers and agreed upon by Judge Hannah: The SUPREME COURT has now ruled that ALL sentencing derived in this manner are ILLEGAL; in violation of the 6th amendment!
HANNAH: "Court calls Criminal Number 6:02CR45, the United States of America versus Allen Petty. The purpose of this hearing is sentencing."
HANNAH: "I note that there are numerous objections to the Presentence Report by the Defendant in the case."
HANNAH: "Mr. Petty, you will be allowed to speak in your own behalf and, of course, Mr. Smith will be allowed to speak for you. And that's the way we'll proceed. Let's turn to - - "
SMITH: "May it please the Court?"
HANNAH: "Yes, Mr. Smith."
COMMENT: J.R. SMITH'S INITIAL THRUST WAS TO "CAST A REFLECTION" ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE OBJECTIONS BY AL PETTY. THIS TREND CONTINUES THROUGHOUT THE HEARING AND INTENSIFIES AT TIME OF AL PETTY'S PERSONAL OBJECTIONS AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE PRESENTATION OF AL PETTY'S CHARACTER WITNESSES!
SMITH: "Your Honor, I've talked to Mr. Petty about the numerous objections that we made to the Presentence Report. Most of those were outlined by Mr. Petty. I have one of the objections as - - not to the initial Presentence Report but as to the subsequent Presentence Report where it added on two levels for obstruction of justice. Mr. Petty - - "
HANNAH: "Was it a two level addition?"
COMMENT: SMITH LIES! AL PETTY WAS ASKED, BY SMITH, TO ADDRESS THE OBJECTIONS! HE ADMITTED TO PETTY THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEM!
SMITH: "Yes. I would like to address that at the proper time. Mr. Petty has indicated he would like to address the objections as outlined in our report, if that's permissible with the Court."
HANNAH: "I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT I HAVE RECEIVED SCORES OF LETTERS ON YOUR BEHALF, MR. PETTY, AND HAVE READ THEM ALL.
COMMENT: WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT STATEMENT? "THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE SENTENCE? OBVIOUSLY THEY DID NOT!
KENNER: "Your Honor, before Mr. Smith begins, is it my understanding that he's only going to address one and he's going to allow his client to address the others?"
COMMENT: Kenner, quickly and unsolicited, changes the subject!
HANNAH: "That tended to be my understanding."
KENNER: "We do object to hybrid representation, but if Mr. Smith wants to handle them, then we have no objection to that."
COMMENT: Obviously Kenner knew that Al Petty would present a better case against the Presentence Report (PSI) then his attorney, John R. Smith.
HANNAH: "Well, we could put this under the characterization of Mr. Petty speaking on behalf of himself. He has the right of elocution in here, and if he wants to use his right of elocution to talk about the Presentence Report, (PSI), I'm going to allow him to do that."
SMITH: ". . as the Court is aware, subsequent to the issuance of the original Presentence Investigation Report, the DEFENDANT PRESENTED 23 OBJECTIONS, and subject to the Revised Presentence Report and addendum, THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED ONE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION.
For purposes of this hearing, counsel would address ONLY ONE, that one objection, that being presented in Defendant's Response to the Revised Presentence Report and addendum, specifically, the two level adjustment for obstruction of justice. And as I just stated, I wish to inform the Court that subsequent to my discussion on this, that Mr. Petty would like to address the Court on his own behalf on those objections."COMMENT: HE, (J.R.), "WOULD LIKE" FOR AL PETTY TO ADDRESS THESE. AL PETTY HAS TAPES OF THE CONVERSATION DURING WHICH SMITH ASKED AL PETTY TO ADDRESS THEM, AS WELL AS SMITH STATING THAT HE WOULD NOT WORK ON ANY OF THE OBJECTIONS UNTIL HE GOT IN THE COURTROOM FOR THE SENTENCING HEARING! MORE "COUNSEL INEFFIENCY"!
(P17,L6-25,P18,L1-2&15-25,P35,L1-2&15-25,P36,L1-7)
KENNER: ". . the Court heard a tape that was done by Mrs. Halley in her meeting regarding the gratitude pay plan with Mr. Petty. During that tape Mr. Petty discusses why this business is being moved to Canada, and specifically, he advises Ms. Halley: "You know, I don't care if they put me in prison, if I can run it from there", it being TeleCom 2000, "I will, if I can be of help". So when discussing the gratitude pay plan, he also discussed the possibility of going to prison in relation to TeleCom 2000. That was a clear indication that he had some idea that what he was doing at TeleCom 2000 was illegal and that perhaps they were under investigation at the time the gratitude pay plan was offered.
COMMENT: FALSE: AS WAS POINTED OUT MANY TIMES, AL PETTY WAS NOT "FEARFUL HE WAS DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL". HIS FEAR WAS THAT A "TECHNOLOGY-ILLITERATE" GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT COMPREHEND THE OPERATION, AND-BECAUSE OF THAT, PLUS GREED, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN; NOT BECAUSE HE EVER FELT HE WAS DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL!
HANNAH: "Well, THE LAW REQUIRES HIM TO KNOW THAT HE'S UNDER INVESTIGATION, NOT THAT WHAT HE'S DOING IS ILLEGAL, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?"
SMITH: "THAT'S CORRECT."
KENNER: "IT SAYS OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATION (COMMENT: WHICH HE DID NOT DO!), YOUR HONOR. I think that would imply that he does need to know that there is at least the potential for one there."
COMMENT: WOW!
HANNAH: ". . HE HAS TO KNOW MORE THAN THERE'S A POTENTIAL, DOESN'T IT? Because everybody that's committing a crime knows there's a potential.
COMMENT: THAT KNOWS! WHAT A STATEMENT!
HANNAH: ". . OPPOSED TO PERHAPS KNOWING WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS ILLEGAL?"
KENNER: ". . the gratitude pay plan itself Mr. Petty addresses what he calls FORCES THAT SEEK TO DESTROY AL PETTY AND TELECOM 2000. (COMMENT: A "BLACKMAIL-CIVIL SUIT" FROM EMPLOYEES IS WHAT "GRATITUDE PAY" WAS ALL ABOUT. AL PETTY HAD NO CONCERNS BASED ON ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY HIMSELF. HE KNEW OF NONE AND ALL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PROVED THERE WAS NONE!) He also conditions the payment of the gratitude pay on employees not reporting his conduct (COMMENT: FALSE STATEMENT! "HIS CONDUCT" WAS NEVER AN ISSUE! THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS BY HALLEY, MAYO AND BANKS WERE OF GREAT CONCERN, AS ALL VICTIMS OF BLACKMAIL ARE CONCERNED!) to - - to entities, including the FBI and the Attorney General's Office.
I believe in Ms. Garrett's 302, although I do not believe IT WAS IN HER TRIAL TESTIMONY, SHE INDICATED THAT THERE WERE RUMORS FLOATING AROUND AMONG THE EMPLOYEES AT TELECOM 2000 THAT THIS WAS A PONZI SCHEME. . "COMMENT: ANOTHER LIE! GARRETT DIDN'T KNOW WHAT A "PONZI SCHEME" WAS!
HANNAH: ". . present or that we have in regard to the two points for the obstruction of justice?"
HANNAH: "Not only does it have a small impact, the two points, on the sentencing, but CONSIDERING MR. PETTY'S AGE, IT HAS ALMOST NO IMPACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER."
COMMENT: WHAT!!!??? DID "MR. PETTY'S AGE" have to do with whether or not he deserved to serve more years in Prison? Speaking from his grave, (or where-ever He went (?), what would He give for 4 more years to repent for sentencing an innocent man to "Life" in Prison?"
HANNAH: "Well, let's go to the other issues now Mr. Petty, I'm required by law and I would anyway allow you to speak on behalf of yourself at a sentencing. I understand that ordinarily that's a plea for justice and mercy, but it doesn't have to be that, and I understand you want to explain, along with anything else you want to say in your behalf, why you think that the Presentence Report has it wrong and you have objections to the Presentence Report, or you and Mr. Smith have objections and you want to talk about those. Did I understand you? Is that correct?"
COMMENT: Note that HANNAH just stated that he would allow Al Petty to present his objection to the, (now illegal), PreSentence-non-Jury related-enhancements. YET, as will soon become evident, HANNAH repeatedly cut Al Petty off in the midst of his presentation of objections!
ALLEN PETTY JR.: "Yes, Your Honor, I do want to talk about them, but IT WAS AT MY ATTORNEY'S SUGGESTION, AFTER WE HAD DISCUSSED FOR AWHILE, THAT IT MIGHT BE BEST THAT I ADDRESS THESE ISSUES RATHER THAN HIM."
(P38,L21-25,P39,L1-7&19-25,P40,L1-25,P41,L1-25,P42,L1-25,P43,L1-25,P44,L1-23)
PETTY,JR.: "Yes, sir. Okay. What I would like to address first, Your Honor, is the - - I call it - - I don't know exactly the title for it, but it's the presentencing guidelines that come up with an equation of - - that the Sentencing Guidelines would call for an additional 20 points, I believe, which is about 12 years and I wanted to address that. That's the major portion of the - - of the Presentence Report years that I'm assessed. And starting with the - - the thicker of the two documents that I gave to each of you, "suggested corrections to the guideline loss amount". Did I give that one to you Your Honor?"
HANNAH: "Yes."
PETTY, JR.: "Thank you, sir. THE FOLLOWING SPREADSHEET CERTIFIES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE AVERAGE INITIAL PURCHASE OF NEW BUSINESSES SOLD DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER THE 1ST, 2001 THROUGH MARCH, 2002. NOTE THAT A PURCHASER RECEIVED ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK IN LESS THAN FIVE MONTHS. Therefore, THE ONLY PURCHASERS WHO ACTUALLY LOST MONEY WERE THE PURCHASERS AFTER - - THAT CAME IN AFTER OCTOBER, 2001, BEGINNING NOVEMBER THE 1ST, UNLESS SOMEBODY SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS.
IN CALCULATING THE "GUIDELINE LOSS AMOUNT", WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER HERE, THE PROBATION OFFICER USED A FORMULA THAT, NUMBER ONE, MULTIPLIED THE NUMBER OF PURCHASERS TIMES THE, QUOTE, "INITIAL INVESTMENT". However, the Government used the "SMALLEST INVESTMENT", WHICH WAS $1315.84, AS OPPOSED TO THE ACTUAL "INITIAL INVESTMENT" AS MANDATED IN THE GUIDELINE RULES.And that's what I meant, that we could read the guideline rules if you wanted to at this point, but I prefer to go through this and then read that and you said you would leave that up to me, so we'll proceed that way.THE PURPOSE OF THE FOLLOWING SIX PAGES OF DAILY ACCOUNTING, GIVE OR TAKE A TYPO OR TWO, OF SALES IS TO ARRIVE AT THE ACTUAL "INITIAL INVESTMENT" AS OPPOSED TO THE "SMALLEST INVESTMENT" AS USED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER.COMMENT: J.R., NOR VOLBERDING NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE ERRONEOUS "SMALLEST" INTERPRETATION BY PSR OF "INITIAL", AS COMPARED TO "MAXIMUM"!
Item two, this is in the formula, according to the calculation formula used by the Government, the sum total of the 2508 business owners multiplied by $1315 (COMMENT: "SMALLEST", NOT "INITIAL") was a total of $3,298,020.Number three, once this figure was established, the formula called for this amount to be subtracted from the gross amount of sales by TeleCom 2000, which the Government claims is $17,281,545.85. Therefore, the loss amount, the DIFFERENCE - - of course, you're right with me on - - is $13,983,525.The before IS the formula that was used by the probation officer to determine the guideline loss amount of the, quote, "victims". The guideline rules state that if the guideline loss amount exceeds $7 million, 20 points is added to my sentence. This translates, in practical language, to my spending about 12 ADDITIONAL YEARS IN PRISON.HOWEVER, AS THE FOLLOWING SIX CHARTS PROVE CONCLUSIVELY TO me, the "INITIAL investment", which is the criteria called for by the guideline rules as opposed to the "SMALLEST investment" - - and I hope I'm not being redundant here, but this is the issue - - as used by the probation officer WAS ACTUALLY AN AVERAGE OF AN INITIAL PURCHASE OF 4.43 BUSINESSES. This translates into an initial investment of approximately $5,000. That's what 4.43 would come out at, AS OPPOSED TO $1,315.At first thought, this would suggest that the loss amount would be increased. However, when the formula is used by the probation officer, it's carried through to its completion. When you deduct 2508 business times $5,000, that's $12,540,000. When you deduct that from the gross sales of $17,281,545, the guideline loss amount is reduced to FOUR MILLION 741,000.SINCE THE CRITERIA OF ADDING 20 POINTS TO MY SENTENCE WAS A GUIDELINE LOSS AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF SEVEN MILLION, IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE GUIDELINE LOSS AMOUNT IS MORE THAN SEVEN MILLION, THEN WE ADD 20 POINTS. OBVIOUSLY, THE CORRECTED INITIAL PURCHASE AMOUNT REDUCES MY GUIDELINE LOSS AMOUNT TO 4,741,545. THIS IS, OF COURSE, WELL BELOW THE $7 MILLION FIGURE THAT THE GUIDELINE RULES STATE THAT THE LOSS AMOUNT MUST BE BEFORE ADDING THE "20 POINTS EQUAL 12 YEARS" - - that's the way I see it in my brain - - to the PSI report's recommended sentence.If my "logic" - - and I put that in quotes - - and CALCULATIONS are correct, in the name of justice, the 20 points added to my sentence should be deducted from my PSI sentencing guidelines, REDUCING MY SENTENCE BY APPROXIMATELY 12 YEARS.Thank you for your careful consideration of the following, and in order to authenticate that the average initial investment is called upon by the formula used by the probation officer is indeed 4.43, what I did was go back into my data base and I called up all of the entries every day from November the 1st through December - - I mean through March the 29th, and then I entered the number of contracts, like on page one. Like on the 1st of November there was one contract came in and that was for a Pro Five. And then I calculated all of those, as you can see, and for the month of November the average initial investment, NOT re-investment or upgrade, but INITIAL, was 3.72. And then the next month it was a little less, 3.64, and then in January it jumped up and that was the high one. It was SIX, which would be about $6,600 INITIAL investment.And then in summary on the last - - on the fifth page of the - - of the spreadsheets, the totals there are quite revealing. During the first 20 days of - - well, first of all, the totals were 1835 ACTUAL PURCHASES came in during that time, REPRESENTING 8,133 BUSINESSES. Then that amount divided by the number of contracts that came in or applications would be an average of 4.43 for the INITIAL INVESTMENT AND THE - - you cannot say exactly what 4.43 costs because it depends on the configuration of the long distance and cell phone services, but it would easily average $5,000.Now, I probably - - let me finish my thought here. Okay. Note, during the first 20 days of March there were 2,623 purchases (CONTRACTS) ERROR. This is probably - - it may be irrelevant to what we're doing, and if it is, of course, you can slap my wrist. But this average for those first 20 days of March, 131 BUSINESSES SOLD PER DAY. SHAY, SANDRA AND VIRGINIA, THAT'S SHAY RHAME, SANDRA HALLEY AND VIRGINIA MAYO, THEY WERE THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AND THEIR INFORMANTS. TWO OF THOSE WERE LISTED AS INFORMANTS OR WERE INFORMANTS. THEY WERE THE DATA ENTRY CLERKS FOR BUILDING DATA BASES.From March the 21st, WHICH IS WHEN THEY WERE HAVING THEIR HEAVIEST ACTIVITY OF DOWNLOADING DOCUMENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FBI, DURING THAT EIGHT DAY PERIOD OF TIME THE DAILY AVERAGE OF BUSINESS ENTERED IN THE DATA BASE BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ACCOMPLICES DROPPED FROM 131 A DAY TO ONLY 14 PER DAY. Instead of processing eight days times - - OF COURSE, THE CONTRACTS DID COME IN BUT THEY WEREN'T PROCESSED BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES THAT I WAS PAYING AS MUCH AS $96 AN HOUR FOR TRIPLE TIME AND, YOU KNOW, WORKING A HUNDRED HOURS A WEEK, THEY, INSTEAD OF PROCESSING AND ENTERING THOSE INTO THE DATA BASE, IN EIGHT DAYS IN THE AVERAGE THAT I WAS RUNNING FOR THE FIRST 20 days, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN 1,028 BUSINESSES SOLD IN THOSE EIGHT DAYS. THE GIRLS I WAS PAYING UP TO AT THAT TIME $50 AN HOUR WHILE THEY WERE ACTUALLY WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT, they ONLY PROCESSED 112 PURCHASES IN EIGHT DAYS. THIS MEANS THAT 936 BUSINESS PURCHASES WERE NEVER ENTERED INTO A DATA BASE. THOSE 936 PURCHASES REPRESENT ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS. AND I THINK - - TO ME, THAT'S FRAUD!The applications came in. I was paying my people to process them. They did not pay them, COMMENT: (PROCESS) Petty was talking faster than transcriber! and more importantly, it means that the purchasers of those businesses never received - - THEY DIDN'T GET A WELCOME LETTER, THE AUTOPAY SCHEDULE OR THEIR COMMISSION CHECKS. SOME OF THESE PURCHASERS WHO NEVER RECEIVED A CHECK WERE SOME THAT WE HEARD TESTIFY THAT THEY NEVER GOT A CHECK AND THEY NEVER GOT A WELCOME LETTER OR THEY DIDN'T GET THEIR AUTOPAY SCHEDULE AND IMPLICATED (COMMENT: "THE GOVERNMENT IMPLICATED") strongly that I defrauded them, and the records show that I called it 'computer theft' by the Government, THAT produced these hostile witnesses, but I - -Okay, okay. Now, I would like to go back, unless you have a question at this point, and let's take this second part of the document that supports this."(P44,L24-25,P45,L1-25,P46,L1-25,P47,L1-25,P48,L1-25,P49,L1-25,P50,L1-25,P51,L1-25,P52,L1-25,P53,L1-14)
HANNAH: "OKAY."
PETTY JR.: "Okay. ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE, the following adjustments to the offense level of the guideline loss amount (ARE WHAT) I feel should be made. Paragraph 34 of the PSI said trial testimony shows you released (RECORDED) 2,508 victims in these offenses and they made INITIAL investments of $1,315. This is quoting directly from the PSI. Additional trial testimony shows the gross receipts of these offenses is 17 AND (MILLION OR) so FORTH.
Then quoting, "in a case involving a fraudulent investment scheme, such as a Ponzi scheme, the loss shall not be reduced by the money or the value of the property transferred to any individual investor in the scheme in excess of that investor's principal investment. As explanation (EXPLAINED), the gain to - - and this is the PSI explanation. "The gain to an individual investor in the scheme shall not be used to offset the loss to another individual investor in the scheme".In light of this instruction, the probation officer multiplied the number of victims by the initial investment in order to determine the amount of principal investments. The amount of principal investments is $3,298.0020. The probation officer then subtracted the principal investments from the gross receipts in order to obtain a loss amount for guideline calculation purposes. Therefore, the guideline loss amount is $13,983,525.Then my take on that, here's the paragraph compartmentalized, the trial testimony shows at least 2,508 victims in these offenses and that they made INITIAL investment of 1,315. In fact, although THE COST OF ONE TELECOM 2000 BUSINESS WAS 1,315, THIS WAS NOT THE AMOUNT OF THE INITIAL INVESTMENT. The initial investment averaged 4.43, as the figures just shown (showed). The term "initial investment", I would never - - I WOULDN'T THINK WAS EVER MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED THE SMALLEST INVESTMENT. And the records show that the actual initial investment was a purchase of 4.43 business. The means the initial investment costs approximately $5,000.Quoting again from the PSI, additionally trial testimony shows the gross receipts from the victims of these offenses is 17,281,545 and then it says, quoting again, "in the case involving a fraudulent investment scheme", and to carry the thought even further, which I'm not going to do because I recognize we had a trial and we had a jury and I was convicted and I'm not trying to retry this case at all. But some of these issues were not a part of my - - of my indictment counts, and so that's why we - - you know, we have to in my mind resolve these things today, and some of them will be intrinsically linked to some of the trial."COMMENT: Notice now that HANNAH, obviously grasping none of Al Petty's ARGUMENT, begins to cut Al Petty off - although it meant 12 years of Al Petty's life!. Al Petty stated clearly here that he was being sentenced for charges that were not included in his indictment, therefore these additional charges were not presented to the Jury. Al Petty is objecting to this procedure almost 2 years before the SUPREME COURT, in agreement with Al Petty's observation during his sentencing hearing, before the Supreme Court, in January of 2005, ALSO declared the PSI illegal.
PETTY JR. cont.: "But I hope that I am not in my biased condition trying to give the impression that I'm trying to retry my guilt or innocence, but I have to relate some of these things because they are related to those things."
HANNAH: "HOW MUCH LONG - - LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. PETTY! HOW MUCH LONGER DO YOU THINK YOUR PRESENTATION IS GOING TO TAKE"?
PETTY JR.: "Oh, I have several more objections after this one. But what do you suggest? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO DO?"
HANNAH: "Well, I suggest that we can't, you know, take ALL DAY AND ALL MORNING ON THIS."
COMMENT: WHY NOT?? IS THE OBJECTIVE, "JUSTICE" OR "GET IT OVER ASAP"!
PETTY JR.: "WELL, CAN - - IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY ACTUALLY EXAMINE WHAT I'M SAYING?"
HANNAH: "WELL, NO, LET'S JUST YOU CONTINUE. GO AHEAD."
COMMENT: WOW! What HANNAH was really saying, "I have no better way to examine the facts, so - although I want you to Shut up, I will let you continue for awhile."
PETTY JR.: "Maybe at this point I've made my case clear. The issue really is that the guidelines call for - - in the formula used by the probation officer, they call for the 'INITIAL investment' to be the factor in determining that - - the real factor is the $7 million COMMENT: "RESULTING IN" 12 years, and I'm stating that the initial investment was not 1315. It was 4.43. It was not 1315. It was $5,000. And that the adjusted guideline loss amount is well below the seven million as called for according to the formula used by the probation officer to add 20 more points."
HANNAH: "You've already told me all that."
PETTY JR.: "Okay."
HANNAH: "All right. Go ahead."
PETTY JR.: "Shall we go to the next issue?"
HANNAH: "That's up to you."
PETTY JR.: "Well, apparently that's clear as . . Next document, would you like a copy of the next one?"
HANNAH: "Yes, and also give a copy to the prosecutors."
COMMENT: AL PETTY FELT PRESSURED (BY HANNAH) TO FINISH ASAP.
PETTY JR.: "Your Honor, I would like at this time to skip over the first paragraph and go to the second paragraph, page 12, paragraph 37. Let's see, the first page, second paragraph."
HANNAH: "All right."
PETTY JR.: "If the Defendant relocated, according to the PSI, or participated in relocating a fraudulent scheme to another jurisdiction to evade law enforcement - - and THAT'S WHAT I'LL BE RAISING OBJECTIONS TO - - "TO EVADE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR REGULATORY OFFICIALS", increase the offense level by two points."
COMMENT: Approximately 4 more years in prison added illegally! Thus far, 12 + 4 = 16 years of illegal sentencing!
PETTY JR. cont.: "For my rebuttal to the charge of evading law enforcement, please see the attached Exhibit A, which is called the "status of TeleCom 2000". I'll go ahead and give that to y'all.
In my opinion this exhibit will prove conclusively that the reason for the long planned moving of operations to Canada was the fact that I feel the sabotage caused by the FBI, the CW's (informants) who were employees of mine THAT I WAS DEPENDING ON TO SERVICE TeleCom 2000 and our business owners, the exhibits show that we were disgracefully behind in our work and I'm very embarrassed to give this information, but it's the facts, a fact I discovered in my daily calculation spreadsheets, and we covered that a moment ago, so let's go right to the Exhibit A, the second document.This is quite detailed. This document proves conclusively that as of Good Friday, March the 28th - - March 29th, I could no longer in good conscience continue to operate my business in Overton, Texas. Although it is embarrassing to reveal this document to anyone, it feels necessary to do so in order to dispel ALL OF THE RUMORS AND INNUENDOS THAT CONTINUE TO CIRCULATE PERTAINING TO THE LONG ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL MOVE OF TELECOM 2000 TO CANADA.THE FOLLOWING DATA CONTAINS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE MOVE. We simply could not what I call "CATCH UP AND STAY UP" - - that was one of our crusades we had to try to do that, we called it that - - with our contractual commitments to TeleCom 2000 business owners with the local crew. Of course, I was not aware that the FBI - - I FEEL THEY WERE SABOTAGING ME, THAT - - THAT THAT WAS GOING ON.Now, here's the status of TeleCom 2000 March the 29th. Payments for businesses were not properly collected and recorded. The following shows the number of transactions and amounts for which payment was never received by TeleCom 2000, including credit card declines, credit cards that were never charged and cashier's checks that were never received, yet TELECOM 2000 WAS PAYING COMMISSIONS ON THESE. YET THE GOVERNMENT NOW ALLEGES THAT I WAS NOT PAYING MY PEOPLE, EVEN though records prove I paid commissions to people, that for whatever the reason, I hadn't even received the payments for their business purchases."COMMENT: Due to the government's sabotage of Al Petty's operation!
PETTY JR. cont.: "Please keep in mind that the Government - - and, of course, I can explain all of those reasons why that - - that I did not receive the payment. Please keep in mind - - and document it. That the Government, while accusing me of moving to Canada to avoid the scrutiny of regulatory agencies, including the IRS, had these documents. THEY KNEW THAT THE REAL REASON FOR THE MOVE WAS, TO A GREAT DEGREE, THEIR FAULT. IN EFFECT, THE GOVERNMENT DROVE ME, I FEEL, TO MOVE THE OPERATIONS TO CANADA."
HANNAH: "Mr. Petty, you're going to have to slow down (COMMENT: to a stop!)
COMMENT: Al Petty, on several occasions, was talking faster than the court reporter could type.
PETTY JR.: "I SAID IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE I WASN'T DOING MY - - SERVICING MY PEOPLE IN THE WAY THAT I CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED MYSELF TO DO. I FEEL THAT THE REASON I WASN'T - - I DIDN'T FIND IT OUT UNTIL TOO LATE - - WAS BECAUSE THAT I HAD PERSONS WORKING FOR ME WHO, INSTEAD OF SERVICING MY PEOPLE AS THOSE LAST EIGHT DAYS SHOW OF MARCH, THAT THEY WERE DOWNLOADING OVER 300 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS FOR THE FBI. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME, SO I HAD BEEN PLANNING THE MOVE, AS ONE OF MY WITNESSES AFTER WHILE, A BUILDER, WILL ATTEST TO EVIDENCE, NOT - - THAT WILL SHOW THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I JUST HATCHED UP ON GOOD FRIDAY.
Now, here's the sad facts. THE AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS THAT NO PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED ON - -"HANNAH: "SLOW DOWN."
PETTY JR.: "That we had contracts on - - is that one clear? Are we in the same place now?"
HANNAH: "I'll tell you when we're not."
COMMENT: Hostile response!
PETTY JR.: "Oh, I thought you said - - did you say slow down?"
HANNAH: "I said slow down."
PETTY JR.: "Amount of transactions that no payment was received on. THAT MEANS WE HAD CONTRACTS BUT WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE PAYMENT ON $2,229,928.69."
COMMENT: PLEASE NOTE: IF AL PETTY HAD NOT INTENDED TO HONOR EVERY CONTRACT, WOULD HE HAVE BEEN SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DILEMMA? OF COURSE NOT! J.R., NOR W. VOLBERDING EVER GRASPED THIS VITAL FACT! INEFFICIENCY!!
PETTY JR. (cont.): "By transactions, I mean CONTRACTS. As of March the 28th, only 11 days after the Overton crews "catch up and stay up" operation, the status of the domestic business owners was, as opposed to the international traffic, the number of files that had not been billed was 157. The number of charts that had not been fully scheduled for autopay was 1652. The number of charts that were not scheduled at all for autopay was 1111. THESE ARE THE REASONS I HAD TO MAKE THE MOVE.
The international members were not taken care of. Number of files for international clients that HAD NOT BEEN ACTUALLY BILLED WAS 70. The number of files that had not been charted 73. The number of files that had not been scheduled for autopay was 82. In other words, some people had been charted and some people had been - - had - - had received welcome letters and some of the documents, but their autopay schedule had not even been charted or sent out at that time.Now, the potential business owners who sent in incomplete paper work - - and, of course, that happens in any business, BUT you should follow up on that, and we had - - the number of files that had not been followed up on was 51. That's (Just) international. The Quick Cash we call it is - - I'm sure you remember is the first payment due to a business owner except for a Pro One or the two-up sponsor. In other words, if they bought more than one business, they got a Quick Cash on the seventh day. The amount of Quick Cash that was not sent out - -"HANNAH: "You're arguing to me at this particular point the two points, where you received two points for relocating to another jurisdiction to evade law enforcement?"
COMMENT: WOW!
PETTY JR.: "Yes."
HANNAH: "I THINK YOU'RE GIVING ME MORE INFORMATION THAN IS NECESSARY."
COMMENT: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT! OBVIOUSLY, NOTHING AL PETTY SAID WAS GRASPED AS "REASONS FOR THE MOVE BY AL PETTY", HANNAH DENIED.
PETTY JR.: "I'm prone to do that. I'm sorry. In other words, could just simply state that - - that - -"
HANNAH: "WELL, IF YOU CAN - - YOU CAN SHOW ME THAT if you've got proof that you were moving for another reason, but we don't - - YOU DON'T NEED TO GO INTO SUCH EXCRUCIATING DETAIL."
COMMENT: WOW! HOW ABOUT CUNNINGHAM'S AND HERRARA'S "EXCRUCIATING DETAIL"? PAGE AFTER PAGE ON CHART AFTER CHART, AND NO REPRIMAND BY JUDGE HANNAH, AND THEIR LIFE, WAS NOT AT STAKE! AL PETTY WAS FACING, ACCORDING TO JUDGE DAVIS ESTIMATE, 1280 YEARS IN PRISON! YET AL PETTY'S NUMBERS WERE "EXCRUCIATING"!!!
PETTY JR.: "It is excruciating. COMMENT: TO HIM, BUT NOT TO AL PETTY'S CONCERN FOR SENTENCE!. Okay. Yes. I MAINTAIN THAT THOSE TWO POINTS SHOULD BE ADJUSTED downward TO ZERO BECAUSE I DID NOT MOVE TO EVADE THE SCRUTINY OF - - as the guideline rule called for, of the regulatory agencies, but because, IN ORDER TO SERVICE MY PEOPLE, I HAD TO MAKE THAT MOVE!
HANNAH: "All right."
PETTY JR.: "And that it was not a spur of the moment thing that all of the sudden happened, as was presented repeatedly throughout the trial. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAD BEEN DISCUSSING WITH EMPLOYEES FOR TWO MONTHS. Should I go to the next one?"
HANNAH: "Yes."
(P54,L1-16&23-25,P55,L1-15,P56,L3-25,P58,L1-25,P59,L1-9&17-25,P60,L1-25,P61,L1-16)
HANNAH: ". . I noticed you skipped number one that you had here, which was offensive characteristics when you gained four points for having 50 or more victims. I have read and am reading now and will finish reading again what you're complaining. YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY VICTIMS AT ALL BASICALLY, CORRECT?"
PETTY JR.: "Well, I'm saying that I didn't create the victims, but I know that that could be interpreted, and may be rightly so, as me trying to retry the case, and I'm not trying to do that and I'd rather just leave that lie if I'm going to be interpreted as trying to retry the case."
HANNAH: "All right."
PETTY JR.: "BUT IT'S JUST A FACT THAT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, AND I DID NOT CREATE ANY VICTIMS THAT - - UNTIL THE FUNDS WERE FROZEN, I HAD NO VICTIMS."
HANNAH: "All right. What's your next issue?"
PETTY JR.: "Adjustments for role in the offense. The Defendant was the organizer and leader of a criminal activity, which was otherwise extensive. And one of the reasons that I even bring this up is I wish I had a clarification for my own benefit on the term "OTHERWISE EXTENSIVE". Then it gives the case law. The offense level increased by four levels, (7 1/2 additional years = 16 years + 7 1/2 = 23 years!) or the guidelines . I'm sorry.
As stated many times previously, evidence and testimony show that I did not cause to be or participate in any kind of illegal activity. Again, I ask the Court to - - since MY life is at stake, please explain to me what "otherwise" - - or what "illegal activity" that I committed. Now, if it's too late to even think about things like that - - "HANNAH: "The jury has already made a determination of that."
PETTY JR.: "What does the term "otherwise extensive" mean? I just am curious."
HANNAH: "Large, large, big."
PETTY JR.: "He used this position to facilitate the commission and concealment of the "offenses of conviction". Pursuant to USSG 3 (b) (1.3) the offense level is increased by two levels. (4 more years = 27 years) I said suggested correction: AS GOD IS MY WITNESS, I NEVER ATTEMPTED TO CONCEAL ANY OF THE "OFFENSES OF CONVICTION". THE ONLY "CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE" WAS BY THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS. I CALL HER THE BURGLAR AND COMPUTER THIEF, SANDRA HALLEY. I DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE THAT I HAVE COMMITTED ANY "OFFENSES OF CONVICTION", SO HOW COULD I ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T EVEN BELIEVE THAT I DID? THEREFORE, I FEEL THAT UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT I ATTEMPTED TO CONCEAL "OFFENSES OF CONVICTION" AND SHOW ME WHAT "OFFENSES OF CONVICTION" THAT I DID CONCEAL, THEN IT SHOULD BE ADJUSTED DOWNWARD TO ZERO, ZERO.
COMMENT: Once again Al Petty points out a FACT that the SUPREME COURT HAS NOW AGREED IS AN ILLEGAL PROCEDURE!
PETTY JR. cont: AND THE REASON I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THAT IS THAT THIS ISSUE IS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE 98 COUNTS AND FOR THE ITEMS FOR WHICH THAT I WAS ON - - ON TRIAL. IT WAS NEVER SHOWN IN TESTIMONY OR IN ANY OF THE COUNTS THAT I CONCEALED, I DON'T BELIEVE, EVIDENCE, AND IF I DID, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT. I guess I should get that from my - - my attorney, but THAT DOES PUZZLE ME THAT I COULD HAVE THE TWO POINTS ADDED FOR CONCEALING WHEN I NEVER REALLY FELT LIKE I WAS DOING ANYTHING TO CONCEAL.
And the next is more a question. Is the base offense level for the charge I was convicted of, like THE 98 COUNTS, IS THAT FIXED AT THE SIX POINTS? I just wasn't clear on what the six points meant. Are we on the same place? The last paragraph on page two.. . If the fixed level of six is the suggested minimum guideline for whatever, which I'm not sure of, that I was convicted of, and if my counsel was successful in showing the prosecution's obstruction of justice to be what I feel was a travesty, that he and I agree that they are, and if my objections that I've just argued are accurate, my total points, would they still be at the fixed level or zero, six, or would they be adjusted to zero, zero? And that - - that is just something I wish I had clarification on.. . I will read the last paragraph and I'll close. "Under oath and as God is my witness, I'm not attempting to play games or manipulate anything, anybody or any document. Unless my eyes of understanding are blinded by my dire circumstances, the above objections to my respected friend and probation office Mike Thomas, PSI calculations are real and sincere, win, lose or draw"."Please accept my objections not in the spirit of argument but in the honest spirit of justice in the United States versus Al Petty.""Thanks to the Honorable Judge John Hannah for his careful, intelligent and unbiased consideration of my objections to the PSI."Your Honor, that's - - that's not considered my closing statement, is it, if I understand it right? This - - this was my argument."HANNAH: "I'll allow you to do that. You - - you can make another statement, if you wish."
PETTY JR.: "Yes."
HANNAH: "Concerning your sentence."
PETTY JR.: "Yes. As you outlined the procedure, that's - - I would love to follow that procedure. I'm just standing in to do this rather than my attorney. Thank you, Your Honor."
HANNAH: "How long are you going to need for your elocution?"
PETTY JR.: "You know, I haven't even planned it because it - - it's dependent upon what I perceive transpires after the witnesses that have come here at great sacrifice, my character witnesses, after we hear from them. If I understand it right, I would make my closing statement after that and then you would determine - - "
HANNAH: "How many witnesses do you have?"
PETTY JR.: "Six."
HANNAH: "HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT EACH ONE OF THEM TO BE ON THE STAND?"
COMMENT: J.R. SMITH HAD PREJUDICED THE JUDGE AGAINST MY PRESENTATION OF THE CHARACTER WITNESSES IN PRIVATE CHAMBERS PREVIOUSLY.
PETTY JR.: "I'm hoping - - they will really vary. Some of them may be - - you're looking for an average, I'm sure. Some won't take more than three or four minutes.
HANNAH: "All right. You want to put on six witnesses and then you would like to make a statement?"
PETTY JR.: "Yes, sir, Your Honor."
HANNAH: "All right. Let's take a break for lunch at this time and come back at 12:30, and as soon as we get back, you can put on your witnesses and then you can make your statement."
HANNAH: "All right, Mr. Petty, you may continue your elocution."
COMMENT: Hannah had previously defined "elocution" as "closing statement!"
PETTY JR.: "Continue my - - "
HANNAH: "Ever what you want to talk, ever what you want to say."
PETTY JR.: "Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to start with saying that it's my understanding that - - that during the trial that I behaved in ways that are not honorable to your court. I want to sincerely apologize for my ignorance and hope that I don't disgrace you again today.
I want to call some people that I have known, most of them for long periods of time, up to 50 years, as character witnesses. I'm not real clear on the purpose of this, but if I understand it right, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that these testimonies should be as to the truth of this - - of these witnesses' relationship and their observances of - - of who I am, according to their opinion, and it would seem to me - -"HANNAH: (NO RESPONSE!) "WELL, LET'S CALL THEM."
PETTY JR.: "I would - - (INTERRUPTION)
KENNER: "Your Honor - - "
PETTY JR.: " - - like to call - -
KENNER: "I'm sorry, Mr. Petty. YOUR HONOR, WE DO OBJECT TO MR. PETTY QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES. THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY HIS ATTORNEY."
HANNAH: "WELL, YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT ABOUT THAT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT, MS. KENNER. I SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. YOUR ATTORNEY WILL NEED TO - -
PETTY JR.: "OKAY."
HANNAH: "I assume you're going to ask them how do you know Al Petty and what kind of guy is he and let them talk. Is that it?"
SMITH: "Your Honor, I would have to be at liberty to ask my own questions."
HANNAH: "Yes."
PETTY JR.: "Okay. IS IT OUT OF ORDER FOR ME TO STATE THAT IT'S NOT MY IDEA TO QUESTION THEM? I DID NOT REQUEST TO DO THAT."
HANNAH: "Well, if you're the one to call them and they got on the witness stand, I assume you would have asked their names."
PETTY JR.: "OH, YES, BUT I MEAN IT WAS NOT MY IDEA TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES."
HANNAH: "All right."
PETTY JR.: "I would rather that my attorney would do that, yes."
HANNAH: "Okay."
SMITH: "Would it be in keeping for the Court to allow these persons FIVE MINUTES to say what they wanted to about Mr. Petty's character?"
COMMENT: WOW! AFTER THE SACRIFICIAL APPEARANCES OF SOME OF THESE WITNESSES TO APPEAR FOR AL PETTY, i.e. TRAVEL FROM NASHVILLE AND CANCEL LUCRATIVE ENGAGEMENTS TO BE HERE, J.R. suggests "5 MINUTES". TO UNDERSTAND HIS ACTIONS, ONE NEEDS TO READ THE HORRIBLE FAX RECEIVED BY AL PETTY, ON THE MORNING OF THE SENTENCING HEARING, APRIL 10, 2003!
COMMENT BY AL PETTY TO THE TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS
According to my experience at my sentencing hearing, the presentation of character witnesses is a waste of the witnesses' time, as well as an abuse of the court's schedule. Pardon my analogy, but the show of support and friendship by my great character witnesses had about as much chance of influencing the Judge's sentencing as the testimony of friends at a funeral have of raising the dead from their coffin.
The mind of the Judge was already made up, in accordance with the - NOW Declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Sentencing Guidelines. These guidelines are actually "written" by the accusers, the Prosecution. They were "researched" and compiled by the probation officer, working hand in hand with the prosecution, then "reviewed" and agreed upon by the Judge. NONE of these issues were contained in my indictment, for which I was on trial. Nor were ANY of these issues even presented to the Jury who, according to the 6th Amendment, were solely responsible for determining my guilt or innocence BEFORE ANY SENTENCE COULD BE EXECUTED!
Therefore, as stated elsewhere, all of the arguments that I used at the sentencing hearing as objections to these charges that were the result of the ongoing conspiracy - AFTER my trial - by the prosecution, probation officer & Judge to "put me away for life", all of my objections, according to the 6th amendment, SHOULD HAVE BEEN presented to the JURY during my trial.
In consideration of the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the 6th Amendment, the so-called "sentencing hearing" that I experienced, should be abolished for these two reasons:
1) In my case, I presented 23 objections to be 'HEARD", (that was a sick joke!), at the "sentencing hearing". ALL of my objections were in "TRUTH-FACTUAL - REBUTTAL" to the ADDITIONAL charges that resulted from the collusion by the prosecution, probation officer and the Judge, 7 months AFTER my trial. Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitution and restricted a citizen's sentence to charges presented to the Jury during the trial, there could have been NO SUBSEQUENT charges to, so-called, "HEAR". Under the Supreme Court's ruling, therefore, the only court appearance after a trial would be a "SENTENCING SESSION". By eliminating the unconstitutional collusion by the prosecution, probation officer and the Judge AFTER the trial, the "FACADE" of "hearing" my 23 objections would have been eliminated, because, there would have been no "post-trial" charges to object to!
This is in addition to the FACT that the enclosed transcripts prove that JUDGE HANNAH never "heard with his mind" - and even cut off my objections to the degree that he never even "heard them with his ears"! Therefore the so-called "sentencing hearing" was not a "hearing". It was merely a FACADE that offered a "VENUE OF AN APPEARANCE OF LEGALITY" to the unconstitutional conspiracy by the government to rob you and put me away for life. Hence "Sentencing Hearings, as such, SHOULD BE ABOLISHED!
2) The second reason "sentencing hearings" serve no purpose was also demonstrated at my "sentencing hearing" in 2 ways.
A) Judge HANNAH stated that he had "read scores of letters of support" from TeleCom2000 Business Owners! It is obvious, from the "sentencing hearing" that all of your letters DID NOT influence Judge HANNAH towards listening to my objections, OR to ANY of my great character witnesses.
B) The restricted, (to 5 minutes), testimonies of my character witnesses were subverted by my attorney, JOHN R. SMITH, as well as by the prosecution, TRACI KENNER, and Judge HANNAH. The sacrifices made by my friends and associates to testify on my behalf meant NOTHING to Judge HANNAH, nor JOHN R. SMITH! SMITH did not want to present my witnesses to the court because he knew they would "enhance the image of" his client, whom he despised, even though he always felt was INNOCENT!
Therefore he asked me to present and question my own character witnesses. As the transcript shows, although Judge HANNAH was in favor of my questioning my character witnesses, TRACI KENNER would "have no part" of allowing me to do so.
After HANNAH agreed to KENNER'S Objection to my questioning my witnesses, this gave SMITH the opportunity to "drive another nail in my coffin". SMITH sent me a fax that I picked up just as I was leaving home for Judy to take me to the sentencing "hearing". After telling me repeatedly to "do whatever I wanted to do" regarding my witnesses - and after telling me that "whatever is good for you is good for me" -- and after I, in good faith, asked my friends to witness on my behalf - and after I sent a fax to SMITH outlining topics that my witnesses wanted to testify to, suggesting questions he could ask the witnesses which would give them an opportunity to be "witnesses of maximum efficiency", SMITH did a TOTAL "ABOUT FACE"! In his fax he informed me that he would "have no part of presenting a 'THIS IS YOUR LIFE', AL PETTY!" Of course, as an example of a true "REALITY SHOW", "THIS WAS MY LIFE"! It certainly was NOT KENNER, MARCHESSAULT, HANNAH'S nor JOHN R. SMITH'S LIFE! SMITH had already collected HIS $142,500 of your sacrificial money. Their lives would go on - all the richer for having "encountered" AL PETTY.
JOHN R. made it clear that HE would NOT question my witnesses, that I should "do it myself", (Just as he would NOT argue but 1 of my 23 objections) to the government's, (now illegal), sentencing "enhancements"! He actually told me that he would "fly his plane to the hearings and get there early and inform the Judge of my intentions, thereby further prejudicing the Judge against allowing the effective witnessing of my friends! WHAT A FARCE the entire case against me is, from April 4th, 2002 to this moment, March 21st, 2005!
The prosecution was allowed to establish the credibility of their witnesses, (as well as to make every attempt to destroy the credibility of my witnesses). I felt it imperative to also establish the credibility of my witnesses, as well as the "reality" of their relationships to me. (In my 'naivete' I didn't know that NOTHING would influence the Judge's "made-up-mind" relating to any deviation from the opinions expressed by the prosecution and probation officer in the "presentence report" - that the entire "hearing" was NOT a "hearing", but simply another "link in the chain of the government - conspiracy" to put me away for life!)
IF SMITH had TRULY wanted to "earn his $142,500" by presenting my witnesses in a manner that would have "established their validity and identity" by asking them questions such as I wrote he would have done so, by asking them questions I wrote in the hypothetical testimonies, immediately following 5 of my 6 witnesses. John R. Smith refused to even meet or interview any of my witnesses prior to them taking the witness stand. Therefore he did not question my witnesses in order to establish their credibility. To the Judge, "(IF) he had cared at all about "fairness in sentencing"?" , each of my witnesses could have been hired by me from under a bridge, because J.R. refused to establish credibility for any of my witnesses.
In communication with my witnesses, I have written hypothetical testimonies for 5 of them. These HYPOTHETICAL TESTIMONIES of "THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN" certainly "nailed the lid on" the inefficient counsel of J.R. Smith! Once again, following actual testimonies will be their hypothetical testimonies.
Questions SMITH should have asked to follow actual transcripts of sentencing hearing witnesses.
