Pre-closing and Closing Arguments by Atty. Smith (Should Mr. Petty Testify - Illegal Influences by Atty. Smith & Judge Hannah that kept Al Petty from testifying.)
“Pre-closing” and CLOSING ARGUMENT By JOHN R. SMITH – “INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL” FOR THE DEFENDANT, AL PETTY!
PERTINENT PRE-CLOSING STATEMENTS BY J. R. SMITH
(P225-L18-22) JUDGE HANNAH: (On Al Petty Testifying) “I NOTICED THAT IN THE FINAL CHARGE I DID NOT GIVE AN INSTRUCTION ON THE “FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY”, AND IT’S MY INTENTION TO GIVE THE JURY THAT INSTRUCTION WHEN THEY COME BACK IN. ANYBODY GOT ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?
JOHN R. SMITH
(P226-L1-2) “YOUR HONOR, WE HAD JUST AS SOON LET A ‘SLEEPING DOG LIE’.”
COMMENT: It is the human nature of a Jury that, when a person refuses to respond on his own behalf when he is accused, he is considered to be guilty of the accusation, (although JESUS often refused to respond to his accusers) and of course he was crucified for the good he brought into the lives of everyone his life touched. Normally, in every day life, if someone accuses us of something we did not do, we will defend OURSELVES. Even when we have others who will defend us, if we really feel that we are accused of doing something we did not do, we will respond in our own defense. If we do not do so, any third party, such as a Jury, hearing only the accuser’s version, would overwhelmingly consider us “guilty as charged”.
However the Judicial system has degenerated to the degree that most attorneys and Judges feel that ONLY ATTORNEYS are qualified to “tell a person’s story” for them, that – if the defendant testifies on their own behalf, the attorneys for the prosecution will be so skilled at “manipulation of truth” that their cross examination, even of an innocent person, will make that person APPEAR to be guilty! Therefore, it is customary for a defense attorney to advise his client to “remain silent” and “LET THE PROFESSIONALS” DO IT”! Whether one agrees with this “normal” procedure or not is certainly a matter of debate, however the attorneys, and in AL PETTY’S case, even the JUDGE, were clearly against AL PETTY taking the stand! One must wonder how much their ‘advice’ was influenced by the fact that both J. R. and HANNAH had plans to be on a deer lease, both in the same area, (CENTER CO., TEXAS) on opening Hunting day, Oct. 31st? As has been seen throughout the trial, Judge HANNAH had TWO “VERSIONS” of when he “expected the trial to end”. When in the Presence of the Jury, he ALWAYS spoke of hoping to get the trial concluded by Friday, Nov. 1st, and if not, he asked the Jury about coming in on Sat., Nov. 2nd, 2002. However, here are excerpts from the transcripts of the trial on Tuesday, Oct. 29th. This is the day before the trial ended on Wednesday, Oct. 30th.
(P196-L3-4)
J.R. SMITH: “We respectfully request that the court allow us to begin our case-in-chief in the morning”.
HANNAH: “How much time do you think you’re going to need if we start in the morning?” (P196-L7-9)
SMITH: (P196-L10-12) “YOUR HONOR, IF WE START TOMORROW MORNING I WILL TRY MY LEVEL BEST TO BE THROUGH BY THURSDAY AT FIVE O’CLOCK ----I MEAN WEDNESDAY AT FIVE O’CLOCK”.
COMMENT: The Prosecution had just completed their “case-in-chief”. They had 6 ½ Days of TESTIMONY. Now J. R. was stating that AL PETTY’S “CASE-IN-CHIEF” WOULD BE COMPLETED IN ONLY ONE DAY, EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW “WHO OR HOW MANY” witnesses Al Petty HAD. And, most importantly, he did not even KNOW whether AL PETTY was going to testify! It had been mentioned that, if Al Petty testified, the trial would last several days more.
SMITH: (P197-L23-25) “YOUR HONOR, LET ME PRE-WARN THE COURT THAT THE ONLY HOLD-UP THAT I CAN SEE IS THAT PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT OUR EXPERT WITNESS WAS EMPLOYED IN THIS CASE, HE HAD ANOTHER TRIAL IN ORLANDO----IN FLORIDA. HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE BACK IN TYLER, TEXAS EARLY AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY”.
HANNAH: (P197-L3) “WEDNESDAY?”
SMITH: (P197-L4-6) “YES, HE’S TESTIFYING IN A TRIAL TODAY AND TOMORROW. IF HE’S HERE ON TIME, I DON’T THINK WE’LL HAVE A PROBLEM”.
HANNAH: (P198-L7-18) “WELL, I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM, AND THAT IS, THURSDAY I HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND I EXPECT THIS TRIAL TO BE OVER BY THURSDAY AT NOON, OR AT LEAST THE JURY DELIBERATING! AND YOU’RE TAKING ABOUT THREE HOURS OFF THIS AFTERNOON, MR. SMITH, THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN READY TO GO ON, AND NOW YOU TELL ME THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE A WITNESS HERE, THAT WE HAVE TO STAND AROUND AND WAIT FOR HIM!”
SMITH: “WELL, I’M NOT “TRYING TO TELL YOU”, I’M JUST TRYING TO FOREWARN YOU. WE’RE GOING TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO GET HIM BACK, AND I REALLY DIDN’T EXPECT, AND I DON’T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE EXPECTED THE COURT TO REST THEIR CASE AT 2:45 THIS AFTERNOON”.
(COMMENT ON ABOVE) John R. Smith just lied to the Court. The expert witness for the defense, Kenneth Lehrer, testified later that he did NOT have to “TESTIFY IN COURT”, as J.R.S. FALSELY stated. In fact Lehrer said his absence had nothing to do with legal matters! As has been seen repeatedly, J.R. has a problem simply stating the TRUTH. If he doesn’t KNOW the TRUTH, he simply “makes up a version” that he feels best suits his situation at the time!
As stated previously, HANNAH told the Jury, on several occasions, that he “HOPED THE TRIAL WOULD BE OVER BY FRIDAY, possibly Saturday”. However it’s a FACT that, while he was telling this story to the Jury, he ALREADY had plans “TO BE SOMEWHERE” ON THURSDAY. According to J.R.S., as related to Priscilla Bardes and Al Petty after the trial, both J.R. AND HANNAH were due on a deer lease in Center County on Thursday. Since HANNAH died of a heart attack 6 months after sentencing Al Petty to “LIFE” in prison, we may NEVER KNOW WHY he chose to tell the Jury he would hope to be finished by Friday, or even Saturday, YET tell the Legal Participants, (AWAY FROM THE JURY), that he “HAD PLANS TO BE SOMEWHERE ELSE” on Thursday, and that “I EXPECT THIS TRIAL TO BE OVER BY THURSDAY AT NOON! (NOT “I EXPECT TO HAVE JUSTICE SERVED by then!”)In any event, the above discourse shows that both J.R. and HANNAH were far more concerned about getting the trial over than they were concerned about making sure justice was served! For example, J.R. and HANNAH KNEW that the prosecution was allowed 6 ½ days to present their case, yet, at HANNAH’S urging, (not that it required any “urging”), since he ALSO had plans to be on the deer lease by Thursday morning, J.R. stated “I’ll Do My Best To Be Finished by WED., 5 O’CLOCK (even though he didn’t expect LEHRER to be back until WEDNESDAY!) And, of course, the trial was finished before 5 o’clock Wednesday and the GUILTY VERDICT delivered shortly thereafter, AND both J. R. & HANNAH WERE FREED TO HUNT DEER ON THURSDAY AS PLANNED. It is obvious that Hannah was lying to either the court or the Jury by telling the Jury to "be ready to work on Saturday, that he would try to finish on Friday", at the same time he was telling J. R. Smith and the Court that he "planned to be somewhere else", (on the deer lease), on THURSDAY.(QUOTING FROM HANNAH’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON TUESDAY OCT. 29TH) (P200-L1-11) (Direct contradiction to above!)HANNAH: “BE PREPARED TO COME BACK IN THE MORNING OR BE PREPARED TO TAKE THE JURY BOX AT 8:30. ALSO BE PREPARED TO GO TO SIX OR PERHAPS A LITTLE LONGER TOMORROW AFTERNOON. THERE’S STILL A POSSIBILITY WE’LL FINISH THIS TRIAL THIS WEEK. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, WE MAY HAVE TO WORK ON SATURDAYS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO JUST ABSOLUTELY CAN’T DO THAT IF WE HAVE TO DO IT?
COMMENT: It sounds as if we’re listening to two different accounts, by 2 different persons, of the same event, but it was the same person, JUDGE HANNAH, telling two different “stories” to two different groups of people, i.e., He told the Jury to be prepared to work Saturday yet he virtually INSISTED – to the participants – that the trial end on WEDNESDAY!
And now we come back to HANNAH and SMITH discussing whether Al Petty would be expected to TESTIFY.Following are copies, with comments, (of V_-P67-L17) thru (V_-P72-L13), regarding the inordinate amount of time devoted by the court in their efforts to prevent Al Petty from testifying in order to “Get HANNAH & SMITH to the DEER LEASE ON TIME!” Throughout these discussions one should know that J. R. SMITH spent a LOT OF TIME in the conference room persuading Al Petty that he was “ahead in the trial” and that he believed it would damage his case if he testified. J. R. also made it clear to Al that the JUDGE would prefer that he not testify!HANNAH: “All right. I’ll give you a break until – I can tell the jury that this will be the last witness?”
COMMENT: (DEER FEVER?) AL PETTY HEARD NOTHING SAYING “THIS WOULD BE OUR LAST WITNESS”! WE ONLY HAD 1 1/2 days of WITNESSES TO THE GOVERNMENT’S 6 1/2 days.
COMMENT: The following statement by Al Petty's attorney makes it clear Smith and Hannah did not intend for Al Petty to testify. Al Petty was not informed! Did Hannah cut the witnesses off? What kind of attorney-client privilege - relationship is that??? Shouldn't Al Petty have been consulted??? He should have not been "TOLD by ANYONE" that he was not to testify when his life, and no one elses, was at stake.
SMITH: “So that we don’t have some type of outburst (By Al Petty), Your Honor, if you wouldn’t tell them that so that I can tell my client.
HANNAH: “Okay. Well, I just wanted to – I wasn’t trying to pin you down. I was just trying to think of an excuse of why I was giving the jury such a long break because, as you know, they want to start work at six in the morning and go all day.”
SMITH: “I think we may have to have something outside the presence of the jury if Mr. Petty wants to testify. I’m going to have . . . ."
HANNAH: “Well, if you want to, you can put him on anyway and ask him about all that, if you want to get it in the record.”
COMMENT: IN OTHER WORDS, HANNAH WAS ASKING J.R. TO TALK TO AL PETTY ABOUT TESTIFYING “ON THE RECORD”. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. IF THE JURY COULD HAVE HEARD J.R. AND AL DISCUSS THIS OPENLY, IT COULD HAVE ALTERED THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL!
SMITH: “I really don’t think I want to do that, Your Honor.”
COMMENT: WHY? THE REASON IS THAT HE WOULD NOT DARE LET THE JURY HEAR HIS FRAUDULENT PERSUASION OF AL PETTY TO NOT TESTIFY!
MARCHESSAULT: “Your Honor, the Government would request that we make a record that the Defendant - - if he’s not going to testify, that this is his own voluntary decision. I’ve had cases - -.”
HANNAH: “Well, we’ll do - -.”
KENNER: “We’ve had problems with this in the past.”
SMITH: “That’s along the lines of my protecting my rear end also, Your Honor. If he is going to demand that he be able to testify, I want - -.”
COMMENT: WOW! WHAT WAS THIS TRIAL ABOUT? PROTECTING COUNSEL’S REAR??
COMMENT: HERE IS PROOF THAT J. R. DID NOT HAVE A COMMITMENT BY AL AT THE TIME HANNAH WAS READY TO TELL THE JURY HE HAD DECIDED AGAINST TESTIFYING!
HANNAH: “You can say - - well, you can obviously put it in the record that it’s against your recommendation and you just ask him - -.”
COMMENT: WHY WAS IT “AGAINST" J.R.’S RECOMMENDATION”? AND WHY WAS THE JUDGE ADVISING HIM ON THIS? WAS IT “FOREGONE” THAT AL PETTY WOULD NOT TESTIFY?
SMITH: “That’s exactly what I’m going to do.” (J.R. TAKES HANNAH’S ADVICE!)
HANNAH: “All right. Well, let’s - - I’ll give you - - I’ll give you until five till, but the first ten minutes we’re going to take up and we might as well do that now with your client, that is, whether or not he wants to testify or not.”
COMMENT: TALK ABOUT CONFUSION! ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN J.R. AND AL PETTY! THIS IS ATTORNEY-CLIENT STUFF! IF THE JUDGE WAS NOT BIASED AGAINST AL PETTY TAKING THE STAND TO EXPLAIN, AS ONLY HE COULD, HIS OPERATION OF TELECOM2000, WHY DID HE PLAY SUCH A PROMINENT PART IN KEEPING AL PETTY FROM TESTIFYING. CERTAINLY JUSTICE WAS NOT ON THE MIND OF J. R. SMITH, OR JUDGE JOHN HANNAH, HUNTING DEER WAS THEIR CHIEF CONCERN.
SMITH: “Okay. Can I have five minutes and then - -.”
HANNAH: “We’ll come back in”.
SMITH: “Okay”.
HANNAH: “All right”.
HANNAH: “ We’ll take a break at this time for - - until 20 till. Then I would like to have the parties back in and, Mr. Bailiff, without any audience in for an ex parte - - for an in camera hearing, all right? Court’s in recess till 20 till.”
COMMENT: AFTER J. R. SMITH HAD STRONGLY ADVISED AL PETTY TO NOT TESTIFY! KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FOLLOWING WAS VIRTUALLY “PRE-PROGRAMMED” BY J. R. SMITH AND JUDGE HANNAH – BOTH OF WHOM WANTED TO BE ON THE DEER LEASE THE FOLLOWING DAY!
HANNAH: “All right. Let the record reflect we’re in the courtroom for a hearing in camera, with only court personnel and parties involved in the case present.
The issue is proceedings in the trial and whether or not the Defendant intends to or wishes to testify. Would you like to put your client on the stand, Mr. Smith?”SMITH: “Yes, Your Honor”.
HANNAH: Mr. Petty, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in.”
HANNAH: “Mr. Petty, if you’ll please take the witness stand.”
SMITH: “Throughout the last two and a half weeks that I have been your counsel, we have discussed, have we not, whether or not you would testify in this trial?
PETTY: “Yes”.
SMITH: “And you are familiar and I have made you familiar, have I not, with the pros and cons concerning your testimony?”
PETTY: “An awful lot of them. A lot of them certainly.”
SMITH: “Okay. And at least in our last conversation I related to you that you had every opportunity to testify but that you did not have to testify, and if you decided to testify, that you would be subject to cross-examination by the Government, is that correct?”
PETTY: “Correct.”
SMITH: “And it was my understanding, at least at this time, knowing that you do not have to testify, that it is your intention right now not to testify in this trial, depending upon the testimony of the expert witness, is that correct?”
COMMENT: THIS CONDITION WAS VOICED BY AL PETTY TO J. R. S.
PETTY: “Well stated, yes.”
SMITH: “Okay. And – but at least at this time, to inform this Court and inform the Government, it is not your intention to testify in the trial unless Mr. Lehrer’s testimony is offensive (INEFFECTIVE).
COMMENT: Al Petty NEVER SAID THAT, (“OFFENSIVE”).
PETTY: Unless I feel it’s not conclusive and that we’re ahead of the game. If I feel we’re behind, then I’ll take that risk.
SMITH: “Your Honor, that’s about as far as I could go with it."
COMMENT: i.e. It appears that Smith was telling his fellow "officer of the Court", JUDGE HANNAH, I did all I could to honor your request to “GET OUT OF HERE”! WHY WOULD IT MATTER TO JUDGE HANNAH EITHER WAY? AND, LEGALLY IT SHOULD NOT HAVE MATTERED TO HIM! Why would a senior Federal judge give a request to a defense attorney to help him "get out of here"? I'm sure ALL citizens believe that the proper focus of a judge is to request all participants to help him "stay here until justice is served", not to "help me get out of here", ("so I can get to the deer lease on time"!)
HANNAH: “All right. You understand, Mr. Petty, that the decision, upon advice of counsel, of course, is finally yours to make?"
COMMENT: HE SAID THAT “ON THE ADVICE OF GREGG AND J.R. “TO COVER HIS REAR"!
PETTY: “I appreciate that, sir.”
“On Whether Al Petty Should Testify”
COMMENT on “Document Pg 51”; (Transcript Pg 67) (Before Lehrer!)
(P67-L17-22) HANNAH: “All right, I’ll give you a break until - - I CAN TELL THE JURY THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST WITNESS”?
COMMENT: Al Petty did NOT know at this time that Lehrer would “be the last witness”. In other words, Al Petty did not know that he was NOT going to testify." AL PETTY’S DECISION TO TESTIFY DEPENDED ON HOW WELL LEHRER TESTIFIED. How did HANNAH, and apparently, J. R. know? Is the “ATTORNEY-CLIENT” privilege to know what is “going on” waived in a trial? Of course not! But HANNAH AND J. R. knew something that Al Petty was not going to do BEFORE Al Petty had made a decision not to do it.! J. R. SMITH, knowing that Al Petty had not made a decision, and therefore would “explode” at this – yet another – manifestation of fraud on the part of J. R., had common sense enough to say to the Judge, “LET ME TELL MY CLIENT”! Notice that he did not say, let me “persuade” my client, or even discuss it with him! OBVIOUSLY, between J. R. & HANNAH it was a “done deal”, a “FOREGONE CONCLUSION” that J. R. would be successful in “conning his client” into not testifying!!! Seems that J. R. and HANNAH Already knew they would “MAKE IT TO THE DEER LEASE ON TIME”, and the JUDGE wanted everyone else, (Jury), to know – BEFORE the man who’s life was at stake -, found out he was NOT going to testify. Of course, we’ll never know, but is it possible that J. R., ASSURED HANNAH that he would persuade Al Petty that he should not testify, and that is why HANNAH was ready to tell the Jury”? Immediately following the “LAST WITNESS” statement by HANNAH, J. R. SMITH reacted as follows:
SMITH (P67-L20-22): “SO THAT WE DON’T HAVE SOME TYPE OF “OUTBURST”, (BY AL PETTY!), your honor, If you wouldn’t tell them so that I can tell my client.”
COMMENT: As previously stated, Al Petty had NOT made a decision, yet HANNAH wanted to tell the JURY that Al Petty had made the decision to not take the stand on his own behalf. One thing is OBVIOUS, There were things going on between J. R. and the JUDGE that Al Petty should have been the CENTER of, YET, he was never consulted about this fateful Decision!
In retrospect, NO ONE had testified FACTUALLY to the REAL SYSTEM that enabled Al Petty to Guarantee 500 – 1100% returns, and DELIVER them unfailingly, to the TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS! Al Petty was the Creator and Founder of this revolutionary DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY. Therefore, in the “PURSUIT OF JUSTICE”, as opposed to the “Pursuit of JUST US”, (i.e. J. R. SMITH AND JUDGE HANNAH and their Deer Lease Reservation’s Just Us), Al Petty SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED by J. R. and HANNAH to TESTIFY to explain TeleCom2000 as only he could. The Attitude of J. R. towards Al Petty may have been expressed truthfully by J. R. in this discourse between HANNAH AND J. R. expressed earlier.HANNAH: (P225-L18-22) “I NOTICED THAT, IN THE FINAL CHARGE I DID NOT GIVE AN INSTRUCTION ON “THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY”, AND IT’S MY INTENTION TO GIVE THE JURY THAT INSTRUCTION WHEN THEY COME BACK IN. ANYBODY GOT ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?”
SMITH: (P226-L1-2) “YOUR HONOR, WE HAD JUST AS SOON LET “A SLEEPING DOG LIE!”
COMMENTARY: Consciously or sub-consciously J. R.:
A)Expressed his arrogance towards the well Known policy of the Judicial System to inform the Jurors as to the legal “non-significance” of a defendant choosing to not testify. We may never know whether J. R. actually KNEW that his client would be damaged by his collaboration with Judge Hannah to prevent Al Petty from testifying, or if he KNEW and simply didn't care, or if he was actually working as "an officer of the court" in the strictest sense of the word, as opposed to working as an attorney for his client who paid him $142,500.
Expressed his arrogance towards the well Known policy of the Judicial System to inform the Jurors as to the legal “non-significance” of a defendant choosing to not testify. We may never know whether J. R. actually KNEW that his client would be damaged by his collaboration with Judge Hannah to prevent Al Petty from testifying, or if he KNEW and simply didn't care, or if he was actually working as "an officer of the court" in the strictest sense of the word, as opposed to working as an attorney for his client who paid him $142,500.B)J. R. had been “practicing law”, (he NEEDS to “practice” it because he still doesn’t have it right!), for 29 years. (Too bad he was paid $142,500 to “practice” on Al Petty!) J. R. KNEW the policy of the court in this regard. By stating that he wanted to let the "sleeping dog"), (his client, Al Petty,") "lie and not inform the Jury", he extended his "contempt" for most people as well as showing his actual "CONTEMPT OF COURT"!
J. R. had been “practicing law”, (he NEEDS to “practice” it because he still doesn’t have it right!), for 29 years. (Too bad he was paid $142,500 to “practice” on Al Petty!) J. R. KNEW the policy of the court in this regard. By stating that he wanted to let the "sleeping dog"), (his client, Al Petty,") "lie and not inform the Jury", he extended his "contempt" for most people as well as showing his actual "CONTEMPT OF COURT"!C)J. R. showed his utter contempt of his client, as well as his lack of desire to “leave no stone unturned”, (quoting “RACEHORSE “HAYNES”), to do EVERYTHING he could to help his client win the case. Question: How often has an attorney referred to his client as “A SLEEPING DOG"?
J. R. showed his utter contempt of his client, as well as his lack of desire to “leave no stone unturned”, (quoting “RACEHORSE “HAYNES”), to do EVERYTHING he could to help his client win the case. Question: How often has an attorney referred to his client as “A SLEEPING DOG"?THE RESULT OF J. R. SMITH’S ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE:
The government, throughout the trial, distorted the truth, misrepresented, and made false statements regarding the following issues, thereby influencing the Jury to return a guilty verdict. Al Petty, as the Founder, Creator, CEO and owner of TeleCom2000 could have testified to the TRUTH, and likely won the case by explaining – as ONLY he was qualified to do, the following issues: (But this would have required several days and J. R. and HANNAH would have missed the opening day of Deer Season!) The revealing TRUTH about these issues with Al Petty's testimony would have proved his INNOCENCE! Here are but a few of the facts that Al Petty would have revealed that WOULD have changed the outcome of the trial:
1.Al Petty could have explained: “WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM to pay the guaranteed return of 500 – 1300%!? ONLY Al Petty could explain in “Layman’s Jury Terms” how he cut the cost of Long Distance and Cell Phone operation and Marketing by 90%, leaving MORE than enough money to fulfill EVERY contractual agreement!
Al Petty could have explained: “WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM to pay the guaranteed return of 500 – 1300%!? ONLY Al Petty could explain in “Layman’s Jury Terms” how he cut the cost of Long Distance and Cell Phone operation and Marketing by 90%, leaving MORE than enough money to fulfill EVERY contractual agreement!2.WHY DID HE MOVE THE OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS TO CANADA? The truth would have convinced ANYONE that Al Petty made this PRUDENT business decision, for ONE reason; to better serve his domestic clients, while greatly enhancing and expanding his international operation.
WHY DID HE MOVE THE OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS TO CANADA? The truth would have convinced ANYONE that Al Petty made this PRUDENT business decision, for ONE reason; to better serve his domestic clients, while greatly enhancing and expanding his international operation.3.WHY THE "GRATITUDE PAY" PLAN WAS AN EXCELLENT AND HONEST OFFER!
WHY THE "GRATITUDE PAY" PLAN WAS AN EXCELLENT AND HONEST OFFER!4.THE DIGITAL PRINCIPLES THAT AL PETTY UTILIZED TO ENABLE HIM TO GUARANTEE AND DELIVER a return of 500-1300%.
THE DIGITAL PRINCIPLES THAT AL PETTY UTILIZED TO ENABLE HIM TO GUARANTEE AND DELIVER a return of 500-1300%.5.THAT AL PETTY NEVER DEFRAUDED ANYONE, AND WHY HE WOULD NEVER IN THE FUTURE, AS ACCUSED, HAVE DECEIVED OR DEFRAUDED ANYONE!
THAT AL PETTY NEVER DEFRAUDED ANYONE, AND WHY HE WOULD NEVER IN THE FUTURE, AS ACCUSED, HAVE DECEIVED OR DEFRAUDED ANYONE!6.THAT THE “INTENT” OF AL PETTY WAS TO ENHANCE THE LIVES OF EVERY TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNER, NEVER TO DECEIVE OR HURT ANYONE!
THAT THE “INTENT” OF AL PETTY WAS TO ENHANCE THE LIVES OF EVERY TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNER, NEVER TO DECEIVE OR HURT ANYONE!7.AN ACCURATE AND DETAILED ACCOUNT OF “GOOD FRIDAY”, MAR 29, 2002, AS WELL AS THE PRECEDING 2 MONTHS THAT MANDATED THAT AL MOVE THE OPERATIONS TO CANADA AND OFFER THE GRATITUDE PAY PLAN TO HIS EMPLOYEES. THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE ONLY TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED SUCCESS OF TELECOM2000 ON A GLOBAL SCALE!
AN ACCURATE AND DETAILED ACCOUNT OF “GOOD FRIDAY”, MAR 29, 2002, AS WELL AS THE PRECEDING 2 MONTHS THAT MANDATED THAT AL MOVE THE OPERATIONS TO CANADA AND OFFER THE GRATITUDE PAY PLAN TO HIS EMPLOYEES. THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE ONLY TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED SUCCESS OF TELECOM2000 ON A GLOBAL SCALE!8.THAT AL PETTY’S VERY NATURE, BASED ON A LIFETIME OF UNPRECEDENTED ACHIEVEMENTS, VIRTUALLY ASSURED THAT HE WOULD ACCOMPLISH SUCH UNPARALELLED SUCCESS IN THE BUSINESS WORLD OF EARNING AND SAVING THAT HE WOULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT- BASED ON THEIR LUST FOR POWER, CONTROL AND GREED – THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN ALTHOUGH NO crime by Al Petty was committed or intended.
THAT AL PETTY’S VERY NATURE, BASED ON A LIFETIME OF UNPRECEDENTED ACHIEVEMENTS, VIRTUALLY ASSURED THAT HE WOULD ACCOMPLISH SUCH UNPARALELLED SUCCESS IN THE BUSINESS WORLD OF EARNING AND SAVING THAT HE WOULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT- BASED ON THEIR LUST FOR POWER, CONTROL AND GREED – THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN ALTHOUGH NO crime by Al Petty was committed or intended.9.THAT THE GOVERNMENT CLEARLY DID NOT MEET ITS “BURDEN OF PROOF”, THEREFORE THE ENTIRE CASE WAS BASED ON A ‘FABRICATION OF LIES’ AND THEREFORE WAS A “SHAM TRIAL”, RESULTING IN A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE.
THAT THE GOVERNMENT CLEARLY DID NOT MEET ITS “BURDEN OF PROOF”, THEREFORE THE ENTIRE CASE WAS BASED ON A ‘FABRICATION OF LIES’ AND THEREFORE WAS A “SHAM TRIAL”, RESULTING IN A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE.10.HOW THAT TELECOM2000 WAS BASED ON AL PETTY’S GOAL TO REVERSE THE OLD ADAGES THAT:
HOW THAT TELECOM2000 WAS BASED ON AL PETTY’S GOAL TO REVERSE THE OLD ADAGES THAT:a)“IT TAKES money to Make Money”, therefore
“IT TAKES money to Make Money”, thereforeb)“The Rich get richer and the Poor Get Poorer!”
“The Rich get richer and the Poor Get Poorer!”11.AL PETTY COULD HAVE PROVEN "BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT" THAT NONE OF THE 98 COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT EVER OCCURRED AND THAT AL PETTY NEVER INTENDED THAT THEY WOULD OCCUR AND THAT NONE OF THE 98 COUNTS WOULD EVER OCCUR AS CHARGED, WITHOUT THE FRAUDULENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT TO:
AL PETTY COULD HAVE PROVEN "BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT" THAT NONE OF THE 98 COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT EVER OCCURRED AND THAT AL PETTY NEVER INTENDED THAT THEY WOULD OCCUR AND THAT NONE OF THE 98 COUNTS WOULD EVER OCCUR AS CHARGED, WITHOUT THE FRAUDULENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT TO:a.STEAL THE FUNDS FROM AL PETTY SO THAT HE COULD NOT PAY THE TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS AND THEN TO
STEAL THE FUNDS FROM AL PETTY SO THAT HE COULD NOT PAY THE TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS AND THEN TOb.THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PROSECUTE AL PETTY FOR NOT PAYING THE BUSINESS OWNERS, WHILE MAKING SURE THAT AL PETTY COULD NOT PAY THEM BY THEIR KEEPING OF THE FUNDS AL PETTY ALLOCATED TO PAY THEM WITH!
THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PROSECUTE AL PETTY FOR NOT PAYING THE BUSINESS OWNERS, WHILE MAKING SURE THAT AL PETTY COULD NOT PAY THEM BY THEIR KEEPING OF THE FUNDS AL PETTY ALLOCATED TO PAY THEM WITH! 12.HOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT’S KEY WITNESS, SANDRA HALLEY, BURGLARIZED AL PETTY AND HID $98,000 FROM AL PETTY, WHILE PLANTING IT FOR THE FBI AND TELLING THEM WHERE TO FIND THE $98,000! THEREFORE THE SHUT DOWN, FREEZING OF THE FUNDS, SEARCH AND TRIAL, (ALL INCLUSIVE), WERE ILLEGAL ACTS BY THE GOVERNMENT!
HOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT’S KEY WITNESS, SANDRA HALLEY, BURGLARIZED AL PETTY AND HID $98,000 FROM AL PETTY, WHILE PLANTING IT FOR THE FBI AND TELLING THEM WHERE TO FIND THE $98,000! THEREFORE THE SHUT DOWN, FREEZING OF THE FUNDS, SEARCH AND TRIAL, (ALL INCLUSIVE), WERE ILLEGAL ACTS BY THE GOVERNMENT!13.HOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT’S FIRST INFORMANT, VIRGINIA MAYO, ATTEMPTED TO BLACKMAIL AL PETTY FOR A MILLION DOLLARS, (AS SANDRA HALLEY AND ANOTHER KEY GOVERNMNET WITNESS, ANITA BANKS ALSO TRIED TO BLACKMAIL AL PETTY FOR A MILLION DOLLARS EACH)! HOW THAT, INSPITE OF THE SINCERE EFFORTS TO KEEP HER FROM DOING SO, (BY EMPLOYEES DEBBIE GARRETT, SALLY BEARDEN AND DEBBIE WEEMS), MAYO THEN ATTEMPTED TO EXTORT $360,000 FROM AL PETTY, THREATENED TO SHUT HIM DOWN, IF HE DIDN’T PAY, ON APRIL 4TH AND DID GET HIM SHUT DOWN ON APRIL 4TH, 2002, AS THREATENED – INDICATING STRONGLY THAT SHE, BEING THE ORIGINAL INFORMANT, WAS INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY WITH TRACI KENNER AND GREGG MARCHESSAULT TO SHUT AL PETTY DOWN, RUIN THE LIVES OF 3,000 TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS AND IMPRISON AL PETTY FOR LIFE! (ALL OF WHICH ACTUALLY OCCURRED BECAUSE AL PETTY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN MAYO’S UNLAWFUL SCHEME TO DEFRAUD! (YET SHE WALKS FREE, UNPUNISHED FOR HER BLATANT CRIMES WHILE BEING USED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT AWAY AL PETTY FOR LIFE!)
HOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT’S FIRST INFORMANT, VIRGINIA MAYO, ATTEMPTED TO BLACKMAIL AL PETTY FOR A MILLION DOLLARS, (AS SANDRA HALLEY AND ANOTHER KEY GOVERNMNET WITNESS, ANITA BANKS ALSO TRIED TO BLACKMAIL AL PETTY FOR A MILLION DOLLARS EACH)! HOW THAT, INSPITE OF THE SINCERE EFFORTS TO KEEP HER FROM DOING SO, (BY EMPLOYEES DEBBIE GARRETT, SALLY BEARDEN AND DEBBIE WEEMS), MAYO THEN ATTEMPTED TO EXTORT $360,000 FROM AL PETTY, THREATENED TO SHUT HIM DOWN, IF HE DIDN’T PAY, ON APRIL 4TH AND DID GET HIM SHUT DOWN ON APRIL 4TH, 2002, AS THREATENED – INDICATING STRONGLY THAT SHE, BEING THE ORIGINAL INFORMANT, WAS INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY WITH TRACI KENNER AND GREGG MARCHESSAULT TO SHUT AL PETTY DOWN, RUIN THE LIVES OF 3,000 TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS AND IMPRISON AL PETTY FOR LIFE! (ALL OF WHICH ACTUALLY OCCURRED BECAUSE AL PETTY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN MAYO’S UNLAWFUL SCHEME TO DEFRAUD! (YET SHE WALKS FREE, UNPUNISHED FOR HER BLATANT CRIMES WHILE BEING USED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT AWAY AL PETTY FOR LIFE!)14.EXPLAIN ALL OF THE PERTINENT ISSUES IN THE ‘MINISTRY CHARITY ACCOUNT’ AND ITS SET UP, ONLY THEN WOULD THE JURY HAVE KNOWN THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS UNFORTUNATE, BUT LEGAL, MOVE BY AL PETTY TO PROTECT THE FUNDS OF THE TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS.
EXPLAIN ALL OF THE PERTINENT ISSUES IN THE ‘MINISTRY CHARITY ACCOUNT’ AND ITS SET UP, ONLY THEN WOULD THE JURY HAVE KNOWN THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS UNFORTUNATE, BUT LEGAL, MOVE BY AL PETTY TO PROTECT THE FUNDS OF THE TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNERS.15.TELL THE FACTUAL TRUTH REGARDING THE FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE AND CONSPIRATORIAL LIES OF “PROF” WM. CUNNINGHAM AND IMPEACH HIM FOR HIS NUMEROUS FALSE STATEMENTS, INCLUDING HIS $5,366,000,000 ABSOLUTE LIE!” THE LIE THAT WAS THE MAJOR FACTOR IN DECEIVING THE JURY THAT, ALTHOUGH AL PETTY NEVER DEFRAUDED ANYONE OR INTENDED TO DEFRAUD ANYONE, CUNNINGHAM’S FIVE BILLION DOLLAR “LIE OF FUTURE NEEDS” CONVINCED THE JURY THAT AL PETTY WOULD HAVE, DURING THE NEXT 6 YEARS, DEFRAUDED SOMEONE! “THAT WAS THE “BIG LIE” OF THE TRIAL AND ONLY AL PETTY UNDERSTOOD THE “FLOW CHART” OF HIS OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE WELL ENOUGH TO EXPOSE THIS FRAUDULENT INDIVIDUAL. J.R. NEVER EVEN UNDERSTOOD ENOUGH ABOUT AL PETTY AND TELECOM2000 TO OBJECT TO CUNNINGHAM’S FALSE STATEMENTS. HOWEVER ONE WOULD THINK THAT IN HIS PURSUIT OF JUSTICE FOR HIS CLENT, J. R. WOULD HAVE VALUED THE LIFE OF AL PETTY MORE THAN HE DID THE DEER HUNT, AND URGED AL PETTY TO TESTIFY. INSTEAD J. R. Failed miserably, to defend his client, but he did succeed in honoring Judge Hannah's request to "get him out of here", (to the deer lease) as he demonstrated his incompetence to present the TRUTH To The Jury about the above 15 issues and much more, Bottom Line is; AL PETTY SHOULD HAVE TESTIFIED!!!
TELL THE FACTUAL TRUTH REGARDING THE FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE AND CONSPIRATORIAL LIES OF “PROF” WM. CUNNINGHAM AND IMPEACH HIM FOR HIS NUMEROUS FALSE STATEMENTS, INCLUDING HIS $5,366,000,000 ABSOLUTE LIE!” THE LIE THAT WAS THE MAJOR FACTOR IN DECEIVING THE JURY THAT, ALTHOUGH AL PETTY NEVER DEFRAUDED ANYONE OR INTENDED TO DEFRAUD ANYONE, CUNNINGHAM’S FIVE BILLION DOLLAR “LIE OF FUTURE NEEDS” CONVINCED THE JURY THAT AL PETTY WOULD HAVE, DURING THE NEXT 6 YEARS, DEFRAUDED SOMEONE! “THAT WAS THE “BIG LIE” OF THE TRIAL AND ONLY AL PETTY UNDERSTOOD THE “FLOW CHART” OF HIS OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE WELL ENOUGH TO EXPOSE THIS FRAUDULENT INDIVIDUAL. J.R. NEVER EVEN UNDERSTOOD ENOUGH ABOUT AL PETTY AND TELECOM2000 TO OBJECT TO CUNNINGHAM’S FALSE STATEMENTS. HOWEVER ONE WOULD THINK THAT IN HIS PURSUIT OF JUSTICE FOR HIS CLENT, J. R. WOULD HAVE VALUED THE LIFE OF AL PETTY MORE THAN HE DID THE DEER HUNT, AND URGED AL PETTY TO TESTIFY. INSTEAD J. R. Failed miserably, to defend his client, but he did succeed in honoring Judge Hannah's request to "get him out of here", (to the deer lease) as he demonstrated his incompetence to present the TRUTH To The Jury about the above 15 issues and much more, Bottom Line is; AL PETTY SHOULD HAVE TESTIFIED!!!ALL of the above 15 issues that Al Petty would have explained to the Jury were distorted, twisted and manipulated by the prosecution to destroy Al Petty’s Credibility! The government OVERWHELMED J. R. on every one of these issues because of J. R.’s INEFFECTIVENESS! If J. R. had not been so arrogant, he would have admitted his failures and – in the name of JUSTICE, encouraged the ONLY PERSON who could present the ACTUAL FACTS, AL PETTY, to testify! ONLY AL PETTY’S TESTIMONY could have “REDEEMED” his case and JUSTLY influenced the Jury to find Al PETTY INNOCENT! On (P229-L19-22) J. R. emphasizes the obvious NEED that Al Petty should have testified, (from J. R.’s closing statement).
SMITH: “NOW, THE EVIDENCE HAS SHOWN THAT TELECOM2000 WAS SUCCESSFUL BEYOND ANYBODY’S IMAGINATION. “I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT”. I’LL BE THE FIRST ONE TO TELL YOU, BUT IT WAS SUCCESSFUL BEYOND ANYBODY’S, EXCEPT AL PETTY’S, WILDEST DREAMS!”
COMMENT: After ALL testimony and evidence was given and the trial was over, J. R. admits to the Jury that HE didn’t understand Al Petty – TeleCom2000! WHY did he tell the court at the beginning of the trial that he was “Ready to Proceed with the defense of Al Petty” if he didn’t understand how to direct and cross witnesses in an informed manner that would prove his client innocent. AND if at the conclusion of the trial, HE admitted that HE didn’t “understand it”, HOW could he possibly have expected the Jury to have understood the TRUTH? This was all the reason more to have Al Petty explain the business he created, and therefore was more qualified to explain to the Jury then anyone else on planet earth. Judge Hannah and J. R. Smith are DIRECTLY responsible for preventing Al Petty from saving his life, as well as the financial lives of 3,000 TeleCom2000 business owners. Judge John Hannah is now deceased, but John R. Smith should receive the greatest punishment available by law for this, as for admittedly taking $142,500 of Al Pettys' supporters' money to defend a man and a company that "he didn't have a clue" regarding their function.
