GOVERNMENT WITNESS SHAWNA OLSON – “CC WIRELESS” – VENDOR FOR CELL PHONES AND SERVICE TO TELECOM2000 – AL PETTY
CROSS BY JOHN R. SMITH (V2;P50;L3-20)
SMITH: “OKAY. AND SO, RATHER THAN $50 PER UNIT, AS REPRESENTED THUS FAR IN YOUR TESTIMONY, ACTUALLY IT’S AROUND $200?”
OLSON: “THAT’S CORRECT, YEAH”.
COMMENT: During “direct”, KENNER concealed the truth that Al Petty actually received $199 per cell phone activation. Her questions to Al Petty’s suppliers of Cell Phones deceived the Jury into believing that Al Petty earned only ¼th, ($50), of the amount he actually received for the sale of each cell phone that qualified for activation of service. At $50 per activation, Al Petty would have received $58,950. This low figure would falsely minimize the amount of revenue contributed by one of Al Petty’s products, Cell Phones and Services. KENNER made every attempt to minimize the value of Al Petty’s products and services, i.e., Long Distance, Marketing and Cell Phone. By keeping the revenue received from Cell Phones at a “FALSELY – LOW" figure, TRACI focused on building her FRAUDULENT PONZI Case against Al Petty. Actually Al Petty’s commissions and earnings from C.C. Wireless was $234,621. By convincing the Jury that TeleCom2000 received $175,671 less than Al Petty actually earned, the prosecution used this error of 150% to discredit the importance of Cell Phones as a product included with the sale of EVERY TELECOM2000 LEGITIMATE Business. Throughout the trial, even in Voir Dire of the Jury, this “pattern of deceit” was continually manifested by the Prosecution!
SMITH: “SO 150% DIFFERENCE IN THIS ‘MISREPRESENTATION’, IS THAT CORRECT?”
OLSON: “YES”
COMMENT: Notice that the biased Judge HANNAH did not instruct the Jury to correct the lie told them by KENNER.
SMITH: “DURING YOUR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. PETTY, HAS HE DEALT WITH YOU HONESTLY AND BEEN FORTH RIGHT?”
OLSON: “OH, YEAH, DEFINITELY.”
SMITH: “OKAY, HAS HE HONORED ALL OF HIS CONTRACTS?”
OLSON: “YES, SIR.”
SMITH: “ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY FRAUD THAT HE HAS PERPETRATED ON YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON?”
OLSON: “WE HAVE NEVER HAD ONE OUNCE OF PROBLEM WITH TELECOM2000!”
SMITH: “TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAVE ANY OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS COMPLAINED OF ANY FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY ON HIS PART?”
COURT: “I’M NOT” - - - - (Comment: Here is More “JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT by Judge HANNAH.)
COMMENT: The above dialogue was unquestionably and accurately describing AL PETTY as a man of integrity, who had defrauded no one, as well as validating TeleCom2000 as a LEGITIMATE BUSINESS. However, the Judge, rather than attempting to allow this validation of Legitimacy “to make the proper impression” on the Jury, interrupts this testimony that was favorable to AL PETTY, with a change of subject. This “abuse of power” to work to the advantage of the prosecution, was often skillfully demonstrated by the Judge throughout the trial.
OLSON: “NO”
COMMENT: In spite of Judge Hannah’s untimely and rude interruption, OLSON answers the question regarding any complaints by anyone that AL PETTY had defrauded them. THEN Hannah proceeds to act as if he were indeed the prosecution by pursuing his change of subject with the following question.
HANNAH: “WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF A BUSINESS OWNER?” (V2;P50;L21 THROUGH P51;L1-13)
OLSON: “THEIR DEFINITION OF - - - -“
COMMENT: Then Hannah interrupts again;
HANNAH: “THEIR, WHOSE?”
OLSON: “TELECOM2000, THEY DON’T CALL THEIR PEOPLE MEMBERS. THEY CALL THEM ‘BUSINESS OWNERS’.”
COMMENT: Then Hannah, interrupting the cross of OLSON, continues to act as prosecution as he makes every effort to prove to the Jury that TeleCom2000 was NOT a LEGITIMATE BUSINESS ENITY!
HANNAH: “DO YOU KNOW WHY?”
OLSON: “I JUST KNOW THAT THEY INVEST MONEY INTO THE PROGRAM. I REALLY DON’T KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THE BUSINESS.”
COMMENT: OLSON had mentioned previously that she did not need to know much about the operational details. However Hannah makes every effort to strengthen the government’s false implication that a person SHOULD know the “proprietary” operational functions of a business BEFORE Buying or Selling to them. Then, after pursuing this line of “prosecutorial-type” questioning, Hannah continued to pursue venues to help the government convict AL PETTY with the following question.
HANNAH: “YOU WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE ‘COMMONALITY’ OF PEOPLE WHEN YOU WANT TO SELL - - - YOU WANT TO SELL TO GROUPS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT”
OLSON: “YES, SIR.”
HANNAH: “WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ‘COMMONALITY’ FOR MR. PETTY’S GROUP?”
OLSON: “THAT THEY - - - THEY PAID MONEY TO BE A BUSINESS OWNER. THEY WERE PART OF A PROGRAM. THEY PARTICIPATED IN CONFERENCE CALLS, AND THEY WERE ALL MEMBERS OF TELECOM2000.”
COMMENT: If Hannah was truly trying to emphasize the truth, he could have asked OLSON something to this effect:
(HYPOTHETICAL – NOT IN TRANSCRIPTS)
HANNAH: “I believe you said you activated 1179 cell phone accounts for AL PETTY. Did I understand you to say that you NEVER had ONE COMPLAINT about AL PETTY, that – to the contrary – you found him to be a TOTALLY HONEST MAN OF INTEGRITY?”
OLSON: “Yes, and I meant every word of it!”
COMMENT: It is obvious throughout the trial that Hannah only expounded on topics that he KNEW would enhance the prosecution’s chances of convicting an innocent Business Owner, AL PETTY, while emphasizing the deception by the prosecution by validating their lies.
COMMENT: Following is the conclusion of testimony that KENNER attempted to deceive the Jury with her $175,000 misrepresentation of AL PETTY’S earnings from one of his products, Cell Phones:
SMITH: (V2;P52;L21 THRU P53;L5) “MS. OLSON, IF YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT ONLY WANTED TO HEAR THE ‘$50 PER UNIT’, RATHER THAN THE $200 FOR THE CELL PHONE?”
OLSON: “I COULDN’T TELL YOU THAT, SIR. I’M NOT SURE”.
COMMENT: Once again, the Judge “plays prosecution” in an attempt to discredit, even eliminate this important “issue in search of the truth”.
HANNAH: “WOULD THAT BE SPECULATION ON YOUR PART?”
OLSON: “YEAH, I DON’T KNOW”
COMMENT: It appears that Hannah thought he had “laid this issue that was favorable to Al Petty, to rest.
HANNAH: “ALL RIGHT”
COMMENT: But Smith rephrases the question and gets the truth:
SMITH: “LET ME ASK YOU THIS: DID IT SEEM UNUSUAL THAT THEY WEREN’T INTERESTED IN THIS?”
OLSON: “YES!” (Answer to question re: $50 - $199. Discrepancy in Al Petty’s earnings.
ANITA BANKS – Government Witness – EMPLOYEE
COMMENT: As was her custom, the final question asked of witnesses by KENNER before “Passing the witness” was a “HALF-TRUTH”, (FALSE STATEMENT to deceive the Jury). Fully Knowing that the REASON the last payroll check given to BANKS was bounced was because the government froze Al Petty’s accounts, KENNER, in her ongoing efforts to deceive the Jury into believing Al Petty did not pay persons as promised, asked the following:
KENNER: “DID YOU EVER RECEIVE YOUR FINAL PAYCHECK FROM AL PETTY?”
BANKS: “WELL, I HAD THE CHECK, BUT IT BOUNCED!”
KENNER: “PASS THE WITNESS”
COMMENT: However, in a RARE display of competence, JOHN R. SMITH followed up to discredit KENNER’S deception.
SMITH: (V2;P140;L6-10) “DID YOU TRY TO CASH IT AFTER THE 4TH DAY, OR THE SECOND DAY, OF APRIL?”
COMMENT: Another example of JOHN R. SMITH’S INEFFICIENCY, as happened several times, he did not even Know the All – important date of the freezing of the funds, April 4th 2002. However he was attempting to put the blame for the bounced check on the government, where it belonged.
BANKS: “SEE, WORKING NIGHTS, I DIDN’T GET THE CHECK AS EARLY AS EVERYONE ELSE DID, SO BY THE TIME IT WENT TO MY BANK AND THE OTHER BANK, THE ACCOUNT HAD ALREADY BEEN FROZEN."
SMITH: “AND THAT IS THE REASON THE CHECK BOUNCED?”
BANKS: “YES”
COMMENT: It appears that the “normal procedure” in the East Texas Federal Judicial System is that the Prosecutor, is permitted (thereby encouraged), to make False Statements, Half-Truths, Lies, in WHATEVER way they can conceive, and DECEIVE the Jury. Therefore unless, (as in the preceding situation), the defense counsel is able to expose the fraudulent intent of the prosecution, the false statements go into the record - and the MINDS of the JURORS – as truth. IS THIS THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE??? THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS?
DWAYNE PETTY – Government Witness – AL PETTY’S NEPHEW
COMMENT: Dwayne Petty videotaped the Conventions held by Al Petty for TeleCom2000. The following is but a “SUBTLE” example of small, but insidious, ways in which the prosecution distorted the truth in their efforts to deceive the Jury and convict an innocent man.
(PROSECUTOR MARCHESSAULT) (V2;P153;L18-P154;L4 – ON EDITING THE VIDEOTAPE): “DID YOU RECEIVE ANY GUIDANCE FROM MR. PETTY AS TO WHAT TO TAKE OUT?”
DWAYNE PETTY: “HE DID ASK ME TO EDIT OUT ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT I DID EDIT OUT, AND I DON’T KNOW THAT THAT WAS IN THE “TEACHING THE TEACHERS’” VIDEO. IT WAS JUST IN ANOTHER VIDEO.
MARCHESSAULT: “AND WHY DID HE ASK YOU TO EDIT THAT OUT?”
D. PETTY: “BECAUSE THERE WAS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.”
MARCHESSAULT: “IN OTHER WORDS, UNKIND WORDS WERE SPOKEN AND HE DIDN’T WANT THAT RECORDED.”
D. PETTY: "I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SPOKEN BETWEEN THEM. HE JUST ASKED ME TO DO IT AND I DID IT."
COMMENT: There were NO "UNKIND WORDS SPOKEN" ON THAT VIDEO BETWEEN AL PETTY AND THE DELETED PERSON. Marchessault had absolutely NO basis for that statement! However, if he could have gotten DWAYNE, in confusion, to agree with him, the Jury would have received the FALSE message that AL PETTY was attempting to edit out anything that would portray him in a negative - Argumentive - manner; that AL PETTY was being secretive and deceitful as to what he wanted to reveal about himself and his operation. Nothing could have been further from the truth, but for the "EVER-DECEPTIVE" GREGG MARCHESSAULT, (as well as TRACI KENNER), since he Knew HANNAH would allow him to deceive the Jury, GREGG thought it was worth a try!
BILL BYERS - TELECOM2000 BUSINESS OWNER - SUPPLIER OF TELECOM2000 TELECOMPUTORS - SUBPOENED BY GOVERNMENT AS WITNESS
COMMENT: Bill Byers called AL PETTY soon after purchasing multiple Businesses from AL PETTY. (The tape of this conversation was seized by the government and played for the Court and Jury.) The OBVIOUS reason for this phone call was that BYERS had some domestic problems concerning his wife. AL PETTY volunteered to loan BYERS his purchase price of $26,000. BYERS AGREED TO PAY THE LOAN BACK as soon as he had received $26,000 in commissions from his TeleCom2000 Business purchases. When BYERS had received $26,000 in commissions, he sent AL PETTY a letter and a check for $26,000 as payment in full for his LOAN. The $26,000 was CLEARLY NOT intended for the purchase of additional TeleCom2000 Businesses.
However the following testimony between BILL BYERS AND PROSECUTOR, GREGG MARCHESSAULT GRAPHICALLY illustrates the EXTREMES that the Prosecution resorted to in order to confuse the Jury and cause them to believe "whatever lie" the prosecution could conjur up to convict AL PETTY.THE "HALF-TRUTH QUESTION
MARCHESSAULT: (V2;P187;L3-6&15-18) "NOW DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU CONTACTED MR. PETTY BY TELEPHONE CONCERNING YOUR TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS OR INVESTMENTS TO EXPRESS A CONCERN TO HIM?
COMMENT: Note the DECEPTIVE nature of this question: The "CONCERN" was NOT about BYER'S "TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS", (note that MARCHESSAULT, throughout the trial, referred to TELECOM2000 as a "BUSINESS", although, with his "FORKED-TONGUE", he focused on convicting AL PETTY of running a PONZI, often saying it was NOT a BUSINESS - as TRACI KENNER ALSO DID?). Bill's concern, however, was not about his Businesses, as GREGG tried to portray, it was about his personal domestic problems.
However, in his continual efforts to prove that persons, other than the government, were concerned about the future of TELECOM2000 - AL PETTY, he resorts to HALF-TRUTHS, (FALSE STATEMENTS), to deceive the Jury regarding AL PETTY'S INTENT AND INTEGRITY for the future. The "HALF" that was truth was that Bill Byers had a concern - The "HALF" that was not told was that the concern was NOT about AL PETTY or the Future of TeleCom2000 as a legitimate business! MARCHESSAULT began his attempted deceit by IMPLYING that BYER'S concern was about AL PETTY'S INTEGRITY AND TELECOM2000'S STABILITY! Recognizing what MARCHESSAULT was "up to", BYERS replied as follows:BYERS: "I REMEMBER THE CONFERENCE THAT WE HAD, AND THE DISCUSSION WE HAD, BUT IF YOU WERE ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT MY CALL HAD TO DO PRIMARILY WITH MY CONCERN FOR HIS BUSINESS, THAT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT!
COMMENT: One would think this straitforward answer would have put an end to MARCHESSAULTS "ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE JURY", but, far from ending it, Bill's answer caused MARCHESSAULT to go to great efforts to prove his lie - to the eventual point that MARCHESSAULT appeared - to JOHN R. SMITH - to be attempting to "IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS!"
BILL BYERS RECALL NEXT DAY
COMMENT: GREGG MARCHESSAULT continues next day to convince Jury of 2 Lies, that:
1) Bill Byers called Al Petty because Byers felt that Al Petty's Business was about to collapse because it was illegal. (Lie #1)
2) That the $26,000 check that Bill Byers sent Al Petty was for "re-investment" in TeleCom2000, when in reality it was evident that the check was for re-payment of the $26,000 LOAN made to Byers from Al Petty. (Lie #2)
Note that the court, (John HANNAH) allowed MARCHESSAULT to pursue this "TRAVESTY of the use of the Court and ABUSE of power of the U.S. Attorneys" for an extended period of time.
MARCHESSAULT: (V3;P18-19;L24&1-3) "WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, AT LEAST, BEGINNING WITH 'DEAR AL'?"
COMMENT: The letter in question is the letter BYERS wrote, in gratitude for AL PETTY'S offer - & loan - of $26,000.
BYERS: "THANKS FOR YOUR OFFER. IT WILL PROVIDE THE SOLUTION OF MY PROBLEM"
COMMENT: MARCHESSAULT would deceive the Jury to believe that BILL'S "PROBLEM" was his "lack of faith" in AL PETTY, rather than the TRUTH, that his "problem" was a domestic problem from the TRUTH - that AL PETTY - NOT because it was a good business decision for AL PETTY, but because he wanted to help Bill to the "tune of" $26,000. And consider this; AL PETTY was considerate enough of his long time friend to offer to pay him over $120,000 in commissions for Businesses that BYERS had absolutely NO funds "out - of - pocket-" - in! By loaning BYERS the $26,000 he had used to purchase businesses and asking Bill to not repay the loan untill he received $26,000 in commissions, BYERS had no money in the purchase. THAT IS THE TYPE OF INTEGRITY AND FRIENDSHIP that MARCHESSAULT, KENNER, HERSLEY, HERRARA, HANNAH AND CUNNINGHAM APPARENTLY COULD NEVER comprehend, nor manifest to a friend, or accept as a LEGITIMATE OFFER. Hence, their condemnation of AL PETTY! HELPING others is not a "way of life" with which these "agents of conspiracy were familiar!
MARCHESSAULT: (V3;P19;L16-P20;L1-2) "I'M GOING TO THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS EXHIBIT. IF YOU WOULD, JUST READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, SIR". (The reading of the letter continues)
BYERS: "I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE SCHEDULED PAYMENTS WILL COME TO US AS PLANNED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. I PLAN, AT THAT TIME, TO RE-APPLY THE FUNDS". - - - - "I UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE, THAT NO SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT OF ANY KIND, LIKE THIS, WILL BE REQUESTED IN THE FUTURE. THIS KIND OF NEED WILL NOT OCCUR IN THE FUTURE ANYWAY."
COMMENT: It is significant as we go through this "USURP OF THE COURT", and deception of the Jury to remember that BYERS made it clear that:
1) He did not plan to re-purchase UNTIL HE RECEIVED ALL commissions from 29 Businesses. This is about as clear as one could make it! Yet MARCHESSAULT Proceeds to deceive the Jury into believing the $26,000 re-payment of LOAN was for the purchase of additional businesses!
2) Bill Byers, "I FIRMLY BELIEVE" states clearly that Bill HAD FULL FAITH IN AL PETTY AND TELECOM2000, yet MARCHESSAULT tries to deceive the Jury into believing that BYERS had questionable faith in AL PETTY'S INTEGRITY AND TELECOM2000'S FUTURE.
3) BILL RE-AFFIRMS that the problem in Focus was not because of doubt in AL PETTY but because of a personal domestic problem that he did not expect to arise again, AND
(YET)
MARCHESSAULT: (V3;P25;L13-P26;L4) "DID YOU, IN FACT, RE-INVEST FUNDS, SIR?"
BYERS: "NO, BECAUSE THE TERM HADN'T 'TRANSPIRED'."
COMMENT: The above was stated clearly by BYERS, previously!
MARCHESSAULT: "SO YOU DID NOT RE-INVEST FUNDS?"
BYERS: "NO!"
MARCHESSAULT: "GOOD. LET ME SHOW YOU GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBIT 23 THEN. IT'S A LETTER DISCUSSING YOU'RE 'EXPRESS MAILING' FUNDS TO MR. PETTY TO RE-INVEST. IF YOU WOULD, TAKE A MOMENT AND READ THAT".
COMMENT: WOW! This is the letter stating that the check for $26,000 that BILL expressed to Al was for RE-PAYMENT OF LOAN; NOT RE-PURCHASE!
BYERS: "YES, IT'S JUST RE-ITERATING. IT'S THE SAME THING I SAID!"
MARCHESSAULT: "DOES THAT HELP YOU REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, SIR, THAT IN FACT YOU DID RE-INVEST FUNDS WITH TELECOM2000?
BYERS: "I DID NOT!!"
MARCHESSAULT: "DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT AS A LETTER YOU SENT TO MR. PETTY?"
BYERS: "YES, BUT I DID NOT RE-INVEST FUNDS, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!"
MARCHESSAULT: ("Backs up" but comes back afterward in pursuit of his deceit!) "WELL, JUST LET ME ASK YOU THIS; IS THAT A LETTER THAT YOU SENT MR. PETTY?
BYERS: "WELL, YES."
LATER
COMMENT: JUDGE HANNAH WAS "Prejudicially-Negligent" in allowing this "waste of the court" to continue!
MARCHESSAULT: (V3;P27;L13-25) "WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS LOOK AT THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, AND I'M GOING TO READ IT TO YOU. 'EXPRESS COMING TO YOU TODAY IS A CHECK THAT COMPRISES #1.) THE EXACT SUM YOU SENT ME FOR DEPOSIT ABOUT ONE MONTH AGO. MY GRATITUDE GOES OUT TO YOU AGAIN FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM I HAVE, WHICH IT DID BEAUTIFULLY. I ESPECIALLY APPRECIATED YOUR COUNTER OFFER TO CONTINUE THE TELECOM PROGRAM FOR MY FIVE BUSINESS ENTITIES AS THOUGH THIS DID NOT OCCUR. CHECKS COMING TO US ARE APPROACHING THE TOTAL AMOUNT. THEREFORE I EXPRESSED TO YOU YESTERDAY THE FULL AMOUNT, AFTER RECEIVING THE FULL RETURNS IN APRIL AND MAY, COMPLETE REPURCHASE OF BUSINESSES WILL OCCUR IN A MAXIMUM MANNER."
BYERS: "YES"
MARCHESSAULT: (V3;P28;L1-25) "DID YOU, IN FACT, RETURN MONIES TO MR. PETTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHAT YOU CHARACTERIZED AS BUSINESS FOR TELECOM2000?"
BYERS: "I DID NOT, IN FACT, MAKE ANY INVESTMENT BEYOND THIS AMOUNT THAT IS STATED IN THAT PARAGRAPH. THIS AMOUNT THAT'S STATED IN THAT PARAGRAPH IS THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT MR. PETTY FORWARDED TO ME A MONTH PRIOR TO THAT BECAUSE OF MY PROBLEM, AND THAT IS THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT I RETURNED TO HIM, JUST LIKE IT SAYS!"
MARCHESSAULT: "FOR THE PURCHASE OF - - - "
BYERS: "NO, NO! NOT FOR THE PURCHASE! NOT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ANYTHING! THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT PARAGRAPH THAT STATES THAT I'M RETURNING THOSE FUNDS TO PURCHASE MORE!"
MARCHESSAULT: "WELL, I UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOT A QUESTION WITH MY PHRASING. THIS WAS NOT TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES, YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS SIMPLY IN PAYMENT FOR THE BUSINESSES YOU HAD ALREADY PURCHASED?"
COMMENT: INCREDIBLE!
BYERS: "THE RETURN OF FUNDS HE PAID ME."
MARCHESSAULT: "BECAUSE HE HAD GIVEN YOU YOUR FULL PROFIT IN ADVANCE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?"
BYERS: NO! HE HAD PAID TO ME - - HE HAD PAID - - RETURNED MONEY TO ME THAT I ACTUALLY PAID TO START WITH FOR THE BUSINESSES!"
MARCHESSAULT: "NOW I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU."
BYERS: "AND THAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT I RETURNED TO HIM."
MARCHESSAULT: "YOU RETURNED TO HIM YOUR INVESTMENT THAT YOU HAD MADE WITH HIM EARLIER?"
BYERS: "THAT'S RIGHT."
COMMENT: WHY did HANNAH allow this DECEITFUL ATTEMPT to go to this degree. He HAD to be aware of MARCHESSAULT'S effort to deceive the Jury, then to have the nerve to pretend he did not "understand"!
SMITH: (ON CROSS V3;P42;L7 THROUGH P44;L19) "AS A MATTER OF FACT, MR. PETTY IS PRETTY PERSISTENT ABOUT RECORDING EVERYTHING THAT HE DOES ON THE TELEPHONE, OR ON A COMPUTER OR ANYTHING ELSE ISN'T HE?"
BYERS: "I'VE HEARD HIM SAY THAT MANY TIMES, 'I RECORD EVERYTHING'."
COMMENT: Would a person who intends to "deceive and defraud and abscond with the funds" record everything?
SMITH: "AND SO THE JURY WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THAT STATEMENT, THE RECORDING, (PLAYED), TODAY, CAME FROM AL PETTY'S EQUIPMENT THAT WAS SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT."
BYERS: "THAT'S CORRECT"
SMITH: "NOW, WHEN YOU CALLED HIM IN REGARD TO THE MONIES THAT WERE CONCERNED - - - AND THE JURY CAN READ, AND WE CAN RECALL YOUR INTERCHANGE WITH YOUR WIFE AND ALL - - - WHAT YOU WANTED WAS THE SECURITY, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO LOSE ANY MONEY, IS THAT CORRECT?"
BYERS: "IN HER HEART AND MIND, I WANTED HER TO HAVE THAT PEACE OF MIND."
SMITH: "OKAY."
BYERS: "MY CONCERN, IN RELATION TO THE COMPANY, WAS NO MORE THAN WHAT MY CONCERN IS TODAY WHEN I LOOK AT THE STOCK MARKET. YOU KNOW, OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, IT'S GOING TO DO THUS AND SO, I HOPE. ANY BUSINESS COULD FAIL AT ANY TIME. I HAD NO PARTICULAR CONCERN ANY MORE THAN THAT. MY MOTIVATION, I THINK YOU CAN TELL BY THE TENOR OF MY VOICE, WAS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM THERE THAT WE HAD JUST TALKED ABOUT."
SMITH: "OKAY. SO YOU WEREN'T IN ANY - - - IN ANY ANTICIPATION OF ANY IMPENDING LOSS OF A BUSINESS OR ANYTHING AT THAT TIME, IS THAT CORRECT?"
BYERS: "NO."
SMITH: "THIS WAS SORT OF A HOUSEKEEPING, A 'HONEY-DO' TYPE THING?"
BYERS: "RIGHT"
SMITH: "IS THAT CORRECT?"
BYERS: "RIGHT"
SMITH: "OKAY. AND YOU RECEIVED THAT MONEY, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THROUGH CHECKS WRITTEN BY MR. PETTY?
BYERS: "ON A REGULAR BASIS, JUST LIKE THE CHART MENTIONED. I RECEIVED THE FUNDS LIKE CLOCK WORK, AND IN 30 DAYS THERE WAS MORE FUNDS THAN WHAT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR ME TO PAY THE CHECK BACK, WHICH I DID PROMPTLY."
SMITH: "OKAY. LET ME BACK UP. WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS, ONCE YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. PETTY, HE WROTE YOU A CHECK FOR $26,000. IS THAT CORRECT?"
BYERS: NODS AFFIRMATIVE
SMITH: "AND YOU GOT THAT FORTHWITH?"
BYERS: "IMMEDIATELY!"
SMITH: "OKAY. AND THEN, OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, THROUGH THE INCOME OFF OF THE BUSINESSES, YOU ACCUMULATED ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY HIM BACK. IS THAT CORRECT?
BYERS: "CORRECT."
SMITH: "OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ON THIS. THE LETTER THAT YOU WROTE, AND THE MONEY THAT YOU SENT BACK TO HIM WAS FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF WHAT WAS TANTAMOUNT TO A LOAN?"
BYERS: "RIGHT"
SMITH: "IS THAT CORRECT?"
BYERS: "CORRECT"
SMITH: "IT WASN'T INVESTING IN NEW BUSINESSES AT THAT TIME?"
BYERS: "NONE, WHATSOEVER!"
SMITH: "IS THAT CORRECT?"
BYERS: "NONE WHATSOEVER. THE AMOUNT ITSELF TELLS THE PICTURE, BECAUSE IT WAS THE IDENTICAL AMOUNT!
COMMENT: SURELY the "EAST TEXAS FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM" IS NOT TYPICAL OF the districts throughout the U.S??? With this "ABUSE OF POWER and of the COURT'S TIME", it is no wonder that the BACKLOGS of Court Cases is in a critical state. It is nothing short of a TRAVESTY of Justice for the Federal Judge to allow, (and thereby, encourage), the prosecution to usurp our courts and SQUANDER our tax payers' money in a manner that is INTENDED to do NOTHING OTHER THAN ALLOW the PROSECUTION to devote as much time and tell as many lies, as is necessary to get the Jury to BELIEVE A LIE and CONVICT AN INNOCENT MAN. SOMEONE MUST GIVE AN ACCOUNT FOR THIS TOTAL BLASPHEMY OF THE WORD, "JUSTICE" By our FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM!!
COMMENT: Can you believe that, after J.R. SMITH'S CROSS EXAM of BILL BYERS, and after MARCHESSAULT had admitted that he was wrong, and thanking BYERS for clarifying the issue, MARCHESSAULT Goes back to his efforts to deceive the Jury regarding the $26,000 loan; AND, he is allowed by JUDGE HANNAH to do so!!!
RE-DIRECT BY MARCHESSAULT
MARCHESSAULT: (V3;P49;L20, PLUS MOST OF P50 & L1-2 OF P51) "I BELIEVE, ON CROSS, YOU MENTIONED YOUR MOTIVATION IN REQUESTING THE RETURN OF YOUR MONIES PAID TO TELECOM2000 IS ACTUALLY THE CONCERNS OF YOUR WIFE, AND NOT YOUR CONCERN. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?"
BYERS: "YES".
MARCHESSAULT: "YOU MAY RECALL ON THE AUDIO RECORDING WE LISTENED TO, YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID TO MR. PETTY, 'WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MAY HAPPEN, WE COULD HAVE SEIZURE BY THE GOVERNMENT, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.' ISN'T THAT TRUE?"
BYERS: "I CERTAINLY SAID THAT"!
MARCHESSAULT: "OKAY"
BYERS: "I HAD GOOD REASON TO SAY THAT. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?"
COMMENT: Notice now that MARCHESSAULT DID NOT ASK the question because he wanted the Jury to hear the truth. He obviously asked the question so that he could put his own "HALF-TRUTH" FALSE 'Spin' on it. But BYERS PERSISTED:
MARCHESSAULT: "I'M SURE IT WILL BE BROUGHT OUT IF DEFENSE COUNSEL WANTS TO KNOW.
COMMENT: In other words, "I am not seeking justice for Al Petty, I'm going to convict him, and the TRUTH is not going to help me convict him, SO I DON'T WANT to hear it!)
MARCHESSAULT Cont: "I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID ON THE TAPE."
BYERS: "I'LL TRY TO BE VERY BRIEF ABOUT IT".
MARCHESSAULT: "WELL, IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP US, SIR, PLEASE DO."
COMMENT: Can't help but wonder who US is - MARCHESSAULT or AL PETTY - ? JUSTICE???
BYERS: "I DON'T KNOW A COMPANY THAT EVER EXISTED THAT DIDN'T HAVE THAT POTENTIAL. IT COULD GO 'BUST' ANYTIME, WHETHER IT BE BROUGHT DOWN BY WHATEVER REASONS, AND THAT WAS MY REASON".
(Cont. in L20) "I THINK INNOVATIVE BUSINESSES, THAT DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY, THAT ARE MISUNDERSTOOD, WOULD HAVE A GREATER TENDENCY TO BE SEIZED, TO LOOK AFTER; AND THAT'S NOT ALL BAD, BECAUSE THE JOB THERE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ABSCONDED WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE'S MONEY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE HERE BECAUSE I KNOW THE TRUST WORTHY PERSON INVOLVED; BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO!COMMENT: The "common thread" throughout the trial was that the government, who DID NOT KNOW, NOR DID THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO AL PETTY WAS; WHAT HE HAD ACCOMPLISHED; HIS NATURE OR INTEGRITY; These Persons who knew NOTHING ABOUT AL PETTY, THE MAN, i.e., THE GOVERNMENT, were ALWAYS THE ONLY ACCUSERS OF AL PETTY. Without exception, those persons such as BILL BYERS, who KNEW AL PETTY, were in UNIFIED SUPPORT OF HIM!
In fact, the honest efforts by government witness, BILL BYERS, to state the FACTS, in spite of MARCHESSAULTS Blatant FALSE STATEMENTS TO DECEIVE the Jury, resulted in this exchange during re-direct at the close of BYERS testimony:SMITH INTERRUPTS
SMITH: (V3;P52;L3-4) "YOUR HONOR, THEY'RE TRYING TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS!" (V3;P53;L8-9)
SMITH: "MAY HE BE EXCUSED?"
MARCHESSAULT: "PERMANTLY, PLEASE!"
COMMENT: In all honesty, he should have added "Bill Byers determination to tell the truth made a fool out of me, and I MADE A MOCKERY OF THE COURT."
SANDRA HALLEY: EMPLOYEE who burglarized AL PETTY FOR $98,000 and "PLANTED" IT FOR FBI "EVIDENCE" THAT AL PETTY was 'DIVERTING THE FUNDS FOR HIS PERSONAL USE', AND INTENDED TO 'ABSCOND' WITH THE MONEY. SANDRA ALSO ATTEMPTED TO BLACKMAIL AL PETTY FOR $1,000,000. SHE WAS A GOVERNMENT INFORMANT, GUILTY OF 'CHECK BY THEFT' BY ACCEPTING WAGES of $2,000 - $3,000 via CHECKS FROM AL PETTY, WHILE, IN FACT, WORKING FOR THE FBI. SANDRA ALSO WAS A KEY GOVERNMENT WITNESS. KNOWING HER BACKGROUND, TRACI KENNER USED THIS HOSTILE WITNESS WHO, IN REALITY, WAS AN 'UN-CONVICTED' CRIMINAL, TO "EXPLAIN" AL PETTY'S OPERATIONAL DETAILS TO THE COURT AND THE JURY!
COMMENT: Since the 1950's Al Petty's 'philosophy' has been that a person should be rewarded for results, not for merely 'putting in their time'! "For 50 years, virtually every employee of Al's was paid a modest 'guaranteed wage', However, IF they were one of the 'average of 13 employees hired', to one that was KEPT", AL PETTY offered that 'ONE' an opportunity to work 'Long, Hard and Focused' and earn far more money working for him than they had EVER earned in their life. And, of course, they could earn several times the amount earned by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, IF they PRODUCED RESULTS. This explains why Al Petty, for the past 50 years, hired 13 persons, average, for every one he Kept. In fact, when Al was in his 20's, in the 1950's, he offered persons who worked for him at FENDER MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS in Fullerton, CA, the opportunity to earn the EQUIVALENT OF the $50 to $90 per hour that he paid his TELECOM2000 Employees who worked long hours and PRODUCED for the TELECOM2000 Business Owners.
During the trial, KENNER, MARCHESSAULT AND CUNNINGHAM FALSELY presented this 'long time policy' of AL PETTY'S in a manner INTENDED to convince the Jury that AL PETTY was acting irresponsibly as a Businessman, by paying unheard of wages to his employees. As with their total 'MISCONCEPTION' of AL PETTY'S entire operation, enabling him to pay the 500 - 1300 % returns to his TeleCom2000 Business Owners, the government's TOTAL Lack of Comprehension of AL PETTY'S strict and unique Employee Wage policies was presented by the prosecution to the Jury as FALSE PROOF that AL PETTY was not running a LEGITIMATE BUSINESS. The fact is that some of these employees worked from 70 to over 100 hours per week and PRODUCED UNBELIEVABLE RESULTS as the product of their TOTAL COMMITTMENT to the success of TeleCom2000 and serving the TeleCom2000 Business Owners! It is important to note that; whereas AL PETTY offered them the OPPORTUNITY to work "TWO to TWO and a HALF" WEEKS PER WEEK. He never asked them to, nor DEMANDED that type of focus from them. EVERY employee will testify to that fact.The HALF-TRUTH that the Prosecution employed to deceive the Jury and Court was telling them of the employees basic wage of $12 - $18 per hour, and THEN telling the Jury about BONUSES of $2,000 - $4,000 or more per week, WITHOUT telling the Jury that that person actually worked "2 plus" weeks that week; AND that the complex incentive program AL PETTY offered them "integrated" the number of hours worked to the GROSS AMOUNT produced by TeleCom2000 and rewarded them with a PERCENTAGE of the gross receipts. Their percentage was determined by this complex incentive plan for ALL employees:1) Their base hourly pay. Al Petty determined every employee's base hourly rate, RELATIVE to the other employees "PRODUCTION value". Therefore every employee was determined, SOLELY by Al Petty, to be worth a fixed percentage of the whole amount of the aggregate employees' Bonus! For example; with 10 employees, if everyone's skills and production rate was equal, (which could never be, but, if it were), each employee would be entitled to 10% of the gross amount of that week's EARNED BONUS. By evaluating each employee and setting their basic pay accordingly, Al Petty assigned a percentage of the bonus that was earned, based on their base pay. Of 10 employees, one employee may receive 7%, while another employee, (for example, who typed 100 w.p.m., compared to 55 w.p.m.) received 13% of the earned bonus.
2) Another factor that determined the employee's bonus was the number of hours they worked. These unprecedented bonuses REPLACED the normal - UNION mandated - "TIME and 1/2 and DOUBLE and TRIPLE - TIME OVERTIME", that are based by unions solely on "Putting in your time". AL PETTY DID NOT AND COULD NOT EVEN THINK in those "CONVENTIONAL - WAGE" TERMS! Hence the huge bonuses. As in the overall operation, Al Petty produced unparalled commissions for TeleCom2000 Business Owners, via the same "OUT-OF-THE-BOX" Creative and Complex manners. This enabled him to hire ONLY the VERY BEST AVAILABLE employees and pay them in direct proportion to their productivity!
Note however how KENNER handled this and how that SANDRA HALLEY cooperated with her, as well as the fact that JOHN R. SMITH did not follow through on cross and correct the false impression made on the Jury by KENNER and HALLEY. (Note: A third factor in the compensation FORMULA was based on whether the local staff, that the Formula was based on dividing among, were able to stay current without AL PETTY employing additional help, thereby increasing the cost, to keep current with the work load.)
SMITH: (V3;P178;L25) "HOW MUCH WERE YOU MAKING AN HOUR OUT THERE IN THE BEGINNING?"
HALLEY: (P179;L1) "I WANT TO SAY I HIRED IN AT LIKE 12 OR 13 AN HOUR."
SMITH: (L9-10) "ON MARCH 31ST, HOW MUCH WERE YOU MAKING?"
HALLEY: (L11-13) "I WAS AT $15 AN HOUR."
SMITH: "$15 AN HOUR?"
HALLEY: "YES, SIR."
SMITH: (V3; P179-180;L14-25 & 1-15) "OKAY, IS THERE A CHECK IN THERE, TWO CHECKS IN THERE DATED MARCH 26TH, 'BONUS FOR EMPLOYMENT', ONE OF THEM FOR $3,616.28? THOSE WILL BE HANDWRITTEN CHECKS BY AL.
HALLEY: "I'M LOOKING FOR THAT. JAN 26TH, THERE WAS ONE FOR $3,616.28."
COMMENT: Note that this same employee, after receiving these unparalled wages from AL PETTY, burglarized him for $98,000, tried to blackmail him for $1,000,000; stole documents, etc. from AL PETTY. THIS is the Kind of Witness and informant used by the Government!
COMMENT: (V4;P13;L8-18) The following is yet ANOTHER attempt by KENNER to depict AL PETTY as one who would deceive).
KENNER: "MR. PEJOVICH, DID YOU ACTUALLY PURCHASE A BUSINESS FROM TELECOM2000?"
PEJOVICH: "YES MA'AM, I SURE DID!"
COMMENT: Although a government witness, IVAN'S emphatic answer shows his respect for the integrity of Al Petty and TeleCom2000.
KENNER: "HOW MUCH DID YOU INVEST?"
PEJOVICH: "OVER $10,000" (Note: IVAN purchased a PRO - TEN".)
COMMENT: As we will discover in subsequent testimony from TeleCom2000 Business Owners, TRACI KENNER REPEATEDLY ASKS a question that was intended to deceive the Jury into believing that AL PETTY defrauded purchasers by taking their money, then not paying their commissions, as agreed. SHE KNEW that ANYONE who purchased after November, 2001 did not receive their money back because the larger checks were paid during the 4th, 5th and 6th months of the 6 month commission contract. Therefore she ALWAYS called on Business Owners who purchased too late to get their money back, and ALWAYS asked these late purchasers if they got their money back, KNOWING their commissions were NOT DUE, and that SHE and the government were the REASON the person being questioned did NOT get their money back! TRACI ALSO KNEW that the Jury did NOT KNOW the TRUTH - that the witness was actually VICTIMIZED by HER ACTIONS, along with the FBI and government! However the deceptive conspiracy by the government to deceive and defraud the Jury into believing A LIE apparently succeeded, due to the ineffective counsel of AL PETTY, JOHN R. SMITH'S, ineptness to "nail Traci and MARCHESSAULT to the cross" for this flagrant deception of the Jury.
KENNER: (question repeated by editor) "HOW MUCH DID YOU INVEST?"
PEJOVICH: "OVER $10,000."
KENNER: "DID YOU EVER RECEIVE ANY PAYMENTS ON THAT?"
PEJOVICH: "ONLY 'QUICK CASH', THE FIRST THING YOU GET, AND AFTER THAT, NOTHING."
KENNER: "WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE THE BUSINESS?"
PEJOVICH: "THAT I DON'T REMEMBER. SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY, BUT I DON'T RMEMBER THE DATE.
COMMENT: Nothing more was due than PETOVICH'S "QUICK CASH"! TRACI KNEW this, but the Jury did not, and therefore interpreted it as AL PETTY causing PEJOVICH to lose $10,000!
(V4;P14;L3-9)
KENNER: "DOES MR. PETTY STILL OWE YOU MONEY FOR THE COMPUTER WORK YOU DID?"
COMMENT: Traci now continues to deceive the Jury. She KNEW AL PETTY had paid PEJOVICH for MANY Products and services that he did NOT deliver to AL PETTY!
PEJOVICH: "FOR THE - - - ONLY FOR THE COMPUTER WORK THAT WAS DONE IN CANADA."
COMMENT: KENNER AND PEJOVICH KNEW that he had received $600,000 during the 3 month preceding the time that PEJOVICH moved the equipment to Canada. They also KNEW there was NO MONEY available to pay him in Canada because the government stole it!
