Sorry I only have 3 posts per day, there is no moderator to write to on this thread to ask for a few more. Just trying to pass information along. It appears some of you dont want to read it, maybe a few do. as follows :
On October 3, 2006 Jack Orr of Merrill Lynch speaks with the Transfer Agent's office and initiates something called DWAC instructions. [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EXHIBIT 2]
On October 3, 2006 a company by the name of Ecowood, LTD via Michael Alexander put out a press release stating that it was from negotiating with CHSD and proceeded to push his new company. The press release contained the following text; “Mr. Alexander has received independent values on the logs from an outside source, which put current market value approx, 75 billion USD. The cardoon credits current value are approximately 4 trillion USD. The current value of the titanium is yet to be determined die to the unknown sixes of the deposit. We have begun negotiating with Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp (OTC Bulletin Board: CSHD) for the management of our assets to make the most of this opportunity. We would also like to hear from anyone else interested in joint ventures or partnerships. We would be especially interested in hearing from environmentally friendly organizations and or advocates including by not limited to Bill Gates (MSFT), former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio to name a few. These individuals and their organization have like minded goals with our management for the environment' says Alexander."[SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EXHIBIT 44] AND [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS]
10/04/2006 FHAL stock traded 2,155,944 shares with a closing price of $2.51 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
On October 4, 2006 Merrill Lynch Document stated that electronic shares were delivered via DWAC to the defendants wife's account. [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EXHIBIT 2]
Around October 4, 2006 Sabra Dabbs and Mitch Sepantiack went to Auruba to meet with the Caracus Group from Venezuela. They requested funds for the trip, SWIFT information for the company and a blank Funding Agreement; they stayed at the Aruba Marriot Resort and Stellaris Casino. [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EXHIBIT 45] AND [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS]
10/05/2006 FHAL stock traded 4,372,694 shares with a closing price of $2.20 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
10/06/2006 FHAL stock traded 2,089,045 shares with a closing price of $2.00 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
10/09/2006 FHAL stock traded 1,295,396 shares with a closing price of $1.90 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
10/10/2006 FHAL stock traded 2,768,439 shares with a closing price of $2.61 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
10/11/2006 FHAL stock traded 3,225,509 shares with a closing price of $2.63 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
10/12/2006 FHAL stock traded 2,434,044 shares with a closing price of $2.12 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
10/13/2006 FHAL stock traded 1,386,755 shares with a closing price of $2.20 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
On 10/13/2006 Merrill Lynch employee's Jack Peacock and Al Thornton notify the Rome Office that the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) for Merrill Lynch is of the opinion that the transfer agent for CSHD made a mistake and issued the shares without restriction in error. [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 2]
10/16/2006 FHAL stock traded 2,524,757 shares with a closing price of $1.80 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
On October 16, 2006 CSHD received the completed year end AUDIT REPORT from the OUTSIDE AUDITOR Thomas Benson. The company then filed its 10-KSB and informed the shareholders via a press release. The press release contained the following text; "CSHD would like to announce that today we filed our 10-KSB annual report... The total current issued shares of the corporation after the merger as of today; October 16, 2006 close of business is 103,135,657..." [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EXHIBIT 46] AND [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS]
10/17/2006 FHAL stock traded 3,148,278 shares with a closing price of $2.02 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
10/23/2006 FHAL stock traded 674,097 shares with a closing price of $1.99 [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3]
On August 24, 2006 the Securities Exchange Commission suspended the trading and filed a motion for temporary restraining order against Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp. [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS]
As of August 25, 2006, 265,396,243 shares of Fronthaul Group, Inc. have traded since the merger announcement. [See Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris Exhibit 3] AND [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS]
On October 26, 2006 the defendant put out a press release coming about the halt. The press release contained the following text; "On Tuesday, October 24, 2006 the Security and Exchange Commission suspended trading and filed a motion for temporary restraining order against Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp and Rufus Paul Harris. All documents will be on the CSHD's web site www.cvsu.us for each shareholder to review under tab SEC vs CSHD. I will be on www.subpennyradio.com around 9:30 tonight, Thursday, October 26, 2006 in a live broadcast to answer questions concerning the case. We will also start to release information in press releases and 8-K filings very soon, stated CEO Rufus Paul Harris" [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EXHIBIT 47] AND [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS]
ARGUMENT
The statues and rules of the United States of America have generally established four standard criteria for a Motion for New Trial on Newly Discovered Evidence.
1. Post Trial Discovery -- The first criterion is that the evidence is newly discovered and was not known to the defendant at the time of the trial. As has been established by most courts, the key to this factor is the actual discovery of the evidence and as stated in the affidavit of the defendant the discovery was made by the defendants wife while assisting the defendant in research for a separate motion. [See the Affidavit of Rufus Paul Harris] [See the Affidavit of Anissa Jarrett]
The defendant is a Pro-Se defendant and was unaware of the information at the trial and as the 1st Circuit has established in US VS OSORIO-PENA, 247 F.3d 14, 19 (2001) (newly discovered evidence exception to Rule 33 seven-day time limit on a motion for new trial refers to information unavailable to defense counsel.)
2. Evidence is Material and Not Merely Cumulative or Impeaching -- The newly discovered evidence does in fact impeach the testimony of several government witnesses but it does not stop there, it also totally undermines "critical evidence" of the defendants guilt that was crucial to the governments allegations and creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist and as established by the 3rd Circuit evidence of such nature can serve as the basis for a new trial UNITED STATES VS QUILES, 618 F.3d 282 2010 U.S. App LEXIS 17145, *28 (3rd Cir. 2010) (defendants generally are not entitled to a new trial solely on the basis of newly discovered impeachment evidence; however, if there is strong exculpatory connection between the newly discovered impeachment evidence and the charge against the defendant, or if the new evidence totally undermines critical evidence of the defendant's guilt, then the newly discovered impeachment evidence can serve as the basis for a new trial.)
The "critical evidence" and the federal agents testimony under oath to the grand jury was the foundation of the governments storyline to obtain the indictment against the defendant. Through the federal agent the United Stated Attorney Generals office successfully established the "critical evidence" (an erroneous list of only a few shareholders) as the original shareholder list of Conversion Solutions Inc. The allegation was that the defendant "During October 2006, when he knew the stock price of CSHC was artificially inflated as a result of the false public statements, Defendant RUFUS PAUL HARRIS transferred and caused CSHC to transfer more than 1,000,000 shares of CSHC stock to close family members, who then attempted to sell substantial quantities of stock at inflated prices of between $2-$3 per share.". [First Superseding Indictment 1:09-CR-406 Item M] and the "critical evidence" was the bucket that allowed the governments erroneous claim to hold water.
The newly discovered evidence provides that the defendants family had legally received share ownership long before stated by the government, furthermore it establishes that it was common for the executives to distribute their shares to the family members upon ownership or shortly thereafter and that the issuance was not part of a conspiracy to enrich the defendant. The term "transfer of shares" used by the government was actually part of a company wide merger "certificate exchange" legal requirement for all Conversion Solutions Inc shareholders to remain a valid shareholder of the newly merged company. The shareholders preformed the "certificate exchange" through their brokerage firm and the fronthaul transfer agent Don Maddelin or directly with the transfer agent themselves, the defendant Rufus Paul Harris had nothing at all to do with this process.
It was established at trial through the testimony of the broker for Lisa Stanley, a co-defendants wife and the Harris family's brokerage firm Merrill Lynch that the firms followed all procedures legally required for the certificate exchange and that the shares were delivered electronically and tradable to the family members accounts. The broker for Mrs. Stanley also testified that Lisa Stanley was fully within her legal rights to trade the shares that she had received.
At trial the United States Attorney Generals office through key witnesses testimony further presented the erroneous claim that the "critical evidence" was the original shareholders list of Conversion Solutions Inc and that the defendant after inflating the share price transferred or caused to be transferred to his family illegal share ownership. The newly discovered evidence impeaches the "critical evidence" and testimony and brings to rise that Mr. Maddelin (the fronthaul transfer agent) made an error in the issuance of the freely tradable shares to the defendants family members. The same opinion that the defendants family members brokerage firm of Merrill Lynch, Office of General Counsel arrived at. Evidence of this opinion was presented at trial as "Evidence Tendered for the Record" by the defendant. [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAULHARRIS EVIDENCE #2]. False material evidence has been considered by courts as an important issue even if it "might" have influenced the jury, as in BRADY VS MARYLAND (1963) 373 US 83, 10 L Ed 2D 215, 83 S Ct 1194, (supra,...since a jury's appraisal of a case "might" be affected by an improper or trivial consideration as well as by evidence giving rise to a legitimate doubt on the issue of guilt....) and if the evidence is of such "exceptionally prejudicial character" a new trial should be granted. SEE DOLAN VS UNITED STATES (1955, CA8 Mo) 218 F.2d 454, cert den (1955) 349 US 923, 99 L Ed 1255, 75 S Ct 665 (..if evidence is of such exceptionally prejudicial charter that its withdrawal from consideration of jury cannot remove its harmful effect caused by its admission new trial will be granted.).
The defendant alleges that through the presentation of the "critical evidence" in question and through other circumstances at trial that juror bias was created, therefore resulting in a improper verdict. The facts herein show that on many occasions the defendant published in public press releases and in public filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission that an S-4 registration was required for the Conversion Solutions Inc shares to become tradable, clearly establishing the understanding of the defendant, publicly. Furthermore establishing why it took false evidence and testimony of such "exceptionally prejudicial charter" to achieve an indictment and a guilty verdict in this case. The courts of this land have addressed similar issues at trial with rulings such as SEALS v STATE (1950) 208 Miss 236, 44 So 2d 61 (fair and impartial trial under Constitutional guarantees requires fair, impartial jurors and trial conducted in an atmosphere free from bias and hatred against the defendant), STYLER VS STATE (1980 Del) 417 A2d 948 (if only one juror is improperly influenced the defendant in a criminal case is denied his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury), MASON VS MITCHELL (203, CA6 Ohio) 320 F.3d 604 203 FED (sixth and fourteenth Amendments to Constitution guarantee criminal defendant right to impartial jury, and under clearly established Supreme Court precedent, defendant who alleges implied juror bias is entitled to a hearing in which he has an opportunity to prove the actual bias), UNITED STATES VS AGURS, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976) (prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and ... the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury), UNITED STATES VS WALGREN, 885 F.2d 1417, 1427 (9th Cir. 1989) (court should review evidence with respect to asserted governmental misconduct in light of materiality test set forth in Agurs and Bagley), and UNITED STATES VS SCHNEIDER, 157 F. Supp 2d 1044, 1044 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (prosecutor's statement during rebuttal closing argument, alone as well as cumulative effect of three other instanced of imprudent conduct by prosecutor, so infected trial with unfairness as to make resulting conviction a denial of due process; these remarks constituted prosecutorial misconduct and warranted new trial under Rule 33.) UNITED STATES VS MACK, 362 F.3d 597, 601-603 (9th Cir. 2004).
3. Good Cause for lack of earlier discovery-- The third requirement for the new trial based on newly discovered evidence is that the defendant's failure to learn of the evidence must not have been the result of lack of diligence by the defendant. Upon review of as many cases and all of the material available to me on the law library, I have just about concluded that this "Good Cause" or "Result of Lack of Diligence" criteria is just simply a way for the decision maker to not issue a new trial. Seriously where is the Constitutional balance in this criterion? What about since the prosecution also failed to locate the newly discovered evidence? It would seem that a ruling under this criterion "in these circumstances" could be a due process consideration. Nevertheless, I feel that all I can do to meet this criterion is state the facts of what documented evidence that I provided and count on the decision maker to maintain the balance required to remain Constitutionally tolerable. The defendant produced thousands of pages of documents as evidence to support its innocence for the jinks discovery [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EVIDENCE #1] and I can only hope, but am almost certain that the decision maker noticed the time the defendant attempted to present such evidence for hours on in and mistakenly took up the courts time. The evidence was the result of many months of due diligence and if not for the electronic interface failure between the defendants computer and the courts equipment the evidence would have been presented at trial. [SEE AFFIDAVIT OF RUFUS PAUL HARRIS EVIDENCE #1]
4. Persuasiveness of Evidence -- If the newly discovered evidence will probably produce an acquittal at the new trial or if the newly discovered evidence is reliable. The Persuasiveness; The newly discovered evidence fits into the governments bucket hole perfectly because it is the truth and in the US Attorney Generals office haste to rush an indictment hour's after the co-defendant Stanley was announced as CEO of a new public traded company they were forced to fill the holes in their bucket with anything that looked to fit.
The newly discovered evidence starts a foundation of truth that every bit of the defendants evidence coherently bonds to and cast shadows of doubt around every corner of the Atlanta Federal Building because when the bucket used by the government was shot full of holes the erroneous allegations rapidly leaked out and uncovered a treasure of hundreds of million of illegally sold shares by institutions to the sum of hundreds of millions of US dollars that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Atlanta US Attorney Generals office SOMEHOW blindly and contently continue to ignore, therefore providing us with a glimpse of the "Bigger Picture" and the motive behind this erroneous indictment, SEE US VS TORRES, 569 F.3d 1277, 1282 (2009) (that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because evidence at issue was not merely impeaching, but rose to the level of materiality that would probably produce an acquittal or undermines confidence in the jury's verdict...)
Reliable evidence; the "Newly Discovered Evidence #1" is from an electronic web archive database that periodically updates its information directly from the actual websites that its archives. "Newly Discovered Evidence #2" is concurring and supporting evidence to "Newly Discovered Evidence #1" and is directly from a governmental agencies archives. It is an annual update required of corporations to remain compliance.
It is clear that under the "exceptional circumstances" that the verdict in this trial was reached that the material facts had not adequately developed and that the factual dispute was never resolved at trial, therefore preventing a full and fair hearing concerning the facts and this court if for no other reason than to prevent a "Miscarriage of Justice" has the right to order a new trial. SEE UNITED STATED VS CHARLES 949 F. Supp. 365, 368 (D.V.I. 1996) (miscarriage of justice determination may warrant order of new trial) and UNITED STATES VS PRUETT 501 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2007) ( Rule 33 provides that a court may grant a new trial if "in the interest of justice so requires".) Courts of this land have also established that if a trial resulting in a conviction included testimony that the government knows or should have known was perjured, a new trial will result if testimony was at all material and that the defendant need only show that there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment. See MITCHELL VS UNITED STATES (1962) 368 US 439 7 L Ed. 2D 429, 82 S Ct 462 (application entitled "Motion for Reversal of Verdict and Dismissal of Sentence" asserting that applicants... conviction was obtained by use of materially false testimony, is treated as motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence and entitles petitioner to hearing.)
As explained above it is proper for this court to grant this motion, because the evidence in question represents "newly discovered evidence" with the meaning of Criminal Rule 33. It was discovered, as the Affidavit shows, after the trial. Even with reasonable diligence, the defendant did not discover the evidence at an earlier time. The evidence is central to an issue in the case is admissible, credible, not cumulative, not merely impeachment evidence, and would undoubtedly alter the outcome in the case. In short, every required element for a new trial based in newly discovered evidence under Criminal Rule 33 is almost conclusively established by this motion for a new trial.
There is also an alternative option available for the courts consideration, it is within this courts authority to consider this motion as an application for "Writ of Coram Nobis" under Title 28 USC 1651 and vacate this federal conviction to achieve justice. Courts have used "Writ of Coram Nobis" primarily for correction of error of fact not apparent from record, and which would have prevented judgment had trial court known of such fact of facts. SEE BARBER VS PAGE (1965, ED OKLA) 239 F Supp 265 (Function of "Writ of Coram Nobis" is primarily for correction of error of fact not apparent from record, and which would have prevented judgment had trial court known of such fact or facts.) SEE CLARK VS UNITED STATES (1974, WD Pa) 370 F Supp 92 ("Writ of error Coram Nobis" authorized by 28 USCS &1651 has been exclusively used by defendant who have not yet commenced serving their sentences..), SEE DECKARD VS UNITED STATES (1967, CA8 Mo) 381 F.3d 77, 67-2 USTC & 15766 (Relief in nature of "Coram Nobis" can for appropriate reason be invoked to review sentence which petitioner has not yet started to serve.), SEE PYLES VS BOLES (1966, ND W VA) 250 F Supp 285 (Error "Coram Nobis" is error committed in proceedings "Before us", that is, error assigned as grounds for reviewing, modifying, or vacating judgment in same court in which it was rendered.), SEE UNITED STATED VS DEUTSCH (1971, SD NY) 321 F Supp 1356, CCH Fed Secur L Rep & 92937(Power to grant Coram nobis flows from all-writs section 28 USCS & 1651.) and SEE UNITED STATES VS JUSTUS (2010, WD Va) 701 F Supp 2d 806 (Extraordinary remedy "Coram Nobis" should be issued under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice;...,if court determines that defendant's conduct cannot support his conviction for crime charged in indictment, relief may be appropriate.). The defendant hereby ask this court for this consideration especially under the "exceptionally circumstances" of this case and that this verdict was reached under.
