NO WITNESS - NO CASE (Installment 2)
THE ALAN TEALE/FIRST EQUITY INS./ECOTECH FRAUD ISSUES: and the State of New Hampshire’s efforts, or lack thereof, to corroborate the facts set out by Defendant in Sources of Information 6), incorporated into State’s Exhibit A REPORT that was filed with LDC on October 13, 2009. Based upon the REPORT, the LDC dismissed the criminal trespass case that day. A Competency Hearing was scheduled….
On May 5, 2010, the day of the scheduled Competency Hearing, in which the State refused to present any witnesses for DEFENDANT to cross examine, Judge DeVries ORDERED "After review of the October 13, 2009 competency evaluation of Dr. Petrou the Court finds Ms. Allan not competent to stand trial in this matter. [Docket No. 09-cr-4147 criminal trespass]. Restoration hearing shall be scheduled October, 2010 as docket permits." (There was no evidence presented by the State at the hearing that it had produced the complete REPORT to include all the Sources of Information, to include 6, ("the case study"), or the results of any independent investigation into the material that was incorporated into the ‘case study’ as Brady disclosure requires. Nor, is there any evidence that LDC requested the complete Report of its own accord.)
"The Brady disclosure requirement consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process. Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses…"
NOTE: Although the REPORT was allegedly an evaluation on the DEFENDANT’s competency to assist her attorney in her own defense, the 10 page narrative in the RELEVANT HISTORY section attacked the merits of the DEFENDANT’s ‘affirmative defense’ that had been disclosed to STATE by Public Defender Wolpin when he violated DEFENDANT’s attorney client privilege; therefore, it is the DEFENDANT’s position herein that Brady should apply…
On October 4, 2010, and in preparation for the upcoming scheduled Restoration of Competency Hearing, DEFENDANT filed a MOTION with LCD, Pursuant to NH Rules of Evidence Article VII, Opinions and Expert Testimony Rules 702-705, Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion. LDC never recognized the Motion. It was not considered.
Therefore, again, on December 20, 2010, at an alleged Hearing to Restore DEFENDANT’s competency, the LDC ‘Ordered’ from the Bench that the DEFENDANT was "not competent". (And, again, as before, the State’s testimony appeared to be only the faxed REPORT, without any supporting evidence that the Sources of Information, to include 6), had been produced pursuant to Brady, nor, is there any evidence that LDC requested the complete REPORT, of its own accord.)
To summarize the Court appearances:
The first appearance that was finally scheduled on October 13, 2009, (after at least one cancellation request by the State) was to have been on the merits of the criminal trespass charges brought by the State against the Defendant. That hearing was cancelled due to the October 13, 2009 REPROT stating that DEFENDANT was "not competent". (The reasons for State’s diagnosis that it articulated in the REPORT will be dealt with, as this, and other, installments continue to develop.)
The second court appearance for an alleged Competency Hearing was scheduled on March 5, 2010. The LDC ORDER, delivered that day, was ‘Not Competent’ due to State’s October 13, 2009 REPORT.
The third court appearance was scheduled for December 20, 2010 allegedly for a Restoration of Competency Hearing. The LDC Order from the Bench was DEFENDANT is ‘Not Competent’ to stand trial, due to State’s October 13, 2009 REPORT.
Now that the Reader is aware of Brady requirements placed upon the State, it can better judge the following facts as set out by the DEFENDANT in this and upcoming installments.
This posting FEATURES the State’s treatment of the THE ALAN TEALE/FIRST EQUITY INS./ECOTECH FRAUD ISSUES. Herein, DEFENDANT will provide the reader with credible evidence that her Constitutional due process rights were violate by the State, and that State’s Exhibit A should be voluntarily retracted by the State. DEFENDANT and her family have requested a settlement to be offered by the State for restitution of the damages that it has caused the DEFENDANT and her family, due to the REPORT, among other issues. Only the State can provide the reader with a truthful explanations for its motives in the creation of the OCTOBER 13, 2009 REPORT, and its use by the State, in the Court hearings as describe above. DEFENDANT can merely raise some serious questions to State’s motives.
Normally, if this were a court setting, the State would have the person or persons responsible for Exhibit A [REPORT] appear in person before the LDC judge, and swear that his/her testimony will be "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth", state his testimony (in this instance Exhibit A with its Sources of Information (1-16)), and then be cross-examined by DEFENDANT.
Generally, the oral record of his testimony would be taken down in written form by an official of the court, the court reporter, and would become part of the Court record, in the event of an Appeal. For generations, these procedures have maximizing fairness, and the likelihood of obtaining the truth. Sadly, this did not happen in the three court hearings referred to the "Opening Statement" INTRODUCTION, as DEFENDANT has already reported.
The reader may also recall that the standard for ‘truth’ telling in a criminal matter is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. So, with all of the above in mind, there is one more thing that the reader should be aware of, and that is the timing of the REPORT.
A quick check of dates will show the Reader that the REPORT was written almost a month to the day before November 12, 2009. The 12th of November, 2009 was the date attributed to the collapse of one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in New Hampshire, now known as FRM. A majority of the FRM victims complained about the negligence of one of the critical agencies of the State, the New Hampshire Banking Department. (In future installments DEFENDANT will show the Reader that she too had filed complaints with the New Hampshire Banking Department (see page 10, January 9, 2009 ‘case study’ letter). In response to DEFENDANT’s complaint the State argued that DEFENDANT suffered from ‘delusions of a paranoid personality disorder’.
Yet, as recently as March 4, 2012, "Seacoastonline.com" reported that "Two-and-a-half years later (re: investigation of FRM Ponzi scheme), nothing has changed in New Hampshire that would prevent it from happening again, say victims, legislators and regulators from the Seacoast who were on the front lines." (If the reader has a serious interest in putting the contextual time line between the REPORT and the FRM Ponzi scandal they can read former NH Securities Commissioner, Mark Connolly's book, "Cover-Up". In his book the Former Commissioner of the State’s Bureau of Securities Regulation explains in great detail how the State failed its citizens.)
And, just days ago, the New Hampshire Business Review reported that the insurers representing Michael Gould, one of the closing attorney’s in the FRM Ponzi fraud, settled with certain victims for $2million. Does the State believe that all these sources, to include the victims, also suffer from "delusions of a paranoid personality disorder"?
Now, Back to State’s actions re: THE ALAN TEALE/FIRST EQUITY INS/ECOTECH FRAUD ISSUES:: The following paragraph is the State’s ‘winning’ narrative interpretation testimony to LDC with respect to the Sources of Information 6) - January 9, 2009 ‘case study’ letter – in which DEFENDANT had addressed to two Offices Of Inspector Generals; one) the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and, two) US Department of Justice. Beginning on page 6 of the 27 page ‘case study’, in the REPORT’s RELEVANT HISTORY section, the Reader will find State’s narrative with respect to its interpretation of DEFENDANT’s reporting of her personal experience re: Alan Teale/First Equity Ins/ECOTECH frauds:
"Through Devine Millimet, Ms Allan said she continued to pursue financing and was led to Martyn Redman and a company based in Dallas, TX which offered publicly traded stock in the amount of one million dollars. She notes that Devine lawyers "informed BAM that Merrill Lynch had verified that pledged stock in a company called ECOTECH". Agreement was reached with the creditor of High Birches for "a schedule of replacement assets in lieu of their existing mortgage". By March 1991 the Dallas Company had defaulted and Mr. Redman "disappeared", and the ECOTECH stock, after a portion had been reported stolen, proved virtually worthless. Ms Allan said she immediately filed a complaint with the Boston Office of the SEC. She said a Steve Cohen said he could tell her what happened "but perhaps she could guess" and "I guessed correctly"…that the stock was a fraud. Ms Allan in her correspondence suggests a link between Mr. Redman and Alan Teale who operated a "global scheme" to defraud and she draws links or comparisons to Bernard Madoff. She notes that she was subpoenaed to testify in a US District Court matter in 1996 years after her complaint because she referenced Teale."
As the reader will recall, the State’s Examiner, in RELEVANT HISTORY Section, [See First Installment of NO WITNESS - NO CASE] felt the need for a caveat to wit: "It is not feasible and beyond the scope of this evaluation to attempt an account that will exhaustively cover every detail as reported by Ms Allan. Also, it is important to note that almost all of the data are reported from her perspective, and I have little or not independent confirmation of the events she cites and/or counter versions of the same or similar range of events. That said, I will attempt to summarize key events and related linkages that she has reported via her written documents and/or during the interview."
The State of New Hampshire continued to tell the Laconia District Court that "The content of Ms. Allan’s thinking, as circumscribed within her living and evolving "case study" (Sources of Information 6) or "story", does appear to be psychotic, characterize by a web of non-bizarre delusional perceptions and beliefs that is self-justified by its own internal logic. She appears to be caught up in a narrative that also has grandiose and somatic features, as subsequent events as they transpire become integrated within its narrative".
In fact, the State (in its Exhibit A REPORT) went so far as to have Dr. Petrou opine that: "In my clinical opinion, Ms. Allan is most likely not restorable to competence within a twelve month period. It is possible with a combination a (sic) psychiatric medication and psychotherapy that she would show some improvement, but Delusional Disorders are often resistant to treatment with mediation. Ms Allan also shows no inclination of being interested in or willing to pursue the idea that she needs psychiatric assistance, as she is convinced of her ideas and her competence, so it is unlikely that she would agree to engage in a psychiatric treatment regimen." (LDC agreed with State’s opinion when it made its BENCH Order on December 20, 2010, as described above.)
DEFENDANT will now offer to the READER some of her reasons as to why "it is unlikely that she would agree to engage in a psychiatric treatment regimen", if one had been offered, by the State. However, DEFENDANT will submit categorically that NO OFFER OF PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT was ever offer to her by the State of New Hampshire.
We shall begin with a challenge of the State’s above statement that "it is important to note that almost all of the data are reported from her perspective, and I have little or not independent confirmation of the events she cites and/or counter versions of the same or similar range of events". And, compare the "caveat" to the public documented material, and her personal observation that DEFENDANT supplied to both Offices of Inspector Generals with respect to the Alan Teale/First Equity Ins./Ecotech fraud matter. [CASE STUDY January 9, 2009 letter]
But first, a little background as to why the January 9, 2009 "case study" letter was written by DEFENDANT. In the opening paragraph of the letter, DEFENDANT states that "I was prompted to write this ‘case history letter’ after spending this afternoon listening to the Congressional Hearings that were Chaired by Congressman Kanjorski’ Capital Markets Sub-Committee.
In his opening statement Congressman Kanjorski said the purpose of the hearing was that Congress needed to understand "How Bernard Madoff", did it!" The rest of the Committee members, to a one, cited "loss of confidence" in the capital markets as their major issue of concern". During the Hearing OIG Kotz promised that he would look at "all the tips". (For the record: In 1988, DEFENDANT’s son Kurt W. Vorisek worked as a summer intern for Congressman Kanjorski)
So, now let us consider the State statement that "it is important to note that almost all of the data are reported from her perspective, and I have little or not independent confirmation of the events she cites and/or counter versions of the same or similar range of events". The first question to ask is what effort did the State make, if any? Since there is no record that we can access to prove or disprove that the State attempted to contact any of the persons named in the January 1, 2009 ‘case study’ letter, we can merely note the possible names that were available within the four corners of the ‘case study’ letter itself; and, make some comments:
Mr. David Kotz (page 1- Sources of Information 6)) – Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, US Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Kotz, is a public agent, and a reliable source who could have been contacted by the State with a solicitation of his impressions of the DEFENDANT’s ‘case study’. (There is no evidence that the State made the attempt. If it had, and the results were exculpatory, they were not provided to DEFENDANT pursuant to Brady. The Reader should note here that in August 2009, the OIG of the US DOJ notified the DEFENDANT that it had forwarded DEFENDANT’s ‘case study’ letter to Criminal Division of US DOJ.)
Devine Millimet Law Office (beginning on page 5 - Sources of Information 6)) – the State could have easily called the Devine Millimet Law Office requesting information with respect to the identity of the attorney that represented First Equity Insurance Company [First Equity] in 1990-91, and whose majority owner, at that time, was believed to be Mr. Gene Phillips of Dallas, Texas. (The Reader will note that the State omitted the name of First Equity Insurance from its narrative above, but it was included as a point of reference in the January 9, 2009 ‘case study’ letter, which had been incorporated in to the REPORT’s Sources of Information 6.) In any event, the State would have found that Devine Millimet’s Senior Partner Norman Stahl was First Equity’s primary attorney, and that Karen McGinley was also assigned to perform legal work that included First Equity’s insurance license FORM A application, in Texas. Additionally Attorney McGinley was responsible for negotiations with creditors with claims against assets owned by DEFENDANT, among others. Attorney McGinley also represented the DEFENDANT’s Companies in the proposed sale: a definite conflict of interest. (There is no evidence that the State made the attempt to contact either Attorney Norman Stahl or Attorney Karen McGinley. If it had, and the discovery proved exculpatory, the results were not provided to DEFENDANT pursuant to Brady).
Dan Sklar [Nixon Peabody]- (page 8 - Sources of Information 6) at the time of the First Equity transaction, Attorney Sklar represented BankEast, one of the creditors that would benefit from the transaction, and later (May 2, 1994) the same Attorney Sklar represented the FDIC’s agent BONHAM when again the Ecotech stock was at issue. (There is no evidence that the State made any attempt to contact Attorney Sklar. If it had, and the results of the discovery were exculpatory, nothing was provided to DEFENDANT pursuant to Brady.)
Merrill Lynch (page 5- Sources of Information 6) – The State could have then asked Attorney Norman Stahl or Karen McGinley, or the "Ecotech" escrow agent Attorney Barton Solomon, about information with respect to the attempted sale of the Ecotech stock by Merrill Lynch agent Calvin Cramer. (There is no evidence that the State made the attempt to contact any of the persons named herein. If it had, and as the public record shows the information would have been exculpatory, the results were not provided to DEFENDANT pursuant to Brady.)
Boston Office of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (page 6 - Sources of Information 6) – Although the State does refer to ‘A Mr. Steve Cohen’ by name as someone who was an agent of the Boston Office of the SEC, and notes DEFENDANT claimed the Ecotech stock was a fraud, (There is no evidence that the State made the attempt to contact the Boston Office of the SEC, in order to confirm or deny DEFENDANT’s claim, if it had, the results would have been exculpatory, but nothing provided to DEFENDANT pursuant to Brady.)
"Organized Crime Group of the USA Eastern District of Pennsylvania" (see page 6, Sources of Information 6) – The State was aware that DEFENDANT had made the claim, to wit: "I [DEFENDANT] heard nothing further from Mr. Cohen or any one form the SEC with respect to my complaint until I was subpoenaed in 1996 to testify by the Organized Crime Group Eastern District of Pennsylvania". And, the State was also aware that, (on page 9 and continuing on pages 12-22 of Sources of Information 6) DEFENDANT offered substantial public record information with respect to the Ecotech fraud to include the following quote from the ALITO Court in re: case no. 417 F.3rd 358 United States of America v Michael Lewis Miller, Appellant that was decided on June 10, 2010:"In April 1997, a jury sitting in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania convicted Miller (an attorney), as well as his co defendants George Jensen, Phillip Rennert, and David Yeaman, for their involvement in a complex scheme involving the leasing of worthless stocks of three public companies to the Teale Network ("Teale")….Jensen was at various times in control of and president of Ecotech…" (No information pursuant to Brady, was ever provided to DEFENDANT showing that State made an attempt to review any of the court documents and/or transcripts of the cases that would have been exculpatory, and would have substantiated the Alan Teale/First Equity Ins/Ecotech material that have been cited in above referenced Sources of Information 6).)
Andrea Foulkes, Assistant US Attorney, in USA v Rennert (beginning on page 6 - Sources of Information 6) – The January 9, 2009 ‘case study’ letter incorporated a series of quoted information from various court’s that identified AUSA Andrea Foulkes as the lead prosecutor, and as a member of the Organized Crimes Task Force for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that prosecuted the six above named defendants USA v Rennert: The criminal trial where the public record would show that DEFENDANT was a witness for the prosecution. Additionally on page 10 Sources of Information 6), DEFENDANT claimed that she contacted AUSA Foulkes after she had discovered, within days of her testimony in re: USA v Rennart that the pump house located at the High Birches Springs land in North Woodstock, New Hampshire had been sabotaged, to wit: "I recall I even informed AUSA Foulkes. I believe that it was at that time she said she would try again to get the attention of the FBI with respect to our situation."(Pursuant to Brady, there is no evidence that State took the effort to contact ASUA Foulkes to confirm or debunk the DEFENDANT’s above cited claims, or to review the transcripts of the DEFENDANT’s testimony in USA v Rennert. There is NO evidence that LDC did any follow up discovery on its own accord).
At this point the Reader may want to ask whether the State in its statement: "It is important to note that almost all of the data are reported from her perspective, and I have little or not independent confirmation of the events she cites and/or counter versions of the same or similar range of events" told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the LDC, or that the LDC cared enough to make certain that the record was complete.
And, the follow-up question that the Reader may be interested in is why did the LDC continue to rely upon the State’s testimony that "The content of Ms. Allan’s thinking, as circumscribed within her living and evolving "case study" or "story", does appear to be psychotic, characterize by a web of non-bizarre delusional perceptions and beliefs that is self-justified by its own internal logic. She appears to be caught up in a narrative that also has grandiose and somatic features, as subsequent events as they transpire become integrated within its narrative" without ever asking to see the Sources of Information 6), January 9, 2009 ‘case study’ letter that was incorporated into the REPORT?
Since DEFENDANT has no information with respect to the date Public Defender Wolpin delivered the January 9, 2009 ‘case study’ (Sources of Information 6) letter to the State’s Office of Forensic Examiner, DEFENDANT can only ‘guesstimate’ that since the State was in control of the matter it had ample time to double check the well documented facts with respect to the Alan Teale/First Equity Ins./Ecotech fraud facts incorporated therein.
Therefore, another question the Reader may want answered, at this time, is what motivated the State’s lack of curiosity to contact readily available public persons? One glaring answer may be that that the facts would get in the way of its ‘ambush and ‘railroad’ plans of NO WITNESS- NO CASE, but that is for the Reader to determine.
The NEXT INSTALLMENT will continue to explore the State’s other findings with respect to DEFENDANT’s mental competency. To include but not limited to the State’s conclusion that: "Consistent with an overarching paranoid theme of a conspiracy to harm her and her family, individuals that she has encountered become imposters, frauds, schemers, or a least contaminated or compromised parties to the conspiracy. She lacks the insight, and her thinking is rigid and fixed with respect to the delusions". (STAY TUNED)