UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT

Docket Number(s): 13-4865 ------------------------------

Motion for: To stay execution of sentence pending appeal and to expedite this motion Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

Counsel hereby adopts the Appellant's pro se motion for a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal

MOVINp...I;ARTY: ROBERT RIVERNIDER UPlaintiff Defendant DAppeliantlPetitioner AppelleelRespondent

MOVING ATTORNEY: SALLY WASSERMAN

Caption [use short title] United States of America, Appellee, -V.- Robert Rivernider, Defendant-Appellant.

OPPOSING PARTY: US ATTY (CONNECTICUT)

OPPOSING ATTORNEY: AUSA JOHN H DURHAM [name of attomey, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

352 SEVENTH AVENUE- 11TH FLOOR 157 CHURCH STREET, 23RD FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10001 212-631-7504 sallywassermanesq@gmail.com

Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: U.S. District Court (CT) (Chatigny, J.) Please check appropriate boxes:

Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.J): o YesDNo (explain): __________________ _ Opposin~unse]'s position on motion:

U Unopposed 00pposed Gon 't Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: o Yes Go Gon't Know

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has request for relief been made below? Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?

DYes 0No DYes 0No

Requested return date and explanation of emergency: _______ _

The Appellant is due to surrender on 01/29/14.

It is respectfully requested that this Court rule on this motion as soon as possible of stay

execution of sentence pending a ruling thereupon Is oral argument on motion requested? DYes 0 No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Has argument date of appeal been set? DYes 0No Ifyes,enterdate: _________________________________ _

-,~----~~~--~~-----Date: 01/23/2014 Service by: 0CM/ECF D Other [Attach proof of service]

Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT -------------------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

-against-

ROBERT RIVERNIDER, Defendant -Appellant.

--------------------------------------------------------------x

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF SENTENCE Docket Number 13-4865

SALL Y WASSERMAN, an attorney admitted to practice before this United

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court affirms the following to be

true under the penalty of perjury: 1. By Order of this Court, I am counsel to Appellant Robert Rivernider in

connection with the appeal of a judgment entered December 20, 2013, upon a plea of guilt, by which the Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1349 (2 counts), and wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1343 (16 counts). The Appellant's plea was entered in the midst of trial.

2. In connection with this conviction, Mr. Rivernider was sentenced to

concurrent sentences of 144 months, to be followed by a 3-year period of

supervised release. By the terms of the judgment, Mr. Rivernider is to surrender on January 29,2014.

3. On this Day, Mr. Rivernider has provided me with a pro se motion to stay

execution of sentence pending appeal, annexed hereto as Exhibit A and hereby

incorporated. Because I am not yet in a position to bring such a motion on his

behalf, as I was assigned to this case less than two weeks ago and have not yet

assembled and reviewed the file or obtained a complete set of transcripts, I hereby

adopt the Appellant's annexed pro se motion for the purpose of filing.

4. In an e-mail this Day, I provided the annexed pro se motion to my

opponent, Assistant United States Attorney John H. Durham. In a telephone

conference following that e-mail, Attorney Durham advised me that the

Government opposed the grant of the relief sought herein and, further, might elect,

after an opportunity to review the motion, to file reply papers in opposition.

WHEREFORE, on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Robert Rivernider, I respectfully request that this Court accept the annexed pro se motion for filing and, because Mr. Rivernider has been ordered to surrender no later than 11 :00 a.m. on January 29,2014, grant this motion expedited treatment.

~' ~a~:S CJA Counsel to the Appellant Robert Rivernider 352 Seventh Avenue- 11 th Floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 631-7504

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

V. ROBERT RIVERNIDER,

Defendant-Appellant

Docket No. 13-4865

January 22,2014

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY SURRENDER PENDING APPEAL

Comes now defendant Robert Rivemider, Pro Se, pursuant to 18 U.S.c. Section 3143(b) hereby

respectfully requests that this Honorable Court stay Defendant's surrender to the correctional

facility to which he is designated pending appeal ofthe District Court's Judgment.

This Motion is made and based upon all pleadings and papers on file herein and the attached

Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and in support of this Motion, Mr. Rivemider

respectfully assigns the following:

1. That he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the

community;

2. That his appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises several substantial issues oflaw and

facts likely to result in reversal; and

3. That he has not been found guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A), (B),

or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of 18 U.S.c. Section 3142.

ARGUMENT

18 U.S.c. Section 3143 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"(b) Release or detention pending appeal by the defendant.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and

sentenced to a tenn of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of

certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds--

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the

safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title;

and

(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact

likely to result in--

(i) reversal,

(ii) an order for a new trial,

(iii) a sentence that does not include a tenn of imprisonment, or

(iv) a reduced sentence to a tenn of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served

plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

If the judicial officer makes such findings, such judicial officer shall order the release of the

person in accordance with section 3142(b) or cc) of this title, except that in the circumstance

described in subparagraph (B)(iv) of this paragraph, the judicial officer shall order the detention

tenninated at the expiration of the likely reduced sentence.

(2) The judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense in a case

described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (0(1) of section 3142 and sentenced to a

tenn of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be

detained."

Thus, Section 3143 requires that the Court pennit the release of a defendant where the

appropriate circumstances apply. Mr. Rivemider respectfully submits that such circumstances are

applicable in the instant case.

Indeed, Mr. Rivemider has not been found guilty of an offense in a case described in

subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of 18 U.S.c. Section 3142. He is not likely to

flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. Additionally, his appeal

to the Second Circuit is not for the purpose of delay, but rather, raises substantial issues of law

and fact likely to result in reversal, including the following:

1. Due Process Violation

Government Agents knowingly and willfully violated Mr. Rivemider's rights under the Crime

Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771, and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act by

not notifying Mr. Rivemider, as required under the law so he could not "hold up a victims letter

in their case as a defense", thereby committing a crime, also causing a Brady violation, which

violated Mr. Rivemider's Due Process Rights and Right to a Fair and Open Trial. See Exhibit 1,

SEC-006843. FBI Agent Mason e-mail exchange with Anne Gannon, July 29, 2009, discussing

notifying victims of US v. David Praise. Exhibit 2. SEC-006831, Special Agent (SA) West e-

mails SA Mason February 14,2011, which does not appear to be the first time they

communicated, yet it is the only communication the defense received. If the defendants Due

Process Rights were violated on July 29, 2009, or certainly by February 14,2011, by a criminal

act, a violation of the CVRA, by Government agents who were in contact with the lead

investigator, SA West, and possibly the AUSA in CT that was investigating the defendant, is

everything that happened after this Due Process Violation null and void, which would include the

indictment, the trial, the defendants plea, as well as the judgement against the defendant ordering

the defendant to spend 144 months in prison?

2. Violation of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment

After Mr. Rivemider and co-defendant Loretta Seneca plead guilty, witnesses testified before this

court in this case against Robert Ponte that had no relationship to Mr. Ponte. Mr. Ponte had no

knowledge about these witnesses and thereby could not effectively cross exam them. Mr.

Rivemider could not cross examine these witnesses which certainly could have exposed perjured

testimony. The prosecution quotes the false testimony of Tosha Wade in their sentencing

memorandum as well as the loss calculation which are based on false infonnation regarding Mr.

Rivemider allegedly telling Wade not to tell lenders about certain incentives offered by the

defendant. This Court has emphasized that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment

includes an inherent mandate guaranteeing criminal defendants the opportunity for cross-

examination of the witnesses against them. Cotto v. Herbert, 331 F.3d 217, 229, 245 (2d. Cir.

2003) (citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315- 16 (1974)). As the Supreme Court has stated,

"Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth

of his testimony are tested," Davis, 415 U.S. at 316, and "[t]he opportunity for cross-

examination, protected by the Confrontation Clause, is critical for ensuring the integrity of the

fact-finding process." Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 736 (1987). For these reasons, it is

axiomatic that testimony not subject to an opportunity for cross examination must be stricken.

See, e.g., Dunbar v. Harris, 612 F.2d 690, 692 (2d Cir.1979); United States v. Cardillo, 316 F.2d

606,611 (2d Cir. 1963); accord United States v. Malsom, 779 F.2d 1228, 1239 (7th Cir. 1985);

United States. v. Lyons, 703 F.2d 815, 819 (5th Cir. 1983).

Defense counsel told Mr. Rivernider that Mr. Ponte would plead once he did, which lead Mr.

Rivernider to believe that no additional witnesses would be testifying falsely and thereby

committing perjury, this was a key factor in Mr. Rivernider's decision to give up. Defense

Counsel was wrong and Mr. Ponte did not plead when Mr. Rivernider did allowing additional

witnesses to testify falsely. This false testimony that was then on the record without any effective

cross examination caused defense counsel to not argue the loss on each mortgage loan or that Mr.

Rivernider was aware of a misrepresentation on each loan, which would have been impossible to

do as Mr. Rivernider had no knowledge of the misrepresentation's or that they were in fact

misrepresentation's or that if their were misrepresentation's that they were material, as required,

which Mr. Rivernider believed had to happen, due to Tosha Wade's false testimony that the

defendant told her not to tell the lenders about the incentive program. Mr. Rivernider openly

advertised the incentive program in the newspaper, Exhibit 3, SW-009794, posted on the internet

and had flyer's in the office detailing the program. Wade's testimony should be stricken and a loss

hearing conducted to determine the true loss based on each loan and whether or not their was, in

fact, a material misrepresentation which Mr. Rivernider had knowledge about.

3. Brady Violations OR Violations of the American Bar Standard 3-3.11 Disclosure of

Evidence by the Prosecutor (c) A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence

because he or she believes it will damage the prosecution's case or aid the accused.

The prosecution failed to tum over, or intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence, specifically:

a) Wells Fargo's settlement with the Borrower's, as stated in an e-mail from SA West to AUSA

Schmeisser and AU SA Durham dated August 13,2010, exhibit 23, USAO-002098. As the DO]

in recent court filings has now accused Wells Fargo of engaging in "loan origination fraud" this

settlement may provide exculpatory evidence as to materiality of whatever misrepresentations

are alleged by the prosecution.

b) Failure to tum over Wells Fargo records regarding their investigation in August 2007 resulting

in Shellie Kemp's suspension as the records would show why Kemp was suspended and would

contain evidence about what Wells Fargo knew about the Cut Above Ventures (CAV) deals. As

Wells Fargo then allowed Kemp to continue to do business with CAV, clearly whatever the

prosecution is alleging Mr. Rivemider did that deceived or defrauded Wells Fargo was not

material and known by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo placed just 2 conditions on Kemp, 1. be sure

you speak to the borrowers and 2. ~o not list the CAV Marketing fee on the HUD. Wells Fargo

did not say Kemp could not use all the income that would be used to repay the loan or that the

marketing fee could not be paid, it just could not be displayed on the HUD. As the 7th Circuit

recently stated in U.S. v. Phillips\Hall, No. 11 CR 00012 (BBC) (9-4-13) reversing and

remanding for a new trial, said (this was proper in the case of a stated-income loan because what

the bank was asking for was the total income from which the loan would be repaid rather than

just the borrower's income'')

c) Prosecution failed to tum over any correspondents and\or investigations from Rosemary

Canales, an investigator with Wells Fargo Bank, who referred Alfred Vigil to SA West, as SA

West wrote in Mr. Vigil's 302 as early as August 12, 2009, USAO-000276, Exhibit 4, More than

THREE AND HALF YEARS before trial.

d) SA West interviewed Karen Lewis of United Guaranty (UG) on 10/13/2010, exhibit 5,

regarding a Wells Fargo claim to collect on insurance. UG determined the loan to be fraudulent,

the defense was not provided with Wells Fargo's claims or any appeal, unlike SunTrust who

included their claim and appeal in response to subpoena's, as documented in exhibit 23.

SunTrust argues that income is not material because these are "no income loans", did Wells

Fargo make a similar argument? If so, any loan that was used in calculating loss due to income

with Wells Fargo or SunTrust should have been eliminated for the loss figures as should Wells

Fargo and SunTrust be eliminated as victims. As SA West claims he did not speak to the lenders

and the lenders argued that the income is not material, the materiality requirement of the wire

fraud charges can not be sustained and the defendants motion for a new trial MUST be approved.

e) Complete Bank of America (BOA) records even after the BOA rep testified at trial that the

needed eXCUlpatory records were on another server and they would have turned them over if they

had been asked for them, they were. These records go to loss, guilt, and credibility of the

witnesses, as well as the prosecution and their investigators, as they continued to argue as late as

December 17,2013, "the defendant created innumerable direct payments from that Cut Above

Ventures bank account, making it pretty much impossible to accurately determine where all the

monies went and who benefitted from those direct payments. ". It would not have been impossible

if the prosecution just asked Bank of America to provide the records that the prosecution knew

existed and were on another server, as the BOA rep testified to at trial. The only reason to not ask

BOA for these records, is they already had them, they intentionally withheld them as they are

exculpatory, thereby violating Brady again. A violation that is not unfamiliar to the prosecution

in this case, in fact a previous violation was part of a dissenting opinion from Chief Judge

Kozinski in the 9th circuit court of appeals citing United States v. Triumph Capital Grp., Inc, 544

F.3d 149 (2nd Cir. 2008), which was argued by the same lead prosecutor in the instant case.

Chief Judge Kosinski states in U.S. v. Olsen, No. 10-36063, "There is an epidemic of Brady

violations abroad in the land. Only judges can put a stop to it" and goes on to say ''protecting

the constitutional rights of the accused was not very high on the prosecutor's list of priorities",

as they certainly were not here. The defendant will be asking the 2nd Circuit to put a stop to the

epidemic of Brady violations by acting in this case to dismiss the indictment, or order the

defendants plea to be withdrawn, so that the defendant can attempt to get a fair trial as required

by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

f) Complete records from TN State Bank (TSB), The prosecution subpoenaed and received bank

records from TSB, the requested records asked for all records for Roberts' Hall, Ponte and

Rivernider. See attached return envelope mailed to SA West on July 14,2009, which is stamped

opened and inspected on June 20,2009, Exhibit 6. The defense was not provided the mortgage

records associated with Robert Hall who purchased a property under Cut Above Venture to build

a cabin development to expand the cabin rental company, an investment of CA V. This is exactly

what Mr. Rivernider said he was going to be doing in the Shirley Hibbard e-mail when he said he

would just build them instead. Since this closed in November 20007, the deposit made by check,

$74,800, on September 10,2007, the date of the "Recipe" e-mail, it also shows that the defendant

did not believe the absurd claims continually argued by the prosecution that Mr. Rivernider knew

"the house of cards was collapsing" on September 10, 2007.

g) MYICIS records, according to the SEC in Arkansas the FBI and the IRS, exhibit 47, were

heading up the investigation into MYICIS. Which means they had to have the records. The

prosecution did not tum over the records which would show money being invested, money

coming back from investments, money being paid to clients, etc. This goes to loss calculations,

earnest money deposits being fronted by CAY as all charged real estate counts, as the clients

previously sent money to NMB and it was returned to them for the purchase of the property. The

defense would be able to demonstrate on all charged counts any down payment money returned

to the client who needed it to purchase a property was originally lent to NMB by the client and

then returned to them.

Defendants Motion For a New Trial and to Withdraw his Plea

Mr. Rivernider motion and pleaded with this court to allow him to withdraw his coerced plea.

Mr. Rivernider is appealing the ruling of this court which has a high likelihood of being

approved by the 2nd Circuit Court if Appeal. Mr. Rivernider has been appointed new counsel for

the appeal, appointed just last week. This case has an extensive history as well as extensive

amount of documents. Mr. Rivernider will be irreparably harmed by not being available to

consult with counsel to assist in properly preparing an appeal, as well as the numerous issues for

appeal, detailed not only here but in the defendants Pro Se Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and

to Withdraw his Plea, docket #571. Several issues on appeal will be Ineffective Assistance of

Counsel, coercion to plead, improper canvas, counsel's incorrect legal advise induced the plead,

incorrect collateral consequences, and the plea was involuntary and unintelligent.

The admission of offensive conduct that the court received differed from what Mr. Rivernider

was presented with and discussed with Mr. Bergenn at Dr. Fillipopoulos' office. The admission of

conduct Mr. Rivernider was given is attached, Exhibit 7. This admission does not say, nor would

Mr. Rivernider state, as it is not true, that he willfully or knowingly intended to deceive anyone.

Mr. Bergenn said he was a wordsmith and asked questions like, the properties were marked up

about 25% more than the seller agreed to accept, not having calculated things that way Mr.

Rivernider responded "I guess that may be right". The properties were offered to buyers for the

price the market said they were worth based on independent appraisers, and the realtors who

were selling them said they were worth. The buyer made the decision to purchase or not. After

2.5 days of being told Mr. Rivernider had brain damage by an experienced attorney and a doctor,

and that Mr. Bergenn could not go back to court on moral grounds due to this alleged brain

damage, Mr. Rivernider had no choice but to very reluctantly agreed to whatever he had to do

just to stop the badgering. After all day at Mr. Bergenn's office on Sunday February 24, 2013,

exhibit 8, after having finally having a chance to eat and consider pleading guilty, with ongoing

e-mail badgering late into the night, Mr. Rivernider wrote:

Sent: Sunday, February 24,2013 10:25 PM SEE YOU IN COURT A 9 AM I WILL TAKE THE LEAD IF NEED BE Sent: Sunday, February 24,2013 10:28 PM "DEAL IS OFF" Sent: Sunday, February 24,2013 10:46 PM "LOOKING FORWARD TO 5 MORE WEEKS OF TRIAL PLUS DEFENSE CASE"

The badgering just continued starting just after 6 AM Monday morning with text messages, e-

mails, phone calls from Bergenn, Mr. Chase, and Dr. Fillippopoulos. Mr. Rivernider went to Mr.

Bergenn's office and was badgered relentlessly again, telling him this is the best thing for him,

that he would be able to see his kids, and that hel would get back to them soon. Which now we

know none of that is true, as Mr. Rivernider is going to be 400 miles away from his kids for 144

months, which means he will not be able to see them and won't see them again until they are no

longer kids. Mr. Rivernider plead guilty based on inaccurate advise of counsel, both regarding

the collateral consequences of pleading and the reason he plead. Mr. Rivernider plead based on

having brain damage which the prosecution and their doctors argue he did not have, nor did he

have at the time of the alleged crimes, the court agreed with the prosecution.

Multiple attempts to file a motion to dismiss and withdraw plea

Almost immediately after pleading, Mr. Rivernider believeddefense counsel would start finally

working on the multiple violations of his constitutional rights and all the due process violations.

Mr. Rivernider believed, based on questioning Mr. Bergenn at the plea hearing, as well the court

stating, "1 should point out that a person who pleads guilty retains a right to challenge his or her

conviction if he or she has a good faith belief that the conviction in the product of a violation of

his constitutional rights, specifically the right to the effective assistance of counsel and the right

to a fundamentally fair proceeding. So that if a defendant believes that his or her guilty plea

results from the failure of his or her counsel to represent them adequately or misconduct on the

part of the government in violation of due process, then the person retains a right to appeal the

conviction notwithstanding the guilty plea. ", that once the court became aware ofthe violations

of Mr. Rivernider's Constitutional Rights, the many things the prosecution did wrong, and the

fundamentally unfair proceedings, that the indictment would be dismissed or at a minimum not

sentence Mr. Rivemider or his co-defendants to draconian prison sentences, if sentenced to a

prison term at all. Once again, Mr. Rivemider was mistaken, just as he was mistaken in believing

the investments would pay. Mr. Rivemider began asking about filing numerous motions to both

dismiss the indictment as well as withdraw the plea, defense counsel just kept ordering more

doctor's appointments. The day after the plea, speaking by phone to Mr. Bergenn, going over the

numerous violations committed by SA West, Mr. Bergenn said, "that's just another day at the

office for these guys". Mr. Rivemider was detailing criminal acts, and he was told that is just

another day at the office for an FBI agent. Mr. Rivemider could not, and does not, accept that

crimes committed by an FBI agent to take away the Liberty of a United States Citizen, is

standard operating and acceptable procedure. They are, in fact, Due Process violations.

I began requesting infonnation to show the court what the prosecution did wrong, how they

violated Mr. Rivemider rights, I still have not received what I requested. The following

information from the attached e-mails demonstrate that Mr. Rivemider was actively attempting

to withdraw the plea but due to Mr. Bergenn's beliefthat Mr. Rivemider had brain damage, Mr.

Rivemider was basically ignored;

Exhibit 9, March 8, 2013, request for grand jury depositions, a request Mr. Rivemider had been

making since being arrested.

Exhibit 10, March 24, 2013, request to be permitted to file another complaint against Martin W.

Porter and Dane Brigadier who sold Mr. Rivemider on the $10 Million CD in September 2007,

where the money from the clients who lent money in September 2007 went.

Exhibit 11, May 18, 20l3, as stories continued to break about massive Government corruption,

including collection of phone records, now text messages, and all being handled by the FBI for

the NSA, based on Exhibit 12, and now Apple, Exhibit 13, turning over all the data of clients in

criminal investigations, Mr. Rivernider asked that my Apple Laptop and iPhone be returned to be

analyzed to see if that is how the prosecution was able to respond before we made arguments and

change exhibits that Mr. Rivernider pointed out in e-mailshelped the defense. This still has not

been done.

Exhibit 14, June 9, 2013, as more revelations came into the public domain, Mr. Rivernider

continued to ask defense counsel to take action.

Exhibit 15, June 22, 20 l3, as the 6th Circuit said, "The Government prosecutors are not

permitted to violate your due process and constitutional rights, PERIOD." in U.S. v. Tavera, as

the prosecution committed Brady violations, Mr. Rivernider again asked to do something about

the Due Process and Brady violations that are evident in this case.

Exhibit 16, August 8, 20l3, Mr. Rivernider asked to file a motion to dismiss

Exhibit 17, August 20, 2013, after watching an interview with the attorney who represented

Senator Ted Stevens, Mr. Rivernider wrote defense counsel and detailed the exact same playbook

employed against Senator Stevens was followed here. Mr. Rivernider even gave them a remedy

Mr. Bergenn claimed was not available to the court, citing Judge Arteton dismissing Rivas

because the prosecutor withheld evidence. As well as citing additional cases, and additional

misconduct by prosecutor's in the CT US Attorney's office.

Exhibit 18, August 22,2013, Mr. Rivernider wrote counsel saying, I NEED AN

INVESTIGATION, after reading the 514 page report order by the trial Judge in the Stevens case

which detailed numerous violations, and criminal acts, exactly the same acts Mr. Rivernider

found and disclosed to counsel for several years.

Exhibit 19, August 23,2013, I asked counsel to file a motion for the DOl to tum over any and all

evidence regarding the banks who I supposedly defrauded as the Attorney General said they

planned on bringing new cases against the banks, which they would have to have evidence to

show their culpability to do so. That evidence in the possession ofthe DOl is Brady material and

should have been turned over prior to trial.

Exhibit 20, September 6, 2013, subject line: "Same old request", referring to Mr. Rivernider

already numerous requests to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to withdraw the plea. Mr.

Rivernider wrote, "based on new information that came out just this week, in addition to old

information, I am AGAIN thinking I have to file a motion to withdraw the plea andfor a new

trial" in addition Mr. Rivernider said "if you can't do it and you feel you need to withdraw I

understand". Clearly, Mr. Rivernider wanted to file a motion to withdraw the plea and asked

counsel to withdraw if they could not, after detailing numerous reason, new and old, that

required withdraw of the plea.

Exhibit 21, September 10, 2013, Mr. Rivernider writes "As you are in the process of determining

whether or not you are going to file a motion to withdraw my plea, new trial, or dismissal, " and

again at the end of an extensive e-mail that points out ongoing criminal acts of the government,

Mr. Rivernider writes "So to recap, I would like something done to stop the ongoing crime

regarding the CVRA and I am sitting on pins and needles to learn about your decision whether

you are going to help or I am going to do it on my own, file a motion to withdraw the plea, new

trial, dismissal, honestly 1 know you are considering everything but what the fig (WTF) is taking

so long?"

Exhibit 22, October 8, 2013, Again asking to file a motion to withdraw the plea and to do it

before sentencing.

Immediately following the day and half hearings with all the doctor's discussing whether or not

Mr. Rivernider had this brain damage issue, Mr. Rivernider contacted the Judge's office and told

the the Judge's assistant that he needed to file a motion to withdraw his plea, in addition to

turning to Mr. Bergenn in court and telling him he needed to file the motion to withdraw his plea,

Mr. Bergenn said we would discuss it. Mr. Rivernider was told to contact the clerk who then told

him he needed to go through counsel who had been denying his requests to withdraw the plea for

months.

As Mr. Rivernider was clearly coerced and badgered into pleading guilty based on inaccurate

advise of counsel, immediately afterward began requesting counsel file motions to dismiss the

indictment as well as withdraw his plea, as Mr. Rivernider's appeal to have his plea withdrawn is

likely to be successful, this motion to stay must be granted.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Mr. Rivernider will argue counsel was ineffective in his assistance in this case, as Mr. Rivernider

believe based on the facts the 2nd Circuit will remand for a new trial.

Mr. Rivernider will argue, in part, counsel was ineffective on several issues, to include:

1. Counsel failed to inform Mr. Rivernider that by pleading Mr. Rivernider gave up numerous

Constitutional Rights and that counsel would not work to insure his Constitutional Rights

were protected.

2. Counsel chose to use the brain damage issue at sentencing rather than as a trial issue without

consulting the defendant.

3. Counsel failed to file a pre-trial request for all the Grand Jury transcripts as Mr. Rivernider

had requested on multiple occasions, especially after receiving shortly before trial the Grand

Jury transcripts of the witnesses who were going to testifY. Mr. Rivernider After reviewing

the Grand Jury transcripts, detailed numerous false statements, outright lies, and false

inferences made to the Grand Jury that influences their decision to indict, mostly by the lead

investigator who continually offered inaccurate hearsay, a motion to dismiss should have

been filed. u.s. v. Ciambrone, 601 F2d 616, 623 (2nd Cir. 1979) The dismissal of an

indictment may result where facts can be presented to establish that the prosecutor has

actively misled a grand jury or engaged in fundamentally unfair tactics in his presentation,

knowingly used perjured testimony, made statements that were calculated to inflame the

passions of the grand jury against that target, failed to inform the grand jury of the existence

of substantial evidence negating guilt, or extensive improper use of hearsay testimony.

4. Mr. Bergenn announced at the beginning of trial he was not going to put a defense on. The

prosecution was going to have nearly 100 witnesses and take nearly 2 months and the

defense was not going to put a defense on as Mr. Bergenn believed it shifted the burden to the

defense.

5. At trial, counsel failed to object to the prosecutions witness Ms. Flores who claimed to be the

custodian of records for GMAC, which are kept in Pennsylvania, when Ms. Flores lives and

works from he house in California. Also, that Ms. Flores was an expert qualified to testify as

to what was material to lenders, when Ms. Flores was not qualified to do so based in her

position as well as her answers to questions. For example, Ms. Flores stated she was the

supervisor of several GMAC closing departments, yet, when asked about "mail away"

closings, a standard procedure in any closing department, Ms. Flores had no idea what

counsel was referring to. The words "mail away" were actually written on the internal

GMAC closing form that sat on the computer monitor in front of Ms. Flores for over an hour,

yet Ms. Flores was not aware that the closing package that she was testifying about, Carol

LaPorte, had been mailed to Mrs. LaPorte as a "mail away" in coordination with the closing

department she claimed she was the supervisor of. The prosecution argues they would be

prejudiced as Ms. Flores has moved on, certainly the prosecution can find someone who lives

less than 3,000 miles from the records to claim they are the custodian. The defendant does

understand that finding anyone other than Ms. Flores to claim they do not know what a "Mail

Away" closing is while under oath would be rather difficult.

6. Counsel failed to obtain Dan Fallow's phone records, or ask Mr. Fallow when he was on the

stand what phone he used that he claimed to be speaking to Mr. Rivernider on before sending

his loan to CAY and before purchasing the cheap, million dollar, Idaho property. As Mr.

Rivernider's phone records show no calls with Mr. Fallow until several weeks after the

purchase of the Idaho property and 2 months after loaning money to CAY, in fact 3 weeks

after receiving his first repayment of the loan.

7. Defense Counsel failed to object when the prosecution continually called the e-mail with the

subject line: "Recipe for NMB disaster" a disaster when the subject clearly says "RECIPE"

for something the defendant states in the e-mail he is not going to do, which effectively

would prevent a disaster.

8. Defense Counsel's opening argument was false and the defendant told counsel that it was

false. Mr. Rivemider had no intention of selling the properties in 2 years, did not need to

market to go up, it was never part ofthe plan, as Mr. Rivemider was expanding the cabin

rental business in TN, which required cabins and why Mr. Rivemider invested in land to

build additional cabins on, in November 2007, in hopes of having long term income to help

pay the NMB loans, in addition to the numerous other investments.

9. Counsel failed to interview key witnesses that would have impeached key prosecution

witnesses, Tosha Wade, namely to impeach Wade, Rolando Hemadez and Bonnie Adderly,

both who worked with Wade at the Sterling and would know that her story is untrue. To

impeach Robert Hall, Mike Vance who was originally a partner, with Mr. Rivemider, in

Mountain Charm Cabin Rentals. Counsel has the constitutional and professional obligation

to conduct an investigation into potential mitigating evidence. If counsel conducts an

inadequate investigation "that fact would have no effect on the deficient conduct prong of

Strickland because counsel had already demonstrated ineffectiveness by failing to thoroughly

investigate the existence of mitigating factors. " Summerlin v. Schriro, 427 F3d 623 (9th Cir.

2005)

10. Mr. Bergenn stated at sentencing he didn't know about the CVRA violations, Mr. Rivemider

detailed this violation many times. Defense counsel should have investigated to see if it

violated Mr. Rivemider due process rights. Defense counsel has the e-mail from SA Mason

with the details, exhibit 1 .. Bergenn asked Mike Chase during a meeting in Bergenn's

conference room the day after Mr. Rivemider called the Judge to withdraw his plea, in

December 2013, if they had the e-mail, which Mr. Rivernider e-mailed Mr. Bergenn long

before trial.

11. Counsel Failed to obtain and pursue a Bill of Particulars, U.S. v Davidoff, 845 F.2d 1151

(2nd cir 19988), (reversing conviction for failure to provide a bill of particulars) Shelley

Sadin, the defendants original attorney, filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, it came up at

one hearing, we never received a Bill of Particulars which would have allowed the defendant

to properly prepare for the allegations the prosecution was going to attempt to prove at trial.

12. Counsel failed to aggressively investigate whether or not the claims of the prosecution of

criminal wrongdoing by Mr. Rivernider was actually material. Both named victim lenders

Wells Fargo and SunTrust Mortgage, based on information in discovery, knew everything

about the transactions, and evidence shows they approved it, investigated, as well as argued

specifics misrepresentation were in fact not material. See Exhibit 23. SunTrust knew about

the marketing fee, Exhibit 44, R-032330, is a fax from Sevier Title to Wade at SunTrust

which details it, "3. Added the Consulting and Marketingfee as a sellers expense" and

includes a HUD. SunTrust argues that these are No Income Verification loans, making the

income not material. See Exhibit 45, R-032613, and Exhibit 46, R-032613. Gersten v.

Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588, 609-15 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that attorney's failure to seek

medical expert consultation for the defense or to investigate critical government evidence

constituted ineffective assistance of counsel)

13. Counsel failed to object to Wells Fargo and SunTrust being victims due to failure to properly

investigate. Wells Fargo investigated the loans in August 2007 and knew everything Kemp

was doing and allowed her to continue, they then made a deal with the borrowers, see SA

West's e-mail to Schmeisser and Durham attached Exhibit 24, certainly due to their

culpability. Counsel never asked for or received the details of the deal, had counsel requested

or subpoenaed the information counsel then would have been able to determine if Wells

Fargo was a victim or a willing co-conspirator. Same with SunTrust as they stated in the

United Guarantee letters their position on income, it was not material, Exhibits 45 and 46.

14. Counsel failed to investigate or argue that the loss is incredibly overstated. In Mr.

Rivemider's Pro Se motion he details numerous overstatements with numerous clients, for

example Michael Mastoris' loss is calculated at over $440,000 yet based on trial transcripts

and detailed spreadsheet it appears Mr. Mastoris may have profited by several hundred

thousand dollars. The same with Maureen Walters and Donna Moore both show a loss, yet,

when you calculate what they received they both profited. The mortgage loss includes

properties that Mr. Rivemider had nothing to do with, and no knowledge of any

misrepresentation, knowledge of what the misrepresentation is on each individual loan, and

no evidence Mr. Rivemider was aware of whatever the misrepresentation was. Mr.

Rivemider will, on appeal, be asking the 2nd Circuit to, at a minimum, order that a new loss

hearing be held to determine the actual loss. When Mr. Rivemider plead guilty the

prosecution said they believe the loss to be between $7-20 Million. According to an e-mail

from SunTrust to SA West, who claimed he did not speak to the lenders, Donna Taylor lists a

loss far less, NO LOSS, Exhibit 43, in some cases that the prosecution claims were far

greater, causing the loss figure to expand to over $20 Million.

Actual Claim of Innocence

1) Mr. Rivernider categorically denies providing any false material misrepresentations to any

lender named in the indictment. The prosecution claims that Mr. Rivernider, or his co-

defendants, provided false information is false and they had the proof see it was false. The

prosecution claims Mr. Rivernider sent full files to Shellie Kemp of Wells Fargo, yet documents

provided to the prosecution from Shellie Kemp show the exact opposite, see attached e-mails

from Kemp sent to SA West:

Exhibit 25, October 13,2007, e-mail with attached DAS form that Mr. Rivernider sent Kemp for

McNeal, this e-mail was sent from Will Sawran, either Sawran completed the form or the

McNeal's did, Mr. Rivernider forwarded to Kemp what was sent to him, which appears to be

accurate information.

Exhibit 26, October 16, 2007, Mr. Rivernider again forwards an e-mail to Kemp from Will

Sawran that attached a DAS form from Dory Edwards, Kemp writes on the top "This is usually

the type of info I got" The information appears to be accurate.

Numerous other example's are in discovery, both completed DAS forms or e-mails simply stating

what the borrower was looking for and what we were told by Will Sawran, who repeated what he

was told by the borrower. The prosecution submitted to the court a DAS form for Alan Martin to

show the information was different than what the lender was told, the DAS form they submitted

was 2 years old, certainly things changed over 2 years, it was the mortgage professionals job to

gather whatever current information they needed, not ours, we were not the mortgage brokers.

The prosecution also claims the defendant had people buy multiple properties. See Exhibit 27, E-

mail from Kemp regarding Wells Fargo's guidelines on buying multiple properties, they allow 6

with Wells Fargo, unlimited with other lenders, 10 investments. The only pertinent 2nd home

guidelines are "borrower must quality for the property without using any rental income" "They

must intend to occupy for 2 weeks out of the year". She did not say they could not rent out the

property when the owner was not using it. The actual guidelines say "may not be subject to any

agreement restricting the borrower's occupancy", Exhibit 28, which it was not. As previously

cited this is still happening. Both Wells Fargo and SunTrust fund, what the prosecutors in CT,

call an illicit rental scheme. The lenders do not consider it illicit, possibly another reason why SA

West claimed he did not speak to them. It only become a crime with an overzealous prosecutor

looking for a crime.

2) The prosecution inadvertently also argues that Mr. Rivernider may in fact be innocent based

on their comments in "Government's response to defendant's Pro Se motion to dismiss, withdraw

guilty pleas, et aI, Section XI. ... Furthermore, multiple financial institutions were defrauded in

this scheme and therefore, even ifthe allegations are true with regard to Wells Fargo, the fraud

still stands on the other counts". Each mortgage transaction is unique, their was no "playbook".

The defendants continue to be left in the dark as to what the fraud was on each unique

transaction. The only other financial institution named involved in the "other counts" is SunTrust

Mortgage. The DO] recently settled a $1 Billion civil suit with SunTrust, for committing loan

origination fraud, specifically due to their "shortcut agency" mortgage program between 2006

and 2008, as detailed in a New York Times article dated April 13, 2013, by Gretchen Morgenson,

exhibit 41. The exact time period and the exact program SunTrust approved and funded in counts

10-13. Certainly the DO] has evidence that lead to the settlement with SunTrust that was not

turned over to the defense, violating Brady again. Based on Exhibit 23, 45 and 46, SunTrust does

not consider income on No Income loans to be material, SunTrust was well aware of the

marketing fee as the title company included it on the HUD's, see Exhibit 42, spreadsheet shows

12 HUD's that included the marketing fees, funded by SunTrust, with 3 different attorney owned

title companies, including Smoky Mountain Title owned by Shirley Hibbard's attorney Doug

Yates, 4 different realtors\developers, including Eden Crest owned by Dave Bryant, the list also

includes Jeanne LaPorte and Carol Laporte. Counts 11, 12, and 13 all listed the marketing fee,

count 10, the only other SunTrust count the seller was CAY therefor no marketing fee was paid.

As previously documented SunTrust, and Wells Fargo, continue to close new mortgages as 2nd

homes that are on Shirley Hibbard's rental program. As Mr. Rivernider is still not aware of what

exactly constituted the fraud on each loan that was material, it is impossible to overcome the

"defendants burden" to prove innocence as to materiality on each generality. During the court's

plea canvas the only question is as follows regarding the real estate part:

THE COURT: With regard to the real estate part of this, you acknowledge that the information

that was misrepresented to the lenders was in fact material?

THE DEFENDANT: I believe I'm sure it was material to their purchasing -- to their decision to

loan at the loan to values and the interest rates that they lent at.

This occurred after the defendant already broke down and lost it. Based on SunTrust's letter to

UG what the defendant was accused of was in fact not material. Nor was Mr. Rivernider even

aware of the misrepresentations until after receiving and reviewing discovery

3) Robert Rivernider did, in GOOD FAITH, exactly what the client expected he was going to do.

On each count listed on counts 2-8, the wiring which is supposedly related to a fraud was not

fraudulent, nor did the defendants believe they were. After each wire, and\or after each client

wired their LOAN, not investment, which had no conditions other than make the payments based

on the clients debt plan, Mr. Rivernider did make investments. The prosecution claimed the

clients were told the money was being invested in Foreign Exchange Programs, and indeed some

money was invested in Foreign Exchange Program, however, just because the prosecution picks

one thing that does not mean every person believed or was told the same thing. Nor does it mean

that is the only thing Mr. Rivernider did. The prosecution successfully developed a false premise,

selectively picked things to prove the false premise, and got defense counsel to buy into the false

premise. In fact, nearly every NMB client knew CAV also had an investment in a cabin rental

company in TN as they purchased a cabin, as Eric Reid testified, to support the company. Below

is a list of counts 2-8 and the investments made following:

Count 2, 11127/2006 Michael Mastoris

Investments made:

1) SW-030 152 11128/06 $305,452 for Real Estate Investment project, that returned over $1.2

Million, Exhibit 29

2) R-009394 11130106 $200,000 for InterGlobal Technologies, Exhibit 30

3) R-009394 11130106 $50,000 for Mountain Chann Cabin Rentals, Exhibit 30

4) SW-030137 12111106 $55,000 for Qnetiq, Inc., Exhibit 31

Count 3, 6/1107 Richard Brooks

1) SW-030519 6115/07 $12,000 for Mountain Chann Cabin Rentals, exhibit 32

2) R-009284 7110107 $1,000,000 to Blue Invest, Note: this also included Michael McNeal, Al

Vigil's and Dan Fallow's loans, Exhibit 33

Counts 4-8, all loans made in September 2007

1) R-009311 9118/07 $74,800 Deposit on land development in TN, Exhibit 34

2) SW-030449 9120107 $62,000 Qnetiq Asset Management, Exhibit 35

3) SW-030449 9/21107 and 9/24/07 $325,000 to Wallace & Wallace for lease of$10 Million CD,

to go into Foreign Exchange Trading program, Exhibit 35

4) SW-030426 $1,000,000 to China Infrastructure Capital Management, for Foreign Exchange

program, Exhibit 36

Clearly, Robert Rivernider did, in truth and in fact do what he really was expected to do. The

prosecution successfully got defense counsel to buy their false premise that the clients believed

they were going to get their repayments based on investments that were previously made, not

investments that were going to be made after lending their money. Which is absurd and if true

establishes that the client did not have any requirement for Mr. RIvernider as to what to do with

their lent money.

With all the investments clearly listed above on the defendants BOA bank statements,

government agents still claimed none of this happen. SA West testifying before the Grand Jury,

with Mr. Schmeisser's assistance had the following exchange, USAO-001688, Exhibit 37:

Q During the course of the investigation, a financial analyst with the FBI had occasion to

actually see where the monies -- were deposited and how the monies generally were spent at that

time, and is there any reference, or any reflection, that at these particular times this money was

going out to some overseas hedge fund or foreign currency exchange? A No.

And again on USAO-001609, exhibit 38;

A The only finds that were seen going out as any type of additional investments were much later

in 2007 and those funds were their money coming back.

Q Okay. But this after this program had been going onfor some time; is that fair to say?

A That is correct. And the funds I'm referring to were not profit returns, but money they had put

out, out of that account being returned

Once again SA West and AUSA Schmeisser, lied to the grand jury. SA West doing so while

giving false hearsay testimony. Could SA West and the FBI financial analyst miss all these

investments?

Exhibit 39 DEF 548 Is the $10 Million CD, page 3 shows a consulting agreement with Stephen

Carper who brokered this deal, The agreement is date September 10, 2007, exhibit 40, the very

day of the "recipe" e-mail.clearlyshowingtheprosecutionscasemadeattrial.waswrong.SA

West took the original documents from Mr. Rivemider house on 5-13-09.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

As previously cited their is an abundance of prosecutorial misconduct in this case. Many items

have already been listed in the defendants Pro Se motion, as well as in this motion. The

cumulative effect of errors that are harmless by themselves can be so prejudicial as to warrant a

new trial." United States v. Sypher, 684 F.3d 622,628 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.

1650 (2013). "In order to obtain a new trial based upon cumulative error, ... defendant[s] must

show that the combined effect of individually harmless errors was so prejudicial as to render

[their] trial fundamentally unfair." United States v. Trujillo, 376 F.3d 593, 614 (6th Cir. 2004).

See Walker v. Engle, 703 F.2d 959, 968 (6th Cir.) ("We need not determine whether each of the

alleged errors would, alone, require that we find a deprivation of due process. It is clear that the

cumulative effect of the conduct of the state was to arouse prejudice against the defendant to

such an extent that he was deniedfundamentalfairness. "), cert. denied, 464 u.s. 951 (1983); see

also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 u.s. 284, 298 (1973) ("We need not decide, however, whether

this errvr alone would occasion reversal since [dejendanl's] claimed denial of due process rests

on the ultimate impact o.lthat error when viewed in conjunction ""ilh the trial coun 's rejil.wilo

permit him to ca!! other witnesses. "),

Conclusion

Mr. Rivernidcr pleads with this court to stay suurender so that Mr. Rivcrnidcr is not irreparably

ham1cd by not being able to assist counsel in preparing an effcetive appeal. Mr. Rivcl11idcr's

appeal to the 2nd Circuit to dismiss the indictment, withdraw his plea, and\or hearing regarding

loss has a excellent chance of succeeding. Mr. Rivernider is out on bond and has been for nearly

3 years without incident and in full compliance. As Mr. Rivernider is argning his Due Process

rights havc been violated taking away his Liberty would constitute a violation of Mr. Rivcrnider's

5th Amcndment Right that "No person shaff be held to ans,vel'.!()r a capital. or otherwise

it?!amo/ls crime, .... nor be deprived qllife, liber~v, or properly, without due process r

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on January 21,2014 a copy ofthis motion was mailed to:

US Attorney's Office

Hartford Office

450 Main Street

Room 328

Hartford, CT 06103 /"'~" t~ i7'f. (',I' r )

'\ ) 1/( "7-' t\ " --=--'C I c::::_;/t" ~7 " y '- "",," ""-,--'-"'" Rlobert Rivemider, p~o Se

Mason, B (LA) (Ie) From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mason, 8 (LA) (Ie) Wt:ii:lrlesd~y,July 29,2009 8:25AM Gannon, Anne (USAeAe) RE: US v David Praise

Thanks. I think Rivernider and Ponte will tu.rn9ut to be victims in our Ci'l~e. However, the source of the funds they collected to invest with Praise et al. will likely be problematic for them (e.g. they told their investors they were;investing in real estate and then sent the money off for this stuff ... ). That being said,! don it wcmt them to hold up a yj.~~11) J~tter .10 theirC35eas a defense .wi,thout.,talking,to the AUSA/Agent. I believe their case 15 out. of

Q\JI"F!~Ioffice.in.Connectictit aTW, 2 years for Vurpillat isn't too bad. Thanks again for getting that done! I spent all day on Monday trying to find a guy in Chula Vista that turned out to be in Vista. We eventually arrested him and had a chat for 2 hours with him .. ,

Lemme know about the SEC coming out here when they get back with you.

Hope things are good. Craig

From: Gannon, Anne (USACAC) [Anne.Gannon@usdoj.gov) Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:04 PM To: Mason, B (LA) (IC) SUbject: RE: US v David Praise Okay, makes sense. I will tell our v/w person to wait.

From: Mason, B (LA) (IC) (FBI) Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:00 PM To: Gannon, Anne (USACAC) Subject: Re: US v David Praise r will give u a ring to discuss. "Victims" Ponte and Rivernider are targets of another fbi investigation ...

From: Gannon, Anne (U5ACAC) To: Mason, B (LA) (IC) Sent: Tue Jul 28 20:36:05 2089 Subject: FW: US v David Praise Do you know anything about this? Thanks.

Anne

From: Hanif, Georgia (U5ACAC) Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2e09 1:52 PM To: Gannon, Anne (U5ACAC) Subject: US v David Praise Anne,

9

SEC-006843

Mason, B (LA) (IC) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

No problem on my end.

Mason, 8 (LA) (IC) Monday, February 14, 2011 8;27 PM West, Stephen M, Jr. Gannon. Anne (USACAC) RE: David Praise

Mr. Praise was already sentenced.

I'll CC the AUSA, Anne Gannon to see if she has any issues with it.

lemme know if you need anything else.

craig

From: West, Stephen M. Jr. Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 7:30 PM To: Mason, B (LA) (Ie) Subject: David Praise Do you have any issues with the USAO in New Haven turning over copies of your affidavit, complaint, and 302s of Praise and vic Scott H as part of the discovery process in our case against Ponte and Rivernider who were part of the victim investment group? They're claiming that the money lost to Praise was the caUse for their clients losing the money invested with them.

let me know either way. Thanks.

Steve

, f' H I ~! 1 ~c'

l SEC~006831

Palm Beach Post Classifieds I Place An Ad I Receipt Page I of2

Today's Pap.' Jobs Aulo$ Real estate Clp851f1~d. Shopping Hoallh Trav.l Home O".'go Archives CU3tomer Care

l:mnn=iynmlt(.ma ._~ __ ~!~L~~~ .. _~_E .. ~_~:t SA V .~R ... _~ __ ~~~.~~.~_~ '_"'. PLACE AN AD Thursday. November 3Q. 20C&

Receipt Thank you for placing your ad In The Palm Beach Post Classlfteds.

Please print this page for your records. JijJ Adld:7209819 .

,Ad Text

(Image displayed lorger thon actual size for easier MDne viewing.)

Mobile & Web Extras E-Mail Address:bobrlver@bellsouth.net

Important nota: If you place your ad Monday-Friday during reUular business hours, you will recel~e your Online Exlras email within 4 hours after sUbmittIng this ad. rr you place your ad outside of regular business hours or on weekendS, you wiP receive your OnUna Extras emali the neXI business day.

Total Price $329.70

All paCkage (ales are non,refundable after nFllt day of publication.

Schedule Information P8~kalle Nama: 28PAV SURE SEll I EasUCentral Editions

Catagory/ClasalflcaUon ~ Real Estate I Central Start Date: 12102/06

Detailed Schedule Info -- ... -.. , -The-PaliiiBiiae-h poai:12i02.''i2/oa~12i04~T27iistilrough 1'2129"'--

PalmBeaehPoat.com: 12102,12103,12104, '12/05IhroUlIh 12129 KIosks: 12102,12/03, 12/04, 12105lhrough 12129

NeIghbOrhood I'oat: 12106.12/13,12120,12/27 t..a Palma; 1.108, 12115. 12122. lZi29

Thl> Florida Pennyeaver; 12106. 12113,12120. 12/27

httPs://placeanad.palmbeachpost.com/webentry/url/consumer 11/3012006

SW009794

Schmeisser. Christopher (USACT)

From: Sent: To: Subject:

West. Stephen M. Jr. (FBI) Friday, August 13, 2010 4:46 PM Schmeisser, Christopher (USACT); Durham, John {USACT}. FYI

Wells Fargo apparently settled the civil suit with the borrowers. It was noncash settlement. Wells Fargo released the borrowers from the obligations.

USAO-002098

08/13/2009

On 08/12/2009, Alfred Vigil, born cn OS/27/1963, Social Seeuri ty Account Ncrrber 2 ill J 2 I of 13360 lrJest "l2nd Circle, Arvada, Colorado, telephone number (720) 989-...-, email address vigi124@msn.com, was interviewed telephonically. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, Vigil provided the following information:

.Rosemary Canales, who is 'ahTnvet.lgatO.rwitfi"We'i'ls Fargo Bank, advised Vigil to contact the undersigned agent regarding vigil's investment with Robert Ponte.

A friend of Vigil, Michael McNeal, invested some money in a program called No More Bills (NMB) wi~h Robert Ponte after McNeal learned of the program through some co-workers. McNeal then introduced Vigil La PonLe and NMB by way of telephone and emails.

Ponte advised that there ~>{as a minimum investment threshold of $30,000. In return for the investment, Ponte promised rronthly payments of approximately 10\~ of the investment. Ponte emailed Vigil a chart showing how many months it would take to eliminate Vigil's debt based on the amount invested. Ponte also provided an example of a promissory note .for the amount invested with Ponte.

Vigil invested approximately $40,000 with a $4,000 to 55,000 fee with funds obtained throJgh a HSBC Beneficial loan and a GMI\C home equity jine of credit. Sometime betvreen fVlay and August of 2007, Vigil wired the funds from First Bank in Colorado to a Bank 0:" America account for Cut Above Vent.ures. In return, Vigil was promised monthly payments of about 53,700 for a little more than two years. However, Vigil received only seven or eight payments with the last payment received in March of 2008.

Also sometine het\>{een September and November of 2007, Fonte approached Vigi~ about investing in some property. Ponte asked about Vigil's credit and told Vigil that he could payoff his debt sooner by investing in some condominiums. Ponte promised $3,000 per month i~ rental income from which Ponte would make the lTortgage payments on behalf of Vigil and then use Vigil's remaining portion to supplement the payments from Vigil's NMB program. After

08/1212009 Ne1\1 Haven, CT (t.elephonicall y)

329A-NH-46079-3C2 08/13/2009

SA Stephen M. West, Jr.

..I LJSAO-000276

lO/l3/20~O

On 10/13/2010, Karen Lewis of United Guaranty, 230 N. Elm Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 2'1401, te_ephone number (336) 333-0522, email addresstewiskl@ugcorp.com. was interviewed telephonically. After being advised of the ~dentity o~ the in;:ervie"Ting agent and the nature of the interview, Lewis provided the following information:

In July 2007, United Guaranty issued an insurance policy for Wells Fargo Bank for a mortgage it funded for Cynthia Ann Simpkins for a property located at 2209 Legends Drive, Sevierville, Tennessee 37876. The WeUs Fargo loan officer vlas Shellie Kemp from the Wells Fargo office in Stuart, Florida. Approximately four lfortgage payments ,,,ere made 00 the mortgage before it \V"eot int.o default sometime ir: 2008. Wells Fargo submitted a claim against the United Guaranty policy, bUL United Guaranty rescinded the claim and returned the prem~ums paid by Wells Farge after United Guaranty investigators determined the loan to be fraudulent.

Lewis advised that the documents obtained by the undersigned agent from Detective An~e R. Erwin of the State of Florida Department of Financial Services, Fraud Division, 3111 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 310. West Palm Beach, florida 33405, telephone number (561) 837-5668, represented all of United Guaranty's documents regardins this matter.

10/13/2010 New Haven, CT ( telephonically) 329A-NH-46079-302 10113/2010

SA Stephen M. West. Jr.

USAO-000368

F"iVY Bob Rivernider :)l'f)k' .... ..... , . , . Svu;v;t SunTrust claims to UGIHUD approvals with Marketing fee

L-,!t~ January 31,2013 at 11 :08 PM Mike Chase "'c" .,J" \l;;()'!';" ,. ,', James W. Bergenn :n"'(:ii'/'L':l0

----.-- ... ~.----- -' ....... .

1"-"7""- -_.--:-.- --"--' ---.--

, I 1,lhI1111'1,1,II'lllll\,lIH1I11,\lljI!IHlil'l i ll!I'Il!

31l~~~rl' L1C,,~7q - /(,)3

. ' .r:'F IJTENNESSEE ,I' STATE BANK ! 17 '

MAIL TO: p,o, Sox 1260 Pigeon FOllle, TN 37868 SHIP TO: 2210 Pat1

~i

JUL-09-2009 16:49 SQ7 2035035135 P.04/08

AO 110 (Rei!. 12189) Subpoena 10 Testify Samra Grand Jury

SA Stephen West, FBI N-08-1-67-1l Cc {

'mniteb ~tate5 1JBistrict QCourt DISTRICT OF __ ..:::C:.::O:.wN~N=.EC",,"T:..:.IC:.:.;UT~ _______ _

TO: Tennessee State Bank 2210 Parkway Pigeon Forge, TN 37868 (865) 429-7825 (865) 453-5516

SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY . BEFORE GRAND JURy

SUBPOENA FOR: o PERSON o DOCUMENTIS) OR OBJECTISl

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Gral')d Jury of the United states District Court at the placo, date, and time specified below.

United States Courthouse 141 Church Street New Haven, Connecticut

COURTROOM ,Room 133

DAlE AND llME

August 4, 2009,9:30 at?-.

YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following documeot{s) or object(s):-

SEE ATTACHMENT

o P/{tw:o soo addifionlfllnformation 011 mv9fS8

This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are grant~ leave 10 depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the cOurt.

ROBERTA D. TABORA

The;, sub~na Is ISSUed on application Of the United States of America

6/30/09

NAM~AD Bnd PHONE NUMBER OF ASSISTANT u.s. AiT.ORNEY JohnH. Durham, AUSA 157 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 (203)821-3700 CONTROL# \l(pl

R-016774

JUL-09-2009 16:49 SQ7 2035035136 P.B5/0S

To: Tennessee State BIUlk 2210 Parkway

ATTACBME?!I

Pigeon Forge. 1N 37868 (865) 429~ 7825 (865) 4535516

"," .

Provide any and all ac:oount holder information, credit history, accQunt statements, loan doouments, certificate of deposits, teller report3, credit and debit memos, and wire transfer records from 0110112007 to the present for all accounts associated to the following individual(s), businesses, ~ accounts:

Account(s):

Account Name:

Name$:

11S9667

Cut Above Ventures, S.A..

Robert Rivemider Robert Ponte Robt:rt Hall

NOTE; THE GRAND JURy REQUESTS THAT NO ENTRY BE MADE SHOWING THAT TIl"E CREDiT FILE WAS ACCESSED.

In lien of your pmanal aeppraoee before the G!'I!!! Jw:y. subpoenaed matgria4 mal- be! provided before the Gl"IlJIId JOry date io~PAAW Meot Stephen M. West, Jr. (Jfthe Federal Bpl'AAu. gflnvestiptlon, 600 ~taf Street, New lbyq.. cr 0.6511, telephob.e Dtunbea- (103) $03:Sf2.4,

R-016825

The defendant ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER, JR. (hereinafter "RIVERNIDER") and the Government stipulate to the following offense conduct that gives rise to the defendant's agreement to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 9 of the Indictment:

RIVERNIDER did knowingly receive monies from "No More Bills" customers into a bank account under his exclusive possession and control and agreed to repay those investors at a rate of approximately 10% per month for several years.

RIVERNIDER did make the scheduled repayments in the agreed amounts. The source of the funds used to repay the later investor/customers were funds received from earlier investor customers.

RIVERNIDER failed to investigate what the lender investors were being told by PONTE and others with regard to the source of the monthly payments. RIVERNIDER had reason to believe that investor/customers were being told (and did believe) that their monthly payments were being made from realized returns on already-active/paying investments.

RIVERNIDER further knew that the example of monthly returns, not derived from actively paying investments (and/or realized investment returns) were used to encourage. and did enc.ourage, investor/customers to enter into real estate purchase agreements on the belief (representation) thatRIVERNIDER and/or PONTE could. and WOUld, be able to cover all attendant costs. RIVERNIDER, in fact, knew that investment returns had not yet been realized and did not investigate what borrowers ,vere told with respect to the source of funds for mortgage payments and or earnest money payments.

From: Bob Rivernider [mailto:bobriver@me.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24,2013 10:46 PM To: Bergenn, James Cc: Chase, Michael; Vargo, Patricia A Subject: Re: Rivernider Stipulation

I CAN'T HARM MYSELF ANYMORE.

LOOKING FORWARD T05MORE WEEKS OF TRIAL PLUS DEFENSE CASE.

Attorney Client Confidential Correspondence Bob Rivernider bobriver@me.cOID

On Feb 24,2013, at 10:34 PM, "Bergenn, James" wrote: please call me ih the morning. I do not want you to harm yourself. and this to me is a pure reflection of all that you and i learned after your thorough and honest testing.

you will be self destructive and ruin the only angle you have to save a LOT of time.

From: Bob Rivernider [mailto:bobriver@rnt;,~Qm] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:28 PM To: 8ergenn, James Cc: Chase, f

Bob Rivernlder> "/,/",., \' c.dLjSCL Information request

March 8, 2013 at 8:49 PM !,' James W Bergenn i" ". Mike Chase

c;;., Patricia Vargo ,y..c,,j" '.(:

I need the following:

1) All deposition from the grand jury in my case. particularly Robert Hall. Since the G removed him from the witness list I am sure they learned he completely lied to the G and depending on when they learned he lied could very well be material. It also matters since he not only kept all the rental income causing the loss on all the TN properties he also stole actual investments that CAV paid caSh for. Also, if the G learned about my investment in MCCR's, which IS why Reid said at trial he purchased the cabin "to help the company", then G had exculpatory evidence that they may have withheld. Also, West testified that at one point Seneca had a Mortgage brokers license, I would like to know how that turned into her being a trained mortgage broker.

2} The subpeona and the records from Sykes & Wynn on Eric Reid's loan. The G paralegal said she got them 2. days after Reid testified, what they didn't think about asking Sykes & Wynn tor 3 years and suddenly thought about asking Sykes & Wynn if they had any documents after Reid testified? Also, ask for the mortgage documents from WellS Fargo, how could it be that they did not get the docs from Wells Fargo, if they don't get them, Reid is stili making the payments this should not have any loss.

3) Dan FalloW'S phone records. I am sure the G subpoenaed Fallow's records to show all the called between us that Fallow testified to and we should be able to see ali this calls, but if the Riverguy told the truth their were no phone calls of the G knew this then they knOWingly allowed their witness to He on the stand. If they did not subpoena the records we should and let the judge know this victim lied on the stand and his loss and victim status should not be counted against me.

4) Request from the G the BOA records that the BOA custodian told us existed and according to the subpoena, which ordered ALL records, we did not get ALL records. It the G did get the records, we have a problem as they withheld exculpatory evidence and when Durham jumped out of his seat when Walters was on the stand and said out loud, "she didn't get $450,000" in his huff and puff way, he should have know he was lying and allowed the witness to lie on the stand. If they did not get them we need them to determine how much money everyone received to determine the loss, if any. for each client and we need to be able to show all the mortgage payments that were paid to each lender so the judge can see that payments were in fact being made until the Praise theft and the other investments we will show that fell apart at the same time.

5) Eric Reid's bank statement for the $40,000 to see if he sent the money directly to Martin W. Porter, As far as I am concerned this rnakes him an un-indicted co-conspirator as he was part of one of the investments and sent the money directiy to Porter, yes he didn't tell that story, but he did say he purchased the cabin to help tile company and if we also show that he was involved in the investments we could make a case he was more involved than he claimed to be. which could substantially reduce the loss amount.

6) Deposition on everyone who testified at trial, espeCially everyone who testified after I plead. If they testified falsely as we know Wade did we should at the very least point it out, if she perjured herself we need to inform the court, and if the G should the 8mail that she said she would be paying S50-70K more than the market we need to send the judge the spreadsheet with ali the sales at the Sterling showing they all sold for the same amount Wade was talking about her employee discount that Trutrnann offered her, not my marketing fee.

I am sure you are working on some or all of this, it you have some of this already let me know. If we are going to negotiate with the G we need something to negotiate with, if they plan on suggesting that j do any more time that the 37 months DaVid Praise got for knowingly intentionally stealing S14. 7 Million which he truiy enriched himself with as opposed to me who he stole the money from who did not enrich Illmself who thought he was actually investing money overseas with a real legitimate trader.

Attorney Client Confidential Correspondence"

Bob

!"rom: Bob Rivernider DuNi"'",1 ,~'n'J7 .,'"'' Re: Porter\Brigadier\POF CD March 24, 2(}13 at 4:00 PM

To: 8ergenn! James V_ti' C

FJOP; Bob Rivernjder (CI:'[1',/':', J' ,,,", i,e'''\; '\" :c;lI!)I(,,~r: URGENT: Action requested

t:)c)t(;; May 18, 2013 at 11 :16 AM T(.), Mike Chase mcl;;,iS,;,.i'\jYi];'f'!' .' "", James W, Bergenn ,,',;;' '::""ii: " ;,iu.; "h'? '-';

Mike,

Due to the disclosures of massive government corruption this week in the IRS and the DOJ, I fear waiting much longer to demand the prosecution turn over several items as massive shredding may be going on throughout the government right now.

As you know I have requested many limes all the grand jury transcripts and minutes, since the prosecution has refused to turn them over, I believe we must request the Judge order them to do so, Waiting for me to ask the judge during my allocution of after in a motion may be to late assuming it is not already. It you need cause just read the transcripts we did get, their is misleading false information throughout that deceived the grand jury as well as massive violations of DOJ policy by the AUSA. by withholding exculpatory evidence and actually telling the grand jury things they knew to be false.

Also, the laptop computers and iPhone the FBI took from my house which had my e-mail accounts on them, I may now know why they took the silver laptop that they copied the hard drive when they were at my house, it contained my e-mail account which ailows them to read this e-maill am writing, as I write it. (Hi Steve), This also needs to be ordered from the ju(?lge, if they wiped or lost the hard drive, well we know why, assuming they will turn it over, If they don't it will become part of my motion to dismiss the indictment due to flagrant willful bad failh on behalf of the AUSA and the FBI. {'!-low many timeg do~ it need to be gaid? The job of progecutom jg to obtain jugtice} not merely to Qecure convictionQ." Editorial, Miami !-lerald, page 14th, April 3. 2009 (addregging the cage 8gaingt former Alagka .genator Ted .9teven) , This is just a start, tor me anyway, but evidence that MUST now be preserved, Sorry but I can not just roll over and let these low level employees commit crimes against me and my kids and get away with it, while putting my kids in danger.

I will understand if you can not do this as you once said it is not "your charge".

Please just leI me know if that is the case so I can proceed with what I need to do.

Attorney Client Confidential Correspondence Bob Rivernider

Meet the Sp.es Doltlg the NSA's Dirty Work - By Shane Harris I Foreign Policy 11/25/13. 10:07 PM

HOME DIRECTORY CHANNELS BlOGS LATEST ARTICLES POSTS ABOUT FP GROUP MAGAZINE ARCHIVE SEARCH Search FP

~~ Sign up for I JV\ I our daily e-mail .,~ newsletter

INSIDE DIRECTORY BEST DEfENSE KILlER APPS SITUATION REPORT

Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work This obscure FBi uni! does the domestic surveillance that no other intelligence agency can touch,

BY SHANE HARRIS ! NOVEMBER 21,2013

NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

VVith evc,y fresh leak, the world learns mure about the U,S, National Seeurity Agency's massive and controversial surveillance appan.tlls, Lost in the commotion has been the story of the NSA's indispensable partner in its global spying operations: an obscure, clandestint' ullit of til(, Fecleraillureall of Investigation that, even tiw a surveillance agency, keeps a low protile,

LOGIN

When the media and memh.ers uf Congress say the NSA spies on Americans, what they really mean is/hat the FBI helps the NSA do it, providing a tel~hnieal and legal infrastructure that permits the NSA, which by law collects foreign intelligence, to ()perate,on U.s. soil. It's the FBI. a domestic U,S, Jaw C.ol\lI:ccment agency, that collects digital information from at least nine American technology companies as part of the NSA's Prism system, It was the FBI that petitioned the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to mder Verizon Business Network Services, one of the United States' biggest telecol1l carriers 1('lr corporations, to hand over the call records of millions of its customers to the NSA,

Bllt the FBI is no mere errand boy for the United States' biggest intelligence agenc)" It carrie~ (lut its own signals intelligence operations and is trying to .;()lIect huge amounts of elllail and Internet data from U.S, cOlllpanies- an operation that the NSA once conducted, wus repoimnnded fnr, and says it abandoned,

The heart of the Fill's signals intelligence activitie~ i~ an obscure, organization l'lllled the Data Intercept Technolo!\.y Unit, or [JJTU (prmwuIIced DEEtoo), 'I'lle hnndlill of new" "rtieles that mentioned it prior to revelations ofNSA surveillance this summer did so mostly in passing, It bas bardy been discussed in

Page 1 of 10

Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work - By Shane Harris / Foreign Policy 11/25113, 10;07 PM

congressional testimony . .'\.11 NSAPowerPoinl presentation given to journalists by former NSA contractor Edw,rrd Snowden hints a.l DJ'lTl's pivotal role in the NSA's Prism system -- it appears as a nondescript box on a flowchart showing how the NSA "taskfs]" information to be collected, which is then gathered and ddive\'cd by the DJTU.

Bnt inlel'viewH with curron! and f()rmer law enforct'm worked "ith the unit to implement slIrveillance orders.

"111ving only tIl mt'ladata that has heel) approved by a court.

The FIll h,,, huilt metatiatu eolJco as many as I:{ individual fields of information. according to the industry representative. The data include the route a message took Dver a network, Internet proto

Apple releases information on data requests from NSA. olher agencies - latim~s.com 11171.14.5:53 PM

latimes.com/business/moneylla-fHn-apple-nsa-data-request-surveillance-20 130617 ,0,7979116.story

latimes.com Apple releases information on data requests from NSA, other agencies

By Jim Puzzanghera

6:30 AM PDT, June 17,2013

WASHINGTON -- Apple inc., said it received 4,000 to 5,000 requests for customer data from U.S. officials during the six months ending in May, as it became the latest high-tech company to provide some details on its involvement in the National Security Agency's Internet surveillance program.

The requests involved 9,000 to 10,000 customer accounts or devices, the company said in a statement on its website. Not all the requests involved the NSA's controversial Prism program, which the company said it did not know about until revelations in the news media on June 6.

The data requests came from federal, state and local authorities and involved national security matters and criminal investigations. Apple said.

"The most common form of request comes from police investigating robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, trying to locate a patient with Alzheimer's disease, or hoping to prevent a suicide," the statement said.

Apple said some types of data are never provided, including FaceTime conversations and requests made through its Sid voice assistant.

On Friday, Facebook said it received 9,000 to J 0,000 government data requests in the second half of 2012, involving 18,000 to 19,000 accounts. The company said it complied with 79% of the requests.

Apple did not provide a compliance percentage.

Apple said its legal team evaluates each request and "from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it."

When a request for data is fulfilled, Apple said, the company retrieves and delivers "the narrowest possible set of information" in order to protect the privacy of its customers.

"We will continue to work hard to strike the right balance between fulfilling our legal responsibilities and protecting our customers' privacy as they expect and deserve," Apple said.

Apple doesn't provide some types of information either because the company doesn't retain it or because it is encrypted, the company said.

http:/ ;'NWW .latimes.rorll / businessj money /Ia- fi -tn-appJe-nsa -data-req uest -su rveiliance .. 20 130617,0,4244678, pfinl.story Page 1 of 2

Apple releases information on data requests from NSA. other agencies- latimes.com 1/17/14.5:53 PM

Customer video calls on FaceTime or text exch.mges using iMessage have "end-to-end encryption" and Apple cannot decrypt the data, the company said. Also, Apple said it did not store identifiable data on customer location, map searches or Siri queries;

Apple said in April that it records and stores Siri queries for up to two years. At the time, Apple said it kept for six months Siri data that was associated with specific customers. The data were kept for up to 18 months after that, but identifiable information was removed, it said.

AlSO:

Quiksilver is riding a wave of red ink

F-22 program produces few planes, soaring costs

Web services speed ahead with ways to bolster customer security

CopyJight 20J4, Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/business!moneyflaft-tn-apple-nsa-data-fequest-surveiliance-20130617.0.4244678.prinl. story Page 2 of 2

h G'n Bob Rivernider ;) __ 'L"\',,,,; .', ", '. '",' \" Su;:;j;oCl Time to go on offensive

\),,1'3 June 9,2013 at 8:39 PM '1';;: Mike Chase fei!.>;>'" CG Patricia Vargo

Hello TEAM,

,', ""'n,, James W, Bergenn

WOW what week, I am sure you guys are going nuts with all the new revelations from whistleblowers this week,

I hope it is not to late but if we can get into court before anyone else, I would like to be the one to open the can of worms about the Government having all our Attorney\Client confidential information and e-mails, it could mean all of publicity for you guys. I haven~ seen anyone else make this case yet, so we can still be the first

Since we now know about Prism and the fact, no longer fiction, the the Government has the ability and has actively been obtaining everyone's e-mails and phone records, the CRAZY BOB theory is no longer a theory and something we MUST inquire into.

We may have a unique case based on all the info we have been collecting, but I can't imagine every Defense Attorney turning into an Offense Attorney as early as Monday morning and filing a motion demanding the government disclose all privileged information they have on all their cHents, as we need to do immediately, requiring the Government to turn over all data they have and have collected on me, including all the attorney client confidential correspondence that they have been reading, They now need to be put in the sarne position we have been in, prove a negative, prove they have not been reading privileged e-maits and listening ip on our conversations,

If they can not prove it, then we must demand the entire case be dropped, We absolutely can not take their word as they have dernonstrated they will break any law (CVRA) (18 USC 1018) (etc) violate any DOJ rule to secure a conviction.

FYI, 1 think now we know what Schmeiuer meant when he said, after the Bryant DepoSition. we will be prepaid next time. He wasn't going to allow the truth to come out "next time" like what happened in the Bryant depo as we clearly showed I did not inflate values of properties. This explains why Schrneizzer cut off Jim we he started 10 telilhe Judge during trial about the Recipe e-mail the day after I sent the bullet points e-mail that clearly showed the whOle story they toid the jury was a complete fraud. Schmeizzer was prepared for Jim to bring it up and shut him down before Jim can expose the fraud as he must have read my e-mail, as he is probably doing right now, before you guys even get it.

This also may explain why the took Robert Hall ott the witness list because they read my emails which they eaSily verified what I was saying was true and everything Hall told them was completely false. What I still want to know is when they learned it If they knew Hall was lying before they searched my house then they clearly got a Rosen Warrant' to search my house which would violate Brady. If they learned Hall was a complete fralJd when he testified before the grand jury or after they had a duty to inform the grand jury. well did they? We need to know,

It is possible that John Durham obtained a warrant to read rny e-maiisfromtheFISAcourt.this is THE JOHN DURHAM after aiL He is well aware of how he can easily get a warrant frorn the ftJpbe( stamp FISA court, did he? We should know about that shouldn't we?

As you know, I was an investigator lor the State of Florida, I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States agamst all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, which includes Governrnent agents who willfully Violate the U.S. Constituboh making them an enemy. The prosectors having access to priviteged correspondence violated my rights under the Constitution to a fair trial, among many other violations I documented in the past

So is the TEAM together and on the same page? As tile tirneliness of the revelations of this week are, I believe we should get on top of this, not just for me but for every American Citizen who is facing a clearly tyrannical government who has lost its way.

By the tirne you read this the Government has already read it, so be ready for their offensive move, Also, since the Government is reading your e-mail, if you can't go on the offensive I will understand, Please understand I MUST, not just because it is me that tile Government prosecutors violated my Rights but because the Government prosectors violated everyone's rights and I have to do what I can expose it, if I don't who will? If no one does take a stand, we are finished, the experiment called America is over.

Who is standing with me? Maybe we can have an emergency hearin