Thursday, August 26, 2004

Comment on the Iraqi War

This posting is a break from the Trial. I have to say something about the presidential race and the current day focus on the Vietnam War instead of the Iraqi War.

Is there anyone out there that believes our president or his successors are going to show the veterans of the Iraqi War any more respect than he and his predecessors have shown the Vietnam veterans?

Why would anyone follow this president into war knowing what he did to John McCain in South Carolina and how he personally avoided active-duty front line service during the Vietnam War by joining the National Guard and then by obtaining a student deferment to attend Harvard?

I don't know if Bush was AWOL during the time he did serve in the National Guard and don't know if Kerry's wounds were self inflicted or whether he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. What I do know is I don't want to be involved and I don't want my kids involved in Bush's religious war and I am discussed by his lack of leadership during his first term. But, I doubt that Kerry would provide a significantly better solution. I like the phrase: "you can't stick a tissue between the differences in Bush and Kerry." I have a similar feeling with respect to Democrats and Republicans, so what is the big fuss about, neither party wants Americans to be free and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

I think it is time for those Americans in Iraq to just come home and let the Iraqi people sort out their own country. The war was a mistake from day one and there is no indication that things are really going to improve anytime soon. Allowing the war to continue only demonstrates the governments true indifference to the American soldiers that are giving their lives and limbs and valuable time with their families to feed Bush's quest for personal glory as a war president.

As far as I am concerned, anyone that follows this president or the next into war gets what they deserve, if they live they get to come home to the disrespect of the American people and the people of the world.

Whose freedom are they fighting for anyway, if it's not their own it's not their battle! I doubt the Iraqi's will ever take away the freedom of any American while they are in America, but the government of the United States will, so who is the real enemy?

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Holsworth - Government Sponsored Perjury

This posting details the Holsworth lie regarding his signature on the April 19, 1996 A. I. Credit Premium Finance Agreement. In his sworn deposition under oath on August 11, 1999 Holsworth committed perjury when he unequivocally stated his signature was forged on the April 19 PFA while looking at the document.

The first time he was given the April 19 PFA in the presence of the FBI five months later on January 20, 2000 he changed his story to the signature "appears" to be his.

On June 23, 2003 Holsworth provides his explanation of why he testified under oath in August 1999 that his signature was forged on the April 19 PFA.

Holsworth is an intelligent man. For the AUSA's to believe or even to pretend to believe Holsworth did not know the definition of forgery in August 1999 when he was looking at the April 19 PFA and clearly stating "that is not my signature" is a fraud on the American Justice System and a disgrace to the Justice Department. Orest probably received a bonus and a promotion for participating in such immoral acts; nothing like good ole' government sponsored perjury!

By the time of the Trial in November 2002 Holsworth had obviously been coached by the AUSA's to say that he had been directed by Franklin to sign the April 19 PFA because by this time the AUSA's were aware that Rosby and Franklin were not in Monon on April 19th and could not have forged Holsworth's signature. They needed to change the story to make it fit consistent with a PFA signed in Monon on April 19, 1996, the only time it could have been singed after discussions with AI Credit!

Holsworth Deposition August 11, 1999:

Page 138
9 Q. Let me show you a couple of documents,
10 and these deal with the first of the A.I. Credit
11 financings.
12 First is Exhibit 31, which is the
13 Premium Finance agreement. The second one is the
14 Notice of Acceptance which is Exhibit 148. And a
15 third one is a fax dated April 23rd from Peterson to
16 you.
17 Why don't you take a look.
18 MR. WARE: Is that an exhibit?
19 MS. DUNSKY: The number --
20 MR. WARE: 31 and 148.
21 MR. FISHER: And 233.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Tell you that is not my
23 signature, number one.
24 Q. BY MR. FISHER: Let's take a look.
25 You're looking at Exhibit 31.

Page 139
1 Have you ever seen that Exhibit 31
2 before?
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. When did you see it?
5 A. Well, I've seen it twice. I saw it
6 obviously when the first deal went down, but then I
7 saw it again when the FBI showed it to me.
8 Q. Tell me the first time. How did you
9 come to see it the first time?
10 A. Well, I would have seen it when I was
11 going to record it on the books.
12 Q. Okay. And you say that that is not
13 your signature, that's a forgery?
14 A. And I told the FBI and everybody else,
15 that is not my signature,
16 Q. Did you discuss that with anyone at
17 Monon when you first saw it?
18 A. I know that I can tell you one of the
19 people I know -- in fact, when this thing came back
20 with my signature on it, one of the comments I made
21 was "Who signed my name?" You know.
22 And it seems to me that the
23 conversation I had was with Peterson. And at the
24 time, somebody signed my name in order to expedite
25 the paperwork, is what they said.
20 A. -- but I doubt I confronted Franklin.
21 Q. Okay. And the other thing, Mike, did
22 you talk to him over the phone --
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. -- as soon after?
25 A. As soon as I got it. Obviously, one

Page 140
1 of the first things I looked at is my signature was
2 sitting on there, at least what somebody says is my
3 signature, and my first comment is: Who in the hell
4 signed my name?

Holsworth ¶302 January 20,2000 Page 5:

Source was asked to review AI premium finance agreement dated April 19, 1996. After reviewing the premium finance agreement, source advised the signature appearing on this premium finance agreement appears to be source's signature.

Holsworth Letter of Recant dated June 23, 2002:

Page 138: On this page and later in the deposition, there was a series of questions related to two forgeries. I believe the confusion relative to this issue can be addressed fairly quickly. I believe there are two documents that bear my signature and one document that is a forgery- The confusion lies in that one of the documents that bears my signature has a subsequent sheet attached to it that outlines the insurance policies supporting the financing. This document was not attached at the time I executed the original. This is clear by the fact that the date of my signature predates the attachment and the area where the insurance information is typically provided is left blank. From my perspective this was a misrepresentation of the facts, which I may have indicated in the deposition was a forgery. The second document is a forgery (of my signature) and I have indicated the same throughout my dealings with the FBI and the US District Attorneys Office (pages 174 thru 177).

Holsworth Testimony at Criminal Trial: November 2003

VOLUME 3, Page 128


8 Q Mr. Holsworth, can you tell us what Exhibit 25 is?
9 A It's a premium finance agreement.
10 Q Between -- involving which parties?
11 A Monon Corporation and AI Credit.
12 Q And what is the date on the premium finance agreement?
13 Strike that.
14 Did you sign this premium finance agreement?
15 A Yes.
16 Q That is your signature?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q And what date does it -- on what day did you sign it?
19 A I signed it on April 19, 1996.
20 Q Now, this particular premium finance agreement is with
21 who again, AI Credit you said?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 Q And the prior one was with Anthem, was it not?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q And what is the total premiums represented under this

VOLUME 3, Page 129


1 particular premium finance agreement?
2 A $2,950,922.
3 Q Is that the same number as on the Anthem premium
4 finance agreement?
5 A Yes.
6 Q How is it, Mr. Holsworth, that you signed this
7 particular premium finance agreement?
8 A I would have been instructed to do so.
9 Q Well, who would have instructed you to do so?
10 A John Franklin.
11 Q Did you ask him why he just didn't sign it?
12 A No, sir.
13 Q Did he ask you in person or some other way?
14 A I don't recall.
15 Q Did you do everything Mr. Franklin instructed you to
16 do?
17 A Pretty much. Short of killing somebody, yes.

This is a feel-good posting! You should rest comfortably tonight knowing the AUSA's are protecting you from evil people. Just hope they don't want something you own!

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Blakely vs. Washington State

What this case points out is the fact the government has been sentencing United States Citizens to long prison terms for the past 20 years without the benefit of their Sixth Amendment rights. While this may surprise many Americans, although I would say most could care less, it should not surprise anyone that has dealt with the corruption in the U.S. legal system.

The fact that most Americans could care less is the reason the government and the Justice Department have been able to get away with such a criminal act as denying American Citizens their constitutional rights for twenty years!

I can only smile as I write this page at those that are willing to waste their time, losing limbs and life in Iraq to deliver American style democracy and justice. The Iraqi's were better off under Sadam and American's certainly were better off having Sadam control the Shiite's. Something neither presidential candidate will acknowledge.

Is anyone in the Justice Department, any prosecutor or any judge going to face justice for denying American Citizens their rights under the Sixth Amendment for the past twenty years? I think not, it is just tough shit for those they have abused! BOO HOO! So many lives wasted, so much precious time lost from such an abusive government.

If you think the government is not abusive, just watch a couple of episodes of COPS on FOX TV. George Washington has to be spinning in his grave. I thought this "police state" abuse was the reason we beat Hitler in WW II. It seems we have army's of Nazi's patrolling the streets of America (why would they arrest and hand cuff Mike Wallace, he is older than dirt and probably not capable of hurting anyone?).

We will have to see in time how the Supreme Court works this mess out, but in general it will most likely only impact about five to ten percent of convicted Americans if it impacts anyone at all; even though the failure of the government to pay any attention to the Constitution has effected much closer to 80 percent of those Americans convicted in the past 20 years.

What is important to me is that I am in the five to ten percent that may benefit from the Supreme Courts small encounter with a conscience and impacted by the abuse of the Justice Department and others as it relates to Blakely.

The Blakely decision is only a small step in a system that is broken more than the CIA, which it seems is about to be dismantled by Congress. Dismantling the Justice Department should also be a high national priority for they are the terrorist within. If you don't believe me, use your free speech rights and try to go to a Bush or Kerry rally and hold up a sign of protest, you don't need to speak a word but you will be arrested and abused, I guarantee it.It is good to live in a free country, just don't try to use your freedom in America or the government will take it away from you. In my case I didn't even need to try to use my freedom, someone in the government just wanted a business I was involved in and I didn't cooperate. They find a way to get even!

Tuesday, August 10, 2004


I am certain that the government deliberately violated: TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 73, Sec. 1512. (b) 1 & 2 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant in the prosecution of my case. In violating Sec. 1512 the government denied me due process[1] as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment[2].

TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 73, Sec. 1512. - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to -

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to -

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The basis for my accusation regarding TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 73, Sec. 1512 (b) 1 & 2 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant are apparent throughout the history of my case:

1. The differences in Chapman’s testimony at Trial and his ¶302 statements regarding any verbal agreements altering the loan agreement.

2. The Peterson lie regarding meeting with Rosby on April 18th which could have only been constructed by the government between the Indictment and the Trial after learning Rosby and I were not available on April 19th for the alleged phone call and meetings with Peterson, all contrary to both Peterson ¶ 302’s and the civil case deposition of John Rago of AI Credit.

3. The fact the Government knew Cisowski was lying about Rosby’s and my testimony at the ¶341 meeting regarding placing serial numbers on modules. They had the ¶341 transcript and I know William Anderson who conducted the ¶341 meeting knew they Cisowski was lying the very first time the met with the FBI and an AUSA in November 1996. There simply was no such statement or any similar statement made at the ¶341 meeting, which was the whole basis of Cisowski’s testimony and involvement in the case.

4. Holsworth’s verifiable perjury in the civil case; and change in his understanding of Bill Ahead’s from November 1996 to the time of the Trial in November 2002.

All of the above demonstrate that only the government could have guided the witnesses to provide altered testimony from their original statements that was favorable to the governments’ case. It is clear to me in my case the government manipulated the witnesses to arrive at Tom Rosby’s and my wrongful convictions.

It seems to me that the government is allowed to violate Sec. 1512 and that this abuse goes unchecked by Judges and Defense Attorney’s. I have found nothing on the Internet that indicates the government is exempt from Sec. 1512 and can only wonder in amazement how the legal system allows, embraces and upholds Sec 1512 on one hand and on the other hand uses Sec. 6002 (which is relevant in my case) and Rule 35 (b)[3] (which is NOT relevant in my case) time after time to achieve wrongful convictions. In case after case I have discovered people being released (usually after finding new evidence such as DNA analysis) that were convicted based on the false testimony of government witnesses that were immunitized or received reduced sentences, yet no one in the government or on the defendant’s side ever takes any action to stop such immoral practices. The obvious root cause of many wrongful convictions is the governments’ influence on the witness’s testimony based on their exercise of control over the witness utilizing immunity and reduced sentences as compensation. And in my case allowing (and perhaps encouraging) the witnesses to commit perjury in the related civil case.

TITLE 18, PART V, CHAPTER 601, Sec. 6002. - Immunity generally

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to –

(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,

(2) an agency of the United States, or

(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,

and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order

I have found nothing in TITLE 18, PART V, CHAPTER 601, Sec. 6002. - Immunity generally that allows the Government to manipulate witness testimony, to the contrary it allows the Government to use the immunitized witnesses testimony for prosecution of the immunitized witness for perjury and false statements. Something I think they are obligated to do when they become aware their witnesses are violating the law, but which they have failed to do in my case.

I am sure that when the Sixth Amendment was added in 1789 the founding fathers had no idea the phrase “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” would include criminals the government compensated and controlled through immunity to wrongfully convict government designated targets at will. Ultimately, the Executive Branch of the government should be prevented from offering immunity to influence witnesses in any way; it serves no purpose in obtaining the true facts of a case. In my mind the government can’t avoid violating Section 1512 anytime someone from the Executive Branch provides immunity or offers up reduced sentences. I could find no legal precedent for or against my argument on the Internet, but I am not the lawyer! It seems to me this may be like the Blakely case and the Sixth Amendment; nobody seemed to notice for 20 years that the Sixth Amendment was being ignored. In the instance of using Sec. 1521 to redefine Sec. 6002 and Rule 35 (b), the Defense Attorney’s need to be willing to directly confront the government attorney’s in a personal attack; something Defense Attorney’s don’t seem to be very inclined to do for whatever reasons.

It further stands to reason, that if immunity absent of perjury is available for a witness for the government under the Sixth Amendment, immunity should also be available by the Defendants for witnesses produced as a result of a “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” as stated in the Sixth Amendment. I am not aware that the Defendant has the opportunity to offer any such immunity for perjury free testimony, leaving the Sec. 6002 inherently unbalanced in finding the truth.

In my case the government knew the very day they gave Holsworth and Cisowski their plea agreements that neither one of them were truthful in their first meeting that evening on November 21, 1996. Yet they continued to provide immunity, letting them know that their lying would be an acceptable practice as long as it benefited the government.

The details of my case can be found at

[1] due process - An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
[2] Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[3] Rule 35. Correcting or Reducing a Sentence
(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance.
(1) In General.
Upon the government’s motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if:
(A) the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person; and
(B) reducing the sentence accords with the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines and policy statements.

Monday, August 09, 2004

Fed Target

Just wanted to direct people to my website to learn more about the judicial process in the United States.