Dear Norma, (and a P.S. to Ken Moss)
Your information continues to keep popping back into my mind and I also find it suspect.
When you were told this information, did it not occur to you that the Federal District Court and whole prosecutorial team would certainly have liked to have known a month before trial that the "writing was on the wall" and they were going to lose this case because of "unusual" circumstances and/or influence. They stated that it was to be a "test case" for internet fraud, so you have to know the importance they put on this case and that they certainly did not expect to lose it. Do you not know that there are laws in place to address this type of misconduct? Did you believe your friend's information to be absolutely believable or did you believe they were just boasting and it was more rumor than fact? You know that I am a firm believer in our judicial system and any time there are abuses such as this I believe it is most disturbing. It attacks the integrity of our judicial system and the system does investigate when matters such as this become known to them.
Also, I am wondering by what you said about revamping our juror portion if you know what "voir dire" is, and why it is in place in our judicial system for jury selection? I think it addresses your concerns regarding any juror's life experiences. It is a very important part of any trial.
Our laws are changed somewhere every day and the system tries to prevent any inequities. Don't think it will ever be perfect, but still the best there is and believe it is still trying to make it better for the citizens of our Country and continues to protect each citizen's right of "due process" under the law. WHAT A WONDERFUL COUNTRY THIS REALLY IS!
I believe that juror's do take their duty to serve very seriously and because the prosecutorial team's strategy of using Klenovic as their star witness to corroberate "guilt", the jury did not think much of his credibility and he caused much reasonable doubt in their minds. I think they also believed that he had control of all of the records and that also made reasonable doubt in their minds. Because Karen Lacy testified for the defense of his past misconduct they put more emphasis on her credibility. I do believe that Karen Lacy agreed to testify for the defense because of her treatment by the SEC and her saying that they held it over her head for four years before releasing her as not cupable and she believed that Klenovic was the cause, a pathological liar and set her up to violate the law, and she found out after the fact that he had set up brokerage accounts to sell the stock he had her transfer to his wife and son. I am sure she is still trying to understand why she did not see what he was doing, but so many people do not know the law and the scammer tells them if they ask, that it is legal so they do what they are told to do since they don't believe the scammer to be a scammer. I am sure she has much animosity directed at Klenovic for what he has done to her life. This certainly is not unbelievable since he testified in open court in this case that he was the "control person" and would have been in her situation also. By testimony, it certainly appears Klenovic orchestrated this fraud from the beginning and knew exactly how to do it and enough of a con-artist to get others to do his bidding. I certainly thought Robert Bunte would be convicted by what I read on this thread, but that just goes to show you that the jury had all the evidence that had been allowed to be entered and they still believed that Klenovic was not to be believed.
I have certainly gleaned more information than I knew before the trial and I will continue to be interested in the truth or watch the truth evolve. I still do believe that there is much more to be learned and will still wait patiently to see what happens.
My regards,
nhaynes
P. S. to Ken Moss. Hi Ken, Derek Allen commented to you on this thread that he would see you in the Court room. Was he there? Did you get to meet him in person? Did he testify for the prosecution? It was not mentioned as to who all of witnesses were that either side called, though I believe the number of 12 was mentioned in the paper. but I would think that the SEC would have wanted him there because of his stating that he was a private investor and had planned to invest in this company and how he came to expose Klenovic on the internet and have him testify as to his conversations with Bunte. If he was, did you happen to notice if he wore a gold cross in his left lapel? His post sounded very disappointed and I can understand why after he posted so much regarding all's guilt that he was so sure of. He failed to mention Craig Sheffield so guess that is mute now. Wish I had taken the time to go watch this trial from beginning to end and take notes. I would have been able to determine this for myself, but other matters prevented me from going. Now wish I had taken the time since it only took seven days to try.
Regards to you and the Mrs. also. Back to lurking nhaynes |
