Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp. - A Scam? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (4411)	11/29/2009 5:21:26 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

11/25/2009 48 MOTION for Protective Order by USA as to Rufus Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley, Darryl Horton. (Anand, Justin) (Entered: 11/25/2009) Doc 48 PDF file viewer.zoho.com GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCOVERY MATERIAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. RUFUS PAUL HARRIS; BENJAMIN STANLEY; and DARRYL HORTON : Defendants : CRIMINAL INDICTMENT NO. 1:09-CR-406 GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCOVERY MATERIAL The United States of America, by and through its counsel, Sally Quillian Yates, Acting United States Attorney, Northern District of Georgia, and Justin S. Anand, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves pursuant to Fed. R. Crim P. 16(d), for a protective order that limits the defendants’ use and dissemination of information provided in discovery to that which is reasonably necessary to prepare their defenses. Specifically, the Government requests an order providing that any discovery materials and all information included in discovery materials (referred to in this order as discovery”), regardless of whether such materials and information are defined as discovery under Rule 16 or already have been produced, that are provided by the United States to any defendant shall not be further disseminated by the defendant or his counsel to any individuals, organizations, or other entities, other than: (1) members of the defense team (co-counsel, paralegals, investigators, litigation support personnel, the defendant, and secretarial staff); (2) any experts or consultants retained to assist in the preparation of the defense; and (3) counsel for any co-defendant. The Government further requests an order stating that each defendant, his co-counsel, and any investigator may show but not provide copies of any discovery to witnesses if it is determined that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preparing the defense of the case. The Government further requests that all discovery is to be provided and used by each defendant and his counsel solely for the purpose of allowing the defendant to prepare his defense, and that each defendant, defense counsel, or members of the defense teams will not disseminate, disclose, or provide the discovery produced by the United States to anyone who is not necessary to the preparation of the defense. In support of this motion, the Government states that the discovery material in this case is voluminous, and contains over 40,000 documents. Many of these documents are personal bank or brokerage records of defendants, as well as certain family members of each of the defendants who are not charged. The documents also contain address and other identity information for other third parties. The Government has taken diligent steps to redact social security numbers, but given the volume of documentation and varying qualities of electronic images (which can degrade the effectiveness of Optical Character Recognition searches) it is possible that a redaction was missed. Further, for the same reasons, it is not practicable to redact every address or account number associated with every individual. Thus, the Government submits that additional protective measures are necessary to guard against intentional or unintentional dissemination of confidential personal information. A protective order is the most reasonable way of balancing the defendants’ need for access to these materials, with the rights of individuals whose information may be reflected in this discovery. WHEREFORE, the United States of America respectfully requests that the Court issue the protective order presented to the Court. Respectfully submitted, SALLY QUILLIAN YATES ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /S/ Justin Anand JUSTIN S. ANAND ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 600 U.S. Courthouse 75 Spring St., S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 581-6322 (404) 581-6181 (Fax) Georgia Bar No. 016116 ------------------ See attached proposed order - 11/25/2009 48 MOTION for Protective Order by USA as to Rufus Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley, Darryl Horton. (Anand, Justin) (Entered: 11/25/2009) Doc 48 PDF file viewer.zoho.com

To: scion who wrote (4411)	11/29/2009 5:23:14 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

11/25/2009 49 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy: Status Conference and Motion Hearing as to Rufus Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley. The 47 Motion to Modify Conditions of Release as to Rufus Paul Harris (1) is GRANTED; Counsel DIRECTED to submit to the Court a proposed consent order modifying bond conditions, with modified conditions as outlined in the minutes. Defendant Stanley shall proceed pro se until he hires an attorney or until he proves to the Court that he is indigent and will need a court appointed attorney. (Tape #FTR Gold) (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009) ---------------- Doc 49 extract UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK USA v. Harris et al Honorable C. Christopher Hagy Minute Sheet for proceedings held In Open Court on 11/25/2009. TIME COURT COMMENCED: 11:00 A.M. TIME COURT CONCLUDED: 12:00 P.M. TIME IN COURT: 1:00 TAPE NUMBER: FTR Gold DEPUTY CLERK: Traci Clements-Campbell Minute Sheet ecf.gand.circ11.dcn 1 of 1 11/25/2009 1:56 PM DEFENDANT(S): [1]Rufus Paul Harris Present at proceedings [2]Benjamin Stanley Present at proceedings ATTORNEY(S) PRESENT: Justin Anand representing USA Jamila Hall representing USA Howard Manchel representing Rufus Paul Harris Benjamin Stanley appearing Pro Se PROCEEDING CATEGORY: MOTIONS RULED ON: DFT#1-[47]Motion to Modify Conditions of Release GRANTED. Counsel DIRECTED to submit to the Court a Proposed Consent Order Modifying Bond Conditions. MINUTE TEXT: Status Conference Held re: attorney representation for Defendant Stanley. Defendant Stanley shall proceed pro se until he hires an attorney or until he proves to the Court that he is indigent and will need a court appointed attorney; Motion Hearing Held re: modification of conditions of release for Defendant Harris. The modified conditions of Defendant Harris' bond, to be included in the consent order, are (1) The Defendant may move from the Northern District of Georgia to reside in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; (2) Defendant shall report to his Oklahoma Pretrial Services Officer once a week, as long as the Pretrial Services Officer finds this condition necessary; (3) Defendant shall not be employed in any business offering Securities, (4) Defendant shall not hold any position within a publicly traded company as an Officer or Director, (5) Defendant shall not travel outside Oklahoma, except for court appointments or appointments with his counsel in Georgia that are in connection with this case, (6) Defendant shall notify his Pretrial Service Officer in advance of travel. HEARING STATUS: Hearing Concluded

To: scion who wrote (4411)	11/29/2009 5:24:16 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

11/25/2009 50 ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk to continue to exclude time in this case only until 11/30/2009 re the 21 Order as to Benjamin Stanley. Signed by Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 11/25/2009. (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009) Doc 50 extract IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BENJAMIN STANLEY :::::: CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:09-CR-406-TCB-JFK O R D E R On November 3, 2009, this Court issued an Order [21] allowing Defendant Stanley until November 13, 2009, to obtain counsel of his choosing or to seek appointed counsel. On November 13, 2009, Defendant appeared and advised the Court that his counsel was on trial and wanted a significant retainer to represent him, but assured the Court that as soon as his preferred counsel was off trial he would be able to meet with and retain him. The Court gave him until the date hereof to retain counsel, but he appeared this date and advised that, while he would have the funds to retain counsel of his choice, he did not have sufficient liquidity at the present time and would not until after December 12, 2009. He did not take the position, however, that he needed appointed counsel - - he simply wanted one particular lawyer and had not yet reached an agreement with him. The Court strongly advised Defendant Stanley against proceeding pro se, but also advised that it could not continue to delay the case indefinitely while he sought to reach an agreement with one particular counsel. Mr. Stanley was advised that the case must proceed and that, based on his own representations, he appeared to have the assets to retain counsel. Thus, he was told that he would either have to: proceed pro se; to retain counsel, or establish that he cannot afford to retain counsel and ask the Court to appoint counsel for him. Mr. Stanley elected to proceed pro se for the present. He acknowledged that he knew that was not wise; that he understood that he could ask for court appointed counsel, but that such request would have to be accompanied by a showing of inability to pay for counsel. The Court advised Mr. Stanley that such a showing would not have to establish that he had no assets, but only that he could not hire private counsel with the assets that he has. He was told that if he cannot afford the attorney he has been negotiating with then he needs to talk to others or show such a lack of resources as would allow the Court to determine that defendant cannot afford an experienced and competent criminal defense lawyer. In its Order of November 3, 2009 [21], the Court directed the clerk to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act until further order. Defendant, having failed to obtain counsel or to seek court appointed counsel, has elected to proceed pro se. The Court has no confidence that Defendant will retain counsel or seek appointed counsel as long as he can continue this case, and for that reason finds that further delay to give Defendant more time to obtain counsel or to establish his right to appointed counsel is not warranted. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to continue to exclude time in this case only until November 30, 2009, which is the first day hereafter following the Thanksgiving holidays and weekend that the Court is officially opened. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2009. _________________________________ C. CHRISTOPHER HAGY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

To: scion who wrote (4411)	11/29/2009 5:25:51 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

11/25/2009 51 Consent ORDER Modifying Conditions of Pretrial Release as to Rufus Paul Harris. Signed by Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy on 11/25/2009. (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009) Doc 51 PDF file viewer.zoho.com

To: scion who wrote (4411)	11/30/2009 4:42:18 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4624

Pacer update 30 Nov 09 CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cr-00406-UNA USA v Harris et al Date Filed # Docket Text 11/30/2009 Clerk's Certificate of Mailing as to Rufus Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley, Darryl Horton re 52 Pretrial Scheduling Order. (alc) (Entered: 11/30/2009) 11/30/2009 52 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER as to Rufus Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley, Darryl Horton. Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2009 at 2:00 PM in ATLA Courtroom 2008 before Magistrate Judge Janet F. King. Pretrial motions due on or before 3:00 PM on 12/14/2009. The Clerk is DIRECTED to exclude from computation under the Speedy Trial Act the period of delay as to each defendant from the time of each defendant's arraignment date through and until 11/30/2009, pursuant to 18 USC § 3161(h)(6). Signed by Magistrate Judge Janet F. King on 11/30/2009. (alc) (Entered: 11/30/2009) Defendant (1)Rufus Paul Harris Defendant (2)Benjamin Stanley Defendant (3)Darryl Horton ecf.gand.uscourts.gov