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 (4440)	1/29/2010 1:39:13 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

01/29/2010 72 MOTION for Bill of Particulars with Brief In Support by Darryl Horton. (Waldrop, Thomas) (Entered: 01/29/2010) Doc 72 PDF file viewer.zoho.com MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF COMES NOW the Defendant, DARRYL HORTON, by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully submits this Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Brief in Support Thereof pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and requests this Honorable Court enter an Order directing the United States to file a Bill of Particulars to the following matters concerning the offenses charged in the above-styled indictment. As grounds for this Motion, Defendant shows the following: (1) As to Count One, Defendant needs the Government to clarify the time frame of the conspiracy with more specificity. He also needs to know who the others not named but known are. This holds true for those who were alleged coconspirators as well as aiders and abettors. See paragraph one of Count One. (2) Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the filing of a bill of particulars. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to give the defendant more particular information. United States v. Archibald, 212 Fed. Appx. 788, 794, n.2 (11th Cir. 2006). The bill of particulars provides the defendant with information about the details of the charges that are necessary to the preparation of a defense and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial. United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1979), cert denied 445 U.S. 946 (1979); United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1365 (11th Cir. 1984). (3) The Motion is not at this time an attack upon the sufficiency of the indictment. The fact that the indictment is valid, assuming it is, is not a defense to a motion for a bill of particulars, United States v. Faulkner, 53 F.R.D. 299, 310 (D. Wis. 1971), inasmuch as the underlying purpose of Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is not to cure defects in the Government's pleadings. In fact, a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment. United States v. Farinas, 299 F. Supp. 852 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). (4) The purposes of a bill of particulars are to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against [him] with sufficient precision to enable [him] to prepare for trial, to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at time of trial and to enable [him] to plead [his] acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes. United States v. Haskins, 345 F.2d 11, 114 (6th Cir. 1965); United States v. Francisco, 575 F.2d 815, 818 (10th Cir. 1978). See also United States v. Roberts, 174 Fed. Appx. 475, *1-2 (11th Cir. 2006). Failure to grant a motion for bill of particulars may constitute reversible error. United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2006). (5) To serve the purposes stated above, Defendant requests that this Court order the Government to provide the Defendant with the complete names of all known alleged co-conspirators and aiders and abettors. He also seeks further clarification of the time frame of the conspiracy. (13) WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court exercise its sound discretion and order the United States to provide the particulars requested herein so as to assure that the Defendant may adequately prepare for trial and avoid prejudicial surprise. Dated: This 29th day of January, 2010. Respectfully submitted, s/ Jake Waldrop JAKE WALDROP GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 731117 ATTORNEY FOR DARRYL HORTON Federal Defender Program, Inc. Suite 1700, The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-7530 Jake_Waldrop@fd.org

To: scion who wrote (4440)	1/29/2010 1:41:53 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

01/29/2010 73 MOTION to Adopt Defendant Rufus Paul Harris's Motion for Bill of Particulars by Darryl Horton. (Waldrop, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2010 to update text to more accurately reflect e-filed pleading (alc). (Entered: 01/29/2010) Doc 73 PDF file viewer.zoho.com MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANT RUFUS PAUL HARRIS’S MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS COMES NOW, DARRYL HORTON, through undersigned counsel, and moves the Court pursuant to LcrR 12.1(c) for leave to adopt the codefendant Rufus Paul Harris’s Motion for Bill of Particulars [R67]. 1. Co-Defendant Rufus Paul Harris’s Motion for Bill of Particulars was filed on or about January 28, 2010. 2. Like Co-Defendant Mr. Harris, Mr. Horton is named in Counts One through Seven. As noted in Mr. Harris’ motion, the information sought is integral to the defense not only of Mr. Harris, but also Mr. Horton. It relates to specifics left out of Count One. The Defendant’s request to adopt this motion filed by Mr. Harris is warranted and permissible and serves to avoid burdening the court with repetitive and duplicative pleadings. 3. This motion to adopt should be granted in the interest of justice. Moreover, this motion to adopt his co-defendant’s motion assures Mr. Horton of receiving effective assistance of counsel and due process of law. WHEREFORE, Darryl Horton respectfully requests that he be given leave to adopt the above referenced motion of his codefendant, Mr. Harris. Respectfully submitted, this 29th day of January, 2010. Respectfully submitted, s/ Jake Waldrop JAKE WALDROP GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 731117 ATTORNEY FOR DARRYL HORTON Federal Defender Program, Inc. Suite 1700, The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-7530 Jake_Waldrop@fd.org

To: scion who wrote (4440)	1/29/2010 1:43:52 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

01/29/2010 74 MOTION to Suppress Defendant's SEC Deposition by Darryl Horton. (Waldrop, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2010 to update text re title of pleading (alc). (Entered: 01/29/2010) Doc 74 PDF file viewer.zoho.com PRELIMINARY MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S SEC DEPOSITION COMES NOW, DARRYL HORTON, through undersigned counsel, and moves the Court to enter an Order to suppress statements he made during his SEC deposition and in support thereof shows as follows: 1. Defendant has been indicted with two others in a multi-count indictment alleging that he and two codefendants conspired with each other to commit securities fraud. The indictment also alleges that the men also committed a substantive scheme to commit securities fraud and also engaged in wire fraud to advance the scheme. 2. Like Mr. Harris, Mr. Horton was the subject of an SEC investigation and was deposed pursuant to a subpoena issued by the SEC. It does not appear based on current information that Mr. Horton was warned by Government counsel of his right not to incriminate himself. 3. It is believed that admissions made by Mr. Horton will be introduced into evidence by the Government at Mr. Horton’s trial. Since the SEC is a law enforcement agency which began the investigation which led to the instant federal prosecution, Mr. Horton’s statements should not be admitted against him since he did not waive his privilege against self incrimination in a knowing and intelligent manner. In short, the introduction of his statements would violate the Fifth Amendment. WHEREFORE, Darryl Horton respectfully requests that this Court conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue and that it grant him leave to supplement this pleading with further facts and authority in support of his position. Respectfully submitted, this 29th day of January, 2010. Respectfully submitted, s/ Jake Waldrop JAKE WALDROP GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 731117 ATTORNEY FOR DARRYL HORTON Federal Defender Program, Inc. Suite 1700, The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-7530 Jake_Waldrop@fd.org

To: scion who wrote (4440)	1/29/2010 1:45:51 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

01/29/2010 75 MOTION to Sever Defendant by Darryl Horton. (Waldrop, Thomas) (Entered: 01/29/2010) Doc 75 PDF file viewer.zoho.com DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY MOTION FOR SEVERANCE OF DEFENDANTS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT NOW COMES Defendant, DARRYL HORTON, by and through undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to enter an Order granting him a separate trial from his codefendants and in support thereof shows as follows: (1) Defendant has been indicted with two others in a multi-count indictment alleging that he and two codefendants conspired with each other to commit securities fraud. The indictment also alleges that the men also committed a substantive scheme to commit securities fraud and also engaged in wire fraud to advance the scheme. (2) Mr. Horton submits that it is likely that during the course of this joint trial that mutually antagonistic defenses will be posited, thus preventing him from receiving a fair trial. Moreover, the weight of the evidence against his codefendants is much greater than that which will be adduced against him. While joinder is favored under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 14 permits a severance of defendants if prejudice is substantial and cannot be diminished by cautionary instructions. (3) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a) provides: “If the joinder of offenses or of defendants . . . in an indictment . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may ... grant a severance of defendants .... or provide any other relief that justice requires.” The test to be applied for assessing prejudice is: Whether under all the circumstances of a particular case, it is within the capacity of jurors to follow a court’s limiting instructions and appraise the independent evidence against a defendant solely on that defendant’s own conduct in relation to allegations contained in the indictment and render a fair and impartial verdict. United States v. Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1243 (11 Cir. 2002). th (4) Defendant Horton maintains that the prejudice which would attach in a joint trial with his Defendants would be undue and insurmountable. In short, the jury would not be able to assess his guilt or innocence strictly on the facts adduced against him. No standard jury charge or admonition from the trial judge would remove the taint of prejudice. Mr. Horton is entitled to the jury’s independent consideration of the evidence as to him on each charged count. He cannot receive due process if the case proceeds in a joint trial with his codefendants. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Horton asks that this Court entertain his motion to sever his case from that of his codefendants and grant him leave to supplement this preliminary motion with additional facts and law. Respectfully submitted, this 29th day of January, 2010. Respectfully submitted, s/ Jake Waldrop JAKE WALDROP GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 731117 ATTORNEY FOR DARRYL HORTON Federal Defender Program, Inc. Suite 1700, The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-7530 Jake_Waldrop@fd.org

To: scion who wrote (4440)	1/29/2010 1:46:57 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 4624

01/29/2010 76 MOTION to Adopt Defendant Harris' Motion to Dismiss Counts 1s,2s,8s for duplicity by Darryl Horton. (Waldrop, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2010 to update text per title of e-filed pleading (alc). (Entered: 01/29/2010) Doc 76 PDF file viewer.zoho.com MOTION TO ADOPT DEFENDANT HARRIS’ MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT ON GROUNDS OF DUPLICITY COMES NOW, DARRYL HORTON, through undersigned counsel, and moves the Court pursuant to LcrR 12.1(c) for leave to adopt codefendant Rufus Paul Harris’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Duplicity [R69]. 1. Co-Defendant Rufus Paul Harris’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Duplicity was filed on or about January 28, 2010. 2. Like Co-Defendant Mr. Harris, Mr. Horton is named in Counts One and Two. As noted in Mr. Harris’ motion, the grounds for dismissal are integral to the defense not only of Mr. Harris, but also Mr. Horton. The Defendant’s request to adopt this motion filed by Mr. Harris is warranted and permissible and serves to avoid burdening the court with repetitive and duplicative pleadings. 3. This motion to adopt should be granted in the interest of justice. Moreover, this motion to adopt his co-defendant’s motion assures Mr. Horton of receiving effective assistance of counsel and due process of law. WHEREFORE, Darryl Horton respectfully requests that he be given leave to adopt the above referenced motion of his codefendant, Mr. Harris. Respectfully submitted, this 29th day of January, 2010. Respectfully submitted, s/ Jake Waldrop JAKE WALDROP GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 731117 ATTORNEY FOR DARRYL HORTON Federal Defender Program, Inc. Suite 1700, The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-7530 Jake_Waldrop@fd.org

To: scion who wrote (4440)	2/1/2010 10:09:17 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4624

Pacer update 31 Jan 10 CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cr-00406-UNA USA v Harris et al Date Filed # Docket Text 01/31/2010 81 MOTION to Adopt Defendant Horton's Motion for Bill of Particulars by Rufus Paul Harris. (Attachments: # 1 Bill of Particulars) (Manchel, Howard) (Entered: 01/31/2010) 01/31/2010 80 MOTION to Adopt Defendant Stanley's Motions by Rufus Paul Harris. (Attachments: # 1 motion for government to provide access to cooperating witnesses (Doc. 70), # 2 Bill of Particulars (Doc 79)) (Manchel, Howard) (Entered: 01/31/2010) 01/30/2010 79 MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Benjamin Stanley. (King Grant, Ethenia) (Entered: 01/30/2010) 01/30/2010 78 MOTION to Adopt Co-Defendant Rufus Paul Harris' Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Duplicity (doc. 69) by Benjamin Stanley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (King Grant, Ethenia) (Entered: 01/30/2010) 01/30/2010 77 MOTION to Adopt Co-Defendant Rufus Paul Harris' Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc.67) by Benjamin Stanley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (King Grant, Ethenia) (Entered: 01/30/2010) Defendant (1)Rufus Paul Harris Defendant (2)Benjamin Stanley Defendant (3)Darryl Horton ecf.gand.uscourts.gov