Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Court Documents - TNT Dinar | TNT Tony Anthony Wayne Renfrow | 14 daily plus scam

63,377 views

Published on

In these pages you will find the TNT Tony (TNT Dinar) court documents. Anthony Wayne Renfrow ran 14 daily plus (14dailyplus.com) and this scam has been investigated since 2012.

Included in the SlideShare are not only all of the court documents, but other dinar related documents that you might be interested in.

Tony has a long history of bankruptcy, bad credit, and other scams. Now Tony is pumping donations for his TNT Dinar conference calls.

Tony has been lying about an Iraqi Dinar Revaluation for many years, and originally was paid to pump the sales of dinar for PTR (People's Talk Radio).

Since leaving PTR, he brought his unique brand of sheep with him, and his lies have only gotten worse.

Earlier in 2015, we have seen dinar companies raided, dealers stop selling reserves (scam) and even dinar gurus like Okie and DC (Winston Pfiester) have stepped down.

What is next for TNT Tony? Jail.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Court Documents - TNT Dinar | TNT Tony Anthony Wayne Renfrow | 14 daily plus scam

  1. 1. The pages that follow this include everything I have found so far on the TNT Tony (Anthony Wayne Renfrow or TNT Dinar) 14dailyplus.com court case. Please note, although 14 daily plus did not involve the Iraqi Dinar, it DID involve Tony doing conference calls, reassuring investors that everything was alright as you will read in the following pages. The last update from Pacer was on August 24, 2015. I will continue to check to see if there are any updates. I will include more information on his other court cases in another SlideShare posting. My SlideShare channel is here: http://www.slideshare.net/iraqidinar If you follow my websites at GlobalCurrencyReset.net and DinarRVnews.net and subscribe, you will be notified if any real Dinar news happens that is worth mentioning. My YouTube Channels are: https://www.youtube.com/user/globalcurrencyreset https://www.youtube.com/user/dinarrvnews I’m on Twitter at https://twitter.com/globalresetguy https://twitter.com/dinarrvnews Please share this information with as many people as you can, I had to pay quite a bit of money for this public information, which should have been free. The point of this presentation is not to attack, or in any way, try to get people to buy anything from me. The money has already been spent, you owe me nothing, and just sharing it with others is enough. Thanks in advance for those of you that do share it, and wake others up. I started this campaign to inform the public about TNT Tony because he was the one my wife and I originally listened to, and he suggested we buy Iraqi Dinars. I now see that the biggest group of people to wake up are his current followers. Many contact me daily asking me if what he says about the RV is the truth, and it’s not. If you want official updates, visit Iraq/Arabic only websites. Tony was paid to pump the sales of Iraqi Dinar when he worked for People’s Talk Radio. He admitted this himself, visit petrockfest.com and hear it yourself. I have archived calls of Tony from 2011 when he said the revaluation of the IQD had already happened. Here is a screenshot from the dinar guru website from 2011:
  2. 2. I have been contacted by victims of his 14 daily plus scam, mainly because I purchased his old website, and I plan to purchase TNT Dinar once Tony goes to jail since I doubt it will stay up. People probably don’t have any faith in Pamela Pedersen (AlreadyBlessed) as she pumps donations like Tony pumped dinar sales. As a matter of fact, since I own over 100 websites (I have an SEO business) let me tell you the actual costs Tony has: The TNT Activeboard costs just $99.50 per month, this is the highest package available according to: http://activeboard.com/pricing.spark His website, TNTdinar.com – hosted at Godaddy.com, is already paid for up until it expires on July 2, 2017. See below for proof via whois.com
  3. 3. If you look below, domain registration and privacy protection is pretty cheap. Consider this is 2 year registration for one site, Tony also has his superfantastic sites, so multiply that by three and you have $126.26. His conference calls are free, so no charges there. At this point, people continue to donate to TNT Tony, even though he admitted in a 2013 private call that, “My daughter was getting a check from PTR [People’s Talk Radio – Dinar Pumper Website] that she is not getting anymore. So, I know I have to give it to her but if you guys want to help me give it to her that’s OK.” Note that the TNT Activeboard website is members only, it’s been closed since 2013 to new sheep. However, there have been many recent members who were banned for speaking out against Tony.
  4. 4. Here are some of the donation pumpers:
  5. 5. Who is Irene and why is she in charge of the finances at TNT? She says in the above chats “I only got about 99 donations that day.” Don’t forget, some time ago, Tony wanted the money to go directly to him: At this point, it’s up to you to decide what to do with this information, personally, you should make an attempt at least once to warn others now that you know the truth about Tony Renfrow. I’m busy doing other research, but I am still checking official Central Bank of Iraq information from time to time. I follow no specific websites or gurus. I do recommend that you check out DinarDaily.net as they have really great information about everything Dinar related. Special thanks to them, the American Contractor, TNTBS, Ponee, Ssmith(ss2047), Baghdad Invest, Kenny, Kit @iWebbIt, Sherif @sherifkcmo (who met Tony before his guilty plea), and everyone else who provided me the information I have used to wake up many others, you guys are great. The information is now in your hands, the ball is in your court, I do recommend that you do something to warn others. Go into the TNT Chat, and right before a call starts, post as much truth about Tony as you can, then save a screenshot and post it for all to see your desire to do good. Thanks for all the support, I’ll talk to you all soon. Regards, Nick Giammarino
  6. 6. Mobile Query file:///K:/I/DOCUMENTS 2000-PRESENT/D O C U M E N T S (2014)... 1 of 5
  7. 7. Mobile Query file:///K:/I/DOCUMENTS 2000-PRESENT/D O C U M E N T S (2014)... 2 of 5
  8. 8. Mobile Query file:///K:/I/DOCUMENTS 2000-PRESENT/D O C U M E N T S (2014)... 3 of 5
  9. 9. Mobile Query file:///K:/I/DOCUMENTS 2000-PRESENT/D O C U M E N T S (2014)... 4 of 5
  10. 10. Mobile Query file:///K:/I/DOCUMENTS 2000-PRESENT/D O C U M E N T S (2014)... 5 of 5
  11. 11. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (KANSAS CITY DOCKET) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. ) ANTHONY RENFROW ) and ) WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, ) ) Defendant. ) ) INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges: Background At all times relevant to this Indictment: 14DailyPlus.com 1. 14DailyPlus.com was an Internet website that fraudulently offered opportunities for “investors” to join as members and use an “autosurf” form of advertising. 14DailyPlus.com was a company incorporated in Nevada with a registered address in Las Vegas, Nevada. 2. “Autosurfing” is a form of advertising in which “investors” in 14DailyPlus.com were purportedly paid to view an advertiser’s website for a certain period of time through the 14DailyPlus.com website. 3. 14DailyPlus.com “autosurf investors” paid a membership fee and were promised a per-site commission return on the fee. “Autosurf investors” could pay an Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 17 12-20041-01/02-KHV-DJW
  12. 12. additional fee to upgrade their level, with commissions based on the member’s viewing a minimum number of sites. 14DailyPlus.com offered a return of 14% per day for a period of ten days totaling a 140% return on the investment. 4. To achieve the rate of return, 14DailyPlus.com reportedly pooled the capital investments of all members, which was used to purchase advertising units on the Internet with Fortune 500-type companies. Internet visits to these particular advertisers’ websites through 14DailyPlus.com then provided a return on the “investment” into the advertising units. Individuals 5. Defendant Anthony Renfrow (Renfrow) was the founder of 14DailyPlus.com, which commenced operations in or about March 2006. Success Marketing Systems was a business name utilized by Renfrow for 14DailyPlus.com. 6. Defendant William “Bill” Fox (Fox) was the primary promoter and recruiter of 14DailyPlus.com in the Kansas City metropolitan area beginning in the summer of 2006. Eagle Marketing Group, LLC was incorporated in or about January 2006 in the State of Kansas, with defendant Fox as the registered agent. Financial Institutions 7. Heritage Community Credit Union was a financial institution in Rancho Cordova, California, the accounts of which were insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. Anthony Renfrow d.b.a. Success Marketing Systems established account #XX8622 before January 2006. Anthony Renfrow also established account #XX4422 at Heritage Community Credit Union before January 2006. 8. Bank of America was a financial institution, the deposits of which were insured 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 17
  13. 13. by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with its corporate headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, but with branches throughout California, Kansas, Missouri, and elsewhere. Anthony Renfrow d.b.a. Success Marketing Systems established account #XXXXXX4596 in or about August 2006. Anthony Renfrow established account #XXXXXX6504 at Bank of America in or about July 2006. 9. SafePay Solutions, Inc. was a financial institution established in Reno, Nevada, which was an online payment processor that engaged in the business of transmission of funds. SafePay Solutions, Inc. had account XXXXXX1533 and XXXXXX3103 at Bank of America. 10. E-Gold Ltd. was a financial institution operated by Gold and Silver Reserve, Inc., located in Melbourne, Florida, which was an online digital currency business that offered an exchange of e-metal accounts for consumers, which enabled account holders to use gold, silver, or other precious metals as a medium of exchange. 11. Anygoldnow was a financial institution in San Diego, California, that conducted currency exchanges and was a dealer in commodities and precious metals. Scheme to Defraud 12. During the period from in or about March 2006, to in or about May 2007, in the District of Kansas and elsewhere, RENFROW and FOX, together with each other and others, both known and unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly devised a scheme to defraud individuals to join 14DailyPlus.com as “investors,” and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises made to individuals to convince them to join 14DailyPlus.com. 13. It was part of the scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property by 3 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 17
  14. 14. means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and in furtherance of it, that the defendants knowingly and intentionally engaged in and caused the following activities: a. Recruited individuals to become investors in 14DailyPlus.com, when in truth and in fact there was no investment vehicle; b. Enticed purported investors with the promise of a 14% daily return on the purported investment, when in truth and in fact such a return was completely unrealistic; c. Falsely promised a return on the purported investment to be realized by merely clicking on certain web pages for a limited amount of time each day; d. Recruited additional “investors” used as the basis for the individuals to receive the “return” on the original “investment,” when in truth and in fact no such returns were made to the “investors”; e. Solicited “investment” funds to be paid in cash up to $9,000, which made the tracing of funds more difficult and avoided currency transaction reporting requirements; f. Regularly conducted conference calls via telephone and Internet for recruitment of new “investors” and conveying assurances of the program, when in truth and in fact, these were utilized to lull the individuals into believing the program was a legitimate investment vehicle; and g. Promised returns on the “investments” despite having no secured method to process payment of the investment returns. 4 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 17
  15. 15. Count 1 14. Paragraphs 1-13 are incorporated as though fully set out herein. 15. Beginning in or about March 2006, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing to on or about May 16, 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of Kansas and elsewhere, the defendants, ANTHONY RENFROW and WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, knowingly and intentionally conspired and agreed together and with each other, and with other persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following offenses against the United States: wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1343; and engaging in monetary transactions greater than $10,000, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1957. Object of Conspiracy 16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that RENFROW, FOX, and their coconspirators, willfully and knowingly devised a scheme to defraud investors through 14DailyPlus.com and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud, knowingly and intentionally caused to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme to defraud individuals in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1343. 17. It was a further part and object of the conspiracy that RENFROW, FOX, and their co-conspirators, knowingly engaged in monetary transactions by, through, and to 5 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 5 of 17
  16. 16. financial institutions, affecting interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000.00, through deposits, withdrawals, and transfers of U.S. currency, funds, and monetary instruments, such property having been derived from wire fraud, which is a specified unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1957. Manner and Means 18. It was part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 14DailyPlus.com established an Internet website that appeared as though individuals could make investments and reap large returns. 19. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 14DailyPlus.com falsely promised 14% per day return on the purported investment. 20. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 14DailyPlus.com solicited investments in amounts up to $9,000 cash. 21. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 14DailyPlus.com falsely promised a greater return on the investment if more money was invested. 22. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 14DailyPlus.com encouraged investors to reinvest all returns into the program. 23. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 14DailyPlus.com regularly conducted conference calls via telephone and Internet to recruit individuals, encourage more investments, and reassure the soundness of the investments. 24. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 6 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 6 of 17
  17. 17. 14DailyPlus.com deposited the invested funds into their personal accounts. 25. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of 14DailyPlus.com used the invested money for personal purposes and did not pay out returns to the “investors.” Overt Acts 26. In furtherance of this conspiracy and to effect and accomplish the objects of it, one or more of the defendants or conspirators, both indicted and unindicted, committed, among others, the following overt acts in the District of Kansas and elsewhere: Recruiting “Investors” a. During a conference call with Matt Becker, Renfrow assured 14DailyPlus.com investors their funds were safe and that no one would lose their funds or investment despite the delay in payments being made to the investors. Renfrow asserted the delay in payments of returns was due to problems associated with the Internet payment entities, and nothing more. b. Fox recruited Eric Fellows to become part of 14DailyPlus.com by making an “investment” in 14DailyPlus.com, and then earning a “return” on that investment by merely viewing advertising sites established through 14DailyPlus.com. The “earnings” were to be credited to the “investor’s” online account and it was recommended that earnings remain in the account. c. Renfrow reported to Charles Lunsford that investors were not being paid because cyber thieves had compromised 14DailyPlus.com’s E-Gold account, so the funds were not available to be disbursed. 7 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 7 of 17
  18. 18. d. Fox told Aubrey Meyer that she could earn a 40% return on her investment with 14DailyPlus.com, and was assured she would at least get her initial investment returned. e. Fox personally placed a telephone call to Robert Montgomery to congratulate him for recruiting others to join 14DailyPlus.com. f. Renfrow personally met with James Oliver in Sacramento, California, and showed Mr. Oliver office space as a means of satisfying concerns whether 14DailyPlus.com was a legitimate business. Mr. Oliver participated in conference calls with Renfrow, who provided various reasons for lack of payments to the investors. Renfrow’s explanation for lack of payment included a tale that his E-Gold account had been “hacked,” so Renfrow was awaiting pay- out from another investment to then satisfy payments in 14DailyPlus.com. g. During a conference call with Russ Pitts, Fox stated he had made $250,000 in six months through 14DailyPlus.com, and that his mother-in-law had made $60,000. Fox told Mr. Pitts that participants in 14DailyPlus.com would not be paid if they did not recruit other people to join 14DailyPlus.com. h. During a conference call with Russ Pitts, Renfrow directed people to not refer to 14DailyPlus.com as an “investment.” i. During a conference call with James Rizqalla, Renfrow reported problems with the 14DailyPlus.com website, which required some reorganization and delays in payments. j. Fox recruited Art Ruby to become part of 14DailyPlus.com and encouraged Mr. Ruby to make the investment with cash. 8 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 8 of 17
  19. 19. k. During a conference call with Art Ruby, Renfrow stated everyone who participated in 14DailyPlus.com would be paid, and when a participant in the conference call had specific questions about payments, then they were accused of not being a “team player,” and threatened with having their account closed. Explanations by Fox for delays in payment included health issues for Renfrow, SafePay Solutions, Inc. not releasing funds, or glitches with the Internet payment system. l. During conference calls with Willis Smith, Renfrow encouraged people to invest with 14DailyPlus.com, and assured the participants that no one would ever lose money because the initial investment would always be returned. Renfrow explained payments were delayed until more people invested with 14DailyPlus.com, so the capital fund would be increased and allow for returns to be paid. m. During a conference call with Don Stroh, Renfrow stated no one would lose their money in connection with 14DailyPlus.com. Renfrow explained investments could be made by sending a wire transfer to Renfrow’s personal Bank of America account from the “investor’s” bank account or directly depositing funds into Renfrow’s Bank of America account at any local Bank of America branch. Cash “Investments” 27. The defendants and conspirators solicited cash from “investors” as the method of payment to commence their involvement in 14DailyPlus.com. Those cash payments to the defendants and conspirators occurred as follows: 9 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 9 of 17
  20. 20. Date Victim Promoter/Recruiter Amount Summer-Fall 2006 Art Ruby Fox $ 15,000 October 2006 Matt Becker Fox 9,000 October 2006 Russ Pitts Fox 9,000 November 2006 Russ Pitts Fox 9,000 Fall 2006 Eric Fellows Fox 3,500 November 2006 Jason Houchen Fox 26,108 Fall 2006 Jason Houchen Fox 2,300 Fall 2006 Russ Pitts Fox 49,350 Summer 2006- Summer 2007 Robert Montgomery Fox 72,000 Total $ 195,258 Non-Cash “Investments” 28. The defendants and conspirators solicited “investments” that were also paid in methods other than cash to commence their involvement in 14DailyPlus.com. Those payments to the defendants and conspirators were wire-transferred from the “investors” accounts into Renfrow’s accounts with Heritage Community Credit Union #XX4422 or Bank of America #XXXXXX6504 or XXXXXX4596, or directly deposited by the “investor” into Renfrow’s accounts with Heritage Community Credit Union or Bank of America as follows: Date Victim Transaction Account Amount June 15, 2006 Willie Watson Deposit in California 4422 $ 3,000 July 25, 2006 William Walters Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 6504 18,000 10 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 10 of 17
  21. 21. August 18, 2006 Eric Fellows Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 15,504 August 22, 2006 Aubrey Meyer Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 6,000 August 24, 2006 William Walters Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 9,000 August 28, 2006 Aubrey Meyer Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 6,000 August 31, 2006 Eric Fellows Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 1,488 September 1, 2006 Freddy Kandah Wire Transfer from Michigan to California 4596 3,000 September 6, 2006 James Rizqalla Wire Transfer from Michigan to California 4596 5,000 September 6, 2006 James Rizqalla Wire Transfer from Michigan to California 4596 5,000 October 24, 2006 Robert Montgomery Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 10,500 October 31, 2006 Charles Malley Wire Transfer from Texas to California 4596 9,000 November 10, 2006 Charles Malley Wire Transfer from Texas to California 4596 7,000 November 20, 2006 Charles Malley Wire Transfer from Texas to California 4596 2,000 November 29, 2006 Don Stroh Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 9,000 November 29, 2006 Don Stroh Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 9,000 December 8, 2006 Susan Bottino Deposit in California 4596 14,000 11 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 11 of 17
  22. 22. December 11, 2006 Don Stroh Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 9,000 December 11, 2006 Don Stroh Wire Transfer from Kansas to California 4596 9,000 December 11, 2006 Travis Salmon Wire Transfer from Missouri to California 4596 2,500 Total $152,992 Monetary Transactions 29. On or about the dates below, Renfrow knowingly engaged in the monetary transactions identified below, which were by, through, and to a financial institution and affected interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, with deposits, withdrawals, and transfers of U.S. currency, funds, and monetary instruments in the following amounts, such property having been derived from wire fraud, which is a specified unlawful activity: Date Monetary Transaction Amount August 3, 2006 Cash withdrawal from 6504 $ 15,000.00 August 11, 2006 Wire transfer from 6504 to SafePay Solutions, Inc. 50,000.00 August 17, 2006 Wire transfer from 6504 to SafePay Solutions, Inc. 100,000.00 August 25, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to SafePay Solutions, Inc. 40,000.00 August 29, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to Ameritrade account 0369 20,000.00 August 31, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to SafePay Solutions, Inc. 30,000.00 12 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 12 of 17
  23. 23. September 6, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to SafePay Solutions, Inc. 30,000.00 October 16, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to 6504 14,000.00 October 16, 2006 Check #2007 drawn on account #6504 payable to Saturn of Roseville 13,233.77 October 25, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to 6504 33,000.00 October 30, 2006 Check #2008 drawn on account #6504 payable to Saturn of Roseville 29,950.00 November 10, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to SafePay Solutions account 3103 60,000.00 November 29, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to SafePay Solutions account 3103 30,000.00 December 1, 2006 Cash withdrawal from 4596 20,000.00 December 11, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to SafePay Solutions account 3103 21,000.00 30. As additional overt acts, the Grand Jury incorporates by this reference the allegations set forth in Count 2 of the Indictment as though fully set forth at this point. 31. This was all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 1349. Count 2 WIRE FRAUD 32. The allegations of paragraphs 1-31 above are incorporated as though fully set out herein. 33. On or about April 26, 2007, in the District of Kansas and elsewhere, the defendants, 13 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 13 of 17
  24. 24. ANTHONY RENFROW and WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud, transmitted and caused to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of a wire communication, certain signs, signals, and sounds, that is, a web-based conference call with participants in Kansas and California, to assure participants in 14DailyPlus.com that their “investments” were safe and none would lose their “funds.” 34. This was in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1343. Forfeiture Allegation 35. Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts 1-2, the defendants, ANTHONY RENFROW and WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the said violations, including but not limited to the following: Money Judgment 36. A sum of money approximately $4,825,000.00 in United States currency, representing the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the offenses set out in Counts 1-2, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable. Substitute Assets 37. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or 14 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 14 of 17
  25. 25. omission of the defendants: a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; b. has been transferred, sold to, or deposited with a third party; c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; d. has been substantially diminished in value; or e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described above. 38. This is all in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(c) and 982(a)(1); Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461 (c); and Rule 32.2(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A TRUE BILL. Dated: April 18, 2012 s/Foreperson FOREPERSON s/Scott C. Rask, #15643 for BARRY R. GRISSOM United States Attorney District of Kansas 500 State Avenue, Suite 360 Kansas City, Kansas 66101 15 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 15 of 17
  26. 26. (913) 551-6730 (913) 551-6541 (fax) Barry.Grissom@usdoj.gov Ks. S. Ct. No. 10866 (It is requested that trial of the above captioned case be held in Kansas City, Kansas.) 16 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 16 of 17
  27. 27. Penalties: Cts. 1-2: NMT 20 years imprisonment; NMT $250,000 or 2xgain or 2xloss fine; NMT 3 years supervised release; $100 special assessment; forfeiture allegation 17 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 17 of 17
  28. 28. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 2 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 1
  29. 29. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3-1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2
  30. 30. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3-1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 2
  31. 31. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3-2 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2
  32. 32. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3-2 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 2
  33. 33. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3-3 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 1
  34. 34. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE RE: Renfrow, Anthony Doc. No. 2:12-mj-0126 GGH 1. You shall report to and comply with the rules and regulations of the Pretrial Services Agency; 2. You shall report in person to the Pretrial Services Agency on the first working day following your release from custody; 3. You shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample; 4. You are to reside at a location approved by the pretrial services officer and not move or absent yourself from this residence for more than 24 hours without the prior approval of the pretrial services officer; 5. You shall not possess a firearm/ammunition, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon; additionally, you shall provide written proof of divestment of all firearms/ammunition currently under your control; 6. You shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol or any use of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance without a prescription by a licensed medical practitioner; and you shall notify Pretrial Services immediately of any prescribed medication(s). However, medicinal marijuana, prescribed or not, may not be used; 7. You shall seek and/or maintain employment and provide proof of same as requested by your pretrial services officer; 8. You shall not obtain a passport or other travel document during the pendency of this case; 9. You shall report any contact with law enforcement to your pretrial services officer within 24 hours; and, 10. Your travel is restricted to the Eastern District of California and the District of Kansas without the prior consent of the pretrial services officer. May 16, 2012 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3-4 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 1
  35. 35. U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-mj-00126-GGH All Defendants Case title: USA v. Renfrow Date Filed: 05/16/2012 Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows Defendant (1) Anthony Renfrow represented by Peter Kmeto Law Office of Peter Kmeto 1007 7th Street Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 916- 444-7420 Fax: 916-441-6714 Email: pkmeto@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Retained Pending Counts Disposition None Highest Offense Level (Opening) None Terminated Counts Disposition None Highest Offense Level (Terminated) None Complaints Disposition None Plaintiff USA Date Filed # Docket Text Page 1 of 2LIVE 4.1.1 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California 5/24/2012https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?627824020099122-L_674_0-1 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2
  36. 36. 05/16/2012 1 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows: INITIAL APPEARANCE in RULE 5(c)(3) PROCEEDINGS as to Anthony Renfrow, the defendant was advised of his rights and the pending charges. The defendant waived his I/D hearing on 5/16/2012. Appearance entered by Peter Kmeto for Anthony Renfrow on behalf of defendant. DETENTION HEARING as to Anthony Renfrow, the defendant was ordered released on a $10,000.00 unsecured bond signed by the defendant and the defendant's wife Tamara Renfrow and on pretrial conditions as stated on the record. The defendant was advised of the penalties for failure to appear and ordered to read and sign the notice to the defendant being released before leaving the courtroom. The defendant was also ordered to report to the the District of Kansas on May 30, 2012 @ 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Waxxse. Government Counsel Matthew Segal present. Defense Counsel Peter Kmeto present. Custody Status: In Custody. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/17/2012) 05/16/2012 2 NOTICE to DEFENDANT BEING RELEASED as to Anthony Renfrow. (Reader, L) (Entered: 05/18/2012) 05/16/2012 3 UNSECURED APPEARANCE BOND POSTED as to Anthony Renfrow in amount of $ 10,000.00. (Reader, L) (Entered: 05/18/2012) 05/16/2012 4 ORDER FOR RELEASE OF PERSON IN CUSTODY signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/16/2012 as to Anthony Renfrow. (Reader, L) (Entered: 05/18/2012) 05/21/2012 5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS of RELEASE as to Anthony Renfrow. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/21/2012) PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 05/24/2012 08:40:37 PACER Login: us3686 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:12-mj-00126-GGH Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.10 Page 2 of 2LIVE 4.1.1 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California 5/24/2012https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?627824020099122-L_674_0-1 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 2
  37. 37. CLERK'S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET - CRIMINAL - MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No: 12-20041-01-KHV-DJW ANTHONY RENFROW AUSA: Scott C. Rask Counsel for Defendant: Kirk C. Redmond JUDGE: David J. Waxse DATE: May 30, 2012 DEPUTY CLERK: Lori Lopez TIME: 3:03 PM INTERPRETER: None PRETRIAL/PROBATION: Milt Ruble Length of Hearing: 0 Hr(s) 5 Min(s) Location: Kansas City, Kansas Hearing Concluded: (x) Yes ( ) No PROCEEDINGS ( ) Rule 5 Hearing ( ) Initial Revocation Hearing ( ) Bond Hearing ( ) Identity Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Bond Revocation Hearing ( ) Preliminary Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived (x) Arraignment ( ) Detention Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) (x) Discovery Conference (x) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Interpreter ( ) Sworn ( ) Previously sworn ( ) Charges and penalties explained to defendant ( ) Defendant sworn and examined re: financial ability to retain counsel (x) FPD appointed (x) At defendant’s expense ( ) Constitutional rights explained ( ) Felony ( ) Misdemeanor ( ) Defendant declined to waive indictment ( ) Will be presented by next Grand Jury ( ) Signed Waiver of Indictment ( ) Advised of rights under Rule 20 ( ) Signed Consent to Transfer (Rule 20) ( ) Petition to Enter Plea Filed ( ) Plea Agreement Attached ( ) Transferred to: (x) ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA: (x) No. of Counts: 2 (x) Waived Reading of (x) Indictment ( ) Information ( ) Read to Defendant ( ) Previous Plea ( ) Guilty ( ) Not Guilty Counts: ( ) Guilty Counts: (x) Not Guilty Counts: #1 and #2 ( ) Bail denied ( ) Bail fixed at (x) Bail remains at (x) $10,000.00 (x) Unsecured ( ) Secured (x) Release Order ( ) Executed (x) Continued in effect ( ) Deft. remanded to custody ( ) Pending compliance with conditions of release ( ) Detention Ordered Motions to be filed by: July 17, 2012 Response(s) to be filed by: July 24, 2012 Motions to be heard: July 31, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil Deft's next appearance: July 31, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 4 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2
  38. 38. Miscellaneous: Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 4 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 2
  39. 39. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-20041-01-KHV-DJW ANTHONY RENFROW, Defendant. ETT: 10 days GENERAL ORDER OF DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING In the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court enters the following general order of discovery and scheduling which will apply to the charges and to any superseding charges in this case. In general, the Court will order the parties to comply with Rules 12, 12.1, 12.2, 16 and 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972) and their progeny and with Title 18, U.S.C. § 3500, as well as Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence. A request is not necessary to trigger the operation of the Rules and the absence of a request may not be asserted as a reason for noncompliance. A principle purpose of this order is to reduce or eliminate the filing of “boilerplate” discovery motions and motions for extension of time. Counsel are expected to communicate with each other regarding discovery so that the requirements of this order may be met without unnecessary motion practice. Nothing in this order is intended to deter the voluntary exchange of information between counsel at times sooner than those specified, which the court encourages. Disclosure by the Government Within a reasonable time period after arraignment, the government shall comply with Rules 12(b)(4)(B) and 16, and Brady/Giglio. Pursuant to Rule 16, the government shall copy for the Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 6 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 6
  40. 40. defendant or permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph: 1.Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant, including grand jury testimony, within the possession, custody or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government. 2. That portion of any written record containing the substance of any relevant oral statement which the government intends to offer in evidence at the trial made by the defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a government agent. 3. The substance of any other relevant oral statement made by the defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known by the defendant to be a government agent if the government intends to use that statement at trial. 4. A copy of defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, within the possession, custody or control of the government or the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government. 5. Any books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government, and which are material to the preparation of a defense, or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant. 6. Any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and or scientific tests or experiments, or copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government, and which are material to the presentation of a defense 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 6 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 6
  41. 41. or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial. 7. If requested, a written summary of testimony the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case in chief at trial. Such summary must describe the witnesses’ opinion, the basis and reasons therefor, and the witnesses’ qualifications. Pursuant to Brady and Giglio and their progeny, the government shall produce any and all evidence in its possession, custody or control which would tend to exculpate the defendant (that is, evidence which is favorable and material to a defense), or which would constitute impeachment of government witnesses, or which would serve to mitigate punishment, if any, which may be imposed in this case. This includes and is not limited to the following: 1. Any evidence tending to show threats, promises, payments or inducements made by the government or any agent thereof which would bear upon the credibility of any government witness. 2. Any statement of any government witness which is inconsistent with a statement by the witness which led to the indictment in this case. 3. Any statement of any government witness which the attorney for the government knows or reasonably believes will be inconsistent with the witness’ testimony at trial. 4. Any prior conviction of any government witness, which involved dishonesty or false statement, or for which the penalty was death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted. 5. Any pending felony charges against any government witness. 3 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 6 Filed 05/30/12 Page 3 of 6
  42. 42. 6. Any specific instances of the conduct of any government witness which would tend to show character for untruthfulness. Subject to the requirements of Brady, Giglio and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Rule 26.2, the government may decline to disclose pretrial statements of any of its witnesses until each such witness has concluded his direct examination. At that time, the government shall produce the witness’ prior statements that are in its possession and which relate to the witness’ testimony. The Court nevertheless urges the government to provide the statements at least 48 hours prior to the witness’ scheduled appearance. The government shall provide to the defendant the general nature of other crimes, wrongs or acts of the defendant which the government intends to use at trial of the case pursuant to Rule 404(b). The government shall provide this information at least 10 days prior to trial. No later than 5 days prior to trial, the defendant shall file any motion objecting to the use of such evidence. The motion shall state whether the defendant requests an evidentiary hearing. Disclosure by the Defendant Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1), the government is granted reciprocal discovery which shall be disclosed by the defendant within a reasonable time following Rule 16 disclosures by the government. The defendant shall file all motions and notices by July 17, 2012. The government shall respond by July 24, 2012. Miscellaneous Requirements The original arraignment date governs the time specified herein. The times specified are based on calendar days, not Fed.R Crim.P. 45. If the date for compliance falls on a Saturday, 4 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 6 Filed 05/30/12 Page 4 of 6
  43. 43. Sunday or legal holiday, it shall be extended until the first day which is not one of these dates. The times will not be automatically modified, suspended, extended or restarted by the filing of additional or superseding charges. D.Kan.R. Cr. 50.1. If the filing of additional or superseding charges causes the government or the defendant to believe a modification of the time limits is required, counsel shall promptly request a status conference. The defendant’s presence will not be required at the hearing. Rule 43(b)(3). Should the government or the defendant require additional discovery not covered by this order, the party shall file a motion requesting the specific discovery along with proper memorandum and specific citations setting forth the authority for the request. The word “file” as used throughout this order means filed in the clerk’s office, not mailed. It shall be the continuing duty of counsel for all parties to immediately reveal to opposing counsel any newly discovered information or other material within the scope of this order. All motions in limine, all requests for special voir dire questions to be asked by the court, and jury instructions shall be submitted no later than 5 days prior to trial. There is no need to submit routine and standard instructions. However, any requests for instructions not routinely included in the Court’s charge must be submitted. Counsel shall notify the court as soon as a plea agreement is reached so that the case may be taken off the trial docket. This case is set for hearing on motions on July 31, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil in Courtroom #476. If no motions are filed a status conference will be held at that time. Any requests for modifications of this order shall be filed at least 10 days prior to this hearing. 5 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 6 Filed 05/30/12 Page 5 of 6
  44. 44. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of May, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ David J. Waxse DAVID J. WAXSE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: U.S. Attorney Attorney for Defendant Defendant U.S. Probation U.S. Marshal 6 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 6 Filed 05/30/12 Page 6 of 6
  45. 45. DJW/crd IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-20041-01-KHV-DJW ANTHONY RENFROW, Defendant. ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL AND REQUIRING PAYMENT BY DEFENDANT Upon the oral motion of defendant for appointment of counsel, the Court finds for good cause that counsel should be appointed to represent defendant, although the Court does not find that defendant is financially unable to retain his own attorney. IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED: l. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3006A, the Court appoints as counsel for defendant the Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas. 2. Counsel for defendant shall maintain records and at the conclusion of this case file with the Court an accounting of services, assessing in-court services and out-of-court services, and shall also include any and all expenses incurred. The Court will then determine the amount to be paid by defendant. 3. Defendant shall, thereafter, pay to the Clerk of Court the amount of attorney's fees and costs the Court has determined should be paid. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Kansas City, Kansas on this 30th day of May, 2012. s/ David J. Waxse DAVID J. WAXSE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 8 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 1
  46. 46. AO 458 (Rev. 10/95) Appearance UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ______________________________ District of Kansas ______________________________ APPEARANCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NUMBER: 12-20041-01-KHV ANTHONY RENFROW, Defendant. To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Anthony Renfrow, Defendant. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court. May 31, 2012 s/ Thomas W. Bartee Date Signature THOMAS W. BARTEE 15133 Print Name Bar Number Assistant Federal Public Defender Federal Public Defender Office 500 State Avenue, Suite 201 Address Kansas City, Kansas 66101 City State Zip Code (913) 551-6712 (913) 551-6562 Phone Number Fax Number Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 9 Filed 05/31/12 Page 1 of 1
  47. 47. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 45
  48. 48. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 45
  49. 49. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 3 of 45
  50. 50. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 4 of 45
  51. 51. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 5 of 45
  52. 52. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 6 of 45
  53. 53. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 7 of 45
  54. 54. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 8 of 45
  55. 55. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 9 of 45
  56. 56. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 10 of 45
  57. 57. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 11 of 45
  58. 58. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 12 of 45
  59. 59. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 13 of 45
  60. 60. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 14 of 45
  61. 61. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 15 of 45
  62. 62. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 16 of 45
  63. 63. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 17 of 45
  64. 64. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 18 of 45
  65. 65. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 19 of 45
  66. 66. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 20 of 45
  67. 67. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 21 of 45
  68. 68. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 22 of 45
  69. 69. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 23 of 45
  70. 70. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 24 of 45
  71. 71. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 25 of 45
  72. 72. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 26 of 45
  73. 73. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 27 of 45
  74. 74. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 28 of 45
  75. 75. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 29 of 45
  76. 76. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 30 of 45
  77. 77. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 31 of 45
  78. 78. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 32 of 45
  79. 79. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 33 of 45
  80. 80. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 34 of 45
  81. 81. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 35 of 45
  82. 82. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 36 of 45
  83. 83. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 37 of 45
  84. 84. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 38 of 45
  85. 85. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 39 of 45
  86. 86. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 40 of 45
  87. 87. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 41 of 45
  88. 88. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 42 of 45
  89. 89. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 43 of 45
  90. 90. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 44 of 45
  91. 91. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 10-1 Filed 06/04/12 Page 45 of 45
  92. 92. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 11 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 2
  93. 93. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 11 Filed 06/11/12 Page 2 of 2
  94. 94. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF VS. 12-20041-02-KHV WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, DEFENDANT ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Thomas R. Telthorst enters his appearance as retained counsel for Defendant in the above matter. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Fox 816 Ann Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 281-2080 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 6/13/12, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel of record in this case. s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 12 Filed 06/13/12 Page 1 of 1
  95. 95. CLERK'S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET - CRIMINAL - MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No: 12-20041-02-KHV-DJW WILLIAM “BILL” FOX AUSA: David Paxton Zabel Counsel for Defendant: Thomas R. Telthorst JUDGE: David J. Waxse DATE: June 13, 2012 DEPUTY CLERK: Lori Lopez TIME: 1:41 PM INTERPRETER: None PRETRIAL/PROBATION: None Length of Hearing: 0 Hr(s) 4 Min(s) Location: Kansas City, Kansas Hearing Concluded: (x) Yes ( ) No PROCEEDINGS ( ) Rule 5 Hearing ( ) Initial Revocation Hearing ( ) Bond Hearing ( ) Identity Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Bond Revocation Hearing ( ) Preliminary Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Arraignment ( ) Detention Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) (x) Discovery Conference (x) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Interpreter ( ) Sworn ( ) Previously sworn ( ) Charges and penalties explained to defendant ( ) Defendant sworn and examined re: financial ability to retain counsel ( ) Counsel appointed ( ) At defendant’s expense ( ) Constitutional rights explained ( ) Felony ( ) Misdemeanor ( ) Defendant declined to waive indictment ( ) Will be presented by next Grand Jury ( ) Signed Waiver of Indictment ( ) Advised of rights under Rule 20 ( ) Signed Consent to Transfer (Rule 20) ( ) Petition to Enter Plea Filed ( ) Plea Agreement Attached ( ) Transferred to: ( ) ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA: ( ) No. of Counts: ( ) Waived Reading of ( ) Indictment ( ) Information ( ) Read to Defendant ( ) Previous Plea ( ) Guilty ( ) Not Guilty Counts: ( ) Guilty Counts: ( ) Not Guilty Counts: ( ) Bail denied ( ) Bail fixed at (x) Bail remains at (x) $50,000.00 ( ) Unsecured (x) Secured (x) Release Order ( ) Executed (x) Continued in effect ( ) Deft. remanded to custody ( ) Pending compliance with conditions of release ( ) Detention Ordered Motions to be filed by: July 17, 2012 Response(s) to be filed by: July 20, 2012 Motions to be heard: July 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil Deft's next appearance: July 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 14 Filed 06/13/12 Page 1 of 2
  96. 96. Miscellaneous: Defendant William Fox appeared telephonically per Consent (ECF Doc. 11) along with attorney William W. Brown, who entered his appearance for defendant in the Southern District of California but has not yet moved for admission pro hac vice in the District of Kansas. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 14 Filed 06/13/12 Page 2 of 2
  97. 97. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-20041-02-KHV-DJW WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, Defendant. ETT: 10 days GENERAL ORDER OF DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING In the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court enters the following general order of discovery and scheduling which will apply to the charges and to any superseding charges in this case. In general, the Court will order the parties to comply with Rules 12, 12.1, 12.2, 16 and 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972) and their progeny and with Title 18, U.S.C. § 3500, as well as Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence. A request is not necessary to trigger the operation of the Rules and the absence of a request may not be asserted as a reason for noncompliance. A principle purpose of this order is to reduce or eliminate the filing of “boilerplate” discovery motions and motions for extension of time. Counsel are expected to communicate with each other regarding discovery so that the requirements of this order may be met without unnecessary motion practice. Nothing in this order is intended to deter the voluntary exchange of information between counsel at times sooner than those specified, which the court encourages. Disclosure by the Government Within a reasonable time period after arraignment, the government shall comply with Rules 12(b)(4)(B) and 16, and Brady/Giglio. Pursuant to Rule 16, the government shall copy for the Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 15 Filed 06/13/12 Page 1 of 6
  98. 98. defendant or permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph: 1.Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant, including grand jury testimony, within the possession, custody or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government. 2. That portion of any written record containing the substance of any relevant oral statement which the government intends to offer in evidence at the trial made by the defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a government agent. 3. The substance of any other relevant oral statement made by the defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known by the defendant to be a government agent if the government intends to use that statement at trial. 4. A copy of defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, within the possession, custody or control of the government or the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government. 5. Any books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government, and which are material to the preparation of a defense, or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant. 6. Any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and or scientific tests or experiments, or copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government, and which are material to the presentation of a defense 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 15 Filed 06/13/12 Page 2 of 6
  99. 99. or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial. 7. If requested, a written summary of testimony the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case in chief at trial. Such summary must describe the witnesses’ opinion, the basis and reasons therefor, and the witnesses’ qualifications. Pursuant to Brady and Giglio and their progeny, the government shall produce any and all evidence in its possession, custody or control which would tend to exculpate the defendant (that is, evidence which is favorable and material to a defense), or which would constitute impeachment of government witnesses, or which would serve to mitigate punishment, if any, which may be imposed in this case. This includes and is not limited to the following: 1. Any evidence tending to show threats, promises, payments or inducements made by the government or any agent thereof which would bear upon the credibility of any government witness. 2. Any statement of any government witness which is inconsistent with a statement by the witness which led to the indictment in this case. 3. Any statement of any government witness which the attorney for the government knows or reasonably believes will be inconsistent with the witness’ testimony at trial. 4. Any prior conviction of any government witness, which involved dishonesty or false statement, or for which the penalty was death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted. 5. Any pending felony charges against any government witness. 6. Any specific instances of the conduct of any government witness which would tend to show character for untruthfulness. 3 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 15 Filed 06/13/12 Page 3 of 6
  100. 100. Subject to the requirements of Brady, Giglio and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Rule 26.2, the government may decline to disclose pretrial statements of any of its witnesses until each such witness has concluded his direct examination. At that time, the government shall produce the witness’ prior statements that are in its possession and which relate to the witness’ testimony. The Court nevertheless urges the government to provide the statements at least 48 hours prior to the witness’ scheduled appearance. The government shall provide to the defendant the general nature of other crimes, wrongs or acts of the defendant which the government intends to use at trial of the case pursuant to Rule 404(b). The government shall provide this information at least 10 days prior to trial. No later than 5 days prior to trial, the defendant shall file any motion objecting to the use of such evidence. The motion shall state whether the defendant requests an evidentiary hearing. Disclosure by the Defendant Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1), the government is granted reciprocal discovery which shall be disclosed by the defendant within a reasonable time following Rule 16 disclosures by the government. The defendant shall file all motions and notices by July 17, 2012. The government shall respond by July 20, 2012. Miscellaneous Requirements The original arraignment date governs the time specified herein. The times specified are based on calendar days, not Fed.R Crim.P. 45. If the date for compliance falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, it shall be extended until the first day which is not one of these dates. The times will not be automatically modified, suspended, extended or restarted by the filing of additional 4 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 15 Filed 06/13/12 Page 4 of 6
  101. 101. or superseding charges. D.Kan.R. Cr. 50.1. If the filing of additional or superseding charges causes the government or the defendant to believe a modification of the time limits is required, counsel shall promptly request a status conference. The defendant’s presence will not be required at the hearing. Rule 43(b)(3). Should the government or the defendant require additional discovery not covered by this order, the party shall file a motion requesting the specific discovery along with proper memorandum and specific citations setting forth the authority for the request. The word “file” as used throughout this order means filed in the clerk’s office, not mailed. It shall be the continuing duty of counsel for all parties to immediately reveal to opposing counsel any newly discovered information or other material within the scope of this order. All motions in limine, all requests for special voir dire questions to be asked by the court, and jury instructions shall be submitted no later than 5 days prior to trial. There is no need to submit routine and standard instructions. However, any requests for instructions not routinely included in the Court’s charge must be submitted. Counsel shall notify the court as soon as a plea agreement is reached so that the case may be taken off the trial docket. This case is set for hearing on motions on July 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil in Courtroom #476. If no motions are filed a status conference will be held at that time. Any requests for modifications of this order shall be filed at least 10 days prior to this hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 13th day of June, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas. 5 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 15 Filed 06/13/12 Page 5 of 6
  102. 102. s/ David J. Waxse DAVID J. WAXSE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: U.S. Attorney Attorney for Defendant Defendant U.S. Probation U.S. Marshal 6 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 15 Filed 06/13/12 Page 6 of 6
  103. 103. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF VS. 12-20041-02-KHV WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, DEFENDANT CONTINUANCE MOTION Defendant William Fox, through counsel, requests the Court continue the case deadlines three months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(D). The following six points support this request. First, discovery is forthcoming. The government is in the process of collating and publishing approximately 3,000 documents. Defendant requests an opportunity to receive, format, and review discovery before making dispositive case decisions. Second, the government reports that the case involves in excess of 200 victims. Competent representation may well require independent investigation into each victim’s alleged losses. Obtaining and sifting through over 200 sets of accounting records likely will be time-consuming. Upon conducting an initial review of discovery, Defendant may seek a complex case designation. Third, counsel for the government does not object to this motion. Counsel for Codefendant Anthony Renfrow joins this motion. Fourth, Defendant is in the process of arranging for his lead counsel in California to represent him pro hac vice in this case. He requests a meaningful opportunity to put this attorney in place, and then to establish coordination between local and lead counsel. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 16 Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 2
  104. 104. Fifth, Counsel has personally spoken with Defendant and his lead counsel in California regarding the need for a continuance, most recently on 6/29/12. Defendant concurs with this continuance request. Sixth, Counsel has advised Defendant of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act, most recently on 6/29/12. Defendant concurs that the requested delay should toll speedy trial computations. After being reminded of his speedy trial rights, Defendant reiterated his support for a continuance. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Fox 816 Ann Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 281-2080 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 6/29/12, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel of record in this case. s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 16 Filed 06/29/12 Page 2 of 2
  105. 105. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CRIMINAL ACTION v. ) ) No. 12-20041-KHV ANTHONY RENFROW and WILLIAM FOX, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________________) ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Continuance Motion (Doc. #16) filed by William Fox on June 29, 2012. Defendant seeks a three-month continuance of the pretrial motions deadline, which was set for July 17, 2012. The government does not object to the continuance. Defendant Anthony Renfrow joins the motion. Counsel has personally consulted with Mr. Fox and he does not object to the continuance. Defendant seeks the extension under the ends-of-justice provision of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In determining whether to grant an extension of time under this provision, the Court considers whether the ends of justice served by granting an extension outweigh the best interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial. United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2009). In doing so, the Court must consider (among others) the following factors: (i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice. (ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 18 Filed 07/05/12 Page 1 of 3
  106. 106. (iii) Whether, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex. (iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendantreasonabletimetoobtaincounsel, would unreasonably deny the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). Based on the circumstances set forth in the motion, the Court finds that a continuance of the pretrial motions deadline is necessary to allow counsel for Fox the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance of the pretrial motions deadline and trial outweigh the interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Continuance Motion (Doc. #16) filed by William Fox on June 29, 2012 be and hereby is SUSTAINED in part. The pretrial motions deadline is extended to October 17, 2012. Any responses shall be filed by October 24, 2012. The pretrial motions hearing is continued to October 30, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Trial is continued from July 30, 2012 to November 5, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to both defendants, the delay caused by this continuance – from July 17, 2012 to October 17, 2012 – shall be excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). -2- Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 18 Filed 07/05/12 Page 2 of 3
  107. 107. Dated this 5th day of July, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Beth Phillips BETH PHILLIPS United States District Judge -3- Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 18 Filed 07/05/12 Page 3 of 3
  108. 108. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 22 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 1 X 10/04/2012
  109. 109. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF VS. 12-20041-02-CM WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, DEFENDANT CONTINUANCE MOTION Defendant William Fox, through counsel, requests the Court continue the case deadlines four months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(D). The following points support this request. First, discovery is forthcoming. The government is in the process of collating and publishing approximately 3,000 documents. Defendant requests an opportunity to receive, format, and review discovery before making dispositive case decisions. Second, the government reports that the case involves in excess of 200 victims. Competent representation may well require independent investigation into each victim’s alleged losses. Obtaining and sifting through over 200 sets of accounting records likely will be time-consuming. Upon conducting an initial review of discovery, Defendant may seek a complex case designation. Third, counsel for the government does not object to this motion. Counsel for Codefendant Anthony Renfrow joins this motion. Fourth, Counsel has personally spoken with Defendant and his lead counsel in California regarding the need for a continuance, most recently on 10/12/12. Defendant concurs with this continuance request. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 23 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 2
  110. 110. Fifth, Counsel has advised Defendant of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act, most recently on 12/12/12. Defendant concurs that the requested delay should toll speedy trial computations. After being reminded of his speedy trial rights, Defendant reiterated his support for a continuance. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Fox 816 Ann Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 281-2080 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 10/12/12, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel of record in this case. s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 23 Filed 10/12/12 Page 2 of 2
  111. 111. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF VS. 12-20041-02-CM WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, DEFENDANT MOTION TO WAIVE APPEARANCE Defendant in the above matter, through Counsel, requests to be excused from attending the 10/25/12 hearing regarding his request to continue the case deadlines four months. The codefendant has joined Defendant’s motion, and the government does not oppose it. Attached is an affidavit detailing Defendant’s understanding of his right to attend the hearing, and his desire for a continuance. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Fox 816 Ann Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 281-2080 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 25 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 2
  112. 112. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 10/19/12, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel of record in this case. s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 25 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 2
  113. 113. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 25-1 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 3
  114. 114. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 25-1 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 3 19th
  115. 115. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 25-1 Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 3
  116. 116. AF'FIDAVIT I, Arrthorry Renfrow, of lawful age, afrer having first been duly swom upon my oath, state as follows: I. I have been âdvised by my attorney, Tom Bartoe, that I am sqhodulcd for a hearing on Qctober 2512012 at 9:30 a.m., on the joint defenss motion to extond tho motions deadline in this matter by four months. 2. I have been advised by my atlorney that I have an absolute right to be present at said hearing; however, my attorney has also advised that I might request that the Court excuse my presence at said hearing, as the hearing oonoÞms a motion to extend the motions deadline. 3. My attomey has advisod me of my right to a speedy trial under I8 U.S.C. $ 3161. He has ftrthor advised me that the Court may fïnd that any poriod of delay rosulting from a oontinuance granted at the Defondant's request may be excluded from the Speedy Trial Aot caloulation if the Court finds that tho onds ofjustioe served by granting the continuance outweigh the bost intercst of the public and the Defendant in a spoody trial, He has also ndvised me that Ín dotermining whether to grant suoh an ends-of-justice continuance, the Court may consìder sove¡al factors, including whother the fsilure to gmnt the continuanoe would be likely to rosult in a mìsoaniage ofjustice; whether the oaso is so complex due to the nature of the prosecution that it is unreasonable to oxpoot adoquate preparatìon for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the timo limits set by the Speedy Trial Act; snd whether the failure to grant tho oxtension would othsnvise deny defonss oounsel ttre time reasonably nooossary for effeciive preparation, taking into aooount the exeroise of reasonable diligenoe. Undorstanding this, I agree t000/zo0o ø ug^Iu c'IOÐ gu0J,s sdll qHt It90zs89T6 XY,{ nd iT:T ZtÙZ/8T/07 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 26-1 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 2
  117. 117. that the delay atfübutable to the joint defense motion to oxtend the motions deadline should be excluded from tho Speedy Trial Act calculation. 4. After havftrg been advised of my right to be present, I request that the Court excuse my presonce. I live in Fulsorn, California, and am represonted by appointed counsel. Traveling Kansas City for a brief court appearance would oreato a finanoial hardship. 5. I have maintained diligent contact with my attornoy, who has kept me fully appraised of oourt d¿tes. I will contact my attorneys offÎce no later than October 2$,2012,to learn the date of my next scheduled appearance. FI.JRTHER AFFIANT SATTH NOT. Subscribed and sworn to bofore mo this of ,2012. Notary Publio My commission Expires l- l-2a15 coMM. #ter Notâry Public.Califomla SAcRAtrlBfroO0ul{il Èm¡î, Jalt,l,2fll8 8000/t000 ø UII IU CIOÐ SUOIS Sdn gHt ït902s89ïB xvd nd vT:T zT0z/8T/07 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 26-1 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 2
  118. 118. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-01-CM ) ANTHONY RENFROW, ) Defendant. ) MOTION TO WAIVE APPEARANCE NOW COMES Defendant, Anthony Renfrow, by and through counsel, Tom Bartee and moves the Court to excuse the appearance of Defendant at a hearing set for October 25, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. In support of this motion Defendant states to the Court as follows: 1. A hearing is currently scheduled for Thursday, October 25, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. 2. Defendant has been fully advised of his right to be present at all stages of the proceeding, including the hearing set for October 25, 2012. However, Defendant resides in Fulsom, California. Defendant has requested counsel to seek a waiver of his appearance, as travel from California to Kansas City for a brief court appearance would be a financial hardship for Defendant. 3. An affidavit signed by Defendant Anthony Renfrow, acknowledging that he has been advised of his right to be present at said hearing, and indicating his desire that his presence be excused by the Court will be presented to the Court at the hearing. 4. The Government has no objection to Defendant’s presence being excused by the Court. 5. Finally, Defendanthas indicatedthat he will contact counsel’s officeno later than October 26, 2012 in order to be advised of the next setting. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court excuse Defendant from personal presence in the courtroom on Thursday, October 25, 2012 for the reasons stated herein. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 26 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 2
  119. 119. Respectfully submitted, S/Thomas W. Bartee THOMAS W. BARTEE #15133 Assistant Federal Public Defender For the District of Kansas 500 State Avenue, Suite 201 Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone: 913-551-6712 Fax: 913-551-6562 Email: Tom_Bartee@fd.org Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 19, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Scott C. Rask Assistant United States Attorney scott.rask@usdoj.gov s/ Thomas W. Bartee THOMAS W. BARTEE Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 26 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 2
  120. 120. CLERK'S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 12-20041-01/02-CM ANTHONY RENFROW (01) WILLIAM FOX (02) Location: Kansas City, Kansas AUSA: Scott Rask Deft. Atty.: Thomas W. Bartee Thomas R. Telthorst JUDGE: Murguia DATE: 10/25/2012 DEPUTY CLERK: Merry Morales TAPE/REPORTER: Nancy Wiss INTERPRETER: None PRETRIAL/PROBATION: None MOTION HEARING Counsel for USA and counsel for each defendant appear; defendants have waived their appearance for the purposes of this hearing. Statements are made by both counsel for each defendant and also by the USA regarding the volume of discovery and other discovery issues. The court grants the Continuance Motion filed by Defendant Fox [Doc. 23]. Counsel for Defendant Fox makes an oral motion to the Court to designate the case as complex. Counsel for Defendant Renfrow has no objection and concurs with said request. Counsel for the USA has no objection to the request for a designation as a complex case. The Court finds a continuance of the trial date of November 5, 2012 is necessary to afford the defendants due process of law and finds that the continuance outweighs the best interests of the public and defendants’ right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S. C. Section 3161(h). Further, the court orders that this matter should be designated as complex pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (B)(ii). An order memorializing that ruling to follow. This case is set for a Status conference on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. and the Court will set deadlines and schedule trial at that time. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 28 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 1
  121. 121. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-CM ) ANTHONY RENFROW ) and ) WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF JURY TRIAL AND DESIGNATION OF COMPLEX CASE Now on this 25th day of October, 2012, this matter comes before the Court upon the motion of the defendants requesting continuance of the jury trial currently set for November 5, 2012, and for an Order designating this case as complex (doc. #23). Due to the volume of discovery, which includes an imaged hard drive, thousands of pages of documents and records and interview reports with more than 50 victims, the defendants request an opportunity to receive, format, and review the discovery in connection with the charges. With the large number of victims, defense counsel will require independent investigation into each of the victim’s alleged losses. For these reasons, the Court finds this case to be complex for speedy trial calculation purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) to allow sufficient and reasonable time for the defendants to evaluate the evidence and submit any pretrial motions. The Court, after reviewing the motion and being fully advised in the premises, finds good reason exists for granting a continuance of the jury trial, designating this case as complex and excluding time from speedy trial calculations from October 12, Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 29 Filed 12/07/12 Page 1 of 2
  122. 122. 2012 until February 25, 2013, because the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Specifically, both defendants through counsel and affidavit acknowledge their right to a speedy trial and request this delay. Furthermore, the complexities of this case identified above and during the hearing, and the need for the defendants to have sufficient time to review the evidence and prepare for the pretrial motions outweighs the interests of the defendants and the public in a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court orders the time from the filing of the motion on October 12, 2012, until the February 25, 2013 hearing, is excluded from speedy trial calculations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(D), 3161(h)(7)(A), 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) because the case is complex and additional time is necessary to provide reasonable opportunity for counsel for the defense to prepare, so the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial is outweighed in satisfying the interests of justice with this delay. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 7th day of December, 2012 s/ Carlos Murguia HONORABLE CARLOS MURGUIA United States District Judge 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 29 Filed 12/07/12 Page 2 of 2
  123. 123. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF VS. 12-20041-02-CM WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, DEFENDANT MOTION TO WAIVE APPEARANCE Defendant in the above matter, through Counsel, requests to be excused from attending the 2/25/13 status conference regarding setting case deadlines. Attached is an affidavit detailing Defendant’s understanding of his right to attend the hearing, his understanding of his speedy trial rights, and his desire for Counsel to establish deadlines that will afford full review of discovery. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Fox 816 Ann Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 281-2080 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 30 Filed 02/20/13 Page 1 of 2
  124. 124. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 2/20/13, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel of record in this case. s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 30 Filed 02/20/13 Page 2 of 2
  125. 125. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 30-1 Filed 02/20/13 Page 1 of 2
  126. 126. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 30-1 Filed 02/20/13 Page 2 of 2
  127. 127. Feb 2? 2013 t3z?'7 SecManriott RC p.1 I, Anthony Renfrow, state as follows: 1. I have been advised by my attorney, Tom Bartee, that I arn scheduled for a status conference on February 25,2013' at 9:30 am" Z. I have been advísed by my attorney that I have an absolute right to be present at said hearing; however, rny attorney has also advised that I might request that the Court excuse my presence at said hearing, as the hearing concerns scheduling Inatters- 3, My attomey has advised me of my right to a speedy tiial'under 18 U'S.C' $ 3161. He has fi,rLher advised me that the cout may frnd that any period of delay granted at the Defendant,s request may be excluded from the Speedy Trial Aci calculation if the Court finds thatthe ends ofjustice served by granting the continuanoe outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. He has also advised rne that in determining whether to grant suc.h an ends-of-justice continu¿utce, the Courl rnay consider several factors, including whether the failure to grant the continu¿¡tce would be lìkely to result in a miscarriage ofjustice; whether the case is so complex due to the rrature of the prosecution that it is unfeasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial ftself within rhe time limits set by the Speedy Trial Acü and whether the failure to grant the extension would otherwise deny defense counsel the time reasonably necessary fór effective pre,paration, taking into account the exercise of rcasonable I Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 31-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 2
  128. 128. Feb 22 2013 t3¿?7 SacHarniott RC p.2 diligenoe. undersianding this, I agree that the delay atrributable to my counsel's fequest for additional tirne to prepare should be excluded from the speedy Trial Act calculatíon' 4. After having been advised of my right to be present, I request that the Court excuse my pfeserce. I live in Fulsom, califomia, and aln represented by appointed co'nsel. Traveling to Kansas city for a brief court appearance would create a financial hardship. 5. I have maintained diligent contact with my attomey, who has kept me fully appraised of court dates. I will contact my attomeys office no later than February 25, z}l3,to leam the date of my next scheduled appearance, ? 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 31-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 2
  129. 129. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-01-CM ) ANTHONY RENFROW, ) Defendant. ) ) MOTION TO WAIVE APPEARANCE COMES NOW the Defendant, Anthony Renfrow, by and through counsel, Tom Bartee, and moves the Court to excuse the appearance of Defendant at the status conference set for February 25, 2013. In support of this motion Defendant states to the Court as follows: 1. A hearing is currently scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. 2. Defendant has been fully advised of his right to be present at all stages of the proceeding, including the status conference. However, Defendant resides in Fulsom, California. Defendant has requested counsel to seek a waiver of his appearance, as travel from California to Kansas City for a brief court appearance would be a financial hardship for Defendant. 3. Attached hereto is a consent signed by Defendant in which he acknowledges that he has been advised of his right to be present at said hearing and that 1 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 31 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 3
  130. 130. he asks that the Court excuse his presence at the status conference. He also acknowledges that he understands the Speedy Trial Act and that he consents to any delay occasioned by counsel’s request for a additional time to prepare for trial. 4. Defendant has indicated that he will contact counsel’s office no later than February 25, 2013, in order to be advised of the next setting. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court excuse Defendant from personal presence in the courtroom on Monday, February 25, 2013, for the reasons stated herein. Respectfully submitted, S/Thomas W. Bartee THOMAS W. BARTEE #15133 Assistant Federal Public Defender For the District of Kansas 500 State Avenue, Suite 201 Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone: 913-551-6712 Fax: 913-551-6562 Email: Tom_Bartee@fd.org Attorney for Defendant 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 31 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 3
  131. 131. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 22, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Scott C. Rask Assistant United States Attorney scott.rask@usdoj.gov s/ Thomas W. Bartee THOMAS W. BARTEE 3 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 31 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 3
  132. 132. CLERK’S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET – CRIMINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Case No: 12-20041-01/02 ANTHONY RENFROW, WILLIAM FOX, Defendants. Attorney for Plaintiff: Scott Rask Attorneys for Defendants: Thomas Bartee Thomas R. Telthorst JUDGE: Carlos Murguia DATE: 02/25/2013 CLERK: Merry Morales TAPE/REPORTER: Nancy Wiss INTERPRETER: PROBATION: Counsel for Defendants and for the Government all appear for a previously scheduled status conference; Defendants’ appearance for this hearing has been waived. Counsel for defendants make a joint request to continue the matter for approximately seven months due to the volume of discovery. The Government has no objection to said request. The Court grants Defendants’ oral request and sets the following deadlines: Motions are due October 7, 2013; the Government’s response is due October 14, 2013. This matter is set for a Motions Hearing/Status Conference on Monday, October 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The court notes that this case has previously been designated as being complex.   Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 32 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 1
  133. 133. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-CM ) ANTHONY RENFROW ) and ) WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DESIGNATION OF COMPLEX CASE Now on this 25th day of February, 2013, this matter comes before the Court for a status conference. The defendants have waived their appearances in person and are present by and through their counsel. Due to the volume of discovery and number of witnesses previously identified in this case, the parties reiterate the complexity of the evidence and issues in this case involving a fraudulent scheme and money laundering. The Court finds this case continues to be complex for speedy trial calculation purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) to allow sufficient and reasonable time for the defendants to evaluate the evidence and submit any pretrial motions until October 7, 2013. The government shall respond by October 14, 2013, with a hearing on any motions to be held October 21, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The Court, after considering information presented and being fully advised in the premises finds good reason exists for designating this case as complex and excluding time from speedy trial calculations from February 25, 2013, until October 21, 2013, because the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 2
  134. 134. Specifically, both defendants through counsel and affidavit acknowledge their right to a speedy trial and request this delay to fully prepare for pretrial motions. Furthermore, the complexities of this case identified above and the need for the defendants to have sufficient time to review the evidence and prepare for the pretrial motions outweighs the interests of the defendants and the public in a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). The Court orders the time from February 25, 2013, until the hearing on October 21, 2013, is excluded from speedy trial calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) because the case is complex and the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial is outweighed in satisfying the interests of justice with this delay. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 8th day of March, 2013. s/ Carlos Murguia HONORABLE CARLOS MURGUIA United States District Judge 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 2
  135. 135. ------------------------------------------------- ~AO 442 (Rev. 08/07) Warrant for Arrest UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PM 2:51···0 t ~~ ~C~) ....., ;; District of ______'_'_-'_"_i<_:a_n_s_crs___,..,..,...______ ·:: :.,~ 0' UfU£t{ ;. ' • • &· .~• •/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM "BILL" FOX Case Number: 12-20041-02-KHV-DJW 3.3t./2?, 27f' To: The United States Marshal and any Authorized United States Officer YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest _________W_I_LL_IA_M_"_B_IL_L_"_FO_X________ Name and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate judge to answer a(n) qf Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order ofcourt 0 Pretrial Release 0 Probation 0 Supervised Release 0 Violation Notice Violation Petition Violation Petition Violation charging him or her with (briefdescription ofoffense) Ct. 1- Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud &Engaging in Monetary Transactions of more then $10,000 in Criminally Derived Property - 18 USC 371 &1349 Ct. 2 - Wire Fraud - 18 USC 1343 Forfeiture Allegations ~ in violation ofTitle 1;....;8;..._______ United States Code, Section(s) _3_7_1_&_1_3_4_9______________ 0 in violation of the conditions of his or her pretrial release imposed by the court. 0 in violation of the conditions of his or her supervision imposed by the court. TIMOTHY M. O'BRIEN s/ Marla Gqpz~les Name of Issuing Officer Signature of Issuing L~tlicer Clerk of Court April18, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas Title of Issuing Officer Date and Location RETURN This warrant was received and executed with the arrest ofthe above-named individual at NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 34 Filed 09/05/13 Page 1 of 1
  136. 136. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF VS. 12-20041-02-CM WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, DEFENDANT CONTINUANCE MOTION Defendant William Fox, through counsel, requests the Court continue the present 10/7/13 motions deadline two months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(D). Defendant proposes a new motions deadline of 12/9/13. On 2/25/13, the Court set the current motions deadline. The time gap created by that setting was sufficient for defense counsel to sift through voluminous discovery. In this process, defense counsel for both defendants identified and raised to the prosecution a statute of limitations issue. The government believes it can address the issue by providing additional discovery. The parties anticipate that the forthcoming discovery will be dispositive, and will obviate significant pre-trial litigation. The requested two-month delay should allow time for the government to publish the additional discovery, for defense counsel to analyze it, and for defense counsel to prepare pre-trial motions if needed. For obvious reasons, Defendant requests an opportunity to receive and review the new discovery before making dispositive case decisions. Through lead counsel in California, Counsel has reminded Defendant of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Defendant concurs that the requested delay should toll Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 35 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 2
  137. 137. speedy trial computations. After being reminded of his speedy trial rights, Defendant reiterated his support for a continuance. Finally, Counsel for the government and for Codefendant Anthony Renfrow join this motion. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Fox 816 Ann Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 281-2080 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 9/30/13, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel of record in this case. s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 35 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 2
  138. 138. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 12-20041-02-CM WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, ) ) Defendant. ) CONTINUANCE ORDER Counsel for Defendant in the above matter has requested a continuance of the pre-trial motions deadline set on 10/7/13 due to forthcoming new discovery that will address a key pre- trial issue. The government and codefendant Anthony Renfrow join the motion. For the reasons stated in the motion, the court finds that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Specifically, the court finds that the justifications in defendant’s continuance motion (doc. #35), especially the need for defendant’s counsel to have a reasonable period of time to receive and review new discovery, warrant the requested continuance. The delay caused by this continuance shall be excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion (Doc. #35) is granted. The deadline for filing pretrial motions by is extended to 12/9/13. The government shall file responses by 1/9/14. The pretrial motions hearing will occur on January 27, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. The time period from October 21, 2013, through January 27, 2014, shall be excluded when calculating speedy trial time. Dated this 1st day of October, 2013. Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 36 Filed 10/01/13 Page 1 of 2
  139. 139. s/ Carlos Murguia CARLOS MURGUIA United States District Judge SUBMITTED BY: s/Thomas R. Telthorst THOMAS R. TELTHORST Attorney for Defendant Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 36 Filed 10/01/13 Page 2 of 2
  140. 140. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-01-CM ) ANTHONY RENFROW, ) Defendant. ) ) MOTION TO JOIN NOW COMES Defendant, Anthony Renfrow, by and through counsel, Tom Bartee, and moves the Court to grant his request to join Continuance Motion (doc 35). In support of this motion Mr. Renfrow states and alleges to the Court as follows: 1. Co-Defendant William “Bill” Fox filed the above-mentioned motion on September 30, 2013. 2. Counsel has reviewed defendant Fox’s Continuance Motion and hereby joins. 3. Counsel has conferred with Mr. Renfrow regarding his right to a speedy trial and the Mr. Renfrow understands that the requested delay will toll the running of the speedy trial clock. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested Mr. Renfrow be permitted to join in the Continuance Motion filed by co-defendant Fox. 1 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 37 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 2
  141. 141. Respectfully submitted, S/Thomas W. Bartee THOMAS W. BARTEE #15133 Assistant Federal Public Defender For the District of Kansas 500 State Avenue, Suite 201 Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone: 913-551-6712 Fax: 913-551-6562 Email: Tom_Bartee@fd.org Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 2, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Scott C. Rask Assistant United States Attorney scott.rask@usdoj.gov s/ Thomas W. Bartee THOMAS W. BARTEE 2 Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 37 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 2

×