Gordon Hall indicted

[Dezcad]

So is this plea for real, or more Hallshit™? Guess we'll find out.

Is that TM pending registration or is the common-law trademark sufficient?

[erwalkerca]

Interesting. I would really rather see them try to defend their actions at trial.

The site I've been using, PlainSite, hasn't been updated since 19 Oct denial of motions to terminate council and/or proceed pro se.

[erwalkerca]

Tomorrow is the change of plea hearing for Gordon and Benton Hall.

NOTICE OF HEARING as to Gordon L Hall, Benton T Hall: Change of Plea Hearing set for 12/10/2013 10:00 AM in Greenville #1, Clement F Haynsworth Fed Bldg, 300 E Washington St, Greenville before Honorable J Michelle Childs.

Is anyone planning on attending and reporting back the results on this site?

[erwalkerca]

Just found this on the Greenville, South Carolina, CBS affiliate website.

Benton T. Hall has changed his plea to guilty on the charge of obstructing justice. No word on Gordon Hall.

http://www.wspa.com/story/24196723/ariz ... nzi-scheme

[erwalkerca]

I find it strange that Benton Hall's change of plea, which took place on 10 Dec, was reported both in the local Greenville SC news and on the DOJ site, yet there is no word on Gordon Hall's possible plea change that was supposed to occur on the same day before the same judge.

I was so looking forward to being able to point out to someone that their "hero" had once again taken a fall.

[erwalkerca]

Turns out that Gordon Hall decided to play silly bugger at his change of plea hearing on 10 Dec. He filed a pro se "Notice of Amended Plea Agreement" on 9 Dec and, since the USA did not accept it, he decided not to change his plea to guilty.

A new pretrial conference and change of plea hearing was scheduled for 13 Jan.

Apparently Gordon still hasn't come to understand that foisted unilateral agreements have no force of law. He carried on filing pro se motions referencing his version of the plea agreement, claiming that the court should enforce his version since the USA has not bothered to reject it when he sent it to them.

The only thing Gordon appears to have accomplished with his motions is to get the 13 Jan hearing cancelled.

You can view some of what has happened, including pdfs of some of his motions, at http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=2405574

[erwalkerca]

It appears that the case against Gordon Hall is a couple of steps closer to being concluded.

A jury trial has once again been scheduled, this time for 24 -28 Feb 2104. A jury was selected on 4 Feb.

Subsequently, Gordon Hall submitted a petition to enter a plea of guilty on 7 Feb which resulted in a change of change of plea hearing held yesterday, 18 Feb.

To early to know if Gordon Hall went through with the change of plea or pulled the same stunt as he did with the Dec change of plea hearing.

[Dezcad]

Looks like he pled Nolo Contendre. Doc 223 is a Plea Agreement signed by Gordon where he pleads nolo to Count 2:

02/18/2014 223 NOLO CONTENDERE PLEA ENTERED as to Gordon L Hall. (jtho, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
02/18/2014 224 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING: 2/24/14 - 2/28/14 jury trial as to Gordon L Hall. (jtho, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
02/20/2014 225 PRO SE NOTICE for entry of Amendment to Plea Agreement (document addressed at 2/18/14 change of plea hearing) by Gordon L Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gordon Hall, # 2 Exhibit A: Email of January 16, 2014, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Envelope)(jtho, ) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

[erwalkerca]

I'm very curious as to filing 225, which appears to be another pro se motion attempting to change the terms of his plea agreement utilizing foisted unilateral agreements. It seems similar to what he did at his last plea hearing back in Dec.

02/20/2014 225 PRO SE NOTICE for entry of Amendment to Plea Agreement (document addressed at 2/18/14 change of plea hearing) by Gordon L Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gordon Hall, # 2 Exhibit A: Email of January 16, 2014, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Envelope)(jtho, ) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

If that is the case, this could drag on further.

[grixit]

He should just cut to the chase and issue a foisted unilateral order of dismissal and compensation.

[Dezcad]

I'm very curious as to filing 225, which appears to be another pro se motion attempting to change the terms of his plea agreement utilizing foisted unilateral agreements. It seems similar to what he did at his last plea hearing back in Dec.

02/20/2014 225 PRO SE NOTICE for entry of Amendment to Plea Agreement (document addressed at 2/18/14 change of plea hearing) by Gordon L Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gordon Hall, # 2 Exhibit A: Email of January 16, 2014, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Envelope)(jtho, ) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

(bolding added)

If that is the case, this could drag on further.

As noted, Doc 225 was addressed at the 2/18/14 plea hearing and Gordon still signed a plea of Nolo so it should not delay this case.

[wserra]

I'm very curious as to filing 225, which appears to be another pro se motion attempting to change the terms of his plea agreement utilizing foisted unilateral agreements. It seems similar to what he did at his last plea hearing back in Dec.

02/20/2014 225 PRO SE NOTICE for entry of Amendment to Plea Agreement (document addressed at 2/18/14 change of plea hearing) by Gordon L Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gordon Hall, # 2 Exhibit A: Email of January 16, 2014, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Envelope)(jtho, ) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

(bolding added)

If that is the case, this could drag on further.

As noted, Doc 225 was addressed at the 2/18/14 plea hearing and Gordon still signed a plea of Nolo so it should not delay this case.

I don't think so. I also don't think this "could drag on further"; it certainly wouldn't if I were the judge.

First of all, Dezcad, I don't read docket entry 225 as you do. I read "PRO SE NOTICE for entry of Amendment to Plea Agreement (document addressed at 2/18/14 change of plea hearing)" to mean that the Plea Agreement was the document discussed at the 2/18 hearing, not the "Amendment" to the plea agreement, which didn't exist yet. Moreover, if you look at Hall's petition, you see that he requests the Court to amend the plea agreement "to reflect the Defendants (sic) understanding of the agreement between the parties". He identifies that "understanding" as set out in entry 192, his "PRO SE NOTICE of Certified Plea Agreement Record by Mutual Assent". Take a look at that piece of epic. In it, Hall claims that by "notice of Private Setoff" he has discharged all of his obligations to the United States. Therefore, if he receives a jail sentence it must be suspended. If he receives a term of supervised release, it must be suspended. Finally, he owes the govt nothing, due to that "Private Setoff".

Not only did no one except Hall ever agree to this, Rule 11 prohibits it. Hall is once again playing stupid games.

So why shouldn't this "drag on further"? Were I the judge, I would simply ignore Hall's latest filing. Come sentence, Hall will inevitably claim that this was his "understanding" of the plea agreement. There will be a record of the plea; I guarantee that there was no such "understanding". Moreover, a judge will typically set out the real understandings, then ask "is this your understanding as well" and "has anyone promised you anything else"? So I would confront Hall with the plea minutes, and ask him if anyone signed his "understanding" other than he. I would then sentence him to every day that I felt the Court of Appeals wouldn't call cruel and unusual.

One other thing, Gordie: any appeal you take is to the Fourth Circuit, the country's most conservative Court of Appeals. Good luck.

[Dezcad]

First of all, Dezcad, I don't read docket entry 225 as you do. I read "PRO SE NOTICE for entry of Amendment to Plea Agreement (document addressed at 2/18/14 change of plea hearing)" to mean that the Plea Agreement was the document discussed at the 2/18 hearing, not the "Amendment" to the plea agreement, which didn't exist yet. Moreover, if you look at Hall's petition, you see that he requests the Court to amend the plea agreement "to reflect the Defendants (sic) understanding of the agreement between the parties". He identifies that "understanding" as set out in entry 192, his "PRO SE NOTICE of Certified Plea Agreement Record by Mutual Assent". Take a look at that piece of epic. In it, Hall claims that by "notice of Private Setoff" he has discharged all of his obligations to the United States. Therefore, if he receives a jail sentence it must be suspended. If he receives a term of supervised release, it must be suspended. Finally, he owes the govt nothing, due to that "Private Setoff".

Thanks for your clarification and explanation, which makes complete sense now.

[Lambkin]

Take a look at that piece of epic.

Until now I had a different understanding of "epic".

I'm surprised we have not heard of Yiwen Krus (a.k.a. Lady Krus) on Quatloos previously.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/yiwenkrus

[wserra]

She and Gordon Hall are getting married in May.

They may need an order.

[AndyK]

For any of the malevolent nature, Hall-Krus has an on-line wedding guest book open for posting.

I'm sure they'd welcome any warm wishes.

[erwalkerca]

Her parents must be just overjoyed. 36 years her senior, currently detained without bail, and looking at a fair number of years for his current troubles.

[grixit]

I wonder where they're registered.

[webhick]

I wonder where they're registered.

Denny's. I can picture them wandering around the kitchen, ignoring the staff's pleas to vacate the premises, tagging the serveware and equipment with stickers so their friends know what they want.

[ngupowered]

Hilarious how clueless people are as to the process employed by the Halls.
If consent wasn't needed and their filings were rubbish, how come trial has been cancelled a number of times by now? Even more so with "Benton Hall"s sentencing on March 13th even though he supposedly PLEADED GUILTY. The government sure is incompetent, or something else is going on.