The Dorean criminal trial has begun...

[Nikki]

He might be working as a casual, cash only, day laborer, living in some crappy little flophouse or renting a room ion some little podunk backwater that is 30 minutes from nowhere.

Bets he is found in Montana, or the Dakotas? Maybe Michigan?

What does LawyerDud have to do with the Doreans?

[Demosthenes]

10/24/2007 490 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Alsup: Jury Trial as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson held on 10/24/2007. Gvt witnesses: L. Stepp continued; J. Tobolski; b. Holland; M. Randall. Dfts waive atty/client privilege. Further Jury Trial set for 10/29/2007 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/24/2007 492 DISREGARD--WRONG ATTACHMENT. REFER TO DOCUMENT #493 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Alsup :Jury Trial as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson held on 10/24/2007 ; Court ordered a no bail bench warrant for failure to appear (18:3146) be issued as to Todd Ellis Swanson, aka: Todd-Ellis Swanson. Jury Trial set for 10/29/2007 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (rhw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) Modified on 10/25/2007 (rhw, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/25/2007 (rhw, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/25/2007 (rhw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/24/2007 493 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Alsup :Jury Trial as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson held on 10/24/2007 ; Court ordered a no bail bench warrant for failure to appear (18:3146) be issued as to Todd Ellis Swanson, aka: Todd-Ellis Swanson. Jury Trial set for 10/29/2007 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (rhw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 483 Order for Time Schedule as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson re 475 Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory (rhw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson to US Court of Appeals re 475 Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory (rhw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/26/2007 494 TRIAL MEMORANDUM by USA as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson (Hall, C.) (Filed on 10/26/2007) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

10/26/2007 495 NOTICE NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE PLEADINGS FROM RELATED CIVIL CASE by USA as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson, The Dorean Group, The Oxford Trust, Baylor Trust, Universal Trust Services, William Julian, Farrel J. Lecompte, Jr, Sara J. Magoon, Charles Dewey Tobias (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 32 - Civil Complaint# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 33 - Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Action# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 34 - Declaration of T. Spielbauer# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 35 - Order Denying Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion to Withdraw)(Martin, Brigid) (Filed on 10/26/2007) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

[Scott from Vineland]

Now that our intrepid court reporter Demosthenes has departed the Bay Area, has anyone else out there seen fit to attend? The play by play for the first three days was riveting and I am jonesin' for more.

Hello Scott.

You could ask Dr. Fred to visit and give us an update.

That would be interesting.

How about it, Fred? Would you be willing to post here (or on Kurt's blog) to keep Kurt's many observers informed on the trial's progress? I have little doubt you're attending regularly.

[Demosthenes]

Documents from docket entry # 494 and 495.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/johnson494.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/johnson495.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/johnson495-1.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/johnson495-2.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/johnson495-3.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/johnson495-4.pdf

[notorial dissent]

I had forgotten just how clearly they had diagrammed out the whole scam in that initial litigation.

The thing I still have a problem with is how naive/dumb Spielbauer had to have been to have let himself get sucked into this whole morass. I'm still amazed that he actually still has a license after this, I'm certainly not sure I think he should be allowed to continue to practice law at this point.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I had forgotten just how clearly they had diagrammed out the whole scam in that initial litigation.

The thing I still have a problem with is how naive/dumb Spielbauer had to have been to have let himself get sucked into this whole morass. I'm still amazed that he actually still has a license after this, I'm certainly not sure I think he should be allowed to continue to practice law at this point.

After they lost the cases in Alsup's court, he was really between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If he didn't at least try to defend the mythology about money it would mean he knowingly represented his clients in filing frivolous suits. But if he did promote it too strongly as a defense, he'd essentially be saying the Judge was in error in making the ruling.

Half the fun would be seeing him testify. Johnson accused him of blowing the cases. Makes for an interesting client privilege situation at this juncture.

But what is indefensible, at least to me, is that he could have availed himself of resources that would have alerted him to case law rejecting any number of the theories coming out of the dim duo's "crack(ed) legal team."

Somewhere around on one of these machines is his brief in a later response where he outlines more of the koolaid drinking that got him into it. If I recall, he was bent on making the point that he thought the suits would change the law but then came to a conclusion sometime later that they (Johnson and Heineman) were after something else. His reliance on Swanson being a "CPA" is particularly troublesome given the fruitcake name semicolon nonsense.

[Scott from Vineland]

The Dim Duo wore drag khaki prison garb, white socks, and blue canvas shoes. My nicknames for them in my notes are "ponytail" and "the lump".

Just out of curiosity, who is "ponytail" and who is "the lump"?

[Demosthenes]

Kurt has a long grey ponytail, just like his dad.

[Scott from Vineland]

Kurt has a long grey ponytail, just like his dad.

[img]media.eastbayexpress.com/21299.51.gif
[/img]

So Kurt is on the right in this photo, correct?

[Demosthenes]

Yes.

[Scott from Vineland]

See, I knew the initial descriptions in those East Bay Express articles were wrong. The description they gave for Kurt matched Scott's photo and vice-versa. When I first stumbled onto this story a few years ago, I thought there was no way this could be the same Kurt I knew as a kid... until I saw this picture. Kurt looks now like Fred did when we were kids.

[Demosthenes]

Kurt looks like his father, while Scott looks a lot like the actor Evan Handler.

Here's a better pic:

http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/homes/re_ ... 3074c.html

And best of all, video showing Johnson:

http://www.nbc6.net/video/4237966/index.html

[Pauligirl]

I had forgotten just how clearly they had diagrammed out the whole scam in that initial litigation.

The thing I still have a problem with is how naive/dumb Spielbauer had to have been to have let himself get sucked into this whole morass. I'm still amazed that he actually still has a license after this, I'm certainly not sure I think he should be allowed to continue to practice law at this point.

If it tells you anything, Spielbauer has a link to Creature from Jekyll Island on his home page.
http://www.spielbauer.com/


He also has his own legal woes.
http://www.kmtg.com/data/rc_legal_alert ... 1173135604
Legal Alerts
California Court of Appeal Holds That Public Agency May Not Terminate Employee for Refusing to Answer Self-Incriminating Questions Without First Granting The Employee Formal Immunity From Criminal Prosecution
March 07, 2007 | Bulletin No. 851571.1
In Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2007 WL 80458, Cal.App. 6 Dist., Jan. 12, 2007), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a public entity could terminate an employee for insubordination for refusing to answer the employer's questions based on the employee's exercise of his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

The court held that the employee could not be terminated for insubordination for refusing to answer incriminating questions without first being granted immunity from criminal prosecution. The court also found, however, that the employee was not protected from termination for conduct unbecoming a county employee, where other evidence showed he made deceptive statements to a judge during a legal proceeding.
Facts
Plaintiff, Thomas Spielbauer, was an attorney employed as a public defender by the County of Santa Clara ("County"). In the course of representing a defendant in a criminal case, Spielbauer made misrepresentations to the court about the availability of a witness whose hearsay comments, taken without challenge, would be favorable to Spielbauer's client. In essence, Spielbauer told the judge in the case that the witness was avoiding service of process and was therefore unavailable to testify so that the hearsay testimony would become admissible. In fact, however, Spielbauer had seen and visited with the witness the day before the hearing, and knew that the witness, if subjected to cross-examination, would give testimony unfavorable to Spielbauer's client.

As a result of Spielbauer's conduct, the district attorney pressed misdemeanor criminal charges against Spielbauer, and County (through the public defenders' office) began an internal investigation into the matter. As part of the investigation, Spielbauer was questioned about his conversations with the witness and his representations to the court. Spielbauer refused to answer, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination in the criminal case. Spielbauer's supervisor repeatedly told him that his answers could not and would not be used against him in a criminal prosecution, and that he would be fired for insubordination if he did not answer; however, County at no time formally granted or offered Spielbauer immunity from prosecution for his statements. After he continued to refuse to answer, Spielbauer was dismissed on grounds of insubordination for his refusing to answer questions, and for conduct unbecoming a county employee by making deceptive statements to the court.
Spielbauer filed a protest, and after exhausting his administrative remedies brought an action in mandate in district court seeking to set aside his dismissal. The trial court rejected his argument that he had to receive a grant of immunity before he could be penalized for refusing to answer potentially incriminating questions, and held that County could legally terminate him for insubordination. It denied him any relief, and Spielbauer appealed.

Decision
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual from being compelled in a criminal case to testify as a witness against himself. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this right not only protects an individual from being forced to incriminate himself in a criminal prosecution, but also protects an individual from being compelled to answer "official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." This prohibition extends to demands for information by a public agency acting in its role as an employer, the Court of Appeal said.

However, the purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to protect against compelled self-incrimination only in a criminal case. It does not protect an individual from other adverse effects of self-incriminating testimony if the individual has first received a formal grant of immunity from criminal prosecution. Thus, an employee who is being interrogated can be compelled to answer, and can be punished for refusing to do so, if he or she has been granted immunity prior to being required to answer. In other words, once immunity is in place, a public employee's refusal to answer his or her employer's incriminating questions can legally be a ground to terminate for insubordination. Furthermore, if a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution is in place, and the employee answers questions in a way that reveals grounds for other adverse actions against the employee besides criminal prosecution, the employee will not be protected from those other adverse actions.

In this case, because Spielbauer had not received a grant of immunity prior to being told that he must make potentially self-incriminating statements or lose his job, the Court of Appeal said, County could not legally terminate him on grounds of insubordination. It therefore reversed the trial court's decision on that issue. However, the court found there was sufficient other evidence in the record to support County's decision to terminate Spielbauer on grounds that he had engaged in conduct unbecoming a county employee by making deceptive statements to the trial judge in the course of his employment as a public defender. Because the trial court had not examined the latter ground for Spielbauer's dismissal, the Court of Appeal remanded the case for further proceedings on the "conduct becoming" charge.

[notorial dissent]

JRB, I quite agree with your statements, Spielbauer was in a grave of his own digging. Trying to decide which to do, appear so dumb that you don’t know the difference between a fraudulent and frivolous action and an honest one, or admitting being so corrupt that you would participate in a felony scam before a Federal judge, decisions, decisions, decisions, prison or disbarment, disbarment or prison, such choices!!!! First we had the Cheek defense, now we have the Spielbauer, wonder if it will play any better in the long run??? Odds are NOT!!!!

In truth, I do not believe for a moment that he is that dumb, if he made it through law school he has to know at least some of this, even if his specialty was allegedly criminal law. I believe that he chose not to look, or at the very least looked the other way, and he had to have known the illegalities of what he was doing. When one has made a stupid mistake and taken a course of self destruction, sometimes the only way of coping is in finding justifications for what one would otherwise know to be wrong, and I also think that is part of what he was doing, since I cannot believe that he did not somewhere inside know just how wrong his actions were.

Pauligirl, thanks for the info, somehow not a big surprise. I made the original remark half facetiously, as I do not see how Spielbauer could in any conscience represent dim and dimmer in any fashion, except perhaps as criminal defense, since were he at all competent, and or honest, he would have immediately known that he was at the very least aiding in a public felony fraud, and that he would most likely be considered to be acting in concert with the fraudsters if he persisted in his actions. One would think anyway. I’m sorry, anyone who is not morally bereft and or brain dead, would have to know that what they were doing was not only wrong, morally and ethically, but plain old out and out fraud. I find it hard to believe that anyone particularly a professional like an attorney or CPA would not or could not recognize it for what it was, a scam, particularly no better dressed than it was.

I had off handedly made a crack that I pitied his PD clients, seems I was right there as well, more’s the pity. Sounds like he went to the same type of law schools as disbarredlawyerdud. I suspect that if the county case doesn’t get him the Federal one will and he too will, and quite deservedly, join the ranks of the disbarred-hopefully permanantly.

[Scott from Vineland]

I can’t believe this case will last 5 minutes let alone 5 weeks....
Prison jump suits and defending themselves, must be rocket scientists!

Five weeks to try this case? They can't be serious. What kind of defense can K & S possibly put on?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...Five weeks to try this case? They can't be serious. What kind of defense can K & S possibly put on?

If one could access more of the various filings that have been entered by Kurt on their behalf (Scott is essentially mute and just along for the ride), it would be more entertaining and you could get a better feel for what they may have try in the final days of the trial, since nothing they've been doing on paper thus far has any legal significance.

The ones that have been made available on PACER are a progressively goofier melange of every crackpot legal myth that's ever been sold at seminars or on the 'net and slapped down in court when some fool uses them. I have to admire Alsup's restraint. I'd have thought contempt citations would have already been involved.

I surmise Kurt is going to head in the direction of a Cheek defense mixed with the "Christ told me to do it" theme he blathers on about on the blog. If the jury buys off on that, I'd be truly shocked. Especially on the conspriacy charge; the other co-conspirator defendants have rolled over, which makes defending those counts almost moot.

[Scott from Vineland]

I would imagine the trial will get really interesting once the prosecution finishes presenting its case. I would give anything to be able to be there.

The whole concept of the "Cheek defense" baffles me. How can anyone know with any certainty what another person truly believes? I have actually struggled with this question in regard to Kurt for a long time now. As a Christian it really troubles me that anyone would use the name of Jesus in the execution of a scam so I have always tried to give Kurt the benefit of the doubt where his "intent" was concerned. But I just don't think I can do it anymore.

Checked out your web-site for the first time today, Judge. Glad to see my employer did not show up on your Squaliforme list, although our former sub-servicing agent, Dovenmuehle, did. I never liked them.