Support letters requested

We've finally gathered what we think is the pertinent information for writing letters in support of Randy for the sentencing hearing. 

We have submitted a motion for new trial, and the hearing for that motion is now scheduled for 9:30 am on March 12th just before the sentencing hearing. If the judge grants the motion, there wont be a sentencing hearing.  We believe we have grounds for the motion for a new trial.

We welcome letters to be submitted in support of Randy.

Letters should be to the judge, but they will need to be sent to and submitted through Randy's attorney. These should be written and submitted to us by March 6th. 

Send email copies to:

james_leuenberger@mac.com    and

grayrdL@gmail.com

and mail a hard copy to:
James E. Leuenberger

Attorney and Counselor at Law

P.O. Box 1684

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

The letter should be in business format:

Your name

Your address

Date

(Judge name and Address)

The Honorable Judge Thomas A. McHill

Linn County Courts 
PO Box 1749 
Albany, OR 97321 

Address the judge as Your Honor (with Y and H capitalized)

Contents:

-who you are and what you do

-how you know Randy

-how long you've known Randy

-express Randy's positive qualities, characteristics and give specific examples

-describe hardships he/family/you may experience if sentenced; perhaps mention reasons he shouldn't be sentenced or why there should be a new trial

-anything else you wish to say in your own words, but should keep tone formal and polite, not make disparaging remarks about judge, victims, attorneys, co-defendants, etc.

Sign your name

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us.

State response to Motion for new trial

Prayer for a Juror

You may have gotten an email about this.  If you didn't and want to be on the list please send my your email.

Tonight I just found out that one of the jurors has a medical condition that is threatening his very life.  We have been talking with a friend who was at the trial and knew this juror.  They actually went to the same church.  Our friend was asking that juror to help with one of the church services as a volunteer.  That juror expressed his opinions about my trial without our friend asking.  I think God was working in his heart and he knew that our friend was at the trial several days watching.  The juror asked our friend how he knew the Gray family. 

The juror told our friend about how the jury came to its decision.  The juror told our friend that he didn't think I had intended to take the lenders money.  It was an alarm to our friend why would they say I was guilty of theft.  Our friend called to inform us what they had learned.  I gave our friend the jury instructions and jury verdict worksheet that the Judge had given the jury at trial.  I went over how the jury was to answer the questions on the jury verdict worksheet.  Our friend was amazed how the jury had misunderstood  the jury instructions and completed the jury verdict worksheet incorrectly. 

Our friend got the information from me on Tuesday of this week.  Our friend was going to talk to the juror and ask him to show our friend how they filled out the jury verdict worksheet.  It was our goal not to lead the juror but find out how they made their decision.

Thursday night I found out this juror his having major heart problems.  He has 48 hours to decide how to treat this condition.  His mother had the same issue and had surgery  and died from an infection.  I imagine this must be very heavy on his mind. 

If you have been sitting on the fence and wondering if God is going to answer our prayers, now might be the time to sway you one way or another.  People have been praying that we would be found innocent of the charges.  God has been working and moving in peoples hearts.  I have seen people hurting from the guilty verdict asking God why he didn't answer their prayers.  I believe that God is allowing this guilty verdict because he has more work to do.  I think this is one of those opportunities as a body of believers.  You may think at first I am worried that this man may die and not get to share his response about the jury verdict worksheet.  My first response was fear and tears.  Lord don't let the spiritual battle take this mans life because he may come forward to expose the darkness.  I would rather be guilty and his life be spared.

My plea tonight is that this man be lifted up in prayer and that God would heal him and restore his health.  I ask that his healing come from the power of prayer of the body of believers.  I don't think this connection via this trial was an accident.  God has gone before us all and knew this would happen.  It is up to us to join together and grow in our faith.  It give me goose bumps to write this as I firmly believe this is a spiritual attack on another believer.  I don't even know this man other than he has found me guilty of a crime I don't believe I committed.  Now God has put on my heart to pray and ask all my friend to lift this juror up in prayer.  I can tell you that I am completely willing to do just that.  It reminds me of God's word about how an action was for evil but God was able to use it for good.  I am seeing how the enemy thinks he is taking us down but under estimates how God is always faithful.

I know that a guilty verdict is not a good thing in terms of being removed from my family.  I would like to avoid prison for the obvious reasons.  I appreciate the love, prayer and support that everyone has shared.  I am not worried about my family if God's plan involves me going to prison.  I know God is going to do what is best for our family.  That faith and trust has carried our family through this trial and those to come.  I hope that you grow in your faith and relationship with Christ by watching God work.  Don't be discourage when you don't see God's answer the way we are asking or praying.  Be encouraged that God wants us to pray and seek what is next.  The enemy can beat us down but the can't take away our trust in God unless we let him.

Right now as you finish reading this letter please take time to pray for this juror.  Let this be a story we share with other believers and they are drawn closer to the Savior.

Praise the Lord, He is Good, Who can stand against us when the Lord is with us?  The enemy will bow down one day! 

My strength has been found in Romans 12: 9-21 the day after the guilty verdict.  All of my emotions were answered according to God's word.  I was to not harbor any ill will.  My heart was filled with peace and joy as I knew I could do as God's word instructed.  I was able to pray for those who persecute me. 

Thanks,

Randy Gray

Motion for New Trial

We've been thinking through next steps, and our attorney filed a motion for a new trial. There are specific rules and reasons required for requesting a new trial, but we believe we have a strong case to do so: irregularities in the trial, no evidence to support verdict and error in law. We've attached the motion in case anyone want to read it along with the most current case law on theft by deception.

We'll keep you updated as to the results of the motion. State is supposed to respond within 10 days, but they have never been timely. Hoping to have an answer before sentencing date on March 12.

Jury Instructions used for Jury Verdict Feb 3rd, 2014

These are the jury instructions.  The judge read these instructions to the jury in front of everyone in court room.  He then gave them the verdict worksheet.   

The jury was to understand that a theft had occurred, by definition, that it occurred by deception with intent to defraud on Aug 29, 2008.

I have pulled out the bullet points to show the elements of the law.  You can read all the pages and see the same information.

The prosecution told the jury that I deprived them of their money.  The instructions say that a note payable is of equal value of the money they gave the builder.  The fact that the borrower didn't pay the loan back to the lenders is not a theft.  The state alleged that a theft occurred the same day the loan was made.  The borrower made payments on his loan for the first 4 months.  How could the loan be a crime if borrower was making payments?

I don't understand how the state showed intent that the borrower wasn't going to pay his loan.

I don't understand how the 4th element of theft by deception (Randy Gray acted with intent to defraud and to deprive another of property) was demonstrated or proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

INTENTIONALLY AND WITH INTENT

A person acts "intentionally" or "with intent" when that person acts with a

conscious objective to engage in particular conduct.

When used in the phrase "with intent to defraud and to deprive another of

property" "intentionally" or "with intent" means that a person acts with a

conscious objective to defraud or to deprive another of property.

The defendant's intention or belief that a promise would not be performed

may not be established by or inferred from the fact alone that such promise was not

performed.

THEFT – SPECIFIC PROPERTY

In this case, the state has alleged that the defendant deprived another of

money. You are instructed that the subject of the Aggravated Theft counts is the

investor's specific money, rather than the value of that money.

DEFINITIONS

Deception—does not include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary

significance, or representations unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group

addressed.

Deprive another of property—(a) to withhold property of another or cause

property of another to be withheld from him or her permanently or for so extended

a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value

or benefit is lost to him or her; or (b) to dispose of the property in such manner or

under such circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover such

property.

Obtain—includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a transfer or

purported transfer of property or of a legal interest therein, whether to the obtainer

or another.

Property—any article, substance, or thing of value, including but not limited

to money, tangible and intangible personal property, real property, choses in

action, and evidence of debt or of contract.

Value of an instrument evidencing debt—the value of an instrument

constituting an evidence of debt, including but not limited to a check, draft, or

promissory note, shall be considered the amount due or collectible thereon or

thereby.

Jury Verdict Monday Feb 3rd 2014

I have attached a copy of the jury verdict.  This is the form they used to answer the question about my alleged crimes.  The instructions are to answer the questions for each count.  If found guilty to each count then they are to answer the next set of questions yes or no.  If they have 5 yes votes then I am guilty of enhancement factors.

The instructions are on the separate 20 pages of what the laws and definitions.

Trial Verdict 2/3/14

The case went to the jury after closing arguments and jury instructions.

After lunch and less than an hour of deliberation, the jury had a verdict. They found Randy guilty on all 16 counts of aggravated theft in the first degree-theft by deception.

Sentencing will be held March 12th. Randy is able to be home until then.

Thank you to the many, many people (over 150) who were at the courthouse today. Your presence made a statement, and the bailiff thanked everyone for being so well mannered. If you were stuck in the hall, you were as much a part of the presence as those who had seats in the courtroom.

Honestly, we are quite shocked at the verdict. It's hard to wrap our minds around being found guilty of theft by not telling people specific details of how borrowed money would be used or failing to correct a false impression when he was unaware a false impression was made. We probably won't know what made the jury decide what they did, but at the sentencing (or through those who are willing to write letters), we can mention the information that was kept from the jury.

We thank you for your notes of support and encouragement and offering help with anything we need. We have a lot of work to do in the next month on the property (like finishing the pole barn), so I know that is a need coming up. We will be in touch letting you know of what we need.

With love,

The Grays

Need for people at the court house on Monday Feb 3rd, 2014.

Monday morning maybe the last day.  Trial begins at 9:00 am at the Linn County Court House on the 3 rd floor court room 5. The Court house is in Albany on 4th and Ellsworth street.  The more people we can have at the court house at 9:00 am the better.  This has turned into a popularity contest and we need people present more than ever.  Your presence for just the first hour or so could impact the Judge's decision to drop the charges. Children can join the court room but they will be asked to be quiet.  Many families will be bringing their children and have done so in the past.

I want to say THANK YOU!!! to all the people who have been at the court house the last 3 weeks.  It has been such a blessing to know that so many people care.  I will forever be grateful to all of you.

Thanks
randy gray

US Observer published article Jan 2014

This was an article the US Observer sent during our trial.

Please be WARNED that the writer may be offensive.  The investigative reporter was very upset with the way the court was conducting business.

http://www.usobserver.com/archive/jan-14/oregon-v-gray.html


The same article was also published at Personal Liberty Digest.

http://personalliberty.com/2014/01/31/corrupt-oregon-judge-assisting-perverse-prosecution-in-case/

US Observer publish article July 2013

This was an article published in July 2013.



http://www.usobserver.com/archive/july-13/gray-motive-intent.htm

Newspaper article Democrat Herald Jan 16th, 2014

This was an article that the local newspaper in Albany reported.


http://democratherald.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/opening-arguments-heard-in-racketeering-case/article_545a21d6-7e50-11e3-ab3d-001a4bcf887a.html

Newspaper article about Scott Whitney Oct 3, 2012

Scott Whitney was my business partner in our investment firm ZurCrowner.  Scott chose to take a plea offer to avoid a 90+ year sentencing if convicted at trial.  I made the choice to not plea out and go to trial.

http://democratherald.com/news/local/manager-pleads-guilty/article_d58f02c0-0d14-11e2-824a-0019bb2963f4.html

Newspaper article Democrat Herald December 24th, 2009

This was the first news print about our investment firm being investigated.


http://democratherald.com/news/local/albany-investment-firm-faces-state-inquiry/article_19999bc2-f0d7-11de-8d14-001cc4c002e0.html

Randy's Trial Day 13

My wife has been writing emails and giving updates during the trial.

We are so appreciative of all your support. The courtroom was packed today, and based on how today ended, he asked for more of the same on Monday. 

Today Randy testified on his behalf and did an excellent job. He felt much more confident knowing he didn't have to address all the nebulous securities stuff. After the initial shock of being up there, he relaxed and spoke confidently, respectfully, and knowledgeably. Under cross-examination, he was able to think carefully about the questions asked, and at several times avoided the leading questions and language, giving strong answers to the trap questions.

We were dismissed early because there wasn't enough time to give closing arguments, jury instructions and time for the jury to deliberate. We will return Monday morning February 3rd at 9:00 am to close out the trial.

How are we feeling about things? Cautiously optimistic. I (Diane) sense the jury is scratching their heads that 2/3 of the case was dropped yesterday after sitting through 12 days of testimony, and that the theft accusation doesn't fit the person of integrity they saw on the witness stand today.

The problem is the definition of theft the state is choosing to use. Even though the indictment just says 'aggravated theft in the first degree', the state is getting to pick and choose which type of theft, and they seem to have landed on 'theft by deception'. According to the Oregon statute, that means:

A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person: Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.085 (Theft by deception);

A person, who obtains property of another thereby, commits theft by deception when, with intent to defraud, the person:

(a) Creates or confirms anothers false impression of law, value, intention or other state of mind that the actor does not believe to be true;

(b) Fails to correct a false impression that the person previously created or confirmed;



The state is claiming that Randy didn't give all the necessary information to the lenders (giving a false impression...) by not telling them every single nitty gritty detail. The sentence for aggravated theft of persons over 65 is 16 to 45 months. Times that by 16 counts... you do the math. He is still facing a potentially long prison sentence if convicted. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, he will be incarcerated immediately until sentencing.

We are looking forward to a restful weekend.

Psalm 94:17-19  Unless YHWH had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, YHWH, held me up. In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul.

Randy's Trial day 12

This is an email my wife sent during the trial.

A HUGE victory today, but the battle is not over yet.

The state rested it's case and the defense offered a motion for judgment of acquittal, meaning the defense made a case that the state didn't prove what it needed to prove.

The defense points were that the state showed no evidence

1) showing lenders expected a profit (an element of an "investment contract")

2)  showing lenders expected a profit to be made through management and control of others (another element of an "investment contract")

3)  that one of the early loans was nothing but a loan

4)  that Randy performed any act less than 3 years before the state initiated the prosecution

5)  that Randy aided or abetted anyone less than three years before the state initiated the prosecution

6)  that the predicate acts 6-37 for racketeering charge (selling unregistered securities and securities fraud) were conducted as a "pattern" because they were done at one time

After arguments for over 2 hours, the judge took a recess to read the case law, and when we came back at 1:30pm, Judge McHill disagreed on #3 and #4 (the statute of limitations arguments for theft), but granted the motion for reasons 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6. Basing his ruling on case law, he said, "these are loans gentlemen, not an investment contract (securities)". With that ruling, the racketeering charges and selling unregistered securities charges were dismissed!

That leaves the defense to argue against theft. We scrambled to rethink our strategy for our witnesses lined up to testify and just brought on Scott Whitney and Derek Dunmyer  who was asked if he (Dunmyer) prior to August 29, 2008 intended to repay the loan, to which he said 'yes'. Three character witnesses also testified on Randy's behalf.

Randy will testify first thing Friday, followed by closing arguments. Normally, we wouldn't want the case to go to the jury on Friday afternoon, but we are now in a position of the 'domino effect' with the securities charges dropped. We don't think it will take the jury long to decide their verdict.

The state's new theory of theft is that Randy didn't tell lenders what the money was used for (as indicated with the list of payoffs and distributions on the August 29, 2008 closing statement).

Our arguments against this theory: First, Dunmyer testified that he intended to repay the loan. Second, Randy can demonstrate he thought the project was feasible. Third, if this loan is not a securities, the way the money was used does not have to be disclosed. Being cautiously optimistic, we do not believe the jury will find any validity to the state's argument. We shall see what unfolds Friday.

I'm forwarding an additional email sent by my friend.

Thank you all for so much generosity and encouragement! 

Randy's Trial day 11

This is an email my sent during the trial.

Today we viewed a video recorded deposition of a witness. This witness was deposed back in June 2013. The nice thing about this presentation is that questions were asked and information was presented that have not been allowed thus far during the trial. This particular lender made an additional personal construction loan a few months after the 'big $3million loan'. He also said he would never lend a dime to Derek Dunmyer, yet that is exactly what he did.

The frustrating part about the video contents was a mischaracterization of a defense exhibit: the closing statement showing the house being sold and proceeds being distributed to lenders, subcontractors, and vendors. The exhibit was intended to show that this lender was paid off, but the prosecution characterized is as "see what happened to your money? It went to pay X, Y, and Z. Did you know that's how your money was going to be used?"

The state continued with the main investigator, Ruth Johnson. She was the one who received the illegal recording and attempted to listen to it.... both are crimes for which she was not charged, nor did she report the insurance agents who made the recording. This investigator also visited Randy "posing as an investor" to get his story. Call it undercover work... call it lying....

The state will finally rest Thursday and Defense will begin.

Randy's Trial day 10

This is an email my sent during the trial.

Today, the prosecution continued with Dunmyer's testimony. He answered questions after long pauses, very carefully, with simple 'yes' 'no' answers, and zero eye contact with anyone. The Defense spent several hours cross examining Dunmyer trying to ascertain value of his assets, to gather explanations of dumped assets and to confirm details that have baffled us for awhile. 

This afternoon, we heard from the last lender, and the prosecution tried to start a video to show the deposition of a terminally ill lender, but due to technical difficulties, we will be watching it Wednesday morning. 

Most likely, the state will wrap up their case Wednesday with the main investigator, Ruth Johnson, who has also admitted to lying in previous hearings in order to gather evidence and garner testimony.

The defense's expert witness will not be testifying after all, after expressing concern over some of the details of the case. If HE, the author of the Oregon Securities Handbook, is waffling and unsure of whether this is a securities (investment contract) or not, then how would the rest of the public know how to avoid a securities crime.

Thursday, the defense will file a motion for judgment of acquittal (looking to have the case dropped based on the state not proving certain elements of its case), and then depending on that ruling, the defense case will begin. Most likely, Scott Whitney, Randy's partner, will be on the stand again as a defense witness, followed by two attorneys who were involved in setting up trust deeds/promissory notes and a business contract (whose testimonies might be severely stifled by the prosecution). We have several character witnesses who may be on late Thursday or early Friday, followed by Randy's testimony, then closing arguments. This order/schedule is just a guess at this point. We'll have a better idea of who's on deck Thursday and Friday after Wednesday.

Thank you all so very much for your continued support, presence, notes, and prayers!

Randy's Trial day 8/9

This is an email my sent during trial.

Last Friday, we heard from five lenders, one of whom was Randy's dad. He gave an excellent description of his working with the Fidelity platform and IRAs, many more details of the transaction and how no one foresaw the real estate market crash. The other lenders demonstrated a great deal of the coaching provided by the state.

Today, we heard from the state's expert witness, a securities registration analyst/enforcement officer who gave his opinion that the transaction was an "investment contract". There were a number of confusing and bothersome elements to his testimony... 

1) that securities laws are complex and complicated and someone needs a law degree and many years of experience to understand them,

 2) the laws themselves are vague to keep people from coming up with schemes in order to evade securities law in Oregon, 

3) to determine if something is an investment contract, one must look at the entire scheme and economic realities of the 'situation', 

4) when contacting the state's dept to inquire if a transaction is a securities or not, they will suggest contacting an attorney,.... BUT receiving legal advice from an attorney on a securities matter is not a defense if charged with a securities crime.

First, if the laws are so complex, how can the common person ore even slightly trained Investment Adviser know and understand the laws. Second, shouldn't the law be clear enough for members of the public to be on notice as to how to OBEY the law? Third, elements of an investment contract are so common in business, almost anything could be labeled a securities if the authorities wanted to charge someone, and finally, what we are experiencing is that if charged with a securities crime, consultation with an attorney, good faith, and mens rea (must have intent to commit a crime) do not apply to matters involving securities.

Derek Dunmyer, the contractor from Absolute General Contracting, the borrower that defaulted on the loan, testified for a short time this afternoon. He will continue on Tuesday, with the state wrapping up with two more lender testimonies and the main investigator. State's case should wrap up by Wed noon.

Randy received a bit of surprising news tonight. The expert witness for the defense has some concerns about elements of the "scheme", and he may not be helpful for the defense. It depends upon what Randy told the lenders. Please pray for Randy to have the ability to remember events, articulate them clearly, and speak honestly. 

Randy's Trial day 7

This is an email my sent during the trial.

Today we had four lender/clients testify which took all day. Again, the state had them saying what they remember Randy telling them and not telling them about their loan (what the state is calling 'investment'), but each had a new piece of 'disclosure' puzzle that is revealing the entire 'pitch' that was given them. 

The state is trying to focus in on the issue of 'suitability'... that Randy didn't know his clients well enough, or that he knew them and purposely put them in an 'investment' that was unsuitable. The state is taking quite awhile to tell their story and trial time is running down. We still need to hear from about 10 client/lenders, the contractor himself, the main investigator and the state's expert witness on securities. Defense needs time too.

Randy is battling a cold now and feels really foggy in the mornings. Please pray for stamina and endurance for us both.

The courtroom support and prayer has been phenomenal! Thank you so much! Keep battling!

Rand's trial day 5/6

This is an email my wife sent during trial.

Thank you so much for your prayers, encouragement, support and presence in the courtroom. They are all truly making a difference! There is a group meeting across the street at the Presbyterian church during the noon hour for prayer each day. Feel free to stop in and join.

Day 5...Monday

We started off the morning with loosing a juror. This is actually a VERY good thing because Randy and I both (and others observing) had very bad vibes from her. She came down with the flu and couldn't continue attending! The jury pool has 14 members; the two alternates who will not deliberate will be chosen at the end. So now, only one alternate will be chosen.

First witness was another examiner who performed an audit on ZurCrowner. Honestly, he couldn't remember any details other than what the prosecutors wanted him to remember. Didn't really help state's case. 

Then another lender/client testified. He gave different details than what other lender/clients have testified. He just added information to some of the missing puzzle that the state is claiming were omissions on Randy's part.

Then the state interviewed a former lender separate from the charges. She was the trustee of a very large trust fund in the area, and her testimony helped show that these types of transactions are normal business and aren't securities to be registered with the state. We don't think she helped the state's case.

Finally, another lender/client... more missing pieces of the story of what happened that the state claims were omitted.

Day 6 (Wednesday) We began with another lender/client... again more missing pieces.

Then Scott Whitney, Randy's former partner who is now incarcerated due to choosing a plea offer, testified for the state (but not in a cooperative deal with the state), but did a very good job taking the heat for information that he didn't share with Randy prior to the transaction. It was good to see Scott after so long.

We really don't know how long the state can keep going. They still have several professionals to testify along with over 10 lender/clients. We don't know what happens if more time is needed beyond the 13 days scheduled. 

We were able to find/hire an expert witness for the defense, and he/we believe he can testify that the transactions were not securities. He basically wrote the book on securities in Oregon. His schedule is tight, so we need to get him on when he is available sometime next week when it will hopefully be the defense's turn.

If you are or have been in the courtroom, your feedback is helpful. Don't be afraid to share your observations. For those of you who heard the testimony of the two Insurance agents last week, if you have time, would you write down and send us your observations and reactions to their testimony. It's too late to prosecute them for their wrong doings, but complaints may still be issued to the insurance company on their unethical behavior.

Forging forward....

Randy's Trial day 3/4

This is an email my wife sent during trial.

We are humbled and honored by your encouragement, support, prayers and presence. We cannot adequately express our thanks.

Thursday, the judge decided to accept the state's jury instruction on the definition of "enterprise" as it relates to an investment contract. The judge read the case law, which supported the defense view, then broadened it to allow the state's version. 

We heard testimony from the lady who processed the loan at the title company. She explained the paperwork and a few of the transactions on it. She described her interactions with the co-defendants and testified about not knowing Randy at the time of the transaction. Even though a state's witness, she strongly testified to Randy's honesty.

In the afternoon, we heard from a financial transactions auditor/expert who followed the money that came in and out on the $3mil loan. Although thorough in some aspects, she only worked on a portion of the whole financial picture and missed some important information.

We also heard from a witness previously named in the indictment relating to one of Whitney's business transactions. Had nothing to do with Randy. The man didn't/doesnt even know Randy.

The important part of his testimony though was the interest rate at which he was privately loaning money and receiving payoff.

On Friday, the battle was on. There were many people in the court room supporting Randy and it was noticed by all. Testimony began with a man who worked with the contractor, new about the subdivision and contractors business and personal habits. He was also contributed to developing the cashflow analysis Randy used to determine the project was feasible. Again, although a state's witness, he also was able to testify to Randy's honesty.

In the afternoon, the state tried to introduce several exhibits with laws written out: one was a poster board with the securities definition from ORS 59.015(19)) written on it, another poster board with the case law test for "investment contract" and it's citation, and print out of the Oregon Administrative Rule for securities. The defense attorney became VERY intense in his objection to having the law given in an exhibit to the jury. The jury is only supposed to receive the law instructions from the judge at the end of the trial. Any additional exhibits gives prejudicial information. The judge agreed with the defense (finally!), allowing the OAR info for informative use only and didn't allow the poster boards. They state may try to slip these in again. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/59.015

Next we heard from an examiner from the Department of Finance and Corporate Securities testifiy about the audit she and a partner performed on ZurCrowner, Randy and Scott's financial investment advisory business. She claims that securities laws are simple. Her major finding during her exam in Nov 2009 was ZurCrowner's/Randy's lack of "suitability" analysis, lack of out side interest disclosure (on one inactive business... but the one at issue), and incomplete registry information. (The state is trying to use the 'suitability' issue as a basis for the securities fraud.) She was very lengthy in her answers, changed her story, and couldn't give consistent answers once the defense cross-examined her. Her testimony and cross-examination took all afternoon. 

There is no court on Monday, January 20th. Trial will resume on Tuesday the 21st at 9:30 am.

Thank you for fighting with us!

Randy's trial day 2

Email my wife sent out during trial.

Today we started out with the defense attorney arguing against the ruling made yesterday about Randy not being able to mention payments made to lenders after the Aug 29, '08 date... the judge still saying that's the day the crime was committed. Judge didn't budge.

The prosecution is trying to expand their definition of "investment contract", which is the type of securities that Randy is accused of 'selling or offering for sale' and not registering.  The judge had ruled in a pre-trial motion that since there is no statutory definition of "investment contract", then we would use case law to test whether the "securities" was an "investment contract". This involves a 4 part test of criteria. The state wants the jury to look not just at the test, but the overall 'scheme'.Tomorrow they will argue over the definition. 

We heard opening statements before noon, then heard the first three witnesses. Two of them were the insurance agents who 'posed as investors' and illegally recorded the face-to-face conversation with Randy. They both are familiar with securities, but not very familiar with private lending, and they both admitted to lying to Randy. 

Randy's Trial day 1

This is an email my wife sent out during the trial.

Thank you, All, for your thoughts, prayers, notes and encouragement.

On day one of the trial, the attorneys finished arguing some pre-trial motions, and in the afternoon, a jury was selected.

First let me say, please don't ever despise jury duty. Most people see it as an inconvenience, but in reality, it is a PRIVILEGE. It may not be a pleasant experience hearing about wrongs and evils committed by and on others, but regardless of guilt or innocence, lives hang in the balance, and we have the privilege as citizens of the United States to be part that system. If we don't protect, value, and embrace our duty, then it could be striped away...and what if it is you being accused next? Take it seriously.

With the pre-trial motion arguments, we experienced a few unpleasant surprises. Not only did the judge not grant defense motions for a second demurrer (indicating problem with the indictment...no arrest warrant attached or indicated), disallowed any of Randy's testimony about payments Randy made after the transaction in August 29, 2011 (basically stating the crime of theft was committed Aug 29, 2011...without proving that there was theft in the first place), but he overturned a previous ruling that limited expert witness testimony. 

A jury was selected and sworn in, and today we will begin opening statements and the prosecution will commence with its case. (After our attorney argues some case law regarding the admissibility of evidence related to the actions after Aug 29, 2011).

Off to Day  2.

Diane