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!