Thomas Petters Legal Research and Updates sponsored by NoPayClassifieds.com



THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS REQUESTS NO-NONSENSE JAILHOUSE LAWYER JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS TO REPRESENT HIM AFTER SPENDING OVER $4 MILLION ON ATTORNEY'S THAT LEAVE HIM WITH 50 YEAR SENTENCE!



On December 5, 2013, the Honorable Richard H. Kyle denied Thomas Joseph Petters challenge to his federal conviction and sentence under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Steven J. Meshbesher, a certified criminal trial specialist in Minnesota represented Petters.

BACKGROUND:

Petters was a prominent Minneapolis businessman. He owned numerous businesses, including Petters Group Worldwide LLC (PGW), Sun Country Airlines, Polaroid Corporation, Fingerhut, and Petters Company, Inc. (PCI). On September 8, 2008, Deanna Coleman, one of Petters's employees, confessed to government authorities that she and other employees were perpetrating a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme through PCI - $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme. Under the scheme, that occurred from 1995 through 2008, in the State of Minnesota and elsewhere, PCI and its agents obtained billions of dollars from investors in exchange for "PROMISSORY NOTES" issued by PCI. This entire legal action centers on illegal "PROMISSORY NOTES". Investors were told that their money would be used to purchase electronic goods that were than sold for profit to large retailers such as Sam's Club and Costco.

Petters was arrested on October 3, 2008 and has been incarcerated since his arrest.

Petters retained the services of attorney Jon Hopeman, a seasoned criminal-defense lawyer who spent more than a decade as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Minnesota. Hopeman was assisted initially by a partner at his firm, Eric Riensche, and later by attorney Paul Engh, another experienced criminal defense lawyer in the State of Minnesota.

A grand jury indicted Petters on multiple counts. On June 3, 2009, the grand jury allegedly submitted a "SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT" to the clerk of the Court for filing. As will be discussed later, JailHouse Lawyer LAMBROS has discovered that the June 3, 2009 "SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT" was NOT SIGNED by any person within the U.S. Attorney's Office or any member of the grand jury. LAMBROS requested an original certified copy of the "SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT" from the clerk of court to prove same. Therefore, the district court DID NOT have jurisdiction in this matter.

Several of the persons involved within the illegal Ponzi scheme agreed to become cooperating witnesses, including Larry Reynolds, a Petters business associate from California. Larry Reynolds aided in the fraud by supplying false purchase orders, arranging for warehouse space claiming that the space was used by PCI, and provided assurances to investors and Petters employees.

As pretrial discovery and independent investigation developed, Petters learned that Larry Reynolds was in the UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE'S WITNESS SECURITY PROGRAM (WITSEC). Upon learning this information, Petters filed a motion requesting an order from the court compelling the government to disclose whether any informant, cooperating witness, or alleged co-conspirator was involved in the WITSEC program. At a pretrial hearing, the court denied the government's motion to close the hearing, but granted the government's request that Reynold's name not be used during the argument on the motion to compel disclosure.

The district court prohibited the use of the WITSEC file to impeach Reynolds testimony as to his denial of being a member of the mafia and/or association with members of the La Cosa Nostra mob. Reynolds did admit, as a young attorney, he defrauded insurance companies and clients, sold large quantities of marijuana and schemes to steal money from banks.

After five days of deliberation, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all twenty counts of the indictment. The district court sentenced Petters to 50 years of imprisonment.

Petters direct appeal was denied, as was his writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court.

Attorney Steven J. Meshbesher, filed Petters Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, that was denied on December 5, 2013. See, United States of America vs. THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS Criminal No. 08-364(RHK), Document 628, Filed 12-05-23. This case should of also been filed under Civil No. 13-1110(RHK), as the file number appears within the heading of the "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER".

WHO IS TOM JOSEPH PETTERS?


Tom grew up in a small Minnesota town and while in high school started his first business, a retail electronics store. As a born salesman, he held sales positions in Minnesota, Iowa, and Colorado.

He returned to Minnesota in the late 1980s and formed Amicus Trading, the entity that would become PCI in 1994, the company at the center of this case. Tom was the sole owner of PCI. His business was liquidating and diverting merchandise. A liquidation business purchases merchandise from a supplier that can't sell it for one reason or another. A diverting business (sometimes called the gray market) purchases licensed merchandise from designated retailers for resale to non-designated retailers. In either case, Mr. Petters was a broker - buying merchandise from one for re-sale to another.

Mr. Petters was doing real, legitimate business deals from the 1980s through the day of his arrest.

By 1995 he had founded Petters Warehouse Direct ("PWD") - bricks-and-mortar stores where customers could purchase the goods he found. In the midst of the dot-com boom he founded an internet company called Redtag which also sold the merchandise he was procuring. He created Petters Consumer Brands (PCB) which acquired a brand-name license then manufactured and sold consumer electronics merchandise. He purchased Fingerhut, a sizable catalog company, then the iconic Polaroid company for $425 million, and then the locally famous Sun Country Airlines.

He needed a holding company for all these interests so he formed Petters Group Worldwide (PGW), an umbrella for literally fifty (50) plus businesses.

By 2008 Tom Petters headed a corporate behemoth WITH MORE THAN 2000 EMPLOYEES. His associates and employees were in awe that he could juggle it all. His pace was frenetic, [c]onstant ongoing motion" said a witness.

And make no mistakes, his companies were real. They hired real employees, sold real goods and services, and did legitimate business.

His background is important because it is the bedrock of his defense that is being offered by Jailhouse Lawyer John Gregory Lambros. He had too much on his plate - too much for ten of him. He stopped paying meaningful attention to PCI. Tom thought his hand-picked business team was finding and financing real deals, just as he was finding and financing real deals.

THE PCI FRAUD:

PCI is at the center of this case. Mr. Petters' trusted lieutenants and executives Deanna Coleman and Robert White were his worst nightmare. Coleman admitted managing the day-to-day operations of PCI, including approximately eight hedge funds that are invested in PCI, and the DAY-TO-DAY CASH FLOW. "When Mr. Petters buys a new company or when an existing company needs funds, MY JOB IS TO ASSIST IN FINDING THE FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION." It was Coleman who admitted creating false purchase orders so lenders would believe PCI was buying real merchandise. She directly lied to lenders too - by phone, email, in-person, any communication medium really. She admitted setting up a shell corporation to steal even more money without Mr. Petters' knowledge. She lied to auditors. She lied after cooperating with federal authorities. She lied, lied and lied. Looking at a sentence of 24 to 31 years, she bargained it down to a conspiracy with a 5 year cap.

Robert White conspired with Deanna Coleman, as White would forge the purchase orders to show retailers ordering Coleman's phantom merchandise. This was necessary so lenders would be tricked into believing there was a buyer for the imaginary wares - a deep pocket to generate the big margins. White also forged bank statements, checks and tax returns. He joined Coleman to set up the dummy corporation to steal even more money without Mr. Petters knowledge. Like Coleman, White faced a sentence of 30 years but signed a cooperation agreement, aiming to get much less.

PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" - SECURITIES FRAUD:

This huge fraud, which the government said was reminiscent of the Charles Ponzi's swindle, was premised on illegal PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES".

Recall that PCI was a broker of large quantities of consumer merchandise. Like most enterprises it needed financing. Its principal funding mechanism was asset backed commercial paper - "PROMISSORY NOTES". It would borrow money from lenders and pledge collateral, usually the goods purchased but often additional security as well. The loans were short-term, the interest rates high. PCI occasionally used banks as lending sources but more often wealthy individuals, venture capital institutions, and hedge funds.

PCI would deal in merchandise of many kinds. Clothing, appliances, consumer electronics, for example. It did many legitimate deals - thousands in fact.

The "PROMISSORY NOTES" did not always represent money used to buy merchandise. Rather some of the newly-acquired money was used to pay off prior lenders. In simplified form the mechanics were:

STEP 1: PCI enters into "PROMISSORY NOTE" with lender;
STEP 2: Lender provides money to "supplier";
STEP 3: "Supplier" supposedly purchases merchandise with the loan funds but in reality most of the money would be routed to PCI;
STEP 4: PCI uses the loan funds to pay off prior lenders plus interest;
STEP 5: Additional lenders, lured by large returns PCI was offereing;
STEP 6: Return to STEP 1 and repeat.

The generalized mechanics of the fraud were not in dispute. Rather the controverted part of the case was WHAT TOM PETTERS KNEW, WHEN HE KNEW IT, AND WHAT WAS HIS INTENT. His former trusted lieutenants, executives and business associates - his former friends - WHO WERE RUNNING PCI DAY-TO-DAY ADMITTED KEY ROLES IN THE MASSIVE FRAUD AND THEN CUT DEALS WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR LENIENCY.

FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. is one of the five-largest law firms in Minnesota, and employees more than 500 people and has over 200 licensed Minnesota attorneys as of 2013. Fredrikson represented TOM PETTERS and all of his companies in all corporate and criminal matters from the 1990's through September 26, 2008. Fredrikson total billing to PETTERS and his companies totaled over $20 million dollars over the years.

From on or about October 2001 thru April 2002, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. billed PETTERS and his companies for "RESEARCH IN CONNECTION WITH WHETHER PETTERS NOTES ARE SECURITIES," "REVIEW STATE OF MINNESOTA REQUEST; REVIEW SECURITIES LAWS; REVIEW MEMO ON SECURITIES," "REVIEW MINNESOTA SECURITIES MATTERS REGARDING PROMISSORY NOTES." These quotes appeared within the October 24 and 29, 2001, billing statement from Fredrikson & Byron for services to PETTERS COMPANY, INC. (PCI).

The February 20, 2002, Fredrickson & Byron invoice states, "RESEARCH WHETHER NOTE IS A SECURITY UNDER REVES TEST" and "RESEARCH REVES CASES; DRAFT RESPONSE TO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;" See billing dates January 3, 4, and 5, 2002.

JailHouse Lawyer John Gregory Lambros was a licensed registered representative BROKER - in Minnesota of a stock exchange member, within the meaning of Title 15 U.S.C. 78c. Lambros is very familiar with securities laws and does not understand how Fredrickson could ever of advised PETTERS and his employees of PCI that PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" ARE NOT A SECURITY. As a side note, Lambros has never incurred any security law violations nor commodity trading violations. PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" ARE A SECURITY AND NEEDED TO BE REGULATED BY THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. BASED OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE AND EXAMINATION.

A short review of REVES vs. ERNST & YOUNG, 494 U.S. 56 (1990)(holding that uncollateralized, uninsured PROMISSORY NOTES due on demand were "SECURITIES" within section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, reasoning that "Congress' purpose in enacting the securities law was to regulate investments, in whatever form they are made and by whatever name they are called." Id. 61); SEC. & EXCH. COMM'N vs. EDWARDS, 540 U.S. 389, 393 (2004)("Congress' purpose in enacting the securities laws was to regulate investments, in whatever form they are made, and by whatever name they are called ... To that end, it enacted a broad definition of 'security', sufficient to encompass virtually ANY INSTRUMENT that might be sold as an investment.").

Frank Elroy Vennes, Jr., James Nathan Fry, and Bruce Francis Prevost were indicted and convicted within this massive fraud for "SECURITIES FRAUD" as to the selling of PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" from late 1990's thru September 2008, all in violation of Title 15, U.S.C. 77q(a) and 77(x). See, USA vs. VENNES, et al., Criminal No. 11-141, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On June 6, 2012, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. approved to a "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT" with Attorney Douglas A. Kelly, the receiver and Chapter 11 Trustee of Thomas Petters and PCI in the amount of $13.5 MILLION TO SETTLE A CLAWBACK SUIT IN THIS ACTION. The "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT" clearly asserts legal and equitable claims against FREDRIKSON & BYRON relating to its representation of PETTERS. "The claims were for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting FRAUD, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and LEGAL MALPRACTICE." See, June 6, 2012, "AFFIDAVIT" by Attorney Kelly, pages 5 and 6, paragraph 9. See, USA vs. THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS, et al., Civil No. 08-5348 (ADM/JSM).

PETTERS RELIED ON IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS:

With over 50 companies and more than 2,000 employees, PETTERS relied on his in-house lawyers and Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. to oversee his former trusted lieutenants, executives and business associates who managed day-to-day operations of PCI, including eight hedge funds that invested in PCI who spoke with both in-house lawyers and Fredrikson & Byron, as to the legal status of PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES". The PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" were used to assist in funding new company acquisitions and existing companies needing funds. PCI also marketed PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" directly to the public.

Jailhouse Lawyer Lambros does not believe PETTERS is to blame for the "PROMISSORY NOTES" that were sold by his employees, lawyers, and agents, as PETTERS relied on in-house and outside attorneys, as PETTERS disclosed all material facts to his attorney's before seeking advice on WHETHER PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" ARE SECURITIES. PETTERS relied on his attorney's advice in the good faith belief that his conduct was legal.

General Electric Capital Corporation spoke directly to both in-house lawyers of PETTERS and FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A., as to WHETHER PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" ARE SECURITIES. All lawyers stated that the "PROMISSORY NOTES" are NOT securities. The incorrect information cost GE, a key lender to PETTERS $19 MILLION TO SETTLE CLAWBACK SUITS, the largest settlement in PETTERS case to date. GE stated it extended credit to PETTERS and received repayment "in good faith." Again, if a company the size of GE thinks PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" are not securities, why would PETTERS think they are securities that needed to be AUDITED by the Securities and Exchange Commission?

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION:

Jailhouse Lawyer John Gregory Lambros believes that this TRAGEDY would not have occurred if FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. had not fooled the Securities and Exchange Commission who raised questions about PETTERS PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" BEING SECURITIES, as early as 2001 and 2002. First, PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" are securities, as per the Supreme Court cases SEC. & EXCH. COMM'N vs. EDWARDS and REVES vs. ERNST & YOUNG. Second, as a security, PCI "PROMISSORY NOTES" would of been monitored by the Security and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC based office of Compliance and Examination, which requires a SEC Regional Office to DEMAND RECORDS AND AUDITS OF ALL SECURITIES. The SEC also requires persons marketing securities to be "REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISORS".

ACCOUNTANTS AND ATTORNEY MONITORED EACH PCI "PROMISSORY NOTE"

PETTERS believed his attorneys and accountants vetted each PCI transaction. The record is replete with testimony of this attorneys' involvement in PCI affairs. His counsel were heavily involved in many PCI transactions, including those charged in the indictment. His counsel drew up all "PROMISSORY NOTES". HIS COUNSEL ASSURED INVESTORS THAT LAWSUITS AGAINST PCI WERE FRIVOLOUS. HIS COUNSEL ASSURED INVESTORS ALL WAS WELL AT THE COMPANY. [3 Trial Transcript at 388, 397, 413-14, 448, 457-58, 479-80; 5 Trial Transcript at 830-39; 10 Trial Transcript at 1676, 1828; 11 Trial Transcript at 1937-39; 12 Trial Transcript at 2149-50]. PETTERS spent most of his time at work with CHIEF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL DAVID BAER, who had an office adjacent to his. [14 Trial Transcript at 2707]. Again, PETTERS relied on his attorneys and accountants and had innocent intent.

DECEMBER 6, 2013: PETTERS REQUESTS JAILHOUSE LAWYER LAMBROS, aka "THE JUDGE", TO SADDLE-UP:

PETTERS arrived at U.S. Penitentiary Leavenworth in July 2010 and met John Gregory Lambros the first few days of his arrival when visiting the inmate law library, as Lambros is a Jailhouse Lawyer.

What is a jailhouse lawyer? Jailhouse lawyers are inmates that are often referred to as "writ-writers", that try to help other inmates with their legal problems. The Supreme Court has held that prison authorities cannot prohibit prisoners from helping each other with legal matters. JOHNSON vs. AVERY, 393 U.S. 483, 490 (1969). LAMBROS believes a prisoner helping someone else would be exercising his own First Amendment rights as well as the other prisoner's. Therefore, litigation undertaken in good faith by a prisoner motivated to bring about social change and protect constitutional rights in the prison is a form of political expression.

Jailhouse lawyers are viewed by many courts as having STANDING TO ASSERT THE RIGHTS OF THE INMATES WHO NEED THEIR HELP. See, MUNZ vs. NIX, 908 F.2d 267, 268, FootNote 3 (8th Cir. 1990). They may assist in preparing and filing pleadings but may not file them on behalf of other prisoners unless signed by both because one non-attorney cannot act in behalf of another. See, STORSETH vs. SPELLMAN, 654 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981)(jailhouse lawyer may assist in preparing and filing pleadings but may not file them on behalf of others); WILLIAMS vs. FRAME, 145 F.R.D. 65 (E.D. Pa. 1992)(complaint submitted by two (2) prisoners must be signed by both because one-non-attorney cannot act in behalf of another).

On rare occasions, courts have permitted in-court representation of one prisoner by another. See, WILLIAMSON vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Dept. of CORRECTIONS, 577 F. Supp. 983 (N.D. Ind. 1984); THURMAN vs. ROSE, 575 F. Supp. 1488, 1489 FN.1 (N.D. Ind. 1983).

LAMBROS WRITES PETTERS ATTORNEYS ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2010: After reviewing some of the legal documents Petters had, Lambros asked why the Honorable Judge Richard H. Kyle did not disqualify himself, as his son was an attorney and partner at the law firm FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.. Petters did not know the answer and asked Lambros to write his attorneys Hopeman, Riensche and Engh, requesting them to submit an additional issue within his direct appeal as to violations of Title 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and 455(b)(5)(ii & iii). On September 17, 2010 Attorney Eric J. Riensche responded to Lambros' September 1, 2010 letter, stating that the argument regarding WHETHER THE JUDGE SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED IS A DECENT ONE AND IF YOU [PETTERS] LOSE THE APPEAL YOU SHOULD RAISE IT WITHIN A 2255, ARGUING COUNSEL (US) WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR DISQUALIFICATION.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2010: PETTERS and LAMBROS respond to Attorney Riensche letter dated September 17, 2010, outlining case law as to why they think an additional issue should be added to PETTERS direct appeal as to the violation of 28 U.S.C. 455, et al., by Judge Kyle. On page 4, paragraph 12, PETTERS and LAMBROS state "Again, I am requesting you - my legal team - to file a 'MOTION' WITH THE 8th Circuit requesting 14 days to serve a 'SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING' setting out events that happened after your principal brief was filed as to your knowledge of violations of Title 28 U.S.C. 455 by Judge Kyle." PETTERS attorneys refused to file same.

DECEMBER 30, 2013: LAMBROS FILES MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - RULE 59(e):

1. DECEMBER 30, 2013: Lambros prepares and files the following pleadings with the clerk of the Court: USA vs PETTERS, Criminal No. 08-364; Civil No. 13-1110.

"MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT'S 'MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILED DECEMBER 5, 2013, PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE." Dated: December 28, 2013. This motion is 13 pages in length and DOES NOT contain the exhibits.

DOWNLOAD DECEMBER 28, 2013 "MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGENT" - HERE IN PDF

2. DECEMBER 30, 2013: LAMBROS FILES MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE KYLE - 28 U.S.C. 455:

"MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD H. KYLE IN THIS ACTION.

DEFENDANT PETTERS REQUESTS THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE KYLE, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 455(a), 455(b)(5)(i), AND 455(b)(5)(iii). DEFENDANT PETTERS WAS PREJUDICED." Dated: December 28, 2013. This motion is 19 pages in length and DOES NOT contain the 50 plus pages of exhibits.

DOWNLOAD DECEMBER 28, 2013 "MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE KYLE" - HERE IN PDF

3. January 8, 2014:  John R. Marti, Acting U.S. Attorney, files the "GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PETTERS' MOTIONS TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY UNDER 28 U.S.C.
455." This motion is six (6) pages in length.

DOWNLOAD JANUARY 8, 2014 "GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE" IN THIS ACTION - HERE IN PDF.

4. JailHouse Lawyer Lambros responds to the government, filing "THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS" RESPONSE TO 'GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PETTERS' MOTIONS TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY UNDER 28 U.S.C. 455." This motion is 12 pages in length and does not contain the exhibits.      THIS MOTION IS DATED: JANUARY 15, 2014.

DOWNLOAD JANUARY 15, 2014 "PETTERS' RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT - HERE IN PDF.

5. JANUARY 15, 2014:  JailHouse Lawyer Lambros suggests that his client Petters' request bail and files " .   MOTION FOR BAIL". This motion is 3 pages in length.

DOWNLOAD JANUARY 15, 2014 "MOTION FOR BAIL" IN THIS ACTION - HERE IN PDF.

6. FEBRUARY I0, 2014: Judge Richard H. Kyle, issues "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER", denying Movant Petter and JailHouse Lawyer Lamhros' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doe. No. 630) and Motion to Disqualify (Doc. No. 631). The Motion for Bail (Doc. No. 636) was denied as moot. U.S. vs. PETTERS, Crim. No. 08-364 and Civil No. 13-1110. This ORDER is eight (8) in length. (Doc. No. 637)

DOWNLOAD FEBRUARY I0, 2014 "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER" IN THIS ACTION - HERE IN PDF.

 7. MARCH 3, 2014: Movant Petters and JailHouse Lawyer Lambros file "MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT'S 'MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER' FILED FEBRUARY i0, 2014, PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS TO THE 'MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD H. KYLE IN THIS ACTION' Dated: March 3, 2014'" THE SUBJECT OF THIS MOTION: Denial of Recusal Motion dated December 28, 2013 (Doc. No. 631). This motion is 21 pages in length with 12 pages of EXHIBITS and a 1 page cover letter. Total pages 34.

DOWNLOAD MARCH 3, 2014 "MOTION TO ALTER - RULE 59(e) - TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE KYLE" HERE IN PDF.

8. MARCH 11, 2014, Judge Kyle denies PETTERS and JAILHOUSE LAWYER LAMBROS' Rule 59(e) "MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE KYLE.

DOWNLOAD MARCH 11, 2014, ORDER DENYING RULE 59(e) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE KYLE, HERE IN PDF
.

9. MARCH 18, 2014, JailHouse Lawyer Lambros files "NOTICE OF APPEAL" and "MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY" for Tom Petters. USA vs. PETTERS, Criminal No. 08-364 and Civil No. 13-1110. The cover letter and both motions with all exhibits are a total of 70 pages.

DOWNLOAD MARCH 18, 2014, "NOTICE OF APPEAL" AND "COA" MOTION, HERE IN PDF
.

10. MAY 6, 2014:  JailHouse Lawyer JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS files "NOTICE OF APPEAL" and "MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY and/or WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ISSUE: Routes of appellate review to challenge Judge Kyle's refusal to disqualify himself during Defendant Petters' 2255 motion on March 11, 2014, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)," for Tom Petters. USA vs. PETTERS, Criminal No. 08-364 and Civil No. 13-1110. The motion is 35 pages in length with additional exhibits A thru H. PLEASE NOTE: Pages 32 thru 34 PLACES JUDGE KYLE AND THE LAW FIRM Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. "ON NOTICE" as to the "FORTHCOMING LITIGATION AGAINST Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - POTENTIAL ONE BILLION DOLLAR CLASS ACTION SUIT." The forthcoming litigation is due to the February 26, 2014, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP vs. TROICE, et al., No. 12-79, that held that PONZI SCHEME VICTIMS have the right to pursue class-action suits against LAW FIRMS that AIDED THE FRAUD.

DOWNLOAD MAY 6, 2014, "CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY" MOTION, HERE IN PDF.

11. JULY 25, 2014: JailHouse Lawyer Lambros and Petters write JOHN KONECK, PRESIDENT OF "FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A., requesting Amicus Curiae brief to support "Motion to Disqualify Judge Richard H. Kyle, ... within USA vs. PETTERS, Docket No. 14-1840 (8th Cir. 2014)". Lambros explains to John Koneck the current liability his firm is faced due to potential class-action claim against Fredrikson & Byron in excess of $I Billion in damages, due to the February 26, 2014 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP vs. TROICE, et al. No. 12-79, 134 S. Ct. 1058 (February 26, 2014). This certified letter received on July 28, 2014 offers an excellent overview of Petters case and the actions of Fredrikson & Byron during representation of Tom Petters and his companies. This letter is five (5) page in total.

DOWNLOAD JULY 25, 2014 LETTER TO JOHN KONECK FROM LAMBROS AND PETTERS, HERE IN PDF FORMAT.


12. SEPTEMBER 23, 2014: Tom Petters and JailHouse Lawyer John Gregory Lambros write ATTORNEY RICHARD E. FLAMM, requesting his services in providing advice, position paper and/or amicus curiae brief to supplement Petters current appeal within the Eighth Circuit and possible expert testimony regarding JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION. Attorney Flamm is an expert witness regarding matters of legal and judicial ethics and has testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee regarding MATTERS OF JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION. His treatises include "JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION: RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES (1996), and now in its Second Edition and LAWYER DISQUALIFICATION: Conflicts of Interest and Other Bases (2003). His most recent article on judicial and lawyer disqualification, "THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION IN AMERICA," was featured in the latest edition (Summer, 2013) of the ABA Judge's Journal. This letter is three (3) pages total.

DOWNLOAD SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 LETTER TO ATTORNEY RICHARD E. FLAMM FROM LAMBROS AND PETTERS, HERE IN PDF FORMAT.

13. OCTOBER 23, 2014: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals DENIED Tom Petters March 18, 2014 and May 6, 2014, MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. See, PETTERS vs. USA, Docket No. 14-1840.

14. DECEMBER 4, 2014: The Eighth Circuit receives Tom Petters "PETITION FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 40 AND REHEARING IN BANC PURSUANT TO RULE 35 APPELLATE PROCEDURE". Please note that ATTORNEY RICHARD E. FLAMM OFFERS AN AFFIDAVIT, stating "It is my opinion that a reasonable person might question whether Judge Kyle could preside impartially over a criminal case involving Mr. Petters, given that F&B not only represented Mr. Petters companies, but suffered a substantial financial loss as a result." This motion is fourteen (14) pages with a one (1) page affidavit by Richard E. Flamm. Total of fifteen (15) pages. See, PETTERS vs. USA, Docket No. 14-1840, U.S.A Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

DOWNLOAD DECEMBER 4, 2014 "PETITION FOR REHEARING," HERE IN PDF FORMAT.



WHO IS JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS?

John Gregory Lambros, a jailhouse lawyer at United States Penitentiary Leavenworth, stated in an interview that "my job is to provide transparency and lift the veil on how the United States government and Petters lawyers applied federal law in Tom Petters trial, conviction, direct appeal and most recently his "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody", pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, that was denied on December 5, 2013."

Lambros, a former Minnesota stockbroker, investment banker and international businessman, was arrested on May 17, 1991, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, due to alleged drug purchases - NO SALES - in Minnesota. During his extradition to the United States he was tortured in Brazil - at the same facility Francisco Toscanino in 1973 was tortured by U.S. and Brazilian military before being brought into the United States illegally, See, U.S. vs. TOSCANINO, 500 F.2d 267 (2nd Cir. 1974) - at a confirmed torture and interrogation facility used by Brazilian military during the dirty war's of South America, while awaiting a ruling from the Brazilian Supreme Court on a 30-year maximum sentence, the maximum sentence Brazilians can receive for any criminal offense.

The Brazilian Supreme Court would not honor the Brazilian Constitution and allowed Lambros to be extradited, as requested by the U.S. Department of State, after being informed of Lambros' torture only three (3) miles from the Court house. The Court approved a sentence of "MANDATORY LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE".

Back in the USA, there was a missive cover-up by the CIA, Department of State and the Department of Justice, as to his torture and breach of the Brazilian Constitution that prohibits any penalty of a lifelong character (Article 5, Clause XLVII, (b) and Article 75 of the Brazilian Criminal Code, which limits criminal sentences to 30-years.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in UNITED STATES vs. JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698, 700 thru 701 (8th Cir. 1995):

"Lambros alleges that he was tortured during his thirteen months in Brazilian prison while contesting extradition to the United States, and that American officials were complicit in this torture. In various hearings below, Lambros has testified extensively as to his mistreatment in Brazil. Testimony on the topic of Lambros' treatment in Brazil was also given by two DEA Agents who served there. The record also includes persuasive indirect evidence that Lambros was not mistreated in Brazil; a psychologist at the competency hearing concluded that Lambros' symptoms were not consistent with torture." Id. at 700-701.

"ALTHOUGH A SPECIFIC FINDING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER LAMBROS HAD BEEN TORTURED WITH AMERICAN COMPLICITY WOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERABLE, the state of the record obviates the need for remand. First, as discussed below, LAMBROS' TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE because he perjured himself in other regards at trial, AND IT IS ALSO FANTASTIC. (For instance, LAMBROS MAINTAINS THAT HE WAS HELD IN THE SAME BRAZILIAN CELL WHERE THE MISTREATMENT ALLEGED IN UNITED STATES vs. FRANCISCO TOSCANINO, 500 F.2d 267 (2nd Cir. 1974), OCCURRED, AND EVEN ASSERTS THAT HE MET TOSCANINO THERE.) Second, two DEA Agents testified that Lambros' arrest was peaceful and that they had no knowledge of any subsequent mistreatment. Third, and most telling, a psychologist's evaluation prepared for the competency hearing below declared that:

I Indeed, we note that Lambros' counsel at oral argument conceded that the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THIS CASE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ASSURE ITSELF THAT LAMBROS WAS NOT MISTREATED IN BRAZIL."'

See, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698, 700-701 (8th Cir. 1995)

After the above September 8, 1995 ORDER by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lambros contacted FRANCISCO TOSCANINO via his family and requested that he forward information from interviews LAMBROS and TOSCANINO offered the press in Brasilia, Brazil, including any articles and his attorney's name and address in Brazil. On February 12, 1996, Maxime Toscanino - the son of Francisco Toscanino - wrote Lambros and Attorney Jeff Orren stating that Francisco was in a maximum security prison near Naples, Italy and offered the name of Francisco Toscanino's lawyer during his extradition in 1991 & 1992 from Brazil to Italy Dr. Julio Cardella, Rua General Osorio, 939, Campinas - Sao Paulo, Brazil and phone number.

Also included with the February 12, 1996 letter from Maxime Toscanino, WAS COPY OF THE OCTOBER 20, 1991, Sunday newspaper article from CAMPINAS, [Sao Paulo, Brazil] entitled 'MAFIOSO DA CAMORRA PRESO SOFREU TORTURAS NA DITADURA!' by Jose Francisco Pacola. The article clearly states Francisco Toscanino is currently being HELD AT THE FEDERAL POLICE STATION IN BRASILIA, BRAZIL AWAITING HIS EXTRADITION TO ITALY.

CLICK HERE TO SEE COPY OF: February 12, 1996, letter from Maxime Toscanino and October 20, 1991, NEWSPAPER ARTICLE "MAFIOSO DA CAMORRA PRESO SOFREU TORTURAS NA DITADURA"

Lambros was sentenced to a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE and due to his hours of legal research was able to discover his illegal sentence that was overturned on direct appeal. See, www.Lambros.Name for details.

PRESS RELEASE:

JANUARY 20, 2014 "PRESS RELEASE": JAILHOUSE LAWYER REQUESTS NEW TRIAL AND BAIL FOR CONVICTED PONZI SCHEMER TOM PETTERS $3.65 BILLION FRAUD.

DOWNLOAD JANUARY 20, 2014 "PRESS RELEASE" - HERE IN PDF

or VIEW THE PRESS RELEASE WEB PAGE HERE


DONATIONS:

If you would like to donate to John Gregory Lambros efforts in exposing government injustice, please make a donation here.

SPONSORS OF THIS WEBSITE:

www.NoPayClassifieds.com - Place free classified ads and review over 35 million classifieds in 50 countries.