Thomas Petters Legal Research and Updates sponsored by NoPayClassifieds.com



JAILHOUSE LAWYER REQUESTS NEW TRIAL AND BAIL FOR CONVICTED PONZI SCHEMER PETTERS $3.65 BILLION FRAUD


John Gregory Lambros
Reg. No. 00436-124
U.S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
P.O. Box i000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000
Website: www.NoPayClassifieds.com/TomPetters

PRESS RELEASE -- January 20, 2014


Tom Petters was a prominent Minneapolis, Minnesota businessman that allegedly perpetrated a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme - $3.65 billion Ponzi - scheme was sentenced in 2010 and received a 50-year sentence.

After spending over $4 million on allegedly the best attorney's money could buy for trial, appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected his attempt, U.S. Supreme Court and the challenge to his federal conviction and sentence under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, which was denied on December 5, 2013, by the Honorable Richard H. Kyle, Petters turned to his "Jailhouse Lawyer" for results.

On December 6, 2013, Petters requested Jailhouse Lawyer, John Gregory Lambros, aka "THE JUDGE", to assist him with his legal problems. In an effort to provide transparency and lift the veil on how Judge Kyle, government prosecutors and Petters' lawyers applied federal law in Petters' pre-trial, trial, sentencing, and conviction, Lambros filed the following motions:

1. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE RICHARD H. KYLE, PURSUANT TO 28 USC 455 et al.
Dated: December 28, 2013. Richard H. Kyle, Jr. is the son of Judge Kyle and shareholder (equity-partner) in the law firm Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., the law firm that represented Petters from 1992 thru 2008. Petters paid the law firm over $20 million for legal services.

2. MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT OF COURT'S ORDER, PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Dated: December 28, 2013.

John R. Marti, Acting United States Attorney responded to the above motions on January 8, 2014, stating,

'"Because Petter's is represented by a non-lawyer not authorized to appear in this Court, the motions should be stricken."'

Attached are page one (i) and two (2) of the January 8, 2014, "GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PETTERS' MOTION TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY UNDER 28 U.S.C. 455." See, THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal No. 08-364(RBK/AJB), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Document No. 633. This case also has a Civil NO. 13-1110(RHK).

Lambros responded to the government on January 15, 2014 with the following two (2) motions:

3. THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS' RESPONSE TO "GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE ...." Dated: January 15, 2014.

4. MOTION FOR BAIL. Dated: January 15, 2014.

The $64,000.00 question:
IS ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN R. MARTI MAKING HIS "JAILHOUSE LAWYER" CRITICISMS PERSONAL?

Lambros believes that if you attack people personally, as opposed to attacking their ideas, you've poisoned the well!

"THE JUDGE", as he is called at Leavenworth, doesn't hold anything back, and doesn't take offense to anything; it is the culture of an old-time Jailhouse Lawyer, prior broker and investment banker. If Tom Petters' does anything to anger me, I will go ballistic on him, and in five minutes we drop it and move forward; that goes both ways between us. That's the way "THE JUDGE" communicates with his clients, it keeps us communicating.

FREE SPEECH: Lambros believes a prisoner helping someone else would be exercising his own First Amendment rights as well as the other prisoner's.

THE GOAL: I am attempting to promote and educate the public about "JAILHOUSE LAWYERS", that take pride in being outside the mainstream, by providing transparency into the application of federal laws.

If you are interested in publishing a short article or a long feature, with the above unique viewpoint, please review the following article:

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

at: www.NoPayClassifieds.com/TomPetters

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
John Gregory Lambros
---------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBIT
CASE 0:08-cr-00364-RHK-AJB Document 633 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No. 08-364 (RHK/AJB) Civil No. 13-01110 (RHK)

THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS, Plaintiff, V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PETTERS' MOTIONS TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(E) AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY UNDER 28 U.S.C. {} 445

The United States of America, by and through John R. Marti, Acting United States Attorney, moves this Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 to strike defendant Petters' Motion to Alter and Amend (Doc. 630) and Motion to Disqualify (Doc. No. 631) or, in the alternative, to deny the motions as meritless and procedurally foreclosed.

1. Because Petters' is represented by a non-lawyer not authorized to appear in this Court, the motions should be stricken.

Petters is represented by Steven Meshbesher, Esq., (who has not been relieved as counsel) yet a "jailhouse lawyer" (prisoner John G. Lambros) purports to appear on Petters' behalf even though the jailhouse lawyer is not authorized to practice law in this Court under Local Rule 83.5. Petters has two choices concerning his legal representation, he can chose to stick with Steven Meshbesher, Esq. (or another lawyer) or he may proceed pro se. There are no other choices. Petters cannot choose to be represented by a non-lawyer prisoner yet that is exactly what Petters does here. Therefore, because these

CASE 0:08-cr-00364-RHK-AJB Document 633 Filed 01/08/14 Page 2 of 6

motions violate this Court's rules governing representation, the Court should strike these motions under Local Rule 1.3 (establishing sanctions for violations of the Local Rules, including "striking pleadings or papers").

A defendant in a criminal case does not have a sixth amendment right to the assistance of a non-lawyer. United States v. Buttorff, 572 F.2d 619, 627 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Grisrnore, 546 F.2d 844, 847 (10th Cir.1976) (the right to "counsel" means "an individual who is authorized to the practice of law"). And federal courts have inherent authority to prohibit frivolous and other filings by non-parties and nonlawyers. Harlan v. Lewis, 982 F.2d 1255, 1259 (8m Cir. 1993). Moreover, a prisoner cannot sign a pleading on behalf of another prisoner in a legal proceeding in federal court. United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 872 (8ta Cir. 1994); Valiant-Bey v. Morris, 620 F, Supp. 903,904 (E.D.Mo.1985).

Precluding Lambros from improperly appearing as counsel in this Court does not impermissibly limit Petters' right to seek advice from an unlicensed jailhouse lawyer. To the contrary, Petters may still file pleadings directly or through an attorney. "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct "causes therein." 28 U.S.C. t654. While the cases cited by Lambros (e.g., Munz v. Nix, 908 F.2d 267, 268 n.3 (8th Cir. 1990), citing Johnson v. Avery, 89 S.Ct. 747, 751 (1969)) "guarantee prisoners the right to seek assistance and advice on legal matters from other

CASE 0:08-cr-00364-RHK-AJB Document 633 Filed 01/08/14 Page 3 of 6

Inmates in certain matters, these cases do not sanction representation during litigation by non-party laypersons." Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1982); Georgakis v. Illinois State University, 722 F.3d 1075, 1077 (7th Cir. 2013) ("A nonlawyer can't handle a case on behalf of anyone except himself.")

For the foregoing reasons, Petters' motions filed by a "jailhouse lawyer" should be stricken.

2. Petters' Rule 59(e) Motion should be summarily denied because it merely restates facts and arguments previously raised and disposed of in the Court's order denying his 2255 motion.

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was adopted to clarify a district court's power to correct its own mistakes in the time period immediately following entry of judgment. Rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Innovative Home Health Care, Inc.
V. P.T.-O.T. Associate of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Such motions are not proper vehicles for raising new arguments. Capitol Indemnity Corp. V. Russellville Steel Co., inc., 367 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2004). "A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the trial court entered final judgment." Bannister v. Armontrout, 4 F.3d 1434, 1440 (8th Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted); Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2008) ("Rule 59(e) allows for reconsideration; it does not permit parties to effectively 're-argue a case.'").
Petters' motion under Rule 59(e) adds next to nothing new to the litigation in this case and the Government will not further lengthen the record by re-stating its prior 3... End of exhibit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petters seeks new ruling from new judge

Posted 1-3-14 By John Welbes jwelbes@pioneerpress.com

Tom Petters isn't going away quietly.

On Thursday, the convicted Twin Cities businessman and Ponzi schemer filed motions in federal court to have U..S. District Judge Richard Kyle removed from his case, and to alter Kyle's Dec. 5 order that denied Petters' effort to reduce his 50-year prison term.

Petters filed the motions himself with assistance from John Gregory Lambros, whom Petters identified as his "jailhouse lawyer." Lambros, 63, is an inmate with Petters at the U.S. penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., and is serving time for an international cocaine distribution ring he was part of in the 1980s.

Petters' latest filing says Kyle's Dec. 5 decision repeats false information; Petters claims that his former defense attorneys lied to the court during an evidentiary hearing in October.

At that hearing, Petters, 54, admitted his guilt, and claimed his former defense attorneys never told him about a 2009 plea deal from prosecutors that would have capped his sentence at 30 years if he pleaded guilty. Instead, Petters pleaded not guilty, went to trial and received a 50-year sentence for the $3.5 billion Ponzi scheme that he led from his Minnetonka-based business empire.

Kyle didn't buy it, and his order from last month seemingly ended Petters' hopes for a reduced sentence; Kyle wrote that Petters was simply trying "to pull off one final con."

A clerk for Kyle said Friday that it's uncertain who would review Petters' most recent filing. With his filing this week, Petters aims to get his motion that .ultimately seeks a shorter sentence in front of a different judge.

Last year, when Petters approached Twin Cities attorney Steve Meshbesher about getting his sentence reduced, he also talked about possibly getting Kyle taken off the case.

"1 have a tremendous amount of respect and trust with Judge Kyle," Meshbesher said Friday, adding that he told Petters from the outset that he wouldn't be involved with trying to remove Kyle.

Meshbesher did represent Petters at the October hearing.

In a separate case in 2010, when another inmate also identified John Gregory Lambros as his jailhouse lawyer, a federal judge noted that Lambros is not, in fact, an attorney.

Court records indicate Lambros is a Minnesota native serving a 30-year sentence for his role in an international cocaine conspiracy that operated in the 1980s. In 1976, Lambros was convicted of masterminding a drug ring that imported $3 million worth of Colombian cocaine into the U.S. He served 7.5 years in federal prison on that conviction.

News accounts from that period reported that Lambros was known as "the candy man" among his white-collar clients.

After being charged again with drug-related crimes, Lambros fled to Brazil in 1989. He was eventually extradited to the U.S. and convicted. Lambros also has a website, www.lambros.name, which contains large numbers of legal filings, some of them claiming that federal authorities plant computer chips in convicts' heads.

Originally, Lambros was given a life sentence because the conviction was his third drug-related felony. He later appealed his sentence and succeeded in having it reduced, because his offense had occurred before the enactment of mandatory life sentences.