Opinion
Crim. No. 08-364 (RHK/AJB).
June 15, 2010
ORDER
Richard Hettler's ex parte Motion for an Expedited Order Referring his Restitution Entitlement and Payment to a Federal Grand Jury (attached hereto) is DENIED.
EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN EXPEDITED ORDER REFERRING RICHARD HETTLER'S RESTITUTION ENTITLEMENT AND PAYMENT TO A FEDERAL GRAND JURY
Incorporating herein by reference victim/victim creditor Richard Hettler's attached MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD (with attachments), earlier Briefs filed with this court dated 18 April and 10 May, Hettler's NOTICE PLEADING and BRIEF also filed with this court on 1 June, 2010 and this court's ruling of 3 June refusing to grant restitution to any of the Petters' victims, victim/victim creditor Hettler respectfully moves the court to refer the matter of Hettler's restitution and payment on his seven (7) promissory Notes to a federal grand jury.Pursuant to earlier dialogue and email exchange between Hettler and Assistant US Attorney Joseph Dixon, (who refused to add Hettler's name to the Petters[1] Victim List notwithstanding over a decade of competent and FBI validated evidence in support of the Hettler claim [1], now aggravated by this courts 3 June decision to not grant restitution of any kind), this leaves victim/victim/creditor Hettler with no recourse other than to invoke the powers of a federal grand jury who may be commissioned by this court, pursuant to 18 USC § 3332(a) to deal with matters which the court has now put aside.
[1] the same evidence in support of the Hettler restitution claim which Dixon now discards, was reviewed by the Minneapolis FBI in December, 2001 (arranged by US Senator Mark Dayton after his review of such evidence) by two FBI Special Agents who validated that Hettler had been swindled by Petters, by various officers of the court, and others bribed by Petters — FBI, at that meeting, urged Hettler to file suit in US District Court on his then (and yet unpaid) seven promissory Notes.
Mindful of the above and a preponderance of Hettler evidence furnished the courts, the FBI, other DOJ members, various and numerous members of the Minnesota congressional delegation, all of whom unanimously concluded that Hettler had been swindled by Petters (starting with his concocted Kahn bankruptcy which used Kahn's bankruptcy as a conduit to siphon money from Hettler, Dixon rejected the Hettler restitution claim (and a later request of Hettler for a grand jury investigation), offering in support of his decision a "fake" corporate record and a "jurisdictionally flawed" Order of the Nancy Dreher court (Hettler was never served). The Petters/Kahn fraudulently concocted bankruptcy drew Hettler into a Petters/Kahn concocted bankruptcy scam (Petters/Kahn used the bankruptcy courts to swindle Hettler's money) all orchestrated by Petters/Kahn, their counsel, the respective bankruptcy trustees Jon Stoebner and Thomas Miller, Hennepin County District Judge Gary Larson, plus Dreher and her colleagues Robert Kressel and Gregory Kishel. All of this was first reported to the Minneapolis FBI in 1999 by attorney Garrett Vail and St Paul Banker Brian Werner (for which Dreher threw Vail out of her courtroom), thereafter (in 2001) by US Senators Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton in behalf of victim Hettler, and later to the Criminal Division of IRS. Miller declared income to the Kahn bankruptcy estate which Kahn earlier admitted had been stolen from Hettler (two affidavits validate this). Neither Miller nor the then presiding bankruptcy judges (Dreher, Kressel, Kishel) would honor numerous requests of Miller by both Hettler and Vail to produce a tax return which reported money stolen from Hettler as income to the Kahn bankruptcy estate so Miller could extract his fees-Vail is on the record for making such observations after speaking with Miller about this on the phone (Vail's taped message (expressing "shock" over this bankruptcy swindle) he left for Hettler is part of the evidence). It is believed that no tax return was ever prepared by Miller so Miller could avoid, or try to avoid, felony tax fraud charges — the record additionally shows that Miller had been turned away by several tax preparation firms because they wouldn't prepare a "bogus" tax return. 18 USC § 3332(a) states in relevant part:
(a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation.WHEREFORE, victim/victim/creditor Richard Hettler respectfully prays for an Order directing that a grand jury be convened at once to offer relief unto victim Hettler where such relief is no longer available to him by and through the courts. None of this should come as any great surprise to his honor since his honor has already criminally convicted both Petters and Kahn (see her annexed conviction as a reminder), for their respective criminal roles which used the Minnesota courts to embezzle Hettler's money. In summary, there is absolutely no lawful reason to continue withholding Hettler's money. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of June, 2010. MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD IN REBUTTAL TO A 19 MAY LETTER FROM AUSA DIXON AUTHOR: RICHARD HETTLER DATED 1 JUNE, 2010 IN RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V PETTERS, CASE MATTER 08-364 (RHK) On 26 May, 2010, I signed for the receipt of a FEDEX letter from Assistant US Attorney Joseph Dixon containing a19 May writing by Dixon. Said writing offered various civil docketed causes of actions in support of Dixon's comment that he would not add Richard Hettler's name to a long list of victims. More specifically, in his paragraphs 3 4 of said annexed letter, Dixon cites a series of civil docketed proceedings which he expects the Richard Kyle court to use as grounds for rejecting the Hettler restitution claim, referring in particular to an annexed " corporate record " which, if it is a corporate record, fails to articulate the identity of said corporation. This alleged "corporate record" has an annotation in the lower right hand corner: PCI-SW-052-002387. This alleged " corporate record " isn't a corporate record at all — it is a list of 6 promissory Notes drafted by an unknown party (perhaps Mr. Dixon himself) to give the allusion that all such notes have been paid, without any proof of payment of course. This same "corporate record" contained the following language " paid directly to Thomas Miller as trustee of the estate of Ruth Kahn ". Even if this "corporate record" made any sense or showed proof of payment, the court may not use an actual or prospective civil action or a docketed civil judgment as a basis for denying restitution-see Minn. Stat. §§ 611A.01; 611A.04; and 611A.045.
Aggravating Dixon's already violated Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, Minn. Stat §§ 611A.01; 611A.04; and 611A.045, 18 USC § 3332(a), 18 U.S.C. § 242, let us not forget that Dixon prosecuted Petters for generating "fake" documents, and now Dixon includes one of many of the same which he expects the Kyle court to use to deny victim Hettler his right to restitution. Said restitution, is at the time of this writing, $56,804,640.08. If Petters was criminally prosecuted for generating "fake" documents, why would Dixon be allowed to do the same? No one is supposed to be "above the law".
The next question is, why would this fabricated "corporate record" have any probative value to the court at all — the record is already replete (and has been ever since 2001) with proof that Ruth Kahn (working in concert with Petters/his lawyers) declared 2 of Hettler's seven promissory Notes on her bankruptcy schedules after which she confessed to such felonies (2 affidavits of hers are on the record admitting to this crime) and those Kahn affidavits specifically admit that the notes (the two that Kahn declared, each in the amount of $1,315,875) belonged to Richard Hettler. Hettler never turned these notes over to anyone.
Next, Dixon is apparently basing his assertion (and his anticipated recommendation to the Kyle court to deny Hettler restitution) on grounds that such Notes have already been paid, not to note holder Hettler, but to a bankruptcy trustee of Ruth Kahn, who has already been criminally convicted (by Kyle) for her involvement with Petters. The seven promissory Notes owned by Hettler clearly identify Richard Hettler as the note holder, not trustee Thomas Miller, and if in fact Miller was paid on these six (6) promissory Notes, the first question is: why would Miller be paid on six promissory Notes owned by Hettler ?, and secondly, where is the proof of such payment? Neither Kahn's name nor Miller's name appear on any of these notes. Such notes, bounced checks, confession affidavits, proof of the 1999 Petters' arranged Kahn bankruptcy swindles (in which multiple bankruptcy judges were involved), have already been filed with the Minnesota US District Court and are more recently (May 17) contained in a 131 page Crime Victim's criminal complaint.
18 U.S.C. § 242 states in relevant part: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Because of over a decade of depriving victim Richard Hettler of his right to due process, all protected by the constitution or laws of the United States, violative of 18 U.S.C. § 242, this created a great deal of lawyer orchestrated obfuscation by, between, and among the courts (continuing to this day) which kept the truth suppressed, maintaining a permanent state of confusion to keep Hettler's money in the hands of Petters/his cronies, and all the officers of the court he was able to control with Ponzi monies paid unto them. It was this criminally orchestrated confusion (never allowably brought before a court of competent jurisdiction) which victim Hettler offered to bring before the Richard Kyle court which Judge Kyle summarily rejected for no apparent reason. Such continued suppressed discovery now continues and will continue to enable all courts (the instant Kyle court, the courts of bankruptcy judges Kressel and Kishel who continue to dispense monies liquidated from business interests acquired by Petters with Hettler's money) from returning Hettler's property and money. Amounts now due Hettler are $56,804,640.08 which if Dixon and all other officers of the court continue to look the other way, will transfer into the hands of the perpetrators, their lawyers, the receiver, various other officers of the courts, including the respective bankruptcy trustees, all of whom were initially involved with Petters/Kahn in two now fully documented 1999 Kahn fraudulent bankruptcies. Had Hettler been allowed to appear before Judge Kyle as Hettler had offered with all of the thus far suppressed evidence in hand, this matter would have come to rest much earlier-instead, the law continues to be broken.
18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) states in relevant part: (a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation.
Had Assistant US Attorney Dixon abided by 18 USC 3332(a), victim Hettler would not be petitioning the court to set aside Dixon's recent writings. The US Attorney's Office has known about this Petters' swindle since 1999 and that Hettler and US Senator Dayton in 2001 (Wellstone before him) had asked the Minnesota US Attorney's Office to do something about it, which Assistant US Attorney Dixon and all others in Dixon's office ignored.
Mr. Dixon, whatever his motivations may be, is attempting to move the court to another known flawed conclusion that Hettler should not be allowed access to his property swindled from Hettler by Petters. If the court denies restitution on the basis of Dixon's "evidence" in support (all prohibited), it must state on the record its reasons for doing so, being mindful that the court may not use an actual or prospective civil action or a docketed civil judgment as a basis for denying restitution-see Minn. Stat §§ 611A.01; 611A.04; and 611A.045.
Before the curtain closes on this massive Petters massive fraud, Assistant US Attorney Joseph Dixon has an opportunity to put an end to a multi-decade swindle which took every dime Richard Hettler and his family ever had and nearly took his life from him by Petters and his cronies who are now running a contemporaneous swindle in the bankruptcy courts, all presided over by bankruptcy judges Kressel and Kishel (both Kressel and Kishel presided as well in a 1999 bankruptcy swindle by Petters/Kahn (see now filed with the Kyle court two Hettler Briefs dated 18 April and 10 May) for which Minnesota US Trustee Barbara Stuart was fired by then USAG John Ashcroft, and which attorney Garrett Vail and banker Brian Werner reported the same to the FBI in 1999.
In closing, now that Assistant US Attorney Dixon has all the facts available to him, he is obligated by statute to convene a special grand jury to do the job no Minnesota court has ever done — see 18 USC § 3332(a). This must be done before June 9 at which time Judge Kyle is expected to give Hettler's $56,804,640.08 away to Kyle and Dixon favored recipients. In the anticipated failure of Assistant US Attorney Dixon to reconsider withholding Hettler's restitution, victim Hettler, under separate cover will, be petitioning the Kyle court for a writ of mandamus to compel Dixon's performance under 18 USC § 3332(a).
Finally, the record contains various Hettler motions asking the 3 extant presiding judges (Kyle, Kishel, Kressel) to appoint Special Counsel because so much of what has been going on in the aftermath of the Petters arrest has favored the perpetrators, their lawyers, receiver Doug Kelley, and the bankruptcy trustees. Also requested was a consolidation of all instant Petters' bankruptcies into the Petters criminal matter. To the knowledge of victim Richard Hettler, not a dime has gone to the victims including Richard Hettler, yet tens of millions of dollars have been paid out.
Accordingly, victim Richard Hettler does hereby renew his request of the Kyle court to make NOTICE AND DEMAND upon the Office of Special Counsel for the appointment of Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald (replacing Kelley and all trustees) to handle the consolidated matter and to explain why a $50 billion Ponzi heist by Petters was only reported at $3+ billion. Over a year ago, I asked receiver Doug Kelley for a sources and uses of capital who promised it to me in that next week-I'm still waiting. In the absence of disclosure, Kelley, the bankruptcy trustees and the rest of their cronies have been given a "license to steal". This is why there is so much opposition to my suggestion to appoint Special Counsel.
In summary, all of the evidence Dixon supplies in his letter (to keep Hettler's name off the Victim List) cites various civil actions which CANNOT BE USED BY THE COURT in deciding to affirm or disaffirm Richard Hettler's restitution. Should the court do so, it would put the court in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 611A.01; 611A.04; and 611A.045 and moreover continue violating The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. All of this can be avoided by adding Richard Hettler to the Victim List and by paying Hettler his $56,804,640.08 now due him as of 1 June, 2010-an updated Proof of Claim is annexed hereto. Annexed hereto also are two recent letters dated 24 and 22 May, 2010 to FBI Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, and Obama appointed US Attorney Neil MacBride who is now running the President's Financial Fraud Task Force at DOJ.
Attachments: Two page letter from AUSA Joseph Dixon with Dixon offered Corporate Record 24/22 May letters to FBI Special Agent Patrick Bohrer and US Attorney Neil MacBride Updated Restitution Claim VIA FEDEX United States v. Thomas Joseph Petters
May 19, 2010 Richard Hettler 4818 Overlook Lake Circle Bloomington, MN 55437 Re: Cr. No. 08-364 (RHK/AJB) Mr. Hettler:On April 26, 2010, the government posted a preliminary proposed restitution order relating to United States v. Petters, Cr. No. 08-364 (RHK/AJB) (a copy of the preliminary proposed restitution order is posted to the U.S. Attorney's Office website at www.justice.gov/usao/mn).
The government received the objection you provided dated May 4, 2010 in which you assert a claim to restitution in the amount of $55,987,431.86 and reviewed your claim.
Company records reflect that it made payment on the notes in question with interest. I am enclosing a corporate record reflecting full payment. This record is consistent with the evidence adduced at trial that early investors were paid in full (with funds from subsequent investors).
I have also reviewed a number of separate court orders rejecting your claims regarding the Petters notes. These orders also indicate that payment has already been made on the note. I am enclosing courtesy copies of the orders for your convenience. In one of the orders, it finds that your admitted to assigning the Petters notes to another party. In another order, the district court enjoined you personally from bring any claims relating to the claims made by you in the prior litigation. From these orders, it appears that you are now estopped from making your claim for restitution (and enjoined from doing so).
Accordingly, the government will not add your name to the government's final proposed restitution order.
Richard Hettler p. 2 May 19, 2010
We will be providing the district court with copies of your objection, as well as our response, for his consideration of your objection.
Sincerely, B. TODD JONES United States Attorney BY: JOSEPH T. DIXON, III Assistant U.S. Attorney RICHARD J. HETTLER CAPITAL ASSET MGMT GROUP, RICHARD HETTLER MEMBER 10617 FRANCE AVE. SOUTH PO BOX 385343 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 NOTES FROM 1997 TO PRESENT INTEREST ROLLED DATE ROLLED PRIN. NOTE# DATE PRIN AMOUNT OR INTEREST PAID OR DATE PAID PAID OR ROLLED 1490 11/19/97 $ 600,000.00 $ 63,500.00 1/2/98 ROLLED 2081 1/2/98 $ 663,500.00 $ 61,500.00 2/11/98 ROLLED 2092 2/11/98 $ 600,000.00 $ 25,500.00 2/27/98 ROLLED PETTERS COMPANY ISSUED A CHECK THAT WAS NSF ON THE SECOND NOTE FOR $125,000 THEREFORE NOTE #2092 PRIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN 725,0000 (PRIN OF 663,500 INT 61,500) NOTE # 2091 IS WHAT PETTERS OWED CAPITAL ASSET MGMT GROUP AS OF 2-27-98 2091 2/27/98 $ 761,250.00 $ 76,125.00 3/27/98 2090 2/27/98 $ 435,000.00 $ 43,500.00 3/27/98 2121 3/28/98 $ 1,315,875.00 $ 134,125.00 8/7/00 PAID DIRECTLY TO THOMAS F. MILLER AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH KAHN INTEREST WAS SETTLED IN COURT Special Agent Patrick Bohrer FBI Headquarters J. Edgar Hoover Building 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20535-0001 202 324 8486IN RE: STOLEN PONZI MONEY BEING WITHHELD BY THE MINNESOTA US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE-for immediate forwarding to US Attorney Neil MacBride
Dear Patrick:I am in receipt this day of a letter from Assistant US Attorney Joseph Dixon who is one of several parties named in a May 17 complaint brought by me before the Crime Victims Justice Unit. A copy of the same was sent first to the State, thereafter a federal ombudsman, thereafter you and finally US Attorney Neil MacBride who is heading up the President's recently announced fraud task unit.
In Dixon's letter, he intimates that I have been paid on the notes however offers no proof of the same. He also supplies various writings, courts orders, etc denying me return of and on capital by the courts (those influenced by Petters/his cronies) who were part of the Petters swindle. Evidence (continuously suppressed) shows that such orders are bogus and were made at the behest of Petters and his lawyers to avoid promissory note payments unto me by Petters.
Because this matter was never brought before a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits (as the Minneapolis FBI had suggested in 2001) Petters, Kahn, their lawyers, the bankruptcy trustees, even the US Trustee for the Minnesota District, were protected from prosecution for decades, and now such protectionist maneuvering continues by and through the US District and Bankruptcy courts and by the Minnesota US Attorney's Office who refused to meet with me and Senator Dayton on this matter in December, 2001. All of the evidence furnished the Minneapolis FBI and thereafter the US District Court where the Minneapolis FBI suggested I file suit on the defaulted promissory Notes, revealed that I had been swindled by Petters/Kahn, their counsel, bankruptcy trustee Jon Stoebner, Thomas Miller, and by the respective presiding judges; that is, bankruptcy judges Dreher, Kressel, Kishel, O'Brien, and Hennepin County District Judge Gary Larson. Because none of this was ever litigated in US District Court, the Petters/Kahn fraudulently concocted bankruptcies (two of them) never went to trial by jury for which I had pled in the Rosenbaum court, and later the Ann Montgomery court.
Dixon, while he is to be credited for prosecuting Petters, ought not be passing judgment against a decade plus victim of Petters, especially a victim who has been denied his right to speak and produce all of the evidence that for decades has been suppressed by the Minnesota courts-I have already supplied two (2) US Senators, two congressmen, the Minneapolis FBI, USAG John Ashcroft, US Attorney David N. Kelley of New York's Southern District, the US Postal Service, the Criminal Division of the IRS, the respective chairs of the US House and US Senate Judiciary Committees, and lastly you and US Attorney Neil MacBride with the identical evidence I supplied the Rosenbaum court in May of 2002 — that evidence was trashed by either or both Judges Rosenbaum or Montgomery. Instead of being commended for reporting the Petters' swindle, Petters and his lawyers had me punished (by the very same court that arrested him in 2008 on 20 counts of fraud) for asking for my money back.
This suggestion by the Minneapolis FBI (to ask the US District court for relief), as it turned out, nearly killed me as Petters/his lawyers sent armed "goons" first to my place of work and then to my home to terrorize me and later me and my wife, hoping that the stress would kill me. I suffered a near death massive hemorrhagic stroke in May of 2005 (after the first visit-March, 2005) and on May 4, 2007, more armed "goons" (four of them) were sent to our home we thought to kill us. Now that I have lost millions to an already convicted swindler, and nearly lost my life over it, Assistant US Attorney Dixon is levying his final death blow on me and my wife by denying me a final restitution and turning my money over to more Petters/Petters perpetrators and their lawyers.
I offered to testify with evidence in hand to Judge Kyle (see my motions in the Criminal Victim Justice complaint furnished you) but he refused to hear of it — this of course violated the Criminal Victim Justice Act of 2004; more specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 18 U.S.C. § 4 required that such a report be made.
I ask that you/Mr. MacBride, before the 9 June hearing, ask Judge Kyle two questions: (1) why is my name not on the Victim List, and (2) when may I expect to be paid the $55,987,431.86 now due me.
With greatest respects,
Richard Hettler
4818 Overlook Lake Circle
Bloomington, Minnesota 55437
Tel: 612 285-8458
Attachment: 22 May letter (perhaps further instructive to you and Mr. MacBride) Special Agent Patrick Bohrer FBI Headquarters J. Edgar Hoover Building 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20535-0001 202 324 8486
IN RE: CONTINUED RAMPANT JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN THE MINNESOTA DISTRICT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE RECENT CONVICTION OF THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS
Dear Patrick:Decades of tolerated criminal malfeasance have preceded this writing. Such criminal malfeasance victimized me and now that Petters has been sent " up the river " for stealing my money, the courts and hand selected " officers of the court " have taken up where Petters left off. The Minnesota US District and Bankruptcy courts, the Minnesota US Attorney's office, and various " officers of the court " are all now working in concert with one another to ensure that the victims only get a very small percentage of what they lost to predator Petters. This all presumes that you are lucky enough to have your name added to the Victim List. Judge Kyle is working with Assistant US Attorney Joseph Dixon and Petters' Probation Officer Peter Madsen to decide who makes the list and who doesn't. I didn't make that list even though my restitution claim exceeded $50 million at that time (1 February, 2010) where after I complained about it and was told by Madsen that Assistant US Attorney Dixon would " look into it ". I hold no hope that anyone of these " officers of the court " will " look into it " because if they do " look into it ", they will have $55,987,431.86 less money to distribute among themselves. Those now in control of the Petters' Ponzi money (collectively US District Judge Richard Kyle, US Bankruptcy Judges Gregory Kishel and Robert Kressel, their bankruptcy trustees (each of whom orchestrated a 1999 bankruptcy swindle arranged by Petters known to the FBI, the SEC, and the Criminal Division of the IRS) have successfully tabled all requests for disclosure since Petters was arrested. Assistant US Attorney Joseph Dixon, Probation Officer Madsen will appear before Judge Kyle on 9 June to discharge or order the discharge of only a very small portion of the $3 billion to the victims (just enough to keep the masses from storming the courthouse), with the remaining $47 billion going to offshore bank accounts of Kyle, Kishel, and Kressel favored recipients, which include the receiver Doug Kelley (who is on the record stating that "creditors come last"), the respective bankruptcy trustees, and all other court-appointed fiduciaries who have been depositing stolen Ponzi money into their respective bank accounts ever since Petters was arrested. If any lawyer, receiver, or bankruptcy trustee asks the Kyle, Kishel, or Kressel courts for money, it is immediately paid with no questions asked. If any victim or victim creditor like Richard Hettler does the same, this same army of lawyers, bankruptcy trustees, receiver Doug Kelley et al bury the courts with objections to all such legitimate claims (for their own money back) and the victims' petition (for his own money back) goes nowhere. This has been a repetitive cycle ever since matters were first brought before the Kyle, Kishel, and Kressel courts. Minnesota lawyers, receivers, trustees etc are using, and have been using, the courts as an ATM machine.
All of this was reported to you several months ago in your official capacity fighting " corruption " however since then, I have seen nothing in the way of remedies; in fact, matters have grown progressively worse. My $55,987,431.86 restitution claim has in fact been trashed by the Richard Kyle court with no explanation, even after I offered to appear before the Kyle court to provide oral and written evidentiary information in a restitution hearing. Judge Kyle denied my request to speak. This, as I understand, is in conflict with The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 . which provides that officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the following rights:
The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
The right to full and timely restitution as provided by law.
The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
Given this apparent unlawful ruling by Judge Kyle, I prepared at the suggestion of my colleagues a 131 page brief and forwarded it first to the State of Minnesota (Crime Victim's Justice Unit) who, as we were told, do not investigate corruption. It thereafter went to a federal ombudsman who also has done nothing. I then sent the 131 page Brief to you.
Be that as it may you are perhaps award that a new fraud task force has been formed in Virginia under the leadership of Neil MacBride, a US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Patrick, perhaps my complaint (which has persisted now for over a decade) should go to MacBride, but I would ask you to make that call. At this juncture, I have only two objectives (1) to have my name added to the Victim List and (2) to get my $55,987,431.86 restitution payment — nothing else matters to me. Like all others similarly swindled by Petters and now the courts, I must reconcile living in a country run by judges who are driven by their wallets instead of the laws they were sworn to uphold.
Assuming you/yours can do something about such runaway corruption, please be aware of some rather abbreviated time urgencies coming up involving the plan of the Richard Kyle court to turn my $55,987,431.86 over to Kyle favored recipients. This hearing is scheduled for June 9, 2010 and so I therefore ask that you contact Mr. MacBride at once putting him in contact with me and directing his attention to my 131 page Brief to estop all future plans of the Kyle court to give my money away. MacBride's jurisdiction is proper because my case has involved and does involve prior and multiple complaints to the SEC, the FBI, the Minnesota US Attorney's Office, the US Postal Service, and the IRS. Such complaints were made by me and others who have been quite vocal on such corruption for over a decade now like USAG John Ashcroft (who has already espoused on the record " our bankruptcy courts are presided over by organized criminals "), US Senators Paul Wellstone, Mark Dayton, US Reps Lamar Smith and Henry Hyde (now deceased), and finally one of MacBride's colleagues US Attorney David N. Kelley from New York's Southern District. US Attorney David Kelley and I as you know tried to stop the Petters' acquisition of Polaroid with $426 million in Ponzi money but then Chief Judge (Southern District of New York) Michael Mukasey trashed our TRO and instead arranged for a Minnesota judge to punish me for asking Petters to return my money and for reporting to she and other judges multiple felonies in multiple venues. Chief Judge Mukasey was reminded that I was obligated to report such felonies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4.
This fraudulently acquired Polaroid transaction turned out to be the largest swindle ever to hit Wall Street which also drained the PBGC. I discussed this with Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and staff while in Washington in April of 2006 but nothing was done because Petters had already sucked PBGC pension funds dry, all taxpayer financed.
In closing, I think your mission is truly a laudable one, Patrick, but one where traction will be difficult because there are so many in the system who are " corrupt ", and no corrupt judge will, as you know, ever prosecute one of his or her own. This is why I asked Judge Kyle and the respective bankruptcy judges Kishel and Kressel to order the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel to force disclosure, return via " clawback " the hundreds of millions of dollars thus far discharged to Petters, co-conspirator predators, their lawyers etc and redirect that money to the real victims. That request was universally denied by all three judges for very obvious reasons.
The 9 June $50+ billion restitution hearing is fast approaching and will even trump the Petters' Polaroid $426 million swindle which all courts and the SEC (Minnesota and New York venued) simply swept under the rug.
Please don't allow this to happen, Patrick — you or Mr. MacBride can make a difference but you must act now. If nothing is done to stop these people by 9 June, 2010, the $50+ billion Petters heist will have been swept under the rug forever and that will include my claim for $55,987,431.86.
In a nutshell, Patrick, here are the questions I would ask you or Mr. MacBride to ask judges Kyle, Kishel, and Kressel (before the 9 June hearing):
1. Why is my name not on the Victim List?
2. When will my $55,987,431.86 be paid?; and finally,
3. Will an accounting of this $50+ billion Petters' heist ever be published listing all those thus far paid by the respective courts?
Thank you, Patrick for your kind courtesies and forbearance.
With greatest respects,
Richard Hettler
4818 Overlook Lake Circle
Bloomington, Minnesota 55437
Tel: 612 285-8458
UPDATED PROOF OF RESTITUTION CLAIM AS OF JUNE 1, 2010
ExhibitKAHN CONVICTION
United States District Court District of Minnesota UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE RUTH DOYNE KAHN CR, 01-49-01 RHK Daniel Mohs v. (For Offenses Committed On or After November 1, 1987) Case Number: Defendant's Attorney THE DEFENDANT: of the Information Date Offense Count Title Section Nature of Offense Concluded Number(s) 18 USC 1343 Wire Fraud 11/98 1 [] pleaded guilty to count(s): . [ ] pleaded nolo contendere to counts(s) ___ which was accepted by the court. [ ] was found guilty on count(s) ___ after a plea of not guilty. Accordingly, the defendant is adjudged guilty of such count(s), which involves the following offenses: The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 6 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. [ ] The defendant has been found not guilty on counts(s) ___ and is discharged as to such count(s). [ ] Count(s) ___ (is)(are) dismissed on the motion of the United States. Special Assessment Amount $100.00 in full and immediately.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.September 14, 2001 09858-041 RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge 9-17-01 6 9-17 Sept 14, 2001
Defendant's Soc. Sec. No.: _____1104 Defendant's Date of Birth: _____1930 Date of Imposition of Judgment Defendant's USM No.: Defendant's Residence Address: ___________________________________________ Signature of Judicial Officer Defendant's Mailing Address: Filed A true copy in sheet(s) Name Title of Judicial Officer Richard D. Sletten, Clerk of the record in my custody. Judgment Entd ________ Certified , 2001 Deputy Clark ________ by _______ Deputy Clerk DatePROBATION
The defendant is hereby placed on probation for a term of three yearsThe defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
The defendant shall not illegally possess a controlled substance.
For offenses committed on or after September 13, 1994:
The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as directed by the probation officer. 18 U.S.C. § 921
[] The above drug testing condition is suspended based on the court's determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse. (Check if applicable.) [] The defendant shall not possess a firearm as defined in . (Check if applicable). If this judgment imposes a fine or a restitution obligation, it shall be a condition of probation that the defendant pay any such fine or restitution in accordance with the Schedule of Payments set forth in the Criminal Monetary Penalties sheet of this judgment.The defendant shall comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court (set forth below). The defendant shall also comply with the additional conditions on the attached page (if indicated below).
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
1) the defendant shall not leave the judicial district without permission of the court or probation officer; 2) the defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month; 3) the defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow instructions of the probation officer; 4) the defendant shall support his or her dependants and meet other family responsibilities: 5) the defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training or other acceptable reasons; 6) the defendant shall notify the probation officer ten days prior to any change in residence or employment; 7) the defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol; 8) the defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered; 9) the defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer; 10) the defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit home or her at an time a home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer; 11) the defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; 12) the defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the court; 13) as directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant's compliance with such notification requirement.SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
18 USC 3563 3583 1. Defendant shall refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon. 2. Defendant shall be prohibited from incurring new credit charges or opening additional lines of credit without approval of the probation officer. 3. Defendant shall provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. 4. Defendant shall not accept, handle or retain funds on behalf of her clients in relation to her business. 5. Court waives the mandatory drug testing as set forth by (a) and (d).CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES
The defendant shall pay the following total criminal monetary penalties in accordance with the Schedule of Payments set forth on Sheet 5, Part B.Fine Restitution Totals: $ $ [ ] If applicable, restitution amount ordered pursuant to plea agreement .......... $ _____ Restitution portion of the sentence is continued for ninety(90) days.FINE
The above fine includes costs of incarceration and/or supervision in the amount of $ ___.The defendant shall pay interest on any fine of more than $2500, unless the fine is paid in full before the fifteenth day after the date of judgment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f). All of the payment options on Sheet 5, Part B may be subject to penalties for default and delinquency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(g).
[ ] The court determined that the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest and it is ordered that: [ ] The interest requirement is waived. [ ] The interest requirement is modified as follows:RESTITUTION
[ ] The determination of restitution is deferred in a case brought under Chapters 109A, 100, 110A and 113A of Title 18 for offenses committed on or after 09/13/1994, until up to 60 days. An amended Judgment in a Criminal Case will be entered after such determination. [ ] The court modifies or waives interest on restitution as follows: [ ] The defendant shall make restitution to the following payees in the amounts listed below. If the defendant makes a partial payment, each payee shall receive an approximately proportional payment unless specified otherwise in the priority order of percentage payment column below.Name of Payee Amount of Loss Restitution Ordered or % of Pymnt TOTALS: **Total Amount of Priority Order $ _____ $ _____ ** Findings for the total amount of losses are required under Chapters 109A, 110, 110A, and 113A of Title 18 for offenses committed on or after September 13, 1994.Payments are to be made to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, for disbursement to the victim.
SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS
Payments shall be applied in the following order: (1) assessment; (2) restitution; (3) fine principal; (4) cost of prosecution; (5) interest; (6) penalties.
Payment of the total fine and other criminal monetary penalties shall be due as follows:
A [ ] in full immediately; or B [ ] $ ___ immediately, balance due (in accordance with C, D, or E); or C [ ] not later than ___ ; or D [ ] in installments to commence ___ day(s) after the date of this judgment. In the event the entire amount of criminal monetary penalties imposed is not paid prior to the commencement of supervision, the U.S. probation officer shall pursue collection of the amount due, and shall request the court to establish a payment schedule if appropriate; or E [ ] in ___ (e.g. equal, weekly, monthly, quarterly) installments of $ ___ over a period of ___ year(s) to commence ___ day(s) after the date of this judgment. Special instructions regarding the payment of criminal monetary penalties: [ ] The defendant shall pay the cost of prosecution. [ ] The defendant shall forfeit the defendant's interest in the following property to the United States: Unless the court has expressly ordered otherwise in the special instructions above, if this judgment imposes a period of imprisonment, payment of criminal monetary penalties shall be due during the period of imprisonment. All criminal monetary payments are to be made as directed by the court, the probation officer, or the United States Attorney.