Ed & Kathy Wahler found not guilty ....

[ASITStands]

The case mentioned here has ended in "not guilty" verdicts.

There is a series of sealed jury notes leading one to believe this is the result of jury nullification rather than any efficacy in the bills of exchange proffered by the defendants.

Sure would like to read the jury notes. Ralph Winterrowd opined by e-mail his disbelief.

[iamfreeru2]

Just thought I would post this here since none of you are. Ah, the sound of victory.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/q6nog1mb4i.zip

[Famspear]

Old news.

EDIT: Here's one of the threads:

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5107

[wserra]

From the docket (08-55, NCWD):

11/19/2009 151 Jury Notes #1 (Sealed - Court) as to Kathy Ray Wahler, Edward William Wahler, Lewis Vincent Hughes (cbb) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009 153 Judge/Jury Notes #2(Sealed - Court) as to Kathy Ray Wahler, Edward William Wahler, Lewis Vincent Hughes (cbb) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/20/2009 154 Jury Notes #3 (Sealed - Court) as to Kathy Ray Wahler, Edward William Wahler, Lewis Vincent Hughes (cbb) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/20/2009 155 Judge Notes (Sealed - Court) as to Kathy Ray Wahler, Edward William Wahler, Lewis Vincent Hughes (cbb) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/20/2009 156 Jury Notes #4 (Sealed - Court) as to Kathy Ray Wahler, Edward William Wahler, Lewis Vincent Hughes (cbb) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/20/2009 157 Judge Notes (Sealed - Court) as to Kathy Ray Wahler, Edward William Wahler, Lewis Vincent Hughes (cbb) Modified on 11/23/2009 (cbb) correct filing date. (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/20/2009 158 Judge Notes (Sealed - Court) as to Kathy Ray Wahler, Edward William Wahler, Lewis Vincent Hughes (cbb) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

It is rare in my experience that such notes stay sealed past the verdict. I too would be interested in seeing them. It is possible, as CKB says, that the govt simply didn't try a good case. It is possible that this is an instance of Rule 1 of jury trials: juries can do strange things. Finally, it is possible that they were not guilty.

An outsider doesn't know.

[ASITStands]

It is rare in my experience that such notes stay sealed past the verdict. I too would be interested in seeing them. It is possible, as CKB says, that the govt simply didn't try a good case. It is possible that this is an instance of Rule 1 of jury trials: juries can do strange things. Finally, it is possible that they were not guilty.

An outsider doesn't know.

And, it has nothing to do with whether they filed some sort of bill of exchange on a super, double-secret Treasury account based on the securitization of their birth certificates.

Don't try this at home, kiddies!

EDIT: The defendants need to be concerned about a second indictment within six months or the inevitable civil chargeback for all the supposed money they collected from Treasury.

[wserra]

And, it has nothing to do with whether they filed some sort of bill of exchange on a super, double-secret Treasury account based on the securitization of their birth certificates.

Certainly not, any more than the Simpson acquittal means that murder is legal.

But it is inconsistent to cheer convictions and disparage acquittals, at least absent the "all-white jury acquitting the obviously-guilty Kluxer" scenario. Since AFAIK there is no evidence of such here, the jury's decision is justice, by definition.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Anybody found the instructions to the jury?

[ASITStands]

Anybody found the instructions to the jury?

The jury notes are still sealed, and the instructions have not appeared as of yet.

And, yes, I am glad (for their sakes) the defendants were acquitted, but it ain't over yet. As Wes indicated, "The jury's decision is justice," too, and we should acknowledge it as such.

[Anon]

The case mentioned here has ended in "not guilty" verdicts.

There is a series of sealed jury notes leading one to believe this is the result of jury nullification rather than any efficacy in the bills of exchange proffered by the defendants.

Sure would like to read the jury notes. Ralph Winterrowd opined by e-mail his disbelief.

Hello All,

I was lucky enough to be a juror on this case and can provide a little insight. First and foremost, this wasn't a case of jury nullification, the prosecution simply did a poor job. Second, the judges instructions were very clear regarding 'intent'. I won't get into this now in any detail since it is way too broad of a topic as it was applied in this case, but know that everything hinged on that single word. Lastly, as far as the significance of the juror notes, its almost comical. There were four notes: two asking for testimony that we wanted to review, one was a note saying we wanted to go to lunch, and the last was saying we had a verdict. The first were sent out within a few minutes of each other and we only received a single response; 'rely on your memory'. The other two are self explanatory, and were apparently inappropriate to send as notes; a verbal request would have sufficed.

I am happy to answer any questions, should there be any.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Hello All,

I was lucky enough to be a juror on this case and can provide a little insight. First and foremost, this wasn't a case of jury nullification, the prosecution simply did a poor job. Second, the judges instructions were very clear regarding 'intent'. I won't get into this now in any detail since it is way too broad of a topic as it was applied in this case, but know that everything hinged on that single word. Lastly, as far as the significance of the juror notes, its almost comical. There were four notes: two asking for testimony that we wanted to review, one was a note saying we wanted to go to lunch, and the last was saying we had a verdict. The first were sent out within a few minutes of each other and we only received a single response; 'rely on your memory'. The other two are self explanatory, and were apparently inappropriate to send as notes; a verbal request would have sufficed.

I am happy to answer any questions, should there be any.

Welcome to Quatloos, Anon.

Your comment about 'intent' more or less answered my questions about the instructions that opened the door to an acquittal - but having said that, did the court allow introduction of any of the accused's previous mischief?

[Anon]

did the court allow introduction of any of the accused's previous mischief?

Not at all. Oddly, the defense tried more than the prosecution to introduce previous cases of their own involvement and were more often than not prohibited. This was a real blunder on the part of the prosecution. We [the Jury] all agreed that the Wahler's must have been good people prior to this series of events. I've haven't properly researched them, but at it stands for me right now, I still think them to be decent, albeit very misguided, people.

[Demosthenes]

Wahler has a long and colorful history with the federal court system:

Bankruptcy Cases

WAHLER, EDWARD W. ncwbke 05-01024 05/11/2005 AP
WAHLER AND COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

WAHLER, EDWARD W. ncwbke 05-10147 02/16/2005 13
EDWARD W. WAHLER

Civil Cases

WAHLER, EDWARD ncwdce 1:2002mc00054 09/11/2002 871 03/06/2009
Wahler, et al v. Internal Revenue Svc, et al

WAHLER, EDWARD ncwdce 1:2004cv00093 05/18/2004 360 07/06/2004
Wahler, et al v. Penske Truck Leas Co

WAHLER, EDWARD ncwdce 1:2003cv00254 10/15/2003 190 01/16/2004
Wahler v. Premici, et al

WAHLER, EDWARD ncwdce 1:2005cv00349 11/28/2005 371 10/05/2006
Wahler et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

WAHLER, EDWARD ncwdce 1:2005cv00353 12/02/2005 890 04/07/2006
Wahler et al v. Branch Banking and Trust Company et al

WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM ncwdce 1:2004cv00185 09/07/2004 220 11/15/2004
Bank of NY v. Wahler, et al

WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM ncwdce 1:2003cv00243 09/23/2003 190 10/06/2003
Wahler v. Premici, et al

WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM ncwdce 1:2003cv00254 10/15/2003 190 01/16/2004
Wahler v. Premici, et al

WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM dcdce 1:2008cv00577 04/03/2008 380 07/22/2008
WAHLER et al v. ROMAGNUOLO et al

WAHLER, EDWARD, III ncwdce 1:2004cv00093 05/18/2004 360 07/06/2004
Wahler, et al v. Penske Truck Leas Co

Criminal Cases

WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM ncwdce 1:2008cr00055 06/03/2008
WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM

Appellate Cases

WAHLER, EDWARD 04cae 06-2266 12/05/2006 3371 02/02/2007
WAHLER, et al v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME

WAHLER, EDWARD 04cae 02-2467 12/31/2002 2871 05/01/2003
WAHLER, et al v. IRS, et al

WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM 04cae 09-5081 11/18/2009 1 11/25/2009
US v. KATHY WAHLER

[Judge Roy Bean]

did the court allow introduction of any of the accused's previous mischief?

Not at all. Oddly, the defense tried more than the prosecution to introduce previous cases of their own involvement and were more often than not prohibited. This was a real blunder on the part of the prosecution. We [the Jury] all agreed that the Wahler's must have been good people prior to this series of events. I've haven't properly researched them, but at it stands for me right now, I still think them to be decent, albeit very misguided, people.

I think you have to be a little more than misguided to do what they did back in 2001 when they altered a check for nearly $500K and deposited it in their account. When they got sued by the bank in county court, they lost and were ordered to pay it back; they didn't.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I am in a mood, so I apologize up front for what comes next......

It is my understanding that Anon's first name is Al, and he has a brother who is a Narc.....

You are hereby fined Q50 for lameness.

Pay the clerk on the way out.

[sound of gavel]

[Doktor Avalanche]

I am in a mood, so I apologize up front for what comes next......

It is my understanding that Anon's first name is Al, and he has a brother who is a Narc.....

You are hereby fined Q50 for lameness.

Pay the clerk on the way out.

[sound of gavel]

Ouch...

All rise! The court is now in recess and will resume in 45 minutes. Smoke if you got 'em.

[Pottapaug1938]

I am in a mood, so I apologize up front for what comes next......

It is my understanding that Anon's first name is Al, and he has a brother who is a Narc.....

... and his surname is soething like "Amus".

[Judge Roy Bean]

I see simple fines aren't sufficient.

Looks like I need a cattle prod that reaches out through the 'net.

[InfoSeeker]

Anon, this is my first time in one of these so please forgive me in advance. Anon I had a few questions for yo and was intrigued to say the least as to what were some deciding factors for you the jury.

I was able to look at all the filed documents, First, where you able to view those documents that were filed and did they play a role in your decision. By viewing those documents one could think that these people definitely believed in what they were doing.

Also, what were your thoughts about governments expert witness? Did the Wahlers have an expert witness? I saw that they had listed someone but I was not sure if the government was successful in getting him excused. Also, I saw that the government tried to get some of their witnesses excused where they successful and if no did you find those people helpful.

Apologize if these are to many questions but this case just seems very interesting to me. Thank you in advance for your time, I have more questions but will wait!

thanks again Infoseeker

did the court allow introduction of any of the accused's previous mischief?

Not at all. Oddly, the defense tried more than the prosecution to introduce previous cases of their own involvement and were more often than not prohibited. This was a real blunder on the part of the prosecution. We [the Jury] all agreed that the Wahler's must have been good people prior to this series of events. I've haven't properly researched them, but at it stands for me right now, I still think them to be decent, albeit very misguided, people.

[David Merrill]

A clue for the clueless:

Mr. Hughes refused to sign the forms because he said that any credit would be in the name and social security number of a person did he did not recognize, i.e. Lewis Vincent Hughes, his correct identity being “Lewis Vincent of the family of Hughes”.

P.S. Enjoy!

Pursuant to the jury verdict returned Friday, November 20, 2009, which acquitted the Defendants identified herein of all charges, the offenses alleged within the Bill of Indictment with reference to Defendants KATHY RAY WAHLER, EDWARD WILLIAM WAHLER, and LEWIS VINCENT HUGHES, are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

[Pottapaug1938]

Mr. Hughes refused to sign the forms because he said that any credit would be in the name and social security number of a person did he did not recognize, i.e. Lewis Vincent Hughes, his correct identity being “Lewis Vincent of the family of Hughes”.

What a maroon! Thanks for the laugh, David.