TARGETED Chapter 106 "Bateman was Key" (A True Story- 11 chapters to go)

                                                  ----ooo106ooo---

                                                Bateman was Key

I wasn’t the only one that spotted how the prosecution was leading Bateman to conclusions that conveniently fit into the diagram for “demonstrative purposes.”

Hirata: “Simply explain to the jury what was explained to you and what you ultimately explained to clients."

Bateman: “You could set up  mortgage for a home and then make mortgage payments to that Isle of Man company, or it could be like a line of credit for the business that would be repaid."

Hirata: “Again just so the record is clear, the money that is going from the domestic trust over to the Isle of Man is untaxed income, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Hirata: “I am now putting up debit card, credit card and loan, and in parentheses it says---"

Jones: “Your Honor, excuse me."

Hirata: “—reparation of untaxed income."

Jones: “I understand that the witness has demonstrated no basis of how she would know whether it was untaxed income or not.  Mr. Hirata shouted me down. I was going to ask for a bench conference.  He has not laid the foundation for that question.  He just keeps leading the witness into answers with no foundation.”

The Court: “Overruled. Go ahead.” See TR 2576:8-25; 2577:1-3.

This is an example of just how one sided the Court had become.  Hirata builds a structure without proof, without foundation, and is able to use Bateman to deliver testimony, not from her, but from him.  It is ironic that the prosecution would base its case virtually entirely on hearsay evidence and after having the evidence qualified and accepted, do an about face when the procedure reveals itself when on cross-examination the foundation, or lack of it, is tested. 

It came time for the prosecution to deliver the final blow against me that would make it virtually impossible to find me anything but guilty.  Stacie Bateman as CPA  and chief financial officer for Koskella and his companies was the perfect person to introduce direct evidence of my involvement.  She had attended the presentations.  She could confirm without a doubt my involvement and since she had confessed, and cut her deal she was immune from any further prosecution, unless she failed to cooperate.

What the prosecution was really doing was setting up a situation where a series of general conclusions about what had happened would then be “settled” by iron clad evidence.  Their evidence was a series of 17 letters that were on letterhead identifying them as having originated from Paul J. Young, Attorney at Law.  They were letters that Bateman could testify about because some of them were directed at her.  They showed inside details of information and reports passing from Koskella’s company to investors.  They were intended to show that I was lying when I said I knew nothing about the off shore illegal program of investment and tax fraud.  It was to be proof positive of my connection and degree of deep participation.

In addition to the letters there was Bateman’s testimony confirming my presents and participation in the investment recruitment presentations and endorsement of the off shore arrangements.  Perfect! However the prosecutors were about to get something they did not anticipate.

The cross-examination of Stacie Bateman revealed some very key issues in what had become a very complex case, including: (1) That I had not come to represent Koskella until March of 1997 after his arrest in the Isle of Man, (2) as a result of the arrest all files, furniture and assets of the Koskella’s company had been removed from the building on 500 West in Provo, by Dennis Shaw and California CPA Mike Brown, (3) that as a result there were no presentations or investment activity, including recruitment from March of 1997 through August of 1997, (4) that the only business of Anglo American was attempting to save Koskella from imprisonment in the Isle of Man and resolve conflicts with federal authorities, (5) that in spite of her canned “cooperative” testimony about my participation in sales presentations in truth I had not participated in a single presentation (which would make sense due to the fact she also testified that they had stopped making them BEFORE I was engaged); and (6) She identified which attorneys had actually been there. It is interesting to experience the actual testimony:

Wall: “I am Edwin Wall and I represent Paul Young in this case.  Ms. Bateman,  Paul Young left Anglo-American in January of 1996, didn’t he?"

Bateman: “January of 96?"

Wall: “January of 1998."

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “He left and went to Nevada, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes.” See TR 2597: 23-25; 2598: 1-5.

Wall: “Had no association at all with Anglo-American International, correct?"

Bateman: “I am not sure the association that he had."

Wall: “You didn’t see him having any association at all with Anglo-American International, did you?"

Bateman: “No.  His name was still brought up.  Kirk brought up his name. I have talked to him several times. I did talk to him several times in Las Vegas and –"

Wall: “Could you wait until I ask a question before you offer something that you might want to say?"

Bateman: “Okay."

Wall: “When you first went to work for Anglo-American International, Delbert Phillips was an attorney?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And Delbert Phillips had an independent law office from Anglo-American, correct?"

 Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And an individual named McKendrick, Rich McKendrick was working?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And he was the Associate Director, correct, or Assistant Director?"

Bateman: “I am not sure what his title was."

Wall: “He was second in command when you started working, wasn’t he?"

Bateman: “To my knowledge, he was not."

Wall: “Dane Hines was another attorney, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And Dane Hines was also working with Anglo-American International ?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And he was working there when you started, correct?"

Bateman: “I think we started about the same time.  I am unsure exactly when his employment began."

Wall: “Paul Young was not working for Anglo-American International when you started working, correct?"

Bateman: “That is right."

Wall: “Now, in March of 1997 Kirk Koskella was arrested, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And you became aware of Paul Young being retained to see if he could get Kirk Koskella out of the Isle of Man, correct?"

Bateman: “That is right."

Wall: “At the same time Mr. Brown had come to the offices and taken all the clients’ files, correct?"

Bateman: “That is right.  And all the furniture."

Wall: “He took all of the furniture and Mr. Shaw did not return the furniture, did he?"

Bateman: “No."

Wall: “So the entire office and all of the clientele information was incomplete and in an upheaval, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes.  He took the computers, too."           

Wall: “He took all of the computers and all of the data that went with the computers?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “That is Mr. Shaw that did that, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “Were you there the day that he loaded all of these materials into a trailer and drove away?"

Bateman: “We came that morning and it was all cleared out.  It was just completely empty."

Wall: “So when Mr. Young began working for Anglo-American International, there was no clientele information at Anglo-American to review, was there?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “Mr. Young’s objective was to get Mr. Koskella out of the Isle of Man, correct?"

Bateman: “In March, yes."

Wall: “In March of 1997.  It was your understanding that those individuals working with Anglo-American International were to assist him in focusing on getting Kirk Koskella out of the Isle of Man?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “So that was the key project that was going on, correct?"

Bateman: “Up until August or thereabouts, right."

Wall: “So for the period from March through April, May, June, July, August, all of those months, was a period of time where the focus was assisting Paul with regard to resources in dealing with the Isle of Man, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And that included Mr. Young being able to direct the various attorneys that were there at Anglo-American International, correct?"

Bateman: “We were closed down for a lot of that period."

Wall: “So the only work being done was assisting Paul Young in getting him out of the Isle of Man, right?"

            Bateman: “Right.” See TR 2598:11-25; 2599:1-25; 2600:1-25; 2601: 1-25; 2602: 1-3.

 It is all about the timeline. According to Bateman I did not begin representing Koskella until March of 1997.  I could not have given a presentation or attended a meeting, or even reviewed a single client file, because they were none during March through August of 1997.  Most all of the witness testimony involved events in 1996, the year before. In truth I never represented Anglo-American Investments, because the company was seized when Koskella was arrested and as Stacie was quick to agree I was not hired until after that event had taken place,  To me, who had lived it, the whole episode was easy to understand. 

What became curious was Stacie had testified that I was at the meetings and presentations when she testified on direct examination by the prosecution.  Her responses were mechanical, in a word rehearsed.  She appeared as though she were trying to “remember” what it was she was supposed to say to stay out of even more serious trouble.  By my observation of her I was absolutely convinced that when the prosecutor examined her she was under extreme duress.  Present in the courtroom was IRS Agent Jerome McDermott whose aggressive interrogation techniques had left a scar on not only me, but I learned of many others. Ed wasn’t finished with Ms. Bateman:

Wall: “Now when Kirk Koskella did finally return from the Isle of Man, he took over control of everything at Anglo-American International, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “He was again the man in charge?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “Now, you indicated that you gave a number of presentations to clientele?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And that during those presentations attorneys would be present, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “But you don’t have a clear memory of who was at each one of the presentations that you gave, do you?"

Bateman: “That is correct. Most normally the attorney was Dane Hines."

Wall: “So your memory is that Dane Hines was the typical attorney."

Bateman: “He was the typical attorney."

Wall: “With regard to Mr. Neeley sitting in, you have just a vague memory that he may have sat in on a few?"

Bateman: “He was definitely in presentations when my father and I and my brothers came."

Wall: “So you remember that presentation because your Father was there, correct?"

Bateman: “Right, yes."

Wall: “But you don’t have a memory of a specific presentation where Paul Young was sitting in there while you were giving the presentation, do you?"

Bateman: “I think everybody just kind of took turns, but normally it was Dane Hines, correct."

Wall: “You don’t have a specific memory of Paul Young sitting there during a presentation do you?"

Bateman: “That is probably correct."

Wall: “So it wasn’t true when you said you had a memory of Paul Young being in on presentations?"

Bateman: “I just believe that that is what happened.'

Wall: “You don’t have that memory, do you?"

Bateman: “That’s right.” See TR 2602:15 – 25; 2603:1-25; 2604:1-6.

Again here is their star witness, CPA Stacie Bateman, who now confesses, after having sworn under oath, that I was an integral part of the presentation process. That I had worked in harmony, with the investors, to get them to accept the changes being made to the way in which they had to do business after Kirk had lost the Isle of Man as an investment platform with his arrest.  I never participate with the projects in the Isle of Man and the circumstances were such that it would have been very difficult for this to have happened anyway as the business in the Isle of Man had been seized by the IOM government.  The original company Anglo-American Investments had ceased to be under the control of Koskella by the time he had engaged me and the new company, Anglo-American International had not yet been formed. 

There had been no presentations of work done with the new company and Koskella took it “off shore” to Canada, an operation I was never involved in.  So how could they bridge the gap?  How could they connect me to the “new” company and the presentations being given in Canada?  The prosecution felt they had the perfect evidence in a  series of letters about which Bateman had testified.  I knew they were adulterated because I knew positively I had never had anything to do with them, but how to get that testimony out of Bateman?  Ed Wall had a direct approach.  It was what he had been holding back to attack.  It was why he wanted me to be patient.

Wall: “Now, during the time that you were working with Anglo-American International after Paul left, you wrote a number of letters to clients on Anglo-American letterhead, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And those letters had to do with the status of their accounts, correct?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “And what was being done with their accounts, correct?"

Bateman: “Right.  Their accounting review. Yes."

Wall: “You also wrote a number of letters to clients on Paul Young’s letterhead, Correct?"

Bateman: “Yes.”  See TR 2606:5-20

There was a sudden chatter beginning among the prosecutors.  It was easy to see they did not like where this was going. This was supposed to be their star witness, their proof positive that I was a part of the scheme.  It was supposed to show that I did in fact have insider knowledge and was intimately involved with the operation of the structure.  It was not supposed to do the opposite.

Wall: “You were employed at Anglo-American at that time?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “And you were being paid by Anglo-American International, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “You were not being paid by Paul Young, were you?

Bateman: “Right.

Wall: “You weren’t talking to Paul Young about the letters that you were writing, correct?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “You were writing those letters at the direction of Kirk Koskella, correct?"

Bateman: “Right, He said--"

Wall: “Kirk Koskella told you to write –"

            Mr. Hirata: “Your Honor, I would ask that the witness be allowed to finish her responses.

The Court: “I think we are okay. Go ahead."

“She said right.  Kirk Koskella told you to write these letter using Paul Young letterhead, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes, to have attorney-client privilege."

Wall: “But it was Kirk Koskella that told you to write these letters?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “You didn’t have these letters reviewed by Paul Young, did you?"

Bateman: “I don’t know where they went.” See TR 2605:21-25; 2606:1-22.

He had her! Ed had pushed the right button and nailed it.  I looked at the jury and wondered if they understood the significance.  It was clear by the statement that Koskella was using the appearance of my letterhead to act as sort of a protection of the content of the letters to somehow cover them in the attorney-client privilege.  It was a flawed argument at best since the privilege can never be used to hide a criminal activity. 

There was concern among the prosecutors as I was sure it became clear even to them how her testimony undermined their theories and instead of taking the step appropriate to such a revelation, which should have been to immediately consider this as a significant blow to probable cause, they were trying to do damage control and somehow salvage their theories by ignoring the evidence.  It really irritated me.  I felt betrayed.  They were supposed to reveal the truth, not suppress it for the sake of a conviction.  I understand the prosecution bears the weight of proving beyond a reasonable doubt of my guilt, but wasn’t this at the very least reasonable doubt? I felt like it was time for a motion to dismiss.  The prosecution had clearly relied on Bateman’s testimony and the use of the letters, that was gone.  Ed was not finished.

Wall: “You are aware, are you not, of Kirk Koskella directing  other employees of Anglo-American International to use Paul Young’s letterhead when writing letters to the clients of Anglo-American?"

Bateman: “Yes.  He told Bob to because Bob was the other person that did the accounting reviews and he told him to use it."

Wall: “He told him to also use Paul Young’s letterhead, correct?"

Bateman: “Yes."

Wall: “Even though Paul Young was not at Anglo-American, correct?"

Bateman: “I don’t know what the relationship was between them."

Wall: “Even though –"

Bateman: “He was not on site, right."

Wall: “Mr. Dodenbier was not working for Paul Young, was he?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “You didn’t fill out a W-2 for income for Paul Young or for your brother-in-law?"

Bateman: “I didn’t prepare the W-2’s. Right. He worked to Anglo-American, Bob Dodenbier did."

Wall: “So the letterhead that was being used by Mr. Dodenbier after Paul Young left Anglo-American was written on that letterhead pursuant to the directions of Kirk Koskella, correct?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “Without any knowledge by Paul Young of that letter being written?"

  Mr. Hirata: “Objection, calls for speculation and without any knowledge of –"

Wall: “I will rephrase the question. With regard to the letters you wrote on Paul Young’s letterhead,   you didn’t clear anything with regard to those letters with Paul Young before you sent it to the clientele, correct?"

Bateman: “Right."

Wall: “You knew that when the various individuals who received those letters which  have been marked Y-S through Y-X, when they received those letters, it would appear to them because of the letterhead that it was a letter out of the law office, correct?"

Bateman: “Right. They knew it was coming from Anglo-American but, yes, it says it on Paul Young’s letterhead."

Wall: “But you knew it would look like it was coming out a law office, correct?"

Bateman: “I guess."

Wall: “When you see a letterhead that says Paul Young & Associates with his address –"

Bateman: “I didn’t consciously think about it.  I was just sending out the letters and Kirk said to put it on Paul’s letterhead.  I didn’t think about what the clients would really be thinking about at that point."

Wall: “But you knew it would look to them like it was coming out of law office?"

Mr. Hirata: “Your Honor.  He is asking for conclusions and the understanding of the client.  This witness is not in a position to make those conclusions."

Wall: “Your Honor, I’m asking her what she knew as to how the letter would appear to the individual receiving it.  I think she is competent to answer it and how she knew it would look."

The Court: “I think she said she didn’t think about it. It is really argument. You’re making a point that is argument.  Given the answers of the witness, let’s move on. The objection is sustained.” See TR 2609:11-25; 2610:1-25; 2611: 1-23.

What just happened?  Ed Wall was making a point, not an argument.  The point that should have been shouting in the face of the Court, the jury, and even the prosecutor was I was just as much a victim as the others who have been set up. It was later discovered that as many as 17 such letters were written over a six month period.  It got so bad that at one point Attorney Robert Dodenbier, brother-in-law to Stacie Bateman, even signed and filed pleadings with the federal district court, the very same one that was prosecuting me, in such a way that he made it appear as though I had sanctioned the filing when in fact I knew nothing about it. 

The prosecution could not have it both ways.  It had become painfully obvious that the letters were not from me, or subject to my control or even knowledge of their existence.  Bateman, who was supposed to bury me with her evidentiary conforming testimony, instead did a complete reversal.  What was the reaction by the prosecutors when they realized that evidence they had relied upon since the original submission to the Grand Jury was in fact adulterated and tainted beyond repair?  They decided the safest thing would not be to leave evidence on the table that could have a devastating blow to their theory of my involvement raising reasonable doubt.  The prosecutors risked a Brady violation and had the previously entered into evidence letters withdrawn without further explanation or comment. 

When prosecutors saw that the evidence was more likely than not to prove my innocence they immediately moved to remove the evidence already marked and admitted.  The letters they thought posed a chance to the prosecution to affirm my involvement, and with the help of Bateman’s testimony, they would prove a knockout punch I would not be able to recover from.  Now, with the tables turned and Bateman’s testimony having exactly the opposite result they had hoped for, they moved to withdraw their exhibits.  To withdraw evidence that has been admitted and now appears to be expository (meaning it now serves to prove innocence) is classified as a “Brady violation”.  I heard the other defense counsel whispering the existence of a “Brady violation” when the Court granted the government the right to remove already admitted evidence that had proven to be in favor of the defendant.

I remember finding the whole setting surreal, incomprehensible, it was the very definition of unfair and unjust. How could they protect the laws when they themselves openly cheated and used deception to their advantage? Suddenly whatever hope I had that these men and women would give me a fair day in court vanished.  Why were they so hell spent on punishing me.  I still didn’t get it.

Next Ed attacked the use of Vancouver as Koskella’s new “off shore” destination when the Isle of Man failed. Since I was not a part of the organization during its use of the Isle of Man as an offshore base of operations and then there was the period of time when, as Stacie testified, there was no business and they were regrouping, a period that lasted at least through August 1997, when they needed a new off shore location.  Canada had offered that opportunity. Ed continued.

Wall: “Now, Paul Young was never with you on a single one of those trips to Vancouver?"

Bateman: “He was not."

Wall: “So as far as you know Paul Young never went to Vancouver, correct?"

Bateman: “Right.” See TR 2612:7-12.

I never went to Canada.  I never spoke to or assisted a single investor in Canada.  I did not learn about the Canadian Transactions over a year after they had conducted their business. Ed returned to the letters and went through them one by one asking Bateman if she had written them, always without my knowledge or approval, and at the instruction of Koskella.  By her testimony it was revealed that this practice had gone on for months.  The address and phone numbers on the letterhead were ones controlled by Koskella.  Ed continued as Hirata was becoming increasingly uncomfortable.

Wall: “Wouldn’t be fair to say that it was your practice repetitively, month after month, to write letters on Paul Young’s letterhead without getting his prior approval with regard to the letters you were writing?"

Bateman: “Right.” See TR 2615:18-22.

The way it looked they had nothing on me.  I didn’t represent Koskella during the height of his program development.  There were other attorneys, even law firms, by the score who worked much closer and longer with him than I did.  I had no inside connection to the inner-workings of any of his enterprises.  After I left for months they continued to fraudulently use my name and even my license without my knowledge or permission.  By the time I walked into the offices on 500 West the off shore Isle of Man company, Anglo American Investments had been sacked and seized by authorities.  Bateman herself testified that there were no presentations from March to at least August 1997 and when Koskella shifted the off shore component of the operations to Canada I was not invited.  What was missing?  My testimony.