13
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. 1:13-cr-00130 vs. Hon. Janet T. Neff U.S. District Court Judge FREEMAN CARL REED, a/k/a “BUCK,” Defendant. _____________________________/ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE SENTENCING DATE Defendant Freeman Carl Reed, through counsel, respectfully requests that the sentencing date be continued from the presently-set date of August 13, 2014 for ninety days, or such other date after that convenient to the Court. Sentencing in this case has been postponed twice, once as a scheduling matter for the Court and once at the request of the undersigned to provide time to respond to certain matters in the Presentence Report. Counsel realizes that a third continuance, particularly at the last minute like this, is likely to be looked upon with initial disfavor but it is respectfully submitted that it should be granted because of the unusual circumstances stated below, which are quite promising to those who have lost money. Pursuant to the Local Rules, counsel informs this court that AUSA Clay Stiffler does not join in this motion and prefers that the sentencing go forward as scheduled. We advance two reasons for this request which we state summarily and then explain. Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#908

Buck Reed Motion to Continue

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Freeman "Buck" Reed Motion to continue includes a signed letter from DubLi founder and largest shotckholder, showing is continued loyalty for his friend.

Citation preview

  • 1

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

    SOUTHERN DIVISION ____________

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. 1:13-cr-00130 vs. Hon. Janet T. Neff

    U.S. District Court Judge FREEMAN CARL REED, a/k/a BUCK, Defendant. _____________________________/

    MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE SENTENCING DATE Defendant Freeman Carl Reed, through counsel, respectfully requests that the

    sentencing date be continued from the presently-set date of August 13, 2014 for ninety

    days, or such other date after that convenient to the Court. Sentencing in this case has

    been postponed twice, once as a scheduling matter for the Court and once at the request

    of the undersigned to provide time to respond to certain matters in the Presentence

    Report. Counsel realizes that a third continuance, particularly at the last minute like this,

    is likely to be looked upon with initial disfavor but it is respectfully submitted that it

    should be granted because of the unusual circumstances stated below, which are quite

    promising to those who have lost money.

    Pursuant to the Local Rules, counsel informs this court that AUSA Clay Stiffler

    does not join in this motion and prefers that the sentencing go forward as scheduled.

    We advance two reasons for this request which we state summarily and then

    explain.

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#908

  • 2

    First, there is a substantial probability that additional restitution will become

    available to make those persons who lost money whole if an additional ninety days is

    allowed.

    Second, counsel was informed today by email that the government wishes to

    present 45 exhibits and testimony of an IRS agent concerning those exhibits all by way of

    disputing the tax return computations which resulted in the tax return amounts on the tax

    returns which have been finalized by Buck and Renee Reed and which, in accordance

    with the instructions of the government, have been completed, signed, and sent to Special

    Agent Birdsong. (See, Freeman Carl Reeds Memorandum in Support of His Motion for

    Variance or Downward Departure, and Submitted Generally for Sentencing Purposes,

    Docket No. 111, p. 3, herein referred to as Reeds Memorandum in Support.) Counsel

    simply cannot prepare in the short amount of time between now and next Wednesday to

    refute the testimony and the exhibits, and cannot secure the attendance of the accountant

    who prepared the tax returns at issue and have him present at a hearing next Wednesday

    ready to present our position on the tax returns and to justify the figures which are hugely

    lower than the government computations due and owing.

    As to the first reason, time to make restitution, Buck Reed has already paid

    $150,000.00 toward restitution by cashier's check deposited with the Clerk of this Court

    on todays date (See, Exhibit A, a copy of the check and cover letter sent to this Court.)

    As Buck Reeds sentencing brief, filed two days ago on August 6, 2014 indicates, he had

    been working on getting parties together to arrange funding for a movie which is going to

    be made in Europe. (Reeds Sentencing Memorandum, p. 2-3.) The contract took longer

    than anticipated but because of his efforts in working on the contract, now consummated

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 8 Page ID#909

  • 3

    as a movie production contract for a childrens movie to be produced in Europe, he has

    earned a payment for his efforts. (Id.) Of that payment, he has already been paid

    $150,000.00, a sum that arrived in the trust account of the undersigned yesterday, and

    that money on his instruction was converted to a cashiers check and sent to the Clerk of

    the Court (attached here as Exhibit A.) As indicated, it has been received by the Court.

    (Id.) The undersigned expects to have an additional $80,00.00 to deposit with the Court

    by next Tuesday. For the particulars of the arrangement by which this money was earned

    by Buck Reed, see Exhibit B attached hereto which is a letter which in part describes the

    contract which resulted in this payment to Buck Reed.

    Exhibit B, the letter, also explains why there is a substantial probability that in an

    additional 90 days, Buck Reed will earn substantially more money that can be used to

    make further restitution.

    The restitution that has already been made, the undersigned submits, should be

    sufficient demonstration that Buck Reed is serious about making repayment.

    Opportunities to do so come when they do and while it would certainly be better if this

    could have been done sooner, everyone is better off if Buck Reed gets the time to make

    the effort to earn more restitution money, particularly since the representation that he is

    likely able to do so is supported by the fact that he has already made one significant

    payment and the indication is that more will be coming. It is pointed out in this regard

    that the government routinely delays sentencing of a defendant who has pleaded guilty if

    that defendants testimony is needed in the trial of a co-defendant. Delaying sentence for

    any legitimate purpose is not extraordinary, the delay sought is not for an extended

    period, and the reason for it is unarguably worthwhile.

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 8 Page ID#910

  • 4

    The second reason why a postponement is sought is that just today the

    undersigned received notice that the government plans to call an IRS agent and through

    that agent introduce forty-five (45) exhibits. These will be offered, apparently, in an

    attempt to refute the tax computations and the amounts stated to be due and owing on all

    of the tax returns that Buck and Renee Reed have prepared and now have submitted to

    the IRS. As is shown in Buck Reeds Sentencing Memorandum, he has prepared returns

    for all but two of the years for which returns were outstanding, meaning that he has

    prepared, signed, and submitted returns for the years 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008,

    2010, 2012, and 2013 (the tax return for 2005 was previously completed by another

    accountant and has been filed), and they have filed the years 2010 and 2012.

    (Defendants Sentencing Memorandum, p. 6.) The government claims that Buck Reed

    owes $565,509.00 in federal income taxes and interest and penalties of $568,219.00

    (Governments Sentencing Memorandum, Docket No. 109, p. 1), coming to a total of

    $1,133,728.00. (Id.) However, according to Buck Reeds accountants calculations, the

    total amount of federal income taxes owed is $21,836.00, although this figure does not

    include penalties or interest. (Sentencing Memorandum, Exhibit B.) Regardless of the

    amount of penalties and interest, the amount of taxes due and owing alone differs by an

    amount of $546,673.00.

    Clearly, the large difference in tax computations should be sorted out and, in

    fairness to Buck Reed, time should be allowed for his accountant to review the exhibits

    which were announced this morning but not apparently deliverable until Tuesday of next

    week for that review to commence. And even if they could be delivered sooner than next

    Tuesday, as AUSA Stiffler indicated he would try to do, when we pointed out this

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of 8 Page ID#911

  • 5

    morning that receiving these exhibits next Tuesday was way too late for a hearing the

    next day, there is in either event not enough time to prepare a counter-witness, meaning

    Buck Reeds accountant. Moreover, Buck Reeds accountant, William Timothy, has

    other things on his schedule that would preclude him being ready by next Wednesday.

    Mr. Timothy is the primary caregiver for his wife who suffers from dementia, along with

    other health problems. He is located in Pleasant Grove, Utah and simply cannot come to

    Grand Rapids to testify on this short notice for a sentencing hearing next Wednesday,

    August 13, 2014.

    Neither Buck Reed nor his counsel mean to suggest that the government is

    springing exhibits at the last minute unfairly. The governments tax computations were

    set forth in the final presentence report which was prepared June 9 and revised July 30,

    2014. (Governments Sentencing Memorandum, Docket No. 109, p. 1.) Its tax figures

    were arrived at, thus, and available to Buck Reed as of June, 2014. (Id.) However, Buck

    and Renee Reed and their accountant did not complete work on the tax returns they have

    filed until last week, at the beginning of August 2014. (See, Reeds Sentencing

    Memorandum, Exhibit B.) Therefore, the government did not know of the large

    difference in the tax computations until then. Equally, the defense did not know of the

    large difference in tax computations until the finalized tax returns last week could be

    compared to the governments much higher figures. If the government is going to contest

    the figures presented on these tax returns on the now finalized Reed tax returns, the

    defense should have a reasonable time to prepare a rebuttal and to have the Reeds

    accountant who prepared these returns available in court to defend them. This simply

    cannot be done by next Wednesday.

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 5 of 8 Page ID#912

  • 6

    Obviously, it will not require the defense 90 days or anything like that amount of

    time to review the forty-five exhibits announced today by the government and to prepare

    a defense to the figures proposed by the government as allegedly bolstered by the forty-

    five exhibits, and certainly with even a two week extension that preparation could be

    completed and a date could be found for the accountant to be present. However we

    submit that because of the promise of more restitution we respectfully ask for the full

    ninety-day postponement.

    If this court is not inclined to grant the large postponement of ninety days but is

    inclined to grant the shorter extension to prepare a refutation of the governments

    presentation once the exhibits are disclosed to the defense, we respectfully inform the

    Court that counsel commences a trial in the Middle District of Georgia on September 2,

    2014 which is scheduled to last five days, commences a trial in state court in New York

    on September 16, which is scheduled to last four days, and commences a trial in tax court

    in Boston on September 29, which is scheduled to last three days, and counsel alerts this

    court that those settings are unfortunately immutable. In addition, Mr. Timothy, Buck

    Reeds Utah-based accountant, is unavailable from August 22 29, 2014, as his wife will

    be undergoing brain surgery.

    In conclusion, the undersigned recognizes that Buck Reed has had years to make

    the restitution that he is now making. It could well be wondered why this is happening

    now. While this is a fair concern, we respectfully submit that it should be overridden

    given the stakes for the persons whose money was lost. The best argument for this

    continuance, in light of the demonstrated restitution already made as that reinforces the

    probability of future restitution, is the statements found in the Amended Presentence

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 6 of 8 Page ID#913

  • 7

    Investigation Report of the persons who lost money. (Amended Presentence Investigation

    Report, Docket No. 113, pp. 15-20.) Surely it is worth waiting one last time if the

    potential result is an alleviation of their pain. Buck Reed has met all of his reporting

    obligations, is nonviolent, and it is submitted that there is no good reason not to allow this

    continuance.

    It is also respectfully requested that if the Court is going to delay sentencing for

    either of reasons explained above, it consider doing so before the hearing itself.

    Whenever the sentencing takes place Buck Reeds family, some of his business

    associates and friends, and even some of those who gave money to the venture, wish to

    appear to support him. This request is not intended to be presumptuous or in any way

    disruptive of the Courts need to consider this matter fully, however we point out the

    obvious savings and avoidance of inconvenience if this matter can be determined before

    people have to get on planes. And again, counsel regrets the last-minute motion here but

    counsel was and remains of the view that a request based upon promised restitution

    would only be favorably considered by this Court, given the facts of this case, if it was

    made after a substantial restitution sum was in hand and had been paid over to the Clerk

    of the Court, which despite all efforts to get it done sooner, only occurred this morning.

    Dated: August 8, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

    /s/ John J.E. Markham, II John J.E. Markham, II (Mass BBO No. 638579) Attorney for Freeman Carl Read MARKHAM & READ One Commercial Wharf West Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 523 - 6329

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 7 of 8 Page ID#914

  • 8

    Fax: (617) 742 8604 [email protected]

    Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 8 of 8 Page ID#915

  • Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#916

  • Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#917

  • Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#918

  • Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-2 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#919

  • Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-2 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#920