All case letters_combined_o30414

62 %
38 %
Information about All case letters_combined_o30414
Education

Published on March 10, 2014

Author: godwithme77

Source: slideshare.net

Description

TO KNOW THERE IS INJUSTICE AND BE SILENT, IS INJSUTICE; PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT, WILLIE GENE WOODARD, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, KEVIN RAPP, MONICA KLAPPER, JUDGE ROSENBLATT, DAVID LOCKHART, WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS, POLICE MISCONDUCT, FBI, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, FEDERAL JUDGE, SUPREME COURT, INJUSTICE, WILL G. WOODARD, THE STAND, REDEMPTION STAND, BOUNCING FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP, IN JESUS NAME, ROBERT MARGOLIS, AMEN.

Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Criminal Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20530 March 3, 2014 Re: Complaint:- Court Case#: CR10-1721-002-PHX-PGR Dear Assistant Attorney General; I hope you're doing well. My name is Willie Gene Woodard, I am co-defendant in a case which is set to commence being heard in the court of Honorable Judge Rosenblatt, in Phoenix, March 25, 2014. I realize you're a busy. I will purpose not take up much of your time with this letter. I've included for your review, supportive correspondence which will help give clarity to the case related concerns briefly addressed herein. I kindly ask, and pray, that once you've read this letter and reviewed the accompanying related correspondence, you would look into the matters addressed. I'm making this request because I have significant reason to believe my right to due process and fair trial is being continuously violated. I've given this contact with you careful consideration and have done a significant amount of law research, which includes consulting with a number of reputable law firms. I've also sought the assistance of well known justice advocacy and civil rights organizations. In short, I've been purposely mindful to not be presumptuous and not be over-reactive. It's after much observation and disturbing realization that I've decided to communicate these concerns to you, the administration level of the justice system. This correspondence with you, in it's entire, will convey my verifiable experience pertaining to my case. I'll just address events as per the manner they occurred. The following are a few reasons I believe my right to due process and fair trial are being violated: • About mid August 2011, I was arraigned on an initial indictment before Honorable Judge Duncan and at that time was provided court-appointed legal counsel, Mr. Roger T. Margolis. I pleaded not guilty to the charges. While during the hearing was still in process, my appointed counsel commenced to suggest to me that I should consider taking a plea deal. There was no inquiry from him as to my guilt or innocence. No inquiry as to evidence I had to substantiate my innocence. No indication from him as to any plan to discuss my case. My reply was that I was not guilty of the charges. He responded by indicating; that he and I was already getting off to a bad start. That was a very disturbing moment. • On September 13, 2011; I appeared in court for a detention release hearing before Honorable Judge Duncan and he granted release on my own recognizance. At that time I indicated to Mr. Margolis that upon my arrival in Michigan I would send him the evidence supporting my innocence. Again, Mr. Margolis expressed that I consider taking a plea deal and to hold-off on sending him any information until he instructed me to do so. With Trial scheduled for July 2012, it was not until mid-March 2012, that Mr. Margolis agreed to me sending him my exculpatory evidence files. I provided Mr. Margolis approximately two hundred evidence documents, some directly contradicting the indictment claims against me. Along with the evidence documents, I provided a ten person witness list. After sending my evidence and witness list, I inquired a number of times with Mr. Margolis as to the status of his review and witness contact. His response was he'd not had time and/or staff to yet complete a review. • In May 2012, Mr. Margolis presented me a plea offer. He warned me there would be a superseding indictment if I declined. I declined the offer. And on June 5, 2012, I appeared before Honorable Judge Burns for arraignment on a superseding indictment, which turned out to also be a settlement hearing. Prior to the hearing, while in private conference with Margolis, he informed me that a particular business associate was going to be a government witness and what the party would

testify to. Immediately I presented Mr. Margolis documents that contradicted the intended testimony. Mr. Margolis responded with the question; “were these documents among the those you sent me?” I replied yes they were. I pleaded not guilty and again declined the plea offer. I also expressed to Judge Burns that I no longer wanted to be represented by Mr. Margolis. In short; after sending a letter to Judge Rosenblatt expressing concerns about my defense representation, I was allowed to become Pro Se as I'd requested. Upon Judge Rosenblatt granting Pro Se representation, he assigned me advisory counsel, Mr. David L. Lockhart. Trial date was continued to 11/2012. I returned to Michigan. • October 1, 2012, after having consultation with two reputable law firms, I filed motion Pro Se for; “Court to conduct an in camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and certain Grand Jury materials. On October 15, 2012, I appeared telephonic-ally for a status hearing. That day I'd just been discharged from a Michigan hospital after several days of hospitalization. Judge Rosenblatt during the “status hearing”, indicated that my motion for “In Camera Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes” was improperly filed, when in fact I'd followed explicitly the filing instruction provided to me by the Court's Clerk office. I need add; that prior to filing motion for Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes, I'd filed two other motions which Judge Rosenblatt granted. In short; during the October 15 status hearing, Judge Rosenblatt insisted that the attorney who'd been assigned as my advisory counsel, David L. Lockhart, be appointed my defense counsel. Furthermore, Judge Rosenblatt suggested to Mr. Lockhart that as my newly appointed counsel he withdraw my motion for “In Camera Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes.” In short, Judge Rosenblatt denied me the right to continue as Pro Se representation and had my motion for “Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes” withdrawn. Trail was continued until May 2013. • Mr. Lockhart sent me an email on December 30, 2012. I viewed the email about January 5, 2013 and replied to him with the attached letter dated January 9, 2013. Mr. Lockhart didn't reply until February 2nd, when making me aware of a February 6th status hearing. I had to attend the hearing telephonic-ally due to recent hospitalization. On March 22nd Mr. Lockhart met with me in Michigan for about a five hour meeting. It was during the meeting that I was informed for the first time that the trail date was scheduled for May 7, 2013. Mr. Lockhart gave me a disc of discovery evidence that he'd just days before received from the prosecutor. He instructed me to review and select documents from the disc that I wanted to use in my defense. After reviewing the disc I discovered that only several of the two hundred plus documents I'd provided to the prosecutor August 31, 2012, when I was Pro Se, were on the disc. The documents that I'd provided the prosecutor that directly contradicted the conspiracy claim were not on the disc. I made Mr. Lockhart aware that the reciprocal discovery I'd provided the prosecutor wasn't on the disc. On March 23 2013, I commenced emailing Mr. Lockhart the information I'd previously provided Mr. Margolis, Mr. Rapp and him. Mr. Lockhart did not reply to my emails until March 28, with the following question; “Good morning Mr. Woodard. Have you ever given this information to Mr. Margolis or Mr. Rapp previously, including your witness list and the qualifications of any potential expert witness?” My March 28 reply to Mr. Lockhart was as follows: “Hi David, I've given Mr. Rapp and Mr. Margolis the same evidence I've given you. Mr. Margolis was also given the witness list, with exception of expert witness.” To date, none of my witnesses have been subpenaed, and there's been no further response to my inquiries about the undisclosed evidence. • On May 5, 2013, while at the airport to board a flight to Arizona and attend a status hearing the following day, I experienced a Gand mal seizure. Later learned, I'd had several smaller seizures after the ambulance service was called. I was hospitalized for about five days. Before being discharged I was visited by my local pretrial supervisor, Mr. Stuart Chavis. After being discharged I was advised by my attorney that I needed to provide hospital documents confirming I'd been hospitalized and why. I provided the information as required, which included ambulance report, plus emergency room and extended stay treatment records. Several days after the initial May hospitalization, I experienced another series of seizures and was hospitalized again for about a week. On about May 28, 2013, the day following my hospital discharge, I was arrested by the U.S. Marshall Service at my residence per court order issued by Judge Rosenblatt. The order my arrest

was issued for not being present for the May 6th hearing, though I'd provided ample documentation confirming I'd had a seizure at the airport and was hospitalized. It was the beginning of about a three week prisoner transport back to Arizona. I was hospitalized again for one week while awaiting transport from Oklahoma to Arizona. After arriving to Arizona, about June 19th, I was admitted to the detention center hospital were I was treated for about two weeks. In short; on about July 16, 2013, I appeared before Judge Duncan. He'd ascertained and determined that I'd not been in violation in any way. Demonstrated by him ordering my release and allowing me to return back to Michigan. He also removed a previous stipulation for house arrest and GPS monitoring, which I perceived to be a gesture of apology, as well as an acknowledgment of trust. I continue to greatly appreciate Judge Duncan's “just” assessment and ruling. Trial was continued until December 19, 2013. There was a subsequent continuance until March 25, 2014. • On January 4, 2014, I ask my attorney to file a motion with Judge Duncan requesting modification of my release order transaction amount from $500 to $1,500 or more. In part, so that I could prepare financially for trail travel to Arizona and lodging during trial. I provided him the names and contact information of two financial services entities allowing me opportunity to earn income. In short, on January 6, 2014, I received an email from my attorney conveying that the prosecutor objects to me working in the financial services industry. He further suggested that I consider other options. Fact is; there is no stipulation in my release order restricting me from earning an income in the financial services industry. In short, on January 29, 2014, a motion hearing took place which I attended telephonically before Judge Rosenblatt. He denied the motion, and accelerated a status hearing from March 9, 2014 to March 4, 2014, giving me one week less time to raise funds for travel to Arizona financially prepared for lodging during an estimated three week trial. Judge Rosenblatt made it clear, that should I appear without the ability to pay for lodging, my release order would be revoked and I'd be taken into custody. • I was unable to appear for the March 4, 2014 hearing under doctor recommendation that I not travel until having a follow-up spinal examination. The examination took place today. Prior to today's appointment, the doctor provided me a letter recommending that I not travel, which I provided to the court via my pre-tial supervisors. However, I've just learned tonight, March 4, 2014, that Judge Rosenblatt issued a warrant for my arrest, in spite of the no travel letter I provided. In closing; to date; none of the ten plus witnesses I provided have been subpenaed. Some who've expressed their willingness to testify in my behalf. Likewise, none of the two hundred plus documents I provided to my initial attorney, the prosecutor and my current attorney that directly contradict allegations against me were included in discovery. To date, nothing has changed. Still, none of my witnesses have been subpenaed, and my evidence not disclosed by the prosecutor in discovery remains, to any effect, unaddressed. Going to trial with no witnesses subpenaed and evidence substantiating my innocence excluded for discovery, I feel like a sheep headed to slaughter. Proclaiming my innocence is not the purpose of this letter. I'm just making you aware of events I believe have been violations of my right for due process and fair trial. I'm reaching out for help. I trust God for my vindication and future of my family. However, I'm deeply concerned as to the journey prior to the expected outcome in the absence of due process. For a more complete picture, at your convenience, please review this correspondence in it's entire. I would gladly allow authentication of emails and letters by any means you may deem necessary. Much of what I've conveyed herein is a matter of court records. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Blessed regards, [Will G. Woodard] 7425 Chapel Hill Dr. #101 Lansing, Michigan 48917 willgwoodard@gmail.com Phone: (517) 853-8133

Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Criminal Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20530 March 3, 2014 Re: Complaint:- Court Case#: CR10-1721-002-PHX-PGR Dear Assistant Attorney General; I hope you're doing well. As a supplement to the letter conveying concerns about my overall judicial experience, I've included for your review, this letter and accompanying registered email confirmation documents. This additional correspondence is to convey concerns specifically pertaining to prosecutor conduct. I kindly ask, and pray, that once you've read this letter and reviewed the accompanying related correspondence and any other evidence you may deem necessary, you would look into the matters addressed herein. I'm making this request because I have significant reason to believe my constitutional right to due process is being continuously violated by your assistant U.S. Attorneys, Mr. Kevin Rapp and Ms. Monica Klapper. To properly chronicle my experience as it pertains to the pre-trial process, I'll first reiterate that Judge Rosenblatt granted me Pro Se representation, about July 15, 2012. He also assigned attorney David L. Lockhart to act as my “advisory” counsel. About October 12, 2012 Mr. Lockhart was appointed my attorney. Pertaining to the reasons I believe my constitutional right to due process have been violated multiple times since July 2012, I'll address the violations pursuant to the manner I believe they have occurred. • On August 31, 2012; in response to Mr. Rapp's request (via Mr. Lockhart) for me to provide my “reciprocal discovery”, I sent by registered email direct to Mr. Rapp and Ms. Klapper a cover letter and download links to about five zip files collectively containing about two hundred exculpatory evidence files. I never received an acknowledgment from Mr. Rapp nor Ms. Klapper that they received the email. However, as aforesaid, I'd sent the email via a registered email service and have verifiable confirmation that both Mr. Rapp and Ms. Klapper received the email. See cover letter & registered email receipt attached. • From July 2012 thru about October 12, 2012, for the duration of my Pro Se representation, I was never provided discovery by Mr. Rapp. Ms. Klapper nor otherwise. This with there being a trial date scheduled at the time, for November 2012. In short, for about a four month period of time, as I was Pro Se, I was not provided discovery. Therefore, exculpatory evidence was never disclosed to me. • On about October 1, 2012, while I was Pro Se representation, Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper filed a Motion In Limine, which I received no notification of. In short, the motion was filed and I was never allowed opportunity to review it, object to it, nor otherwise address the motion. See attached Motion In Limine Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper filed April 2013, which addresses Limine motion filed October 2012. • On about October 12, 2012, Judge Rosenblatt appointed Mr. Lockhart to act as my defense counsel. On March 22, 2013 Mr. Lockhart met with me in Michigan. Upon the conclusion of our meeting, Mr. Lockhart gave me a CD disc he said was discovery that Mr. Rapp or Mr. Klapper had provided him about a day prior to him meeting with me on March 22, 2013. Mr. Lockhart instructed me to review the discovery for documents to use for trial. I discovered, that with exception of just several documents, none of the (200+-) exculpatory evidence files I'd provided to Mr. Rapp/Ms. Kappler on August 31, 2012 were on the disc. A file titled Woodard's Exculpatory Evidence, consisted of only about seven documents. About four of the documents did not even pertain to the

case transactions. The exculpatory evidence I'd provided to Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper was not entirely disclosed to my attorney. In short, there was failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to me as Pro Se July 2012 to October 2012. Subsequently, there was nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence to my attorney that Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper had in their possession. See aforesaid verification receipt. • To date, Mr. Rapp and Ms. Kappler have not provided a witness list as per “in a timely manner”. Thus, I've not been allowed my right to review the list. Likewise, not allowed my right to be provided information as to deals/concessions made with witnesses in exchange for testimony. In particular, this is pertaining to witnesses that were directly involved in the case related transactions. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires the prosecution to disclose evidence favorable to an accused when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. The government’s obligation to disclose “Brady” evidence covers not only exculpatory evidence but also information that could be used to impeach government witnesses. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). In particular, any agreement made with a government witness for testimony in exchange for a “deal” or other “favorable” treatment regarding criminal charges must be disclosed. As stated in United States v. Mitchell, 886 F.2d. 667, 670 (4th Cir. 1989). I trust God for truth and justice to prevail. Thereby, the assured good well-being of my family. However, I'm deeply concerned as to the journey prior to that outcome in the absence of due process. Pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United State Constitution; I'm convinced my right to due process have been continuously violated. I am prepared to formally present to the national media, evidence of the violations. Likewise, present exculpatory evidence not disclosed by the prosecution, which contradicts allegations made by the prosecution in indictments and court proceeding. In conjunction with the media engagement, there would be legal action taken under the “Color of Law” provision of the U.S. Constitution. I want to emphasis; that this correspondence with you is not in any way intended to be a conveying of ultimatum. However, I am urgently purposing to not become another “wrongfully convicted” statistic. I trust you are not aware of the violations I've addressed herein. Thus, I'm informing you of my experience in hope you would conduct an investigation to determine if violations have occurred. Also, I'm requesting that you review my exculpatory evidence in it's entire, in conjunction, with review of the discovery Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper provided to my attorney about March 21, 2013. I have CD copy of the discovery in my possession. I kindly ask that you would review this correspondence in it's entire. Upon receiving notification from your office, I will provide you website links to download the exculpatory evidence zip files I provided to Mr. Rapp and Ms. Klapper on August 31, 2012. Please be advised; I will gladly allow authentication of all emails and documents by any means you may deem necessary. Thanks in advance, for your anticipated honorable consideration. Blessed regards, [Will G. Woodard] 7425 Chapel Hill Dr. #101 Lansing, Michigan 48917 willgwoodard@gmail.com Phone: (517) 853-8133

JOHN S. LEONARDO United States Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 February 22, 2014 Re: Complaint:- Court Case#: CR10-1721-002-PHX-PGR Dear U.S. Attorney Leonardo; I hope you're doing well. My name is Willie Gene Woodard, I am co-defendant in a case which is set to commence being heard in the court of Honorable Judge Rosenblatt, in Phoenix, March 25, 2014. I realize you're a busy man. I will purpose not take up much of your time with this letter. I've included for your review, supportive correspondence which will help give clarity to pre-trial process related concerns briefly addressed herein. I kindly ask, and pray, that once you've read this letter and reviewed the accompanying related correspondence and any other evidence you may deem necessary, you would look into the matters addressed herein. I'm making this request because I have significant reason to believe my constitutional right to due process is being continuously violated by your assistant U.S. Attorneys, Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper. I've given this contact with you careful consideration and have done a significant amount of law research, which includes consulting with multiple reputable law firms. I have also sought the assistance of well known justice advocacy and civil rights organizations. In short, I've been purposely mindful to not be presumptuous nor over-reactive. It's after much observation, disturbing realization, and bringing my concerns to the attention of multiplle judicial authorities, that I've decided to communicate these concerns to you, the head U.S. Attorney. This correspondence, in it's entire, will convey my verifiable experience pertaining to the ongoing conduct of your assistant attorneys, Mr. Rapp and Ms. Klapper. To properly chronicle my experience as it pertains to the pre-trial process, I'll first establish that Judge Rosenblatt granted me Pro Se representation, about July 15, 2012. He also assigned attorney David L. Lockhart to act as my “advisory” counsel. About October 12, 2012 Mr. Lockhart was appointed my attorney. Pertaining to the reasons I believe my constitutional right to due process have been violated multiple times since July 2012, I'll address the violations pursuant to the manner I believe they have occurred. • On August 31, 2012; in response to Mr. Rapp's request (via Mr. Lockhart) for me to provide my “reciprocal discovery”, I sent by registered email direct to Mr. Rapp and Ms. Klapper a cover letter and download links to about five zip files collectively containing about two hundred exculpatory evidence files. I never received an acknowledgment from Mr. Rapp nor Ms. Klapper that they received the email. However, as aforesaid, I'd sent the email via a registered email service and have verifiable confirmation that both Mr. Rapp and Ms. Klapper received the email. See cover letter & registered email receipt attached. • From July 2012 thru about October 12, 2012, for the duration of my Pro Se representation, I was never provided discovery by Mr. Rapp. Ms. Klapper nor otherwise. This with there being a trial date scheduled at the time, for November 2012. In short, for about a four month period of time, as I was Pro Se, I was not provided discovery. Therefore, exculpatory evidence was never disclosed to me. • On about October 1, 2012, while I was Pro Se representation, Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper filed a Motion In Limine, which I received no notification of. In short, the motion was filed and I was never allowed opportunity to review it, object to it, nor otherwise address the motion. See attached Motion In Limine Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper filed April 2013, which addresses Limine motion filed October 2012.

• On about October 12, 2012, Judge Rosenblatt appointed Mr. Lockhart to act as my defense counsel. On March 22, 2013 Mr. Lockhart met with me in Michigan. Upon the conclusion of our meeting, Mr. Lockhart gave me a CD disc he said was discovery that Mr. Rapp or Mr. Klapper had provided him about a day prior to him meeting with me on March 22, 2013. Mr. Lockhart instructed me to review the discovery for documents to use for trial. I discovered, that with exception of just several documents, none of the (200+-) exculpatory evidence files I'd provided to Mr. Rapp/Ms. Kappler on August 31, 2012 were on the disc. A file titled Woodard's Exculpatory Evidence, consisted of only about seven documents. About four of the documents did not even pertain to the case transactions. The exculpatory evidence I'd provided to Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper was not entirely disclosed to my attorney. In short, there was failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to me as Pro Se July 2012 to October 2012. Subsequently, there was nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence to my attorney that Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper had in their possession. See aforesaid verification receipt. • To date, Mr. Rapp and Ms. Kappler have not provided a witness list as per “in a timely manner”. Thus, I've not been allowed my right to review the list. Likewise, not allowed my right to be provided information as to deals/concessions made with witnesses in exchange for testimony. In particular, this is pertaining to witnesses that were directly involved in the case related transactions. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires the prosecution to disclose evidence favorable to an accused when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. The government’s obligation to disclose “Brady” evidence covers not only exculpatory evidence but also information that could be used to impeach government witnesses. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). In particular, any agreement made with a government witness for testimony in exchange for a “deal” or other “favorable” treatment regarding criminal charges must be disclosed. As stated in United States v. Mitchell, 886 F.2d. 667, 670 (4th Cir. 1989). I trust God for truth and justice to prevail. Thereby, the assured good well-being of my family. However, I'm deeply concerned as to the journey prior to that outcome in the absence of due process. Pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United State Constitution; I'm convinced my right to due process have been continuously violated. I am prepared to formally present to the national media, evidence of the violations. Likewise, present exculpatory evidence not disclosed by the prosecution, which contradicts allegations made by the prosecution in indictments and court proceeding. In conjunction with the media engagement, there would be legal action taken under the “Color of Law” provision of the U.S. Constitution. I want to emphasis; that this correspondence with you is not in any way intended to be a conveying of ultimatum. However, I am urgently purposing to not become another “wrongfully convicted” statistic. I trust you are not aware of the violations I've addressed herein. Thus, I'm informing you of my experience in hope you would conduct an investigation to determine if violations have occurred. Also, I'm requesting that you review my exculpatory evidence in it's entire, in conjunction, with review of the discovery Mr. Rapp/Ms. Klapper provided to my attorney about March 21, 2013. I have CD copy of the discovery in my possession. I kindly ask that you would review this correspondence in it's entire. Upon receiving notification from your office, I will provide you website links to download the exculpatory evidence zip files I provided to Mr. Rapp and Ms. Klapper on August 31, 2012. Please be advised; I will gladly allow authentication of all emails and documents by any means you may deem necessary. In closing; it's essential, and I kindly ask, to have a reply from your office by March 3, 2014. Thanks in advance, for your anticipated honorable consideration. Blessed regards, [Will G. Woodard] 7425 Chapel Hill Dr. #101 Lansing, Michigan 48917 willgwoodard@gmail.com Phone: (517) 853-8133 P.S. Sir, you can learn more about the REAL Will G. Woodard at; willgwoodard.com. willgwoodard.org, ministerofjustice.info & selfgrowth.com/articles/user/1266196 - God bless.

HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE COLLINS United States District Court 405 W. Congress, Suite 1500 Tucson, Arizona 85701 February 5, 2014 Regarding Court Case#: CR10-1721-002-PHX-PGR Dear Honorable Chief Judge Collins; I hope you're doing well. My name is Willie Gene Woodard, I am co-defendant in a case which is set to commence being heard in the court of Honorable Judge Rosenblatt, in Phoenix, March 25, 2014. I realize you're a busy man. I will purpose not take up much of your time with this letter. I've included for your review, supportive correspondence which will help give clarity to the case related concerns briefly addressed herein. I kindly ask, and pray, that once you've read this letter and reviewed the accompanying related correspondence, you would look into the matters addressed. I'm making this request because I have significant reason to believe my right to due process and fair trial is being continuously violated. I've given this contact with you careful consideration and have done a significant amount of law research, which includes consulting with a number of reputable law firms. I've also sought the assistance of well known justice advocacy and civil rights organizations. In short, I've been purposely mindful to not be presumptuous and not be over-reactive. It's after much observation and disturbing realization that I've decided to communicate these concerns to you, a higher level of the court. This correspondence with you, in it's entire, will convey my verifiable experience pertaining to my case. I'll just address events as per the manner they occurred. The following are a few reasons I believe my right to due process and fair trial are being violated:  About mid August 2011, I was arraigned on an initial indictment before Honorable Judge Duncan and at that time was provided court-appointed legal counsel, Mr. Roger T. Margolis. I pleaded not guilty to the charges. While during the hearing was still in process, my appointed counsel commenced to suggest to me that I should consider taking a plea deal. There was no inquiry from him as to my guilt or innocence. No inquiry as to evidence I had to substantiate my innocence. No indication from him as to any plan to discuss my case. My reply was that I was not guilty of the charges. He responded by indicating; that he and I was already getting off to a bad start. That was a very disturbing moment.  On September 13, 2011; I appeared in court for a detention release hearing before Honorable Judge Duncan and he granted release on my own recognizance. At that time I indicated to Mr. Margolis that upon my arrival in Michigan I would send him the evidence supporting my innocence. Again, Mr. Margolis expressed that I consider taking a plea deal and to hold-off on sending him any information until he instructed me to do so. With Trial scheduled for July 2012, it was not until midMarch 2012, that Mr. Margolis agreed to me sending him my exculpatory evidence files. I provided Mr. Margolis approximately two hundred evidence documents, some directly contradicting the indictment claims against me. Along with the evidence documents, I provided a ten person witness list. After sending my evidence and witness list, I inquired a number of times with Mr. Margolis as to the status of his review and witness contact. His response was he'd not had time and/or staff to yet complete a review.  In May 2012, Mr. Margolis presented me a plea offer. He warned me there would be a superseding indictment if I declined. I declined the offer. And on June 5, 2012, I appeared before Honorable Judge Burns for arraignment on a superseding indictment, which turned out

to also be a settlement hearing. Prior to the hearing, while in private conference with Margolis, he informed me that a particular business associate was going to be a government witness and what the party would testify to. Immediately I presented Mr. Margolis documents that contradicted the intended testimony. Mr. Margolis responded with the question; “were these documents among the those you sent me?” I replied yes they were. I pleaded not guilty and again declined the plea offer. I also expressed to Judge Burns that I no longer wanted to be represented by Mr. Margolis. In short; after sending a letter to Judge Rosenblatt expressing concerns about my defense representation, I was allowed to become Pro Se as I'd requested. Upon Judge Rosenblatt granting Pro Se representation, he assigned me advisory counsel, Mr. David L. Lockhart. Trial date was continued to 11/2012. I returned to Michigan.  October 1, 2012, after having consultation with two reputable law firms, I filed motion Pro Se for; “Court to conduct an in camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and certain Grand Jury materials. On October 15, 2012, I appeared telephonic-ally for a status hearing. That day I'd just been discharged from a Michigan hospital after several days of hospitalization. Judge Rosenblatt during the “status hearing”, indicated that my motion for “In Camera Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes” was improperly filed, when in fact I'd followed explicitly the filing instruction provided to me by the Court's Clerk office. I need add; that prior to filing motion for Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes, I'd filed two other motions which Judge Rosenblatt granted. In short; during the October 15 status hearing, Judge Rosenblatt insisted that the attorney who'd been assigned as my advisory counsel, David L. Lockhart, be appointed my defense counsel. Furthermore, Judge Rosenblatt suggested to Mr. Lockhart that as my newly appointed counsel he withdraw my motion for “In Camera Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes.” In short, Judge Rosenblatt denied me the right to continue as Pro Se representation and had my motion for “Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes” withdrawn. Trail was continued until May 2013.  Mr. Lockhart sent me an email on December 30, 2012. I viewed the email about January 5, 2013 and replied to him with the attached letter dated January 9, 2013. Mr. Lockhart didn't reply until February 2nd, when making me aware of a February 6th status hearing. I had to attend the hearing telephonic-ally due to recent hospitalization. On March 22nd Mr. Lockhart met with me in Michigan for about a five hour meeting. It was during the meeting that I was informed for the first time that the trail date was scheduled for May 7, 2013. Mr. Lockhart gave me a disc of discovery evidence that he'd just days before received from the prosecutor. He instructed me to review and select documents from the disc that I wanted to use in my defense. After reviewing the disc I discovered that only several of the two hundred plus documents I'd provided to the prosecutor August 31, 2012, when I was Pro Se, were on the disc. The documents that I'd provided the prosecutor that directly contradicted the conspiracy claim were not on the disc. I made Mr. Lockhart aware that the reciprocal discovery I'd provided the prosecutor wasn't on the disc. On March 23 2013, I commenced emailing Mr. Lockhart the information I'd previously provided Mr. Margolis, Mr. Rapp and him. Mr. Lockhart did not reply to my emails until March 28, with the following question; “Good morning Mr. Woodard. Have you ever given this information to Mr. Margolis or Mr. Rapp previously, including your witness list and the qualifications of any potential expert witness?” My March 28 reply to Mr. Lockhart was as follows: “Hi David, I've given Mr. Rapp and Mr. Margolis the same evidence I've given you. Mr. Margolis was also given the witness list, with exception of expert witness.” To date, none of my witnesses have been subpenaed, and there's been no further response to my inquiries about the undisclosed evidence.  On May 5, 2013, while at the airport to board a flight to Arizona and attend a status hearing the following day, I experienced a Gand mal seizure. Later learned, I'd had several smaller seizures after the ambulance service was called. I was hospitalized for about five days. Before being discharged I was visited by my local pretrial supervisor, Mr. Stuart Chavis. After being discharged I was advised by my attorney that I needed to provide hospital documents

confirming I'd been hospitalized and why. I provided the information as required, which included ambulance report, plus emergency room and extended stay treatment records. Several days after the initial May hospitalization, I experienced another series of seizures and was hospitalized again for about a week. On about May 28, 2013, the day following my hospital discharge, I was arrested by the U.S. Marshall Service at my residence per court order issued by Judge Rosenblatt. The order my arrest was issued for not being present for the May 6th hearing, though I'd provided ample documentation confirming I'd had a seizure at the airport and was hospitalized. It was the beginning of about a three week prisoner transport back to Arizona. I was hospitalized again for one week while awaiting transport from Oklahoma to Arizona. After arriving to Arizona, about June 19 th, I was admitted to the detention center hospital were I was treated for about two weeks. In short; on about July 16, 2013, I appeared before Judge Duncan. He'd ascertained and determined that I'd not been in violation in any way. Demonstrated by him ordering my release and allowing me to return back to Michigan. He also removed a previous stipulation for house arrest and GPS monitoring, which I perceived to be a gesture of apology, as well as an acknowledgment of trust. I continue to greatly appreciate Judge Duncan's “just” assessment and ruling. Trial was continued until December 19, 2013. There was a subsequent continuance until March 25, 2014.  On January 4, 2014, I ask my attorney to file a motion with Judge Duncan requesting modification of my release order transaction amount from $500 to $1,500 or more. In part, so that I could prepare financially for trail travel to Arizona and lodging during trial. I provided him the names and contact information of two financial services entities allowing me opportunity to earn income. In short, on January 6, 2014, I received an email from my attorney conveying that the prosecutor objects to me working in the financial services industry. He further suggested that I consider other options. Fact is; there is no stipulation in my release order restricting me from earning an income in the financial services industry. In short, on January 29, 2014, a motion hearing took place which I attended telephonically before Judge Rosenblatt. He denied the motion, and accelerated a status hearing from March 9, 2014 to March 4, 2014, giving me one week less time to raise funds for travel to Arizona financially prepared for lodging during an estimated three week trial. Judge Rosenblatt made it clear, that should I appear without the ability to pay for lodging, my release order would be revoked and I'd be taken into custody. In closing; to date; none of the ten plus witnesses I provided have been subpenaed. Some who've expressed their willingness to testify in my behalf. Likewise, none of the two hundred plus documents I provided to my initial attorney, the prosecutor and my current attorney that directly contradict allegations against me were included in discovery. And disappointingly, my current attorney, from time he was assigned until after the 01/29/14 hearing, had avoided every request I'd made for him to address these concerns. To date, nothing has changed. Still, none of my witnesses have been subpenaed, and my evidence not disclosed by the prosecutor in discovery remains unaddressed. Going to trial with no witnesses subpenaed and evidence substantiating my innocence excluded for discovery, I feel like a sheep headed to slaughter. Proclaiming my innocence is not the purpose of this letter. I'm just making you aware of events I believe have been violations of my right for due process and fair trial. I'm reaching out for help. I have a prepared media package, for in the event all else fails. I trust God for my vindication and future of my family. But, I'm deeply concerned as to the outcome, with the absence of fairness, due process. For a more complete picture, at your convenience, please review this correspondence in it's entire. I would gladly allow authentication of emails and letters by any means you may deem necessary. Much of what I've conveyed herein is a matter of court records. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Blessed regards, [Will G. Woodard] (517) 853-8133

Robin C. Ashton, Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266 Washington, DC 20530-0001 February 5, 2014 Re: Complaint:- Court Case#: CR10-1721-002-PHX-PGR Dear Ms. Ashton; I hope you're doing well. This my second to request help. My name is Willie Gene Woodard, I am co-defendant in a case which is set to commence being heard in the court of Honorable Judge Rosenblatt, in Phoenix, March 25, 2014. I realize you're a busy. I will purpose not take up much of your time with this letter. I've included for your review, supportive correspondence which will help give clarity to the case related concerns briefly addressed herein. I kindly ask, and pray, that once you've read this letter and reviewed the accompanying related correspondence, you would look into the matters addressed. I'm making this request because I have significant reason to believe my right to due process and fair trial is being continuously violated. I've given this contact with you careful consideration and have done a significant amount of law research, which includes consulting with a number of reputable law firms. I've also sought the assistance of well known justice advocacy and civil rights organizations. In short, I've been purposely mindful to not be presumptuous and not be over-reactive. It's after much observation and disturbing realization that I've decided to communicate these concerns to you, a higher level of the court. This correspondence with you, in it's entire, will convey my verifiable experience pertaining to my case. I'll just address events as per the manner they occurred. The following are a few reasons I believe my right to due process and fair trial are being violated:  About mid August 2011, I was arraigned on an initial indictment before Honorable Judge Duncan and at that time was provided court-appointed legal counsel, Mr. Roger T. Margolis. I pleaded not guilty to the charges. While during the hearing was still in process, my appointed counsel commenced to suggest to me that I should consider taking a plea deal. There was no inquiry from him as to my guilt or innocence. No inquiry as to evidence I had to substantiate my innocence. No indication from him as to any plan to discuss my case. My reply was that I was not guilty of the charges. He responded by indicating; that he and I was already getting off to a bad start. That was a very disturbing moment.  On September 13, 2011; I appeared in court for a detention release hearing before Honorable Judge Duncan and he granted release on my own recognizance. At that time I indicated to Mr. Margolis that upon my arrival in Michigan I would send him the evidence supporting my innocence. Again, Mr. Margolis expressed that I consider taking a plea deal and to hold-off on sending him any information until he instructed me to do so. With Trial scheduled for July 2012, it was not until midMarch 2012, that Mr. Margolis agreed to me sending him my exculpatory evidence files. I provided Mr. Margolis approximately two hundred evidence documents, some directly contradicting the indictment claims against me. Along with the evidence documents, I provided a ten person witness list. After sending my evidence and witness list, I inquired a number of times with Mr. Margolis as to the status of his review and witness contact. His response was he'd not had time and/or staff to yet complete a review.  In May 2012, Mr. Margolis presented me a plea offer. He warned me there would be a superseding indictment if I declined. I declined the offer. And on June 5, 2012, I appeared before Honorable Judge Burns for arraignment on a superseding indictment, which turned out

to also be a settlement hearing. Prior to the hearing, while in private conference with Margolis, he informed me that a particular business associate was going to be a government witness and what the party would testify to. Immediately I presented Mr. Margolis documents that contradicted the intended testimony. Mr. Margolis responded with the question; “were these documents among the those you sent me?” I replied yes they were. I pleaded not guilty and again declined the plea offer. I also expressed to Judge Burns that I no longer wanted to be represented by Mr. Margolis. In short; after sending a letter to Judge Rosenblatt expressing concerns about my defense representation, I was allowed to become Pro Se as I'd requested. Upon Judge Rosenblatt granting Pro Se representation, he assigned me advisory counsel, Mr. David L. Lockhart. Trial date was continued to 11/2012. I returned to Michigan.  October 1, 2012, after having consultation with two reputable law firms, I filed motion Pro Se for; “Court to conduct an in camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and certain Grand Jury materials. On October 15, 2012, I appeared telephonic-ally for a status hearing. That day I'd just been discharged from a Michigan hospital after several days of hospitalization. Judge Rosenblatt during the “status hearing”, indicated that my motion for “In Camera Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes” was improperly filed, when in fact I'd followed explicitly the filing instruction provided to me by the Court's Clerk office. I need add; that prior to filing motion for Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes, I'd filed two other motions which Judge Rosenblatt granted. In short; during the October 15 status hearing, Judge Rosenblatt insisted that the attorney who'd been assigned as my advisory counsel, David L. Lockhart, be appointed my defense counsel. Furthermore, Judge Rosenblatt suggested to Mr. Lockhart that as my newly appointed counsel he withdraw my motion for “In Camera Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes.” In short, Judge Rosenblatt denied me the right to continue as Pro Se representation and had my motion for “Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes” withdrawn. Trail was continued until May 2013.  Mr. Lockhart sent me an email on December 30, 2012. I viewed the email about January 5, 2013 and replied to him with the attached letter dated January 9, 2013. Mr. Lockhart didn't reply until February 2nd, when making me aware of a February 6th status hearing. I had to attend the hearing telephonic-ally due to recent hospitalization. On March 22nd Mr. Lockhart met with me in Michigan for about a five hour meeting. It was during the meeting that I was informed for the first time that the trail date was scheduled for May 7, 2013. Mr. Lockhart gave me a disc of discovery evidence that he'd just days before received from the prosecutor. He instructed me to review and select documents from the disc that I wanted to use in my defense. After reviewing the disc I discovered that only several of the two hundred plus documents I'd provided to the prosecutor August 31, 2012, when I was Pro Se, were on the disc. The documents that I'd provided the prosecutor that directly contradicted the conspiracy claim were not on the disc. I made Mr. Lockhart aware that the reciprocal discovery I'd provided the prosecutor wasn't on the disc. On March 23 2013, I commenced emailing Mr. Lockhart the information I'd previously provided Mr. Margolis, Mr. Rapp and him. Mr. Lockhart did not reply to my emails until March 28, with the following question; “Good morning Mr. Woodard. Have you ever given this information to Mr. Margolis or Mr. Rapp previously, including your witness list and the qualifications of any potential expert witness?” My March 28 reply to Mr. Lockhart was as follows: “Hi David, I've given Mr. Rapp and Mr. Margolis the same evidence I've given you. Mr. Margolis was also given the witness list, with exception of expert witness.” To date, none of my witnesses have been subpenaed, and there's been no further response to my inquiries about the undisclosed evidence.  On May 5, 2013, while at the airport to board a flight to Arizona and attend a status hearing the following day, I experienced a Gand mal seizure. Later learned, I'd had several smaller seizures after the ambulance service was called. I was hospitalized for about five days. Before being discharged I was visited by my local pretrial supervisor, Mr. Stuart Chavis. After being discharged I was advised by my attorney that I needed to provide hospital documents

confirming I'd been hospitalized and why. I provided the information as required, which included ambulance report, plus emergency room and extended stay treatment records. Several days after the initial May hospitalization, I experienced another series of seizures and was hospitalized again for about a week. On about May 28, 2013, the day following my hospital discharge, I was arrested by the U.S. Marshall Service at my residence per court order issued by Judge Rosenblatt. The order my arrest was issued for not being present for the May 6th hearing, though I'd provided ample documentation confirming I'd had a seizure at the airport and was hospitalized. It was the beginning of about a three week prisoner transport back to Arizona. I was hospitalized again for one week while awaiting transport from Oklahoma to Arizona. After arriving to Arizona, about June 19 th, I was admitted to the detention center hospital were I was treated for about two weeks. In short; on about July 16, 2013, I appeared before Judge Duncan. He'd ascertained and determined that I'd not been in violation in any way. Demonstrated by him ordering my release and allowing me to return back to Michigan. He also removed a previous stipulation for house arrest and GPS monitoring, which I perceived to be a gesture of apology, as well as an acknowledgment of trust. I continue to greatly appreciate Judge Duncan's “just” assessment and ruling. Trial was continued until December 19, 2013. There was a subsequent continuance until March 25, 2014.  On January 4, 2014, I ask my attorney to file a motion with Judge Duncan requesting modification of my release order transaction amount from $500 to $1,500 or more. In part, so that I could prepare financially for trail travel to Arizona and lodging during trial. I provided him the names and contact information of two financial services entities allowing me opportunity to earn income. In short, on January 6, 2014, I received an email from my attorney conveying that the prosecutor objects to me working in the financial services industry. He further suggested that I consider other options. Fact is; there is no stipulation in my release order restricting me from earning an income in the financial services industry. In short, on January 29, 2014, a motion hearing took place which I attended telephonically before Judge Rosenblatt. He denied the motion, and accelerated a status hearing from March 9, 2014 to March 4, 2014, giving me one week less time to raise funds for travel to Arizona financially prepared for lodging during an estimated three week trial. Judge Rosenblatt made it clear, that should I appear without the ability to pay for lodging, my release order would be revoked and I'd be taken into custody. In closing; to date; none of the ten plus witnesses I provided have been subpenaed. Some who've expressed their willingness to testify in my behalf. Likewise, none of the two hundred plus documents I provided to my initial attorney, the prosecutor and my current attorney that directly contradict allegations against me were included in discovery. And disappointingly, my current attorney, from time he was assigned until after the 01/29/14 hearing, had avoided every request I'd made for him to address these concerns. To date, nothing has changed. Still, none of my witnesses have been subpenaed, and my evidence not disclosed by the prosecutor in discovery remains unaddressed. Going to trial with no witnesses subpenaed and evidence substantiating my innocence excluded for discovery, I feel like a sheep headed to slaughter. Proclaiming my innocence is not the purpose of this letter. I'm just making you aware of events I believe have been violations of my right for due process and fair trial. I'm reaching out for help. I have a prepared media package, for in the event all else fails. I trust God for my vindication and future of my family. But, I'm deeply concerned as to the outcome, with the absence of fairness, due process. For a more complete picture, at your convenience, please review this correspondence in it's entire. I would gladly allow authentication of emails and letters by any means you may deem necessary. Much of what I've conveyed herein is a matter of court records. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Blessed regards, [Will G. Woodard] (517) 853-8133

HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 621 401 West Washington Street, SPC 56 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2156 April 14, 2013 Dear Honorable Judge Rosenblatt, Hope you're doing well. I'm convinced it's necessary that I have this communication with you. I'll get right to the point as to not take up much of your time. For multiple reasons, I have had increasing concern regarding the defense representation of my court appointed legal counsel, Mr. David Lockhart. I've lost all confidence and trust that he is committal and adequately representing. This will not be lengthy letter of me passing judgment in that regards. I will note the following in order to establish a basis for my request to express my concerns during the coming hearing: 1) During the hearing on March 6, Mr. Lockhart gave the court the impression that evaluating my case was some how delayed or hindered by my residing outside of Arizona. Fact is, when he was appointed as my counsel October 2012, he advised me that he had existing cases to complete and would notify me as when we could discus my case. Mr. Lockhart next communicated with me by email on December 30, 2012. 2) After viewing Mr. Lockharts email about January 5, 2013, I replied to him with the attached letter. I received no reply after sending the letter and leaving phone messages. Mr. Lockhart didn't communicate with me again until February 2nd, when making me aware of the February 6th status hearing. 3) Mr. Lockhart met with me in Michigan on March 22 for about a five hour meeting. The meeting, as expected consisted mostly of conversation pertaining to the case, and we had a meal. There was no more done at the meeting than what could have been accomplished by a couple phone calls. I was provided no documentation, and I've yet to receive promised copies of documents Mr. Lockhart had with him at time of the meeting. Also, at the March 22 meeting that I was informed for the first time that the trail date was scheduled for May 7. I appreciated Mr. Lockhart coming to Michigan to meet with me, but there little accomplished. 4) Near conclusion of the March 22 meeting, Mr. Lockhart advised me that the government had provided him a disc with all discovery evidence for trial just few days prior to him leaving Arizona to come to Michigan Mr. Lockhart instructed me to review and select documents from the disc that I wanted to use in my defense. After reviewing the disc I discovered that only few of the 300 plus documents I'd provided to the government August 31, 2012, when I was Pro Se, were on the disc. The documents I'd provided the government that directly contradicted the governments conspiracy claim were not on the disc. I made Mr. Lockhart aware that this reciprocal (exculpatory evidence) I'd provided the government wasn't on the disc. 5) On March 23, I commenced emailing Mr. Lockhart the exculpatory evidence I'd provided the government and to Mr. Margolis as well. Mr. Lockhart did not reply to my emails until March 28, with the following question: “Good morning Mr. Woodard. Have you ever given this information to Mr. Margolis or Mr. Rapp previously, including your witness list and the qualifications of any potential expert witness?” My March 28 reply to Mr. Lockhart was as follows: “Hi David, I've given Mr. Rapp and Mr. Margolis the same evidence I've given you. Mr. Margolis was also given the witness list, with the exception of expert witness.”

6) Mr. Lockhart did not communicate with me again until April 2, with the following message: “Good afternoon Mr. Woodard. Please see attached. Thank you.” Attached were the following two government motion documents filed April 1: “Supplemental MOTION in Limine to Determine Admissibility of Evidence” and “Motion to Dismiss Counts”. Mr. Lockhart gave me no explanation as to the meaning of the government motions. I literally had to contact a friend who's an attorney to explain the motions to me. Mr. Lockhart has yet to address the motions. 7) After Mr. Lockhart's and my April 2 exchange of emails, Mr. Lockhart did not communicate with me again until April 10. He made no mention of my exculpatory evidence nor my witness list in that communication. Just a long explanation about research he was supposedly doing. His message on the April 10 was as follows: “Good morning Mr. Woodard. Please be advised that I have passed on your witness list to DK and he will be following up with these individuals and attempt to evaluate what, if anything of value they can offer to assist you at trial. Be advised that Mr. Rapp intends to call Mr. Olivas and Mr. Sizemore as witnesses at trial. Because of some of the responses that I have been receiving from you regarding questions I have recently asked you, I think this would be an appropriate time to discuss trial strategy/defense. It is my opinion and intention to put forth a defense that you too were “duped.” This means that you were unaware of the fact that the Greek Trust (GT) did not exist and all the steps you took as the POF facilitator were appropriate as you received much of your direction from the ultimate fraud schemer, Louis Pihatkis aka Michael Louis. It was not until you realized/discovered that the GT did not exist, that you began to remove yourself from your role as the POF facilitator and attempted to refund the victims their monies. If I am mistaken, please let me know immediately. However, be advised that the attorney, I get to decide trial strategy, not the client. I obviously have to remain in contact with you and be able to communicate with you, but the final decision as to what defense we are going to put forth, is mine to make with your input. Thank you. David L. Lockhart, Esq.” I believe Mr. Lockhart was sincere in this communication, but something happen to that brought about an adverse change his subsequent email communication. 8) On April 11, I was informed by my pretrial supervisor hear in Michigan, that there was a scheduled hearing for Monday April 15. Mr. Lockhart had not made made me aware of the hearing, and when I inquired with him about it, I received the following two emails on the April 11: A) “Good evening Mr. Woodard. Regarding the Court date, I will confirm tomorrow with you. Also, I need to know exactly where you will be staying in AZ when you arrive in May. Please be advised that I can secure funds for your flight from Michigan to Arizona. However, the Court will not authorize payment for lodging, transportation or food. Thus, you will be responsible for all of the aforementioned. Thank you.” B) “Regarding the "exculpatory" evidence you disclosed to Mr. Rapp, be advised that the government has acknowledged their receipt of what you have provided to them to me.”

9) On April 12, Mr. Lockhart sent me the following email: “Good morning Mr. Woodard. Please be advised that a Final Trial Management Conference is scheduled for this Monday, April 15, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. before Judge Rosenblatt. You will need to call in. A Final Trial Management Conference is exactly what it says. We will be discussing final issues regarding our preparedness for trial. You will need to be ready to tell the Court where you will be residing while you are in AZ. Further, if you have medical issues that require hospitalization, you will need to be prepared to provide documentation to the court. Will follow up with you throughout the day and weekend. Thank you.” I've yet to receive any further communication from Mr. Lockhart, as of sending this letter to you. Your Honor, I believe that Mr. Lockhart had no intention of making me aware of the April 15 hearing so that I would not have opportunity to voice what I've expressed in this letter. Both, what I've expressed about how he's handled my case, and the government's non disclosure of exculpatory evidence I provided. Mr. Lockhart not addressing the undisclosed exculpatory evidence until after I'd become aware of the April 15 hearing is particularly disturbing, as well as convincing it was intended that I not be aware of the hearing. Also, Mr. Lockhart has indicated that he'd made effort to contact certain parties on the ten person witness list I provided him. But parties have expressed that they've talk with no one nor have had a message left from anyone concerning my case. I've also provided Mr. Lockhart contact information for an expert witness with over ten years in the “proof of funds” industry and has a very credible reputation. But Mr. Lockhart expressed that if I don't know the expert witness personally he would not subpena him as a witness. Since when must a defendant know an expert witness personally for them to give expert testimony? I could go on Your Honor, but hopefully I've shared enough for you to see why I'm concerned about my defense representation. The concern causes a disturbing question; how could I have a fair trial if the government prevents the admitting of my exculpatory evidence and my defense counsel not subpena witnesses to testify in my behalf? In closing; all that I've expressed herein can be authenticated in my email account. I will allow authentication by any means you may deem necessary. I've provided you this summation letter and the accompanying aforementioned letters of communication with Mr. Lockhart and the government for your consideration. And, I kindly ask that I have opportunity to express my concerns during the forthcoming hearing Thanks for your time, and blessed regards, Will G. Woodard (517) 853-8133

HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 621 401 West Washington Street, SPC 56 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2156 June 12, 2012 Dear Honorable Judge Rosenblatt; My name is Willie Gene Woodard, I am co-defendant in a case, which is set to be heard in your court. I realize you are a busy man, therefore, I will not take up much of your time with this letter. The purpose of this communication is to make you aware of concerns I have regarding the defense representation of my court appointed legal counsel, Mr. Roger T. Margolis. I'd like to also request a Marsdens Hearing as well in this matter. I'm making this request because I have significant reasons to believe that I am not being competently or adequately represented by my current legal counsel. I am writing this letter after careful consideration. I've been purposely mindful to not prematurely express my concerns to the court and not over-react as well. It's after much observation and disturbing discovery that I've decided to communicate these concerns to you. Until the “Settlement Conference” you ordered, which was conducted on June 5, 2012, I'd given my court-appointed attorney extended benefit of the doubt. However, he and I had a brief meeting prior to the Settlement Conference. In that meeting my doubt about not having competent or adequate legal defense representation was confirmed. Consequently, I expressed my concerns to Honorable Judge Burns during the Settlement Conference. She indicated I had the options of making the motion for another court-appointed attorney, hiring an attorney or representing myself. The following are few of the reasons that I am certain that I have not been competently or adequately represented by my current court-appointed legal counsel: • About late August 2011, I was arraigned on the initial indictment before Honorable Judge Duncan and my current legal counsel was appointed. While in that hearing my counsel commenced to suggest to me that I should consider taking a Plea Deal. There was no inquiry from him as to my guilt or innocence. No inquiry as to evidence I have to substantiate my innocence. No indication from him as to any plan to discuss my case. My reply was that I'm not guilty of the charges. He responded by indicating; that he and I was already

Add a comment

Related presentations