Conspiracy or coincidence: Deck stacked against Agnews for the final fight!VIRGINIA BEACH (August 24, 2007) - - As Mike and Barbara Agnew struggled against changing lending rules, a justice system in conflict of interest, perjured testimony, they suffered through their convictions and prison, but they really pinned some hope on mounting an effective habeas corpus appeal. Now they wonder.
U.S. Magistrate James E. Bradberry, assigned to hear the case by U.S. District Judge Jerome Friedman, has basically tied their legal hands behind them before even hearing the case. He's refused to hear evidence of perjured testimony and has indicated he's going to deny most of their exhibits supporting allegations of ineffective counsel and perjured testimony. In a hearing in July, Bradberry said, "It is my judgment that I will not permit Ed Shields, Kent Davis, Daniel Des Roches, and Mark Williams to testify."
The four witnesses would have testified that the Agnews' financial relationship with Resource Bank was what they said it was - not what it was changed to after bank examiners found it to be illegal. To solve its problem with examiners, Resource picked its weakest customer in the cash flow maximizer (CFM) program - the Agnews' AGM concrete contracting company - as the scapegoat to make an example of correcting the problem for examiners. Government witnesses, including top bank officials lied on the witness stand, but the Agnews' lawyers, Jon Babineau and James Broccoletti, for whatever reasons, did not challenge the witnesses. "Well, for one thing," Mike Agnew said, "the judge wanted the trial speeded up and they (the lawyers) were trying to please the judge. "They also failed to property investigate all of the witnesses and documents that could have proved us innocent." Agnew had planned to use testimony from the 4 witnesses to show that Babineau and Broccoletti failed or did not properly interview them. He also planned to introduce documents disproving issues that were raised during the 7-day bench trial, but not rebutted. Documents that would have proved the perjury. Bradberry pretty much gutted their case by denying them the chance to introduce their exhibits also: "The only thing that is relevant in this case is whether or not the attorneys...did what is reasonably expected.... "To that extent, it is also my intention to probably not admit the majority of the exhibits that have been listed," Bradberry told Christopher Amolsch, the Agnews' lawyer from Arlington handling the habeas corpus proceeding. Amolsch told Bradberry, "In order for Mr. Agnew to prevail, he has to prove two things: One, the attorneys didn't do something they were supposed to do that is normally required of them, and, two, that it would have made a difference." Bradberry said, "...They (the Agnews) cannot bring into this case people whose primary testimony will be about what the evidence was." Amolsch, frustrated, told the court, "This is a case about what they (Babineau and Brocoletti) did not do." "No," Bradberry replied. "It is impossible for me to show what they did not do unless I can present witnesses to tell the court what they did not do.," Amolsch responded. He contended the trial record showed what they did do. He needs to show what they didn't.
Bradberry later stated: "I'm telling you now, I'm telling you absolutely, we are not going into the evidence raised at trial. This case is not going to be retried." Amolsch tried to open another avenue..."this is not about what evidence was presented at trial, Your Honor. This entire argument is about evidence that was not presented at trial. That's what this entire ineffective assistance claim is about." "Well, then apparently you are not going to get it before the court," Bradberry told him, "because we are not going there." Later, Bradberry told him he'd removed the only 4 witnesses in the case and then he took away the perjury charge, causing Amolsch to say, "You have already taken away the perjury charge even before you have heard the evidence." Bradberry asked, "What was the perjury charge?" Amolsch explained, "That was the allegation that people from Resource Bank committed perjury." Bradberry replied, "Yes. That's exactly right. That's gone." After much haggling, Amoslch and Bradberry reached an impasse with Amolsch finally saying: "The whole point...of having this hearing is so that you can actually make a decision based on hearing from everybody, not how you would have done it or how you would have thought about it or what you think about it from the outside, but actually listening to witnesses and considering exhibits moved into evidence to make your decision." To which Bradberry replied, "Which are not going to be evidence." The above exchange is prima facie evidence of why the Constitution didn't go far enough: It didn't mandate justice - just a process - leaving the justice to the sitting judge, who in this case appears to have his mind made up even before the hearing is to be held. All Amolsch can do is build a record to appeal to the 4th Circuit Court - again. But what do you expect? Bradberry was appointed to hear the case by Judge Friedman whom the Agnews charge with conflict of interest in not recusing himself from the original trial. After their convictions on 11 charges of bank fraud, they found Friedman had been in an 8-year multi million dollar office development deal with two parties who claimed to be victims of the Agnews' actions. Since they were tried and convicted without a jury, they felt Friedman was in conflict of interest. They made that allegation as part of their appeal, handled for free by the prestigious Washington law firm of Baker Botts, headed by former secretary of state and White House Chief of Staff James Baker. The 4th Circuit denied the appeal because it found no 'reasonable' person would consider Friedman's business relationship with Dan Hoffler and A. Russell Kirk, president of Armada Hoffler, the Agnews' concrete company's biggest customer, and member of the board of Resource Bank and its 3rd largest stockholder, a conflict of interest. After the appeal, the only logical next step was a habeas corpus proceeding. Friedman gave it to Bradberry. Bradberry works in the same court complex as Friedman. They have to be buddies. Where's the justice here? At the conclusion of the July hearing Bradberry said, "And for the record, the reason I had the hearing today was so that there would be a record created, given the nature of this case, because I'm sure it is going back to the 4th Circuit. Simple as that." A final hearing with only Mike and Barbara as allowable witnesses will be held in September or October. This has been a convoluted case with more potential corruption, contaminated evidence, and political inter-linkages than a black widow spider's web. Although there is nothing to link him to any untoward activity in this case, the only single common denominator with a potential to touch all elements of the case is Dan Hoffler:
Was the prosecution, er... persecution of the Agnews conspiracy or coincidence? Previous stories:
|