Interesting Opinion on the Neasham Railroad Job

[xrac]

I wrote a piece for Producers Web today called Locked Up with Glenn Neasham. here's the link:


[FONT=Calibri","sans-serif]http://www.producersweb.com/r/BAINC/d/contentFocus/?pcID=02b8ac2a05945696d9fb663bba298992[/FONT]

This man is not a criminal.

 

[djs]

Dan,

Fran had advanced dementia at the time of trial, almost three years after the sale. What you fail to realize is that the DOI investigator and the prosecutor failed to disclose a taped interview shortly after the initial complaint. In that taped interview she is very lucid. The prosecutors only admitted the existence of the tape after obtaining a dubious conviction. Hiding exculpatory evidence is grounds for a reversal and a new trail. Oh, and don't let the jurors who came forward after the trial and admitted to making up their mind before trial bother you. Or the jurors who stated they wanted to "make and example" out of the big bad insurance guy. And the fact that the "victim" has made over 45k since the sale.
Come on......

Actually, she had dementia at the time of the sale, as well as at the time of the trial. This apparently was medically documented.

I haven't heard the taped interview, but if I recall, there was issues about her repeating questions and asking for things she already had. I know this happened in the interview right after the sale, not sure if this is the one that was taped or not.

Jurors frequently make up their mind before the trial. Its up to the trial to influence their decision.

Made $45K? Not really. You've made nothing till you have it in your hand. I do understand your point here though.

Now, in reality, I do think Glenn got a bit of a railroad job, but I still haven't heard the other side of the story, which I'm guessing is a whopper. I'm waiting to hear this till I make up my mind. Since the DOI hasn't gone after everyone who has sold an annuity to a senior, I'm pretty sure there is much more to this.

Dan

 

[iceco1d]

So I'm curious...would it be too late for US to contribute to a fund to help the guy out? You know, seeing as how the douchebag insurance companies completely left him high and dry?

Safe to assume this is not possible and/or no one is interested?

 

[Brokers Alliance]

Paul Cross and several agents have created a fund for Glenn.

GREAT NEWS - LISTEN UP EVERYONE - GLENN NEASHAM's Motion for Bail pending Appeal was granted. This keeps him out of jail from 1 to 1 1/2 years giving us time to work and seek real justice.

Join us with support of The Glenn Neasham Appellat Trust Fund on line at ANBC - Welcome

Paul J. Cross/ANBC

 

[iceco1d]

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about. On my way there now.

 

[delinsurer]

The "issue" at the taped interview was her asking the DOI investigator for her business card when she already had it. That was the "repeating' issue. The other side is that the son was not left as the beneficiary and he got all butt hurt.
Ponzer used this case as a way to bring his name to the forefront and get some media attention as he very shortly after ran for higher political office.
I don't see how you don't grasp this. The prosecution hid exculpatory evidence that favored the defense. If that does not give you pause, and every other American citizen, than we are all in big trouble.
As far as jurors go, they ARE NOT suppose to make up their minds prior to a case going to trial, that is what voir dire is for. To eliminate any potential juror who has a bias or preconceived notion on a case.

 

[Freddie]

I think the risky part here is the surrender period. 7 years is my breaking point. It's VERY tough to plan for a longer period than that. Just don't sell products that go out 10, 15, and 20 years, and it seems that you'd be okay.

Also be careful with the banks. The bank was the bad guy in this case. They saw the money leaving the bank and got even.

Banks will do anything to keep those deposits. If the lady had stayed at the bank - she would have gotten 0.5% on her money or less with inflation/dollar deval at 8% or more. I think she averaged about 4 to 6% a year on the annuity.

The banking industry has more clout with politicians as well.

 

[iceco1d]

Agreed. Banks are definitely lame (although, I think rates were higher than .5% at the time the money left the bank).

 

[djs]

From what I've heard about the tape, yes the prosecution was wrong for misplacing it, but I doubt it would have changed the outcome of the trial (still doesn't make it right). The prosecution proved she had dementia, the tape would have simply shown some issues as well. Even if not, dementia was already proven, hard to unprove.

The thing that concerns me about this case is not the jurors. Yes, maybe the lawyer could have done better in jury selection, but, that chance was given. People do have biases when they hear about a trial, thats normal. It doesn't bother me much.

But, the fact the prosecution didn't show Glenn had knowledge of the dementia and the defense didn't show he didn't is the disconnect for me. I can't reconcile how an agent is supposed to get around this. I assume the prosecution simply went with the guilt by default type of issue. Proved Fran had dementia, showed Glenn had known Fran for a longtime, therefore he MUST (implied) have known about the dementia. Then, not involving the family (son), leads to these problems.

The defense simply stepped back, figuring there was no proven evidence that Glenn knew about the dementia, probably didn't want to put witnesses up that could be crossed and allow the case to be proven. Its a risk either way.

This guilt by association is troublesome.

Dan

 

[CALTCAgent]

But, the fact the prosecution didn't show Glenn had knowledge of the dementia and the defense didn't show he didn't is the disconnect for me. I can't reconcile how an agent is supposed to get around this. I assume the prosecution simply went with the guilt by default type of issue. Proved Fran had dementia, showed Glenn had known Fran for a longtime, therefore he MUST (implied) have known about the dementia. Then, not involving the family (son), leads to these problems.

He did involve the son the best he could.

The defense simply stepped back, figuring there was no proven evidence that Glenn knew about the dementia, probably didn't want to put witnesses up that could be crossed and allow the case to be proven. Its a risk either way.

This guilt by association is troublesome.

Dan

What troubles me is that the defense did not need to prove he knew she had dementia for this to be the crime of theft. There is nothing in the penal code that says the person needs to be incompetent to prove theft in this case. The annuity just needed to deprive you of your money.

Now the dementia aspect certainly helps make Glenn look bad in the jurors eyes.

Prosecutor admitted she did not prove he knew. He was still convicted. It was not needed and will not be needed in the future to prosecute agents according to the precedent this case sets. IMO.