Free Additional Attachments to Main Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Attachment 59
Q t
Q V}
§" `
Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC Document 290-7 Filed O1/28/2008 Page10f4

"" - KimPolhcino` ° “ March20, 2006
»e —.
Phoenix,AZ85028 -
Honorable, JudgeDavidG.Campbell
United StatedDistrietJudge
N'1nthDistrict S
401 WestWashington Street
SixthFloor
Phoenix,AZ85003
DearJudgeCampbell:
Iamwriting to youaboutNeil Bond.IamNeil Bond’s Alettermaybe
unusual,andldoftknowifitisconsideredpropertosend,butbecauseitrepresentsthe
truth, and also representsNeil’s life, I am compelled to send it, and compelled to ask you
tomakethetimetoreadit.Itiss¤mewhatl¤1gthy,ha¤th¤eism1chtobesai¢
IhavewimessedNeil’smanysevereheedachemdvei·dgosymptoms5rsthand. Ihave
wimesseddmsauwsymptomgheexpuiemedformanyyearssincelusautomobnc
accident. IknowNeildeepdowninside. Pleaserwdthisletter,ashisinnocenceisclea1·.
OnMarcl1ll°',thedayNeilwasfoundguilty,hewasord¤edtogotoFlormcePrisonby
my . Judge Silver(for3-4 days). WhenIcalledthePrisoninquiringaboutNeil,theperson
li‘omtheprisontoldmethatitwas“highlyumsnial”forsomeoneinNeil’ssitm1ai:iontobe
sentthea·esosnnddeiily.Thisresponse,ont0pofalltheotli¤·sorteddetailsofthiscase
coniirmedmysuspici0nsofarailroad(forlackofabett¤·word).
Swna&m·Imceivedthe"highlymuwd”responm&omthepdsommidNeHbdngund¤·
housearrest for overayear, Ipersonallybeganto research the SSA guidelines. I spent
many hours doing so onmyown, while others helped and inspired Neil by spending
months researching aswell. We came up withaoompilation of facts, which clearly
proves his innocence. ([1% ngtgggguotg Rom the “S@ glam] Llgdboolf).
NeilwasdeniedaSocialSecmity Hearing,beforetheJu1yT1ial.That
waswherehisrightswe1·eiirstdenied.ItisarequirementofSSAtogiveyouahearingif
mquested,mditwasrequested3dmes.Neilmv¤·recdvedaresponsehewasp1st
chargedwithacximebytheadmissionofTroyTurkinhistestimony.Thisraisedmy
suspicionsnomdayone.
Infact,themilroadingofNeilcontinuedwithaboutsixtyperce11tofAgentTroyTurk’s
tes6monytomeGrandJmybdngmam1mm,ihlsqvoidandbasedomyongrossinmme.
Attorney Tim Holtzen was denied amotion beforethelury Trial, foraCPA to assisthim
dudngtheuialtocsubhshnetincomeandnetimomennnusresidualsviaacharg
\_, spr¢adsheetorareport,topr<>senttotheIury,yettheU.S.Governmentwasgranteda V
Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC Document 290-7 Filed O1/28/2008 Page2 of4

--·· specialized CPA Attorney to present a month-by-month chart to the Jury. I detinitely do
_V notunderstandthattobebalancedjustiee.
NeilmadewrittenreqrrestsofAttor1rey TimothyHoltzen, toprepareamonthly
chart/spreadsheet., ofhisnetincomearndnetminusresiduals, longbeforetheJuryTrial
began, thatwasan0therreasonN¤lwasnulydepnvedofprovh1ghisinnocermeduring
thelury Trial.
Inaddition,Neilwasdmed, inanEx-Parterequest,theiirstdayoftheJr¤yTriaLwhen
Neilexpressedtheneedforamonthlynetincome, andnetincomenrimisresidualschart,
toprovehisinnocence Neilinformedludge SilverthathisDeferrsewasnotprepared, or
readytoproeeedvvithtlreJury Trial,asthecha1twasunpreparedbyhisDefenseCounsel.
Inessence,Neildidnothavepr0per· beforetlreJuryTrialbegan.
NeHwasuldmatdydemedaiairJmyTriaLastheJurywasnotpt‘esunedaDefense
preparedclrart, spreadsheetorareport,yettheJurywaspreser1tedaU.S. Prosecution
preparedcbart, spreadsheetandreport. TheJurywasnotabletodet¤mineifNeilwas
withintheSocial SecurityTWP(TrialWorkPeriod)andS(iA(SubstantialGai1rl1tl
Activity) work l996toMay2002. Also, the
Trial Jury was not able to determine a just verdict, by being presented only one-sided
gross income of Neil, liom 1996 to May 2002, by the U.S. Prosecution. Furthermore, the
TrialJurywaspresentedandim1ndatedwithana1legedlosstotheU.S. Government, of
$101,222.70ti·oma Superceding Indictment.
"’ Inaddition,Neilwasdeniedtocallhisotherkeywitnessesingeneral,andalso,
specilieally his family, meh as his sister, DianeFollett, and his nephew, James Follett,
who could have coo borated his trips to Chicago, what they involved, what they were for,
§:“whatNeilwer1tthrough, duringthoseycars, whichweremedicallychallengingfor
In your Order dated March 6, 2006, you stated you reduced the amount ofloss to theU.S.
Government, trom $101,222.70 to $88,800.70. You concluded the U.S. Government
could not prove that Neil was outside the Social Security guidelines and that the U.S.
Government could ll0t prove a loss before 1996.
The U.S. Government was usingNeil’s gross income to prove that he was outside the
Social Securityguidelinesbefore 1996. Aslunderstandihthesmneholdsnuewiththe
wayyouusedNd1’sl996income, asthestartingpoint, toestablishtheexhaustionof9
» months, of TWP. Then, you continued with gross income for 36 months of SGA
However, because you also used gross income as the guideline, instead of net income for
aself-mpbyed,disabledpason,thu’smepugIdon’tunderstm¢mdmepanIwmtm
makesureyouareliruyawareoi duetothefollowingx
1. The:lirsttimeNeilreportedworkactivityto Social Security,theSocial Security
guidelines were “net" and “hours w0rked”, for a self-mrployed disabled person, with
applicable residuals. Neil reported $150.00 (one hundred lilly dollars) per month,
Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC Document 290-7 Filed O1/28/2008 Page 3 of 4

_ month,ashisestimateswerebasedon“bottom-Iiraer•ef’,(whiehwasnetminus
*1 residuals). In the first report, Neil reported working 2 (two) hours per week
‘·~-~ 2. Thesecm1ddmeNdlreportedworkactivitymSocia1Se¤nity,againatalater
date, forthesamemonthszmdthesan1eyears,theSocial
still “¤et" and “hours worked", he reported "net" without deducting residuals, as
theformsdidnothaveahmspacefor“n¤udnusr·esiduals”,mdNeilhadaheady
Ndlwastechnica|lygivingSocial Securitytheworicactivityinformation Social Security
wasrequestmg,mbothin¤mces,uSoddSe¤nityreque¤ed“n¤”infmmanon,&oma
self-employed, disabled person, and that’s wlmt Ndl provided, as he was self-employed,
disabled person, and residuals were an issue, in Neil’s case.
Net inc0meforaself-emp1oyedpe1=sonwastheSocial Securitygrxidelinepriorto 1996,
andalsowastheSocial Secuiitygtudelineaitu 1996. Asof2004,ueth1comeforaselt¥·
employedpersor1istheSocialSecn1rityguideline. Netincomemimrsresiduals, andtheu
net income, is what Ndl reported to Social Security.
The Social Security Handbook (#1811.) States: (Q) "What tjpes ofincome count under
the earnings test? " (A) ‘24II net earnings jiom sebiemployment "
The Social Security Handbook (#1100.) States: (Q) ‘71owis selyicnqrloyment income
calculated? " (A) "Self-employment income that is credible for Social Security is based
mmtewrnngsfomwyerrployrwmdenwdfmavadewbmmmmmwratbybw. "
VV The Social SecurityHandbook (#2131.) States: (Q) "Whot is countable income? ” (A)
exclusionstothe itemsthatare
The Social Security Handbook (#2133.) States: (A) "When income is counted " "2here
is an exception Net earnings from self-employment are determined on an annual basis
. andaIlocatedequaI{yoveralI12mont}tsrg/'tIset¢zx;»•ear"
The Social Security Handbook (#2132.) States: (A) ‘?Iow income it counted " "We
count income by determining countable imome for each calendar month rj eligibility.
]7nsmemwlookingatincomeyoureceived(ov·deemedmhaverecei1»e¢9 inagiven
month We then apply exclusions rppropriate to that month ’s income. "
Net income minus residuals, as residuals wde exclusions, was applicable to Neil.
In your Order dated March 6, 2006, you stated that Neil’s 1997, 1998 and 1999 tax
retums showed him reporting mbstantial work mileage. Neil testiiied during the Jury
Trial, thathewasrelocatiughisbtisiness, andhimselftoChicago. Neiltestitiedthathe
didnotdrive. NdlalsotestiiiedthathisautomobilewasusedtomovetoChicago, more
than one time, and that it took more than one trip. Neil gave his credible and lawful
expensereceiptstotheCer·tiliedPublicAccountants, whopreparedhistaxes
Case 2:03-cr-OO974-DGC Document 290-7 Filed O1/28/2008 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 290-7

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 290-7

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 290-7

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-00974-DGC

Document 290-7

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 4 of 4