Court Documents - TNT Dinar | TNT Tony Anthony Wayne Renfrow | 14 daily plus scam

The pages that follow this include everything I have found so far on the TNT Tony (Anthony
Wayne Renfrow or TNT Dinar) 14dailyplus.com court case. Please note, although 14 daily plus
did not involve the Iraqi Dinar, it DID involve Tony doing conference calls, reassuring investors
that everything was alright as you will read in the following pages.
The last update from Pacer was on August 24, 2015. I will continue to check to see if there are any
updates.
I will include more information on his other court cases in another SlideShare posting.
My SlideShare channel is here:
http://www.slideshare.net/iraqidinar
If you follow my websites at GlobalCurrencyReset.net and DinarRVnews.net and subscribe, you
will be notified if any real Dinar news happens that is worth mentioning.
My YouTube Channels are:
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalcurrencyreset
https://www.youtube.com/user/dinarrvnews
I’m on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/globalresetguy
https://twitter.com/dinarrvnews
Please share this information with as many people as you can, I had to pay quite a bit of money for
this public information, which should have been free.
The point of this presentation is not to attack, or in any way, try to get people to buy anything from
me. The money has already been spent, you owe me nothing, and just sharing it with others is
enough. Thanks in advance for those of you that do share it, and wake others up.
I started this campaign to inform the public about TNT Tony because he was the one my wife and
I originally listened to, and he suggested we buy Iraqi Dinars. I now see that the biggest group of
people to wake up are his current followers. Many contact me daily asking me if what he says
about the RV is the truth, and it’s not. If you want official updates, visit Iraq/Arabic only websites.
Tony was paid to pump the sales of Iraqi Dinar when he worked for People’s Talk Radio. He
admitted this himself, visit petrockfest.com and hear it yourself.
I have archived calls of Tony from 2011 when he said the revaluation of the IQD had already
happened. Here is a screenshot from the dinar guru website from 2011:

I have been contacted by victims of his 14 daily plus scam, mainly because I purchased his old
website, and I plan to purchase TNT Dinar once Tony goes to jail since I doubt it will stay up.
People probably don’t have any faith in Pamela Pedersen (AlreadyBlessed) as she pumps
donations like Tony pumped dinar sales.
As a matter of fact, since I own over 100 websites (I have an SEO business) let me tell you the
actual costs Tony has:
The TNT Activeboard costs just $99.50 per month, this is the highest package available according
to:
http://activeboard.com/pricing.spark
His website, TNTdinar.com – hosted at Godaddy.com, is already paid for up until it expires on July
2, 2017. See below for proof via whois.com

If you look below, domain registration and privacy protection is pretty cheap.
Consider this is 2 year registration for one site, Tony also has his superfantastic sites, so multiply
that by three and you have $126.26. His conference calls are free, so no charges there.
At this point, people continue to donate to TNT Tony, even though he admitted in a 2013 private
call that, “My daughter was getting a check from PTR [People’s Talk Radio – Dinar Pumper
Website] that she is not getting anymore. So, I know I have to give it to her but if you guys want to
help me give it to her that’s OK.”
Note that the TNT Activeboard website is members only, it’s been closed since 2013 to new sheep.
However, there have been many recent members who were banned for speaking out against Tony.

Here are some of the donation pumpers:

Who is Irene and why is she in charge of the finances at TNT? She says in the above chats “I only
got about 99 donations that day.” Don’t forget, some time ago, Tony wanted the money to go
directly to him:
At this point, it’s up to you to decide what to do with this information, personally, you should
make an attempt at least once to warn others now that you know the truth about Tony Renfrow.
I’m busy doing other research, but I am still checking official Central Bank of Iraq information
from time to time. I follow no specific websites or gurus. I do recommend that you check
out DinarDaily.net as they have really great information about everything Dinar related.
Special thanks to them, the American Contractor, TNTBS, Ponee, Ssmith(ss2047), Baghdad Invest,
Kenny, Kit @iWebbIt, Sherif @sherifkcmo (who met Tony before his guilty plea), and everyone
else who provided me the information I have used to wake up many others, you guys are great.
The information is now in your hands, the ball is in your court, I do recommend that you do
something to warn others. Go into the TNT Chat, and right before a call starts, post as much truth
about Tony as you can, then save a screenshot and post it for all to see your desire to do good.
Thanks for all the support, I’ll talk to you all soon.
Regards,
Nick Giammarino

Mobile Query file:///K:/I/DOCUMENTS 2000-PRESENT/D O C U M E N T S (2014)...
1 of 5

2 of 5

3 of 5

4 of 5

5 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(KANSAS CITY DOCKET)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No.
)
ANTHONY RENFROW )
and )
WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, )
)
Defendant. )
)
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:
Background
At all times relevant to this Indictment:
14DailyPlus.com
1. 14DailyPlus.com was an Internet website that fraudulently offered
opportunities for “investors” to join as members and use an “autosurf” form of
advertising. 14DailyPlus.com was a company incorporated in Nevada with a registered
address in Las Vegas, Nevada.
2. “Autosurfing” is a form of advertising in which “investors” in 14DailyPlus.com
were purportedly paid to view an advertiser’s website for a certain period of time
through the 14DailyPlus.com website.
3. 14DailyPlus.com “autosurf investors” paid a membership fee and were
promised a per-site commission return on the fee. “Autosurf investors” could pay an
Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 17
12-20041-01/02-KHV-DJW

additional fee to upgrade their level, with commissions based on the member’s viewing
a minimum number of sites. 14DailyPlus.com offered a return of 14% per day for a
period of ten days totaling a 140% return on the investment.
4. To achieve the rate of return, 14DailyPlus.com reportedly pooled the capital
investments of all members, which was used to purchase advertising units on the
Internet with Fortune 500-type companies. Internet visits to these particular advertisers’
websites through 14DailyPlus.com then provided a return on the “investment” into the
advertising units.
Individuals
5. Defendant Anthony Renfrow (Renfrow) was the founder of 14DailyPlus.com,
which commenced operations in or about March 2006. Success Marketing Systems
was a business name utilized by Renfrow for 14DailyPlus.com.
6. Defendant William “Bill” Fox (Fox) was the primary promoter and recruiter of
14DailyPlus.com in the Kansas City metropolitan area beginning in the summer of 2006.
Eagle Marketing Group, LLC was incorporated in or about January 2006 in the State of
Kansas, with defendant Fox as the registered agent.
Financial Institutions
7. Heritage Community Credit Union was a financial institution in Rancho
Cordova, California, the accounts of which were insured by the National Credit Union
Share Insurance Fund. Anthony Renfrow d.b.a. Success Marketing Systems
established account #XX8622 before January 2006. Anthony Renfrow also established
account #XX4422 at Heritage Community Credit Union before January 2006.
8. Bank of America was a financial institution, the deposits of which were insured
2

by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with its corporate headquarters in
Charlotte, North Carolina, but with branches throughout California, Kansas, Missouri,
and elsewhere. Anthony Renfrow d.b.a. Success Marketing Systems established
account #XXXXXX4596 in or about August 2006. Anthony Renfrow established account
#XXXXXX6504 at Bank of America in or about July 2006.
9. SafePay Solutions, Inc. was a financial institution established in Reno,
Nevada, which was an online payment processor that engaged in the business of
transmission of funds. SafePay Solutions, Inc. had account XXXXXX1533 and
XXXXXX3103 at Bank of America.
10. E-Gold Ltd. was a financial institution operated by Gold and Silver Reserve,
Inc., located in Melbourne, Florida, which was an online digital currency business that
offered an exchange of e-metal accounts for consumers, which enabled account
holders to use gold, silver, or other precious metals as a medium of exchange.
11. Anygoldnow was a financial institution in San Diego, California, that
conducted currency exchanges and was a dealer in commodities and precious metals.
Scheme to Defraud
12. During the period from in or about March 2006, to in or about May 2007, in
the District of Kansas and elsewhere, RENFROW and FOX, together with each other
and others, both known and unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly devised a scheme
to defraud individuals to join 14DailyPlus.com as “investors,” and to obtain money and
property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and
promises made to individuals to convince them to join 14DailyPlus.com.
13. It was part of the scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property by
3

means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and in
furtherance of it, that the defendants knowingly and intentionally engaged in and caused
the following activities:
a. Recruited individuals to become investors in 14DailyPlus.com, when in
truth and in fact there was no investment vehicle;
b. Enticed purported investors with the promise of a 14% daily return on
the purported investment, when in truth and in fact such a return was completely
unrealistic;
c. Falsely promised a return on the purported investment to be realized by
merely clicking on certain web pages for a limited amount of time each day;
d. Recruited additional “investors” used as the basis for the individuals to
receive the “return” on the original “investment,” when in truth and in fact no such
returns were made to the “investors”;
e. Solicited “investment” funds to be paid in cash up to $9,000, which
made the tracing of funds more difficult and avoided currency transaction
reporting requirements;
f. Regularly conducted conference calls via telephone and Internet for
recruitment of new “investors” and conveying assurances of the program, when
in truth and in fact, these were utilized to lull the individuals into believing the
program was a legitimate investment vehicle; and
g. Promised returns on the “investments” despite having no secured
method to process payment of the investment returns.
4

Count 1
14. Paragraphs 1-13 are incorporated as though fully set out herein.
15. Beginning in or about March 2006, the exact date being unknown to the
Grand Jury, and continuing to on or about May 16, 2007, both dates being approximate
and inclusive, in the District of Kansas and elsewhere, the defendants,
ANTHONY RENFROW
and
WILLIAM “BILL” FOX,
knowingly and intentionally conspired and agreed together and with each other, and
with other persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following
offenses against the United States: wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 2 and 1343; and engaging in monetary transactions greater than
$10,000, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1957.
Object of Conspiracy
16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that RENFROW, FOX, and their
coconspirators, willfully and knowingly devised a scheme to defraud investors through
14DailyPlus.com and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises, and, for the purpose of executing the
scheme to defraud, knowingly and intentionally caused to be transmitted by means of
wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, and
sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme to defraud individuals in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1343.
17. It was a further part and object of the conspiracy that RENFROW, FOX, and
their co-conspirators, knowingly engaged in monetary transactions by, through, and to
5

financial institutions, affecting interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a
value greater than $10,000.00, through deposits, withdrawals, and transfers of U.S.
currency, funds, and monetary instruments, such property having been derived from
wire fraud, which is a specified unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 2 and 1957.
Manner and Means
18. It was part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of
14DailyPlus.com established an Internet website that appeared as though individuals
could make investments and reap large returns.
19. It was further part of the conspiracy that the founder and promoters of
14DailyPlus.com falsely promised 14% per day return on the purported investment.
14DailyPlus.com solicited investments in amounts up to $9,000 cash.
14DailyPlus.com falsely promised a greater return on the investment if more money was
invested.
14DailyPlus.com encouraged investors to reinvest all returns into the program.
14DailyPlus.com regularly conducted conference calls via telephone and Internet to
recruit individuals, encourage more investments, and reassure the soundness of the
investments.
6

14DailyPlus.com deposited the invested funds into their personal accounts.
14DailyPlus.com used the invested money for personal purposes and did not pay out
returns to the “investors.”
Overt Acts
26. In furtherance of this conspiracy and to effect and accomplish the objects of
it, one or more of the defendants or conspirators, both indicted and unindicted,
committed, among others, the following overt acts in the District of Kansas and
elsewhere:
Recruiting “Investors”
a. During a conference call with Matt Becker, Renfrow assured
14DailyPlus.com investors their funds were safe and that no one would lose their
funds or investment despite the delay in payments being made to the investors.
Renfrow asserted the delay in payments of returns was due to problems
associated with the Internet payment entities, and nothing more.
b. Fox recruited Eric Fellows to become part of 14DailyPlus.com by
making an “investment” in 14DailyPlus.com, and then earning a “return” on that
investment by merely viewing advertising sites established through
14DailyPlus.com. The “earnings” were to be credited to the “investor’s” online
account and it was recommended that earnings remain in the account.
c. Renfrow reported to Charles Lunsford that investors were not being
paid because cyber thieves had compromised 14DailyPlus.com’s E-Gold
account, so the funds were not available to be disbursed.
7

d. Fox told Aubrey Meyer that she could earn a 40% return on her
investment with 14DailyPlus.com, and was assured she would at least get her
initial investment returned.
e. Fox personally placed a telephone call to Robert Montgomery to
congratulate him for recruiting others to join 14DailyPlus.com.
f. Renfrow personally met with James Oliver in Sacramento, California,
and showed Mr. Oliver office space as a means of satisfying concerns whether
14DailyPlus.com was a legitimate business. Mr. Oliver participated in
conference calls with Renfrow, who provided various reasons for lack of
payments to the investors. Renfrow’s explanation for lack of payment included a
tale that his E-Gold account had been “hacked,” so Renfrow was awaiting pay-
out from another investment to then satisfy payments in 14DailyPlus.com.
g. During a conference call with Russ Pitts, Fox stated he had made
$250,000 in six months through 14DailyPlus.com, and that his mother-in-law had
made $60,000. Fox told Mr. Pitts that participants in 14DailyPlus.com would not
be paid if they did not recruit other people to join 14DailyPlus.com.
h. During a conference call with Russ Pitts, Renfrow directed people to
not refer to 14DailyPlus.com as an “investment.”
i. During a conference call with James Rizqalla, Renfrow reported
problems with the 14DailyPlus.com website, which required some reorganization
and delays in payments.
j. Fox recruited Art Ruby to become part of 14DailyPlus.com and
encouraged Mr. Ruby to make the investment with cash.
8

k. During a conference call with Art Ruby, Renfrow stated everyone who
participated in 14DailyPlus.com would be paid, and when a participant in the
conference call had specific questions about payments, then they were accused
of not being a “team player,” and threatened with having their account closed.
Explanations by Fox for delays in payment included health issues for Renfrow,
SafePay Solutions, Inc. not releasing funds, or glitches with the Internet payment
system.
l. During conference calls with Willis Smith, Renfrow encouraged people
to invest with 14DailyPlus.com, and assured the participants that no one would
ever lose money because the initial investment would always be returned.
Renfrow explained payments were delayed until more people invested with
14DailyPlus.com, so the capital fund would be increased and allow for returns to
be paid.
m. During a conference call with Don Stroh, Renfrow stated no one would
lose their money in connection with 14DailyPlus.com. Renfrow explained
investments could be made by sending a wire transfer to Renfrow’s personal
Bank of America account from the “investor’s” bank account or directly depositing
funds into Renfrow’s Bank of America account at any local Bank of America
branch.
Cash “Investments”
27. The defendants and conspirators solicited cash from “investors” as the
method of payment to commence their involvement in 14DailyPlus.com. Those cash
payments to the defendants and conspirators occurred as follows:
9

Date Victim Promoter/Recruiter Amount
Summer-Fall
2006
Art Ruby Fox $ 15,000
October 2006 Matt Becker Fox 9,000
October 2006 Russ Pitts Fox 9,000
November 2006 Russ Pitts Fox 9,000
Fall 2006 Eric Fellows Fox 3,500
November 2006 Jason Houchen Fox 26,108
Fall 2006 Jason Houchen Fox 2,300
Fall 2006 Russ Pitts Fox 49,350
Summer 2006-
Summer 2007
Robert
Montgomery
Fox 72,000
Total $ 195,258
Non-Cash “Investments”
28. The defendants and conspirators solicited “investments” that were also paid
in methods other than cash to commence their involvement in 14DailyPlus.com. Those
payments to the defendants and conspirators were wire-transferred from the “investors”
accounts into Renfrow’s accounts with Heritage Community Credit Union #XX4422 or
Bank of America #XXXXXX6504 or XXXXXX4596, or directly deposited by the “investor”
into Renfrow’s accounts with Heritage Community Credit Union or Bank of America as
follows:
Date Victim Transaction Account Amount
June 15, 2006 Willie Watson Deposit in California 4422 $ 3,000
July 25, 2006 William
Walters
Wire Transfer from
Kansas to California
6504 18,000
10

August 18, 2006 Eric Fellows Wire Transfer from
4596 15,504
August 22, 2006 Aubrey Meyer Wire Transfer from
4596 6,000
August 24, 2006 William
Walters
Wire Transfer from
4596 9,000
August 28, 2006 Aubrey Meyer Wire Transfer from
4596 6,000
August 31, 2006 Eric Fellows Wire Transfer from
4596 1,488
September 1,
2006
Freddy Kandah Wire Transfer from
Michigan to
California
4596 3,000
September 6,
2006
James Rizqalla Wire Transfer from
Michigan to
California
4596 5,000
September 6,
2006
James Rizqalla Wire Transfer from
Michigan to
California
4596 5,000
October 24, 2006 Robert
Montgomery
Wire Transfer from
4596 10,500
October 31, 2006 Charles Malley Wire Transfer from
Texas to California
4596 9,000
November 10,
2006
Charles Malley Wire Transfer from
Texas to California
4596 7,000
November 20,
2006
Charles Malley Wire Transfer from
Texas to California
4596 2,000
November 29,
2006
Don Stroh Wire Transfer from
4596 9,000
November 29,
2006
4596 9,000
December 8,
2006
Susan Bottino Deposit in California 4596 14,000
11

December 11,
2006
4596 9,000
December 11,
2006
4596 9,000
December 11,
2006
Travis Salmon Wire Transfer from
Missouri to
California
4596 2,500
Total $152,992
Monetary Transactions
29. On or about the dates below, Renfrow knowingly engaged in the monetary
transactions identified below, which were by, through, and to a financial institution and
affected interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than
$10,000, with deposits, withdrawals, and transfers of U.S. currency, funds, and
monetary instruments in the following amounts, such property having been derived from
wire fraud, which is a specified unlawful activity:
Date Monetary Transaction Amount
August 3, 2006 Cash withdrawal from 6504 $ 15,000.00
August 11, 2006 Wire transfer from 6504 to SafePay
Solutions, Inc.
50,000.00
Solutions, Inc.
100,000.00
Solutions, Inc.
40,000.00
August 29, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to
Ameritrade account 0369
20,000.00
Solutions, Inc.
30,000.00
12

September 6, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to SafePay
Solutions, Inc.
30,000.00
October 16, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to 6504 14,000.00
October 16, 2006 Check #2007 drawn on account
#6504 payable to Saturn of
Roseville
13,233.77
October 25, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to 6504 33,000.00
October 30, 2006 Check #2008 drawn on account
#6504 payable to Saturn of
Roseville
29,950.00
November 10, 2006 Wire transfer from 4596 to SafePay
Solutions account 3103
60,000.00
November 29, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to
SafePay Solutions account 3103
30,000.00
December 1, 2006 Cash withdrawal from 4596 20,000.00
December 11, 2006 Account transfer from 4596 to
SafePay Solutions account 3103
21,000.00
30. As additional overt acts, the Grand Jury incorporates by this reference the
allegations set forth in Count 2 of the Indictment as though fully set forth at this point.
31. This was all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and
1349.
Count 2
WIRE FRAUD
32. The allegations of paragraphs 1-31 above are incorporated as though fully
set out herein.
33. On or about April 26, 2007, in the District of Kansas and elsewhere, the
defendants,
13

ANTHONY RENFROW
and
for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud, transmitted and caused to be
transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of a wire communication, certain signs,
signals, and sounds, that is, a web-based conference call with participants in Kansas
and California, to assure participants in 14DailyPlus.com that their “investments” were
safe and none would lose their “funds.”
34. This was in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1343.
Forfeiture Allegation
35. Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts 1-2, the
defendants,
ANTHONY RENFROW
and
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any property
constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the
said violations, including but not limited to the following:
Money Judgment
36. A sum of money approximately $4,825,000.00 in United States currency,
representing the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the offenses set out in
Counts 1-2, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable.
Substitute Assets
37. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or
14

omission of the defendants:
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred, sold to, or deposited with a third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section
853(p) as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek
forfeiture of any other property of said defendants up to the value of the forfeitable
property described above.
38. This is all in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Sections
981(a)(1)(c) and 982(a)(1); Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461 (c); and Rule
32.2(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
A TRUE BILL.
Dated: April 18, 2012 s/Foreperson
FOREPERSON
s/Scott C. Rask, #15643 for
BARRY R. GRISSOM
United States Attorney
District of Kansas
500 State Avenue, Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
15

(913) 551-6730
(913) 551-6541 (fax)
Barry.Grissom@usdoj.gov
Ks. S. Ct. No. 10866
(It is requested that trial of the above captioned case be held in Kansas City, Kansas.)
16

Penalties:
Cts. 1-2: NMT 20 years imprisonment; NMT $250,000 or 2xgain or 2xloss
fine; NMT 3 years supervised release; $100 special assessment;
forfeiture allegation
17

Case 2:12-cr-20041-CM Document 3-1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2

SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
RE: Renfrow, Anthony
Doc. No. 2:12-mj-0126 GGH
1. You shall report to and comply with the rules and regulations of the Pretrial Services
Agency;
2. You shall report in person to the Pretrial Services Agency on the first working day
following your release from custody;
3. You shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample;
4. You are to reside at a location approved by the pretrial services officer and not move
or absent yourself from this residence for more than 24 hours without the prior
approval of the pretrial services officer;
5. You shall not possess a firearm/ammunition, destructive device, or other dangerous
weapon; additionally, you shall provide written proof of divestment of all
firearms/ammunition currently under your control;
6. You shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol or any use of a narcotic drug or other
controlled substance without a prescription by a licensed medical practitioner; and
you shall notify Pretrial Services immediately of any prescribed medication(s).
However, medicinal marijuana, prescribed or not, may not be used;
7. You shall seek and/or maintain employment and provide proof of same as requested
by your pretrial services officer;
8. You shall not obtain a passport or other travel document during the pendency of this
case;
9. You shall report any contact with law enforcement to your pretrial services officer
within 24 hours; and,
10. Your travel is restricted to the Eastern District of California and the District of Kansas
without the prior consent of the pretrial services officer.
May 16, 2012

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-mj-00126-GGH All Defendants
Case title: USA v. Renfrow Date Filed: 05/16/2012
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Gregory
G. Hollows
Defendant (1)
Anthony Renfrow represented by Peter Kmeto
Law Office of Peter Kmeto
1007 7th Street
Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
916- 444-7420
Fax: 916-441-6714
Email: pkmeto@sbcglobal.net
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Pending Counts Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Opening)
None
Terminated Counts Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Terminated)
None
Complaints Disposition
None
Plaintiff
USA
Date Filed # Docket Text
Page 1 of 2LIVE 4.1.1 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California
5/24/2012https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?627824020099122-L_674_0-1

05/16/2012 1 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gregory
G. Hollows: INITIAL APPEARANCE in RULE 5(c)(3) PROCEEDINGS as to
Anthony Renfrow, the defendant was advised of his rights and the pending
charges. The defendant waived his I/D hearing on 5/16/2012. Appearance
entered by Peter Kmeto for Anthony Renfrow on behalf of defendant.
DETENTION HEARING as to Anthony Renfrow, the defendant was ordered
released on a $10,000.00 unsecured bond signed by the defendant and the
defendant's wife Tamara Renfrow and on pretrial conditions as stated on the
record. The defendant was advised of the penalties for failure to appear and
ordered to read and sign the notice to the defendant being released before
leaving the courtroom. The defendant was also ordered to report to the the
District of Kansas on May 30, 2012 @ 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge
Waxxse. Government Counsel Matthew Segal present. Defense Counsel Peter
Kmeto present. Custody Status: In Custody. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1.
(Callen, V) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
05/16/2012 2 NOTICE to DEFENDANT BEING RELEASED as to Anthony Renfrow.
(Reader, L) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
05/16/2012 3 UNSECURED APPEARANCE BOND POSTED as to Anthony Renfrow in
amount of $ 10,000.00. (Reader, L) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
05/16/2012 4 ORDER FOR RELEASE OF PERSON IN CUSTODY signed by Magistrate
Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/16/2012 as to Anthony Renfrow. (Reader, L)
(Entered: 05/18/2012)
05/21/2012 5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS of RELEASE as to Anthony Renfrow. (Callen, V)
(Entered: 05/21/2012)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
05/24/2012 08:40:37
PACER Login: us3686 Client Code:
Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:12-mj-00126-GGH
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.10
Page 2 of 2LIVE 4.1.1 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California
5/24/2012https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?627824020099122-L_674_0-1

CLERK'S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET - CRIMINAL - MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Case No: 12-20041-01-KHV-DJW
ANTHONY RENFROW
AUSA: Scott C. Rask
Counsel for Defendant: Kirk C. Redmond
JUDGE: David J. Waxse DATE: May 30, 2012
DEPUTY CLERK: Lori Lopez TIME: 3:03 PM
INTERPRETER: None PRETRIAL/PROBATION: Milt Ruble
Length of Hearing: 0 Hr(s) 5 Min(s) Location: Kansas City, Kansas
Hearing Concluded: (x) Yes ( ) No
PROCEEDINGS
( ) Rule 5 Hearing ( ) Initial Revocation Hearing ( ) Bond Hearing
( ) Identity Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Bond Revocation Hearing
( ) Preliminary Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived (x) Arraignment
( ) Detention Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( )
(x) Discovery Conference (x) Held ( ) Waived
( ) Interpreter ( ) Sworn ( ) Previously sworn
( ) Charges and penalties explained to defendant
( ) Defendant sworn and examined re: financial ability to retain counsel
(x) FPD appointed (x) At defendant’s expense
( ) Constitutional rights explained ( ) Felony ( ) Misdemeanor
( ) Defendant declined to waive indictment ( ) Will be presented by next Grand Jury
( ) Signed Waiver of Indictment
( ) Advised of rights under Rule 20
( ) Signed Consent to Transfer (Rule 20)
( ) Petition to Enter Plea Filed ( ) Plea Agreement Attached
( ) Transferred to:
(x) ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA: (x) No. of Counts: 2
(x) Waived Reading of (x) Indictment ( ) Information ( ) Read to Defendant
( ) Previous Plea ( ) Guilty ( ) Not Guilty Counts:
( ) Guilty Counts:
(x) Not Guilty Counts: #1 and #2
( ) Bail denied ( ) Bail fixed at (x) Bail remains at
(x) $10,000.00 (x) Unsecured ( ) Secured
(x) Release Order ( ) Executed (x) Continued in effect
( ) Deft. remanded to custody ( ) Pending compliance with conditions of release
( ) Detention Ordered
Motions to be filed by: July 17, 2012
Response(s) to be filed by: July 24, 2012
Motions to be heard: July 31, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil
Deft's next appearance: July 31, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil

Miscellaneous:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 12-20041-01-KHV-DJW
ANTHONY RENFROW,
Defendant. ETT: 10 days
GENERAL ORDER OF DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
In the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court enters the following general order
of discovery and scheduling which will apply to the charges and to any superseding charges in this
case. In general, the Court will order the parties to comply with Rules 12, 12.1, 12.2, 16 and 26.2
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194
(1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972) and their progeny and with Title
18, U.S.C. § 3500, as well as Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence. A request is not necessary
to trigger the operation of the Rules and the absence of a request may not be asserted as a reason for
noncompliance. A principle purpose of this order is to reduce or eliminate the filing of “boilerplate”
discovery motions and motions for extension of time. Counsel are expected to communicate with
each other regarding discovery so that the requirements of this order may be met without
unnecessary motion practice. Nothing in this order is intended to deter the voluntary exchange of
information between counsel at times sooner than those specified, which the court encourages.
Disclosure by the Government
Within a reasonable time period after arraignment, the government shall comply with Rules
12(b)(4)(B) and 16, and Brady/Giglio. Pursuant to Rule 16, the government shall copy for the

defendant or permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:
1.Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant, including grand jury
testimony, within the possession, custody or control of the government, the existence of which is
known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government.
2. That portion of any written record containing the substance of any relevant oral statement
which the government intends to offer in evidence at the trial made by the defendant whether before
or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a
government agent.
3. The substance of any other relevant oral statement made by the defendant whether before
or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known by the defendant to be a
government agent if the government intends to use that statement at trial.
4. A copy of defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, within the possession, custody or
control of the government or the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence
may become known, to the attorney for the government.
5. Any books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or
copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government,
and which are material to the preparation of a defense, or are intended for use by the government
as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.
6. Any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and or scientific tests or
experiments, or copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the
government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become
known, to the attorney for the government, and which are material to the presentation of a defense
2

or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial.
7. If requested, a written summary of testimony the government intends to use under Rules
702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case in chief at trial. Such summary
must describe the witnesses’ opinion, the basis and reasons therefor, and the witnesses’
qualifications.
Pursuant to Brady and Giglio and their progeny, the government shall produce any and all
evidence in its possession, custody or control which would tend to exculpate the defendant (that is,
evidence which is favorable and material to a defense), or which would constitute impeachment of
government witnesses, or which would serve to mitigate punishment, if any, which may be imposed
in this case. This includes and is not limited to the following:
1. Any evidence tending to show threats, promises, payments or inducements made by the
government or any agent thereof which would bear upon the credibility of any government witness.
2. Any statement of any government witness which is inconsistent with a statement by the
witness which led to the indictment in this case.
3. Any statement of any government witness which the attorney for the government knows
or reasonably believes will be inconsistent with the witness’ testimony at trial.
4. Any prior conviction of any government witness, which involved dishonesty or false
statement, or for which the penalty was death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law
under which he was convicted.
5. Any pending felony charges against any government witness.
3

6. Any specific instances of the conduct of any government witness which would tend to
show character for untruthfulness.
Subject to the requirements of Brady, Giglio and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Rule 26.2,
the government may decline to disclose pretrial statements of any of its witnesses until each such
witness has concluded his direct examination. At that time, the government shall produce the
witness’ prior statements that are in its possession and which relate to the witness’ testimony. The
Court nevertheless urges the government to provide the statements at least 48 hours prior to the
witness’ scheduled appearance.
The government shall provide to the defendant the general nature of other crimes, wrongs
or acts of the defendant which the government intends to use at trial of the case pursuant to Rule
404(b). The government shall provide this information at least 10 days prior to trial. No later than
5 days prior to trial, the defendant shall file any motion objecting to the use of such evidence. The
motion shall state whether the defendant requests an evidentiary hearing.
Disclosure by the Defendant
Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1), the government is granted reciprocal discovery which shall be
disclosed by the defendant within a reasonable time following Rule 16 disclosures by the
government.
The defendant shall file all motions and notices by July 17, 2012. The government shall
respond by July 24, 2012.
Miscellaneous Requirements
The original arraignment date governs the time specified herein. The times specified are
based on calendar days, not Fed.R Crim.P. 45. If the date for compliance falls on a Saturday,
4

Sunday or legal holiday, it shall be extended until the first day which is not one of these dates. The
times will not be automatically modified, suspended, extended or restarted by the filing of additional
or superseding charges. D.Kan.R. Cr. 50.1. If the filing of additional or superseding charges causes
the government or the defendant to believe a modification of the time limits is required, counsel
shall promptly request a status conference. The defendant’s presence will not be required at the
hearing. Rule 43(b)(3).
Should the government or the defendant require additional discovery not covered by this
order, the party shall file a motion requesting the specific discovery along with proper memorandum
and specific citations setting forth the authority for the request.
The word “file” as used throughout this order means filed in the clerk’s office, not mailed.
It shall be the continuing duty of counsel for all parties to immediately reveal to opposing
counsel any newly discovered information or other material within the scope of this order.
All motions in limine, all requests for special voir dire questions to be asked by the court,
and jury instructions shall be submitted no later than 5 days prior to trial. There is no need to submit
routine and standard instructions. However, any requests for instructions not routinely included in
the Court’s charge must be submitted.
Counsel shall notify the court as soon as a plea agreement is reached so that the case may
be taken off the trial docket.
This case is set for hearing on motions on July 31, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Chief Judge
Kathryn H. Vratil in Courtroom #476. If no motions are filed a status conference will be held at that
time. Any requests for modifications of this order shall be filed at least 10 days prior to this hearing.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ David J. Waxse
DAVID J. WAXSE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Defendant
Defendant
U.S. Probation
U.S. Marshal
6

DJW/crd
Plaintiff,
ANTHONY RENFROW,
Defendant.
ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL AND REQUIRING PAYMENT BY DEFENDANT
Upon the oral motion of defendant for appointment of counsel, the Court finds for good
cause that counsel should be appointed to represent defendant, although the Court does not find that
defendant is financially unable to retain his own attorney.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED:
l. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3006A, the Court appoints as counsel for defendant
the Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas.
2. Counsel for defendant shall maintain records and at the conclusion of this case file
with the Court an accounting of services, assessing in-court services and out-of-court services, and
shall also include any and all expenses incurred. The Court will then determine the amount to be
paid by defendant.
3. Defendant shall, thereafter, pay to the Clerk of Court the amount of attorney's fees
and costs the Court has determined should be paid.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Kansas City, Kansas on this 30th day of May, 2012.
s/ David J. Waxse
DAVID J. WAXSE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AO 458 (Rev. 10/95) Appearance
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
______________________________ District of Kansas ______________________________
APPEARANCE
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NUMBER: 12-20041-01-KHV
ANTHONY RENFROW,
Defendant.
To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record:
Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for
Anthony Renfrow, Defendant.
I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.
May 31, 2012 s/ Thomas W. Bartee
Date Signature
THOMAS W. BARTEE 15133
Print Name Bar Number
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Federal Public Defender Office
Address
City State Zip Code
(913) 551-6712 (913) 551-6562
Phone Number Fax Number

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF
VS. 12-20041-02-KHV
WILLIAM “BILL” FOX, DEFENDANT
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Thomas R. Telthorst enters his appearance as retained counsel for Defendant in
the above matter.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
s/Thomas R. Telthorst
THOMAS R. TELTHORST
Attorney for Defendant Fox
816 Ann Avenue
(913) 281-2080
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on 6/13/12, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the
court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
counsel of record in this case.
THOMAS R. TELTHORST

CLERK'S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET - CRIMINAL - MAGISTRATE JUDGE
v. Case No: 12-20041-02-KHV-DJW
WILLIAM “BILL” FOX
AUSA: David Paxton Zabel
Counsel for Defendant: Thomas R. Telthorst
JUDGE: David J. Waxse DATE: June 13, 2012
DEPUTY CLERK: Lori Lopez TIME: 1:41 PM
INTERPRETER: None PRETRIAL/PROBATION: None
Length of Hearing: 0 Hr(s) 4 Min(s) Location: Kansas City, Kansas
Hearing Concluded: (x) Yes ( ) No
PROCEEDINGS
( ) Rule 5 Hearing ( ) Initial Revocation Hearing ( ) Bond Hearing
( ) Identity Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Bond Revocation Hearing
( ) Preliminary Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( ) Arraignment
( ) Detention Hearing ( ) Held ( ) Waived ( )
(x) Discovery Conference (x) Held ( ) Waived
( ) Interpreter ( ) Sworn ( ) Previously sworn
( ) Charges and penalties explained to defendant
( ) Defendant sworn and examined re: financial ability to retain counsel
( ) Counsel appointed ( ) At defendant’s expense
( ) Constitutional rights explained ( ) Felony ( ) Misdemeanor
( ) Defendant declined to waive indictment ( ) Will be presented by next Grand Jury
( ) Signed Waiver of Indictment
( ) Advised of rights under Rule 20
( ) Signed Consent to Transfer (Rule 20)
( ) Petition to Enter Plea Filed ( ) Plea Agreement Attached
( ) Transferred to:
( ) ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA: ( ) No. of Counts:
( ) Waived Reading of ( ) Indictment ( ) Information ( ) Read to Defendant
( ) Previous Plea ( ) Guilty ( ) Not Guilty Counts:
( ) Guilty Counts:
( ) Not Guilty Counts:
( ) Bail denied ( ) Bail fixed at (x) Bail remains at
(x) $50,000.00 ( ) Unsecured (x) Secured
(x) Release Order ( ) Executed (x) Continued in effect
( ) Deft. remanded to custody ( ) Pending compliance with conditions of release
( ) Detention Ordered
Motions to be filed by: July 17, 2012
Response(s) to be filed by: July 20, 2012
Motions to be heard: July 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil
Deft's next appearance: July 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Vratil

Miscellaneous: Defendant William Fox appeared telephonically per Consent (ECF Doc. 11) along with attorney
William W. Brown, who entered his appearance for defendant in the Southern District of California
but has not yet moved for admission pro hac vice in the District of Kansas.

Plaintiff,
Defendant. ETT: 10 days
GENERAL ORDER OF DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
In the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court enters the following general order
of discovery and scheduling which will apply to the charges and to any superseding charges in this
case. In general, the Court will order the parties to comply with Rules 12, 12.1, 12.2, 16 and 26.2
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194
(1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972) and their progeny and with Title
18, U.S.C. § 3500, as well as Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence. A request is not necessary
to trigger the operation of the Rules and the absence of a request may not be asserted as a reason for
noncompliance. A principle purpose of this order is to reduce or eliminate the filing of “boilerplate”
discovery motions and motions for extension of time. Counsel are expected to communicate with
each other regarding discovery so that the requirements of this order may be met without
unnecessary motion practice. Nothing in this order is intended to deter the voluntary exchange of
information between counsel at times sooner than those specified, which the court encourages.
Disclosure by the Government
Within a reasonable time period after arraignment, the government shall comply with Rules
12(b)(4)(B) and 16, and Brady/Giglio. Pursuant to Rule 16, the government shall copy for the

defendant or permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:
1.Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant, including grand jury
testimony, within the possession, custody or control of the government, the existence of which is
known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government.
2. That portion of any written record containing the substance of any relevant oral statement
which the government intends to offer in evidence at the trial made by the defendant whether before
or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a
government agent.
3. The substance of any other relevant oral statement made by the defendant whether before
or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known by the defendant to be a
government agent if the government intends to use that statement at trial.
4. A copy of defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, within the possession, custody or
control of the government or the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence
may become known, to the attorney for the government.
5. Any books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or
copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government,
and which are material to the preparation of a defense, or are intended for use by the government
as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.
6. Any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and or scientific tests or
experiments, or copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the
government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become
known, to the attorney for the government, and which are material to the presentation of a defense
2

or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial.
7. If requested, a written summary of testimony the government intends to use under Rules
702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case in chief at trial. Such summary
must describe the witnesses’ opinion, the basis and reasons therefor, and the witnesses’
qualifications.
Pursuant to Brady and Giglio and their progeny, the government shall produce any and all
evidence in its possession, custody or control which would tend to exculpate the defendant (that is,
evidence which is favorable and material to a defense), or which would constitute impeachment of
government witnesses, or which would serve to mitigate punishment, if any, which may be imposed
in this case. This includes and is not limited to the following:
1. Any evidence tending to show threats, promises, payments or inducements made by the
government or any agent thereof which would bear upon the credibility of any government witness.
2. Any statement of any government witness which is inconsistent with a statement by the
witness which led to the indictment in this case.
3. Any statement of any government witness which the attorney for the government knows
or reasonably believes will be inconsistent with the witness’ testimony at trial.
4. Any prior conviction of any government witness, which involved dishonesty or false
statement, or for which the penalty was death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law
under which he was convicted.
5. Any pending felony charges against any government witness.
6. Any specific instances of the conduct of any government witness which would tend to
show character for untruthfulness.
3

Subject to the requirements of Brady, Giglio and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Rule 26.2,
the government may decline to disclose pretrial statements of any of its witnesses until each such
witness has concluded his direct examination. At that time, the government shall produce the
witness’ prior statements that are in its possession and which relate to the witness’ testimony. The
Court nevertheless urges the government to provide the statements at least 48 hours prior to the
witness’ scheduled appearance.
The government shall provide to the defendant the general nature of other crimes, wrongs
or acts of the defendant which the government intends to use at trial of the case pursuant to Rule
404(b). The government shall provide this information at least 10 days prior to trial. No later than
5 days prior to trial, the defendant shall file any motion objecting to the use of such evidence. The
motion shall state whether the defendant requests an evidentiary hearing.
Disclosure by the Defendant
Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1), the government is granted reciprocal discovery which shall be
disclosed by the defendant within a reasonable time following Rule 16 disclosures by the
government.
The defendant shall file all motions and notices by July 17, 2012. The government shall
respond by July 20, 2012.
Miscellaneous Requirements
The original arraignment date governs the time specified herein. The times specified are
based on calendar days, not Fed.R Crim.P. 45. If the date for compliance falls on a Saturday,
Sunday or legal holiday, it shall be extended until the first day which is not one of these dates. The
times will not be automatically modified, suspended, extended or restarted by the filing of additional
4

or superseding charges. D.Kan.R. Cr. 50.1. If the filing of additional or superseding charges causes
the government or the defendant to believe a modification of the time limits is required, counsel
shall promptly request a status conference. The defendant’s presence will not be required at the
hearing. Rule 43(b)(3).
Should the government or the defendant require additional discovery not covered by this
order, the party shall file a motion requesting the specific discovery along with proper memorandum
and specific citations setting forth the authority for the request.
The word “file” as used throughout this order means filed in the clerk’s office, not mailed.
It shall be the continuing duty of counsel for all parties to immediately reveal to opposing
counsel any newly discovered information or other material within the scope of this order.
All motions in limine, all requests for special voir dire questions to be asked by the court,
and jury instructions shall be submitted no later than 5 days prior to trial. There is no need to submit
routine and standard instructions. However, any requests for instructions not routinely included in
the Court’s charge must be submitted.
Counsel shall notify the court as soon as a plea agreement is reached so that the case may
be taken off the trial docket.
This case is set for hearing on motions on July 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. before Chief Judge
Kathryn H. Vratil in Courtroom #476. If no motions are filed a status conference will be held at that
time. Any requests for modifications of this order shall be filed at least 10 days prior to this hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas.
5

s/ David J. Waxse
DAVID J. WAXSE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: U.S. Attorney
Defendant
U.S. Probation
U.S. Marshal
6

VS. 12-20041-02-KHV
CONTINUANCE MOTION
Defendant William Fox, through counsel, requests the Court continue the case
deadlines three months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(D). The following six points
support this request.
First, discovery is forthcoming. The government is in the process of collating and
publishing approximately 3,000 documents. Defendant requests an opportunity to
receive, format, and review discovery before making dispositive case decisions.
Second, the government reports that the case involves in excess of 200 victims.
Competent representation may well require independent investigation into each victim’s
alleged losses. Obtaining and sifting through over 200 sets of accounting records likely
will be time-consuming. Upon conducting an initial review of discovery, Defendant may
seek a complex case designation.
Third, counsel for the government does not object to this motion. Counsel for
Codefendant Anthony Renfrow joins this motion.
Fourth, Defendant is in the process of arranging for his lead counsel in California
to represent him pro hac vice in this case. He requests a meaningful opportunity to put
this attorney in place, and then to establish coordination between local and lead counsel.

Fifth, Counsel has personally spoken with Defendant and his lead counsel in
California regarding the need for a continuance, most recently on 6/29/12. Defendant
concurs with this continuance request.
Sixth, Counsel has advised Defendant of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act,
most recently on 6/29/12. Defendant concurs that the requested delay should toll speedy
trial computations. After being reminded of his speedy trial rights, Defendant reiterated
his support for a continuance.
THOMAS R. TELTHORST
816 Ann Avenue
(913) 281-2080
THOMAS R. TELTHORST

)
Plaintiff, )
) CRIMINAL ACTION
v. )
) No. 12-20041-KHV
ANTHONY RENFROW and WILLIAM FOX, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________________)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Continuance Motion (Doc. #16) filed by William Fox
on June 29, 2012. Defendant seeks a three-month continuance of the pretrial motions deadline,
which was set for July 17, 2012. The government does not object to the continuance. Defendant
Anthony Renfrow joins the motion. Counsel has personally consulted with Mr. Fox and he does not
object to the continuance.
Defendant seeks the extension under the ends-of-justice provision of the Speedy Trial Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In determining whether to grant an extension of time under this
provision, the Court considers whether the ends of justice served by granting an extension outweigh
the best interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial. United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d
1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2009). In doing so, the Court must consider (among others) the following
factors:
(i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely
to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of
justice.
(ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants,
the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that
it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the
trial itself within the time limits established by this section.

(iii) Whether, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the
indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable
to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in
section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its
determination are unusual or complex.
(iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a
whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the
defendantreasonabletimetoobtaincounsel, would unreasonably deny the defendant
or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant
or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective
preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). Based on the circumstances set forth in the motion, the Court finds that
a continuance of the pretrial motions deadline is necessary to allow counsel for Fox the reasonable
time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by granting a
continuance of the pretrial motions deadline and trial outweigh the interests of the public and
defendants in a speedy trial.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Continuance Motion (Doc. #16) filed by William
Fox on June 29, 2012 be and hereby is SUSTAINED in part. The pretrial motions deadline is
extended to October 17, 2012. Any responses shall be filed by October 24, 2012. The pretrial
motions hearing is continued to October 30, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Trial is continued from July 30,
2012 to November 5, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to both defendants, the delay caused by this
continuance – from July 17, 2012 to October 17, 2012 – shall be excludable pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
-2-

Dated this 5th day of July, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Beth Phillips
BETH PHILLIPS
United States District Judge
-3-

X 10/04/2012

VS. 12-20041-02-CM
CONTINUANCE MOTION
Defendant William Fox, through counsel, requests the Court continue the case
deadlines four months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(D). The following points
support this request.
First, discovery is forthcoming. The government is in the process of collating and
publishing approximately 3,000 documents. Defendant requests an opportunity to
receive, format, and review discovery before making dispositive case decisions.
Second, the government reports that the case involves in excess of 200 victims.
Competent representation may well require independent investigation into each victim’s
alleged losses. Obtaining and sifting through over 200 sets of accounting records likely
will be time-consuming. Upon conducting an initial review of discovery, Defendant may
seek a complex case designation.
Third, counsel for the government does not object to this motion. Counsel for
Codefendant Anthony Renfrow joins this motion.
Fourth, Counsel has personally spoken with Defendant and his lead counsel in
California regarding the need for a continuance, most recently on 10/12/12. Defendant
concurs with this continuance request.

Fifth, Counsel has advised Defendant of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act,
most recently on 12/12/12. Defendant concurs that the requested delay should toll speedy
trial computations. After being reminded of his speedy trial rights, Defendant reiterated
his support for a continuance.
THOMAS R. TELTHORST
816 Ann Avenue
(913) 281-2080
THOMAS R. TELTHORST

VS. 12-20041-02-CM
MOTION TO WAIVE APPEARANCE
Defendant in the above matter, through Counsel, requests to be excused from
attending the 10/25/12 hearing regarding his request to continue the case deadlines four
months. The codefendant has joined Defendant’s motion, and the government does not
oppose it. Attached is an affidavit detailing Defendant’s understanding of his right to
attend the hearing, and his desire for a continuance.
THOMAS R. TELTHORST
816 Ann Avenue
(913) 281-2080

THOMAS R. TELTHORST

19th

AF'FIDAVIT
I, Arrthorry Renfrow, of lawful age, afrer having first been duly swom upon my oath, state
as follows:
I. I have been âdvised by my attorney, Tom Bartoe, that I am sqhodulcd for a
hearing on Qctober 2512012 at 9:30 a.m., on the joint defenss motion to extond tho motions
deadline in this matter by four months.
2. I have been advised by my atlorney that I have an absolute right to be present at
said hearing; however, my attorney has also advised that I might request that the Court excuse
my presence at said hearing, as the hearing oonoÞms a motion to extend the motions deadline.
3. My attomey has advisod me of my right to a speedy trial under I8 U.S.C. $ 3161.
He has ftrthor advised me that the Court may fïnd that any poriod of delay rosulting from a
oontinuance granted at the Defondant's request may be excluded from the Speedy Trial Aot
caloulation if the Court finds that tho onds ofjustioe served by granting the continuance
outweigh the bost intercst of the public and the Defendant in a spoody trial, He has also ndvised
me that Ín dotermining whether to grant suoh an ends-of-justice continuance, the Court may
consìder sove¡al factors, including whother the fsilure to gmnt the continuanoe would be likely to
rosult in a mìsoaniage ofjustice; whether the oaso is so complex due to the nature of the
prosecution that it is unreasonable to oxpoot adoquate preparatìon for pretrial proceedings or for
the trial itself within the timo limits set by the Speedy Trial Act; snd whether the failure to grant
tho oxtension would othsnvise deny defonss oounsel ttre time reasonably nooossary for effeciive
preparation, taking into aooount the exeroise of reasonable diligenoe. Undorstanding this, I agree
t000/zo0o ø ug^Iu c'IOÐ gu0J,s sdll qHt It90zs89T6 XY,{ nd iT:T ZtÙZ/8T/07

that the delay atfübutable to the joint defense motion to oxtend the motions deadline should be
excluded from tho Speedy Trial Act calculation.
4. After havftrg been advised of my right to be present, I request that the Court
excuse my presonce. I live in Fulsorn, California, and am represonted by appointed counsel.
Traveling Kansas City for a brief court appearance would oreato a finanoial hardship.
5. I have maintained diligent contact with my attornoy, who has kept me fully
appraised of oourt d¿tes. I will contact my attorneys offÎce no later than October 2$,2012,to
learn the date of my next scheduled appearance.
FI.JRTHER AFFIANT SATTH NOT.
Subscribed and sworn to bofore mo this of ,2012.
Notary Publio
My commission Expires l- l-2a15
coMM. #ter
Notâry Public.Califomla
SAcRAtrlBfroO0ul{il
Èm¡î, Jalt,l,2fll8
8000/t000 ø UII IU CIOÐ SUOIS Sdn gHt ït902s89ïB xvd nd vT:T zT0z/8T/07

Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-01-CM
)
ANTHONY RENFROW, )
Defendant. )
NOW COMES Defendant, Anthony Renfrow, by and through counsel, Tom Bartee and
moves the Court to excuse the appearance of Defendant at a hearing set for October 25, 2012 at 9:30
a.m. In support of this motion Defendant states to the Court as follows:
1. A hearing is currently scheduled for Thursday, October 25, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.
2. Defendant has been fully advised of his right to be present at all stages of the proceeding,
including the hearing set for October 25, 2012. However, Defendant resides in Fulsom, California.
Defendant has requested counsel to seek a waiver of his appearance, as travel from California to
Kansas City for a brief court appearance would be a financial hardship for Defendant.
3. An affidavit signed by Defendant Anthony Renfrow, acknowledging that he has been
advised of his right to be present at said hearing, and indicating his desire that his presence be
excused by the Court will be presented to the Court at the hearing.
4. The Government has no objection to Defendant’s presence being excused by the Court.
5. Finally, Defendanthas indicatedthat he will contact counsel’s officeno later than October
26, 2012 in order to be advised of the next setting.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court excuse Defendant from
personal presence in the courtroom on Thursday, October 25, 2012 for the reasons stated herein.

Respectfully submitted,
S/Thomas W. Bartee
THOMAS W. BARTEE #15133
For the District of Kansas
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-6712
Fax: 913-551-6562
Email: Tom_Bartee@fd.org
I hereby certify that on October 19, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing
to the following:
Scott C. Rask
Assistant United States Attorney
scott.rask@usdoj.gov
s/ Thomas W. Bartee
THOMAS W. BARTEE

CLERK'S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET
v.
Case No. 12-20041-01/02-CM
ANTHONY RENFROW (01)
WILLIAM FOX (02)
Location: Kansas City, Kansas
AUSA: Scott Rask
Deft. Atty.: Thomas W. Bartee
Thomas R. Telthorst
JUDGE: Murguia DATE: 10/25/2012
DEPUTY CLERK: Merry Morales TAPE/REPORTER: Nancy Wiss
INTERPRETER: None PRETRIAL/PROBATION: None
MOTION HEARING
Counsel for USA and counsel for each defendant appear; defendants have waived their appearance for the purposes of
this hearing. Statements are made by both counsel for each defendant and also by the USA regarding the volume of
discovery and other discovery issues.
The court grants the Continuance Motion filed by Defendant Fox [Doc. 23].
Counsel for Defendant Fox makes an oral motion to the Court to designate the case as complex. Counsel for Defendant
Renfrow has no objection and concurs with said request. Counsel for the USA has no objection to the request for a
designation as a complex case. The Court finds a continuance of the trial date of November 5, 2012 is necessary to
afford the defendants due process of law and finds that the continuance outweighs the best interests of the public and
defendants’ right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S. C. Section 3161(h). Further, the court orders that this matter should be
designated as complex pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (B)(ii). An order memorializing that ruling to follow.
This case is set for a Status conference on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. and the Court will set deadlines and
schedule trial at that time.

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-CM
)
ANTHONY RENFROW )
and )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF JURY TRIAL
AND DESIGNATION OF COMPLEX CASE
Now on this 25th day of October, 2012, this matter comes before the Court upon
the motion of the defendants requesting continuance of the jury trial currently set for
November 5, 2012, and for an Order designating this case as complex (doc. #23).
Due to the volume of discovery, which includes an imaged hard drive, thousands
of pages of documents and records and interview reports with more than 50 victims, the
defendants request an opportunity to receive, format, and review the discovery in
connection with the charges. With the large number of victims, defense counsel will
require independent investigation into each of the victim’s alleged losses. For these
reasons, the Court finds this case to be complex for speedy trial calculation purposes
under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) to allow sufficient and reasonable time for the
defendants to evaluate the evidence and submit any pretrial motions.
The Court, after reviewing the motion and being fully advised in the premises,
finds good reason exists for granting a continuance of the jury trial, designating this
case as complex and excluding time from speedy trial calculations from October 12,

2012 until February 25, 2013, because the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the
public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Specifically, both defendants through
counsel and affidavit acknowledge their right to a speedy trial and request this delay.
Furthermore, the complexities of this case identified above and during the hearing, and
the need for the defendants to have sufficient time to review the evidence and prepare
for the pretrial motions outweighs the interests of the defendants and the public in a
speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
The Court orders the time from the filing of the motion on October 12, 2012, until
the February 25, 2013 hearing, is excluded from speedy trial calculations under 18
U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(D), 3161(h)(7)(A), 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) because
the case is complex and additional time is necessary to provide reasonable opportunity
for counsel for the defense to prepare, so the interests of the public and the defendants
in a speedy trial is outweighed in satisfying the interests of justice with this delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th
day of December, 2012
s/ Carlos Murguia
HONORABLE CARLOS MURGUIA
2

VS. 12-20041-02-CM
Defendant in the above matter, through Counsel, requests to be excused from
attending the 2/25/13 status conference regarding setting case deadlines. Attached is an
affidavit detailing Defendant’s understanding of his right to attend the hearing, his
understanding of his speedy trial rights, and his desire for Counsel to establish deadlines
that will afford full review of discovery.
THOMAS R. TELTHORST
816 Ann Avenue
(913) 281-2080

THOMAS R. TELTHORST

Feb 2? 2013 t3z?'7 SecManriott RC p.1
I, Anthony Renfrow, state as follows:
1. I have been advised by my attorney, Tom Bartee, that I arn scheduled for a
status conference on February 25,2013' at 9:30 am"
Z. I have been advísed by my attorney that I have an absolute right to be
present at said hearing; however, rny attorney has also advised that I might request that
the Court excuse my presence at said hearing, as the hearing concerns scheduling Inatters-
3, My attomey has advised me of my right to a speedy tiial'under 18 U'S.C' $
3161. He has fi,rLher advised me that the cout may frnd that any period of delay granted
at the Defendant,s request may be excluded from the Speedy Trial Aci calculation if the
Court finds thatthe ends ofjustice served by granting the continuanoe outweigh the best
interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. He has also advised rne that in
determining whether to grant suc.h an ends-of-justice continu¿utce, the Courl rnay consider
several factors, including whether the failure to grant the continu¿¡tce would be lìkely to
result in a miscarriage ofjustice; whether the case is so complex due to the rrature of the
prosecution that it is unfeasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings
or for the trial ftself within rhe time limits set by the Speedy Trial Acü and whether the
failure to grant the extension would otherwise deny defense counsel the time reasonably
necessary fór effective pre,paration, taking into account the exercise of rcasonable
I

Feb 22 2013 t3¿?7 SacHarniott RC p.2
diligenoe. undersianding this, I agree that the delay atrributable to my counsel's fequest
for additional tirne to prepare should be excluded from the speedy Trial Act calculatíon'
4. After having been advised of my right to be present, I request that the Court
excuse my pfeserce. I live in Fulsom, califomia, and aln represented by appointed
co'nsel. Traveling to Kansas city for a brief court appearance would create a financial
hardship.
5. I have maintained diligent contact with my attomey, who has kept me fully
appraised of court dates. I will contact my attomeys office no later than February 25,
z}l3,to leam the date of my next scheduled appearance,
?
2

Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-01-CM
)
ANTHONY RENFROW, )
Defendant. )
)
COMES NOW the Defendant, Anthony Renfrow, by and through counsel, Tom
Bartee, and moves the Court to excuse the appearance of Defendant at the status
conference set for February 25, 2013. In support of this motion Defendant states to the
Court as follows:
1. A hearing is currently scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2013, at 9:30
a.m.
2. Defendant has been fully advised of his right to be present at all stages of
the proceeding, including the status conference. However, Defendant resides in Fulsom,
California. Defendant has requested counsel to seek a waiver of his appearance, as travel
from California to Kansas City for a brief court appearance would be a financial hardship
for Defendant.
3. Attached hereto is a consent signed by Defendant in which he
acknowledges that he has been advised of his right to be present at said hearing and that
1

he asks that the Court excuse his presence at the status conference. He also acknowledges
that he understands the Speedy Trial Act and that he consents to any delay occasioned by
counsel’s request for a additional time to prepare for trial.
4. Defendant has indicated that he will contact counsel’s office no later than
February 25, 2013, in order to be advised of the next setting.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court excuse Defendant
from personal presence in the courtroom on Monday, February 25, 2013, for the reasons
stated herein.
S/Thomas W. Bartee
Phone: 913-551-6712
Fax: 913-551-6562
2

I hereby certify that on February 22, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic
filing to the following:
Scott C. Rask
s/ Thomas W. Bartee
THOMAS W. BARTEE
3

CLERK’S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET – CRIMINAL
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 12-20041-01/02
ANTHONY RENFROW,
WILLIAM FOX,
Defendants.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Scott Rask
Attorneys for Defendants: Thomas Bartee
Thomas R. Telthorst
JUDGE: Carlos Murguia DATE: 02/25/2013
CLERK: Merry Morales TAPE/REPORTER: Nancy Wiss
INTERPRETER: PROBATION:
Counsel for Defendants and for the Government all appear for a previously scheduled status
conference; Defendants’ appearance for this hearing has been waived. Counsel for defendants
make a joint request to continue the matter for approximately seven months due to the volume of
discovery. The Government has no objection to said request. The Court grants Defendants’ oral
request and sets the following deadlines:
Motions are due October 7, 2013; the Government’s response is due October 14, 2013. This matter
is set for a Motions Hearing/Status Conference on Monday, October 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
The court notes that this case has previously been designated as being complex.


)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-CM
)
ANTHONY RENFROW )
and )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
AND DESIGNATION OF COMPLEX CASE
Now on this 25th day of February, 2013, this matter comes before the Court for a
status conference. The defendants have waived their appearances in person and are
present by and through their counsel.
Due to the volume of discovery and number of witnesses previously identified in this
case, the parties reiterate the complexity of the evidence and issues in this case involving
a fraudulent scheme and money laundering. The Court finds this case continues to be
complex for speedy trial calculation purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) to allow
sufficient and reasonable time for the defendants to evaluate the evidence and submit any
pretrial motions until October 7, 2013. The government shall respond by October 14, 2013,
with a hearing on any motions to be held October 21, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.
The Court, after considering information presented and being fully advised in the
premises finds good reason exists for designating this case as complex and excluding time
from speedy trial calculations from February 25, 2013, until October 21, 2013, because the
ends of justice outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Specifically, both defendants through counsel and affidavit acknowledge their right to a
speedy trial and request this delay to fully prepare for pretrial motions. Furthermore, the
complexities of this case identified above and the need for the defendants to have sufficient
time to review the evidence and prepare for the pretrial motions outweighs the interests of
the defendants and the public in a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and
3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
The Court orders the time from February 25, 2013, until the hearing on October 21,
2013, is excluded from speedy trial calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) because
the case is complex and the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial is
outweighed in satisfying the interests of justice with this delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th
day of March, 2013.
s/ Carlos Murguia
HONORABLE CARLOS MURGUIA
2

-------------------------------------------------
~AO 442 (Rev. 08/07) Warrant for Arrest
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PM 2:51···0 t ~~ ~C~) ....., ;;
District of ______'_'_-'_"_i<_:a_n_s_crs___,..,..,...______
·:: :.,~ 0' UfU£t{ ;. ' • • &· .~• •/
v.
WILLIAM "BILL" FOX Case Number: 12-20041-02-KHV-DJW
3.3t./2?, 27f'
To: The United States Marshal
and any Authorized United States Officer
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest _________W_I_LL_IA_M_"_B_IL_L_"_FO_X________
Name
and bring him or her forthwith to the nearest magistrate judge to answer a(n)
qf Indictment 0 Information 0 Complaint 0 Order ofcourt
0 Pretrial Release 0 Probation 0 Supervised Release 0 Violation Notice
Violation Petition Violation Petition Violation
charging him or her with (briefdescription ofoffense)
Ct. 1- Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud &Engaging in Monetary Transactions of more then $10,000 in Criminally Derived
Property - 18 USC 371 &1349
Ct. 2 - Wire Fraud - 18 USC 1343
Forfeiture Allegations
~ in violation ofTitle 1;....;8;..._______ United States Code, Section(s) _3_7_1_&_1_3_4_9______________
0 in violation of the conditions of his or her pretrial release imposed by the court.
0 in violation of the conditions of his or her supervision imposed by the court.
TIMOTHY M. O'BRIEN s/ Marla Gqpz~les
Name of Issuing Officer Signature of Issuing L~tlicer
Clerk of Court April18, 2012 at Kansas City, Kansas
Title of Issuing Officer Date and Location
RETURN
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest ofthe above-named individual at
NAME AND TITLE OF ARRESTING OFFICER

VS. 12-20041-02-CM
CONTINUANCE MOTION
Defendant William Fox, through counsel, requests the Court continue the present
10/7/13 motions deadline two months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(D). Defendant
proposes a new motions deadline of 12/9/13.
On 2/25/13, the Court set the current motions deadline. The time gap created by
that setting was sufficient for defense counsel to sift through voluminous discovery. In
this process, defense counsel for both defendants identified and raised to the prosecution
a statute of limitations issue. The government believes it can address the issue by
providing additional discovery.
The parties anticipate that the forthcoming discovery will be dispositive, and will
obviate significant pre-trial litigation. The requested two-month delay should allow time
for the government to publish the additional discovery, for defense counsel to analyze it,
and for defense counsel to prepare pre-trial motions if needed. For obvious reasons,
Defendant requests an opportunity to receive and review the new discovery before
making dispositive case decisions.
Through lead counsel in California, Counsel has reminded Defendant of his rights
under the Speedy Trial Act. Defendant concurs that the requested delay should toll

speedy trial computations. After being reminded of his speedy trial rights, Defendant
reiterated his support for a continuance.
Finally, Counsel for the government and for Codefendant Anthony Renfrow join
this motion.
THOMAS R. TELTHORST
816 Ann Avenue
(913) 281-2080
THOMAS R. TELTHORST

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 12-20041-02-CM
)
Defendant. )
CONTINUANCE ORDER
Counsel for Defendant in the above matter has requested a continuance of the pre-trial
motions deadline set on 10/7/13 due to forthcoming new discovery that will address a key pre-
trial issue. The government and codefendant Anthony Renfrow join the motion.
For the reasons stated in the motion, the court finds that the ends of justice served by
granting this continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
Specifically, the court finds that the justifications in defendant’s continuance motion (doc. #35),
especially the need for defendant’s counsel to have a reasonable period of time to receive and
review new discovery, warrant the requested continuance. The delay caused by this continuance
shall be excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion (Doc. #35) is granted.
The deadline for filing pretrial motions by is extended to 12/9/13. The government shall file
responses by 1/9/14. The pretrial motions hearing will occur on January 27, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.
The time period from October 21, 2013, through January 27, 2014, shall be excluded when
calculating speedy trial time.
Dated this 1st day of October, 2013.

s/ Carlos Murguia
CARLOS MURGUIA
SUBMITTED BY:
THOMAS R. TELTHORST

Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 12-20041-01-CM
)
ANTHONY RENFROW, )
Defendant. )
)
MOTION TO JOIN
NOW COMES Defendant, Anthony Renfrow, by and through counsel, Tom Bartee, and
moves the Court to grant his request to join Continuance Motion (doc 35). In support of this
motion Mr. Renfrow states and alleges to the Court as follows:
1. Co-Defendant William “Bill” Fox filed the above-mentioned motion on September 30,
2013.
2. Counsel has reviewed defendant Fox’s Continuance Motion and hereby joins.
3. Counsel has conferred with Mr. Renfrow regarding his right to a speedy trial and the
Mr. Renfrow understands that the requested delay will toll the running of the speedy trial clock.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested Mr. Renfrow be permitted to join in the
Continuance Motion filed by co-defendant Fox.
1

S/Thomas W. Bartee
Phone: 913-551-6712
Fax: 913-551-6562
I hereby certify that on October 2, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic
filing to the following:
Scott C. Rask
s/ Thomas W. Bartee
THOMAS W. BARTEE
2

Court Documents - TNT Dinar | TNT Tony Anthony Wayne Renfrow | 14 daily plus scam

Court Documents - TNT Dinar | TNT Tony Anthony Wayne Renfrow | 14 daily plus scam

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (9)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

Court Documents - TNT Dinar | TNT Tony Anthony Wayne Renfrow | 14 daily plus scam