John,

I just wanted to let you know that Annette talked to her attorney today. She said he was pretty mad about Dan suggesting she have her attorney contact Cheryl. (I am not going to repeat what she said he said about that...:(. He told her that for him to be contacting anybody involved in our case to discuss her case, without her present would be an ethical violation.

I am confused as to why my investigator working for my attorney, talking to my witnesses, would even suggest or recommend that the witnesses contact someone else's attorney. Cheryl is not working my case you are. I have to fully trust you, and fully trust that you are 100% involved and informed while making the decisions you must make. This makes me wonder if other witnesses have been steered away from my attorney. Its a trust issue.

I am the one most at jeopardy in this case. Because I am the one everyone is getting the deal to lie about!
And I am the one that ran the Lawrence store and wrote all the checks to pay people for their items that were brought into the store. Guy was always in Topeka. He never even met any of the people they are using against me. I kept the checks from his Topeka store account in the Lawrence store and bought most of the stuff he was selling in the Topeka store at the Lawrence store.

It was very difficult for Annette to make the decision to come forward, because of the corruption and abuse that she has gone through. She has been very scared. Mike did not trust Cheryl, but for some reason felt he could trust you and Dan to talk to his client. He felt it would be okay to let his guard down just a little and let her come down to give a statement. But he didn't want anybody to know they were coming. She said Mike didn't want us to tell anybody, including Dan or our attorneys. We agreed. You can imagine the "shock" when his Law firm was served the papers on Friday by the Prosecutor letting him know they knew he was coming.

He and Annette were just outside of Topeka about 3:30 when his Law firm called him and said that the firm had just been served by the Prosecutor in Kansas threatening ethics violations against Mike for crossing State lines representing a client.


John,
As far as Cheryl goes. I am just glad she is not representing me. She never answers Guys emails, she refuses to address or answer his concerns, she wont take his phone calls. She refused to give him a copy of his evaluation that Marilynn did, (he has not even seen it) she has not provided him with anything from the courts, you sent me a letter letting me know when our hearing was canceled. Cheryl did not notify Guy at all. After repeated phone calls and emails to her office, instead of returning Guys call personally she had her legal aid person call Guy and inform him that she would not be providing him a copy of his evaluation, because she does things differently than John Duma does.
When Phil Gibson sent the request to be Friends on Facebook, Guy sent Cheryl an email letting her know that he wanted her to tell Phil to leave him alone. She actually answered that email and defended Phil. She said that Phil had sent a request to her too. Personally I see that as even more inappropriate. Why would Phil want to get into all the facebooks of everyone involved in our case? If I was an attorney I would not think it appropriate to request to get into former clients and their current attorneys facebooks, while they are still under indictment. (Facebook is networking among friends, so if you can get into one persons facebook with mutual friends you can see whats being discussed.)


But maybe I just expect too much out of people. Then again they sure don't mind expecting a lot out of me!