Those were the charges that put Dupont in jail for 21 months after he pleaded guilty to fraud. The plea agreement, he said, was made to keep his stepdaughter, Kelly Wheeler, out of prison, as noted in the June 29 Turner Report.
"They said if I did not plead guilty, they would send her to prison for five years." Dupont and his lawyer thought they had worked out a deal in which Dupont would plead guilty and his stepdaughter would not receive any prison time.
It was not long before Dupont says he discovered that the government was not going to hold up its end of the deal...and nothing had ever been put in writing. One of the two charges against Ms. Wheeler was dropped, but she ended up spending six months in prison on the other.
On Feb. 21, 2003, Dupont was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Dupont appealed his conviction, saying the government had reneged on the deal, and he had received ineffective assistance from his lawyer:
"(Dupont) believes that he had meritorious and adequate defenses to the charges, and waived said defenses and right to trial by his plea of guilty in order to effectively release his stepdaughter Kelley Liveoak. Defendant's counsel Richard Fredman believed that all of the charges would be dropped against Kelley Liveoak upon (Dupont's) plea as per a letter received by (Dupont) following his plea and so advised (Dupont) prior to the entry of his plea."
In the motion, Dupont said his lawyer's failure to enforce the agreement, or to even review the written agreement "constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel."
The appellate court rejected Dupont's motion, noting that there was no evidence of an agreement in the written record, and also noting that Dupont signed documents indicating he had not been coerced into the plea.
At the time Dupont changed his plea, the judge had already tossed out all charges related to Dupont's Joplin operations, leaving only those connected to businesses owned by Householder and Julia Bazazzadegan, Sandhill and Sterling Home Health Care... businesses which Dupont says he no longer owned any part of...and the state document indicates that there was a question about Dupont's ownership.
In a letter dated March 28, 1996, from Gregory A. Vadner, director of the Missouri Department of Social Services' Division of Aging, to Householder, involving Sandhill, Inc., licensing of the Lamar, Butler, and St. Louis Guest Houses.
"Each of the aforementioned license applications discloses the ownership of Sandhill, Inc., as fifty percent belonging to you as an individual and fifty percent belonging to Robert Dupont, Route 1, Box 232, Oronogo, MO, 64855. On or about Feb. 20, 1996, you informed the Division of Aging by telephone that the ownership information regarding these license applications was not correct in that Mr. Dupont is not now nor has he ever been, a stockholder in Sandhill, Inc.
"License file records show that the Sandhill, Inc. ownership was reported on Jan. 2, 1992, as being 50 percent equally divided between Robert Dupont and Laverne Dupont, apparently husband and wife, and the remaining 50 percent owned by you. On Dec. 27, 1995, the ownership was reported in writing as described above, fifty percent to you and fifty percent to Robert Dupont. The ownership disclosure you verbally communicated on Feb. 20, 1996, indicated that the reported Dupont stock ownership was actually a future promise to purchase Sandhill stock, said purchase having never occurred.
"On March 4, 1996, information was received consisting of corporate minutes declaring that Robert Dupont was no longer a shareholder of Sandhill, Inc., due to the sale of his shares in the corporation, apparently to a person named Julia Bazazzadegan. The corporate minutes show that Ms. Bazazzadegan bought or received 10 shares of stock which conflicts with Article Three of the articles of incorporation showing a total issuance of common stock of 3,000 shares in 1991 and a declaration that she owns 50 percent of the company. Additionally, all stock transfer documents are unilateral in nature with no proof of sale or transfer signed by Mr. Dupont."
The letter said the Guest House licensing applications "are materially false and represent a pattern of deception and concealment of information."
But a Dec. 15, 1995, agreement between Dupont and Householder indicates that Dupont was not involved with Sandhill or Sterling Home Health from that point on. The agreement, which was notarized in Barton County by Susan Greene says:
"Whereas, the parties to this agreement have entered into an agreement whereby Karl Householder and Julia Bazazzadegan would purchase 100 percent of the ownership interests of Sandhill, Inc., and Sterling Home Health, Inc., to include the Lamar, Springfield, and Moberly offices) for a purchase price of $200,000 down and a balance of $240,000 to be paid at $5,000 a month for a period of 48 months, plus assuming all of the obligations and operations of the two ventures.:
The agreement indicates the transfer was to take place before Dec. 20, 1995.
The FBI agent's testimony indicated Dupont still owned part of Sandhill, Inc., and Sterling Home Health Care, something Dupont says is not true. Dupont also disputes the notion that he was trying to hide his involvement with Anderson Guest House from the government.
"I wasn't trying to hide anything," Dupont said, indicating that everything he was doing to advise and assist operations at the Guest Houses was known to state and federal officials.
As noted in the June 29 Turner Report, the government has indicted not only Dupont, but his wife, Laverne, and stepdaughter, Kelley Wheeler, steps he says were taken to get him to plead guilty once again.
"That is not going to happen this time."
The next hearings in the case are scheduled for December in federal court in Springfield.
No comments:
Post a Comment