And I have not even searched other courts (Federal, nearby counties, etc). Which leads me to believe this all merely scratches the surface.
First, the criminal cases. Note that the top ones are felonies. And, being that the crime (bad checks) is one that goes to honesty, can be brought up to impeach a witness by a cross-examiner.
Also note the 60 day (suspended) jail sentence for Disturbing the Peace.
The Profanity/Threaten Public Airways charges...yeah, I'm sure there's an interesting story behind those...
Now onto the civil side. She has a rather extensive history of being sued by people (although occasionally she's a plaintiff). Almost all unlawful detainers and "Warrants in Debt." I did not print each sheet; as you can see the list is too numerous for that.
And again, keep in mind this is all from ONE Virginia Beach court. There are probably more cases out there, both civil and criminal, from other appropriate courts as well.
81 comments:
Other than one... the rest seem to be dismissed... big deal... it was a bounced check.
Looks like at least two checks, and I gather they must have been large ones, to end up in a felony criminal court like this.
Like I said, there were other cases on the Circuit Court level, I haven't been able to get at today.
When you factor in the number of people she's pissed off enough to sue her over the years...it's not a pretty picture.
It gets to Martin's character. There is not much to it. That gets to the fact of Martin's arrest in the matter of Kocis' murder as a material witness. It is obvious that the State did not trust her in the least and wanted bail imposed to compell her testimony.
The State's investigators pulled her rap sheets.
I like your style Jim.
Have a nice day PC. :)
"it's not a pretty picture"
No it is not-
It appears Renee is a mess!
and it does go to her credibility-
Yeah, and like I said, I strongly suspect this all only the tip of the iceberg.
She lied to PC about sending me that letter so what makes you think she won't lie about antything else.
PC just got sucked up in that lie because he is pissed off at me and he sent his lapdog Bb to spread the news.
Flying monkey's anyone?
Elm, I'm gonna hold off posting that comment of yours, without at least a little further "elaboration" if you know I mean. Thanks!
Now that gets to people being careful what they wish for.
So much for Renee Martin's credibility.
Here's what happens with that blazing idiot: She will be treated like a hostile witness and asked leading questions to which she can but merely reply "Yes or no." And that will be on limited lines of questioning. Martin so much as strays, the way this works, she will be hit with a contempt citation.
Jim I am sorry but I can not remember what I said in the other comment if it was that bad I'm sorry.
That's OK!
It was a road I'd rather not go down on here anyways (better on yours, I'd say).
I don't see what the big deal is.
Cast the 1st stone and all that. This so minor and has shit to do with this trial.
I think it all goes to her honesty...both on the stand, and in these blogs.
Well hello there Mr Elm,
You been telling porkie pies again.
I did not say you sent the letter, go back and read the post.
Since that comment, it is established you did indeed get the letter. You lied.
So I do not know what the big deal is.
For someone running around blogs saying he does not give shit, you sure as hell post allot about it :)
"I think it all goes to her honesty...both on the stand, and in these blogs."
And that would change what regarding the trial?
Is her evidence not recorded anyways?
Oh no Jim. Now you have done it! The "H" word! BB will be in a dither. You are flirting with Renee Martin arriving in puff of smoke, broom in hand.
Actually BB, I think Elm is right...he got no letter.
Renee has been playing some sort of sick game with PC...I suspect he's now beginning to realize that.
"For someone running around blogs saying he does not give shit, you sure as hell post allot about it :)"
Pot, kettle, black, true a cliche but that is all that remark merits in response.
"It gets to Martin's character. There is not much to it."
The one being questioned about questionable character is still giving evidence. One of the MAIN players.
Martin's evidence was recorded.
Jim post it on a post that is over 14 days old. they autmaticlly go into moderation and then I can see what I said. You don't have to post this comment. but it does not matter if you do it is just a way for you to get a message to me with out emailing me.
Jim observes sagely, "Renee has been playing some sort of sick game with PC...I suspect he's now beginning to realize that."
Renee plays people.
Jim is that not another character flaw that undermines credibility?
Jim, who knows? it REALLY does not matter and has no effect on the trial as Martins testimony is for the most part recorded.
As far as Elm, I can not take him at his word, he cried wolf far too many time.
Guys, real life intrudes...I'll be back in a couple hours...thanks!
BB you said that I got the letter. you tried to start this shit. it blew up in your face just like every other thing you have ever claimed.
here is a comment that zi left on my blog to explain about the comment that I made. The reason that I know that Sean and Harlow were not all in love and shit is becuse I was Privy to some of the three way calls between Joe and Harlow. The comment that Harlow made in the letter about Joe's rough edges is also a big clue.
Then there is Harlow's statment about sean being all stuck on himself oh and the one where Harlow calls sean a little shit there was really no love lost between those two. this was all about filming a video nothing more.
I keep forgetting that not all of you had the privledge of hearing Joe and Harlow get all mushy. Renee knows the truth yet she was trying to make it appear that Sean and Harlow were having some steamy online affair.
We all know how truthful she can be now don't we.
Rob,
Spokesman for Elm now?
Got anything of substance to say?
Jim... I'm sorry to say that you're wrong. Though I guess you shouldn't be disappointed... you have about as much knowledge as Elm... or DeWayne.
Sorry that I'm not a fan... amd it's good to see the intentions... while you'll probably be shocked to see it doesn't matter.
Utterin' worfless checks, disturbin' de peace, Holy Mackarill, deah, Kingfish, dat bad!
No need to hurry Jim... there's really nothing that you've said that would be of great interest,
jim said...
Guys, real life intrudes...I'll be back in a couple hours...thanks!
Lies intrude... yes.
Whatever Jim.
I'm going to regret giving this gal my email addy; she'll probably bug me for bail the next time she's locked up.
"not everything is what you read, if you look the worthless check was nol processed due to I didnt write it and someone else did, and the disturbing the peace , hell ya i did it and enjoyed every last minute of it."
"PC said...
Jim... I'm sorry to say that you're wrong."
About what exactly?
"you have about as much knowledge as Elm... or DeWayne."
Quite true. In fact, I'd say I have even less, of both accurate and inaccurate knowledge.
That's the curse and the joy of not directly dealing with the players in this case, all with their own agendas to advance.
this is getting interesting and insightful-
it just keeps unfolding and unfolding-
and thank you Geoff for the comic relief :)
Yeah, never a dull moment.
someone is certainly feeling a little PissCee
Elm, given any thought to my "suggestion" of yesterday?
Renee obviously didn't send you this "letter"...but I'll bet we'd all love to read what she DID send you over the course of this case.
What say ye?
She really did not send me all that much. She has computer issues but she can work a phone though.
Oh Jim, what have you done? You are at the edge of being excommunicated from the Kocisphere, are you aware of that? There is only one authority in Kocisphere that is allowed to post such information. And that authority only decides what information is of relevance.
The consequences for you will be horrible:
- "The Level" - now unreachable for you
- Your reports: meaningless
- Your opinion: will not hurt a flea
Oh Jim, you must have known beforehand that a report like that will not be approved. What were you thinking? Aiming for a book deal? Was it worth it?
You know, choosing the right target would have raised you into the pantheon of Kocisphere ... but now ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LOL! Interesting find, Jim!
I actually like those consequences. :-)
Hm. You don't have what it takes to be a fame whore ...
Yeah; making the Crab Catcher tapes was all the fame I could ever want.
Maybe 'The Level' is reached when you find out the answer to the question "What ever happened to....the infamous bordello??".
I believe it was around the time of that post that critical analysis stopped and cut & paste began. The date of that post was October 12th last year if anyone wants to look back and come up with an alternative theory.
Good morning, everyone. Lets start the day by having this thread NOT meander down the road to personal attacks vs your fellow posters...thanks! :-)
Whatever did happen to 1028 Stratem Ct? It must be a matter of public record. In this market, it may well be sitting there as a short sale. PC sure backed off of that in a hurry for some reason.
Jim, I'm just now catching up with all of this. But I'm just wondering if you could tell me what purpose is really served by undermining Renee's credibility the day before she goes on the stand as a witness for the prosecution. Of course the defense has all of this information already, so you aren't helping them in that sense, but I have to admit I find the timing to be a bit troubling.
IMHO the more appropriate time for this post would have been when you did that original Renee "expose' many months ago. Was it just your suspicion that she leaked the letter to the paper that prompted you to post all of this now?
Also, aa much as it pains me to agree with BB, he is correct in saying that all of Renee's evidence is on tape, and she is likely to be used by the prosecution only to authenticate those tapes. So is any of this really relevant to this case at the end of the day?
Yeah Will, the irony here is, this whole post almost never was. For exactly the reasons you just cited, I had determined to NOT write it.
But then, my mind was altered.
To see the exact sequence by which that occured, see the previous comment thread, beginning at "March 4, 2009 12:16 AM".
One more question: Since she actually did receive a suspended sentence, there must have been an arrest. Is there a mug shot???
Come to think of it, you'll probably want to slog throught the whole comment thread, to how "March 4, 2009 12:16 AM" came about too.
It's funny how things happen sometimes.
As to mug shot...
Will, I don't know, until you mentioned that just now I had never thought about it.
I'm going to guess the answer is yes, but like I said, I really don't know.
Yes, I have read the previous comment thread. That's why I asked if it was the letter issue that prompted the post, which it seems to be. You were doubting Renee's truthfulness about that issue. Then you brought up the "criminal history" -- in essence to prove her a liar? -- and were challenged to back that up, to "put up or shut up," by PC and BB. It all seemed to snowball from the original discussion of the possible "leak." Of course, I thought that issue was overblown in importance in the first place. . .
I'm not sticking up for Renee, she obviously has credibility issues, as you say. It's just the timing and actual relevance at this stage of the trial, like I said before. But what's done is done!
Mitch Halford, defense witness, had dinner and drinks with Renee Martin, prosecution witness. Monday evening at an Italian cafe' on the plaza. This is a blatant ex parte discussion.
"Anonymous said...
Mitch Halford, defense witness, had dinner and drinks with Renee Martin, prosecution witness. Monday evening at an Italian cafe' on the plaza. This is a blatant ex parte discussion."
Assuming this is true...is it illegal?
And Mitch Halford is going to be a prosecution witness, IIRC. Unless something has changed.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Day_seven_of_Cuadra_trial_.html
Yech, $7,000? I feel stupid just thinking about buying Brent Corrigan's Summit, the Director's Cut. Yea, dude, if you need bus fare, just hit on me, and I'll PayPal you. Do it all the time. But $7,000? How can the jury possibly lend any credence to a motherfucker who give Harlow $7,000 just because he paid to fuck Harlow a bunch of times? It's an addiction, a sickness. Man, today, you have to recognize that your obsession with Harlow is placing you on a glidepath to death in a matter of months or a short number of years.
According to PC there are no defense witnesses, as far as he or anyone knows.
Mitch Halford funds the defense in part.
That's true, he's actually a major contributor in fact:
http://handjtrial.blogspot.com/2008/12/harlows-savior-again.html
Guys, I'm clamping down hard on the personal stuff today, so watch all your posts for name calling and labelling of your fellow posters...thanks!
Hi Jim, hope you'll allow the post after my regrettable and off color remarks to you last year.
I think Jim was correct in posting this information. Does the timing of it raise an eyebrow? Perhaps yes, but so what?
Jim is a blogger and reporter of news, just like many others. This is news and it provides an insight into the civil and criminal background of a material witness who is currently out of jail on bond and is about to take an oath of honesty in a death penalty case. This is also a matter of public record so it really does not violate Renee Martin's rights in the slightest. Obviously this is not news to the LC people involved in this case (and perhaps a reason for the bond) and publishing it here is to nobody's benefit, one side or the other, except for those who have been following this case and wanting the most transparent information available to form their own opinions. I'm not clear as to why some might find this disclosure disturbing when all along people have been looking for answers and information about the players in this case.
A couple things. If this were just a matter of one "bounced check" as some have suggested, who would really care? Who has not probably bounced a check in their lifetime for honest reasons like an expected deposit not hitting the account before a check was presented or maybe even a mistake in the balancing of the checkbook? This appears to be more than that to me and not just once. Most honest people who do bounce a check take care of it immediately. A check is presented twice to a bank before it is returned to the payee as NSF. Then there are always numerous attempts, phone calls and letters by the payee to the payor to resolve the matter. A felony crime when committed by theft or bad checks is defined as any amount over $200.00. For all we know, these checks could have been written for way over that amount or for $201.00. It is not stipulated.
Nobody wants to go to court to get what they are due. It takes personal time and in many instances loss of income or other forms of pay by the one stuck with a bad check. So there is always a reasonable attempt to resolve matters before going to court. This obviously did not happen here. It's possible these checks were even written on a closed account. Who knows. My point is that when you issue a check in good faith and it bounces, you make it right if you are of good character and intent.
The other information made available by Jim's report colors Renee Martin as one who is not unfamiliar with the criminal/civil court system and as one who has failed numerous times to honor financial agreements with others. The Warrant in debt cases against her are numerous and a number of them are still outstanding or pending due to "Not found" status. She has also been a subject of "unlawful detainers" - eviction proceedings with JIG management in Virginia numerous times.
So it seems helpful to know a little bit about this witness. Felony bad checks, wage garnishment, eviction proceedings, failure to pay agreed financial contracts, warrants in debt etc.
Will it change the outcome of the case? No. Was it insightful information on this witness who many know from these boards? Yes, I think it is. And it was, in my opinion a color commentary of the scourge that has covered this case from day one. Did blogger Jim have a personal vengeance for making this info public? Only he knows that, but had the Times Leader printed it nobody probably would have blinked an eye with suspicion or discourse.
Thanks William, and allow me to say I regret things I said to you back then too.
Thanks from me also, William. I don't really fault Jim for the post at all, it is public record and Renee has become something of a public figure from this case, through her own actions. So she's fair game. It really was just simply the timing of it that struck me at first, but I can see now how circumstances brought it about. The "leak" issue has been pretty much resolved now, though, ironically enough. Oh well!
Just to set the record straight, the civil and criminal charges against Renee Martin stem from a legal issue when an employee of a former business she was affiliated with stole funds and wrote fraudulent checks against her business account. Renee did not personally write these checks and was not aware any theft had occured until after these charges had been filed. Just wanted to put that out there to correct some incorrect perceptions. Thanks.
And why should we take your word for this?
And come to think of it, why is Renee losing most of these civil judgments?
And why should we take your word for this?
Because this matter was researched to determine the validity of the statements early on at the request of an attorney involved early in this case.
And come to think of it, why is Renee losing most of these civil judgments?
Civil judgements can be filed against business names or the owners of said business. As to why she was losing the suits, probably because the debt was incurred whether with or without her knowledge and they must be paid. Simple huh.
Honestly, if you think about it, Renee is most likely not the impugned charachter everyone makes her out to be. She just got involved with the people more deeply than initially intended and look where it landed her.
Besides, I have not commented much on the blogs, but I am sure every blogger knows I "lurk" about. Every time anyone attacks anyone the person being attacked takes the defensive and attacks back. Then the person on the defensive suddenly becomes the bad guy. If everyone just remained calm and the attacks stopped, these blogs might have gotten further than they are now.
By the way, good job keeping up on stuff Jim. Some of your posts are just too funny :)
"Civil judgements can be filed against business names or the owners of said business. As to why she was losing the suits, probably because the debt was incurred whether with or without her knowledge and they must be paid. Simple huh."
Actually, the simple explanation seems to me that the finders of fact in these civil cases found Renee's story unconvincing, and ruled against here.
This would also nicely explain why that one bounced check criminal case got nolle prosequi'ed: There was enough evidence to get a civil judgment against Renee, but the prosecutor figured there was not quite enough there to convict her "beyond a reasonable doubt."
"If everyone just remained calm and the attacks stopped, these blogs might have gotten further than they are now."
I must agree with you there.
"Just to set the record straight, the civil and criminal charges against Renee Martin stem from a legal issue when an employee of a former business she was affiliated with stole funds and wrote fraudulent checks against her business account."
That really holds no water at all for me and here's why.
The bad checks were written on two different dates. 1)12/28/03 and 2)10/21/04.
The arrest date for both felonies occurred on the same date: 04/19/05.
This tells me that Renee Martin, who would have most certainly known of these offenses once the first checks bounced at her bank in December of '03, and then again ignored the multiple overdraft notifications of this crime in Oct. of '04 by her banks multiple over draft notifications never reported this criminal felony to the police and just said or did nothing about it until SHE was arrested for both crimes on 4/19/2005?
Sassy, please. If you're going to lie you'll need to do a lot better job than that.
To recap: Renee Martin overlooks a former employee writing fraudulent checks drawn on her business account on two different occasions 12/28/03 and 10/21/04. Ignores all the over draft notifications from the bank for both bad checks and then never reports it to the police until she is arrested on 4/19/05 for the crimes herself; which by the way was over two years since the first crime occurred.
Yeah ok Sassy. here's a tip: Stay away from criminal legal representation as a career consideration.
Since a civil case requires a preponderance of the evidence for a conviction vs beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, that would make them easier to lose.
Regardless, thank you for posting my comments :)
"Yeah ok Sassy. here's a tip: Stay away from criminal legal representation as a career consideration."
BTW, I should point out for the benefit of relative newcomers not aware of Sassy's actual career and rather unique role in this case:
http://handjtrial.blogspot.com/2008/05/private-eyes-theyre-watching-you.html
"Regardless, thank you for posting my comments :)"
You're welcome, and thank you for sharing them.
Mr. Wolbrecht, before you call me a liar, I might recommend you do some research of your own. You can call the Virginia Beach city court house and others and find out more info.
"Renee did not personally write these checks and was not aware any theft had occured until after these charges had been filed."
Sassy,
My response was based on your statement above and nothing other.
Based on this statement, and this statement alone, at least from my interpretation of it; I find it very hard to believe that a business owner/partner could claim "no knowledge" of fraudulent checks being written on her company's bank account for over a two year period and that she would then be ultimately arrested for those bad checks claiming no knowledge. It does not seem plausible to me.
Somebody had to know about it. Somebody, it would seem to me, would have reported it to someone, if not the police then to at least a business partner or owner. Who handled the books and why wasn't Renee aware that this was happening?
I will redact my liar remark and offer an apology to you for it. It was ill placed and unwarranted based upon my knowledge of the case.
gees I see Renee is STILL on trial here. sad and stupid.
she is on her way home. she gave her testimony, her involvement is over.
hi sassy.
"she is on her way home. she gave her testimony, her involvement is over."
Which of course is the same now for Sean, Grant, Robert and all the other witnesses who have take the stand thus far.
It would be nice, I think, if everyone's trial ended when this trial ends.
Grant is not home, he is still in PA by order of the court.
He soon will be. :-)
jim said...
Good morning, everyone. Lets start the day by having this thread NOT meander down the road to personal attacks vs your fellow posters...thanks! :-)
----
Why don't you simply not approve them when they (for sure will) arrive?
I find it really odd how both PC and you Jim have said to stop the personal attacks, this comes directly after you approve 5 or 6 of them in one full sweep.
Why not delete them (and not approve), and say no more, done. It's much more effective that way.
You're probably right, Quicky.
The personal attacks are so much fun, though. That's the reason people go on the fucking net to begin with. If you walk up to Sean and Grant at Cafe on the Park in San Diego and say, "You two have blood on your hands," you might get your lights punched out. Likewise if I go up to Renee at the Best Western and say, "You rode in on a broom, and you sit up in your room with a 1.5 of vodka." We come here for the personal attacks. The rest is eyewash.
And Grant is now home. Hopefully, ALL are no longer in Blog Court, as of today, as per BB's and mine own wishes:
"Grant was not ordered to do anything by the prosecution, judge or anyone after his testimony.
My flight home was not scheduled until Wednesday afternoon.
I wanted to hear some of the testimony before I had to leave. I'm done trying to defend myself in all this. My testimony was clear. The truth was told and the objective was accomplished.
We knew what we needed to establish and every counter by the defense was fully anticipated and answered with the proper reply.
Upon completion of both mine and Sean's testimony along with the over 7 hours of taped conversations, both sides were in agreement (without repeating their exact words) that our part in this case was the MOST VITAL KEY for this entire case!
Our cooperation in this case, along with the sting operation provided the glue that hold it all together, period! That has been conveyed to both me and Brent, over and over and over again by every member of the investigation and prosecution team since April 28, 2007.
Bryan's father, Michael Kocis and Sam Hall (the attorney who conducted the mediation in Vegas and was also a close friend of Bryan's) both personally and sincerely thanked me for our cooperation and great sacrifice we've endured over the past two years! With hand shakes I thanked them and expressed our sincerest condolences and we wouldn't have considered anything less! Truth and justice, no matter how slow the wheels may turn...
>Grant"
Wow.
Where did Grant originally post that?
Here.
Thank you.
Erm, may I suggest a separate blog entry? I think it is worth it.
Yes. I'm actually planning a Jerry Springer-like monologue for right after we get the verdict, into which this'll fit perfectly. But maybe it's own post sooner would be appropriate, yes.
Post a Comment