I had to go to the FBI office in Queens to do a hand analysis and sign my nana's (grandma) name numerous times and write out pages and pages of other sentences. I had no idea why because I never forged her name nor any one's name ever. I didn't even see or have a copy of the application to do that since they were all sent directly from the broker, Andrew Weiske to my grandma after they did the application on the phone. Nana signed them and sent them back. However from looking at some of the evidence that they government gave me to review that would be used at the trial I did notice that some of the signatures did not look like my nana's signatures. I didn't know who forged them until years later but found out that Andrew Weiske did forge my nana's name on some of the applications in order to get the paperwork done and get it to the closing. However my nana did attend all of the closings and did sign all of the loan documents which would have superseded his forgeries I learned.

The hand analyst results came back supporting that I committed no forgery and that they need to consider other suspects but this evidence was withheld from the trial and even from me for three years after the trial. Instead the prosecution used this against Andrew Weiske to threaten him that he would be in trouble if he did not falsely testify against me at the trial.

When the trial started I was shocked to see applications and documents that I had never say before in my life. I only say the other ones because they were in the government's evidence but other than that since I wasn't the broker and none of the applications were sent to me I didn't see anything else. It was obvious that there were red flags with the evidence that the prosecution was submitting into trial because none of the applications had any dates on them and none were signed by the broker but yet again it didn't look like my nana's signatures but the signatures looked a bit closer to her signatures than the obvious forged ones that I had seen in the government's evidence that they were to present at the trial. None of the applications from the government's original evidence were presented at the trial neither were any forgery accusations which there were no forgery accusations as well included in the indictment.

It basically came down to whether I disclosed paying the deposits on behalf of my nana and whether I said she wanted to move into one of the multi-unit buildings she was purchasing in order to get a quarter percent interest rate lower. The trial was definitely going in my favor because the prosecution surprisingly submitted into the evidence numerous letters and signed documents by me disclosing that I had owed my nana money and that I was paying the deposits of the properties. This was my only responsibility in the transaction. In addition Andrew Weiske testified at least ten times that I told him that my nana was looking to purchase investment properties and not a property to move into. Disclosing the deposits was really my only liability in the transaction because everything would have had to and was verified with nana since he had done the applications with her on the phone which was all even testified under oath by both Andrew Weiske and nana.

My own appointed public defender who was working with the government, the prosecutor and the judge all looked concerned because the testimony was all going in my favor so the judge called for a lunch break. I was escorted back to the jail cell to wait while the jury got to eat. Someone finally brought me this "sandwich" and an orange after waiting 30 minutes. The meat inside of the "sandwich" looked strange and smelled even stranger so I just ate the orange and nothing else. I just wanted that day to be over with and felt strongly that I was going to win at the trial because I never any false information to the broker on my nana's behalf, never said she wanted to move into one of the properties and certainly disclosed the deposits which was my only liability.

As soon as I got back from the trial the judge said that they were calling Andrew Weiske back to the stand for further testimony. My own public defender couldn't get the words out of his mouth quick enough and asked Weiske "who told you that Phyllis Sheneman was going to move into the property"? After testifying no less than ten times that I told him that nana was looking to purchase investment properties, Weiske hesitated. His face turned red and he couldn't even look at me. He seemed very nervous and uncomfortable as he lied and said that it was me that told him that. It was obvious that the government and my own prosecuting attorney threatened him to lie under oath by using the forgeries that he had committed of the applications. It all made sense later but I was going through so much at the time that I was in shock.

Weiske had already testified numerous times otherwise so why would my own public defender even ask him that question. Furthermore this would have had to be verified through nana and she never told him that either. So the government made the jury think that the only way that the property was submitted as owner occupied is if I told him that and there could haven been no other way for that to have happened. That was the furthest from the truth possible. Nana had purchased four properties all as investment properties. It may have been possible that the broker submitted one as a property she was going to move into but I am still not 100% sure since I never saw the applications and the applications that the government submitted at the trial I saw for the first time and forensic evidence later proved that evidence to be forged and fabricated on top of everything else. I do remember that my nana got extremely high interest rates so it is possible that the broker submitted one of the properties as owner occupied to try to offset the high interest rates he was getting paid extra points on the 'backside" from the bank due to his and the bank's greed to raise the interest rates as high a possible.

The entire trial was a mockery of the judicial system and very stressful. The jury of "one's peers" is not competent to hear cases involving the least bit of complexity and certainly was unsuspecting of fraud on the court. They just wanted to go home. The prosecution told the judge not to tell the jury how much time I would get if convicted so again the jury not does not have the expertise to make a decision they do not know all of the details nor that I would be sentenced to almost half of my life which I was 31 at the time. The jury ended up convicting me so I knew that I would have a long appeal process ahead of me since I was not guilty.

Question:

Describe this case in first person in colorful detail.

Describe in first person having to go to the FBI office to do the hand test but not sure why since you never forged anything.

Describe in first person and in detail how the forensic evidence proving that you did not commit any forgery with withheld not only from the trial but from you for years after the trial.

Describe in first person and in detail being shocked at the trial seeing applications submitted into evidence that you had never seen before nor where in the government's evidence.

Describe in first person and in detail that Weiske had testified numerous times that you had told him that nana wanted to purchase 4 investment properties.

Describe in first person person and in detail the "deal" made with Weiske to falsely testify under oath that you told him that nana wanted to move into one of the properties for a quarter interest rate lower and that this was the only possible way that this could have happened.

Describe in first person and in detail how your own public defender couldn't wait to question Weiske under oath and that was the first question he asked right after the lunch break. Describe how strange this is when the government's witness had already testified otherwise so many times.

Describe in detail and in first person that there is no way that he could have just checked that box and forged her name without anyone telling him which is what in reality appeared to have happened.

Describe in detail in first person your emotions thinking that you would win at trial but instead being convicted.

Describe in detail and in first person how the jury does not have the expertise to decide on a case nor are they are jury of "your peers". Describe how they just want to go home and be done and are not given all of the information and certainly would not have been suspecting of fraud on the court.

Describe in detail and in first person regarding the evidence submitted at the trial later being found to be fabricated and forged.