TNT Dinar Guru Tony Renfrow Court Sentencing Transcript (2024)

Below you will find the court transcript for TNT Tony’s sentencing date of November 30, 2015. Here is video of the occasion

Feel free to copy this in your emails and websites as long as the following credit is given:

Obtained from Giammarino

Information on Tom Bartee, TNT Tony’s public defender:

Federal Public Defender
525 S. Griffin St. Suite 629
Dallas , Texas 75202

(214) 767-2746

United States


Plaintiff, Kansas City, Kansas
Date: 11/30/15




For the Plaintiff: Scott Rask
Asst. US Attorney
360 US Courthouse
500 State Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101

For the Defendant: Tom Bartee
Asst. Federal Public Defender
201 US Courthouse
500 State Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101

Court Reporter: Nancy Moroney Wiss, CSR, RMR, FCRR
Official Court Reporter
558 US Courthouse
500 State Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101

Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand, transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.

THE COURT: Let the record show we’re here regarding Case Number 12-20041. It’s a case entitled United States of America versus Anthony Renfrow. The parties please enter their appearance.

MR. RASK: May it please the court, United States appears by Scott Rask.

MR. BARTEE: May it please the court, Mr. Renfrow appears in person and by and through counsel Tom Bartee.

THE COURT: Mr. Bartee, if you and Mr. Renfrow will please approach the podium. Mr. Renfrow, we’re here for your sentencing hearing. Since you may be asked to make some statements to the court, I am going to swear you in to tell the truth, so if you’ll please raise your right hand.

(Defendant sworn.)


THE COURT: Thank you. You can put your hand down. Mr. Renfrow, if you recall, you appeared in court on May 21st of this year, and at that time, pursuant to a Rule 11 C 1 C plea agreement, you pled guilty to Count 1, which charged you with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and engage in monetary transactions greater than $10,000, and that was in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 371 and 1349, Class C felony. At the time of your plea, the court informed you that prior to you being sentenced, a presentence investigation report would be completed. I would let you know that I have received the report, I have reviewed it, and the court is ready to proceed with your sentencing. In regards to the presentence investigation report, Mr. Bartee, have you had an opportunity to review the report with Mr. Renfrow?

MR. BARTEE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And during your review, did you inform him of the contents of the report?

MR. BARTEE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you also inform him of the possible sentencing outcomes or sentencing consequences that could take place based on the information in the report?

MR. BARTEE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Renfrow, I asked your attorney whether or not he had reviewed the report with you, and he said he had. Is that correct?


THE COURT: And I asked him whether or not he had informed you of the contents of the report, and he said he had done that as well. Is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: I read the report, yes.

THE COURT: But I asked you whether or not Mr. Bartee had gone over the report with you, and informed you of what was contained in the report?


THE COURT: I also asked him whether or not he had informed you of the possible sentencing outcomes or sentencing consequences that could take place based on the information in the report, and again, he mentioned he had done so. Is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: If we’re talking about what I agreed to. So, anything other than that, no.

THE COURT: Yeah, that’s not what I’m asking, so I’m going to ask if you’ll listen to what I’m saying.

THE DEFENDANT: I did hear what you were saying, and that is my answer. I did not go over every bit of what could or couldn’t happen or what sentence I could get. I agreed on what we agreed on.

MR. BARTEE: And Your Honor, I’ve told Mr. Renfrow that if the court does not accept the 11 C 1 C plea agreement, that we would then be allowed to withdraw the plea –withdraw the plea.

THE COURT: And that’s more specific about some of the outcomes or consequences that could take place. So, in regards to that, did Mr. Bartee go over that with you?


THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Rask, in regards to the presentence investigation report, have you had an opportunity to review the report?

MR. RASK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And after review, are there any challenges and/or objections to the report by the government?

MR. RASK: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the government moving for the additional one level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility?

MR. RASK: If I could have just a moment, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So granted. I know there were some objections that were filed by the defendant, and they’re set out in the addendum. I’ve reviewed the addendum as well as not only the objections but the government’s response, as well as the probation officer’s response, and then on its own, the court had actually reviewed it on its own. In regards to the defendant’s objections, Mr. Bartee, any evidence and/or further argument regarding these objections?

There are a lot of dinar guru websites out there that continue to post the same news from the same failed sources day in and day out. What is their true agenda? Do they keep in regular communication with their members? Do they always have the same callers on all the time? Are they always pumping products and currency sales or worthless trust packages? Do your research on everyone and please check out our advertisers:

MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor. I believe I set out everything, and it’s been placed in the back of the presentence report in Paragraph Numbers 130 through 138, and I don’t have anything to add to that.

THE COURT: Mr. Rask, anything in regards to the defendant’s objection?

MR. RASK: Your Honor, I don’t believe any of those objections relate to the calculation of the -­excuse me –applicable guidelines range. I have nothing –excuse me –nothing further to add than what is contained in the presentence report as far as our response to those objections.

THE COURT: Anything else in regards to that, Mr. Bartee?

MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Again, Mr. Renfrow, Mr. Bartee filed an objection that set out a number of objections regarding the presentence investigation report, and identified eight paragraphs in the presentence report he was objecting to on your behalf. The court’s reviewed those paragraphs, and after review, the court would find that none of those eight paragraphs are going to affect the guideline calculations in your case. Because the objection to the content of this –these paragraphs has no impact on the guideline calculation, the court determines that a ruling on the issue is unnecessary under Rule 32 I 3 B. Therefore, the matter will not affect the sentence, and the court will not consider it in sentencing. Any other objections or challenges on behalf of the defendant at this time to the presentence investigation report?

TNT Tony sentencing documents TNT Dinar court violation exposed #wearethepeople SHARE

— Dinar RV News Facts (@dinarrvnews) December 24, 2015

MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.

TNT Dinar Guru Tony Renfrow Court Sentencing Transcript (1)

THE COURT: At this time the court will make the following findings. Court is first going to find that the presentence investigation report should be sealed, should be made part of the record, be made available for purposes of appeal, if any, in the future. The court would also find at this time that under the sentencing guidelines, the total offense level would be a total offense level of 27, and with a criminal history category of two, that under the guidelines, the imprisonment range would be 78 to 97 months. Any objection to those findings at this time by the government?

MR. RASK: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: By defendant?

MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The court is ready to announce its proposed findings of fact and tentative sentence. Prior to doing so, I’m going to ask counsel to make any statements or arguments they care to make in regards to the sentence. I recognize that there was an 11 C 1 C plea agreement entered into. One of the court –one of the things the court does, Mr. Renfrow, not just in your case, but every case, is ask the parties, which would be counsel, yourself, why the court should consider imposing a sentence that’s outside the guideline range which I’ve just mentioned here on the record.

So, I would be interested in hearing from counsel as to why the recommended imprisonment range should be the sentence in this case and not the guideline range. I also would mention that there were a number of letters written to the court regarding your sentence which the court has also reviewed. Mr. Bartee, on behalf of Mr. Renfrow, are there any comments, statements, orarguments you care to make regarding the sentence?

MR. BARTEE: Your Honor, the parties reached this agreement after careful review of the merits of the case. As the court will recall, the defense had filed a motion to dismiss. While we understood the basis for the court’s denying of that motion, we felt that it was a strong motion and had significant merit, and I think that in reaching this plea agreement, the parties took into consideration the possibility that that might have been successful on appeal. And so, I see the plea agreement is basically a compromise between the defense and prosecution to reach an agreement that both parties could live with, recognizing that there were some interesting legal issues in the case. That’s all, Your Honor.

Private deleted TNT Dinar MOD Call from July 9 2013

THE COURT: Mr. Renfrow, is there anything that you want to say on your behalf, or is there any evidence you want to offer in mitigation, which means in lessening of your sentence?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, let me tell you something. I agree with him about the appeal, and we should have done it, and it wasn’t done. Okay? But besides that, I argued about the amount on this case, ’cause over close to $500,000 that had absolutely nothing to do about this case, prosecution couldn’t prove that, couldn’t defend it. I had the people willing to come in this court and talk to you and tell you had nothing to do with 14Daily. So, I don’t care if it doesn’t make a difference to you and the guidelines. It makes a difference to me in what people are thinking, okay?

My co-defendant –all right, let me just say this. I need to say this ’cause I need it to be written out –collected over $100,000 every month in doing this; did not send the money to me, but kept it in his own pocket. He’s been –moved to California, and he’s been able to walk off with absolutely nothing, which I don’t understand, ’cause you know, I never came to Kansas. I don’t know Kansas people. I don’t know the people that put the money in his pocket. But it’s all coming on me, even though he walked away with all the money. So, I needed to say that part, cause I want everybody to understand what really happened in here, and the fact that I didn’t know Bill Fox, only met him one time before we came here, and everything I dealt with had to do with Holton Buggs, has nothing to do with Bill Fox, Kansas, or any of these people. Now, I did this deal ’cause I’ve been dealing with this for ten years.

I’m tired of dealing with it, which I am. And on the fact of the letters that you received, people talking about what I do with the dinar and any other currency, I’ve been doing it for five years. If it was illegal, immoral or something was wrong, the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, everybody else that I mentioned would have came and told me so, would have came and already arrested me, brought charges against me or anything else. So, just because some people sent some letters that don’t have a clue what’s really going on in the financial world doesn’t mean I’m doing anything wrong. So…

TNT Dinar Guru Tony Renfrow Court Sentencing Transcript (2)

THE COURT: Anything else?


THE COURT: Mr. Rask?

MR. RASK: Judge, as the –excuse me –as the court is aware, the underlying facts regarding this case are more dated than most cases that come before the court, and that was part of the reason for the basis of the motion to dismiss that was litigated in this case. In no way or respect does the United States think that the evidence was insufficient to have taken this case to trial, as outlined in the factual basis of the plea agreement. However, a lot of the evidence and testimony that would have –excuse me –that would have been presented in this case comes from individuals who were involved in this scheme from a number of years ago, and so, memories being what they can be, there would have been some obstacles or difficulties with respect to presenting all of the evidence. And so, from that standpoint, there was some compromise by the United States with –with reaching this proposed resolution that you have before you in this 11 C 1 C agreement.

So, I think that is a –a valid reason to consider in granting, in essence, the variance that the parties are asking the court to grant. And then the other aspect of this is the way in which negotiations occur between parties as far as trying to reach a resolution that -­that both sides are essentially able to –to accept and agree to. And so, we would just ask that the court accept the resolution by the parties. As the court knows, this includes a forfeiture allegation. It also includes restitution amounts for the various victims that –that were involved in this scheme. And so, as moneys are paid by the defendant or as assets are obtained by the United States Government to satisfy those restitution amounts, then that will hopefully be done over the –the coming months and years. And so, I think that part of this case should also be considered in accepting this overall resolution that the parties agreed to. I’m happy to answer any specific questions that the court may have.

THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Bartee?

MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Give me one moment please.

(Whereupon court took a recess. Proceedings then continued as follows:)

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. RASK: Judge, yes, I’m sorry. I wanted to respond or at least expound upon something that the defendant stated regarding the co-defendant, Mr. Fox. He did plead guilty to the same charge that the defendant pled. He was granted under Rule 20 the opportunity to plead guilty in the Southern District of California –yeah, Southern District of California where he lives. His sentencing has not yet transpired. It was scheduled for December 14th, and just this last week, it got moved until March 7th. I’ve not had an opportunity to speak with the AUSA out there, so I don’t know why it was continued for that –for three months, but it’s not as if he has gotten off or that there’s not punishment that he will face. I don’t know what may happen at that sentencing hearing. Just as in any other type of case, he did not enter a C 1 C plea agreement. So, I just wanted the court to be aware of that information.

THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Bartee?

MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.

Page Two of the transcript:

TNT Dinar Guru Tony Renfrow Court Sentencing Transcript (4)

TNT Dinar Finished! Court Documents, Ray in violation of Court Orders #tnttony #tntdinar #iraqidinar

Posted by Dinar RV onThursday, December 24, 2015



TNT Dinar Guru Tony Renfrow Court Sentencing Transcript (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Melvina Ondricka

Last Updated:

Views: 5792

Rating: 4.8 / 5 (68 voted)

Reviews: 91% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Melvina Ondricka

Birthday: 2000-12-23

Address: Suite 382 139 Shaniqua Locks, Paulaborough, UT 90498

Phone: +636383657021

Job: Dynamic Government Specialist

Hobby: Kite flying, Watching movies, Knitting, Model building, Reading, Wood carving, Paintball

Introduction: My name is Melvina Ondricka, I am a helpful, fancy, friendly, innocent, outstanding, courageous, thoughtful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.