The damage caused by McClelland stemmed from summary charts and investigative hearsay, similar to Keep’s claims, which were based on false data. Like Keep’s testimony, McClelland’s summary charts misrepresented i2G gains and losses by excluding $28 million in i2G commissions earned.

McClelland presented hearsay from non-testifying witnesses who had been labelled as “victim investors” and their purchases labelled as “securities” both in the indictment and jury instructions. He testified to the gross purchase amounts but failed to account for the earned commissions. Two of the non-witness representations, Pepito and Shin Jeong, were very damaging as large purchase amounts were implied to be significant losses during the closing remarks. (Doc 671 #7533) Defendants had no ability to confront these non-witnesses on the commissions they earned.

Commissions records (the government tried to discredit) revealed that portrayed alleged victims received substantial commissions. (See false evidence) The harm is illustrated by the court’s post-trial statement that “Pepito” was a “big deal,” and that his impression was that she was “this poor lady who got suckered out of a lot of money.” (Doc 718 #11347, 48) Commission records in 7240, however, identify over 150k in withdrawals by Pepito. Defendants had no opportunity to confront the non- witnesses” about these false representations. The jury was simply told these were “securities” purchases lost to “victim investors” as described in jury instructions and by direct commentary by the court prior to the jury deliberations. 7240 data proves these representations were false. The prejudice is clear.

After the trial, Jerry Reynolds provided an affidavit refuting claims that the data was not valid and affirming the validity of 7240 data which showed approximately 80% great commissions earned than represented in 101i.

Records from 7240 show that – Pepito had thirteen withdrawals totaling over $150,000 making her a “net -gainer” and not a “net-loser” as portrayed to the jury.

This one example is emblematic of all the false representations in 101i used throughout trial where not a single accurate entree of earning was accurately depicted.

Queyenne Pepito- sponsored by Adelaida Pineda (another “net-gainer” listed as a “net-loser” in 101i)

Purchases 1st emperor 12-17-2013  (820582)

Sponsors herself in 2 more emperors 12-17-13  (82082)  (82054)  Earns $1600

Structures a “self-sponsoring” structure to maximize compensation plan. 12-17-2013   -1-13-2014  

Pepito thus earns $20k from her own purchases.

Pepito  transfers 80k and 20k  to Jason Syn  on 5-30-2014

Cristono Bayani  transfers  80k to Pepito on 5-31-2014 and

Bayani transfers 20k  to Pepito on 6-2-2014

Pepito  withdraws $90359.1  (007240)  on 5-31-2014

              withdraws from ewallet  (0072400)  of $30,119.7 

              withdraws from ewallet $15000 (0072400)  0n 6-11-2014

              withdraws from ewallet $149  7-30-2014

              withdraws from ewallet $149 8-13-2014

              withdraws from ewallet $270  8-14-2014

              withdraws from ewallet $4559.7  10-22-2014

               withdraws from ewallet $1519.90  11-7-2014

101i   represents check payments of $20k, a significantly deflated earnings representation to the jury

2014  1099 records  show 2 1099’s issued for Pepito.

1.)  $45,416.00

2.)  $11,478

7240 documents attached- shows Pepito withdrawals from ewallet and the commissions earned and used as “funds transfers” to purchase her own product or transferred to others.

007240 is attached below

McClelland Rebuttal Arguments attached below