In most cases, the courts ignore a defendant’s claims of innocence or prosecutorial misconduct by a charged defendant. Corrupt prosecutors need only point to a defendant’s claims of innocence as self-serving, and the judges with long-standing relationships with these prosecutors trust their integrity. This was the case with the I2G Court, where the judge repeatedly referenced his trust and respect for these district assistant attorneys to know the law and act with integrity in representing the evidence. This allowed for a massive amount of 403 b evidence that was confusing, prejudicial, and unrelated to the offense.
Without any evidence of fraud or conspiracy, the court allowed the government to present evidence that showcased typical practices of every multi-level marketing (MLM) business, misrepresenting it as evidence of fraud. The prosecutors introduced a dozen emails related to standard business transfer requests, which are common in every MLM, but portrayed them as part of a fraudulent scheme.
They spent hours discussing “customer” spots that they claimed Hosseinipour set up but “didn’t tell others about.” However, the arguments were absurd, as their own records in document 101i showed there were 2,650 such “secretive customer spots.” Additionally, document 101d indicated there were over 12000 customer spots.
The government alleged that Hosseinipour received an email notifying her and others about a change to the compensation plan’s bonus structure one week before it took effect. Although there was no evidence indicating that Hosseinipour communicated with anyone to demonstrate that she withheld this information, the prosecution simply claimed that she failed to inform others about the bonus change. In fact, the evidence from Anzalone’s testimony was that he probably told others because he was a “networker.” Hosseinipour and Anzalone immediately thereafter created a training video to help people reach the bonus before the end of the year. The fact that this was their evidence to send someone to prison for 20 years should alarm everyone in the mlm industry.
The absence of evidence of fraud is emphasized by the government’s focus on criticizing multi-level marketing (MLM) practices, including recruiting and binary compensation plans. These plans feature elements such as activation and rank advancement, binary bonuses, matching bonuses, fast start bonuses, leadership bonuses, and income that flows upward to the team members who build their teams. The government presented a statistic showing that 87.5% to 95% of participants in every MLM experience losses as proof of a pyramid scheme.
Additionally, the prosecution invented certain characteristics of a pyramid scheme, such as the idea that there is a small number of top earners considered “insiders.” However, this notion is not listed as a characteristic of a pyramid scheme in any legal cases or official guidance; it was simply fabricated. The evidence presented suggested that the entire direct sales compensation model was fraudulent.
The prosecution presented email complaints from individuals like Riccardo Ferrari as definitive evidence of various “start-up issues” faced by the company, despite the testimony of Anzalone that the issues were dealt with a couple of months later when the compliance attorney David Koerner came onboard.. However, they failed to mention that Ferrari had been praising the company, its products, and CEO Rick Maike in hangout videos recorded just two days earlier. These videos, which showed Riccardo lauding I2G, were part of their own evidence, but they hid it from the jury. By highlighting the email complaints while omitting his positive remarks from the jury, the prosecution demonstrated a willingness to deceive instead of a motivation for truth.
A jury that lacked background knowledge in multi-level marketing (MLM) and held a certain respect for the prosecutors’ office was easily misled regarding what constitutes fraud or a pyramid scheme. For instance, the jury received misleading information about the law. They were told that only “retail sales” could be considered legitimate sales in MLM, while internal consumption was deemed illegitimate. This assertion is incorrect.
Additionally, during closing arguments, the prosecution claimed that mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) was not relevant to proving their case in a pyramid scheme. This too is not accurate under the law.
However, no jury can judge a trial when all the evidence presented is false. The real crimes were not those of the accused but rather the misconduct of the government, which included lying to the court, manufacturing evidence, and committing perjury. Every statistical representation of i2G to prove the offense was and is provably false.
This heavily data-driven case made the data evidence crucial for proving the offense. Establishing the government’s significant fraud on the court is not just a matter of accusation; it can be thoroughly verified through data, discovery, and testimony. The prosecution knowingly deceived the court by misrepresenting Reynold’s statements to discredit exonerating evidence. They manipulated the evidence to create artificially inflated loss data, which was presented through four key experts—an act that should be considered suborning perjury. Additionally, the loss data related to 12 distributor witnesses was false. The government’s awareness that its data included two years of non-i2G data from an unrelated company, XTG1, which operated after i2G had closed, is indisputable. False representations tainted the entire trial.
The 40 pages of attached documentation provide additional proof of 60 counts of witness tampering before trial and violations of Brady, Jenks, and Giglio.
The exact citations from the trial transcript accompany validation of statements.