Motion to Amend Motion for New Trial
Hosseinipour respectfully requests to amend her Motion for New Trial. She seeks permission to submit the signed plea agreement that was offered to her, which promised probation and no jail time in exchange for her cooperation.
During the trial and sentencing, the prosecution failed to disclose and led the court to believe that a no-jail probation deal was never on the table for Ms. Hosseinipour. This factored in the Court’s denial of her motion 33, the evidentiary hearing, and her sentencing. We want to present the signed no-jail probation plea offer that was extended to her.
Ms. Hosseinipour respectfully requests an amendment to her motion for a new trial based on the discovery of significant new evidence that emerged after the trial. This evidence invalidates the statistical data and central claims made by the government during the trial.
The compelling evidence demonstrates that the government deliberately filtered out over $28 million in commission payments to “alleged victims,” which significantly inflated the loss representations used in the case. Furthermore, it shows that the government had access to data seven years before the trial, confirming $38 million in commission “gains” paid to distributors. Despite this, the government took intentional steps to discredit and “filter” these results, creating victims and losses that did not exist.
The significant findings from the data could not have been discovered during the trial due to the government’s intentional efforts to mislead both the Court and the defense. The government repeatedly informed the Court that Reynolds had reported “problems” with the exonerating data produced as US 7240. Reynolds countered this claim with an affidavit that verifies the data.
Hosseinipour further requests that the new evidence be viewed in light of Hosseinipour’s ineffective counsel. Judge Kethledge repeatedly stated during oral arguments that Hosseinipour had provided substantial evidence of ineffective assistance, which was evident by reviewing the transcripts. This Court witnessed that Hosseinipour’s counsel did not even know the Federal Rules of Evidence or know that evidence against a co-defendant could be considered against her.
In addition to the issues surrounding ineffective assistance, Hosseinipour could not have been aware that the government would deliberately omit $28 million in commission payments made to the alleged victims. The government failed to disclose what appears to be a clear strategy to inflate loss figures and obscure accurate commission data, just one week before the trial was scheduled to begin. This misrepresentation significantly distorted the total “Participant Gains and Losses” for i2G, which were presented to the jury as accurate through the testimonies of four key witnesses.
In their appeal reply, the government acknowledged that commissions were “filtered” from the data. They also recognized that omitting “outside commissions” inflated the loss representation by millions of dollars, as noted in Syn’s affidavit. The government’s only defense for relying on these fabricated data was to cite a statement by Reynolds that his system did not track “external” checks or data outside of the system. However, this point is irrelevant to the $28 million in commissions that were intentionally excluded from 101i, as these commissions were specifically tracked “within” the system.
The government was the only party aware that it had “filtered out” all of the commissions paid to distributors through Reynold’s system, which were used to purchase their products and those of their downline members. This represented approximately 80% of the total commissions. The jury was explicitly informed that 101i tracked the net gains and losses of each participant by accounting for all commission payments to distributors, which were deducted from the total amount of their purchases. These calculations, and consequently the data, became invalid when over $28 million in commission payments were “filtered out” of 101i. This was just one of many documented ways in which the government was aware that 101i was invalid.
Misrepresenting $38 million in gains as $38 million in losses would undermine the fairness of a trial, regardless of the circumstances. The data found in US 7240 supports McClelland’s testimony that Reynolds’ records showed as much as $40 million in commission payments. This proves that the government was aware of this information. Despite this, McClelland chose to create a summary chart that filtered out the same $ 28 million in commission payments. He excluded the same commissions used to purchase the products, making summary charts 232 invalid for the same reasons that 101i was invalid.
McClelland testified that he only used GPG withdrawals to determine gains, despite admitting that only a small portion of the total commissions seemed to be represented in those withdrawals. For example, he pointed out that Reynolds’ system indicated that Jason Syn earned three million dollars, while the GPG records only reflected withdrawals of $180,000.
The key point is that the 7240 data shows more than $38 million in commission payments to i2G distributors, while the government represented to the jury through 101i that only $9.5 million existed. This claim is further contradicted by various independent data that the government had, which Hosseinipour can demonstrate supports the findings in the 7240 data.
The government also relied on two years’ worth of data from a completely separate company, XTG1, which only operated after I2G had closed and continued until March 2017. This misleading data, presented in all seven of its spreadsheets, formed the basis of Keep’s analysis. It is undeniable that using and presenting two years of data from another company to determine whether I2G was a pyramid scheme would compromise the fairness of any trial.
There is no way that Hosseinipour could have known that the i2G database was compromised with the Xtg1 database during the trial. The government consistently pointed out that the dates on its data were obscured. Additionally, Reynolds mistakenly identified the data from 2015 to 2017 as belonging to i2G, despite testifying that i2G had already closed in January 2015, around the time of the FBI raid. Reynolds also admitted that he did not verify the spreadsheets regarding the dates. However, emails in the government’s possession indicate that Reynolds was aware of Maike’s new company, which was supported in his database.
Additionally, the government consistently misled the Court when questioned about data that fell outside the timeframe of the indictment. They were fully aware that XTG1 represented data from 2015 to 2017 but failed to disclose this to the Court, even when directly asked and despite it being mentioned in their exhibits. Hosseinipour had no connection to XTG1. There is overwhelming evidence that the government was aware of XTG1’s operations and took significant steps to mislead the Court into believing that its data pertained solely to i2G.
To summarize, the operations of XTg1 occurred after I2G had ceased its activities; however, they were included in the critical data analyzed by Keep to assess whether I2G was a pyramid scheme. This significantly compromised Keep’s analysis, particularly as he emphasized the importance of accurate company data for this evaluation. Specifically, Keep based his analysis of I2G operations on non-I2G data, which included information from 4,091 XTg1 distributors and approximately $6 million in XTg1 sales. The government, represented by Agent Sauber, acknowledged these facts during Maike’s sentencing. Consequently, this invalidated any scientific analysis under the Daubert standard and the Federal Rules of Evidence 702.”
Finally, Ms. Hosseinipour requests to present new evidence using Reynold’s data, which reveals that the top three non-witnesses identified as “alleged victims” to the jury—Michelle Kim, Queyenne Pepito, and Sheong Jeong—collectively earned over $750,000. These individuals were presented to the jury as if they had sustained losses amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, the actual data contradicts this narrative.
Sheong Jeong is linked to over 240 transactions, totaling more than $570,000 in payments, with evidence indicating that distributors sent her tens of thousands of dollars. Queyenne Pepito, whom the Court viewed as a “poor lady who got conned out of a lot of money,” earned $209,000 and withdrew over $150,000, according to the data. Michelle Kim received $85,000. None of these individuals was available for cross-examination to address the government’s hearsay that they were “victim investors.”
Exhibit 7240 reveals that Shan Hussain, referred to by the jury as a “victim investor,” made withdrawals totaling $18,000, which is more than his claimed investment. Hussain’s alleged purchase, which was presented as a loss, significantly influenced the determination of the statute of limitations. However, the evidence suggests that he was not a victim investor. Like the other individuals involved, Hussain was also unavailable for cross-examination.
The discoveries are so significant and contrary to a fair trial or verdict that suggesting Hosseinipour should have discovered this evidence sooner, despite ineffective assistance, would undermine the concept of justice. Hosseinipour had no way of uncovering this evidence earlier or challenging the claims during the trial. The government refused to disclose the names of the alleged victims and did not provide any proof of their commissions, payments, or bank account statements. Additionally, these witnesses were not called to testify. The government relied on its “golden data” to support its claims. However, irrefutable evidence shows that this entire body of data was invalid, manipulated, and mixed with two years of data from an entirely separate company.
Hosseinipour requests permission to amend her motion to include this critical new evidence and more, which justifies the need for a new trial. Alternatively, she requests an evidentiary hearing to present all the evidence and call Jerry Reynolds to provide further insight into the findings outlined in document 7240.
In light of Hosseinipour’s ineffective counsel and the overwhelming new evidence that invalidates all the data used by the government, she implores the judge to grant a new trial to allow her the opportunity she was denied for a fair trial.