Keep’s Testimony is invalid due to his reliance on False Data for his “pyramid scheme” analysis.
Dr. Keep testified that the data provided by the government was incredibly important to his “pyramid scheme” conclusions. Keep falsely stated that the data in 101i represented all i2g gains and losses. Keep’s analysis of 101i was the basis of Keep’s false statements that i2G was a pyramid scheme with a 96% loss rate. These were among the many false statements which the government was obligated to correct. The obligation to correct false testimony marring the fairness of a trial is defined by the Supreme Court under Napue.
The government maintains that Dr. Keep’s testimony was appropriately included in the proceedings, despite the fact that Dr. Keep based his analysis on erroneous and false data from all seven spreadsheets provided by the government, specifically including 101i and 101g-1.
The government cites a dissimilar case, Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation, where expert testimony was not excluded even though it relied on erroneous data that could be challenged through cross-examination. However, the circumstances in the I2G case are markedly different, as reliable data was essential to establish the charged offense. Additionally, the government withheld key “commission type” data and obscured the relevant dates. In the Scrap Metal case, the government did not falsify the underlying data (refer to false evidence).
Dr. Keep’s reliance on false data for his pyramid scheme analysis rendered all his testimony unreliable. The spreadsheets included data from an unrelated company, XTG1, which had over 4,000 entries and more than four million dollars inaccurately attributed to I2G after it closed in 2015 (Doc 498#4249, 50). Evidence indicates that the government was aware of XTG1 (Exhibit 692) and other false data in spreadsheet 101i. In defending Dr. Keep’s faulty testimony, the government argues that it never claimed 101i included all relevant data. It also concedes that critical “commission types” were filtered out (as noted in Reynold’s affidavit) from 101i, but claims that Hosseinipour discovered this too late (refer to false evidence).
The spreadsheets on which Dr. Keep relied employed an “undecipherable format” that concealed dates (spreadsheets 101i, 101g, 101f, 101d, 101a, and 101b) and were turned over shortly before the trial began. Hosseinipour, with ineffective counsel, was unable to anticipate that non-I2G data would be used or that the government would deliberately filter out 28 million dollars in commission gains. The assertion that erroneous data should have been challenged through cross-examination would condone the government’s “fraud on the court” if it goes unnoticed.
The spreadsheet data was not incidental; it was crucial for Dr. Keep’s pyramid scheme analysis. Despite the government’s attempts to minimize its significance, this data formed the foundation of their arguments throughout the trial and was used in all examinations. According to the Daubert standard, “The expert’s testimony must be reliable at every step, or it is inadmissible” (326 Fed. App. 725) (2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8). The reliability analysis encompasses all aspects of an expert’s testimony, including methodology, the facts underlying the expert’s opinion, and the link between the facts and the conclusions drawn. If an expert’s opinion is based on insufficient information, the analysis is deemed unreliable.
Dr. Keep explicitly stated that he could not determine whether a company was a pyramid scheme without conducting a thorough analysis of the company’s data over time (Doc 487 #3908, #3926, #3935). Despite the critical importance of accurate data, Dr. Keep acknowledged the presence of unreliable data when he remarked that the number of emperor packages depended on “which data” one reviewed (Doc 487 #3956, #3958). This included false data found in summary chart 230 (see McClelland), where McClelland stated there were 4,730 paid emperor packages based on mere assumptions. Keep also conceded that the data in spreadsheet 109F was “wrong” (Doc 487 #3956, #3958). The government’s support of Keep’s false statements fails.
The reliance on this “data” was mentioned over 100 times (Doc 487 #3747, 52, 3805, 3826, 27, Doc 487 #3844, 45, 47, 70, 73, 84, 85, 3808, 3925, 26). Dr. Keep emphasized the importance of accessing company data, stating that he had never had access to data of this kind before (Doc 487 #3808, 497 #3995, 96, 98). Thus, given the unreliability of the data, Dr. Keep’s conclusion that I2G was a pyramid scheme is invalid.
Please see attached Legal Errors surrounding William Keep attached to this post.