The Government defrauded the Court in the I2G case by representing distributors as Victim Investors who were profitable net-gainers. While the government argues that commission records, which they claimed were unreliable, are not new information and that Hosseinipour should have discovered them sooner, this does not justify the knowing representation of false evidence, as in Napue and Glossip v Oklahoma. The Supreme Court just upheld that false evidence can not be cured through cross-examination.
To show that distributor gains were hundreds of percent greater than what was represented by the government at trial, you can review these spreadsheets, which were pulled from the i2G data provided by the data providers. You can see that top earners in i2G were not represented as top earners, but were shown as having lost significant money. This was the case even for top earners who earned in excess of one million dollars, such as Jason Syn, Steven Yu, KRoss, Scott Majors, David Park, and others. The difference between the gain rate represented to the jury and the actual gain rate is astounding. In some cases, the actual gain rate was more than 1000% higher than what was described to the jury.
The following spreadsheet disproves the government’s entire theory of 30 million in losses, or any amount close to that. In fact, the data provider has provided an affidavit that the representation of a 96% loss rate for I2G distributors was false and that I2G had only a 63% loss rate, much higher than the typical mlm.