The I2G Infinity Two Global court erred by allowing improper 404(b) evidence related to mlm company Bidxcel and failing to strike this evidence after the State conceded its improper use of 404b through the testimonies of Anzalone, McClelland, Sell, and Mills in opposition to the court’s order. (Vol 23, pg 216-217, #11182, 83). 

Additionally, the court errored by denying the 404(b) pattern instructions that the government requested after admitting that Bidxcel was used as 404(b) evidence, contrary to the court’s order that it could only be used as res gestae.

On the first day of trial, the court stated that, due to not being familiar with the case’s facts, it would rely on the prosecution’s integrity for proper evidentiary admissions and concessions. As a result of this misplaced “trust,” there was an overwhelming influx of arbitrary and improper evidentiary admissions, including hours of Bidxcel testimony presented as 404(b) evidence.

The State filed a notice of intent to introduce 404(b) evidence concerning Bidxcel, a separate multi-level marketing (MLM) company in which the defendants allegedly participated. The State falsely asserted that Bidxcel operated an illegal compensation plan, ultimately leading to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its closure in February 2013. The State argued that the evidence related to Bidxcel was admissible under Rule 404(b) as it demonstrated motive, intent, preparation, plan, and knowledge. Additionally, the State claimed the evidence was admissible as res gestae, as it provided context regarding the previous successes and working relationships between Maike, Hosseinipour, and Anzalone before their collaboration with i2G.

The defense raised several objections, including:

1. No notice had been provided.

2. The government must prove that the alleged wrongful acts were indeed wrongful.

3. The acts presented do not fall under the scope of res gestae for the offenses charged in this case.

4. Res gestae is limited and generally disfavored in the Sixth Circuit.

5. Allowing the introduction of this evidence would create a mini-trial within the main trial, unfairly prejudicing the defendants.

The defense argued that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate any wrongdoing. They pointed out that there was no record of an SEC investigation, and that the defendants had no managerial ties to Bidxcel and did not know one another. The only connection to Bidxcel was Anzalone, who held the sole managerial position within the company.

The Court ruled that Bidxcel’s evidence was not admissible under Rule 404(b) and ordered that no mini-trial within a trial would take place. Bidxcel’s evidence was only narrowly admitted as res gestae to illustrate how the parties may have crossed paths. (Vol. 1, pg. 5, #8001)

Despite the ruling, the State defied the order throughout the trial. Bidxcel was repeatedly introduced as evidence under Rule 404(b) in both opening and closing statements and through multiple witnesses. The State accused an unproven SEC investigation and mere “participation” or association with Bidxcel as “prior bad acts.” This is similar to how Hosseinipour’s mere “participation” in i2g was deemed sufficient to satisfy the elements of the charged offense.

The Court erred in admitting the Bidxcel evidence, which was improperly used under Rule 404(b). 

The Court also erred in not striking the 404(b) Bidxcel testimony following the State’s admissions of direct violations of that order (Vol 23, pg 216-217, #11182, 83). 

Additionally, the Court erred in denying the 404(b) pattern instruction offered by the State, especially in light of the admissions regarding the improper use of 404(b) evidence against the Court order (Vol 23, pg 216-217, #11182, 83).

The Court also made an error by not excluding 404(b) 403)(401) evidence to suggest “bad acts” associated with “common” MLM (multi-level marketing) and i2g business practices.

Unfamiliar with the case’s specifics, the Court expressed that he would largely trust the “United States attorneys” because “I know them very well” and based on his “history with them” (Vol. 1 #8021; #8009). As a result of this trust, improper 404(b)and numerous confusing, irrelevant evidentiary admissions were allowed, which included references to Bidxcel and “universal” MLM practices, such as “business transfer requests,” to suggest wrongdoing.

Before the trial, the state filed an intent to introduce 404(b) evidence concerning the defendant’s involvement with the separate MLM company Bidxcel, which was alleged to be under investigation by the SEC for having an illegitimate pay plan that led to its closure. The purported “participation” and amounts earned by the defendant were presented as proof of “bad acts” and as evidence of a conspiratorial relationship with i2g.

The Court ruled that while Bidxcel could not be admitted as evidence under Rule 404(b), it could be introduced as res gestae solely to illustrate how the defendants might have met. The Court emphasized that it did not want a mini-trial regarding Bidxcel. However, despite this ruling, an extensive mini-trial focused on “bad acts” related to Bidxcel unfolded over several days of testimony.

From the opening and closing arguments to the witness testimonies from Anzalone, McClellan, Sell, and Mills, the State emphasized that the same “cast of characters” was associated with Bidxcel. This was done to undermine the character of the co-defendants, confuse the “trier of fact,” and label the defendants as “bad acts” repeat offenders. The defense objected to continued references to an unfounded SEC investigation, which were correctly sustained. However, the Court erred in permitting a parallel narrative to unfold, featuring days of allegations regarding the legitimacy of Bidxcel, its pay plan, products, customers, complainants, and links to a phantom SEC investigation.

Greg Sell’s cross-examination turned into a mini-trial focused on Bidxcel, taking up 90 minutes. Sell faced intense questioning about Bidxcel’s “bad acts” and was pressured to acknowledge awareness of a potential SEC investigation based on speculation in a hearsay email from an unrelated party. (Vol. 22, #10717-10730,10733,10738-41) After repeatedly stating he did not recall specific facts about Bidxcel, he was pressed for admissions concerning whether complaints had been made or if Bidxcel had a legitimate pay plan and products. (Vol. 22, #10725) The State interrogated Sell about whether the “cast of characters moved to I2G” (Vol. 22, p. 28 #10717), how much money the defendants earned, and whether they were top Bidxcel distributors (Vol. 22, #10717; Vol. 22, p. 27-43 #[number_6, number_7]). 

The questioning included remarks like, “So let’s talk about Bidxcel.” and “Bidxcel had largely the same cast of characters that moved to I2G, right?” (Vol. 22, p. 31). Additionally, Sell was questioned, “You were put on notice that Bidxcel could be ripe for an SEC investigation?” 

The 404(b) evidence was so misused that bank employee Mills, brought in soley to address banking decisions, was drawn into the Bidxcel mini-trial. Mills had reviewed Finance Ventures bank accounts and was solicited to testify about a note referencing her Google search on Bidxcel while trying to identify a check written from an unrelated bank account that Maike had held since 1999. Hosseinipour had no connection to Finance Ventures-related bank accounts and was unfairly prejudiced by this line of questioning. Over objections of relevance and undue prejudice—because her testimony was unrelated to the case and improperly linked to Bidxcel—Mills was allowed to testify that the Google search was “associated with scams.” (Vol. 10, #7010, 7011). This improper inclusion of Bidxcel 404(b) evidence violated the Court’s order. The Court errored by not excluding or striking the testimony.

Anzalone’s testimony was similarly misused for inadmissible 404(b) references related to Bidxcel and the alleged SEC inquiry. Anzalone was pushed to describe the participation and success of defendants, with Bidxcel to suggest “bad acts” in defiance of the Court’s order. (Citation pending; awaiting Anzalone’s direct transcripts).

The State later informed the Court that they had relied on Bidxcel for both 404(b) and res gestae, and would be submitting 404(b) pattern instructions. (Vol. 22, after Logan) Subsequently, the State offered 404(b) pattern instruction 7.13 to prevent jurors from making the “forbidden inference.” (Vol. 23, #11182) Frustrated, the Court stated that the only intended purpose of mentioning Bidxcel was for res gestae. (Vol. 23, #11185) “They did what at Bidxcel? I thought Bidxcel was only mentioned for res gestae? So there was no bad act there; this was just part of the story. Because I wrestled with that earlier too, and was like I don’t even know what he was talking about.”

The State then argued that the defense should concede that they did not want the 7.13 pattern instruction; however, the defense members refused to concede. In response, the Court intervened and overruled the government’s attempt to preserve the record. “I’m overruling your attempt to protect the record. Okay? That’s a waste of time. You know what? I’ve looked at it, and frankly, I’m not completely sure I understand everything. When you throw me a curveball like that, I’m going to stop complaining. That is irritating, though. That is very irritating.” (Vol. 23, p. 217 #11185)

Even after the clear order that Bidxcel was admitted strictly as res gestae, the State continued to emphasize, in both closing and rebuttal arguments, the defendants’ alleged involvement in the Bidxcel narrative, which may have come under “SEC scrutiny” (Vol. 23, Vol. 24, #7693), and described the income earned from Bidxcel as “bad acts” linked to i2g.

The defense objected, both pretrial and during the trial, to the introduction of 404(b) bad acts that were tied to common i2g and MLM (multi-level marketing) business practices, which were unrelated to the elements of the offense. The Court erred by failing to discern the difference and by not properly excluding common MLM practices as 404(b) representations. These were used to intentionally mislead, misinform, and confuse the “trier of fact.”

For example, the use of “business transfer request forms” (Vol. 1, p. 4074) was described by Reynolds and Anzalone) as a management tool available to all mlm distributors; however, it was mischaracterized as “insider knowledge,” known only to the defendants, and as evidence of material misrepresentations in a criminal offense.

The State pressed the issue of common MLM business practices as bad acts during their rebuttal arguments. They made accusations about “people moving from one spot to another” as activities “done behind closed doors” (Vol. 24, p. 303 #7710). According to the State’s standard, all MLM distributors would be subject to incarceration for simply managing their businesses with tools available to every distributor.

Moreover, their highly praised witness, Reynolds, testified that MLM companies often preserve top positions when recruiting effective salespeople (Vol. 1, p. 4074 ) and that this was not improper. Reynolds further explained that “levels” within an MLM structure are largely based on the physical position of the sponsor within the organization (Vol. 1, pp. 66-67 #4075, 76), not where someone is “placed” or “lands,” as the State repeatedly suggested as another “bad act”.

The state’s allegations were disingenuous, especially given that their 101i referenced 3,650 “customer positions” purchased for $19.95. The information it claimed was known only to Hosseinipour was known to everybody.