The i2G Defendants did not stand a chance at a fair trial because the prosecution misled both the i2G Court and the defense team regarding the accuracy of the original “exonerating” data. They claimed that the data was not accurate and had “problems”, according to the data provider, Jerry Reynolds. However, Jerry Reynolds never made such a statement; he later provided an affidavit confirming that the 7240 data was accurate after the trial concluded. Unfortunately, by that time, it was too late. The government got away with “filtering out” $28 million in commission payments to distributors labeled as alleged victims. The trial was based on falsehoods surrounding a pyramid scheme with a purported 97% loss rate, which was knowingly untrue. The alleged losses of non-witnesses were derived solely from misleading, manipulated spreadsheet findings, which formed the basis of a fabricated narrative about a pyramid scheme involving $38 million in losses.
The I2G Court, jury, and defense team never questioned whether the prosecution’s data had been manipulated to present false representations of gains and losses. The prosecution played foul, and no one noticed it until after the trial.
The court, jury, and defense team failed to notice that the government presented 27 months of data from another company, XTG1 after i2G was closed. This data was displayed across all seven spreadsheets used to represent i2G. Additionally, the misleading information was presented through 16 different witnesses.
The prosecutor claims that the defense team did not uncover the false evidence (or its duplicity) until after the trial, making it too late to address. This is not the correct standard for justice. While it is unacceptable that the defense overlooked something as fundamental as the I2g loss rate and the non-existent victim losses, the defense operated under the belief that the government would uphold a standard of truth in the pursuit of justice.
We now face a challenging struggle to reveal the truth. The defense made several mistakes, but they were not on equal footing with the government. The prosecution has a duty to be honest, present accurate information, and refrain from misleading the court or the jury with false evidence.