Summary charts can have a significant impact on a jury, which is why there are specific rules governing their introduction that require the submission of underlying data. When this data is presented as factual by a trusted FBI agent and supported by the credibility of the government, these summaries become highly influential and impactful on jurors.
The government acknowledges in their response that McClelland’s charts were improperly admitted without the underlying data, but they argue that this error was not prejudicial and did not affect the jury’s decision.
However, the fact that the summations were false—specifically, that McClelland fabricated actual emperor sales and misrepresented I2G distributor losses by $28 million—highlights the obvious prejudicial impact of the charts.
We are uploading summary charts 230 and 232 to illustrate the prejudicial effect. Additionally, we will include the list of top earners, which contradicts the summary data by showing that 256 individuals earned over $10,000. We are also uploading the 1099 records, which indicate that 1,020 people earned over $600 in 2014 alone. Both sets of information dispute the figures presented by McClelland.
Previously, we uploaded document 7240 to highlight the $28 million in commission gains omitted from McClelland’s summaries and those from document 101i. The summaries have significantly inflated losses by failure to include $28 million in verified commission gains, clarifying the prejudicial effects.
Summary chart 230 compares “actual emperor sales” against bank account records, displaying a significantly lower number. McClelland fabricated the “actual sales” figures based on his simplistic calculation that $5000 multiplied by $5000 equals the actual emperor’s revenues. He did not rely on underlying data to confirm his calculations. His outrageous claim suggested that millions of dollars were missing and hidden in offshore bank accounts belonging to Maike and Barnes. This assertion was contradicted by US 7240 data, which accurately accounts for every transaction, refuting McClelland’s erroneous assumptions. These assumptions misled the jury and influenced the judge to believe that millions of dollars were missing, constituting fraud on the court.
The Summary Chart 232 excluded $28 million in distributor commissions, which were incorrectly labeled as losses in McClelland’s summary. He relied solely on GPG withdrawal records, even though he acknowledged in his testimony that he was aware of the $38 million in commission payments made to distributors, as documented in the Reynolds commission records. McClelland chose to ignore this information and excluded 80% of the commission gains that were not reflected in the GPG withdrawals, particularly those funds used for purchases. McClelland recognized that GPG records were not a valid method for calculating total commission gains—he admitted that GPG withdrawals for Jason Syn accounted for only 4% of the total Syn commissions shown in Reynolds’ data. Furthermore, McClelland’s findings contradict the list of top earners and the 1099 records provided below. The misrepresentations in his significantly inflated loss summaries are undeniable.
Summary 232 indicates that only 32 individuals earned between $0 and $5,000. However, the documents in his possession (7240) revealed that $38 million was paid out in commissions. The top earners’ list showed that 256 individuals earned over $10,000, totaling $ 20 millionin paid commissions. Additionally, the 2014 1099 records indicated that 1,020 people earned more than $600, totaling 14 million dollars paid to US-based distributors in 2014 alone. When compared to McClelland’s summary, the evidence of prejudice and fraud upon the Court becomes evident.