Conspiracy to Commit Mortgage Fraud

My attorney says if I don't testify I will lose. So how does that affect your opinion of him?

And I was a very well respected person in my industry who was worth ten times what I was earning, and there are industry icons who will testify to this fact - people who have made billions of dollars. You, like the prosecution, are making a LOT of false assumptions.

And I am justifiably paranoid. There are things I know as factual about this prosecution that warrant such paranoia.

Here is one example of why I don't trust my attorney. Every single thing I have brought to him to demonstrate my innocence he has argued won't be allowed in for one reason or another, and every single time I have been able to prove him wrong. I wanted "Steve's" emails and recordings of our meetings subpoenaed and he told me the court would never grant such a motion. So I wrote my own Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum - and guess what - the judge granted my motion. I now have these emails and these recordings, which substantiate everything I've stated all along.

You insist on the argument that an intelligent person who is guilty of trusting someone must be guilty of being involved in a fraudulent scheme. I'm telling you that I can demonstrate CLEARLY that I was a victim of this scheme - both factually and logically.

My only concern at this point is how deep to Charles Koch's influences in this matter run. And just because he is "Steve's" friend would he really pull those strings to get me convicted (and how could that be possible?) or was he merely instrumental in getting me prosecuted? Or is this even true? I know there is also the possibility that Steve planted this information just to mess with my head - something that is definitely working at this point. Obviously now I don't know who to trust.

I stand firmly on the knowledge that I am truly innocent. I also know that there is a strong possibility that I may end up in prison despite that fact.

Here is an interesting question for debate:

Historically lenders wanted to know if a home purchase was a primary residence or if there had been another transaction in the previous three years in order to assess the risk factor associated with any given real estate transaction. However, in 2006 the climate of the mortgage industry was such that lenders simply wanted to close as many transactions as possible so that they could bundle the mortgages into MBS's - in reality they no longer even cared about the viability of a given mortgage. Have you seen Too Big to Fail? There is a really great scene where this is explained - you can see it here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBbNVxnIm7w -

Obviously this doesn't really change the fact of whether something was true or not. But my argument is that the lenders actually perpetuated the environment for fraud by changing the rules and blurring the lines between right and wrong such that title companies and mortgage brokers began to do exactly what happened in my case - they would intentionally get unsuspecting purchasers to sign things that THEY knew to be untrue in order to close on these "shit-bag mortgages."

So should a person who relied on the ethics and professionalism of those at the mortgage companies, title companies, and lending companies where things were clearly done at these companies that were fraudulent but that the buyer could have had no way of knowing about - should that person be subjected to prosecution? Particularly where nobody at any of these companies faced similar prosecution?

Well OP, if I was the trier of fact I would be asking myself (after just reading this thread), How is it that a man smart enough and capable enough to found and build a software company with potential worth of tens of millions of dollars not know what he was signing in the mortgage scheme? It may be true that you didn't read the documents, but who would believe that?

Quote:

---

Here is one example of why I don't trust my attorney. Every single thing I have brought to him to demonstrate my innocence he has argued won't be allowed in for one reason or another, and every single time I have been able to prove him wrong. I wanted "Steve's" emails and recordings of our meetings subpoenaed and he told me the court would never grant such a motion. So I wrote my own Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum - and guess what - the judge granted my motion. I now have these emails and these recordings, which substantiate everything I've stated all along

---

You may think that all the emails and recordings that you got of your meetings with Steve is relevant to your innocence but it has nothing to do with the crimes you have been indicted for and I would agree with your attorney that they will be objected to and not be allowed at trial. No one really cares why you did what you did but only that you did do it. And to that, you have already acknowledged the signing of 4 fraudulent mortgages.

You should think long and hard about a deal that could save you 16 years of incarceration.

Not my opinion of him, but of the case. If your attorney feels your only chance is your testimony, it means he feels the prosecutor has enough evidence of intent and you are the only possibility to have it come into a reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

And I was a very well respected person in my industry who was worth ten times what I was earning, and there are industry icons who will testify to this fact - people who have made billions of dollars. You, like the prosecution, are making a LOT of false assumptions.

---

And, you did not know what you were doing was illegal? You did not know you should not sign important papers that you did not know what they contained or their meaning? You did not know how loans work? It seems to me your only chance here is to show you were smart enough to legitimately earn a six figure salary while simultaneously being stupid enough to not know basic finance of the type all home owners in America must know. That you claim that you are a very well respected person in your industry is not going to be a good thing for you from my point of view. Remember, all they need to prove is "reckless indifference".

Quote:

---

And I am justifiably paranoid. There are things I know as factual about this prosecution that warrant such paranoia.

Here is one example of why I don't trust my attorney. Every single thing I have brought to him to demonstrate my innocence he has argued won't be allowed in for one reason or another, and every single time I have been able to prove him wrong. I wanted "Steve's" emails and recordings of our meetings subpoenaed and he told me the court would never grant such a motion. So I wrote my own Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum - and guess what - the judge granted my motion. I now have these emails and these recordings, which substantiate everything I've stated all along.

---

They have not been admitted. They have only been discovered. You have not proven your attorney wrong yet.

Quote:

---

You insist on the argument that an intelligent person who is guilty of trusting someone must be guilty of being involved in a fraudulent scheme. I'm telling you that I can demonstrate CLEARLY that I was a victim of this scheme - both factually and logically.

---

It is not a matter of trusting someone. It is a matter of trusting a person who is a co-conspirator when the things being asked for you to do do not pass the smell test. Even you had concerns and asked him about them. You took his representations as fact when a person could type into Google (Back then, maybe Alta Vista) "mortgage fraud" and see how the exact things you were doing are considered fraud. You did not have access to the internet?

Quote:

---

I stand firmly on the knowledge that I am truly innocent. I also know that there is a strong possibility that I may end up in prison despite that fact.

---

You are not truly innocent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Quote:

---

So should a person who relied on the ethics and professionalism of those at the mortgage companies, title companies, and lending companies where things were clearly done at these companies that were fraudulent but that the buyer could have had no way of knowing about - should that person be subjected to prosecution? Particularly where nobody at any of these companies faced similar prosecution?

---

You are the one who made the representations. You were the one who manipulated facts to make them appear as something that was not true. You. When you say you had "no way of knowing about" that is simply false. You check it out. Simply asking the guy who you suspect of tricking you is not really checking it out. Maybe a normal home buyer who does this once could get away with such an argument. Maybe. You did not do it once, you did it multiple times for a lot of money. At some point you have to take responsibility for YOUR actions. Even if you think others are getting away with things.

This bulletin may help you understand what the government needs to do:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...m/usab6104.pdf

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

You may think that all the emails and recordings that you got of your meetings with Steve is relevant to your innocence but it has nothing to do with the crimes you have been indicted for and I would agree with your attorney that they will be objected to and not be allowed at trial.

---

Laughable. Again - more false assumptions. How do you know that these have nothing to do with what I've been indicted for? As it happens you are wrong. The recordings of the meetings include Greg's presentation to the board of his proposal that I do the home flips as a stop-gap measure in lieu of capital calls - and the well respected realtor on our board asked a few questions and was satisfied that these transactions would be legal - even to the point that he was willing to allow the proceeds from these mortgage transactions to be used to fund our operations - obviously anyone who thought these would be illegal would not have allowed that to happen as this would have subjected our company to seizure and forfeiture.

Ask anyone who has purchased a home in the past two decades and unless they are an attorney MOST will tell you they didn't read the documents - here are two articles that support this fact:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...atement-lender

http://www.chicagomag.com/Radar/Deal...ng-Study-Says/

The fact is that I trusted the professionals to assure that these documents were correct. Despite what every one of you attorneys say any normal person would relate to the fact that it is the responsibility of the title company to assure things are legal. How can a lay person be expected to find something that isn't? That is totally absurd.

And if a person who is purchasing a home for 20 or 30 years doesn't read the documents why would someone who is purchasing a home they expected to own less than 90 days? At the end of the day what matters is that I did not know that anything was illegal - I did NOT "knowingly and intentionally" engage in fraud. And I did as much due diligence as I could do - I had conversations with a realtor on our board who was satisfied that these were legal. And on top of the fact that I knew that the probation office was reviewing these transactions (I even saw a letter to his PO discussing this) I was made to believe there could not be anything illegal happening in these transactions. That is a far cry from knowingly and intentionally committing a fraud and is the polar opposite of deliberate ignorance.

And Welfarelvr - it was even discussed at these meetings that the sole reason for doing these mortgages was to cover the costs of the company in lieu of capital calls. None of my investors had refused to do the capital calls - it was just that there was this infighting between Greg and Steve that had caused a distraction - but there was absolutely ZERO reason for me to do something I knew to be illegal to cover expenses when I had five people whose sole responsibility in this venture was to fund the operations when the contracts did not do so. It completely defies logic that I would commit a crime to cover these costs instead of relying on my investors to do so.

I'm not sure why you people seem to get off on telling people they are guilty. It seems to be some sort of mental disorder among attorneys or people in the criminal legal system - you people just WANT to assume everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty. It's pathetic, really.

Quote:

---

Quoting Persecuted

---

Laughable. Again - more false assumptions. How do you know that these have nothing to do with what I've been indicted for? As it happens you are wrong. The recordings of the meetings include Greg's presentation to the board of his proposal that I do the home flips as a stop-gap measure in lieu of capital calls - and the well respected realtor on our board asked a few questions and was satisfied that these transactions would be legal - even to the point that he was willing to allow the proceeds from these mortgage transactions to be used to fund our operations - obviously anyone who thought these would be illegal would not have allowed that to happen as this would have subjected our company to seizure and forfeiture.

---

None of them were signing the papers, and none of them were advising you in a professional capacity, therefore none of them are liable for the mistakes you made.

Quote:

---

Quoting Persecuted

---

The fact is that I trusted the professionals to assure that these documents were correct. Despite what every one of you attorneys say any normal person would relate to the fact that it is the responsibility of the title company to assure things are legal. How can a lay person be expected to find something that isn't? That is totally absurd.

And if a person who is purchasing a home for 20 or 30 years doesn't read the documents why would someone who is purchasing a home they expected to own less than 90 days? At the end of the day what matters is that I did not know that anything was illegal - I did NOT "knowingly and intentionally" engage in fraud. And I did as much due diligence as I could do - I had conversations with a realtor on our board who was satisfied that these were legal. And on top of the fact that I knew that the probation office was reviewing these transactions (I even saw a letter to his PO discussing this) I was made to believe there could not be anything illegal happening in these transactions. That is a far cry from knowingly and intentionally committing a fraud and is the polar opposite of deliberate ignorance.

---

If I was starting a business venture making myself liable for millions of dollars worth of loans you can bet your ass I would have read the paperwork and known what I was signing. If you didn't want to read the paperwork and so the work yourself then you should have hired a competent attorney to assist you. The fact you chose not to does not make you innocent. The fact that you were didn't know what you were doing was wrong doesn't make it less wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting Persecuted

---

It completely defies logic that I would commit a crime to cover these costs instead of relying on my investors to do so.

---

I think that plenty of people would agree that it defies logic that you would commit this crime when you were apparently on the brink of a huge financial gain from your software company. However humans are notoriously illogical, criminals even more so. You seem to feel that the fact that this wasn't logical means you aren't guilty of it, however that couldn't be further from the truth.

Quote:

---

Quoting Persecuted

---

I'm not sure why you people seem to get off on telling people they are guilty. It seems to be some sort of mental disorder among attorneys or people in the criminal legal system - you people just WANT to assume everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty. It's pathetic, really.

---

What you outlined in your first post constitutes mortgage fraud, we are only assuming you are guilty because you told us what you did and we can see that that is illegal, regardless of how illogical it may be or what your board of directors may have said.

Seems like we'll have to agree to disagree.

Federal Mortgage and Wire Fraud are NOT Strict Liability Crimes

In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law.

Strict Liability in Criminal Law

The concept of strict liability is found in criminal law, though the same or similar concept may appear in contexts where the term itself is not used. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need to prove only that the defendant was operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.

Strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no mens rea is specified, under the Model Penal Code or MPC, the default mens rea requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to a material element".[1]

Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses, since intent does not need to be proven.[2]

Since the federal statute for wire fraud, 18 USC 1343, plainly states an element of intent wire fraud is clearly not a strict liability crime.

18 U.S.C. 1343—Elements of Wire Fraud

The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme."). [3]

[1] Lee, Cynthia (2009). Criminal Law Cases and Materials. F. Strict Liability Crimes: WEST A Thomas Reuters Business. pp. 219–221;989. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-0-314-19880-5|978-0-314-19880-5]].
[2] Joel Samaha (briefed by) (June 9, 2001). "Garnett v. State". Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
[3] http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...itle9/crm00941...

Quote:

---

Quoting Persecuted

---

Strict Liability in Criminal Law

The concept of strict liability is found in criminal law, though the same or similar concept may appear in contexts where the term itself is not used. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need to prove only that the defendant was operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.

---

Here is where the problem with your argument comes in. You DID from what you have told us intentionally and willfully scheme to defraud. You signed the paper work to acquire mortgages for a primary residence with the intent to flip them, in order to secure a lower interest rate. This is illegal, the fact that you didn't know it was illegal does not make it legal. Strict liability comes into play if you didn't know that the mortgage company was doing something illegal, not that you knowingly did something illegal while thinking it is legal.

To flip your example around, if strict liability did not apply to speeding and speeding was only a crime if to willfully and knowingly violated the speed limit then you may have an argument if your car speedometer was defective, you would not have a defense if you knew you were driving 100 MPH, despite the speed limit being 65.

When it comes to liability ignorance of actions taken (i.e. not knowing what happened) is a defense, however ignorance of the law (i.e. knowing what happened but not knowing it was illegal) is not a defense. You knew what the loans were, you have already told us enough to make that clear, whether or not you knew what you were doing was illegal is irrelevant.

Brown - you are completely misrepresenting the facts.

I have never stated anything of the sort of what you just said.

First - in the recordings of the meetings where we discussed the mortgages I stated repeatedly that if they did not vote to increase my salary allowing me to legally qualify for these mortgages then I would not do them because I refused to sign something that was not true. This is strongly demonstrative of my state of mind - that I REFUSED to sign something that was not true.

I could completely agree with you if the person doing the closings stated that she explained to me that I was signing something that said I hadn't done another transaction in the previous 3 years or that each home was my primary residence. She has in fact stated the opposite of that - she did NOT explain these things to me. We had literally 30 minutes to do each closing and she simply put these two huge stacks of documents in front of me and told me where to sign - she has even stated that SHE didn't even know what these things were. She will testify that she told me where to sign and that is what I did. She will also testify to the fact that my transactions were the same as every other she did even in the many instances where buyers were buying multiple properties within a short period of time.

My point is that had someone told me that these things were in the documents I would have said, "hey, I can't sign something that says I haven't done a transaction in the past three years since we just closed on one last week" or something to that effect. I would NEVER have knowingly signed something I knew was not true. And can be heard in these tapes saying this over and over.

You are insinuating that I "signed the paper work to acquire mortgages for a primary residence with the intent to flip them, in order to secure a lower interest rate" but that is completely false - as are 99% of the other assumptions being made throughout this discussion here.

This is a total waste of my time. I thought I could possibly bounce some things off of some sharp legal minds here - apparently that too was a false assumption.

Quote:

---

Quoting Persecuted

---

I could completely agree with you if the person doing the closings stated that she explained to me that I was signing something that said I hadn't done another transaction in the previous 3 years or that each home was my primary residence. She has in fact stated the opposite of that - she did NOT explain these things to me. We had literally 30 minutes to do each closing and she simply put these two huge stacks of documents in front of me and told me where to sign - she has even stated that SHE didn't even know what these things were. She will testify that she told me where to sign and that is what I did. She will also testify to the fact that my transactions were the same as every other she did even in the many instances where buyers were buying multiple properties within a short period of time.

---

The person doing the closing was hired by you and was working for you (she may have been selected by the mortgage company but that was done on your behalf), the fact that she said she didn't know what paper work meant is only going to look worse for you. You hired someone to review the paperwork and have you sign it, she didn't understand the paperwork, yet you still signed it. It would help your case more if she understood the paperwork and mislead you. The fact that you signed paperwork handed to you be someone who didn't know what it meant is incredibly unbelievable, especially for someone who was at the time was by his own account an industry leading CEO. I have purchased multiple properties, and my closing agent/title insurer is also my (trusted) real estate attorney, the fact that you were using some one who was incompetent and that you after being told that the closing agent didn't understand the paperwork agreed to sign the contract is not a defense that will ever hold up.

Look, I think we agree intent is the only thing you have to argue. I have repeatedly shown how they will attempt to prove you had the intent to defraud. Because fraud is a specific intent crime, it is even a little harder to prove than in some other contexts. But, you are simply not looking at things from a neutral viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Quoting Persecuted

---

And Welfarelvr - it was even discussed at these meetings that the sole reason for doing these mortgages was to cover the costs of the company in lieu of capital calls. None of my investors had refused to do the capital calls - it was just that there was this infighting between Greg and Steve that had caused a distraction - but there was absolutely ZERO reason for me to do something I knew to be illegal to cover expenses when I had five people whose sole responsibility in this venture was to fund the operations when the contracts did not do so. It completely defies logic that I would commit a crime to cover these costs instead of relying on my investors to do so.

---

So, you got mortgages through false pretenses to fund the company paying you.

Quote:

---

First - in the recordings of the meetings where we discussed the mortgages I stated repeatedly that if they did not vote to increase my salary allowing me to legally qualify for these mortgages then I would not do them because I refused to sign something that was not true. This is strongly demonstrative of my state of mind - that I REFUSED to sign something that was not true.

---

Or, from a different perspective, you refused to be a part of the scheme unless they raised your salary.

Quote:

---

I could completely agree with you if the person doing the closings stated that she explained to me that I was signing something that said I hadn't done another transaction in the previous 3 years or that each home was my primary residence. She has in fact stated the opposite of that - she did NOT explain these things to me. We had literally 30 minutes to do each closing and she simply put these two huge stacks of documents in front of me and told me where to sign - she has even stated that SHE didn't even know what these things were. She will testify that she told me where to sign and that is what I did. She will also testify to the fact that my transactions were the same as every other she did even in the many instances where buyers were buying multiple properties within a short period of time.

---

Why do you think it is her job to do so? She is not your attorney. She is not required to know what you are signing. As I have repeatedly wrote, it is your job to know what you are signing. A legal presumption under the law will be you knew what was the effect of what you were signing. That is how contracts work. Even clicking the button on the screen with a long list of requirements on another screen makes you legally responsible for all those other things in some jurisdictions. Now, you can rebut the presumption if you can. It will take more than your word.

Quote:

---

My point is that had someone told me that these things were in the documents I would have said, "hey, I can't sign something that says I haven't done a transaction in the past three years since we just closed on one last week" or something to that effect. I would NEVER have knowingly signed something I knew was not true. And can be heard in these tapes saying this over and over.

You are insinuating that I "signed the paper work to acquire mortgages for a primary residence with the intent to flip them, in order to secure a lower interest rate" but that is completely false - as are 99% of the other assumptions being made throughout this discussion here.

---

Insinuating? You have said it. You did sign the paperwork. You did sign knowing it was for a primary residence and then you did some things to make it appear as though it was your primary residence even though it was not. You claim you did not know it was to secure a lower interest rate. Fine. What did you think claiming it was your primary residence was supposed to do?

Quote:

---

This is a total waste of my time. I thought I could possibly bounce some things off of some sharp legal minds here - apparently that too was a false assumption.

---

What did you want to bounce? It seems you keep making claims and we show you the problems. What is it you expected? For us to tell you that you have a slam dunk, get rid of your attorney and blame the Koch's to get yourself out from under this?

You have a problem, as you know. It seems your only hope is to get in front of a jury and try to get them to see the innocence in your eyes and voice regarding what seems a mountain of evidence against you in the attempt to prove you did not have the intent to defraud. You will need to do this with straight forward statements and reasonable explanations for each piece of the mountain in the hope you can convince the jury there is a reasonable doubt about your intent. Asking why or arguing the logic is worthless as everything can be explained from a profit motive and hope to not get caught. You have got to look them in the eye and convince them because your words are not helping you much. I would make sure you have an attorney who can object in your cross-examination or you will not have any chance at all.