UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT __________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, V. ROBERT H.

RIVERNIDER, JR., DEFENDANT. : : : : : No. 3:1c0r-00222 (RNC)

December 15, 2013

__________________________________

ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER, JR., pro se, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT WITH PREJUDICE OR FOR A NEW TRIAL DUE TO EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNCIL IN ORDER TO CORRECT A MANIFEST INJUSTICE

Robert H. Rivernider, Jr., hereby moves the court to withdraw guilty plea and dismiss the indictment because it is tainted due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct, in the alternative Mr. Rivernider requests a new trial. The indictment in this case should be dismissed because of a number of violations of the defendants Fifth Amendment rights to an unbiased, properly instructed and appropriately informed grand jury and Sixth Amendment right to a fair and open trial. 1. Violation of defendants 6th Amendment right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. Oral Argument Requested
1

I.

According to the indictment, section 15, the defendant was charged based on the "No More Bills" program. The indictment falsely states, "Rivernider and Ponte sought Victim Investors to invest monies with them". The No More Bills program never sought investors or anyone to invest monies.

II.

At trial the prosecution introduced an e-mail, subject line: "Recipe for NMB disaster" dated September 10, 2007, the prosecution claimed this showed that Rivernider and Ponte knew NMB was a disaster, when in fact, the e-mail was about a different and distinct program. This program became frozen months earlier and it involved Michael Mastoris who was soliciting funds from his family and friends and he was to earn a monthly commission, this program was the "Mastoris Plan". The "Recipe" e-mail was completely truthful in regards to the "Mastoris Plan" and was not about the NMB Program. See Telman v. United States 67 F.2d 716, 718: "Where one large conspiracy is charged, proof of different and disconnected smaller ones will not sustain a conviction."

III.

Mr. Rivernider offered every client of The Mastoris Plan his or her money back or the option to move it to the NMB program. Two of those clients requested their money back, Nick Mastoris and Paul Fisfis. They each received 100% of their money on October 1st 2007. This is after the date the prosecution alleges Mr. Rivernider and Mr. Ponte knew that NMB was a disaster. However the prosecution told the court and the witnesses before testifying that the "Recipe" email was proof that NMB was falling, when in fact the "Recipe" email had nothing to do with the NMB program, thereby tampering with witnesses.
2

IV. The prosecution submitted to the court loss calculations and victims, on the list James Reid was included, James Reid was never in the NMB program. James Reid was involved in the "Mastoris plan" not the NMB program. A NMB Investment program as the prosecution continues to refer to, never existed. V. Mr. Rivernider respectfully requests this court to allow Mr. Rivernider withdraw his guilty plea on Counts 1-8, as the defendant, Robert Rivernider never knew the actual crime was based on the "Mastoris plan" and not the NMB program as the indictment states. Mr. Rivernider had a Sixth Amendment right to be properly be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him and he was not. VI. The prosecution through their key witnesses, Tosha Wade, alleged that Mr. Rivernider told Ms. Wade not to tell the lenders that Cut Above Ventures, LLC would be making mortgage payments on behalf of the borrowers. This false allegation is not included in the indictment, yet, it appears to be the key issue that makes the Turk decision relevant which caused all properties to be include for all defendants regardless of whether a defendant had any knowledge or involvement, or even if they happened before a defendant "joined the conspiracy". VII. This allegation, as well as all the mortgage related allegations, is based solely on a witness who committed perjury before this court, Tosha Wade. VIII. Wade claimed, during questioning from the prosecution, that she became a licensed real estate agent while working for the developer of the Sterling Properties, when if fact she did not become a licensed real estate agent until June 14th, 2007, Exhibit 1, which was after she ended her employment with the Sterling Properties.
3

Wade was illegally selling real estate for well over a year. Wade also lied to the FBI as her 302, in May 15, 2012, she tells the same false story, giving the FBI agent ample time to verify it and correct it so Wade did not commit perjury at trial, this incredibly did not happen. This perjured statement, which the prosecution certainly should have known about, is but a "tip of the iceberg" for Wade. IX. Wade states based on trial transcript pages 84 through 87 that she helped Monica Pardo buy her first condo at the Sterling and that she "JUST purchased her primary", according to public records Pardo closed on her property May 19th, 2006, Exhibit 2, a year before Wade was attempting to sell Pardo another property. Wade was not licensed to sell real estate on May 19th, 2006 (as showed in "Exhibit 1" above). X. Wade claimed at trial, according to the transcript. "that she often leaked out the incentive deal to the lenders and that Rivernider and Seneca would then call her and curse her out", setting aside the fact that Rivernider does not curse and has never heard Seneca curse, Wade's claims are absurd. The lenders Wade refers to were her friends who previously worked at the Sterling as mortgage lenders, Jackie Santos and Jamie Navarro. In Wade's 302, typed by SA West, she states the following: "Both Santos and Navarro were aware of Rivernider's incentive program." "Santos was fully aware of Rivernider's incentives to his buyers. Rivernider had flyers all around the office which detailed his aforementioned incentives, and Wade specifically discussed the program with Santos." "Wade advised again that Santos was one of the lenders working out of The Sterling Villages and that she was fully aware of Rivernider's incentive program." "Wade stated that Jaime Navarro was also
4

"in the know. If Wade was in fact leaking to the lenders, who were "in the know", Wade's testimony that Rivernider and Seneca cursed her out at any time is blatantly absurd. XI. Wade also claims that two people were working at the Sterling daily, Seneca, had a full time job in Ft. Lauderdale, the same job she had for the previous seven years, through the first week of January 2007, and later in January began working for the Miceli's at their office in West Palm Beach. Rivernider, worked from his home and in late 2006 started going back and forth to TN as he invested in a cabin rental company. Wade failed to mention that it was actually Mike and Carol LaPorte who were at the Sterling on a daily basis. The LaPorte's were hired to manage the properties and handle all issues at the Sterling, including fixing up the units, which required them to be at the Sterling often, this included dealing with Tosha Wade. The two people Wade clearly are referring to are Mike and Carol LaPorte not Rivernider and Seneca. Wade also falsely claims that Seneca was working at the Sterling as a mortgage broker, however, according to Jackie Santos, a lender who was working at the Sterling; in her 302 she states, "she does not know Loretta Seneca". The prosecution continues to quote a witness that they should know intentionally committed perjury and mislead this court. XII. Mr. Rivernider, respectfully requests this court to allow Mr. Rivernider to withdraw his guilty plea as to Counts 9-18, as Mr. Rivernider was not informed of the true nature and cause of the charges against him, which were presented to the court

through a witness that committed perjury and based on an indictment that is completely false. 2. Mr. Rivernider did "in good faith" make substantial investments and had no mens rea I. The court requested information as to "when Mr. Rivernider knew or should have known that NMB's was failing" and "how much money came in after the defendant should have known NMB was failing". Mr. Rivernider in fact had several "big deals" in the works through the end. For example: II. IGT (an investment), Mr. Rivernider attended a stockholders meeting on August 15th, 2007 in Dallas, TX, attended by over 200 long time IGT stockholders. At the meeting the CEO Mike Tomyko announced on December 17, 2007, that Phase one of one of IGT's numerous projects would begin paying out to investors. The payments would be calculated based on the amount of stock owned, which based on the stock held by Cut Above Ventures, LLC that payment would be nearly $500,000 per month. Also it was announced that Phase Two of the program was to start paying out in February 2008 and that payout would be the same as Phase One, nearly $500,000 per month. It was not until on or about January 20th, 2008 that Mr. Tomayko stated on a conference call that the program did not work, that is when Mr. Rivernider became unable to make repayments on the NMB loans from clients and unable to make mortgage payments as promised. With all the automatically set payments bouncing, Mr. Rivernider, also a client in the NMB program, which was also his full time job became unable to the support his family. In fact in March 2008,
6

Mr. Rivernider received a letter from his son's school, then in first grade, informing him that he needed to contact the business office as they were holding his son's report card until tuition was paid. III. Additionally only two new loans from NMB clients came in January 2008 from previous clients who were already successful with the NMB program. Joe Sweitzer sent in $59,000 and Tammy Perger\Lee Stokes sent $19,000. Both had CAV's wire instruction previously. Sweitzer was referred to CAV by David Cain another NMB client who also recommended the Methwold program as well as the contacts that lead to the investment with David Praise, Sweitzer had nothing to do with any other sales rep, including Robert Ponte. Lee Stokes has been a friend of Mr. Rivernider for over 20 years so to suggest that he had his 20-year friend wire $19,000 that immediately went out to other people's automatic payments that shortly after bounced is preposterous. IV. $10-100 Million CD: Late August 2007 Mr. Rivernider began the process to lease a Certificate of Deposit through Proof of Funds LLC and Martin W. Porter for $10 Million. Stephen Carper, whom Mr. Rivernider had been working with for several months claim to have an investor who could put the CD into a foreign exchange trading program, after getting the whole process approved and meeting with Martin W. Porter in person in Ft. Lauderdale, Mr. Rivernider pooled new loans that came in September 2007, leased the CD for $10 Million and proceeded to work to get the trader to get the CD into a trading program. The trader turned out to be David Praise; Mr. Rivernider did not learn it was the same trader who would eventually steal the
7

$1 Million investment until December 2007. In November 2007, Praise asked Mr. Rivernider if he could get the CD increased to $100 Million, Mr. Rivernider contacted Mr. Porter who agreed for approximately $74,000 he could make the increase. Mr. Rivernider contacted Mr. Ponte, informed him of the deal for the first time to see if his clients would be interested in this program. Ponte then contacted Donna Moore and Eric Reid who agreed to participate in this investment; they wired the money requested directly to Martin W. Porter, not CAV. In late December 2007, David Praise informed Mr. Rivernider that he would not be able to use the CD. Mr. Rivernider was then referred to an attorney in Tampa Florida who connected Mr. Rivernider with another trader who claimed to be able to use the $100 Million CD and put it into trade. By March 2008 this again failed. V. Dane Brigadier of Proof of Funds, LLC informed Mr. Rivernider that Ricardo Prieto had been successful with these CD's, Mr. Rivernider then began working with Mr. Prieto, who was the recipient of the "WTF", ("WTF" an acronym for What the Fig), e-mail, dated March 17, 2008, Mr. Durham popularized during a recent hearing. Once again this joint venture with CAV, Eric Reid and Donna Moore, failed. See SW-030449 on September 21 and 24, 2007 a total of $325,000 was wired by CAV to Wallace and Wallace, LLP, the escrow agent for Proof of Funds and Martin W. Porter, also note that this investment came after the September 10, 2007 "Recipe" email, further evidence that the "Recipe" email did not refer to NMB. VI. Qnetiq, Inc.: Mr. Rivernider learned of Qnetiq through another NMB client, John and Connie Hutchinson in early 2006. CAV invested $250,000 in Qnetiq, Inc. the
8

final investment happening on September 20, 2007, see again SW-030449, a wire for $62,000 to Qnetiq. Once again an investment happened after the "recipe" e-mail, which the prosecution falsely claims is when Mr. Rivernider and Mr. Ponte knew NMB was a disaster, as they told the witnesses before testifying at trial. VII. In December 2006, Mr. Rivernider negotiated a ".25% of all gross sales of all operating companies worldwide in perpetuity", Exhibit 25, of Qnetiq, Inc, which Stanley Rosensweig, President of Qnetiq, said could be a million dollars per month. Perpetuity, would have allowed all NMB repayments to be paid even had they been 252 months long. Mr. Rivernider was presented with glowing letters from United States Senator John Corzine, then Governor of New Jersey and U.S. Congressman Rob Andrews, both praising the Qnetiq program, all are available in discovery. VIII. On September 10, 2007, the very morning of the "recipe" e-mail, Mr. Rivernider wrote a check for $74,800, R-009311, as a deposit for three parcels of land to build and expand the cabin rental business in Tennessee. Mr. Rivernider then in October 2007 set up a booth and worked a trade show for two days with his real partner, Robert Hall, in Orlando, Florida to promote their business Mountain Charm Cabin Rentals at a travel agents convention. IX. Mr. Rivernider also stopped, in early January 2008, two real estate deals from proceeding and closing after becoming concerned that several investments were delayed or otherwise not going to work out as expected. Shelley Kemp was pushing to close Anthony Petruzzi and Jerry & Renita Farrell at that time, however neither closed because of Mr. Rivernider concerns. No mortgage closed after this.
9

X. Mr. Rivernider had expected that CAV's venture with Robert Hall, his real partner, as mentioned above, would be able produce enough cabin rental income and profits from the cabin rental business, to be able to make the mortgage payments on all the cabins in Tennessee. However Mr. Hall kept 100% of all income and profits instead of using the funds to pay the mortgages on the cabins. He consistently made excuses for not doing so, which eventually caused all the cabins in TN to go into foreclosure. XI. This arrangement, (renting the cabins when owners were not in residence) was well known to everyone and standard procedure for the area, in fact, Wells Fargo who learned about this TN arrangement during their investigation of CAV, obviously didn't care as they allowed it to continue. To this day, Wells Fargo and SunTrust Mortgage, along with witnesses David Bryant and Shirley Hibbard, continue to close new mortgages as 2nd homes that Hibbard and Bryant rent out. CAV and Ultimate Listing had made over $60,000 in mortgage payments to Wells Fargo in August alone, see SW-030274-5. Perhaps this is one of the reason's the DOJ stated in the National Mortgage Settlement that Wells Fargo committed "loan origination fraud" and more recently in a civil suit in Manhattan the DOJ, in a motion to a add vicepresident Kurt Lofrano to their lawsuit, stated that Wells Fargo "concealed the bank's bad loans and shoddy underwriting to protect its enormous profits", exhibit 24, also stating that the misconduct dated back to 2001 and that Wells Fargo, incredibly a victim in this case, engaged in "regular practice of reckless origination and underwriting", is it any wonder why SA West claimed he did not talk to the

10

lenders as he would have learned that none of the charges against the defendants was material. 2. Bill of Particulars The defendant filed a motion for a Bill of Particulars through counsel at the time, Shelley Sadin, on June 15, 2011, so that he might be made aware of the nature and cause of the crimes alleged in the indictment, the prosecution objected, and the defendant never received a Bill of Particulars. This would have allowed the defendant to properly prepare for trial. Mr. Rivernider pleads with this court that should it order a new trial that the prosecution be ordered to provide a bill of particulars as the defendant still is unsure as to the actual crimes the defendant committed. Mr. Rivernider did not become aware that the Bill of Particulars had been denied in a conference call by Judge Burns until after trial. Had Mr. Rivernider known the Bill of Particulars was denied, Mr. Rivernider would have continued his ongoing request for a hearing and for his counsel to appeal the decision. Counsel's failure to inform Mr. Rivernider that the Bill of Particulars had been denied and the court's denial without a hearing denied Mr. Rivernider is right to be informed of the true nature and cause of the charges against him so that he may assist counsel in preparing for trial. 3. Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) I. In the prosecutions sentencing memorandum, the prosecution now admits that Mr. Rivernider was a victim of David Praise. This was known to the prosecution as early
11

as July 2009, or sooner, based on internal e-mails between Special Agent Craig Mason of the FBI in Los Angeles, CA, the lead investigator on the David Praise case and member of the CVRA office. SA Mason writes that they need to contact the AUSA in CT as two victims names came up Robert Rivernider and Robert Ponte. Both are victims in the Praise case, he later writes that they are withholding notification as they don't want us to be able to hold up a victims letter at trial. The prosecution specifically withheld exculpatory evidence, a Brady violation that unfairly prejudiced the defense. II. The defendant was severely prejudiced by the prosecution by not fully disclosing this information to the Grand Jury, the court, or the witnesses prior to the witnesses testifying. Instead the witnesses were told that Rivernider and Ponte knew that they would not get their money back as the money had been stolen and NMB was a disaster, which the money had not been stolen in September 2007. Not only does this violate DOJ policy but also put Mr. Rivernider and his children at risk, which the CVRA specifically was passed to prevent. III. Mr. Rivernider has always maintained that everything was done in "good faith" the prosecutions admission, after trial, that he was a victim of an international fraudster who Mr. Rivernider provided substantial assistance to the Government in his apprehension as well as Mr. Praise pleading guilty to an information demonstrates that Mr. Rivernider did not have the required mens rea, at the time the acts occurred, or ever.

12

IV. The prosecution also argues that Mr. Rivernider should not get a downward departure because he did not testify against Praise before the grand jury, at trial or at sentencing, remarkable. The prosecution should know that Praise plead guilty shortly after being captured and presented with the massive amount of evidence of his international billion dollar frauds uncovered by Mr. Rivernider. The Government did not need a Grand Jury or a trial, and Mr. Rivernider was never once notified, as required by law, or afforded the protections of a victim and their family are required to receive under the CVRA or restitution required under the MVRA. V. Mr. Rivernider has been threatened several times by Praise's associates, including being paid a "visit" in Florida by a representative associated with Claudio Faoro the attorney in Zurich who represents Werner Buttiker who received $8.64 Million from Praise that came directly from the funds Cut Above Ventures and others wired in October 2007. The prosecution claims in their sentencing memorandum that they were victims of Praise, in fact, they receive $8.64 Million of real victims money, and Mr. Rivernider tracked them down in an effort to retrieve the money. VI. Mr. Rivernider and his children lives have been threatened and put in danger by criminal acts of the prosecution. They were scared out of bed by the FBI during the house raid. They had their daddy taken away and held over Christmas and his daughter's 5th birthday all due to misrepresentation by AUSA Schmeisser. AUSA Schmeisser told Judge Margolis during the Bond Hearing that Mr. Rivernider had a passport in his possession, when in fact it was taken by SA West during the raid on Mr. Rivernider's house a year and half earlier. SA West, did not correct AUSA
13

Schmeisser as he mislead the judge as he also stated that Mr. Rivernider had guns, which Mr. Rivernider sold in March 2009 with John Miceli's assistance at a gun show. Which is mysteriously absent in SA West 302 who questioned Miceli just two months after the gun show. AUSA Schmeisser also stated that $90-100,000 was unaccounted for, which the FBI had the bank statements showing where the money went as early as the beginning of 2009. FBI apparently failed to investigate, or failed to inform Mr. Schmeisser and the defense that this money was not unaccounted for and had been stolen. VII. Mr. Rivernider's children had to move out if their home as the prosecution refused to tell defense counsel the location of David Praise, an international fraudster who was previously ordered deported long before scamming Mr. Rivernider, under the name Musa Mohammed. Mr. Praise knew Mr. Rivernider's address and knew it was Mr. Rivernider who provided detailed information to the government that lead to his arrest and conviction. VIII. The prosecution, by lying to witnesses before testifying and telling witnesses that Mr. Rivernider knew they would not get paid back, when the prosecution knew Mr. Rivernider did not know or believe that, continues to put Mr. Rivernider and his kids in danger, specifically by telling witnesses like Eric Reid their false theory as Mr. Reid's company JH Reid, who wired money to Cut Above Ventures was sued in 2010 by the Teamsters Union for misappropriation of pension fund money. So the idea that the prosecution is now asking a federal judge to take away the only protection these little kids have, who have also been under house arrest for the past
14

three years, after taking away their rights and protections under the CVRA is despicable.

4. Prosecution withheld Exculpatory Evidence I. The prosecution actively schemed and conspired with the prosecution in the Praise case to withhold a victim letter from the defendants so he could not hold it up at his trial according to e-mails from SA Craig Mason. II. The prosecution intentionally withheld complete records from Bank of America, even after the Bank of America witness testified at trial that the records that show who and where the payments Cut Above Ventures sent were located on a different server and that had they been subpoenaed for ALL records, which the subpoena does state ALL records, the prosecution, as well as defense counsel, failed to obtain the records. Which severely prejudiced the defendants, causing a taint on these proceeding that must be corrected as the loss figures can not be accurately determined, in fact the prosecution continues to knowingly file false loss figures with this court. ABA Standard 3-3.11(c) warns: A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence because he or she believes it will damage the prosecution's case or aid the accused. III. The prosecution intentionally withheld the complete records from Tennessee State Bank, which shows Cut Above Ventures purchased three large parcels of land in Tennessee to expand the cabin rental business. Mr. Rivernider wrote a check for the deposit of $74,800 on September 10, 2007, the very day he also wrote the "recipe" e15

mail, which the prosecution falsely claims, shows Mr. Rivernider and Mr. Ponte knew NMB was a disaster. The purchase of the development closed in November 2007, records will show that Mr. Rivernider's actual partner Robert Hall, not Ponte, along with James Perdue signed on the mortgage, exhibit 3. Mr. Rivernider believes these documents were withheld from the defense in order for the prosecution to mislead defense counsel of their false premise that Mr. Rivernider had to sell the properties in two years, when in fact, Mr. Rivernider was not planning on selling the properties as he was expanding a Cut Above Ventures long term investment that would have been able to help pay NMB payments. IV. After Eric Reid testified the defense was finally given evidence regarding the Mortgage Eric Reid obtained from Wells Fargo to purchase a cabin in TN. As the Government turned over mortgage records previously subpoenaed from Wells Fargo to the defense it is inconceivable that the Government did not receive or attempt to obtain Eric Reids mortgage records until after he testified. Had the defense been able to cross examine Mr. Reid on the mortgage documents, it would have been revealed that the income used for the mortgage was the same as the income that was e-mailed to Connie Welch by Loretta Seneca and the same as the income on the DAS form completed by Eric Reid, sent to Will Sawran, who then forwarded it to Loretta Seneca. Which would demonstrate the standard practice of the defendants and Mr. Sawran.

16

V.

The prosecution also failed to turn over Dan Fallow phone records to show that he was talking to Mr. Rivernider all along as he testified to before the jury, as the records will prove he did not speak to Mr. Rivernider prior to purchasing the property in Idaho.

VI. Maureen Walters Bank of America Equity Line account statements. The Government failed to turn over Ms. Walterss statements that would show her equity line of $100,000. The prosecution, on direct examination, brought out that Walters borrowed $270,000 from Bank of America and in response to a direct question from Mr. Durham, Ms. Walters claimed she never looked at her statements to see if the payments were being made. Had defense had the statements from the prosecution the defense could have questioned Ms. Walters about how it was that she could have borrowed money three separate times from the same equity line over an eighteen month period of time totaling $270,000, when the equity line was only $100,000 if the payments were not being made.

5. Misrepresentations made to the Grand Jury to secure an indictment, violation of 18 USC 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court. The government may not rely on perjured testimony to secure an indictment before the grand jury. United States v. Useni, 516 F.3d 634, 656 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1974) ( We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated when a defendant has to stand trial on an indictment
17

which the government knows is based partially on perjured testimony, when the perjured testimony is material, and when jeopardy has not attached. Whenever the prosecutor learns of any perjury committed before the grand jury, he is under a duty to immediately inform the court and opposing counsel and, if the perjury may be material, also the grand jury in order that appropriate action may be taken. ). United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing conviction when AUSA tolerated perjury from central government witness) U.S.AM 9-11.010 The prosecutor's responsibility is to advise the grand jury on the law and to present evidence for its consideration. In discharging these responsibilities, the prosecutor must be scrupulously fair to all witnesses and must do nothing to inflame or otherwise improperly influence the grand jurors.

Mr. Rivernider, a trained criminal defense investigator, identified dozens of false statements and material misrepresentations made to the grand jury and forwarded them to defense counsel requesting all grand jury transcripts and a motion to compel the prosecution to turn them over. Defense counsel ignored the defendants request, which is specifically called for in Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) which says: (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

Below are a few examples:

18

SA Wests misleading testimony to the Grand Jury on October 7, 2010 and November 4, 2010, Questioner AUSA Schmeisser: I. USAO-001609, exhibit 4, Page 23. Lines 5-15 A The only funds that were seen going out as any type of additional investments were much later in 2007 and those funds were their money coming back. Q Okay. But this was after this program had been going for some time; is that fair to say? A That is correct. And the funds I'm referring to were not profit returns, but money they had put out of that account being returned. What SA West miraculously missed and completely deceived the grand jury by leaving out many other investments, for example, the original $1 Million that was sent in July 2007 to Blue Invest on July 10, 2007, see R-009284, which was directly "pooled" from loans made by witnesses who testified at trial, specifically, Richard Brooks, see R-009151, Michael Mastoris and Al Vigil, see R-009152, and Dan Fallow, see R-009153, it could not have come back and resent later if it had not originally been sent out, $413,000 to Methwold International on March 23, 2007, SW-030564, in addition to the original $100,000 sent to Methwold, $55,000 sent to Qnetiq on December 11, 2006, SW-030137, $200,000 wired out for the IGT investment on November 30, 2006, as well as $50,000 to Mountain Charm Cabin Rentals also on November 30, 2006, see SW-030158. As we now know SA West mislead everyone, including Mr. Durham, to believe Mr. Rivernider lost all his money in the MYICIS investment. As we watched as the prosecution team at the evidentiary hearing on December 5, 2013, scramble for the exact date MYICIS was
19

shut down in late 2006, which was then pointed out by the defense was a virtual bank account, not an investment. Mr. Rivernider had not lost any money in MYICIS, as SA West clearly mislead the grand jury about as multiple investments were sent out from the CAV accounts. As SA West, who should have known that MYICIS was a virtual bank account and not an investment, appears to have not properly informed the prosecution, the prosecution allegedly did not obtain the account statements from the Arkansas SEC, which would show many more investments, as well as all NMB repayments to clients through August 2006, made by Mr. Rivernider, leading AUSA Schmeisser to mislead the grand jury regarding material information in his questions to SA West. II. USAO-001624-5 Page 38 Lines 21-24 and Page 39 lines 1-7 Q Now, we've been talking about this marketing fee that went to Cut Above Ventures, So, the money at the time of the closing that was being paid to - - this marketing fee, where would that money go? A It went to the same Cut Above Ventures account that the No More Bills investment proceeds had gone into. Q Okay. And that money, did any of that money go to Mr. Ponte? A Yes it did. NO, IT DID NOT! Mr. Ponte was not paid on any real estate deal, he received no money from any marketing fee and no money went into his account from a marketing fee, yes the CAV Bank of America account received all the money, Mr. Ponte nor Loretta Seneca, was paid anything, from the marketing fee on Real Estate deals, period. This is a blatant perjury as SA West had Mr. Ponte's bank statements as well as Ponte's complete commission sheet and all e-mail correspondence
20

between Rivernider and Ponte for well over a year at this time, none of this information shows Mr. Ponte receiving any money from real estate marketing fees. III. USAO-001617, exhibit 6, Page 31 lines 22-24 Q Have you had an opportunity to talk to individuals from Sun Trust Bank? A Yes, I have. At a recent hearing, in September 2013, in this court Mr. Bergenn asked SA West if he spoke to anyone at any of the lender, which would include SunTrust, and SA West said No. USAO-001627-8, exhibit 7, Page 41 Lines 16-24 and Page 42 Lines 1-15 Q Let me turn to the woman Ms. Seneca, Lorraine Seneca. Can you remind the Grand Jury who this woman is? A Again, Loretta Seneca is Robert Rivernider's sister. Q And what were her dealings in terms of these real-estate transactions? A She more or less handled the administration part for Rivernider in processing the paperwork and getting these transactions through, to include setting leads to get the appraisals done. Q So, she was -appears to have been a necessary component of the real estate process; is that fair to say. A Yes Q what was her training and background? A She was involved in the mortgage brokerage field in Florida. Q Okay. But in terms of being involved in the mortgage brokerage field, does that mean that she would have been involved in talking to customers and obtaining loan applications? A Yes Q And she would have familiarity with exactly how sort of loan processes worked? A That is Correct. None of this is correct. First Loretta Seneca did not start going to Mr. Riverniders house until June 2007 to help Rivernider pay the bills in the bill payment program, before that she was going to John and Denise Miceli's office, who Rivernider asked to teach Seneca
21

how to process mortgages, which Seneca had never done, after Seneca lost the job she had in January 2007. Miceli did not close any loans that Rivernider was involved with while Seneca worked there. SA West misstated the information in a 302, USAO-000362 and USAO-000261, exhibits 8 and 9, which claims he interviewed John Miceli on July 14, 2010 in the body of that 302, when the interview date at the bottom is May 28, 2009 and it was saved on June 3, 2009, which claims that Miceli told him he "disposed of the business records after maintaining the records for three years after closing the businesses as required by the IRS" a requirement that does not exist, as opposed to a requirement to maintain the records for 7 years that the State of Florida does require for mortgage brokers. Which Miceli, who had a branch office for First National Mortgage, would also be required to be maintained at the corporate office. Since Miceli closed his office in September 2007, three years would not have been up, in July 2010 or in May 2009, so he should have had the files and should have turned them over. Miceli at the time knew of this criminal investigation. Had Miceli not destroyed the files, had SA West subpoenaed the file in 2009, or had he requested the files from the Miceli's corporate office we would have the records to show that Seneca did not in fact work as a mortgage Broker for John and Denise Miceli. SA West did not ask any questions about Seneca to Miceli as they would be detailed in Miceli's 302, had SA West actually interviewed Miceli in July 2010 he would have asked about Seneca who at that time was a target of the investigation, which she was not in May 2009. Also the defense was never given a 302 for Denise Miceli, as that would also show Seneca did not work as a mortgage broker as SA West inferred on November 4, 2010 before the grand jury. When asked the following by Mr.
22

Schmeisser USAO-001642-3, exhibit 10, Page 2 lines 23-24 and page 3 Lines 1-11 Q ..can you just remind the Grand Jury based on the review of the evidence that you've seen today, information that you have regarding Ms. Seneca's background and training in the real estate industry? A Yes. Ms. Seneca, again who's the older sister of Robert Rivernider, at least at one time possessed a mortgage brokers license in the State of Florida. She's worked for one or two, at least, mortgage broker companies down in Florida, one being First Mortgage - - First National Mortgage Sources, LLC, which was owned and operated by John Mizeli. Seneca took a three-day course in 1997 to get a mortgage brokers license, she NEVER worked as a mortgage broker nor did she EVER broker a mortgage in her life. She did not work as a mortgage broker for John Miceli as SA West and Mr. Schmeisser infer, nor would it appear that SA West asked John Miceli if Seneca did in fact work for him in any capacity when he allegedly questioned Miceli three months prior to testifying before the Grand Jury as again SA West wrote nothing about Seneca in Miceli's 302. Additionally, Mr. Rivernider had only worked as a retail mortgage broker for a total of 6 months in 1993, brokering FHA streamline loans that did not require Income, assets, job history, or appraisals. This is why Mr. Rivernider sent all the clients to experienced retail mortgage brokers and lenders to process the mortgages. IV. USAO-001650-1 Page 10 Lines 22-24 and Page 11, Lines 1-4, exhibit 11, Q How many individuals were employed by Cut Above Ventures? A I'm not sure who's actually employed officially, but Loretta Seneca is the only person in addition to Robert Rivernider and Mr. Ponte who had official dealings on behalf of Cut Above
23

Ventures. Another flat out falsehood as SA West had the bank records from TN State Bank in the name of Cut Above Ventures, the only signor was Robert Hall, Robert Hall and James Perdue had corporate resolution for CAV, exhibit 12, which SA West had that shows Mr. Hall with 50% ownership of CAV and James Perdue a managing member. James Perdue, whose wife Diana's letter is included in the Government's sentencing memorandum, signature appears on quit claim deeds, exhibit 13, transferring properties CAV owned free and clear to Robert Hall in August 2008 and recorded 8 months prior in the county courthouse, across the street from where SA West interviewed Robert Hall, at Mr. Hall's attorney's office, and there is no mention of this is included in Hall's 302. Neither Mr. Ponte nor Ms Seneca had any authority to act in any official capacity for Cut Above Ventures. V. USAO-001605-6 Page 19 lines 22-24 and Lines 1-16, exhibit 14, Q All right. Is it fair to say that the individuals that I just mentioned lost a significant amount of money on these investments? A Yes Q Can you give the Grand Jury an idea of approximately how much money Mr. Mastoris lost? A Mr. Mastoris estimates he lost approximately $800,000 Q And that was on the No More Bills program? That is correct. Q All right. And I won't go through each of these, but the rest of these individuals also lost monies that they invested? A Yes Q And this includes netting out any expenses that may have been paid in terms of their debts that they owed? A Correct. On November 4, 2010 USAO-001678 SA West again being questioned by AUSA
24

Schmeisser Page 38 Lines 7-15, exhibit 15, Q All right. And you've also had the occasion to talk about the investors Michael Mastoris and Richard Brooks. Did both of these individuals lose money on their investments? A Yes, they did. Q Just roughly, Mr. Mastoris, how much did he lose? A He estimates he lost, you know, anywhere between 700,00 and $900,000. No one ever invested a dollar in the No More Bills program. Clients were given an option to loan money to CAV to help them get out of debt faster with fixed repayments based on investments CAV made. SA West first interviewed Michael Mastoris on October 27, 2010, three weeks after first testifying that "Mastoris estimates he lost approximately $800,000", this number can only then be based on an interview with a secret service agent that was recorded, however, it is the secret service agent that tells Mastoris he lost $800,000, Mastoris responds that he does not have any records with him and that he was getting like $65,000 per month back. (Transcript not available to Mr. Rivernider at this time) In SA West's 302 USAO000371 he writes "Mastoris was invested with Ponte for about a three year period, and Mastoris estimated he sent Ponte between $700,000 and $900,000, of which approximately $200,000 was from the family diner". On October 27, 2010 SA West writes that Mastoris Sent between $700,000 and $900,000 yet a week later on November 4, 2010, the day the Grand Jury indicted the defendants SA West stated Mastoris said "He estimates he lost, you know, anywhere between 700,00 and $900,000." Based on the actual payments Mr. Mastoris received to his MYICIS virtual bank
25

account, and the payments to his bills Mr. Mastoris received at least $1.2 Million, exhibit 16, possibly more which we would be able to be determined had the prosecution turned over the complete Bank of America and MYICIS records. The prosecution now claims Mastoris lost approximately $447,000 based on their most current loss calculation, yet Mastoris may in fact be ahead. Not only was SA West wrong about Mastoris' loss numbers he intentionally misleads the Grand Jury by inferring others lost similar amounts. VI. USAO-001233 Page 40. Lines 4-19, exhibit 17, A Mr. Piecyk was approached by Mr. Ponte to invest in the condo program in a property in Tennessee. Q What was the approximate cost of the condo or the real estate know was going to invest in Tennessee? A The listing sales price or agreed sale price was $150,000. Q To your knowledge did there ever issue any kind of mortgage to cover the sales price of that property? A yes. I believe the final transaction was for $175,000. Q The property was sold for 150 but the mortgage was in the amount of 175? A Yes, thereabouts. No, not thereabouts, NO the property did not sell for 150 but the mortgage amount of 175. All a trained investigator would have to do is look at the addresses on the subpoenaed documents in discovery, which a trained investigator would have done, unless a win at any and all costs investigation and prosecution was the rule. Piecyk originally contracted to purchase 1178 Upper Middle Creek Rd for $155,000, Flood insurance was required and was not available. Trinity Mortgage originally was doing the loan and it was withdrawn as flood insurance was not available, see R-006059.

26

So Piecyk agreed to purchase a different property, R-024087, 3040 Grassey Branch Road for $175,000, contract signed April 17, 2007. Piecyk also signed the 1003, see R-014235-8, which shows $175,000 mortgage amount. Mr. Piecyk got 100% financing, based on the real sales price of $175,000, $0 due at closing $0 earnest money paid. Which is consistent with what people were told and why "Ponte" believed he was telling the truth, because he was. The prosecution did not just deceive the Grand Jury, they based their case on a year and half flipping scheme from this deceit, just as they did by calling MYICIS, a virtual bank account an investment, and saying Mr. Rivernider lost all his money in that investment in 2006, and just as they did by claiming the "recipe" e-mail, that was about the Mastoris plan, was evidence that Rivernider and Ponte knew the NMB program was a disaster. None of this is true.

Clearly the defendants Due Process rights under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution have been violated as defendants had to stand trial on an indictment that the government knows is based partially on perjured testimony, when the perjured testimony is material. 6. False statements to obtain search warrant USAO-000180-1 SA West states that his conversations with Bank of America determined that the account were finally closed out by Ponte and\or Rivernider. Mr. Ponte was not on the Cut Above Ventures account so this statement inferring the Ponte and\or Rivernider closed out the account, and that someone from Bank of America told
27

him that Ponte and\or Rivernider closed out the account is clearly intended to mislead the judge. He then goes on to say the account was closed out for $117,256.52. He doesn't say that Bank of America closed the account and they split the money between Norman Hall and Michael McNeal, the defendants did not get this money as SA West leaves the judge to infer. This is clearly SA West misleading and misrepresenting, the truth to a Federal Judge in order to get a warrant to search my house which allowed SA West to also confiscate my Mac laptop, iPhone both of which had access to the defendants e-mail, as well as Mr. Rivernider's wife's computer, who was not listed on the search warrant, which she still dos not have back. 7. Prosecution Suborned Perjury I. AUSA Durham asked Maureen Walters if she looked at her statements to see if the payments were made and she said no. However, later in the trial Will Sawran testified about an e-mail that Walters sent Sawran that included her statement which Walters said she printed off the website. II. AUSA Durham asked Dan Fallow if he had been talking to accused defendant Rivernider all along, Fallow said yes. However, a review of accused defendants Riverniders phone records show no phone calls between Fallow and Rivernider until the middle of August 2007, three months after Fallow already lent money to NMB and purchased the property in Idaho. The first e-mail, which Fallow sent to Rivernider, was a thank you for receipt of Fallows first payment the beginning of August 2007, which coincidentally is not included on the Government loss

28

calculation spreadsheet. The prosecution did not provide the defense with any phone records from Dan Fallow to support this false claim, as they do not exist. III. The prosecutions FBI agent who testified that he search accused defendant Riverniders house, identified two phone, which he called, cell phones. However, these phone are portable house phones not cell phones, in addition they were not plugged in. They each have indicator lights on them that light up when they are on the base and plugged in, the lights are not lit. The prosecution did not provide phone numbers or phone records for these phones as they were non-working, not cell phones, and in fact on the floor not plugged in when the FBI raided the house. IV. Tosha Wade, a "tip of the iceberg" of misrepresentations are listed here. 1. February 26, 2013 Testimony of Tosha Wade Questions by AUSA Schmeisser Trial TR. Page 8 Lines 3-11 Q. And then after that, what happened? A I got laid off from Royal Caribbean and then I started working with Noah Breakstone at Breakstone Homes. And that's when I got into the real estate market. Q That was around 2006? A Yes Q At that point in time did you get a real estate license? A Yes, sir. 2. Page 82 Lines 1-13 Q Now, the jury I don't think has heard of an individual named Pardo. Do you remember an individual named Pardo? A I do. Q And who was Pardo? A She was another client that came into the Sterling that I was trying to sell two units to. Q Her full name is Monica Pardo? A Yes Q And that's for the reason you discussed before? A Exactly. 3. Page 82 lines 19-25 and Page 83 1-3 Q All right, the bottom of the e-mail chain, again moving down to up, it starts at the bottom from, it says: Monica Pardo. Do you
29

see that? A Yes. Q It says: Good morning all. Thank you for sending all the information. Just to keep you informed, I'm waiting on one final confirmation on my end to be able to sign and fax back the contract. (singular tense used) When it's referring to contract. what is that? A The sales contract for both of her units. continued Page 83 Lines 15-17 Q And going to your response, and what's the date of your response? A It is June 1, 2007. 4. Page 86 lines 21-25 And it goes on to say Stacy to Monica: Hi, Monica, will the property be your primary residence? Do you see that? A Yes. Q Had you just sold her her primary residence? A Yes. Myfloridalicense.com Exhibit 1, shows Tosha Wade obtaining a Real Estate license on June 14, 2007, public records show Monica Pardo purchased her first unit on May 19, 2006 Exhibit 2, over a year earlier and long before Mr. Rivernider contracted to market properties at the Sterling, Wade did not have a real estate license at that time or at any time she worked for Noah Breakstone, or when working as a Real Estate agent at the Sterling, as required by law. Monica Pardo purchased one property, which she was going to move into and live in as her primary residence and rent out the condo she purchased in 2006, she could not get a mortgage as a 2nd home in a development she lived in. 5. Page 85 Lines 14 Q Do you by any chance know where Thomas Ponte's primary residence was? Had you heard that name at all? A Yes. He lived in Connecticut -- or Connecticut. And then was selling properties in Tennessee as well. Q And that's Robert Ponte or you don't know? You don't have much knowledge of the Ponte's? A I
30

don't have much knowledge of him, no. Even through Mr. Schmeisser gave the wrong name at first saying Thomas, Wade instead of asking who was Thomas gave the answer she appears to have been coached to give. In Wade's 302 Robert had the last name LNU at first then SA West added Ponte later as my partner who was in Tennessee when SA West knew my partner in Tennessee was Robert Hall. 6. Page 61 Lines 8-11 Q Who is Ann Selby? A She was a client that came into the Sterling and she was interested in purchasing two units. I think it was one for herself and one for her son, if I'm not mistaken. Ann Selby was Tosha Wade's first client she attempted to sell a condo to that Mr. Rivernider was involved with, this was in May 2007, and 6 months after Mr. Rivernider contracted with the Sterling. It was Selby who, as Wade states wanted to buy 2 condo's not Rivernider who Wade claims told her to sell two units to everybody, Wade worked on commission, she was paid on each property she sold, she had the incentive to sell two properties to earn more commissions. Mr. Rivernider does not have Selby's trial transcript, but in Robert Selby's 302, dated December 29, 2011, interviewed by SA West, Selby claims to have meet Investor Robert Rivernider when visiting the Sterling Villages, Mr. Rivernider, who goes by Bob not Robert, never meet the Selby's, based in an extensive search of documents in discovery the Selby's appear to have visited the Sterling on May 7, 2007 based on SW-008493 an application they appears to have been completed by hand. Mike LaPorte, who Mr. Rivernider was paying to handle the Sterling, who unlike Mr. Rivernider has a potty
31

mouth, and was at the Sterling all the time with Tosha Wade, signs it. Mr. Rivernider, according to his cell phone records, see R-025583, was roaming in Tennessee on May 7, 2007, in fact on May 4, 2007 Mr. Rivernider's cell phone was traveling through Melbourne FL continued through Atlanta, GA on May 5, 2007, and was returning through Savannah, GA on May 10, 2007. Clearly Ms Wade and the Selby's are mistaken about whom they were referring to, or who name SA West's wrote in the 302's. As Wade did not say what date the alleged incident regarding her daughter happened, one could assume it happened this same day. 7. Page 63 Lines 10-19 Q But why is she being shown two units? A Because I was directed by Bob to always sell, and Loretta, to always sell the two units. One was for, of course, her to live in, and the other would have been an investment property. Q And this was again ones that you could sell at the same time and send it to different lenders? A yes. A few minutes earlier Wade said Selby came in looking for two units, which were for her son's. It is clear that Wade was scripted to give this answer, which she read perfectly, it just contradicts what she previously said about Selby and what actual is reality regarding Pardo. Wade sent the clients to her friends to do the mortgages, Jackie Santos and Jamie Navarro, the two mortgage lenders who previously worked at the Sterling. 8. Page 72 Lines 14-16 Q And that was -- the stacking was a concept that both Seneca and Rivernider talked openly to you about? A Yes The first time Mr. Rivernider learned about stacking was from this transcript. As Mr.
32

Rivernider only recalls seeing Tosha Wade in person approximately 5 times, Ms. Seneca less than that, and only maybe one time after Wade began selling condo's that Rivernider was involved with it is unlikely that these open conversations took place. V. GMAC alleged custodian of records Ms. Flores: The prosecution called Ms. Flores who claimed to be custodian of records for GMAC, whose records are located in Pennsylvania when Ms. Flores said she lives and works out of her house in California. Ms. Flores testified that she the closing manager for Homecomings financial at the time and oversaw closing in 8 offices. Yet, remarkably, Ms. Flores also claimed that she did not know what a mail away closing was, probably the only person involved in the mortgage industry who was willing to make such a statement on the stand under oath, especially when the words mail away were written on an internal closing document that appeared on the monitor in front of her for over an hour at trial. Ms. Flores strained to not admit that the closing agents mailed the documents directly to the borrower, who then could take as much time reading them as they needed. As happened with one of the two closings that she appeared at trial to testify about. The prosecution had a direct interest in this not coming out at trial as over 90% of the closing in this case were in fact mail away closings, and to a person, the prosecution had every borrower claim they did not read any of the papers in the closing package. This allowed them ALL, universally, to claim they did not know CAV was receiving a marketing fee, even though it was listed on many of the HUDs, that they did not know the income was not correct, or even what they were buying. This included

33

experienced real estate investors like Joel Borovey who was making $50,000 per month in real estate at the time. The closing packages were sent directly to the borrower from the closing agent, the prosecution subpoenaed the closing packages from all the closing agents, they knew these were mail away closings as it is clearly indicated in the package, which included a big note directing the borrower to call the closing agent if they had any questions. Not one of the closing packages ever went to any of the defendants. The defendants never reviewed any of these documents or sent a closing package to any borrower. Yet, in USAO-001282 Mr. Schmeisser when questioning Lisa Gold before the grand jury he asked the following question, Page 33 lines 5-7 Q But as far as you knew, this was a final closing package that you got from Mr. Ponte? A Yes, yes. I never saw this before. Mr. Ponte never saw this before during or after as Ms. Schmeisser clearly mislead the grand jury to believe as he then goes on to point out inaccuracies in the closing package inferring that Mr. Ponte personally put the wrong information on the documents. By Suborning perjury on a massive scale, these are but a few examples, the prosecution not only violated all the defendants 6th Amendment rights to a Fair trial, but also effectively shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense to disprove the misrepresentations from multiple witnesses. As Defense counsel for Mr. Rivernider informed the court that they will not be putting on a defense as they believed it shifted the burden to the defense, however, the burden had shifted to the defense due to the massive perjury permitted by the prosecution.
34

8) Improper remarks by the prosecution 5th Circuit in U.S. v Rhoden, (4453 F.2d 598 1972) said "Improper remarks which "affect substantially the Defendant's right to a fair trial" are forbidden On two separate occasions the prosecutor, AUSA Durham, stood up before objecting and blurted out the following: 1. she did not, when Mr. Bergenn stated correctly that Maureen Walters received back over $450,000 2. Thats a lie, when Mr. Bergenn stated correctly that the defendant did in fact invest money, as the prosecution now admits Mr. Rivernider did invest money, by admitting in the sentencing memorandum that Mr. Rivernider is a victim of David Praise, which the prosecution knew long before trial. Prosecutorial Misconduct for Impugning Defense Counsels Integrity (See People v. Vance (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1200-1201 [discussing this type of misconduct].) Mr. Durham's improper remarks violated the defendants right to a fair trial and had the effect of destroying defense counsels credibility and integrity with the jury. 9) Prosecution unfairly tampered with witnesses by telling witnesses before they testified at trial that the defendants knew before they sent their money to CAV that the defendants would not be able to repay them I. After trial the Mr. Rivernider learned that the prosecution was tampering with the witnesses prior to testifying by telling the witnesses that Mr. Rivernider and Mr.
35

Ponte knew NMB was a disaster based on an e-mail dated September 10, 2007 subject line "Recipe for NMB Disaster". The prosecution failed to inform the witnesses that the e-mail was about the "Mastoris plan", specifically about a program for Michael Mastoris and his clients which became frozen months earlier due to the Methwold investment, which Cut Above Ventures invested $513,000 into, which was in fact, offshore, as the account was located in Portugal, and was in fact a foreign exchange trading program, which became frozen due to a lawsuit that was recently settled in Nevada, it remains frozen to this day. This had nothing to do with the NMB program or the other ongoing and new investments CAV was invested in and investing in. II. The tampering of these witnesses improperly influenced their testimony before the jury. III. The false nature also endangered the witness and his children as "victims" money came from sources that were later sued by organizations known to cause physical harm (Teamsters). As Mr. Rivernider had already been threatened due to his aggressive efforts to retrieve victims money, Mr. Rivernider has to take these threats seriously as they put his life and his childrens lives in danger.

United States v. Nicholas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117895 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2009) The district court dismissed charges against two defendants because of "shameful" prosecutorial misconduct. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney said from the bench: "I find that the government has intimidated and improperly influenced the three witnesses
36

critical to Mr. Ruehle's defense and the cumulative effect of that misconduct has distorted the truth-finding process" According to the judge, "To submit this case to the jury would make a mockery... of the constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial" see http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34434530 10. The prosecution intentionally filed false loss calculation spreadsheets with the court to increase the number of victims and loss amount Examples include: I. Michael Mastoris: Prosecution alleges he lost $447,000 based on him sending in between $700,000 and $900,000, yet even without the Bank of America details which prosecution continues to withhold that would show were the money went, Mr. Rivernider was still able to determine that Mastoris received back over $1.2 Million, exhibit 16, directly to his bills. II. Donna Moores 302 June 3, 2009 Moore received her first payment of $13,000 in January 2007", Moore actually got $13,250 per month. The prosecution claims they were conservative in their loss calculation sheet, yet, not only did they not count the $22,000, Moore received on September 10, 2007, see R-009204 $22,000, exhibit 18, going out of CAV account and R-017953 $22,000, exhibit 19, going into Moore's account with the same identification number, they also did not count what Moore told them in 302's and before the grand jury, USAO-001161-2, exhibit 20, that she started getting repayments as early as November 2006, this leave out like 8 months of payments so Moore will show a loss instead of actually being ahead.

37

III.

When Mr. Bergenn was cross examining Maureen Walters, Mr. Bergenn was holding the Ponte\Walters spreadsheet that included all the loans Walters and Mr. Ponte made to the NMB program as well as all the repayments made to Walters bills that Rivernider was able to identify based on his knowledge as Rivernider paid the bills monthly, e-mails exchanges that contained the bills, as Walters and Pontes debt plan, the total repayments listed was over $458,000, exhibit 21, which the court will recall Mr. Bergenn included in a question to Ms. Walters. At that point, since the prosecution claims they turned over all the records, the prosecution must not have the complete records from Bank of America, or SA West who received the Bank of America records did not turn them over to the prosecution, Mr. Durham jumped up and said she did not get $450,000 loud enough for the defendants to hear and for the jury to hear. Which I believe was the first strike into any credibility Mr. Bergenn was attempting to build with the jury as they heard the prosecutor basically call the attorney for the accused a liar. Had the prosecution received all the records they would have been able to identify these payments to the Walters/Ponte bills and Mr. Durham would have known over $458,000 in repayments were made on the $305,000 in loans Walters and Ponte made to the NMB program, including $102,114.84 after Walters made the last loan of $100,000 in October 2007, the entire equity line was $100,000 and Walters borrowed $270,000 against it and testified that she never checked to see if payments were made. On the latest loss sheet from the

38

prosecution they continue to list $100,000 loss, which clearly is not correct. This means the prosecutions loss figure is off by 102%. 12. Prosecution violated attorney client privilege I. Prior to trial on several occasion Attorney Chase noticed clicking on the phone when he spoke to Mr. Rivernider, the defendant believes the prosecution was listening in on Attorney-Client confidential phone calls II. Prior to trial, as well as during trial, on several occasions Mr. Rivernider would email his attorney's with detailed information regarding government exhibits, potential witnesses, or information that came out at trial, shortly after the Government took action that leads Mr. Rivernider to believe they were reading his attorney-client confidential e-mails, for example: 1) Robert Hall was the prosecutions key witness and just as they had to turn over all the grand jury transcripts they removed him from the witness list without reason. I wrote extensively about Robert Hall, who was my actual partner, who had a bank account in the name of Cut Above Ventures, Hall rented out the cabins, found all the cabin to purchase and negotiated the deals through the realtors and kept all the rental income, nearly $1 Million. He kept all the cabin rental income and was supposed to start paying all the mortgages, he did not, and they went into foreclosure so he became a government informant to cover himself. If the prosecution did not violate Brady and they turned over all the BOA and TN State Bank records, you would see that Rivernider sent Mr. Hall about $250,000 as an investment into the cabin rental company, when Rivernider initially invested $50,000 on November 30, 2006, Rivernider had no interest in buying cabins, he
39

was suppose to bring in 100 cabins from a previous company he managed that shut down and Rivernider was told he could make as much as $100,000 per month by Bryan Owens, who was also an NMB marketer and client like Mr. Ponte, Mr. Owens had a vested interest in CAV investment being successful as he knew that is how he got repayments himself. 2) The following was part of a detailed e-mail Rivernider sent to my attorney's going through each government exhibit, Rivernider wrote: "Exhibit 158E PLEASE SHOW THIS TO THE JUDGE AND TELL HIM THIS IS EXACTLY WHY MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS FROM LENDER MUST BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED BEFORE HE ALLOWS THEM TO COME INTO MY TRIAL. THIS 1003 IS SCREWED UP, BYRON WEBB DOES NOT WORK FOR GUARANTEED RATE (GR) HE WAS A BROKER. THE 773-290-0505 NUMBER 773 IS CHICAGO, IL HE LIVES IN FLORIDA AND THIS IS NOT HIS NUMBER. THIS IS A 1003 CREATED BY THE LENDER MAYBE AFTER CLOSING TO BE USED TO SELL INTO A SECURITY OR SOMETHING, IT IS NOT SIGNED. LIABILITIES ARE COMBINED, WHO DOES THAT? ON PAGE 1 SHE SAID SHE OWNS THE HOUSE SHE IS LIVING IN, ON PAGE 3 SECTION VIII m have you had an ownership interest in a property in the last three years? No How do you own the property you live in and not have ownership interest in a property? AND THIS IS A GOVT EXHIBIT, ARE YOU KIDDING? O yeah I know Carol's answer to everything is Bob did it."

40

Shortly after sending this e-mail the prosecution sent a new exhibit list, the 1003 referenced in this e-mail were changed to a different 1003.

3) During trial, in an attempt to deal with the misrepresentation of the Recipe for NMB Disaster e-mail, Rivernider wrote the following to his attorney's: From: Bob Rivernider [mailto:bobriver@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:55 PM To: Chase, Michael; Bergenn, James Cc: Vargo, Patricia A Subject: RECIPE e-mail response "Mike, See bullet points below that I hope we can ask Carlson, and everybody else the G even thinks about misinterpreting this e-mail to, the G asked him about this e-mail so let's read it properly. When you were speaking with the other attorney he showed you an e-mail that he called NMB disaster, do you recall that? Let's read the actual subject line shall we, subject: RECIPE for NMB disaster (voice inflection increased on the word RECIPE) LC do you know what a recipe is? A recipe is basically a list of ingredients that put together will create something, like a cake for example, you have a list of ingredients you mix them up in the right order and stick it all in the oven and after about an hour you have a cake, isn't that correct?
41

The other attorney asked if you were told by Will Sawran or RP if they informed you of an NMB disaster, you said they had not, and they didn't did they? And the reason they didn't is because their was no NMB Disaster, their was only a RECIPE for one had RR not warned RP that what MM was requesting he did, isn't that correct? Objection, LC is not familiar with the contents of the e-mail. OK, LC let's read the e-mail shall we. The first line RR wrote says "Let me see if I got this correct" That sounds like he is asking RP if he understands what RP and MM is requesting him to do, does it not? He then says "Money is lost FOR NOW", that would indicate, would it not, that RR believes money is not lost forever, just for now, correct? He then says "money does not come in at this time", wouldn't that indicate that money came in at one time? RR goes on to say "Michael is being repaid on profit, the override not cash he put in" that would mean MM is getting an override would it not? "he already got that back" which refers to the "cash he put in" , that would mean MM got back the cash he put in, correct? (you can cover the next 2 paragraphs if you like they explain the recipe) RR asks "how long can NMB sustain that", he also asks "Do i have this right", he is asking RP as he is clearly identifying a problem that RP and MM are requesting of him, isn't that correct?

42

RR goes on to say "I said OK for people to transfer the money, REAL HARD CASH, THEY PUT INTO 15% INTO NMB so "THEY DID NOT LOSE THE MONEY" sounds like RR is concerned that people did not lose their money, doesn't it? RR then says "but I am also putting huge profits and overrides on money that was lost?" and he informs RP that "This will break the bank", isn't that correct? So clearly RR is informing RP that he can not continue to put MM's overrides on the clients MM introduced into NMB as that money is currently frozen in Portugal, isn't that correct? And you wouldn't want RR to do something that would be a disaster for NMB and RR clearly was doing on 9-10-07 what he believed he had to do when a client was requesting something that would have caused a disaster, RR stepped in and informed RP that this could not happen to insure others did not lose money, isn't that right? Call me to discuss. JIM, they will also show this to Eric Reid, be prepared for it as he purchased the cabin in TN in September 2007. Mike, Jim attempted to get the bank statements in before the jury, maybe with Carlson on the stand and with everyone else attempt to introduce the bank statements IN FRONT OF THE JURY that show the investments made after the sent in their money. Let the Judge deny evidence of investments coming in in front of the jury. Attorney Client Confidential Correspondence Bob Rivernider bobriver@me.com"
43

After Mr. Rivernider sent this e-mail to counsel Mr. Bergenn, before the jury was brought in at trial, he attempted to address the "Recipe" e-mail but as soon as he opened his mouth Mr. Schmeisser stopped him and said we won't use the e-mail any longer. 4) After David Bryant's deposition, where the prosecutions false assertion that the defendants inflated prices was destroyed when Bryant was presented with his own listing of one of the cabins showing that he listed the cabin for exactly what it eventually sold for, a local attorney told Mr. Chase that Mr. Schmeisser told him "that was not going to happen again" Which makes one ask what was Mr. Schmeisser going to do to insure that did not happen again. 5) Mr. Rivernider presented defense counsel with numerous other examples before and during trial. After trial, news reports came out showing that the NSA was gathering emails, Mr. Bergenn responded to Mr. Rivernider that is the NSA not the FBI, subsequent news reports now show in fact it is the FBI's DITU unit, exhibit 22, in Quantico Virginia that collects the e-mails. In addition the former head of the FBI unit has said that the FBI can turn on your webcam without your knowledge and record everything you are doing and that this is done in "terrorist and serious crime cases", exhibit 23. The US Attorney's have called this, in their sentencing memo one of the largest mortgage fraud cases in CT history, which would put it into a serious category, as the prosecution that was already violating other laws it is not inconceivable that they would do whatever it took to win. 6) The FBI has been in possession of Mr. Rivernider's Mac laptop computer and iPhone since May 2009. Both devices were connected to Mr. Rivernider's Apple mail program, a cloud based service, if either one connected to the internet all Mr. Rivernider's e-mails
44

would have downloaded to the devices. The prosecution, according to defense counsel, recently turned over the Mac laptop to defense counsel, however, defense counsel computer IT technician has been unable to access the computer. Mr. Rivernider has requested the computer be sent to him so he can have a computer forensic expert see if and when the computer accessed the internet and downloaded any information, Mr. Rivernider did not receive a response to this request.

Mr. Rivernider requests that the court exercise its supervisory powers to investigate the serious violations of Mr. Rivernider's rights that caused an unfair trial. As in U.S. v Aguilar, 831 F.Supp. 2d 1180 (C.D. Cal 2011), were Judge Matz dismissed the case with prejudice in part because the prosecution read the defendants e-mail, the same should happen here.

13. Defendant was not in the proper mental condition at the time of the plea I. Mr. Rivernider was told by counsel that Mr. Ponte would also be pleading once Mr. Rivernider did. Mr. Rivernider believed this would stop witness after witness from having to commit perjury. Mr. Ponte did not plead guilty and trial continued in the same vein as it had before. II. Mr. Rivernider believed that by admitting to the conduct as described in the admission of offensive conduct, that the prosecution would be agreeing that that is what the conduct was, however, the Government's memorandum of what they claim Mr. Rivernider was responsible for doing is nothing more than a blatant fraud upon
45

the court. As the prosecution demonstrated in court they are clearly mistaken and are being mislead by their lead investigator. As the court witnessed the prosecution, along with FBI Agent West, attempting to find the date MYICIS shut down, which they believed to be in 2006, they falsely believed MYICIS was an investment which Mr. Rivernider lost all his money in, however, after nearly having to pull Mr. Bergenn's arm off, he was able to correct the prosecution by informing the court that MYICIS was a virtual bank account and not an investment. False information such as this has been regularly presented to the court. In fact the prosecution in their sentencing memo misleads the court by telling the court that MYICIS shut down shortly after Mr. Ponte sent an e-mail in 2007 when they knew it shut down in 2006 based on their comments during the hearing. III. Mr. Rivernider spent 2.5 days with Mr. Bergenn being told that he had a serious deficiency, brain damage, and that he had to plead guilty because of it. These 2.5 days can be likened to the time Mr. Rivernider spent on diesel therapy, specifically two days in shackles on a bus driving through the country with a bologna sandwich. Mr. Bergenn did not shackle Mr. Rivernider. Mr. Rivernider, reluctantly entered a guilty plea based on counsels advice, which after two days of hearings on the subject appears to have been inaccurate.

14. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant "is guaranteed not just the right to be represented by counsel but the right to the effective assistance of counsel."
46

Morgan v. Bennett, 204 F.3d 360, 365 (2d Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 654, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-86, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)) Counsel for the defendant: 1. Failed to pursue a Bill of Particulars to determine what the defendants actually did and what was illegal prior to trial. 2. Failed to file a motion to compel the Government to turn over all the grand Jury transcripts when there is clear evidence that the Grand Jury was deceived by the Government 3. Failed to file a motion to dismiss after receiving a portion of the grand jury transcripts which clearly show numerous material misrepresentation made to the grand jury by the prosecution 4. Failed to interview witnesses that could have supported the accused defendants case. 5. Failed to interview witnesses that could have impeached key prosecution witnesses 6. When interviewing witnesses, failed to question the witness about 302s that contained false information 7. Announced at the beginning of trial that they were not going to put on a defense 8. Failed to subpoena documents that the prosecution failed to turn over 9. Failed to properly investigate what if anything the defendant actually knew about the mortgages and whether the alleged misrepresentations were in fact material 10. Failed to file a motion for a mistrial after several outburst by the prosecution in

front of the jury saying the defense attorney was lying

47

11.

Conflict of interest as Shipman & Goodwin represented Webster Bank, defense

counsel did not pursue bank fraud reported to them regarding Donna Moore and had defendant Mr. Rivernider plead guilty prior to Moore testifying 12. Mr. Bergenn refused to go back to trial after reading the report from Dr.

Fillipopulis as the report shows the defendant Mr. Rivernider has low executive functioning. 13. Defense counsel's failure to insure Mr. Rivernider's constitutional rights were not

violated by failing to investigate egregious prosecutorial misconduct that Mr. Rivernider, a trained criminal defense investigator, sent counsel on a daily basis.

Legal bases for motion to dismiss the indictment and withdraw of guilty plea 1. U.S. v. Aguilar, 831 F.Supp. 2d 1180 (C.D. Cal 2011) MISCONDUCT FINDINGS Judge Matz discussed in detail the conclusions stated below. After a five-week trial and a jury verdict of guilty, however, Judge Matz said that it was with deep regret that this Court is compelled to find that the Government lawyers had [1] allowed a key FBI agent to testify untruthfully before the grand jury, [2] inserted material falsehoods into affidavits submitted to magistrate judges in support of applications for search warrants and seizure warrants, [3] improperly reviewed e-mail communications between one Defendant and her lawyer, [4] recklessly failed to comply with its discovery obligations, [5] posed questions to certain witnesses in violation of the

48

Courts rulings, [6] engaged in questionable behavior during closing argument, and [7] even made misrepresentations to the Court. 2. U.S. V. Omni International Corporation, 634 F. Supp.1414, 1438 (D.Md. 1986) the supervisory power doctrine is designed and invoked primarily to preserve the integrity of the judicial system. The court had to rely on the integrity of the prosecution, and it is now clear that the prosecution lacked integrity. It is not too late to impose a sanction that lets the prosecution knows that this kind if conduct will not be tolerated in the future. 3. U.S. v. Ciambrone, 601 F.2d 616, 623 (2nd Cir. 1979) The dismissal of an indictment may result where facts can be presented to establish that the prosecutor has actively misled a grand jury or engaged in fundamentally unfair tactics in his presentation, knowingly used perjured testimony, made statements that were calculated to inflame the passions of the grand jury against that target, failed to inform the grand jury of the existence of substantial evidence negating guilt, or extensive improper use of hearsay testimony. 4. U.S. V. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757, 761 (2nd Cir. 1983) The 2nd circuit dismissed indictment due to systemic and pervasive prosecutorial misconduct as would undermine fundamental fairness, or that Rights of the defendant were violated before the Grand Jury. The 2nd Circuit did dismiss based on extensive and misleading use of hearsay, but not just hearsay, Flagrant and Unconscionable misconduct.

49

5. Supreme Court Justice Douglas highlighted the importance of the right to a fair trial right in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974), where he asserted that "[t]hose who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial." 6. In Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). the Court established that a prosecutor's knowing use of false testimony violated the Due Process Clause, See id.at 112. In Mooney, the Court found that a prosecutor's "deliberate deception" of the Court by presenting perjured testimony was "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice. 7. In Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957) The Court found that by allowing the false evidence, although unsolicited, to go uncorrected, the prosecutor had violated the defendant's due process right to a fair trial, See id. at 31. 8. In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), The Court found that a prosecutor's duty to correct evidence known to be false applies even if the evidence goes only to the witness's credibility, see id at 269. The Court stated that "[a] lie is a lie, no matter what its subject, and, if it is in any way relevant to the case, the [prosecutor] has the responsibility and duty to correct what he knows to be false and elicit the truth. 9. U.S. v. Wang, No. 98 CR. 199 (DAB), 1999 WL 138930, at 37 (S.D.N.Y) Mar. 15, 1999) [1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2913] (finding due process violation and dismissing an indictment due to the governments failure to provide defense counsel with material

50

information until the eve of trial, and its delay in disclosing that its key witness was unavailable and would not be called to testify). 10. U.S. v. Lyons, 352 F.Supp. 2d 1231, 1251-52 (M.D. Fla. 2004) (finding a due

process violation, dismissing the remaining counts of the indictment and refusing to order a new trial because of the governments multiple and flagrant Brady and Giglio violations). 11. United States v. Universita, 298 F.2d 365, 367 (2d Cir.) ("The prosecutor has a

special duty not to mislead; the government should, of course, never make affirmative statements contrary to what it knows to be the truth.") 12. 139 U.S.A.M 9-11.010 (1997) "The ProsecutorIn discharging these

responsibilities, he must be scrupulously fair to all witnesses and must do nothing to inflame or otherwise improperly influence the grand jurors." 13. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) found that a prosecutor's failure to turn

over evidence material to the defendant's guilt or punishment violated the defendant's due process rights. 14. U.S v. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 104 (1976). [A] conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. Id. at 103v 15. United States v. Useni, 516 F.3d 634, 656 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1974) (We hold that the Due Process Clause of the
51

Fifth Amendment is violated when a defendant has to stand trial on an indictment which the government knows is based partially on perjured testimony, when the perjured testimony is material, and when jeopardy has not attached. 16. United States v. Valentine, 820 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1987) (reversing conviction when AUSA mischaracterized grand jury testimony during trial), and United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing conviction when AUSA tolerated perjury from central government witness) 17. In U.S. v. Espinosa-Hernandez, 918 F.2d 911 (11th cir. 1990) "The court ordered an evidentiary hearing as it might turn up evidence of "perjury in a proceeding similar to [defendant's] trial. If so, the discovered evidence would be beyond that of mere impeachment and a new trial would be necessary to 'remove the taint' from [defendant's] conviction." Each of these has been violated at least once, requiring dismissal of the indictment. Prosecutors play a special role in our system of justice, and by necessity, courts and defendants rely on the government fulfilling its responsibilities with integrity. The government's "obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and [its] interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that, justice shall be done." Strickler v. Greene, 527, U.S. 263, 281 (1999)(quoting Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S., 295 U.S. 78,88 (1935). Sadly, that did not happen here. The court and the public can have no confidence in the integrity of this

52

proceeding, because it can have no confidence in the integrity of the prosecutor's conduct in this case. The indictment must be dismissed. The prosecutions investigation in this case mirrors that in the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens in Washington, D.C.. Not surprising to Mr. Rivernider this is where SA West previously worked. As in the Stevens case, this case should be dismissed with prejudice as no one should be put through what is a corrupt prosecution having their Constitutionally protected rights trampled upon. The first 400 pages of the Henry Schuelke investigation of the Stevens case highlights the egregious prosecutorial misconduct which can serve as a guide into the play book used in this investigation against the defendants in this case as all one need do is change the names as the misconduct is identical. Mr. Rivernider requests that in the interest of justice, the indictment be dismissed with prejudice, that his guilty plea be withdraw, or that a new trial be ordered.

Robert H. Rivernider, Jr., Pro Se

53

DBPR - WADE, TOSHA M, Real Estate Broker or Sales

12/14/13, 4:57 PM

4:56:16 PM 12/14/2013

Licensee Details
Licensee Information Name: Main Address: County: License Mailing: WADE, TOSHA M (Primary Name)
(DBA Name)

5343 NW 189TH STREET MIAMI Florida 33055 DADE

LicenseLocation:

License Information License Type: Rank: License Number: Status: Licensure Date: Expires: Special Qualifications Real Estate Broker or Sales Sales Associate SL3198917 Null and Void 06/14/2007 03/31/2009 Qualification Effective

View Related License Information View License Complaint

1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee FL 32399 :: Email: Customer Contact Center :: Customer Contact Center: 850.487.1395
The State of Florida is an AA/EEO employer. Copyright 2007-2010 State of Florida. Privacy Statement Under Florida law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact the office by phone or by traditional mail. If you have any questions, please contact 850.487.1395. *Pursuant to Section 455.275(1), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2012, licensees licensed under Chapter 455, F.S. must provide the Department with an email address if they have one. The emails provided may be used for official communication with the licensee. However email addresses are public record. If you do not wish to supply a personal address, please provide the Department with an email address which can be made available to the public. Please see our Chapter 455 page to determine if you are affected by this change.

Exhibit 1
https://www.myoridalicense.com/LicenseDetail.asp?SID=&id=EA59DBCD0C1C68C3F83330FB21ACDC3E Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

23

WEST

trading coming

or anything in other than investors

like

that

but

any were

returns received the No More

returns
as it

that

from other Bills

relates to

program
The type
of

A
as

only

funds

that

were

seen

going

out

any

additional and those

investments were

were

much

later in coming
Q

2007

funds

their money

back. Okay. going But this was after

is

this program that fair to

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

had been

on for some

time

say
A
referring they That
is

correct. not profit out

of

And

the

funds but

Im
money

to were

returns
account

had put

out

that

being

returned.
Q

All right. real you

If

Now

let me And
I

shift

over

again

to the cutting

estate

side.

apologize

for

off before. you could just briefly

-- Grand

explain
a

to the

jury as general

general how

matter

Jury as

matter
Yes.

the real the No

estate

program worked.

A
were

Once
in

More Bills clients payments

for

involved

receiving

whatever they

period of time that

they were

in the program

Exhibit 4
Falzarano Court Reporters

38

WEST

property by the

sells for

300000

or

so

how

much

is

lost

institution

A
used

Im

sorry

what

were

the

figures

you

again
Q If

the

loan amount

is

500000 and the

foreclosure would be for

property

ends

up being

sold in how much

300000
the

approximately

lost by

institution A
Q

200000.
All right. the And
so in

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

certain
go

circumstances borrower and

institution might
us

back

to

the

say You owe

$200000

A
Q

Correct.

Now

weve

been

using but

that
in

as

an example the

for hypothetical facts

is it

purposes
with

discussing

of this case fair to

these

various

investors

say that amount

while they
of

may not have

and the

lost that

exact

money the banks

individuals

lost monies on these they

did.

properties

A
Q

Yes Now

weve

been

talking

about

this

marketing

fee that

went

to Cut Above

Ventures. that was

So

the money at paid

to --

the

time of the

closing

being

this marketing

fee

where

would

S
Exhibit 5

Falzarano Court Reporters

39

WEST

that

money A

go
It

went the

to

the same

Cut Above

Ventures proceeds

account had gone

Q

that

No

More Bills investment

into. Okay.
to Mr.

And

that

money did any of that

money go A
Q Mr.

Ponte
it did.

Yes

And how

was

that

money

sent

to

Ponte
A
It

10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17

was

again Falling And

wired

from Cut Above LLC account.

in

Ventures
Q

to the Okay.

Rock

again

terms to the

of review Cut Above these

of

the

financial

records
is

relating
it

Ventures marketing

accounts

fair to say that used

to

fee monies
in

were these

repay

some

earlier investors

different
-- most

programs
of

A
that were Above pay

Yes

it

continued

the bills

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

had been set up as account.

set up by the previous automatic

investors
of

bill pays out month the

the

Cut bill

So

every the

automatic

would

go out of

Cut Above

account

to those

previous
Q Ms.

investors

debtor talked

accounts. about this individual

Now
Ms.

weve

Kemp.

Kemp what was her job

Exhibit 5
Falzarano Court Reporters

31

WEST

Ponte for

and Rivernider

to

handle

these

investments

them
A
Correct. Ponte the and Rivernider the handled obtaining

the whole the

process

contracting
to end.

lender
Q In

from beginning terms did of then

dealing

with

the

lender
get

how

Ponte

and Rivernider these monies

and others from the How did they

to obtain
as

actually
of

lenders get the

part

this transaction

10 11
12

loans
For certain
a

A
going called

loans

in

Tennessee
in

they time were

were

through

broker

for some point

13
14

Trinity Mortgage

Capital
Fargo were

others

being

processed through Wells

and then different
Q

through spread

Ms.

Kemp

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

some

other loans lenders.

across

other

Approximately how
Ms.

many

properties

went

through

Kemp
20

A
Q

Between

and 30 on your
--

properties. interview
of

And based
individuals Have you

these
up.

various

well
an

let me back
to

had

opportunity

talk

to

individuals

from Sun
I

Trust

Bank

Yes

have.

Exhibit 6
Falzarano Court Reporters

41

WEST

that

she

had actually colleagues

gone

out

to the web which the

site for was

one of her getting

through

loan

processed and she had provided the

to

information
Q

get you

her husband

prequalified.
to

Have

had an opportunity or applications

look were

at

the

loan

application

that

submitted

for the purposes

of obtaining

these

properties
A
Q

No
In

havent.
loan

--13
10 11
12

terms of the various that were processed

do

applications
Ms.

by Wells
of

Fargo

with

Kemps name on it

many

those

does

many of the applications

have

elevated

income

14

on those A
Q

numbers
I

15 16
17

would

say most of them. turn to Can you the woman remind

Ms.

Let me Seneca.

Seneca
Jury

Lorraine who

the

Grand

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

this woman A

is
Seneca
is

Again Loretta
sister. what were

Robert

Riverniders
Q

And

her dealings

in

terms

of

these

real-estate

transactions
or less handled for Rivernider the
in

She more part

administrative

processing

Exhibit 7
Falzarano Court Reporters

42

WEST

the

paperwork and getting

to include done.

these

transactions to get the

through

setting

leads

appraisals
Q

So

she was
of

-- appears

to have estate

been

necessary that

component

the

real

process

is

fair to A
Q

say

Yes.

What

was

her training involved Florida.

in in

and background

A
brokerage Q

She was field Okay.

in

the mortgage

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

But

terms of being

involved

in

the mortgage she would customers

brokerage been

field

does
in

that mean with

that

have about
Yes.

involved

talking

obtaining

loan

applications

A
Q

And how

that
of

she would

have

familiarity

with

exactly

sort
is

loan processes

worked

A
Q

That And

correct. terms of what important

to

also in were

representations

banks

who

make

loans
A
Q

That

is

correct.
Is it

All right. the course

fair to

say that Seneca

during

of this process

Ms.

0
1

Exhibit 7
Falzarano Court Reporters

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 9

WEST

STEPHEN witness sworn

M.

WEST

JR.

called

as

by the Grand Jury being

first duly

by the

Foreperson was examined and

testified

on his

oath

as

follows

THE THE
MR.

FOREPERSON WITNESS SCHMEISSER

Please

be

seated.

Complies.
Special Agent

West

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

you

understand THE

youre still under oath Yes

sir.

WITNESS

EXAMINATION

BY MR.
Q

SCHMEISSER
All right. we Let me continue to this

with the

questioning United

had relating
vs.

matter
Rivernider
were

States

Robert The

Ponte Robert
last time you relating
to

and Loretta you

Ms.

Seneca.

here

gave

us

some background
I

to

21
22 23 24

Seneca.

would

like

have you continue

with

that here. Could you just remind

of

the Grand that

Jury

based on the review

the

evidence

youve

Falzarano

Court Reporters

Exhibit 10

WEST

seen
Ms.

today

information

that you

have

regarding
in

Senecas background
industry
Yes. Ms.

and training

the

real

estate

A
sister of

Seneca

again
at

whos
at in

the older one the time

Robert
a

Rivernider

least

possessed
State

mortgage

brokers license

of Florida. mortgage

Shes worked
companies
--

for one or down

two

at

least

broker

in Florida

one being Mortgage operated

Q

First Mortgage

First National was owned and

10 11 12
13

Sources

LLC

which

by John Mizeli
Just as
a

M-i-z-e-l-i.

general

background

what

are

the general

responsibilities

of a mortgage

broker
for the

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A
loan

Essentially
taking

theyre the intake

in

applicant

the

loan

application

concerning

information

that goes

on the
it

application
lenders.
Q

and eventually

submitting

to the

So as of the

a standard practice the mortgage

based on your broker would

review have

records

an opportunity that That

to review

the standard to

documents

are presented
is

lenders

A
Q

correct.

And that would include

appraisals

Falzarano

Court Reporters

Exhibit 10

WEST

10

the

subject

parties here.
It

They was

had listed the reduced

it

property for $570000.

Eventually to a point

over reduced

time. to

in

2006

was

$417000

at which point

Cut Above

Ventures
106

purchased the property

amount. Later the

in October

for that

in November

Ms.

Seneca

purchased

property from Cut Above

which
100

Ventures two

for

$545000
for

and through essentially property. Q

she obtained

loans
of

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

percent

financing

that

Just to remind did that

the Grand

Jury Cut Above

Ventures
to Robert

entity have

any relationship

Rivernider
Yes. of

Robert

Rivernider

owned

and was

the president Q

the company. on a review of the the land records of

So based
of

or a review your

the records
it

during

course

investigation
purchased That
is

appears property

that for

Cut Above

Ventures

the

$417000

21
22 23 24

A
Q Cut Above

correct. were

How many individuals

employed by

Ventures

Im

not

sure

whos actually employed

Falzarano

Court Reporters

Exhibit 11

WEST

11

officially
in addition who

but
to

Loretta Robert

Seneca

is

the

only person Ponte

Rivernider

and Mr.

had official

dealings

on behalf

of Cut Above

Ventures.
Q Mr.

So it was

in essence

an alterego

for

Rivernider A
Q

That

is

correct. of the property for

in

So the purchase that takes place

$417000
October
of

approximately

10 11 12
13

2006
That
is

A
Q

correct.

All right.
a

And then
a

about

month

later

little over

month later
to

Cut Above for

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Ventures

sold the property That

is

Seneca

$545000

A
Q

correct. the course

of

Now

during have

the to

investigation
review any loan

you

had an opportunity relating

applications

to that

property
A
Q obtain For that property

no

havent.
attempting to

Are you in the process

that

of

information
I

A
Q

Yes

am.

All right

subsequent

to the purchase

Falzarano

Court Reporters

Exhibit 11

Exhibit 12

Exhibit 13

Exhibit 13

Exhibit 13

19

WEST

So

is

it

fair to say that money coming

in

you

can

see

on the bank investors previous

accounts

from later
to

and that money

being

used

pay

investors
Yes. Is it

bills

A
Q

also

fair to that Ponte Ponte

say that you

there were that

other personal were

Mr.

expenses
Mr.

identified

being

paid for

or -- for and other family

Rivernider and

Mr.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

members
A bills were
Q

Correct
being

their own

mortgages

and other

paid.

All right. certain

of

So

during

the

period
of

of

time where Bills were

these payment

investors

No More

receiving

on their bills and were

some of their mortgages earlier investors strike that. At investors A

Q

these

primarily the
-- let me

or the later investors

the

end of the even

on

day

did the

later

break They

this arrangement

did not.
Is it

All right. that

I

fair to

say that
a

the

individuals significant

just mentioned of money on

lost

amount

these

investments

Exhibit 14
Falzarano Court Reporters

20

WEST

A
Q

Yes.

Can you how

give much

the

Grand
Mr.

Jury an idea Mastoris that he

of

approximately

money

lost
lost

Mr.

Mastoris

estimates

approximately
Q

$800000.
that was on the No More Bills

And

program
A
Q of

That

is

correct.

All right. but the that rest they

And
of

wont

go

through

each also

10
11

these

those

individuals

lost monies

invested

12 13
14

A
Q

Yes.

And that

this includes

netting
in

out

any
of

expenses debts

may have been paid

terms

their

15 16
17

that

they

owed

A
Q

Correct.

Now
a

you

indicated

when

you

testified searches
to

18

last -in Mr.

while

back

that there were and Florida

done

19 20 21 22 23 24

both

Connecticut and Mr.

Yes.

relating

Ponte A
Q

Rivernider

All right.

And
is

in

those

searches

there

were

computers A
Yes.

seized

that

fair to

say

Falzarano Court Reporters

0
1

Exhibit 14

WEST

38

that

the

investor Correct.
to

was

expected
--

to

get
approximately funds she

She

she wired from

$50000

the

Cut Above

account

had obtained and she was

10

for her

401k

or retirement the same

plan

guaranteed on that

basically

percent
Q

50000 per month.

And youve
the also had the Michael

All right. to talk about

occasion Mastoris

investors Did

and Richard

Brooks.

both of those

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

individuals

lose money on their investment they did.

Mr.

A
Q

Yes

Just roughly

Mastoris

how much did

he

lose
A
He estimated he

lost you know

anywhere

between 700000
Q

and $900000.
to

So in addition that was have

this initial
in

investment
Mr.

referenced

this e-mail

did

Mastoris
Mr.

occasion

to invest

other monies

with

Ponte

and Mr.

Rivernider

A
Q

Im

sorry
to

In addition

the amount

of money that the have and

was

referenced Jury has

in the Mastoris just

e-mail that
Mr.

Grand

seen did

Mastoris

occasion

to invest

other monies with Mr.

Ponte

Falzarano Court Reporters

Exhibit 15

Michael Mastoris SW-025840 R-009316 R-009378 R-009388 R-009389 R-009388 R-009401 R-009400 R-009400 R-009413 R-009414 R-009413 SW-030594 SW-030593 SW-030593 SW-030593 SW-030593 SW-030560 SW-030557 SW-030557 SW-030557 SW-030557 R-009126

Date

repayment Jan 1, 2006 $108,981.00 Payments to MyICIS stated 1-1-06 $12,109 per month Sep 28, 2006 Oct 4, 2006 Nov 3, 2006 Nov 6, 2006 Nov 15, 2006 Dec 6, 2006 Dec 14, 2006 Dec 15, 2006 Jan 5, 2007 Jan 5, 2007 Jan 18, 2007 Feb 6, 2007 Feb 8, 2007 Feb 12, 2007 Feb 15, 2007 Feb 20, 2007 Mar 6, 2007 Mar 12, 2007 Mar 14, 2007 Mar 14, 2007 Mar 14, 2007 Apr 6, 2007 $2,000.00 Cash sent to checking account R-029849 $12,109.00 repayment BOA 0808 $31,856.41 Citi Heloc check 5079 image R-009475 & R-029849 $5,000.00 Citi Mortgage R-029849 $10,703.59 Bank United check 5071 image SW-030163 also R-029849 $5,000.00 Citi Mortgage $10,703.59 Bank United Check 5072 image R-009453 $33,856.41 Citi HEloc R-009449 image check 5166 juon e-mail 1-23-07 $32,260.00 Citi Heloc check 5267 image SW-030636 Juno e-mail 1-23-07 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $11,300.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 5198 image SW-030634 $5,000.00 Citi Mortgage $15,598.12 Roma Check 5383 image SW-030606 1B2900089344 $32,260.00 Citi Heloc check 5408 image SW-030606 $11,300.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 5362 image SW-030605 $34,402.00 Roma Check 5385 image SW-030606 1B2900089344 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage 1B2900089088 $15,598.12 Roma Check 5384 image SW-030571 $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 5560 image SW-030577 $29,000.00 CITI HELOC check 5561 image SW-030577 $17,000.00 Roma Check 5658 image SW-030579 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage

Total month

98560.12

92598.12

Exhibit 16

R-009124 R-009127 R-009124 R-009124 R-009129 R-009140 R-009140 R-009138 R-009138 R-009138 R-009142 R-009157 R-009155 R-009155 R-009160 R-009155 R-009283 R-009281 R-009281 R-009281 R-009281 R-009297 R-009296 R-009296 R-009296

Apr 13, 2007 Apr 13, 2007 Apr 10, 2007 Apr 16, 2007 Apr 18, 2007 May 4, 2007 May 4, 2007 May 4, 2007 May 7, 2007 May 7, 2007 May 11, 2007 Jun 6, 2007 Jun 6, 2007 Jun 7, 2007 Jun 13, 2007 Jun 28, 2007 Jul 6, 2007 Jul 10, 2007 Jul 11, 2007 Jul 17, 2007 Jul 17, 2007 Aug 6, 2007 Aug 7, 2007 Aug 10, 2007 Aug 14, 2007

$16,500.00 Citi Heloc check 5562 $17,402.00 Roma Bank 1B2900008356 $15,598.12 Roma Check 5646 $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 5623 $17,000.00 Roma see Juno e-mail $40,000.00 Return on $40K to Mastoris see 4-22-07 email $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 5834 $15,598.12 Roma Check 5838 $26,500.00 Citi Heloc check 5980 $17,402.00 Roma Bank 1B2900008356 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 5999 $15,598.12 Roma Check 6031 $17,402.00 Roma Bank $16,500.00 Citi Heloc check 6313 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $15,598.12 Roma Check 6234 $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 6197 $17,402.00 Roma Bank check 6296 $17,000.00 Roma Bank $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $15,598.12 Roma check 6434 $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 6428 $17,000.00 Roma Check 6449 81000.12 80500.12 90500.12 97000.12

Exhibit 16

R-009296 R-053718 R-053722 R-009312 R-009311 R-009311 R-009311 R-009311 R-009321 R-009319 R-009319 R-009319 R-053744 R-009331 R-009329 R-009329 R-009329 R-009342 R-009340 R-009350 R-009350 SW-022635

Aug 14, 2007 Aug 29, 2007 Sep 4, 2007 Sep 6, 2007 Sep 10, 2007 Sep 12, 2007 Sep 17, 2007 Sep 17, 2007 Oct 5, 2007 Oct 11, 2007 Oct 16, 2007 Oct 16, 2007 Nov 1, 2007 Nov 8, 2007 Nov 8, 2007 Nov 15, 2007 Nov 15, 2007 Dec 10, 2007 Dec 13, 2007 Jan 8, 2008 Jan 15, 2008 Mar 24, 2008

$17,402.00 Roma Check 6514 $5,000.00 Yardley Check # 6772 $5,000.00 Yardley Check #6773 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 6630 $15,598.12 Roma Check 6643 $17,402.00 Roma Check 6724 $17,000.00 Roma Check 6725 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 6811 $17,402.00 Roma Check 6914 Acct -5061 $17,000.00 Roma Check 6915 Acct -4171 $5,000.00 Yardley Check # 6959 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $25,000.00 Bank United Mortgage Check 6991 $17,402.00 Roma Check 7091 $17,000.00 Roma Check 7092 $6,000.00 Citi Mortgage $17,000.00 Roma Check 7218 $25,000.00 Bank United check 7349 $17,000.00 Roma Check 7428 $5,625.00 Citi mortgage $1,228,857.96 42000 23000 70402 65402 86000.12 86000.12

Exhibit 16

40

WEST

what

you know based on the evidence

and

youve seen to

date
Mr.

well

explore

that

in a

moment about

Piecyk

investing
Mr.

in real estate. was approached

a

A
to invest Tennessee. Q or the

Piecyk

by

Mr.

Ponte

in the

condo

program in

property in

what real

was

the know

approximate was going

cost
to

of condo
in

estate

invest

in

Tennessee
A price was
Q

10 11
12

The

listing sales price

or agreed

sale

$150000. To your knowledge

of mortgage did there the ever issue

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

any kind that

to cover

sales price of

property
A
Yes.
I

believe

the

final

transaction

was

for $175000. Q The

property was
in the amount

sold for 150 but of

the

mortgage was A
Q indicate receiving

175

Yes
Were to you

thereabouts.

you told
what

that or did Mr. supposed

Piecyk

he was

to be into

in connection

with this investment

the property in Tennessee

Mr.

Piecyk

was

receiving

an additional

Falzarano

Court Reporters

Exhibit 17

Exhibit 18

Exhibit 19

MOORE

Florida fair to A
Q that

say
fair.

Yes
Mr.

thats
Ponte

was with you when you made

request A
Q Yes.

After that you have now invested

$30000
in

originally and additional this subsequent returns investment.

100000 or 105000
Were

you getting

on a monthly
Yes.

basis
I

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

What

was

told
--

was

after

initially invested them

you get

after

45 days they

for

to do their investing
it

or whatever you

did

whether
10

be 45

days where

would get your

percent.
I

did receive
I

believe

in November December.
I

$3000.

Then
in

dont

remember
I

about

do remember when
I

January

received
13

$13000.
a a

Thats

started

receiving
to

grand

month. total of
13

Q grand
a

You started

receive

month you think

sometime in the

December/January time frame

A
Q

was

January

think. receive those

How

long did you

$13000

payments
Falzarano Court Reporters

Exhibit 20

23

MOORE

A
Q

Until What
I

August. happened to say

in

after
I

August

A
investment
Q

want of

did do another February of

$25000

07.

Where was that

Then we

investment
engaged at that

A
point.
Q

also became

Youre getting

those

$13000 payments
continue for an

approximately in January
approximate nine Yes. month

and those

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

period

A
Q

After that they stopped

Yes.

A
Q

Going back

to the end of the

2006
made

you an

indicated additional

at some point investment February of What was

of

time you

$25000

A
Q

07. investment
the 20 was percent

that
it

A
and what going

They called
that was

program

supposedly

the money was

it

to be held interest

in a bank but of 20 percent

that

would make

compound

monthly and then

to be very

in a year supposedly high yield investment.

it was

supposed

Falzarano Court Reporters

Exhibit 20

Maureen Walters 6/6/05 7/1/05 7/31/05 9/1/05 10/1/05 11/1/05 12/1/05 1/1/06 2/1/06 3/1/06 4/1/06 5/1/06 5/11/06 7/1/06 8/1/06 8/28/06 12/1/06 12/1/06 1/2/07 1/4/07 2/2/07 2/5/07 3/2/07 3/5/07 3/16/07 4/2/07 4/5/07 5/2/07 5/10/07 6/1/07 6/8/07 7/2/07 7/10/10 8/2/07 8/10/07 8/31/07 9/5/07 10/1/07 10/3/07 10/29/07 11/2/07 11/7/07 11/21/07 11/29/07 12/5/07 12/18/07 1/11/07 12/21/07 1/8/08 1/18/08 3/28/08

Bates #

Loan

Repayments

Notes

SW-003864 1B2900042107 1B2700035038 1B2700035041 1B2700035041 1B2700035047 1B2700035050 1B2700035055 1B2700035058 1B2700035061 1B2700035000 1B2700035001 SW-003077 1B2700035002 1B2700035003 1B2700035004 R-009400 R-009400 R-009413 R-009414 SW-030593 SW-030593 SW-030559 SW-030559 SW-030556 R-009124 R-009126 R-009139 R-009142 R-009155 R-009158 R-009282 R-009284 R-009296 R-009299 R-009305 R-009312 R-009319 R-009320 R-009319 R-009327 R-009330 R-010148 R-010151 R-009340 R-009344 R-009342 R-010175 R-009350 R-010189 SW-030224

$35,000.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $826.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $3,778.00 $100,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,858.74 $4,141.26 $4,141.26 $15,858.74 $4,141.26 $15,858.74 $4,141.26 $15,858.74 $70,000.00 $4,141.26 $15,858.74 $4,141.26 $23,773.74 $4,141.26 $23,773.74 $4,141.26 $23,773.74 $4,141.26 $13,750.00 $4,141.26 $2,690.48 $22,500.00 $4,500.00 $22,500.00 $100,000.00 $4,500.00 $2,000.00 $26,800.00 $22,500.00 $10,000.00 $4,500.00 $2,000.00 $22,500.00 $2,800.00 $4,514.84 $305,000.00 $458,688.84

Note SW-0051881B1400006346 & Wire to MYICIS dobbsman may be the original NMB loa

E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali Payment states only balance due E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali additional loan, Walters sent the money to Pontes dobbsman MYICIS a E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali Repayment for July 2006. Please conr E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali Repayment for August 2006. Please co E-mail receipt from MYICIS\Ali Repayment for September 2006. Please BOA Equity Line statement with my hw $15,858.74 SW-022664 Recurring Chase Mortgage Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line statement with my hw $15,858.74 SW-022664 Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line statement with my hw $15,858.74 SW-022664 Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line statement with my hw $15,858.74 SW-022664 Walters new loan to CAV Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line statement with my hw $15,858.74 SW-022664 Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line See handwritten notes SW-022665 Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line See handwritten notes SW-022665 Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line See handwritten notes SW-022665 Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity Line See handwritten notes SW-022665 Recurring Chase Mortgage BOA Equity LinePaid o! HELOC 1B2900101681 Check #6952 Chase Mortgage see statement with my hw with the $4500 amount SW-022663 Check #6960 Chase Mortgage Possible additional loan shows as counter check Recurring Chase Mortgage see SW-022663 Acct # 4704-23-9922 Acct # 4704-23-9922 Check # 5579 Check #7131 this is Chase see 1B1400149666 as the others are Repayment to BOA LOC Recurring Chase Mortgage see SW-022663 Acct # 4704-23-9922 check # 5610 Check #7331 1B1400149666 Acct # 4704-23-9922 Check # 5794 Chase Mortgage see e-mail 1B1400149454

Meet the spies doing the NSA's dirty work - chicagotribune.com

12/15/13, 5:21 PM

www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-wp-frgnp-bc-nsa-comment22-20131122,0,947361.story

chicagotribune.com
Meet the spies doing the NSA's dirty work
By Shane Harris, Foreign Policy Foreign Policy 11:20 PM CST, November 22, 2013 WASHINGTON With every fresh leak, the world learns more about the U.S. National Security Agency's massive and controversial surveillance apparatus. Lost in the commotion has been the story of the NSA's indispensable partner in its global spying operations: an obscure, clandestine unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that, even for a surveillance agency, keeps a low prole. When the media and members of Congress say the NSA spies on Americans, what they really mean is that the FBI helps the NSA do it, providing a technical and legal infrastructure that permits the NSA, which by law collects foreign intelligence, to operate on U.S. soil. It's the FBI, a domestic U.S. law enforcement agency, that collects digital information from at least nine American technology companies as part of the NSA's Prism system. It was the FBI that petitioned the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to order Verizon Business Network Services, one of the United States' biggest telecom carriers for corporations, to hand over the call records of millions of its customers to the NSA. But the FBI is no mere errand boy for the United States' biggest intelligence agency. It carries out its own signals intelligence operations and is trying to collect huge amounts of email and Internet data from U.S. companies -- an operation that the NSA once conducted, was reprimanded for, and says it abandoned. The heart of the FBI's signals intelligence activities is an obscure organization called the Data Intercept Technology Unit, or DITU (pronounced DEE-too). The handful of news articles that mentioned it prior to revelations of NSA surveillance this summer did so mostly in passing. It has barely been discussed in congressional testimony. An NSA PowerPoint presentation given to journalists by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden hints at DITU's pivotal role in the NSA's Prism system -- it appears as a nondescript box on a owchart showing how the NSA "task[s]" information to be collected, which is then gathered and delivered by the DITU. But interviews with current and former law enforcement ofcials, as well as technology industry representatives, reveal that the unit is the FBI's equivalent of the National Security Agency and the primary liaison between the spy agency and many of America's most important technology companies, including Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Apple. The DITU is located in a sprawling compound at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, home of the FBI's training academy and the bureau's Operational Technology Division, which runs all the FBI's technical intelligence collection, processing, and reporting. Its motto: "Vigilance Through Technology." The DITU is
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-wp-frgnp-bc-nsa-comment22-20131122,0,1697098,print.story Page 1 of 5

Meet the spies doing the NSA's dirty work - chicagotribune.com

12/15/13, 5:21 PM

responsible for intercepting telephone calls and emails of terrorists and foreign intelligence targets inside the United States. According to a senior Justice Department ofcial, the NSA could not do its job without the DITU's help. The unit works closely with the "big three" U.S. telecommunications companies -- AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint -- to ensure its ability to intercept the telephone and Internet communications of its domestic targets, as well as the NSA's ability to intercept electronic communications transiting through the United States on ber-optic cables. For Prism, the DITU maintains the surveillance equipment that captures what the NSA wants from U.S. technology companies, including archived emails, chat-room sessions, social media posts, and Internet phone calls. The unit then transmits that information to the NSA, where it's routed into other parts of the agency for analysis and used in reports. After Prism was disclosed in The Washington Post and the Guardian, some technology company executives claimed they knew nothing about a collection program run by the NSA. And that may have been true. The companies would likely have interacted only with ofcials from the DITU and others in the FBI and the Justice Department, said sources who have worked with the unit to implement surveillance orders. "The DITU is the main interface with providers on the national security side," said a technology industry representative who has worked with the unit on many occasions. It ensures that phone companies as well as Internet service and email providers are complying with surveillance law and delivering the information that the government has demanded and in the format that it wants. And if companies aren't complying or are experiencing technical difculties, they can expect a visit from the DITU's technical experts to address the problem. Recently, the DITU has helped construct data-ltering software that the FBI wants telecom carriers and Internet service providers to install on their networks so that the government can collect large volumes of data about emails and Internet trafc. The software, known as a port reader, makes copies of emails as they ow through a network. Then, in practically an instant, the port reader dissects them, removing only the metadata that has been approved by a court. The FBI has built metadata collection systems before. In the late 1990s, it deployed the Carnivore system, which the DITU helped manage, to pull header information out of emails. But the FBI today is after much more than just traditional metadata -- who sent a message and who received it. The FBI wants as many as 13 individual elds of information, according to the industry representative. The data include the route a message took over a network, Internet protocol addresses, and port numbers, which are used to handle different kinds of incoming and outgoing communications. Those last two pieces of information can reveal where a computer is physically located -- perhaps along with its user -- as well as what types of applications and operating system it's running. That information could be useful for government hackers who want to install spyware on a suspect's computer -- a secret task that the DITU also helps carry out. The DITU devised the port reader after law enforcement ofcials complained that they weren't getting enough information from emails and Internet trafc. The FBI has argued that under the Patriot Act, it has the authority to capture metadata and doesn't need a warrant to get them. Some federal prosecutors have gone to court to compel port reader adoption, the industry representative said. If a company failed to comply with a court order, it could be held in contempt.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-wp-frgnp-bc-nsa-comment22-20131122,0,1697098,print.story

Page 2 of 5

Meet the spies doing the NSA's dirty work - chicagotribune.com

12/15/13, 5:21 PM

The FBI's pursuit of Internet metadata bears striking similarities to the NSA's efforts to obtain the same information. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the agency began collecting the information under a secret order signed by President George W. Bush. Documents that were declassied Nov. 18 by Barack Obama's administration show that the agency ran afoul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court after it discovered that the NSA was collecting more metadata than the court had allowed. The NSA abandoned the Internet metadata collection program in 2011, according to administration ofcials. But the FBI has been moving ahead with its own efforts, collecting more metadata than it has in the past. It's not clear how many companies have installed the port reader, but at least two rms are pushing back, arguing that because it captures an entire email, including content, the government needs a warrant to get the information. The government counters that the emails are only copied for a fraction of a second and that no content is passed along to the government, only metadata. The port reader is designed also to collect information about the size of communications packets and trafc ows, which can help analysts better understand how communications are moving on a network. It's unclear whether this data is considered metadata or content; it appears to fall within a legal gray zone, experts said. The DITU also runs a bespoke surveillance service, devising or building technology capable of intercepting information when the companies can't do it themselves. In the early days of social media, when companies like LinkedIn and Facebook were starting out, the unit worked with companies on a technical solution for capturing information about a specic target without also capturing information related to other people to whom the target was connected, such as comments on posts, shared photographs, and personal data from other people's proles, according to a technology expert who was involved in the negotiations. The technicians and engineers who work at the DITU have to stay up to date on the latest trends and developments in technology so that the government doesn't nd itself unable to tap into a new system. Many DITU employees used to work for the telecom companies that have to implement government surveillance orders, according to the industry representative. "There are a lot of people with inside knowledge about how telecommunications work. It's probably more intellectual property than the carriers are comfortable with the FBI knowing." The DITU has also intervened to ensure that the government maintains uninterrupted access to the latest commercial technology. According to the Guardian, the unit worked with Microsoft to "understand" potential obstacles to surveillance in a new feature of Outlook.com that let users create email aliases. At the time, the NSA wanted to make sure that it could circumvent Microsoft's encryption and maintain access to Outlook messages. In a statement to the Guardian, Microsoft said, "When we upgrade or update products we aren't absolved from the need to comply with existing or future lawful demands." It's the DITU's job to help keep companies in compliance. In other instances, the unit will go to companies that manufacture surveillance software and ask them to build in particular capabilities, the industry representative said. The DITU falls under the FBI's Operational Technology Division, home to agents, engineers, electronic technicians, computer forensics examiners, and analysts who "support our most signicant investigations and national security operations with advanced electronic surveillance, digital forensics, technical surveillance, tactical operations, and communications capabilities," according to the FBI's website. Among its publicly disclosed capabilities are surveillance of "wireline, wireless, and data network communication technologies"; collection of digital evidence from computers, including audio les, video, and images; "counter-encryption" support to help break codes; and operation of what the FBI claims is "the largest xed land mobile radio system in the U.S."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-wp-frgnp-bc-nsa-comment22-20131122,0,1697098,print.story Page 3 of 5

Meet the spies doing the NSA's dirty work - chicagotribune.com

12/15/13, 5:21 PM

The Operational Technology Division also specializes in so-called black-bag jobs to install surveillance equipment, as well as computer hacking, referred to on the website as "covert entry/search capability," which is carried out under law enforcement and intelligence warrants. The tech expects at Quantico are the FBI's silent cybersleuths. "While [the division's] work doesn't typically make the news, the fruits of its labor are evident in the busted child pornography ring, the exposed computer hacker, the prevented bombing, the averted terrorist plot, and the prosecuted corrupt ofcial," according to the website. According to former law enforcement ofcials and technology industry experts, the DITU is among the most secretive and sophisticated outts at Quantico. The FBI declined Foreign Policy's request for an interview about the unit. But in a written statement, an FBI spokesperson said it "plays a key role in providing technical expertise, services, policy guidance, and support to the FBI and the intelligence community in collecting evidence and intelligence through the use of lawfully authorized electronic surveillance." In addition to Carnivore, the DITU helped develop early FBI Internet surveillance tools with names like CoolMiner, Packeteer, and Phiple Troenix. One former law enforcement ofcial said the DITU helped build the FBI's Magic Lantern keystroke logging system, a device that could be implanted on a computer and clandestinely record what its user typed. The system was devised to spy on criminals who had encrypted their communications. It was part of a broader surveillance program known as Cyber Knight. In 2007, Wired reported that the FBI had built another piece of surveillance malware to track the source of a bomb threat against a Washington state high school. Called a "computer and Internet protocol address verier," it was able to collect details like IP addresses, a list of programs running on an infected computer, the operating system it was using, the last web address visited, and the logged-in user name. The malware was handled by the FBI's Cryptologic and Electronic Analysis Unit, located next door to the DITU's facilities at Quantico. Wired reported that information collected by the malware from its host was sent via the Internet to Quantico. The DITU has also deployed what the former law enforcement ofcial described as "beacons," which can be implanted in emails and, when opened on a target's computer, can record the target's IP address. The former ofcial said the beacons were rst deployed to track down kidnappers. Lately, one of the DITU's most important jobs has been to keep track of surveillance operations, particularly as part of the NSA's Prism system, to ensure that companies are producing the information that the spy agency wants and that the government has been authorized to obtain. The NSA is the most frequent requester of the DITU's services, sources said. There is a direct ber-optic connection between Quantico and the agency's headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland; data can be moved there instantly. From the companies' perspective, it doesn't much matter where the information ends up, so long as the government shows up with a lawful order to get it. "The fact that either the targets are coming from the NSA or the output goes to the NSA doesn't matter to us. We're being compelled. We're not going to do any more than we have to," said one industry representative. But having the DITU act as a conduit provides a useful public relations benet: Technology companies can claim -- correctly -- that they do not provide any information about their customers directly to the NSA, because they give it to the DITU, which in turn passes it to the NSA.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-wp-frgnp-bc-nsa-comment22-20131122,0,1697098,print.story Page 4 of 5

Meet the spies doing the NSA's dirty work - chicagotribune.com

12/15/13, 5:21 PM

But in the government's response to the controversy that has erupted over government surveillance programs, FBI ofcials have been conspicuously absent. Robert Mueller, who stepped down as the FBI's director in September, testied before Congress about disclosed surveillance only twice, and that was in June, before many of the NSA documents that Snowden leaked had been revealed in the media. On Nov. 14, James Comey gave his rst congressional testimony as the FBI's new director, and he was not asked about the FBI's involvement in surveillance operations that have been attributed to the NSA. Attorney General Eric Holder has made few public comments about surveillance. (His deputy has testied several times.) The former law enforcement ofcial said Holder and Mueller should have offered testimony and explained how the FBI works with the NSA. He was concerned by reports that the NSA had not been adhering to its own minimization procedures, which the Justice Department and the FBI review and vouch for when submitting requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "Where they hadn't done what was represented to the court, that's unforgivable. That's where I got sick to my stomach," the former law enforcement ofcial said. "The government's position is, we go to the court, apply the law -- it's all approved. That makes for a good story until you nd out what was approved wasn't actually what was done." --Harris is a senior writer for Foreign Policy and author of "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State." Follow him on Twitter: @ShaneWHarris. -comment

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-wp-frgnp-bc-nsa-comment22-20131122,0,1697098,print.story

Page 5 of 5

FBIs search for Mo, suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance - The Washington Post

12/15/13, 5:34 PM

Back to previous page

FBIs search for Mo, suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance
By Craig Timberg and Ellen Nakashima, Published: December 6
The man who called himself Mo had dark hair, a foreign accent and if the pictures he e-mailed to federal investigators could be believed an Iranian military uniform. When he made a series of threats to detonate bombs at universities and airports across a wide swath of the United States last year, police had to scramble every time. Mo remained elusive for months, communicating via !e-mail, video chat and an !Internet-based phone service without revealing his true identity or location, court documents show. So with no house to search or telephone to tap, investigators turned to a new kind of surveillance tool delivered over the Internet. The FBIs elite hacker team designed a piece of malicious software that was to be delivered secretly when Mo signed on to his Yahoo e-mail account, from any computer anywhere in the world, according to the documents. The goal of the software was to gather a range of information Web sites he had visited and indicators of the location of the computer that would allow investigators to nd Mo and tie him to the bomb threats. Such high-tech search tools, which the FBI calls network investigative techniques, have been used when authorities struggle to track suspects who are adept at covering their tracks online. The most powerful FBI surveillance software can covertly download les, photographs and stored e-mails, or even gather real-time images by activating cameras connected to computers, say court documents and people familiar with this technology. Online surveillance pushes the boundaries of the constitution's limits on searches and seizures by gathering a broad range of information, some of it without direct connection to any crime. Critics compare it to a physical search in which the entire contents of a home are seized, not just those items suspected to offer evidence of a particular offense. A federal magistrate in Denver approved sending surveillance software to Mos computer last year. Not all such requests are welcomed by the courts: An FBI plan to send surveillance software to a suspect in a different case one that involved activating a suspects built-in computer camera was rejected by a federal magistrate in Houston, who ruled that it was extremely intrusive and could violate the Fourth Amendment. You cant just go on a shing expedition, said Laura K. Donohue, a Georgetown University law professor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-search-for-illance/2013/12/06/352ba174-5397-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_print.html Page 1 of 5

FBIs search for Mo, suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance - The Washington Post

12/15/13, 5:34 PM

who reviewed three recent court rulings on FBI surveillance software, including one involving Mo. There needs to be a nexus between the crime being alleged and the material to be seized. What they are doing here, though, is collecting everything. The FBI and Justice Department declined to comment on the case or the surveillance techniques used in pursuit of Mo. But court documents related to the investigation, created when the FBI requested a search warrant before sending the surveillance software across the Internet to Mo, have offered a rare window into the bureaus tools for tracking suspects through an online landscape replete with places to hide. The case also shows the limits of the surveillance software, which have not yielded Mos arrest, and the legal complexities created when the location of a subject is unknown. The suspect could be down the street or on the other side of the planet, said Jason M. Weinstein, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Departments criminal division who is now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson. He said he had no direct knowledge of the investigation of Mo. The case, however, raises the broader question of whether the rules that exist now are adequate to address the problem. Mystery caller The rst known call from Mo came in July 2012, two days after a troubled man with dyed orange hair had gunned down 12 people in a movie theater in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colo., court documents show. Mo told the county sheriffs ofce there that he was a friend of the alleged killer and wanted him freed. If the sheriff refused, Mo said, he would blow up a building full of potential victims. Mo and a deputy sheriff ended up speaking by phone for three hours while also communicating for much of that time through e-mail. That left investigators with several leads, including a phone number and a working address on Gmail, the Web-based e-mail service from Google. Yet Mos true identity remained a mystery. The number turned out to be for Google Voice, an Internet-based service that allows users to make phone calls from their computers. When authorities made an emergency request to Google for information from his account with the company, they learned that Mo had used an online tool called a virtual proxy to mask identifying information about the computer he was using. The name registered for the Google account, meanwhile, was Soozan vf. There was no obvious reference to Iran, even though a set of pictures Mo later e-mailed to investigators appeared to show an olive-skinned man in his late 20s, wearing what court documents described as an Iranian tan camouaged military uniform. Over several months, Mo allegedly threatened to detonate bombs at a county jail, a DoubleTree hotel, the University of Denver, the University of Texas, San Antonio International Airport, Washington-Dulles International Airport, Virginia Commonwealth University and other heavily used public facilities across the country, court documents show. Though no bombs were ever found, during his rash of threats Mo began using an ominous new e-mail address: texan.slayer@!yahoo.com. He also gave investigators a plausible full name for himself Mohammed Arian Far whose initials roughly t a name he had used when registering his Google account:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-search-for-illance/2013/12/06/352ba174-5397-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_print.html Page 2 of 5

FBIs search for Mo, suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance - The Washington Post

12/15/13, 5:34 PM

mmmmaaaaffff. The account information, gathered after the approval of a search warrant in September 2012, listed a birthday that suggested Mo was 27 years old, tting the estimates investigators made based on the pictures he had sent them. The eld for country said Iran. The computer IP address used when Mo had signed up for the account in 2009 suggested he was in Tehran, the capital, at the time. But it wasnt clear where in the city he lived, or even if he was still there. Phishing for a suspect The FBI team works much like other hackers, using security weaknesses in computer programs to gain control of users machines. The most common delivery mechanism, say people familiar with the technology, is a simple phishing attack a link slipped into an e-mail, typically labeled in a misleading way. When the user hits the link, it connects to a computer at FBI ofces in Quantico, Va., and downloads the malicious software, often called malware because it operates covertly, typically to spy on or otherwise exploit the owner of a computer. As in some traditional searches, subjects typically are notied only after evidence is gathered from their property. We have transitioned into a world where law enforcement is hacking into peoples computers, and we have never had public debate, said Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. Judges are having to make up these powers as they go along. Former U.S. ofcials say the FBI uses the technique sparingly, in part to keep public references to its online surveillance tools to a minimum. There was news coverage about them in 2007, when Wired reported that the FBI had sent surveillance software to the owner of a MySpace account linked to bomb threats against a Washington state high school. The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computers camera without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations, said Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBIs Operational Technology Division in Quantico, now on the advisory board of Subsentio, a rm that helps telecommunications carriers comply with federal wiretap statutes. The FBIs technology continues to advance as users move away from traditional computers and become more savvy about disguising their locations and identities. Because of encryption and because targets are increasingly using mobile devices, law enforcement is realizing that more and more theyre going to have to be on the device or in the cloud, Thomas said, referring to remote storage services. Theres the realization out there that theyre going to have to use these types of tools more and more. The ability to remotely activate video feeds was among the issues cited in a case in Houston, where federal magistrate Judge Stephen W. Smith rejected a search warrant request from the FBI in April. In that case, rst reported by the Wall Street Journal, Smith ruled that the use of such technology in a bank fraud case was extremely intrusive and ran the risk of accidentally capturing information of people not under suspicion of any crime. Smith also said that a magistrates court based in Texas lacked jurisdiction to approve a search of a computer whose location was unknown. He wrote that such surveillance software may violate the Fourth Amendments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-search-for-illance/2013/12/06/352ba174-5397-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_print.html Page 3 of 5

FBIs search for Mo, suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance - The Washington Post

12/15/13, 5:34 PM

limits on unwarranted searches and seizures. Yet another federal magistrate judge, in Austin, approved the FBIs request to conduct a one-time limited search not involving the computers camera by sending surveillance software to the e-mail account of a federal fugitive in December 2012. In that case, investigators had evidence that the man, who allegedly had taken the identity of a soldier serving in Iraq, was living at a hotel in San Antonio, just more than an hours drive from Austin. The FBIs surveillance software returned a detailed inventory of the fugitives computer, including the chips used, the amount of space on his hard drive and a list of dozens of programs loaded onto it. He was later arrested, convicted and sentenced to ve years in prison for nancial fraud and identity theft. Technology is evolving and law enforcement is struggling to keep up, said Brian L. Owsley, a retired federal magistrate judge from Texas who was not involved in either case. Its a cat-and-mouse game. Still searching Even though investigators suspected that Mo was in Iran, the uncertainty around his identity and location complicated the case. Had he turned out to be a U.S. citizen or a foreigner living within the country, a search conducted without a warrant could have jeopardized his prosecution. Federal magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya approved the FBIs search warrant request on Dec. 11, 2012, nearly ve months after the rst threatening call from Mo. The order gave the FBI two weeks to attempt to activate surveillance software sent to the texan.slayer@yahoo.com e-mail address. All investigators needed, it seemed, was for Mo to sign on to his account and, almost instantaneously, the software would start reporting information back to Quantico. The logistical hurdles proved to be even more complex than the legal ones. The rst search warrant request botched the Yahoo e-mail address for Mo, mixing up a single letter and prompting the submission of a corrected request. A software update to a program the surveillance software was planning to target, meanwhile, raised fears of a malfunction, forcing the FBI to refashion its malicious software before sending it to Mos computer. The warrant authorizes an Internet web link that would download the surveillance software to Mos computer when he signed on to his Yahoo account. (Yahoo, when questioned by The Washington Post, issued a statement saying it had no knowledge of the case and did not assist in any way.) The surveillance software was sent across the Internet on Dec. 14, 2012 three days after the warrant was issued but the FBIs program didnt function properly, according to a court document submitted in February, The program hidden in the link sent to texan.slayer@!yahoo.com never actually executed as designed, a federal agent reported in a handwritten note to the court. But, it said, Mos computer did send a request for information to the FBI computer, revealing two new IP addresses in the process. Both suggested that, as of last December, Mo was still in Tehran. Julie Tate contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-search-for-illance/2013/12/06/352ba174-5397-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_print.html Page 4 of 5

FBIs search for Mo, suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance - The Washington Post

12/15/13, 5:34 PM

More stories: State photo-ID databases become troves for police License plate cameras track millions of Americans Exclusive: NSA collects 5 billion records a day on cellphone locations The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-search-for-illance/2013/12/06/352ba174-5397-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_print.html

Page 5 of 5

12/15/13, 5:45 PM

Back to main

Wells Fargo VP May Be Added to Mortgage-Fraud Suit

The U.S. government filed a motion Friday to add a Wells Fargo & Co. executive in charge of quality control to a lawsuit accusing the biggest U.S. mortgage lender of "reckless" lending and leaving a federal insurance program to pick up the tab. The action, filed in federal court in Manhattan, claims Vice President Kurt Lofrano-whose function included self- reporting materially defective loans to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-"concealed the bank's bad loans and shoddy underwriting to protect its enormous profits." It says that before October 2005, Wells Fargo didn't self-report a single bad loan to HUD. The government's motion aims to add Mr. Lofrano to the suit it filed in October 2012 under the Federal False Claims Act. That sought "hundreds of millions of dollars" in damages on behalf of the FHA, a government agency that doesn't make loans but insures those made by lenders that meet its standards. The original complaint alleges nearly a decade of misconduct dating back to May 2001. The suit contends that San Francisco-based Wells Fargo engaged in "regular practice of reckless origination and underwriting" of government-backed loans. The company said more than 100,000 FHA loans met federal guidelines when more than half of them didn't, according to the complaint. Wells Fargo denies the allegations. On Monday, the bank in an emailed statement said it is "very disappointed" by the government's motion, adding that "Wells Fargo has not been presented with any facts or circumstances warranting this action nor has the government explained why it is even remotely appropriate to include Mr. Lofrano more than a year after first filing suit." A Wells Fargo spokesperson confirmed Mr. Lofrano is a vice president of credit risk with the company. Write to Saabira Chaudhuri at saabira.chaudhuri@wsj.com Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires

(END) Dow Jones Newswires 11-25-131005ET Copyright (c) 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stockmarketnewsstoryprint.aspx?storyid=wells-fargo-vp-may-be-added-to-mortgage-fraud-suit-20131125-00629

Page 1 of 1