Would you like a new sentencing date with your WHINE?

First off, sentencing has been rescheduled until November 16th at 9AM.  Read on though, there was some drama leading up to it.

Joel’s lawyer (obviously with Ed’s lawyer’s consent) attempted to push the date to mid-December.  There’s a heavy amount of whine in that document, which starts off with how they need more time because there’s just so many documents to review.  Apparently, Joel met with the Probation Officer for a Pre-sentence interview.  At that interview, Joel gave the Probation Officer his version of the amount of loss.  I find this a bit funny.  The Dickwads didn’t keep any records but Joel magically has a full loss “analysis.” Those are sarcastic finger quotes.  It was probably done up in crayon on a bar napkin using some unauthorized version of new math.  Considering that Joel thinks that the government hasn’t properly accounted for returns on investments made to corporations and trusts, etc, I’m not sure what the hell he’s trying to pull.

Anyway, Joel also gave reasons why he thinks that he deserves a departure from the sentencing guidelines.  Since I doubt he’s arguing for a worse sentence, he basically stated why he thinks he should be punished less.  If you don’t have much experience with sentencing guidelines, go ahead and check out the sentencing guidelines for ponzi schemes.  That’s from 2011, it may be out of date.  In any event, it’s complicated and requires math.  Lots of math. And not the new math that Joel is using.

He also gave the Probation Officer nineteen character reference letters.  Where did he find NINETEEN people to put down on paper that he’s a stellar guy? WHERE?

The government then partially opposed rescheduling the date, saying that that the Dickwad Duo’s Crack Legal Team (DDCLT) has had those documents for six months, which is long enough and that rescheduling again serves no good purpose.  There is also an attachment which addresses the issues raised.  Part of it goes into the fact that because the defendants were able to create their own loss analysis, presented “a wealth of information” to the Probation Officer, and have had all the documents since FREAKING APRIL, they don’t need more time at all.  The other part is about the defendant’s issues with the government’s loss analysis.  Which isn’t a reason to delay sentencing.

And so the court agreed with the government and denied the motion to reschedule.  But it doesn’t end there!

Dickwad Duo’s Crack Legal Team filed another motion for rescheduling, in which they basically called the government liars.  Ill advised when you’re clearly the one shoveling bullshit.  They state that they did not have all the documents by the end of April because another 8,000 pages of new discover were sent over on August 17th.  They went on to say that the DDCLT didn’t get the loss analysis until June 2nd and as of August 10th, the government was still waiting on information about the net winners. And then they say they can provide numerous examples of payments to investors that were not counted against the losses.

And so the government partially opposed the new motion with the appropriate attachment.  If you’re going to read any of these documents, read that attachment starting on Page 2, line 19.  The government points out that DDCLT seems to think that the government providing additional information on investors in August undercuts what the government was saying about DDCLT having all the financial records in plenty of time for sentencing but DDCLT are wrong for several reasons.  Firstly, they were provided with the investor files back in January. Secondly, most of the stuff provided in August were from more than five years prior to NASI’s collapse and cannot possibly factor into the losses.  Wondering why?  Well, given the 20% annual return, anyone investing prior to July 2009 would be a net winner, having made their money back by the time the scheme collapsed. Thirdly, the records produced in August were in Wishner’s possession until April 2015.  On top of that, many of the records produced in August were duplicates of those provided in April.

About the issues regarding the loss analysis… ugh.  It appears that DDCLT had questions about the analysis on June 2nd and the government responded on June 4th.  Judging by what the government has written in this document, DDCLT is just being ridiculous.  DDCLT seemed to be focused on people who invested prior to 2007.  Which makes no sense.  Anyone who invested prior to 2007 would have been a net winner by a couple of years when NASI died.  The government also explained to them that their loss analysis is “the amount of money paid in by each investor reduced by the amount of money paid back by NASI.”  It’s super simple, and I’m not sure what the frickin’ problem is.  If you invest $12,000 and NASI paid you $1,400 your net loss would be $10,600.  How is that disputable?  Also, regarding the buy-backs, wherein you terminated your contract and NASI paid you for your ATM, the government feels as though you’re a net winner.  Again, simple math.  You invested $12,000, NASI paid you $1,400 before you terminated and then they paid you $12,000 for the ATM so you’d be a net winner for $1,400.

That pretty much covers it.  It’s fairly confusing.  The receiver’s report and both the receivership and legal billings are in.  I’ve been swamped with work (which is why this is late), but I’m planning on having it all up soon.