Chapter 11 & 15 Violations Ch. 11 (Charter of Rights): ●
Decision paragraph 7; “Somewhat confusingly, the accused also had a plan referred to as “Aid2Families”, and also another called “Pay4Families”. These were described by the second accused as having different purposes.” –
●
Here the judge assumes that the different companies do not have different purposes. There was no evidence at trial to the contrary and we explained clearly the difference between each.
Decision paragraph 11; “...or risk of loss, on the other, was made out as soon as the complainants, relying on the representations made to them by the accused, sent money to the accused.” – –
There was no risk of loss The representations referred to by the Judge were not the same as the representations that the Koch's said they relied upon (not to mention that the representations referred to by the judge are actually true) .
●
Decision paragraph 12; “Mrs. Koch listed many of these, and ultimately was of the view that there was little, if anything, true from the G.I.S.P. Aid4Families.com website. I am inclined to agree with her.”
●
Decision paragraph 13; “ as late as the web capture was, and it is important to remember that it was after the investigation had started, it still contained a number of false representations.” –
●
There was no evidence at trial to prove that anything on the site was untrue.
Decision paragraph 14; “There is no evidence that anyone ever won any computer equipment from Aid4Families.com.” –
It was not mentioned at trial and the judge didn't even bother to ask if we had even received any entries (which we DID NOT).Again, he assumed.
“Mrs. Koch took the reference to the contest for a computer as making the site seem more “family-oriented”. –
Mrs.Koch never relied on any computer lab to help her decide that we were family oriented since the reference to the computer lab was not added until after Mrs.Koch had already joined the program.
●
Decision paragraph 15; “why public pension schemes are likely to fail, that “industry bigwigs have pressed judges and regulators to earn their keep by ridding the industry of competition”. Decision paragraph 16; “On page 3, one finds “Aid4families.com the only entity, public or private, serving the people!”. The next paragraph begins with “Aid4families.com is alone in trying to fight for your right to thrive against public and private corruption. Why does aid4Families.com exist? Because we are the only thing standing between you and financial extinction! If you believe otherwise...don't join, don't call. Simply demand from your government and bank/brokerage that they put their money where your mouth is. Aid4Families.com thrives because the people trust us and we are the only game on earth !” – –
●
Decision paragraph 17; “This is followed by “No risk! No fine print! No disclaimer! Just money in your pocket!” –
●
Again....Assumptions on his part. What fine print? What disclaimer?
Decision paragraph 18; “that pays the largest monthly dividend.” –
●
More representations that he assumes are false without any proof. When he speaks of page 3, he writes 1 sentence and lets the reader assume that was all that was written. Then he states that the next paragraph begins with.... when here he writes the entire paragraph. Throughout his decision, he repeatedly takes website statements out of context to suit his own agenda.
We did pay the largest monthly dividend.... who pays more than 10%?
Decision paragraph 19; “ webpage says that “we are registered with UK Pension Service, Dun and Bradstreet, GovBenefits.gov, and the Miami Chamber of Commerce”. There is no evidence that any of this is true –
No evidence that it was untrue either ... presumption of guilt and assuming that everything we say is a lie. If he had bothered to check he would have found out that we were indeed registered.
“Similarly, on page 34, there is a photograph of a high-rise office tower, with the caption “Aid4families.com; heart of the Brickell financial district-Miami”. Neither the accused nor their creation Aid4Families.com had any offices in Miami: the picture and caption were also added to the website to give it undeserved credibility” –
Again, no evidence was ever submitted to support his unfounded accusations. We indeed had access to the Miami office as it was our mailing address and we were paying monthly for this access. He didn't
bother to ask us about it but rather jumped to his own conclusions based on his prejudice towards us and his inability to accept that what we were saying was true. ●
Decision paragraph 20; “ Whether meant to be sarcastic or not, it proves that the accused were aware of “Ponzi” schemes”
- Again, assuming the worst of us. I am also aware of what a brothel or crack house is but that in no way means that I am running one. - The judge himself admits that we had investments ---> investments = not how you run a ponzi scheme ●
Decision paragraph 21; “ the only reason that this was put on the webpage was to try to give it an aura of respectability, by suggesting a connection with the stability of the federal government.” –
There he goes again, adding his own assumptions ( assumptions that aren't even coherent --- anyone who read the site can see that we do not believe the government to be stable but rather corrupt and we would not want this association with out program)
“Mrs. Koch made it clear that she believed that Aid4Families.com had some connection with the Canadian government.” –
Assumption of our guilt again and a blatant lie in contradiction with Mrs.Koch's testimony.
●
Decision paragraph 22; “Again, this is both an untrue statement, and also an effort to cloak the Aid4Families.com scheme with the stability of the Canadian government.” - Again, what stability??
●
Decision paragraph 23; “There is no evidence of any persons by those names, or from those places, having ever depositing any money with Aid4Families.com.” –
●
No evidence that it is untrue either. It was never even brought up at trial.
Decision paragraph 24/25; “ Every part of the foregoing extract is false... it was not even a body corporate... It had nothing to do with government...This statement is untrue and dishonest.”
- Which statement isn't true exactly? We never claimed to be incorporated nor did we claim to be involved with the government. He keeps making up things and inserting them as proof of our dishonesty.
●
Decision paragraph 26/27; “.During the evidence, the accused denied having pretended that investments made with Aid4Families.com were insured, and Carl Allwood was repeatedly examined on whether the accused had made such an offer in the Aid4Families.com web site. It is clear from the foregoing that the accused were in fact saying that deposits made with them were insured. That was not true.”
- Again...his assumptions of guilt. Mr. Alwood and the Crown had tried to say that we offered third party insurance which was not true nor was it on the site. - We offered our own insurance which was true and not misrepresented. ●
Decision paragraph 28; “The use of the words “corporate” and “government” are an effort to inflate the size of the operation: there is no evidence that any corporation or any government body ever sent Aid4Families.com one cent.”
- Again, his own assumptions...how is stating that we would accept large deposits proof of any deceit. ●
Decision paragraph 29; “ another example of a false claim, made to falsely exaggerate the size and breadth of the Aid4Families.com enterprise, to make it seem more stable and reliable as an investment institution.” –
●
Again....his own assumptions as no evidence was ever presented to refute this.
Decision paragraph 30; “there is no doubt that the accused could not live up to any professed “guaranteed” rate of return on investments with Aid4Families.com.”
- Since there was never any proof offered to refute our claims, (when asked if we could provide proof of these returns we said yes but the Crown nor Judge wanted to see our evidence) one can only surmise that the Judge never had any doubt and had always assumed us to be guilty. He does make clear that he never had any doubt in any instance for the crown to overcome. ●
Decision paragraph 31/32; “ Last, and perhaps the lowest form of deceit found on the website is the claim that Aid4Families.com had opened a “charitable branch”... “These claims, all of them false, were made in order to induce potential “investors” to believe that Aid4Families.com was a stable, reliable, and ethical institution.”
- Again...his assumptions that we were evil and guilty from the beginning. The A4FC was never brought up at trial and no evidence was ever offered to conclude that we were not serious about the charity. His own prejudice did not allow him to even ponder the idea that we may be innocent.
The Aid4Families.com website is replete with exaggeration, false promise, and plain lies. It provides ample evidence of dishonest and discreditable behavior on the part of the defendants. –
●
He continually picks parts of the site and calls them lies – not because of proof to support his claims but simply because he is judge and he says so.
Decision paragraph 33/34; “ the first accused used aliases: she called herself variously her real name, Breyanne, “Jessica”, and “Amanda”. She denied having used these aliases in any attempt to falsely inflate the size of the Aid4Families.com operation, just as she insisted that her references to the “wire department”, the “funding department”, or the “back room” were not attempts to falsely give an exaggerated size of the Aid4families.com operation.” - Never tried to disguise the size of the company and when we were
asked by the Koch's how many people were involved we told them. We also stated on the site that we were registered with Dunn & Bradstreet knowing that this registration had the exact number of full-time employees and was readily available for anyone with an internet connection to check. His assumptions of guilt would not allow him to see any other reason for our actions other than that which he had already decided. ●
Decision paragraph 35; “ There is no evidence that her parents had invested with the scheme, nor that they were happy with the results” - Not only was there no proof to the contrary (again...expects us to
provide proof) but I never made such claims. “Further, July Murphy testified, under direct examination and cross examination, that the first accused told her that the cheque for $153,500 which she was trying to deposit with the Marystown Community Credit Union came from their sale of property in the United States. That evidence is uncontradicted. It clearly shows a deliberate attempt by the first accused to conceal the source of the funds, itself a dishonest act.” - First....we explained to our attorney what had happened here and he
assured us that it was unimportant. Secondly, as Ms. Senior testified, we stood in the bank and asked them to verify the source of the funds so I beg to differ with Judge Porters assessment as the crown's witness contradicts this evidence. ●
Decision paragraph 36/37; “ The first dvd contained several items which undermined his credibility. First, it contained his own definition of fraud. Second, it advanced his theory that “money is not real”, and that “gold has a static value”. Third, he alleges that the Federal Reserve System “creates money out of nothing”. Fourth, he alleges that banks operate their own “Ponzi” scheme. Fifth, he suggests that the police are complicit in this, by not investigating the banks.” - Not my own definition.
- Again, his low opinion of me lets him believe that as a currency trader, I have no idea of the value of gold. - Those who truly understand the Fiat system know that money is made out of nothing and there are many articles that support this theory. - Which Canadian bank has been raided and prosecuted??? Even after the ABCP debacle no police are knocking on Scotia Banks doors. ●
Decision paragraph 38; “ Worse than that, however, is the remark which follows it, to the effect that “it is very difficult for a Judge, prosecutor, cop or politician to go against a bank”. This contempt is continued with statements like “bankers don't go to jail” and “we don't have a justice system”.
- The fact that my opinion differs from his does not discredit me. It simply means that I belong to a different school of thought than he does. Many academics agree with me and secondly, I was reading from one of many articles that appear on the subject. ●
Decision paragraph 39; “It also purports to be developing a plan whereby Aid4families would have eventually created a banking system along an amalgam of Kiva.org and Grammeen Bank, loaning out small loans to poor people. There is no evidence of any of this from the operations of Aid4Families.com: on the contrary, the only persons who might have benefited from those operations were the accused...” - Also never mentioned at trial and he uses his own assumptions to
come to this conclusion. He keeps expecting us to provide proof when we were SUPPOSED to be assumed innocent. ●
Decision paragraph 40; “ his obvious contempt for the Judiciary and the justice system does seriously undermine his credibility.” –
The judge is the only person involved in this case that believes in my contempt for the Judiciary. I have different opinions from his and I believe unlike him that I can make a difference. His low opinion of me and my organization is what has allowed him to come to all of these conclusions without any proof at all. He never even entertained the idea that I was anything but guilty.
Paragraphs 1-6 and 41 he talks about the standard that he must apply to enter a conviction .... 9 times he says “There is no evidence”, shifting the burden to us and violating the Charter of Rights.
Chapter 15 (Charter of Rights):
●
Sentence paragraphs: 1; “in their section 726 allocutions, both accused took the position that the sentence imposed, regardless of pronounced duration, would amount to a life sentence of separation of the two accused, because the second accused would most likely be deported from Canada, and because the conviction would forever prohibit the first accused from travel to the United States of America. No evidence was led in support of this contention, and no weight should be afforded it.”
- First, it is common knowledge that a non-citizen convicted of a crime in Canada is deported (which is evident by the fact that Mr. Matthews was indeed deported). Secondly, it is also common knowledge that someone with a felony conviction is ineligible to travel to the United States. ●
3; “ There is no evidence to support any motivation other than personal greed in justification of the offenders’ actions. This is not a circumstance where the offenders’ actions might be ascribed to some external causative factors such as gambling problems or drug addiction. These offences were committed purely out of greed”
- Here the judge is discriminating against us because we aren't drug or gambling addicts. ●
4; “ They have not been able to make a full recovery of their losses, and are still grappling with this financial disaster....because the accused are impecunious, and unable to make any restitution...” –
●
The judge leaves to believe that the Koch's have not received any restitution when in fact they have received all of their funds (minus sheriff and lawyer fees) back.
5;
“The fact that the accused chose to operate in Canada, instead of the United States is important. The markedly different sentencing regimes for white collar crime between the two countries is well known, and it is tempting to suspect that the accused decided to set up their operation, first in Quebec, and then in Newfoundland, as opposed to South of the border, in order to take advantage of a lower risk of incarceration (and a significantly lower range of sentence) when their Ponzi scheme eventually, and predictably, failed. –
Here he is completely biased against us in making such accusations. He never thought to consider that we were running the business in Quebec because that is where we had been living since 2002 (business started in 2006). Here he mentions Ponzi scheme again when he knows of our investments and Ponzi schemes do not invest the funds but rather pay existing customers with new customer money.
●
●
6; “It is also to be noted that no Canadian victims of the accused were identified during the investigation of the operations of the accused,...” - No Victims period
8/9;
“in some other “exceptional” cases,...the attitude of the offender towards court ...continued denial of responsibility...” – – –
●
12;
“ If Canada does not want to become the base of operations for cross-border fraudsters...” –
●
Discrimination due to the fact that Mr. Matthews is American. The judge completely ignores that we set up the business in Quebec because that is where we had been living as a couple since 2002. Mr. Matthews is also clearly African-American and the judge clearly harbors stereotypical notions of African-Americans against him. The clients were all American, Mr. Matthews is American and the Miami office is in the U.S., nor ever has being in Canada prevented Americans from prosecuting somebody. ( Ask Conrad Black or Roman Polanski)
13; “sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders committed in similar circumstances...” –
●
We were nothing but courteous to the court and it's officers What exactly makes us exceptional?? Denial of responsibility because we are innocent.
Our sentence was nothing like sentences imposed on first time offenders where all funds (exception of sheriff & Lawyer fees ) were recovered. We received a minimum of 30% more time than any of the NL politicians which were convicted.
14; “ As indicated above, the circumstances of these offences and these offenders require sentences of significant periods of incarceration” - The circumstances of the offence were misrepresented by the judge
and I believe that the judges real preoccupation lies with “these offenders” ●
15; “It is, of course, the gross total exposure of the victims of the crime which provides the comparator with the other cases.” –
We received a sentence comparable with defendants who were found guilty of fraud in amounts exceeding $300 000 and where the funds
were not recovered by the victims.
â—?
â—?
The judge was obviously prejudiced against us since every time the crown asked for a delay or extension it was granted but the ONE time we asked, he refused it. Also, why was the prosecution willing to drop all charges against Reyanne for a guilty plea from Earl??? There was prejudice from the beginning of the investigation and throughout the entire trial. Charges were only laid against us because of who we were. (Lack of evidence would have stopped the prosecution from charging anyone else.)