For those of you not privy to the legal documents filed in this case, here comes a doozie filed on behalf of Michael Glaspie on 08/25/23: "SENTENCING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE." Because of the filing's length, the remainder of the filing will be in the replies.
TRUST ME, IT IS WORTH THE READ!!! To whet your appetite, here is the conclusion:
"Based on the totality of the factors in Section 3553(a) cited above, Mr. Glaspie’s unique situation should persuade this Honorable Court that the imposition of a period of substantial incarceration would depart from the intended purpose of the statute. Due to the severity of Mr. Glaspie’s medical condition, and the likelihood that he will become fully nonfunctional in the next 2-4 years, the Court should consider the compelling and extraordinary medical reasons home confinement in lieu of incarceration so he may receive the benefit of a potential lifesaving therapy."
Basically, what you'll read below is counsel arguing why Glaspie, due to a preponderance of physical maladies, should not serve his sentence in prison. The attorney says Glaspie should be able to remain at home, where he can be tended to, medicated, recover from a cervical fusion and participate in an Alzheimer medication study. The letter written by his "doctor" (you'll find it in a reply to the post) is especially detailed.
If this makes you sick—sicker than Glaspie claims to be— YOU HAVE TO ACT RIGHT NOW!
Contact the Victim Assistance Line toll-free at (888) 549-3945 or email [victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov](mailto:victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov) to let them know your thoughts about the "downward variance" in Glaspie's sentence. If you haven't filed your victim's statement, do that NOW too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE
COMES NOW, the Defendant, MICHAEL GLASPIE aka “MIKE G”, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 and 18 USC § 3553(a) and respectfully submits the following Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court at sentencing. The Defendant hereby notifies the Court that he has received and reviewed the Pre-Sentence Report. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court impose a sentence of home confinement in lieu of incarceration followed by a period of supervised release based upon:
- His lack of history of violence or any criminal record.
- Having a stable place to live.
- His poor and declining health.
- His ability to adhere to all of the rules of supervised electronic confinement.
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL GLASPIE aka “MIKE G,” Defendant(s).
CASE NO.: 4:23-CR-3010
4:23-cr-03010-JMG-CRZ Doc # 33 Filed: 08/25/23 Page 2 of 49 - Page ID # 146
-
Mr. Glaspie comes before this Court having pled guilty on February 23, 2023, to Count One of the Information charging the Defendant with Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
-
As to Count One, the maximum term of imprisonment is twenty years. 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
-
Pursuant to Plea Agreement [D.E. 14] and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), the government has agreed to the following calculation of the offense for sentencing purposes:
-
BaseOffenseLevel-Thepartiesagreethatthedefendant’sbase offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a) is 7.
-
Specific Offense Characteristics – The parties agree that the defendant, through the wire fraud scheme, caused losses of at least $55,000,000, and thus an increase of 22 levels under U.S.S.G. § 2B.1.1(b)(1)(I) applies. The parties also agree that the offense involved 10 or more victims, was committed through mass-marketing, and/or resulted in substantial financial hardship to one or more victims, and thus, an increase of 2 levels under U.S.S.G. § 2B.1.1(b)(2)(A) applies. The parties also agree that the offense involved a violation of a prior, specific judicial or administrative order, injunction, decree, or process not addressed elsewhere in the guidelines, and thus, an increase of 2 levels under U.S.S.G. § 2B.1.1(b)(9)(C) applies.1
-
Acceptance of Responsibility – If the defendant is found to be entitled to an offense level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility, the United States hereby moves that the court reduce the defendant’s offense level by one additional level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), if that paragraph otherwise applies.
1 The Defendant objects to any violation of an administrative order, injunction, or decree. 2
4:23-cr-03010-JMG-CRZ Doc # 33 Filed: 08/25/23 Page 3 of 49 - Page ID # 147
d. Downward Departure – The parties agree that a downward departure is warranted because the amount of loss overstates the seriousness of the offense due to the fact that a substantial number of investors invested primarily due to Neil Chandran’s false statements rather than the defendant’s own false promises and statements. In such circumstances, the gain to the defendant, $2,424,971, is a better measure of the defendant’s true culpability, and thus the parties agree that a downward departure of six levels is appropriate.
-
ParagraphCofthePleaAgreementrecognizedthattheDefendantmay request or recommend additional downward adjustments and/or departures.
-
Pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Mr. Glaspie respectfully requests this Court to impose a sentence that is "sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with" the goals of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A sentence of home confinement will deprive Mr. Glaspie of his liberty while furthering the Government’s interest to protect the public2 and provide just punishment and afford adequate deterrence.
Mr. Glaspie’s Role in the Charges
Mr. Glaspie spent a substantial portion of his professional career as an internet marketing entrepreneur. On or about May 2018, Mr. Glaspie was approached by Gary Davidson concerning an opportunity to invest. Mr. Davidson explained the principle behind the operation was Neil Chandran,
2 Mr. Glaspie is willing to provide significant cooperation with the Government in current prosecutions arising from this scheme concerning several individuals.
3
4:23-cr-03010-JMG-CRZ Doc # 33 Filed: 08/25/23 Page 4 of 49 - Page ID # 148
who owned and operated several successful technology companies. Mr. Davidson contacted Mr. Glaspie to solicit his expertise in internet marketing as Mr. Chandran was involved in what was purported to be an exciting investment opportunity. Mr. Glaspie was intrigued by the opportunity and started to conduct his research on Mr. Chandran. Mr. Glaspie’s research revealed that Mr. Chandran had strong internet presence with professional marketing videos for his companies such as ViMarket3 including news reviews from sources such as CTTN, San Francisco4 and Fintech World.5 Mr. Chandran was also a keynote speaker at reputable trade shows such as the Crypto Summit6 promoting virtual reality and crypto tokens. Additional coverage from reputable sources includes the Nasdaq Market Site interviewing an advisor from another of Chandran’s companies Freevi.7 Virse, another Chandran company was also heavily promoted as the future of technology and an extensive video was promoted with Chandran detailing investment levels and opportunities.8 Another major trade show promoting verse was NFT Los Angeles, Bitcoin 2022 Convention in Miami, Florida
3 https://vimeo.com/142826338 4 https://vimeo.com/249688916 5 https://vimeo.com/259011088 6 https://vimeo.com/260153370 7 https://vimeo.com/238635559 8 https://vimeo.com/492267165
4
4:23-cr-03010-JMG-CRZ Doc # 33 Filed: 08/25/23 Page 5 of 49 - Page ID # 149
labeled as “The Biggest Bitcoin Event in the World.9,10 All of the media coverage, professional marketing campaigns, and keynote speakerships at reputable conventions presented a compelling story of legitimacy and opportunity. A reasonable person would be inclined to believe this was a sound investment opportunity. Convinced of the Mr. Chandran’s legitimacy, Mr. Glaspie invested significant sums of his personal money into the scheme. As Mr. Chandran was constantly raising capital, Mr. Davidson recruited Mr. Glaspie to utilize his knowledge of internet marketing to reach potential investors worldwide. Mr. Glaspie developed a “Collateralized Loan Agreement” as he was strictly to be the marketing arm of the investment opportunity. He did not deal directly with Mr. Chandran and all the information, including updates on the investment opportunity, came directly from Gary Davidson. As Mr. Glaspie collected investor’s funds, he forwarded the funds directly to Mr. Davidson after taking his small commission for the work he performed. Mr. Glaspie actively promoted the opportunity to invest in the enterprise. As the marketing project became more successful, unbeknownst to Mr. Glaspie, other individuals started to form investor pools to take part in the opportunity and earn commissions. One of these individuals
9 https://vimeo.com/698647638/d5b9567d20?utm\_medium=email&\_hsmi=209836617&\_hsenc=p2ANqtz- _6n1OMxwL6vWQaq58NTuYd10uTpXGfGwUyLQ9CAPVD1cFYSL25GSYWVHlLvOU2o_e- 1Mq5KS5SDKFS5ntFtaV_W6a3_Q&utm_content=209836617&utm_source=hs_email%20.
10 https://b.tc/conference/2022
5
4:23-cr-03010-JMG-CRZ Doc # 33 Filed: 08/25/23 Page 6 of 49 - Page ID # 150
was Linda Knott, who recruited pools of hundreds of investors to send funds to Mr. Glaspie. These funds were submitted under a single name; however, hundreds of individuals were behind these investments, all without Mr. Glaspie’s knowledge.
With regard to the collection of funds, Mr. Glaspie maintained a merchant service account for credit card processing. These transactions were never questioned by the credit card processor. In fact, the credit card processor allowed these transactions to clear despite the multiple flags of possible fraudulent activity. Throughout the time Mr. Glaspie marketed Chandran’s investment opportunity, he maintained a webpage providing constant update to investors from the information derived from Gary Davidson. As time passed, deadlines for closing the promised deal were being increasingly delayed, each time with a new “excuse”. In 2021, Mr. Glaspie became suspicious and ultimately decided not to collect any more money from investors. He even started approving chargebacks with his credit card processor to make as many investors as possible whole by refunding over $400,000.00.
It should be noted that based on Mr. Glaspie’s medical condition, that is more thoroughly detailed below, he was already experiencing the early stages of dementia. While this is not meant to excuse his conduct, it does help explain
6
4:23-cr-03010-JMG-CRZ Doc # 33 Filed: 08/25/23 Page 7 of 49 - Page ID # 151
how a person in Mr. Glaspie’s condition could be more susceptible to believe in such a scheme, and fail to recognize that it was a fraud. Furthermore, Mr. Glaspie even when confronted with the mounting evidence of Mr. Chandran’s fraud, did not want to face the truth that he had been duped into and furthered a scheme that cost people millions of dollars.
It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of the funds that passed through Mr. Glaspie’s merchant services account was passed on to Gary Davidson and Mr. Chandran. Mr. Chandran used Mr. Glaspie to market his scheme and it was Mr. Chandran who pocketed almost the entirety of the proceeds. While Mr. Glaspie did retain funds received from investors, this amount was very small considering the size of Mr. Chandran’s overall scheme. Approximately two million was retained by Mr. Glaspie. This entire amount was used to pay expenses, to pay employees and some was used to purchase insurance policies that the U.S. Government seized. Mr. Chandran pocketed tens of millions of dollars in this scheme that netted well over $150 million.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. STANDARD FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES
A “variance” outside the guideline range provided for in the Guidelines Manual should occur after consideration of all relevant departure provisions.
7
4:23-cr-03010-JMG-CRZ Doc # 33 Filed: 08/25/23 Page 8 of 49 - Page ID # 152
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48 (2007). In some situations, a prohibited ground for departure may be a valid basis for a variance. United States v. Chase, 560 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2009) (departure precedents do not bind district courts with respect to variance decisions but may be considered “persuasive authority”). United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2009) recognizes that Gillmore was partially abrogated by Gall v. United States, in that sentencing courts need not justify sentences outside the guideline range through “extraordinary” circumstances: the district court need only “take into account the § 3553(a) factors and recognize that the guidelines are not mandatory.”
No comments:
Post a Comment