Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (11410)	5/27/2011 8:13:12 PM
From: scion	1 Recommendation Respond to of 12465

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE FOR PAYMENT OF FINE NOW COMES, Matthew W. Brown, Defendant, by and through counsel, John R. Garey, Esquire, and moves this Honorable Court for an order to modify the payment schedule for the fine imposed on the Defendant. In support thereof Defendant submits the following: 1. Defendant Brown was sentenced by this Court on May 18, 2011 on counts one, four, five and eight of the indictment to a term of 48 months incarceration, a $50,000.00 fine and a $400 special assessment. The prison terms are to run concurrently. 2. The Court ordered $25,000.00 of the $50,000.00 fine payable within 30 days of the sentence. Thereafter, the remaining balance could be paid during the Defendant’s incarceration and subsequent supervised probation. 3. By order of May 16, 2011, the Court executed a preliminary order of forfeiture for the Defendant’s banking accounts. As a result of the order of forfeiture signed by the Court on May 16, which became final on May 18, Defendant’s disposable cash was depleted immediately following sentencing. 4. Defendant Brown has neither available cash nor disposable assets to abide by the Court’s order regarding the initial payment of $25,000.00. 5. Defendant Brown respectfully asks for an amendment to this order to allow the $50,000.00 fine to be paid while incarcerated and his release on probation. 6. The Government is not opposed to a modification of the schedule of payments for this fine. WHEREFORE, Defendant Matthew W. Brown respectfully asks this Honorable Court to grant this modification of schedule of payments. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. GAREY, P.A. /s/ John R. Garey JOHN R. GAREY, ESQUIRE Extract - Doc 61 PDF file viewer.zoho.com

To: scion who wrote (11410)	5/27/2011 8:13:39 PM
From: scion	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND PERSONAL MONEY JUDGMENT NOW COMES, Matthew W. Brown, Defendant, by and through counsel, John R. Garey, Esquire, and moves this Honorable Court for a Motion to Reconsider the Order of Forfeiture and Personal Money Judgment. In support thereof Defendant submits the following: 1. Defendant Matthew Brown pied guilty on February 17, 2010 at which time a Plea Agreement was filed. 2. A preliminary order of forfeiture was ?led on Friday, May 12, 2011 and it was signed by Judge Robinson on Monday, May 16, 2011. 3. On May 18, 2011, Defendant Brown was sentenced to 48 months incarceration followed by three years supervised release, a $50,000 fine and a $400 special assessment. 4 An order of forfeiture and personal money judgment in the amount of $4,789,000 was also ordered by the court. Insufficient Advance Notice of Motion of Preliminary Forfeiture 5. Under rule 32.2(b)(2)(B), “the court must enter the preliminary order sufficiently in advance of sentencing to allow the parties to suggest revisions or modifications before the order becomes final as to the defendant under Rule 32.2(b)(4)." In the present case, the Court signed the Government's Motion days in advance of the May 18, 2011 sentencing. Before there was an opportunity to challenge the Order of Forfeiture, it had been signed by the Court. Violation of Plea Agreement 6. The Order of Forfeiture incorrectly states that the personal money judgment is pursuant to the terms of the Plea Agreement. This is incorrect. There is simply no language regarding a Personal Money Judgment. Certainly not one that is for an amount that includes the other defendants, as well as uncharged individuals. Paragraph 11 specifically refers to property of the defendant that was a result or traceable to the offenses. 7. Paragraph 12 simply refers to waiving any rights to the same property as noted in Paragraph 11. 8. Paragraph 13 clears this up even further. “Defendant acknowledges that all property covered by this agreement is subject to forfeiture as PROCEEDS of illegal conduct, property facilitating illegal conduct and/or property involved in illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture.” 9. Upon carefully analyzing paragraphs 11, 12, and 13, it is quite clear that the forfeiture only applies to his gains and his offenses, not the offenses or gains of others. 10. Although Brown understood that entering the Plea Agreement would be beneficial to him, he was unaware he was signing a lifetime financial death sentence. At the time of signing the Plea Agreement, Brown realized he would be forfeiting any assets he obtained as a result of his illegal activity, but knew nothing of a ‘personal money judgment‘ that could result in the forfeiture of assets beyond what he gained with a monumental financial burden. The final personal money judgment in an amount close to $4.8 million provides a windfall to the Government and allows other unindicted co-defendants to benefit financially and escape their financial responsibility. [...] More OCR extract - Doc 62 PDF file viewer.zoho.com