Again!! Revisiting Wire Fraud With The Element of Aiding and Abetting Added. Excerpts From A Hearing

This video is to rebutt the current rumors and false interpretations of the group referred as the "NaySayers" MikeGDealUncensored. You are celebrating to early because you don't see what actually happened. You are incompetent bozos. There was a hearing to file an Information in the U.S District of Nebraska on February 23rd, 2023, that much is true. The following excerpt is to show the statements, questions and responses within the context of Law. There is a difference between Constitutional Law, which the U.S District Court of Nebraska is bound to and the Administrative Law, which the DOJ implements and implies in their investigations and their cases against Neil Chandran and Michael Glaspie.. Watch closely as these 2 different jurisdictions collide. Pause the video to read what is on the images.

The following content was taken in whole or in part at this link Federal Wire Fraud Laws – What You Need to Know

While wire fraud may be commonly thought of as a “white collar crime,” it is a serious federal crime that comes with the possibility of steep penalties for defendants. "knowingly engaged and attempted to engage, and caused and aided and abetted others in engaging, in monetary transactions affecting interstate and foreign commerce in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, such property having been derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is, wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343

The Elements of Wire Fraud

The prosecution must prove certain elements are present in a crime in order to secure a conviction of wire fraud. While the precise list of elements that

may vary from one federal circuit court to another, they tend to be very similar to each other and can be summarized as the following:

1. A scheme to commit fraud

2. Specific intent to commit fraud

3. Use of wire, radio, or television communication to further that scheme

Examples of Wire Fraud Schemes

Offenses Related to Wire Fraud

Mail Fraud

Securities Fraud

Internet Fraud

Attempt or Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud

What are the Legal Defenses Against Federal Wire Fraud Charges?

Lack of Intent

Mistake of Fact

Puffery

Below are more in-depth descriptions of each of these elements and the role they play in proving that a defendant is guilty of committing wire

fraud.

1. A scheme to commit fraud

In order to make a wire fraud conviction, the prosecution must prove that the you were part of a scheme to defraud another person or party. other words, the you planned to use a false statement, promise, or misrepresentation in order obtain money or something of value from some else. While deception or dishonest means are a crucial element in a wire fraud scheme, to be convicted you do not necessarily need to tell an outrig lie. Failing to disclose certain facts in a misleading way can also be considered a form of deception.

2. Specific intent to commit fraud

If it cannot be proven that you acted knowingly or with the specific intent to defraud someone else, you cannot be convicted of wire fraud. Participation in a wire fraud scheme is not enough to secure a conviction alone, you need to have known about the scheme and participated in

with the goal of deceptively obtaining money valuables from someone else.

However, you can also be guilty of wire fraud for having caused the wire transmission that was used as part of a fraudulent scheme if that transmission was a foreseeable part of the business being conducted. The element of “specific intent to commit fraud” ensures that you cannot accidentally commit wire fraud.

Lack of Intent (mens rea)

In order to be convicted of wire fraud it must be proven that you intended to commit fraud. Intent can be a difficult thing to prove as it is

impossible to know for certain what another person is thinking. If there is insufficient evidence to prove your intent, you cannot be convicted.

Mistake of Fact

Often a wire fraud case rests on the communication of false or misleading statements. If, however, you communicated false information that you believed to be true, you cannot be convicted of knowingly and intentionally communicating false information in an attempt to defraud. For example, if you send an email to potential investors citing that the weight loss pill you sell has a 90% success rate which you believe to be true based off of

information you have been given, but it turns out the pill only has a 30% success rate, you were not intentionally communicating false information but instead had mistaken facts.

Puffery

“Puffery” is the use of exaggeration or opinionated statements used by salespeople in an attempt to make a sale. Examples of puffery might instatements like, “our weight loss pill is the best on the market!” A salesperson who makes such a statement through phone, email, television,other forms of wire communication is likely not guilty of wire fraud, as consumers will likely understand the statement to be opinionated puffey and are not relying on that information to make an informed purchase.

This is what lawyers know and you pay them to tell you. They are in the game and you are a pawn on the board until you begin the process of becoming a civilian, adept at the laws of civics.

Update as of October 5th 2023

This matter is before the Court on the defendants' objections (filing 108; filing 110) to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order (filing 106) denying their motions (filing 99; filing 103) to transfer these cases to the District of Nevada. The Court has conducted a de novo review pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),1 and agrees with the Magistrate Judge.

Potential Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct in the violation to the Defendants right to a fair trial.

The most telling aspect of the case was that the Superceding Indictment which was filed simultaneously with the Initial Indictment on June 14th 2022. It's use becomes another violation Mr. Chandran's 6th Amendment rights since appearing in Nebraska and continuing by using a Superceding Indictment to deny his right to a speedy trial.

Next we have a Magistrate Judge violate her oath to protect the DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, Mike Glaspie, when she took notice of his not pleading guilty the charges as read by the prosecution during the Information Hearing.

Exerpt from the Last Order of The Nebraska District Judge

“Finally, both defendants dismiss the Magistrate Judge's observation that the prosecution and sentencing in Nebraska of the defendants' alleged coconspirator, Michael Glaspie, is a relevant consideration. Filing 109 at 4-6; filing 111 at 5-6. Defendant Lee contends that Glaspie's case "bears little relation to the instant matter where proceedings are just beginning and sentencing, should it ever occur, likely years away." Filing 111 at 5. To the contrary: Glaspie was central to the scheme alleged by the government. The not only does this establish expertise about the alleged scheme, it also raises concerns about consistent rulings—concerns which the Magistrate Judge correctly found counseled in favor of these cases being disposed of by the same district judge.3 3 Chandran's counsel accuses the government of indicting Glaspie in Nebraska as part of "a pre-packaged deal" that could have been filed anywhere, and of choosing Nebraska”

This is key because without the "Tail Wagging the Dog" Information by the prosecution, under threat duress and coersion,  There is no plausible evidence or substance to the prosecution's case, which both Judges are assisting with violation after violation of constitutional law through color of law administrative Rules and regulations.

Because its legal to do doesn't make it lawful to do! Shame on these judges and Bar members.