FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 13, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

The Honorable R. David Proctor, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District * of Alaba ma, sitting by

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11212 A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 1 4 0 2 0 - CR - DLG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D O N A L D F R A N K M I N T M I R E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 13, 2007) B ef ore D U B IN A and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and P R O C T O R , D i stri ctJudg e. * P R O C T O R , D i stri ctJudg e:2

D o n a ld F r a n k M in tm ir e ( “M in tm ir e ” ) , a lic e n s e d a tto rn e y , ap p e a ls h is conv i ct i on on C ou nt s O ne and T hree of a thi rd supers edi ng i nd i ctm entre turned a ga i ns thi m . W i th r e s pe c tt o C ountO ne , M i ntm i r e w a s c onvi c t e d of vi ol a t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 1512( c ) ( 2) by a tt e m pt i ng t o obs truc ta gr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i on i n F l or i da re l at ed t o the sa l e of s t ock i n C l em ent s G ol den P ho eni x E nt erpri se s, Inc. (“ C l em ent s” ). A s t o thatcoun t , the G ov ernm entpres ent ed evi dence thatM i nt m i re ha d pa r t i c i pa t e d i n s e ve r a l r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons w i th K e vi n B e l l , a n unknow i ng shar ehol der, offi ce r, and d i re ct or of C l em ent s w ho had b ee n sub po enae d t o t es t i fy b e f o r e a f e d e r a l g r a n d ju ry o n m a tte r s in v o lv in g h is k n o w le d g e o f C le m e n ts . W ith r e s pe c tt o C ountT hr e e , M i ntm i r e w a s c onvi c t e d unde r18 U . S . C . § 371 a nd 18 U . S . C . § 1505 of

c ons pi r i ng t o obs truc ta S e c ur i t i e s a nd E xc ha nge C om m i s s i on ( “ S E C ” ) i nve s t i ga t i on c onc e rni ng c M e R un, a n i nt e rne ts t a r t - up c om pa ny , the pr e de c e s s orof

w hi c h M i ntm i r e ha d or ga ni z e d. A s t o tha tc ount , the G ove rnm e nt pres ent ed evi dence thatM i nt m i re had con spi re d w i th K ei th L og ue, hi s f orm erl aw f i r m pa r tne r , t o e nc our a ge M a ry C a the r i ne M c G ow a n, a nothe runknow i ng s ha r e hol de r , t o w i thhol d doc um e nt s i n r e s pons e t o a n S E C s ubpoe na i n the in v es ti g atio n o f c M eR u n . A fterth o ro u g h re v iew , w e a ff irm M in tm ire’s co n v i ct i o n s.18 U. S.C. § 1 51 2( c )( 2) state s in re leva nt p art : “ Who e ver c or

ru ptly — . . . (2 ) o therwise 1 obstructs, influence s, or impedes a ny official proce eding , or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 year s, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (2). 18 U. S.C. § 1 50 5 s tate s in re leva nt p art : 2 Whoever c orruptly, or by threats or forc e, or by

any threateningletter or communication influenc es, obstructs, or impede s or ende avors to influenc e, obstruct, or impedethe due a nd proper administration of the law under which a ny pendingproce edingis beinghad bef ore a ny depar tment or ag ency

of the United States . . . 3 I . B AC KG RO UN D

A . Pr o c e dur a lH i s t o r y. I n M a y 2004, a f

t e ra s e a r c h of

M i ntm i r e ’ s l a w of

f i c e i n F l or i da , the G ove rnm e ntuns e a l e d a one - c ounti ndi c tm e ntc ha r gi ng hi m w i th a vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1512( c ) ( 2) f

ora tt e m pt e d obs truc t i on of a f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i on 1 i nt o the sa l e of c orpo ra t e s t ock o f C l em ent s, a c orpo ra t i on thatM i nt m i re had r e pr e s e nt e d. T he i ndi c tm e nta l l e ge d tha tf r om A ugus tt o S e pt e m be r2003, M i n tm i re att em p t ed t o d i ssu ad e g ran d j u ry w i tn ess K ev i n B el l (“ B el l ”) – an d al so e nc our a ge d B e l l t o di s s ua de othe r s – f r om di s c l os i ng f

a c t s c onc e rni ng the f or m a t i on of

C l e m e nt s thr ough the m e r ge rof L uc i d C onc e pt s , I nc . ( “ L uc i d” ) a nd C le m e n ts C itru s S a le s o f F lo r id a , I n c . ( “C itru s ” ) . O n A ugus t5, 2004, the G ove rnm e ntf i l e d a s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nt , a ddi ng a s e c ond c ounta ga i ns tM i ntm i r e c ha r gi ng hi m w i th vi ol a t i ng18 U . S . C . § 1505 by 2Shall be fined under this titl e, imprisoned not more tha n 5 year s . . . or both. 18 U.S.C. §1505. Se c tio n 1 51 2( i) state s in

re leva nt p art : 3 (i) A prosecution under

this section . . . may

be brought in the district in which the official proce eding(whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be a ffe cted or in the district in which the conduc t constituti ngthe alleg ed off

ense oc curred. 15 U.S.C. § 1512(i). 4 obs truc t i ng a 2002 B os t on S E C pr oc e e di ng r e l a t e d t o c M e R un, I nc . , a c om pa ny f or m e d f r om a nothe rc om pa ny tha tM i ntm i r e ha d r e pr e s e nt e d, F unda e C orp. ( “F u n d a e ” ) . S p e c if

ic a lly , th e n e w c o u n t c h a r g e d M in tm ir e w ith a tte m p tin g to conceal hi s c on trol of the com pani es ’ shar es by fa i l i ng t o p rodu ce subp oenaed doc um e nt s t o the S E C a nd by f a l s e l y t e s t i f

y i ng i n hi s de pos i t i on r e ga r di ng co m m o n sh areh o l d ers o f th e tw o co m p an i es an d M i n tm i re’ s al l eg ed l o an s t o th o se s h a r e h o ld e r s . T he r e a f t e r , M i ntm i r e m ove d t o di s m i s s C ountT w o on the gr ound tha tthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

F l or i da w a s notthe pr ope rve nue t o pr os e c ut e hi m f or obs truc t i on of

the B os t on- ba s e d S E C pr oc e e di ng. I n a n appa r e ntr e s pons e t o the ve nue i s s ue , the G ove rnm e nta m e nde d C ountT w o t o a l l e ge a vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1512( c ) ( 2) , i ns t e a d of § 1505, w hi c h a l l ow e d i tt o t a ke a dva nt a ge of the venu e provi si on cont ai ned i n 1 5 U . S . C . § 1 51 2(i ). T he G ov ernm entfurther 3Spe c if ic ally, th eindic tment alle g e d th at Mintmirea ske d B e ll: (1 ) to a ssi st him in 4 d et erm i n i n g wh i chs h areh o l d er s th e i nv es t i gat o rs wi s h edt o i nt erv i ew ; (2 ) t o en co ura ge shareholders not to speak to investig ators voluntarily ; and (3) to tell shareholder s to omitor downplay the role of

his son, Mark Mintmire. 18 U. S.C. § 3 71 state s in

re leva nt p art : 5 I f two or morepersons c onspire either to commit any

offense ag ainst the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any ag ency there of in any

manner or for any purpose, a

nd one or moreof such persons do any act to ef fec t the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this titl e or imprisoned not morethan five year s, or both. . . . 18 U.S.C. § 371. 5 m odi f i e d C ountT w o t o a l l e ge tha tM i ntm i r e ha d pa i d a tt orne y s r e pr e s e nt i ng p erso n s su b p o en aed b y th e S E C w h i l e w i th h o l d i n g d o cu m en t s fro m th o se a tto rn e y s a n d th e irc lie n ts a n d C o u n t O n e to a lle g e th a t M in tm ir e a tte m p te d to di s s ua de B e l l f

r om di s c l os i ng tha ts ha r e hol de r s i n L uc i d ( pr i ort o the m e r ge r ) a nd C l em en t s (aft er th e m erg er) w ere n o m i n ee sh areh o l d ers. 4 A f t e rM i ntm i r e r e ne w e d a nd a m e nde d hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s C ountT w o f or l a c k of ve nue , the di s tr i c tc our tr e f e rr e d the ve nue i s s ue t o M a gi s tr a t e J udge F r a nk J. L ynch, w ho re com m ended thatM i nt m i re ’ s venue m ot i on be deni ed. M i nt m i re a ls o m o v e d to d is m is s C o u n t T w o a n d a s s e r te d th a t it v io la te d th e E x P o s t F a c to c la u s e o f th e U .S . C o n s titu tio n b e c a u s e § 1 5 1 5 ( c ) ( 2 ) d id n o t b e c o m e e f f e c tiv e u n til a f te rM in tm ir e p r o d u c e d d o c u m e n ts a n d w a s d e p o s e d in th e S E C p r o c e e d in g . O n D e c e m be r9, 2004, the G ove rnm e nta dde d a thi r d c ountc ha r gi ng M i ntm i r e w i th vi ol a t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 371 a nd § 1505 by c ons pi r i ng t o obs truc tthe 56

S E C p r o c e e d in g in o r d e rto h id e th e f a c t th a t F u n d a e s h a r e h o ld e r s w e r e r e a lly nom i ne e s w ho ha d gi ve n c ontr ol of the i rs t oc k t o M i ntm i r e . A c c or di ng t o the G ove rnm e nt , M i ntm i r e c om m i tt e d the f ol l ow i ng ove r ta c t s i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y i n S e pt e m be ra nd O c t obe r2002 i n the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da : ( 1) M in tm ir e c o n ta c te d , a g r e e d to p a y , a n d p a id K e ith L o g u e ( “L o g u e ” ) , a n a tto rn e y in A t l a nt a , G e or gi a , t o m a ke uns ol i c i t e d c ont a c tw i th pe r s ons s ubpoe na e d by the S E C ; ( 2) M i ntm i r e f

a l s e l y i nf or m e d S E C c ouns e l tha the ha d pr ovi de d a l l r e l e va nt s ubpoe na e d doc um e nt s w hi l e f a i l i ng t o pr ovi de doc um e nt s i n hi s pos s e s s i on t o a n o m in e e s h a r e h o ld e r ; a n d ( 3 ) M in tm ir e m is r e p r e s e n te d to th e S E C h is r e la tio n s h ip w i th th e n o m i n ee sh areh o l d ers, th e co m m o n sh areh o l d ers o f F u n d ae an d C l em en t s, an d i n v estm en tl o an s m ad e t o sh areh o l d ers. M i nt m i re then m ov ed t o d i sm i ss bo th C ou nt s T w o and T hree as m ot i vat ed b y “ p ro secu t o ri al v i n d i ct i v en ess” i n an att em p tt o p u n i sh M i n tm i re fo r th e ex erci se of hi s c ons t i tut i ona l a nd s t a tut ory r i ght s a nd a l t e rna t i ve l y , t o s e ve rC ount s T w o a nd T hr e e f r om C ountO ne on the ba s i s tha tthe G ove rnm e nts oughtt o t a ke a dva nt a ge of prej ud i ci al spi l l ov erby try i ng al l three coun t s t og ether. A ll th r e e c o u n ts w e r e tr ie d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f r o m J a n u a ry 3 1 u n til F e brua ry 8, 2005. A f

t e rthe c l os e of

e vi de nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d C ount T w o as vi ol at i ve of the E x P ostF ac t o cl ause . H ow ever , the courtdeni edAlthough th eGo vernment h a d alsoalle g e d a c on sp ira c y

with M ark

Mintmire , D on ald 6 Mintmi re’ s son, and Charles A dams, as we ll as “others unknown,” the district cour t ruled that Count Three c ould only

g o to the jury

on the theory

that L ogue and Mintmire were in a c o n s p i ra c y. 7 M i nt m i re ’ s m ot i on for aj ud gm entof ac qu i tt al on C ou ntO ne, and i tperm i tt ed C ountT hr e e t o go f

orw a r d on the the ory tha tM i ntm i r e ha d c ons pi r e d w i th L ogue t o obs truc tthe S E C pr oc e e di ng. 6 D ur i ng the c ha r ge c onf

e r e nc e , M i ntm i r e r e que s t e d tha tthe c our ti ns truc tthe j ury thatthe G ov ernm enthad the bu rden t o p rove beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthat “[ t]h e D e f

e n d a n t w a s n o t p r o v id in g la w f u l, bona f

i de , le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n in c onne c t i on w i th ora nt i c i pa t i on of a n of f i c i a l pr oc e e di ng, ” w hi l e the G ove rnm e nt r e que s t e d tha tthe j ury be i ns truc t e d tha ti tm us tf i r s tf i nd tha tM i ntm i r e w a s a c t i ng as a l aw ye r bef

ore a ny bu rden shi ft ed on t o the G ov ernm ent . T he di stri ctcourt e xpr e s s e d unc e r t a i nty a s t o w he the rthe i s s ue w a s a f a c tua l que s t i on f

orthe j ury or a l e ga l que s t i on f

orthe c our t . H ow e ve r , the c our tul t i m a t e l y de c i de d, a nd i ns truc t e d the j ury a c c or di ngl y , tha tthe j ury ha d t o f i r s tf i nd tha tM i ntm i r e ( a nd L ogue a s t o C ountT hr e e ) w a s a c t i ng a s a l a w y e ra nd, upon tha ts how i ng, the G ove rnm e ntw a s r e qui r e d t o pr ove be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tM i ntm i r e ( a nd L ogue a s t o C ountT hr e e ) w a s notpr ovi di ng bo na f i de le g a l s e r v ic e s : T he l aw prov i des acom pl et e def ense com m on l y r ef

erre d t o as a n a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e t o the of

f e ns e s c ha r ge d i n C ount s 1 a nd 3 of the i nd i ctm entbecause one w ho i s per form i ng bo na fi de l egal8

r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s d o e s n o t h a v e a n im p r o p e rp u rp o s e . H is p u rp o s e to z e a lo u s ly r e p r e s e n t h is c lie n t is f u lly p r o te c te d b y th e la w . If yo u fi n d th atth e d efen d an tp ro v i d ed l eg al rep resen t at i o n serv i ces, i n c onne c t i on w i th the c ha r ge d c onduc ti n C ount s 1 or3, a nd the de f e nda ntw a s pr ovi di ng l a w f ul , bona f

i de l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on se rvi ce s i n con nect i on w i th o r i n ant i ci pat i on of an offi ci al p ro ceed i n g , th ati s, a g ran d j u ry o r S E C i n v est i g at i o n , th en yo u m u st f i nd the de f

e nda ntnotgui l ty . I n or de rt o f i nd the de f

e nda ntgui l ty , the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove a l l of the e l e m e nt s be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt a s I or i gi na l l y r e a d t o y ou a s t o C ount s 1 a nd 3. I f y ou f i nd the d e f e n d a n t p r o v id e d le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s , in c o n n e c tio n w ith the c ha r ge d c onduc ti n C ount s 1 or3, the gove rnm e ntm us ta l s o pr ove be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tthe de f e nda ntw a s notpr ovi di ng l a w f ul , bona f

i de l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on s e r vi c e s i n c onne c t i on w i th or a n tic ip a tio n o f

a n o f f ic ia l p r o c e e d in g . K ei th L og ue i s nam ed as a c ocon spi ra t or i n C ou nt3. If you fi nd that K e ith L o g u e p r o v id e d le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith the c ha r ge d c onduc ti n C ount3, a nd K e i th L ogue w a s pr ovi di ng la w f u l, b o n a f

id e le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith o rin a nt i c i pa t i on of

a n of f i c i a l pr oc e e di ng, the n y ou m us tf i nd the de f e nda ntnotgui l ty . I n or de rt o f i nd the de f

e nda ntgui l ty , the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove a l l of the e l e m e nt s be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt a s I or i gi na l l y r e a d a s t o C ount s 1 a nd 3. I f y ou f i nd tha tK e i th L ogue prov i ded l egal re pres ent at i on se rvi ce s, i n con nect i on w i th the charged c onduc ti n C ount3, the gove rnm e ntm us ta l s o pr ove be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tK e i th L ogue w a s notpr ovi di ng l a w f ul , bona f i de l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on s e r vi c e s i n c onne c t i on w i th ori n a nt i c i pa t i on of a n of f i c i a l pr oc e e di ng. T he j ury r eturned g ui l ty ver di ct s on b oth rem ai ni ng C ou nt s O ne and T hree . A l th o u g h M i n tm i re ren ew ed h i s m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en to f acq u i tt al as t o th o se coun t s a nd m ov ed for anew tri al , tho se m ot i on s w er e deni ed. M i nt m i re w as se nt ence d t o con curr entt erm s of i m pri sonm entof tw enty- on e m on ths, tw o-ye arAlthough thedistrict court denie d Mintmi re’ s motion for bond pendingappeal, this court 7 reversed that de cision and grante d him bond. 9 t e r m s of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , a f

i ne of $80, 000, a nd the pr ohi bi t i on of “ e nga g[ i ng] i n a nybus i ne s s tha tof

f e r s s e c ur i t i e s , i nve s tm e nt s , orbus i ne s s oppor tuni t i e s t o the publ i c . ” T hi s appe a l f

ol l ow e d. 7 B . E v id e n c e P r e s e n t e d b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t a t T r ia l 1. N A S D A p p l i cati on s b y F u n d ae an d C l em en ts D uri ng the tri al , a r epre se nt at i ve of the N at i on al A ss oci at i on of S ec uri t i es D e a l e r s ( N A S D ) t e s t i f

i e d aboutthe appl i c a t i on pr oc e dur e f orc om pa ni e s t o “ m a ke m arket , ” thati s, be tra ded i n thei r part i cul arst ock. A com pany subm i t s a n appl i c a t i on ( F or m 211) f orr e vi e w thr ough a N A S D br oke rw ho c ol l e c t s the r e l e va nti nf

or m a t i on on be ha l f

of the appl i c a ntc om pa ni e s a nd r e pr e s e nt s tha tthe in f o r m a tio n c o n ta in e d th e r e in is r e liab le a n d a c c u r a te . W i th res pectt o app l i ca t i on s s ub m i tt ed by sm al l com pani es , N A S D ’ s r evi ew f oc us e s on how the c om pa ny w a s f or m e d, the i de nt i t i e s of

the s ha r e hol de r s a nd offi ce rs , and h ow tho se shar ehol ders ac qu i re d thei r s hare s i n the com pany. In order f or a f re e tra di ng m arkett o exi st , N A S D re qu i re s ( and the S E C has appr ove d) tha ta c e r t a i n num be rof s ha r e hol de r s m us tbe f

r e e l y tr a di ng s ha r e s - the s t oc k m us tnotbe c ontr ol l e d by j us tone ortw o i ndi vi dua l s . T hus , i f a num be rof10

i ndi vi dua l s a r e l i s t e d a s s ha r e hol de r s , buta l l of the i rs ha r e s a r e c ontr ol l e d by one pe r s on, a f

ul l S E C di s c l os ur e i s r e qui r e d. O n J u n e 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 , N A S D r e c e iv e d a n ap p lic a tio n f r o m th e b r o k e rP u b lic S e c ur i t i e s on be ha l f

of F unda e i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe “ [ i ] s s ue rw a s i ntr oduc e d by D on M in tm ir e o f

M in tm ir e & A s s o c ia te s [ ( “M & A ” ) ], c o u n c e l [ s ic ] & tr a n s f e ra g e n t to the i s s ue r . M r . M i ntm i r e ha s be e n know n t o P ubl i c [ S e c ur i t i e s ] f or2–3 y e a r s a nd ha s be e n c ounc i l [ s i c ] t o othe ri s s ue s f i l e d by thi s f

i r m . ” A l s o a tt a c he d t o the ap p lic a tio n w a s a lis t ( b e a r in g a f a c s im ile d a ta lin e f

r o m M & A ) o f

tw e n ty - s ix in d iv id u a l a n d c o rp o r a te s h a r e h o ld e r s in F u n d a e , in c lu d in g tw e lv e in d iv id u a ls w ith a ddr e s s e s i n A t l a nt a , G e or gi a ( M a ry C a the r i ne M c G ow a n, J e f f r e y M e rba c k, Jen n i fer F ro eh l i ch , B ran d o n B el l , A n n e M ari e F o u rd an , Jo h n M arratt , L i sa R e i s m a n, R oxa nne B r oc k, J ul i e T . W a t s on, S a m m y P e r oul a s , K i m D a vi e s , a nd C a r m e n O c kl e tr e e ) a nd f our t e e n i ndi vi dua l s w i th a ddr e s s e s i n F l or i da ( A . R e ne D e r v a e s , J r ., th e s o le o f f ic e ra n d d ir e c to ro f

F u n d a e , A n g ie M ., I n c ., A n g e la B a r to le tta , A m y A n n e M e lic e , P S J H o ld in g s , I n c ., M a r c o B e a c h G a r d e n s , I n c ., P au l S afran , Jr. , F el i ce E . M el i ce, S am u el M el i ce II, Jo h n S t ag l , C h arl es A d am s, A dam s, Inc. , K erry M athi eu and D evi n, Inc. ). N A S D i dent i fi ed a num ber of defi ci enci es i n the appl i ca t i on because F un dae had so few shar ehol ders and v ery l i tt l e c api t al , and there fore N A S D re qu es t ed that11

P ubl i c S e c ur i t i e s s ubm i ta ddi t i ona l i nf or m a t i on. P ubl i c S e c ur i t i e s r e pl i e d ( on M & A le tte rh e a d ) w ith a f o u r - p a g e r e s p o n s e s ig n e d b y M in tm ir e , s ta tin g in p a r t: 5. P l ea se prov i de the st af f w i th d et ai l s s urroun di ng the i ss uers R ul e 505 a nd 506 of

f e r i ng. Y oura ns w e rs houl d i nc l ude , buti s not l i m i t e d t o, w ho s ol i c i t e d i nve s t or s , how the y w e r e know n t o the sol i ci t or and h ow m any i nd i vi du al s w er e s ol i ci t ed i ncl ud i ng tho se that di d notpur c ha s e . I n a ddi t i on, pl e a s e pr ovi de the s t a f f w i th a c opy of th e ex ecu t ed su b scri p t i o n ag reem en t s an d resp ect i v e ch eck s. A ns w e r : N o i nve s t or s w e r e s ol i c i t e d w ho di d notpur c ha s e . T he i nve s t or s w e r e know n t o the D i r e c t orof the C om pa ny [ D a r va e s ] a nd p u r c h a s e d s h a r e s th r o u g h th a t in d iv id u a l. E a c h o f th e in v e s to r s is c ons i de r e d t o be a s ophi s t i c a t e d i nve s t or , unde r s t a nds c orpor a t e books a n d r e c o r d s a n d h a d to ta l a c c e s s to a ll c o m p a n y r e c o r d s p r io rto i nve s t i ng. S pe c i f

i c a l l y e a c h i nve s t orha d the nonf i na nc i a l a nd f in a n c ia l d a ta r e q u ir e d b y R u le 5 0 2 o f R e g u la tio n D a n d s p e c if ic a lly R ul e 502 (b). C op i es of the execut ed S ub sc ri pt i on A gree m ent s a re att ac hed. C hecks a re un avai l abl e. T he fund s w er e deposi t ed i nt o an i nde pe nde nte s c r ow a c c ountpr i ort o tr a ns f e rt o the C om pa ny upon accep t an ce o f th e su b scri p t i o n s. I n r e s pons e t o que s t i on s i x, tha ta s ke d f ora de s c r i pt i on of

the “ r e l a t i ons hi ps or af fi l i at i on s” thatexi st ed “ am on g and betw ee n” the shar ehol ders , M i nt m i re e x p la in e d th a t A n g e la B a r to le tta w a s th e s o le o f f ic e ra n d d ir e c to ro f

A n g ie M ., Inc. , ou t l i ned the fa m i l i al re l at i on shi p b etw ee n A m y A nn e, S am uel and F el i ce M el i ce , and o therw i se re pres ent ed: “ [w ] e c on fi rm thatthere ar e no o ther re l at i on shi ps am on g and betw ee n the shar ehol ders t o the bestof ou r kno w l edge” a n d “[ a ]ll [ r e la tio n s h ip s ] h a v e b e e n d is c lo s e d .” F in a lly , N A S D a s k e d P u b lic S e c ur i t i e s t o “ [ p] l e a s e i ndi c a t e i f a ny pe r s on ha s di s pos i t i ve c ontr ol ove ra ny12

s ha r e s of the i s s ue rothe rtha n the c orr e s pondi ng s ha r e hol de rl i s t e d on the s h a r e h o ld e rlis t,” to w h ic h M in tm ir e ’s le tte rd e c la r e d : “N o o n e h a s s u c h c o n tr o l.” A l tho ug h the subscr i pt i on agre em ent s, w hi ch w er e s i gn ed al tho ug h u nd at ed, w er e a tt a c h e d t o Pu b l i c Se c u r i t i e s ’ r e s p o n s e s o n b e h a l f o f o n b e h a l f

o f Fu n d a e , N A SD w a s c onc e rne d be c a us e the c he c ks os t e ns i bl y us e d t o pur c ha s e the s t oc k w e r e not a tta c h e d to th e a g r e e m e n ts . A ft erre vi ew i ng the re spon se s, N A S D no t i fi ed P ub l i c S ec uri t i es thati thad di sc ov er ed that“ se vera l of the shar ehol ders on the shar ehol der l i stof the i ss uer a re i n v o l v e d i n o th e rc o m p a n i e s th a ti n v o l v e Do n a l d F . Mi n tm i r e a n d Ma r [ k ] A. M i nt m i re ” a nd there fore , N A S D re qu es t ed m ore e xp l anat i on of the shar ehol der re l at i on shi ps and “ i f a ny of the shar ehol ders on the shar ehol der l i stof the i ss uer a re a c t i ng a s a gr oup. ” N A S D a l s o r e que s t e d a nothe rf or m of pr oof tha tthe sh areh o l d ers h ad actu al l y p ai d fo r th e sh ares b ecau se th e ch eck s u sed t o p u rch ase the s t oc ks ha d notbe e n pr oduc e d. P ubl i c S e c ur i t i e s r e s ponde d by a tt a c hi ng a J a nua ry 1999 ba nk s t a t e m e nts how i ng a de pos i tf or$20, 000 a nd a t ot a l ba l a nc e f or th e s a m e a m o u n t, a lo n g w ith th e f o llo w in g s ta te m e n t d r a f te d b y M in tm ir e : W e have re vi ew ed the m att eratl ength w i th o ur cl i ent . C ert ai nl y there a r e othe rs ha r e hol de r s w ho ha ve i nve s t e d i n c om pa ni e s i n w hi c h the tw o n a m e d in d iv id u a ls a r e a ls o in v e s to r s a n d /o rp r in c ip a ls . T h e r e is no re l at i on shi p b etw ee n the tw o i nd i vi du al s a nd any other i nv es t ors e x c e p t th a t th e in v e s to r s a r e k n o w n to th e in d iv id u a ls , a r e w illin g to i n v esti n i n d i v i d u al co m p an i es as th e o p p o rtu n i t i es ari se, an d m o st13

c e r t a i nl y r e l i e d t o s om e e xt e ntupon the j udge m e nta nd know l e dge of o n e o r b o th i n d i v i d u al s. H o w ev er, th ese i n v est o rs d o n o tactas a gr oup, a r e nota c t i ng a s a gr oup a nd m a ke a n i ndi vi dua l j udge m e nton e a c h pa r t i c ul a rc om pa ny t o w hi c h the y a r e i ntr oduc e d. T ha ti s w hy the shar ehol der l i stvari es exce ptfor s om e of the shar ehol ders w ho ar e i n t erest ed i n i n v est i n g i n al l o f th e co m p an i es. T here af t er , N A S D agai n request ed fr om P ub l i c S ec uri t i es “ do cum ent ary e vi dence o f r e c e ip t o f

f u n d s f r o m th e in d iv id u a l s h a r e h o ld e r s th a t h a v e p u r c h a s e d s h a r e s in the i ss uer’ s off

er i ng s, ([ i . e. ] C he c ks ) . ” P ubl i c S e c ur i t i e s r e s ponde d w i th c opi e s of $ 8 0 0 a n d $ 1 6 0 0 c h e c k s m a d e o u t to M & A o rM in tm ir e ’s tru s t a c c o u n t in D e c e m b e r1 9 9 8 a n d o n e in D e c e m b e r1 9 9 9 . O n O ct ob er13 , 19 99 , N A S D no t i fi ed P ub l i c S ec uri t i es thati thad app roved F unda e t o s ubm i ta quot e on the O ve r - the - C ount e r( “ O T C ” ) B ul l e t i n B oa r d f or com m on st ock, and F un dae w as qu ot ed on the O T C st ock exchang e. F un dae l at er m e r ge d a nd c ha nge d i t s na m e t o c M e R un C orpor a t i on. O n M ay 8, 20 00 , C l em ent s ( w ho had al so been re fe rr ed by M i nt m i re ) s ubm i tt e d a n appl i c a t i on t o N A S D . N A S D not e d va r i ous de f i c i e nc i e s i n the ap p l i c a t i o n a n d ma t e r i a l s , a n d Pu b l i c Se c u r i t i e s ( th r o u g h M i n tmi r e ) a n d N A SD a g a in r e q u e s te d a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e o f th e in d e p e n d e n c e o f

th e s h a r e h o ld e r s . M i ntm i r e r e s ponde d w i th the f ol l ow i ng i nf

or m a t i on: ( 1) na m e s , a ddr e s s e s , a nd nu m ber of s hare s purchas ed by the shar ehol ders , som e of w ho m w er e a l so F un dae shar ehol ders (B ra nd on B el l , K i m berl y J . D avi es , A nn e M ar i e F ou rdan, Je ff re yAn SEC repre sentative testified at trial. However, bec ause thetranscripts were not f iled 8 on the district court’s doc ket sheet and the par ties did not supply

the full rec ord, wedo not have th en am eo f

th ep e r s o nwh o w a s c al l e d t o t e s t i f y. Acc ordingto the SEC, nomi nee sha reholders in blind pool companies may appea r to be 9 shareholders with a f

inancial interest when in fact the shares are controlled by a sing le individual – a sc hemeso me tim e s term e d a “bo x job. ”Th esing lesh areho lder w ould cre atea “pu bli cfl oat” and sing le-ha

ndedly manipulate the sha

res in the mar

ket. 14 M erback, and Jul i e T ay l or W at son); (2) acharti nd i ca t i ng that5, 00 0, 00 0 share s had b ee n tra nsfe rr ed t o K evi n B el l by X ai o-F ei D avi s w hi l e 500 , 00 0 share s had be e n i s s ue d t o S t a c y W ol f ga ng w ho the n tr a ns f

e rr e d the s ha r e s t o tw e nty - f our in d iv id u a ls ; a n d ( 3 ) a n a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n L u c id a n d C itru s in d ic a tin g th a t L u c id ac qu i re d C i trus’ shar es and form ed C l em ent s w i th M i nt m i re as the i ss uer. 2 . The SEC I nv e s t i g a t i o n o f c M e R un In Ju l y 2 0 0 0 , th e S E C b eg an i n v est i g at i n g cM eR u n reg ard i n g p o ssi b l e fal se 8
s ta te m e n ts th a t m a y h a v e le d to th e r e s ig n a tio n o f th e c o m p a n y ’s a c c o u n tin g f ir m . L a t e ri n i t s i nve s t i ga t i on, the S E C f oc us e d on i t s be l i e f

tha tF unda e w a s a “ bl i nd pool c om pa ny ” tha te xi s t e d s ol e l y t o a c qui r e othe rc om pa ni e s . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the 9 S E C n o tic e d th a t c M e R u n d o c u m e n ts in c lu d e d th e n a m e s o f b o th M in tm ir e a n d h is s on M a r k M i ntm i r e , w ho r e s i de d i n A t l a nt a , G e or gi a a l ong w i th a num be rof tw e nty - s om e thi ng s ha r e hol de r s w ho w e r e nots ophi s t i c a t e d i nve s t or s w i th hi gh i n c o m e s . T h e S E C i s s u e d a n u m b e ro f s u b p o e n a s t o M i n tm i r e a n d M &A ( r e que s t i ng a l l doc um e nt s r e l a t i ng t o F unda e a nd t o both the i ndi vi dua l a ndThe Government claimed at trial that subpoenaed documents from Clements, Tech- 10 Creations, and L

ucid were not produc ed. 15 corporat e s hare ho l ders ), D evi n, Inc. (ashar ehol der of F un dae f or w ho m M i nt m i re w a s the r e gi s t e r e d a ge nt ) , a nd othe rl i s t e d F unda e s ha r e hol de r s ( r e que s t i ng do cum ent s a nd l at er , t es t i m on y) . 10 M i ntm i r e a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t o the S E C tha t : ( 1) F unda e putt oge the rthe i nv es t ors; (2) “ R ene [ D ervaes ”] kn ew som e of the shar ehol ders ; (3) hi s s on M ark M i nt m i re had h el ped sol i ci tsom e of thei r m utual fr i ends; (4) he had l oaned $2 0, 00 0 i ni t i al l y t o F un dae w i th the or al unde r s t a ndi ng tha ti tw oul d be r e pa i d; a nd ( 5 ) h e r e c a lle d s p e a k in g to s o m e o f th e s h a r e h o ld e r s ab o u t th e lo a n a g r e e m e n ts . Th e SEC u l t i ma t e l y c h o s e n o tt o c h a r g e c r i mi n a l l y M i n tmi r e n o rf i l e c i v i l c l a i ms a ga i ns thi m be c a us e i tf ound the r e w a s no s ubs t a nt i a l ha r m t o i nve s t or s a nd the S E C r e s our c e s tha tw oul d be r e qui r e d t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd pr os e c ut e w e r e not m e r ite d b y th e e n f

o r c e m e n t v a lu e . D ur i ng hi s t e s t i m ony be f or e the S E C , M i ntm i r e e s t i m a t e d tha the ha d m a de approx i m at el y $20 0, 00 0 from the sa l e of F un dae s hare s a nd thathi s s on M ark M in tm ir e h a d m a d e a r o u n d $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 . E v id e n c e w a s a ls o in tr o d u c e d a t tr ia l th a t in 2000, M i ntm i r e pur c ha s e d 35, 000 s ha r e s of C l e m e nt s a tthr e e c e nt s pe rs ha r e a nd tr a de d 20, 000 s ha r e s ove rthe ne xtf ourda y s a tpr i c e s r a ngi ng f r om $5. 38 t o $6. 1316

pe rs ha r e , a nd i n 2000 a nd 2001, M i ntm i r e tr a ns a c t e d ove r$500, 000 i n s ha r e s of C l em en t s. 3. T es ti m on y fr om S h areh ol d er s i n F u n d ae an d C l em en ts S e v e r a l in d iv id u a ls lis te d a s s h a r e h o ld e r s o n b o th th e F u n d a e a n d C le m e n ts N A S D ap p lic a tio n s te s tif ie d a t tr ia l. a. A tl an ta, G eorgi a S h areh ol d er s S e v e r a l s h a r e h o ld e r s w h o h a d e ith e rw o r k e d w ith M a r k M in tm ir e a t a re st aura nti n A t l ant a, G eorgi a, or had b ee n h i s c ust om er s a tthe re st aura nt , t es t i fi ed reg ard i n g th ei r “ p u rch ase” o f sh ares i n th e co m p an i es. F i rs t , Je ff ery M erback te s tif ie d th a t h e , M a r k M in tm ir e , a n d K e v in B e ll w e r e s e r v e r s a t a r e s ta u r a n t in A t l a nt a , G e or gi a i n 1991, one y e a rbe f or e M e rba c k be c a m e the ow ne ra nd ope r a t or of another A t l ant a r es t aura ntw here M ark M i nt m i re had al so w orked. A tthatt i m e, M ark M i nt m i re , w ho st at ed thathe w as w orki ng for hi s f ather, had o ff

er ed M e rba c k a nd hi s e m pl oy e e s a n oppor tuni ty t o e a rn $100 i n e xc ha nge f ors i gni ng

“ som e l egal -l oo ki ng papers , ” a nd M erback agree d. A ft erM erback t oo k the papers t o h ave them st am ped “ M edal l i on G uara nt ee d” by the bank , he and the others w rot e M ark M i nt m i re a c heck for $80 0 and M i nt m i re gave them $9 00 i n exchang e. A ttr i a l , M e rb a c k i d e n t i f i e d a n u mb e ro f

d o c u me n t s w i th h i s s i g n a tu r e o n th e m, i nc l udi ng a S ha r e P ur c ha s e A gr e e m e nta nd a S t oc k P ow e rw i th a M e da l l i on17

g u aran t ee, al th o u g h h e d i d n o trecal l seei n g an y st o ck cert i fi cat es att ach ed t o th o se doc um e nt s w he n M a r k M i ntm i r e ga ve hi m the pape rw or k t o e ndor s e , nordi d he r e c o g n iz e s to c k c e r tif

ic a te s th a t b o r e h is n a m e f o ro v e r3 0 0 ,0 0 0 s h a r e s in iJ o in S y s t e m s , I nc . , L uc i d, C l e m e nt s a nd T e c h- C r e a t i ons . M e rba c k i de nt i f i e d the c he c ks he gave t o M ark M i nt m i re , al l m ade outt o M & A , bu tno t ed thathi s a dd re ss had be e n r e m ove d f

r om a tl e a s tone . M e rba c k w a s s how n hi s s i gna tur e on a doc um e nt en t i t l ed “ U n an i m o u s C o n sen to f B o ard o f D i rect o rs an d S h areh o l d ers, ” w h i ch al so c ont a i ne d the na m e s of

c us t om e r s of

hi s r e s t a ur a nt , buthe de ni e d know i ng a ny thi ng aboutthe F unda e m e r ge r . M e rba c k r e c ogni z e d hi s ha ndw r i t i ng on a s ubs c r i pt i on da t a s he e tf orG i l l e tt e I ndus tr i e s G r oup, I nc . butdi d notr e c ogni z e the w r itin g o n a T e c h - C r e a tio n s , I n c . s u b s c r ip tio n d a ta s h e e t th a t c o n ta in e d h is pe r s ona l i nf

or m a t i on. M e rba c k t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s ne ve rt ol d a ny thi ng about L uc i d orC l e m e nt s , a nd hi s t ot a l i nvol ve m e ntc ons i s t e d of r e c e i vi ng $900 a nd w r itin g c h e c k s f

o r$ 8 0 0 w h e n M a r k M in tm ir e h a d a s k e d h im to h e lp f o r m a s h e ll c o m p a n y . I n S e pt e m be r2002, M e rba c k r e c e i ve d a n S E C s ubpoe na r e ga r di ng the cM eR un i nv es t i gat i on thatre qu es t ed do cum ent s r el at ed t o F un dae, M ark M i nt m i re , D on al d M i nt m i re and som e of the other purpo rt ed shar ehol ders . M ark M i nt m i re u r g e d M e rb a c k to c a ll D o n a ld M in tm ir e ’s p e r s o n a l a s s is ta n t in F lo r id a to o b ta in18

the doc um e nt s , w hi c h he di d. M e rba c k f orw a r de d thos e doc um e nt s t o the S E C a nd t es t i fi ed before the grand j ury i n F l ori da thatno on e had t ol d h i m thathe ow ned any s t ock o r thatthe m on ey he w as pai d for w ri t i ng the checks w as a “ l oan. ” H e al so t es t i fi ed thathe had n everm etor spok en t o D on al d M i nt m i re . K evi n B el l confi rm ed thathe had w orked atthe A t l ant a r es t aura ntw i th M ark M i ntm i r e a nd M e rba c k. B e l l t e s t i f i e d tha t : ( 1) M a r k M i ntm i r e ga ve B e l l a nd othe r s doc um e nt s t o s i gn i n e xc ha nge f orm one y ; ( 2) M a r k M i ntm i r e ga ve B e l l a nd othe r s c a s h t o de pos i t , of w hi c h the y w e r e pe r m i tt e d t o r e t a i n $100, i n e xc ha nge f or w r itin g c h e c k s ; ( 3 ) h e th o u g h t th is w o u ld b e b e n e f ic ia l b e c a u s e h e w a n te d to s ta r t a bu si ness ; (4) he di d n otre ca l l hear i ng abou tL uci d atthatt i m e, and h ad never s ee n a ny of the f i l i ngs unt i l the y w e r e l a t e rs how n t o hi m by gove rnm e ntof f i c i a l s ; ( 5) he never re ca l l ed becom i ng a pri nci pal of L uci d n or ac qu i ri ng fi ve m i l l i on shar es of i t s s t oc k; a nd ( 6) he di d notr e c ogni z e the na m e of the pe r s on t o w hom he supp osedl y tra nsfe rr ed the fi ve m i l l i on shar es or the “ C hi nese ” guy (X ai o-F ei D a vi s ) w ho s uppos e dl y tr a ns f e rr e d the m t o hi m . A ttr i a l , B e l l r e i t e r a t e d tha the ha d ne ve ra gr e e d t o be c om e a di r e c t ororof f i c e rof C l e m e nt s , a nd tha t , i n e xc ha nge f o rd r in k in g m o n e y , h e s ig n e d d o c u m e n ts th a t M a r k M in tm ir e b r o u g h t to h im w hi l e he w as dri nk i ng i n a bar. B el l deni ed kn ow i ng abou tany of the st ock i nve s tm e nt s a nd e xc l a i m e d tha tm uc h of the not e s i n M i ntm i r e ’ s ha ndw r i t i ng on a19

G ove rnm e nte xhi bi ttha tr e f e rr e d t o B e l l w e r e “ G r e e k” t o hi m , i nc l udi ng the f ol l ow i ng not a t i ons : ( 1) B e l l ha d borr ow e d m one y f r om a “ F r e da ” a s pa r tof the tra nsac t i on s; (2) $80 0 and “ D F M ; ” ( 3) re fe re nces t o “ It ’ s E l ec tri c” and a m er ger in v o lv in g “S a le rn o ;” a n d ( 4 ) B e ll h a d c a n c e lle d h is f iv e m illio n s h a r e s a lo n g w ith 4 8 0 ,0 0 0 o th e rs h a r e s . B e ll d e c la r e d th a t h e b a r e ly e v e n k n e w o rh a d s p o k e n to M in tm ir e a t th e tim e o f

th e d e s c r ib e d e v e n ts . M a tth e w H a n n , w h o h a d a ls o w o r k e d u n d e rM a r k M in tm ir e a t th e A tla n ta re st aura nt , t es t i fi ed attri al thathe w as as ked b y M i nt m i re t o “ getsom e papers s ta m p e d a t th e b a n k ” a n d to w r ite a $ 8 0 0 c h e c k to M in tm ir e in e x c h a n g e f o r$ 9 0 0 . H a nn di d a s M i ntm i r e r e que s t e d, a nd he a l s o w i tne s s e d a num be rof e m pl oy e e s a nd re gu l arcust om er s f

i l l i ng ou tpaperw ork atthe re st aura nt , i ncl ud i ng M ar co G o lla r z a , M ik e B u n n , J e f f M e rb a c k , K e v in B e ll, B r a n d o n B e ll, a n d C h r is J a c k s o n . H ann further t es t i fi ed that : (1) he di d n otconsi der hi m se l f asoph i st i ca t ed i nv es t or; ( 2) he di d notbe l i e ve tha ta ny of the pa ge s w e r e s t oc k c e r t i f i c a t e s , but a c know l e dge d tha tthe y c oul d ha ve be e n s t oc k pow e r s s i nc e he di d notr e vi e w the doc um e nt s a nd nothi ng w a s e xpl a i ne d t o hi m ; ( 3) he di d notha ve a ny c onve r s a t i ons w i th M a r k M i ntm i r e abouti nve s t i ng; ( 4) he di d notbe l i e ve tha tthe m one y w hi c h ha d be e n gi ve n t o hi m i n e xc ha nge f orthe $800 c he c k ( the $900)
w a s a “ l oa n; ” ( 5) he di d notbe l i e ve tha the w a s r e t a i ni ng a ny i nt e r e s ti n a ny s t oc k;Brandon B ell testified that he wa s asked by Mark Mintmire to write “ L isa Reisman, 11 su bs c ripti on , F un da e ,”in t

he“ fo r”se c tio n o f o nec he c k a nd that Ma rk Mintmirehad to ld him that he had spoken to L isa and she had approve d. He be lieved that Mar k Mintmi re f

illed out the forms and hesigne d them and re called signing someof the documents when they were blank. He notice d at trial that it appea red that whiteout had been used on one of the documents that now said “ Luc id C on c epts , Inc .”a c ro ss t hetop ; hec ould s e e“ F un da eCor po ratio n”wh e n it

wa s h e ld upto t helight. Wat so n alsore c ognize d th at on eof thedo c umentssh ehad s igne d h a d b e e n altere d w ith 12 whiteout. After

rec eivinga subpoena

for documents and her

testimony

from the SEC, Watson contac ted and rece ived documents from Mintm ire a nd retained an attorney

who was rec ommended to her

by another lawyer who attended her church. B eca use Mintmire had agree d 20 ( 6 ) M a r k M in tm ir e to ld h im th a t th e s e a c tio n s w e r e le g a l, a n d th e y w o u ld n o t r e s u lt i n any t ax consequences f or hi m ; and (7) M ark M i nt m i re al so expl ai ned t o h i m that the purpos e of

the pape rw or k w a s t o s e tup as he l l c om pa ny w hi c h w oul d l a t e rbe sol d o ff and atthatpo i nt , H ann w ou l d “ com pl et el y be off everythi ng . ” M ark M i nt m i re t ol d H ann thathe w as w orki ng for hi s f ather’ s f i rm , al tho ug h H ann h ad never m etno r s ee n D on al d M i nt m i re . M ary C atheri ne M cG ow an, a c ol l ege profes sor l i vi ng i n F l ori da w ho had form er l y l i ved i n A t l ant a, t es t i fi ed thatshe had been i ntrodu ce d t o M ark M i nt m i re b y h e rb o y f

r ie n d . O n ap p r o x im a te ly tw e n ty - o n e o c c a s io n s f o rf iv e s e p a r a te c om pa ni e s , M c G ow a n r e c e i ve d pape rw or k f r om M a r k M i ntm i r e , w e ntt o the ba nk for aM edal l i on se al , and returned the paperw ork t o M ark M i nt m i re . O th e rs h a r e h o ld e r s w h o w e r e w o r k e r s o rc u s to m e r s a t th e r e s ta u r a n t - i ncl ud i ng re st aura ntem pl oyee M ar co G ol l ar za , cust om erK i m berl y D enni s a . k. a. K i m be r l y D a vi e s , c us t om e rB r a ndon B e l l , c us t om e rJ ul i e T a y l orW a t s on, a nd 11 12to pay

for her lawyer if sheretained one, Watson sent the bill for the leg al servic es to Mintmire and believe d that the last time she spoke to him was to verify that the bill had been paid. At trial, Salerno testified a bout documents that appe are d to have be en signed by her, but 13 were in her

husband’s ha

ndwriting . 21 A l l i son S al erno w ho kn ew M ark M i nt m i re throu gh her husband - a l so t es t i fi ed 13
r e g a r d in g s im ila re x p e r ie n c e s w ith M a r k M in tm ir e .

b . F l ori d a S h areh ol d er s K erry M ath i eu , w h o w as l i st ed o n th e N A S D ap p l i cat i o n fo r F u n d ae as a shar ehol der r es i di ng i n F l ori da, t es t i fi ed attri al thatC harl es A dam s w as her supervi sor a tan aut o d ea l er shi p w here she w orked. A dam s app roac hed M athi eu a n d a n o th e re m p lo y e e A n g e la B a r to le tta to in q u ir e a s to w h e th e rth e y w a n te d to have thei r ow n com pani es and save on t axes . A dam s t ol d M athi eu thathe w as w or ki ng thr ough M i ntm i r e a nd hi s l a w f i r m a nd tha the rpa r t i c i pa t i on w oul d not c os the ra ny thi ng. M a thi e u t e s t i f i e d tha t : ( 1) s he be l i e ve d tha tthe na m e of the c om pa ny s e tup f

orB a r t ol e tt a w a s A ngi e M . , I nc . ; ( 2) the na m e of he rc om pa ny w a s D e v in , I n c .; ( 3 ) s h e d id n o t b e lie v e s h e h a d in v e s te d in F u n d a e ; ( 4 ) s h e w e n t to the ba nk on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons t o a c qui r e a “ gr e e n ba nk s e a l ; ” ( 5) a l though a $1, 600 c h e c k s h e h a d w r itte n b o u n c e d tw ic e , th e m o n e y to c o v e rth e c h e c k w a s e v e n tu a lly w i r e d by M i ntm i r e t o he ra c c ount ; ( 6) s he c a l l e d M & A t o obt a i n a num be rs he ne e de d f ort a x purpos e s butdi d nots pe a k di r e c t l y w i th a ny one the r e aboutthe in c o rp o r a tio n its e lf

; a n d ( 7 ) A d a m s to ld h e rth a t s h e n e e d e d to b e th e o n e to w r iteMathieu testified that Mintmire wa s “overly nice”which madeher unc omfortable. 14 22 the checks f

or st ock i nv es tm ent s i n o rdert o k ee p the corporat i on runn i ng bu tthat he w oul d gi ve he rthe m one y t o c ove rthe c he c ks . M a thi e u a l s o w a s s how n a num be rof

c he c ks s he ha d w r i tt e n a tA da m s ’ r e que s t- i nc l udi ng tw o c he c ks m a de ou tt o “ W i l l ow S ervi ce s, Inc. , ” the com pany as soci at ed w i th the offi ce s M i nt m i re used w hi l e i n C hi ca go – and she t es t i fi ed thatA dam s t ol d h erthe paperw ork that s h e c o m p le te d w a s r e la te d to h e rc o rp o r a tio n a n d th a t h e w o u ld f o rw a r d it to M&A. Ad a ms c o n t a c t e d M a th i e u a f t e rs h e h a d r e c e i v e d a s u b p o e n a f r o m th e SE C and t ol d h ert o l ethi m t ake c ar e of i t . M athi eu decl i ned A dam s’ offe r, bu tca l l ed M & A athi s a dv i ce t o o bt ai n cop i es of the do cum ent s s he had si gn ed. M athi eu as ked M i nt m i re t o g i ve her the do cum ent s r el at i ng t o D evi n, Inc. , and M i nt m i re t ol d h erthathe al so had rec ei ved a subp oena. W hen M i nt m i re st art ed as ki ng her qu es t i on s abo utthe subp oena, M athi eu l i ed and t ol d h i m thatshe w as re pres ent ed b y c o u n s e l a n d th a t h e ra tto rn e y w o u ld “c o n ta c t h im f o rf u r th e rin f

o r m a tio n .” 14 A l though M i ntm i r e t ol d M a thi e u tha the w oul d s e nd he rthe doc um e nt s be f or e the subp oena deadl i ne, he di d n otdo so. S he w as show n a nu m ber of docum ent s a t tr i a l butdi d notr e c ogni z e the na m e s of the c orpor a t e e nt i t i e s ( w i th the e xc e pt i on of T ech -C reat i o n s, In c. ) an d d en i ed h av i n g ex ecu t ed v ari o u s cash i er’ s ch eck s.23

A da m s t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l tha t : ( 1) a tthe t i m e he appr oa c he d M a thi e u a nd B a r t o l e tt a , h e h a d k n o wn M i n tm i r e f o rab o u t“ f

i v e t o t e n y e a r s ; ” ( 2 ) M &A generat ed the form s thathe as ked M athi eu and B art ol ett a t o si gn ; (3) M i nt m i re w as th e r e g is te r e d a g e n t o f

th e c o m p a n ie s ; ( 4 ) M a th ie u a n d B a r to le tta a g r e e d to “h o ld st ock; ” ( 5) he di d n otre ca l l the nam es of the com pani es bu tre m em bere d that M a thi e u a nd B a r t ol e tt a w e ntt o the ba nk a r ound f i f t e e n t i m e s t o obt a i n M e da l l i on gu ar ant ee s on the do cum ent s; (6) he di d n otre m em ber w ho w as l i st ed as the paye e on the c he c ks ; a nd ( 7) he w a s a s s oc i a t e d w i th A da m s , I nc . , w hi c h w a s l i s t e d on the N A SD Fu n d a e ap p l i c a t i o n l i s ta s a s h a r e h o l d e ra l o n g w i th A d a ms h i ms e l f . A d a ms a l s o a dm i tt e d tha the pr ovi de d the pape rw or k t o S t a c y W ol f ga ng, t o w hom 500, 000 sh ares w ere tran sferred an d th en tran sferred ag ai n t o tw en ty-fo u r i n d i v i d u al s. 4 . K ei th L o g u e’s In v o l v em en t w i th th e S h a reh o l d ers K e i th L ogue , a n a tt orne y i n A t l a nt a a nd a pr e vi ous l a w pa r tne rof M i ntm i r e ’ s w hom M i ntm i r e ha d know n f orf i f t e e n y e a r s , t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l r e ga r di ng h is in v o lv e m e n t w ith tw o o f th e lis te d s h a r e h o ld e r s . L o g u e w a s g iv e n im m u n ity by the G ov ernm ent , al tho ug h h e deni ed thathe had d on e a nythi ng w rong or that M i n tmi r e h a d i mp r o p e r l y i n f l u e n c e d h i m.24 a . M a r y C a t he r i ne M c G o w a n L ogue ’ s f

i r s ti nvol ve m e ntw a s w i th M a ry C a the r i ne M c G ow a n a f t e rs he re ce i ved a subp oena t o t es t i fy before the S E C . A cc ordi ng t o M cG ow an, atM ark M i ntm i r e ’ s r e que s t , s he c ont a c t e d M i ntm i r e w ho di r e c t e d he rt o L ogue . L ogue confi rm ed thathe w as cont ac t ed by M i nt m i re abou tre pres ent i ng M cG ow an r e ga r di ng he rt e s t i m ony be f or e the S E C i n A t l a nt a ( a s M i ntm i r e ha d done i n the pa s tw he n he r e f

e rr e d c l i e nt s t o L ogue ) a nd tha tM i ntm i r e i nf or m e d L ogue he w ou l d p ay for the re pres ent at i on . M i nt m i re expl ai ned t o L og ue thatM cG ow an w a s o n e o f

m a n y s h a r e h o ld e r s in a c o m p a n yw h o h a d e x e c u te d s o m e d o c u m e n ts . T here af t erM cG ow an m etw i th L og ue i n A t l ant a a nd , w i th L og ue re pres ent i ng her, la te rg a v e a s w o rn s ta te m e n t to th e S E C . P r i ort o he rt e s t i m ony , M c G ow a n ha d a l s o r e c e i ve d a doc um e nts ubpoe na fr om the S E C and h ad prod uced i n res po nse afe w ca ncel l ed checks, a s ca nn ed vers i on of on e of the si gn ature guarant ee s f or F un dae, and o ther docum ent s that s he obt a i ne d f

r om “ the M i ntm i r e s . ” W he n a que s t i on a r os e dur i ng the c our s e of he rde pos i t i on r e ga r di ng w he the rthe s ubpoe na t o he ri nc l ude d doc um e nt s de a l i ng w i th co m p an i es o th er th an F u n d ae, L o g u e an d th e S E C co u n sel ag reed t o ad d ress the i ss ue l at er . S om et i m e a ft erthe depo si t i on , M cG ow an foun d b ac kd at ed c a nc e l l e d c he c ks i nvol vi ng a tl e a s tone othe rc om pa ny be s i de s F unda e , a nd25

a c c o r d i n g t o M c G o w a n , w h e n s h e a s k e d Lo g u e ab o u tp r o d u c i n g th e m t o th e SEC, h e to ld h e rn o t to p r o d u c e th e m a n d th a t h e w o u ld c o n ta c t th e S E C o n h e rb e h a lf . M c G ow a n t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he be l i e ve d tha tL ogue a c tua l l y s poke t o S E C c ouns e l a nd in f o r m e d th e m th a t if

th e S E C w a n te d th e a d d itio n a l d o c u m e n ts th e y w o u ld h a v e to is s u e a n o th e rs u b p o e n a . M c G o w a n a ls o te s tif ie d th a t s h e w a s p le a s e d w ith L ogue ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on of he ra nd hi s a dvi c e tha tthe y s houl d notpr oduc e a ny d o c u m e n ts n o t d e m a n d e d b y th e s u b p o e n a , a n d th a t L o g u e to ld h e rto te ll th e tru th . L og ue re ca l l ed thathe m etw i th M cG ow an and adv i se d h erthati tw as i n h er besti nt er es tt o t es t i fy , t o t el l the truth, and t o p rodu ce w hat everdo cum ent s s he had i n h erpo ss es si on . L og ue t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved the S E C i nv es t i gat i on i nv ol ved on l y F un dae, bu the adm i tt ed thathe w as un sure of w hether M cG ow an w as a t ar get of the S E C i nve s t i ga t i on. L ogue f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha the be l i e ve d tha tthe s ubpoe na t o M cG ow an, w hi ch l i st ed a num ber of c om pani es , soug hton l y docum ent s r el at ed t o F un dae a nd no tt o o ther c om pani es . L og ue re ca l l ed spea ki ng t o M cG ow an aboutthe doc um e nt s a num be rof t i m e s f ol l ow i ng the de pos i t i on a nd be i ng t ol d by M c G o w a n th a t s h e c o u ld n o t f in d a n y a d d itio n a l d o c u m e n ts . L o g u e d id n o t r e c a ll c a l l i ng S E C c ouns e l , buti ndi c a t e d tha the m us tha ve done s o be c a us e he r e m e m be r e d t e l l i ng S E C c ouns e l tha the w oul d f ol l ow up a nd he w a s “ pr e tty good aboutr e turni ng phone c a l l s . ” C ouns e l f orthe S E C t e s t i f

i e d tha the di d notha ve26

any c on vers at i on s w i th L og ue af t erM cG ow an’ s t es t i m on y, even tho ug h h e had l ef t a s er i es of m es sa ges abo utob t ai ni ng tho se do cum ent s. T he S E C di d n oti ss ue an a d d itio n a l s u b p o e n a f

o rth e d o c u m e n ts . A l tho ug h M cG ow an t es t i fi ed thatL og ue had n everdi sc usse d h i s f ee ar ra n g em en t w ith h er , M cG o w an w as p re se n ted at trial w ith an in v o ice f o r L o g u e’s se rvi ce s, addres se d t o h er , for $3, 49 7. 50 and a check payabl e t o L og ue and si gn ed by M i ntm i r e f

orthe i nvoi c e a m ount . T he c he c k w a s dr a w n on the c om pa ny a c c o u n t f o rI m a g in e N e t C o rp ., a n a m e M c G o w a n c la im e d d id n o t r e c o g n iz e u n til s h e w a s s h o w n a $ 2 0 0 c h e c k f r o m h e rp e r s o n a l b a n k a c c o u n t m a d e o u t to I m a gi ne N e tC orp. L ogue a c know l e dge d tha the ha d ne ve rs ubm i tt e d hi s bi l l f or l e ga l s e r vi c e s t o M c G ow a n but , i ns t e a d, ha d s e ntthe bi l l t o M i ntm i r e be c a us e he ( M in tm ir e ) h a d in d ic a te d h e w o u ld p a y it. L ogue a l s o a dm i tt e d tha the ha d tr i e d t o c ont a c ta ddi t i ona l s ha r e hol de r s , but he deni ed thattho se cont ac t s w er e a n att em ptt o repres entthem and i nst ea d w er e h is e f f o r ts to g a in in s ig h t in to th e in v e s tig a tio n . b . K e v in B e ll In A ug ust20 03 , w hen the G ov ernm entw as cond uct i ng a gra nd j ury i nv es t i gat i on concerni ng the sa l e of s t ock i n C l em ent s, L og ue re ce i ved ano ther r e q u e s t f r o m M in tm ir e ab o u t r e p r e s e n tin g K e v in B e ll, w h o w a s lis te d a s a L u c id27

shar ehol der a nd w ho had rece i ved a subp oena vi a M i nt m i re ’ s off i ce t o t es t i fy be f or e a f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i n F l or i da . M i ntm i r e s e ntt o the s ubpoe na t o B e l l w i th a not e s t a t i ng: “ [ w ] e a c c e pt e d thi s on y ourbe ha l f . . . . I f thi s i s una c c e pt abl e y ou shou l d t al k t o you r l aw ye r abo uti t . P ursuantt o you r i nstruct i on s w e a re forw ar di ng a c op y t o you r a tt orney, K ei th L og ue, atfa x n um ber . . . [y ] ou advi se d hi s phone num be rw a s . . . . ” B e l l t e s t i f i e d tha tw he n he r e c e i ve d the s ubpoe na and n ot e f

rom M i nt m i re , he had n o i dea w ho L og ue w as and thati tw as M i nt m i re w h o p u t h im in to u c h w ith L o g u e a f te rh e r e c e iv e d th e s u b p o e n a . A t trial, L o g u e d ec li n ed to in terp re t th e n o te fr o m M in tm ire r eg ar d in g B ell’ s r e p r e s e n ta tio n , b u t h e a c k n o w le d g e d r e c e ip t o f a n u m b e ro f

c o rp o r a te d o c u m e n ts a n d a p a g e o f

p h o to c o p ie d h a n d w r itte n n o te s - w h ic h th e p a r tie s s tip u la te d w e r e in M in tm ir e ’s h a n d w r itin g - o u tlin in g K e v in B e ll’s o s te n s ib le p a r tic ip a tio n in F u n d a e . T he doc um e nt s s e ntt o L ogue ha d the f a c s i m i l e s t a m p of

W i l l ow S e r vi c e s , the offi ce ut i l i ze d b y M i nt m i re w hi l e he w as i n C hi ca go . L og ue’ s ow n h andw ri tt en n o te s w e r e a ls o in tr o d u c e d in to e v id e n c e , b u t h e te s tif ie d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w if th e n o ta tio n in d ic a tin g “to ta lly r e lie d o n D o n ” c a m e f r o m M in tm ir e . L ogue t e s t i f

i e d tha the di d hi s ow n due di l i ge nc e on the c a s e , i nt e r vi e w i ng B e ll, r e tr ie v in g f

ile s o f f E D G A R , r e v ie w in g in f o r m a tio n w ith B e ll, a n d c a llin g to r e s c he dul e B e l l ’ s gr a nd j ury appe a r a nc e . B e l l t ol d L ogue tha the di d notknow28

anythi ng abou tL uci d. L og ue di d n otac com pany B el l t o h i s gra nd j ury app ea ra nce i n F l or i da , a nd the bi l l f orhi s s e r vi c e s t o B e l l w a s s ubm i tt e d t o a nd pa i d by M in tm ir e . A lth o u g h L o g u e w a s s h o w n a G o v e rn m e n t e x h ib it w ith a n o ta tio n in hi s ha ndw r i t i ng s t a t i ng “ c oul dn’ tge tl i s tf r om J e f f , ” he t e s t i f

i e d tha the c oul d not r e c a ll s u c h a lis t n o rd id h e r e c a ll s p e a k in g to e ith e rJ e f f M e rb a c k o rK e v in B e ll ab o u ta l i sto f p o t en t i al w i tn esses. A cc ordi ng t o B el l , he m etw i th L og ue ata c offe e s ho p i n A t l ant a w here L ogue pul l e d outa y e l l ow pa d w i th a “ t i m e l i ne ” on i ta nd e xpl a i ne d the organi za t i on of L uci d (the com pany of w hi ch B el l had b ee n l i st ed as “ pres i dent ”) . A f t e rL ogue t ol d B e l l he r e s pe c t e d a nd “ ow e d” M i ntm i r e , B e l l be c a m e s ke pt i c a l of L ogue ’ s a l l e gi a nc e a nd de c l i ne d t o ha ve L ogue a c c om pa ny hi m t o F l or i da f orthe gr a nd j ury appe a r a nc e . B e l l l a t e rl e a rne d tha tL ogue ha d r e s c he dul e d B e l l ’ s gr a nd j ury app ea ra nce f

or a l at erdat e w i tho utB el l ’ s c on se nt . O n the re sc hedu l ed dat e, B e ll tr a v e le d to F lo r id a a n d te s tif ie d b e f o r e th e g r a n d ju ry . 5. T h e R ec ord ed C on vers ati on s B et w ee n K evi n B el lan d M i n tm i re F ol l ow i ng hi s t e s t i m ony be f or e the gr a nd j ury , B e l l c ont a c t e d M i ntm i r e a nd perm i tt ed the G ov ernm entt o rec ord h i s c on vers at i on s. C on vers at i on s w er e re corded on three di ff

er entdays i n S ept em ber 200 3. O n S ept em ber 11, 20 03 af t er B e ll’s g r a n d ju ry ap p e a r a n c e , M in tm ir e a n d B e ll d is c u s s e d th e f o llo w in g :29

K B : O K . A n d th e n th e , w h a t ab o u t th e $ 4 0 0 0 th in g th a t, th a t u h . . . DM : Di d th e y a s k y o u ab o u tth a t ? K B: W e l l , I , I s e e n w h a tK e i th Lo g u e p u l l e d u p a n d th e y h a d th e s a me thi ng thathe pu l l , pu l l ed up . A nd um , you k no w , and I go ta T re as ury g u y r i g h tth e r e wi th 1 0 9 9 ’ s y o u k n o w. DM : W e l l wh a td i d I t e l l y o u ab o u tth a t ? K B : Y o u to ld m e it w a s f o rf e e s . D M : Y e a h . K B : Y o u k n o w , u h . . . D M : Y e a h. K B : B uty ou know , the y , the y ’ r e s t i l l t e l l i ng m e tha tI ’ m s uppos e d t o, thatI’ m l i abl e f

or i tand I do n’ tkn ow i f i t ’ s asm ok es cr ee n o r they’ re try in g to s c a r e m e b u t. D M : T h a t y o u ’r e liab le f o rw h a t? K B : T h e t ax o n th atm o n ey. D M : W el l , i f yo u are, I’ l l g i v e yo u th e m o n ey. KB : OK . D M : D on ’ tw orry abou ti t . If you, and i f y ou ’ ve had som e e xp ense s outof thi s thi ng, I ’ l l ha nd- , I ’ l l t a ke c a r e of ‘ e m , y ou j us tl e tm e know w h ati ti s. KB : OK . D M : A n d i t ’ s n o tt o b u y yo u r t est i m o n y. K B : I unde r s t a nd. D M : It ’ s j u stt o co v er yo u r ex p en ses. B e ll a n d M in tm ir e th e n d is c u s s e d M in tm ir e ’s s o n , M a r k M in tm ir e , w ith B e ll e xpl a i ni ng tha tJ e f

f M e rba c k ha d t a l ke d aboutM a r k: D M : H o w m u c h d id y o u g e t M a r k in v o lv e d , I m e a n . . . K B: U m. D M : H o w , h o w d idth at co m e u p an d w h at d idyo u sa y s o alo n g [s ic]? K B : W el l Je ff

, Je ff t ol d, t ol d the st ory f

i rs t . S o M ark w ou l d b e i nv ol ved heavi l y by the t i m e J ef

f’ s s t ory w as do ne. D M : W hy doe s he ha ve t o be s uc h a ba s t a r d?30

M i nt m i re then i nstruct ed B el l as t o w hatthe other s hare ho l ders shou l d say w hen que s t i one d: K B : B utum , w hatdo I t el l l i ke m y f ri ends w hen they um , w hen they co n t actth em o r try t o su b p o en a th em o r so m eth i n g ab o u tth i s? D M : U m , thatthey s ub sc ri bed and uh , they j ustdo n’ tre m em ber w hat happe ne d, a f

t e rtha t . S e e the r e , the r e ’ s s om e s t oc k w a s s e ta s i de f or a l l o f th e m. K B : U h huh. D M : In th e d eal , an d u h , an d th at ’ s th e w ay i tw as. K B : S et , i tw as se tas i de? D M : Y e a h, the y , f

orthe m the y c oul d, the y ’ d ha ve l a t e ron. K B : U h huh. DM: B u ti t ’ s n o two r th a n y th i n g n o w. *** D M : W el l yo u n eed t o ex p l ai n t o th em th at , l i st en , i f th ey t el l th ese g u y s w h a t th e y w a n t to k n o w . . . K B : U h huh. D M : . . . th e y ’ r e n o tg o i n g t o d o a n y th i n g t o th e m. KB : OK . D M : U h, i f

the y t e l l the m tha tthe y s ubs c r i be d a nd y ou know , of course , I’ d l i ke for them t o l ea ve M ark o utof i tt o the ext entthatthey c a n . I f th e y , th e y c a n s a y th a t I d id it. . . . . D uri ng the nextconv er sa t i on , on S ept em ber 17, 20 03 , M i nt m i re di sc usse d hi s s on M a r k M i ntm i r e i n the c ont e xtof hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on: K B : M y f

r i e nds um , y ou know , butI y e a h, I be l i e ve I , gote ve ry body tha tthe y unde r s t a nd tha tM a r k, y ou know , I ha ve t o r e m i nd ‘ e m about h i s c h a r a c t e r , y o u k n o w. D M : Y e a h. K B : T h e typ e o f p erso n h e i s. D M : Y e a h , y e a h , r ig h t. K B : (U I) D M : A nd um , M ark w as do i ng i tfor m e. K B : R ig h t.Be ll was speakingabout the fact that the securities documents inac curately ref lected 15 that he had not be en involved in a ba nkruptcy when in fact he had. 31 D M : Y o u k n o w , an d I th i n k th at ’ s th e w ay th ati tn eed s t o st ay. K B : W e ll, th a t, th a t’s e x a c tly h o w I , I s a id it. D M : A nd he br oughtthe pape r s a r ound a nd e xpl a i ne d i ta nd uh, a nd then sentthem do w n t o m e. L at er , du ri ng thei r c on vers at i on on S ept em ber 23, 20 03 M i nt m i re agai n d i sc usse d M a r k w ith B e ll: K B : I d o n ’t f

e e l I ’m , I ’m p r o te c te d a t a ll. D M : W e ll . . . K B : A n d I ’m n o t g e ttin g a n y a n s w e r s , I m e a n , th a t d o c u m e n t, w h e r e , I di dn’ ts i gn a ny thi ng i n ’ 99, a nd the r e ’ s a bi o on m e , a nd i t ’ s s a y i ng th atI d i d n o tfi l e fo r an y b an k ru p t ci es. D M : Y e a h. K B : I w o u ldn e v e r[ p u t] th a t d o w n o n af e d e r a l d o c u m e n t. 15 D M : Y e a h, y e a h. K B : S o how di d tha thappe n? D M : W e ll, o n a ll o f

th o s e d o c u m e n ts , I g o t b a c k s ig n e d th r o u g h M a r k . U h , K e v in , u h , a n d y o u ’ll, a n d y o u c a n ta lk w ith M a r k ab o u t it. M a y be y ou a nd M a r k s houl d t a l k. U m , i tm i ghtbe he a l thy f ory ou, m a y b e y o u e v e n n e e d to s e e M a r k o rs o m e th in g , b u t u h , th a t’s u p to yo u . U m , b u tj u st , yo u k n o w , th i n k yo u r w ay th ro u g h th ese th i n g s, O K ? N ob od y’ s, they’ re no taf t eryou. D i d they s ay they w er e a ft er y ou? K B : N o , b u t y o u rn a m e ’s n o t . . . D M : T hey j ustw antt o u se you t o g ett o M ark and m e. D u rin g th eir las t rec o rd ed co n v er sa ti o n , M in tm ire a n d B ell d iscu ss ed B ell’ s c oope r a t i on a nd pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the i nve s t i ga t i on: K B : . . . s o I w e ntove rt o t a l k t o J e f f , um , s t i l l try i ng t o ge tthe l i s ta nd I a l s o t o l d J e f

f th a tu m , Ke i th L o g u e wo u l d u h , y o u k n o w, y o u k n o w, he l p e a s e s om e of

hi s y ou know , a nxi e t i e s aboute ve ry thi ng.32

D M : U h huh. K B: I f h e n e e d e d t o s p e a k t o h i m. D M : Y e a h. K B: U m, y o u k n o w , I t o l d h i m th a tI s p o k e w i th h i m a n d h e ma d e me f e e l be tt e rabouti ta nd y ou know , ( U I ) a nd I ’ m gonna t e l l m y f r i e nds and I sa i d i f y ou need t o speak t o som ebod y abo uti t , I’ m sure they co u l d sp eak t o K ei th an d h e w o u l d g etth em p retty strai g h t . S o g u ess w ha tJ e f f doe s ? H e goe s s tr a i ghtove rt o the uh, uh, U S A tt orne y , the a s s i s t a nt , uh, di s tr i c ta tt orne y , he doe s n’ ts a y a w or d, he j us tgoe s r i ght o v e rth e r e , j u s ts t a r t s t a l k i n g t o h i m a n d th e n th e u h , a tt o rn e y c a l l s me o v eran d h e a sk s, h e a sk s m e, I to ldh im th at K eith L o g u e d id n ’t r e p r e s e n t m e , a n d h e d o e s n ’t. D M : U h huh, r i ght K B : A n d h e c alls m e o v eran d sa ys I th o u g h t K eith L o g u e d id n ’t r e pr e s e nty ou. Y ou t ol d the G r a nd J ury tha the di dn’ tr e pr e - , r e pr e s e nt y ou. S o w hy y ou try i ng t o ge thi m i nvol ve d, y ou know , a nd he ’ s l i ke p is s e d o f f a t m e . U m . . . D M : Y ou kn ow , that , that ’ s j ustan exam pl e K evi n o f w hy you n ee d som ebod y t o run i nt er fe re nce f or you, se e? K B : U h huh. D M : A n d th atw ay yo u d o n ’ th av e t o t ak e al l th atstu ff p erso n al l y. K B : R i ght , r i ght . I m e a n, butI , di d I , I di dn’ tknow the y w oul d be up th ere yest erd ay. D M : N o, I kno w and you di dn ’ tdo anythi ng w rong . S o d on ’ tw orry abouti t . A l l the y ’ r e doi ng i s , j us t , y ou know [ e xpl e t i ve ] on y ou. K B : Y e a h , w e ll . . . DM: S o wh o , wh o a l l h a v e th e y s p o k e n t o , d o y o u k n o w? K B : I, I don ’ tkn ow w ho they’ ve spok en t o b ec ause evi dent l y, Je ff t ol d them , um , thatI w as try i ng t o g etthe l i st , um , and try i ng t o g et K e ith in v o lv e d a n d th e n h e s ta r te d , h e s ta r te d tr e a tin g m e a s if I w a s . .

. D M : A n en em y. K B : E x act l y. D M : Y e a h. A tthe sugg es t i on of the G ov ernm ent , B el l t ol d M i nt m i re thathe w as a tt e m pt i ng t o s e e k l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on:33

K B : U m , and h e [ the fi ct i t i ou s a tt orney] w entov er , he had cop i es of s o me SEC f

i l i n g s a s a ma tt e ro f

f a c t , I h a v e o n e o f

th e m h e r e , f

o ru m, L u ci d C o n cep t s. D M : Y e a h , r ig h t. K B : S o he s t a rt e d a s ki ng m e que s t i ons , l i ke how di d I pur c ha s e the s ha r e s a nd i ns i de thi s uh, f i l i ng i ts a y s tha tI w a s the pe r s on w ho m a de al l the deci si on s, i tsa i d I had a, a e xp ense re po rti n i t . U m , he as ked m e i f a l l thi s i s true , a nd I s a i d I , I don’ tknow a ny thi ng abouta ny of th a t a n d d o in g a n y th in g , h e s a id d id y o u s ig n it? D M : Y o u k n o w , y o u k n o w K e v in , y o u ’r e ta lk in g to to o m a n y p e o p le a n d th e y ’r e g o n n a s e t y o u u p f o rs o m e th in g if

y o u ’r e n o t c a r e f

u l. C . E vi d e n c e P r e s e n t e d b y M i n t m i r e at T r i al M i nt m i re pres ent ed tw o w i tness es i n h i s c as e- i n-chi ef attri al . T he pri nci pal w i tness for M i nt m i re w as a M i am i att orney, R ob ertJose fs berg, w ho w as al l ow ed t o t es t i fy as an expertw i tness on “ l egal ethi cs and att orneys ’ du t i es i n g ra nd j ury an d re g u lato ry in v es ti g atio n s.” J o se fs b er g attem p ted to b o lster M in tm ire’s a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e unde r§ 1515( c ) , w hi c h pr ovi de s a n e xe m pt i on f r om obs truc t i on f

orthos e pr ovi di ng bo na f i de l egal se rvi ce s, and h e t es t i fi ed that M i nt m i re re pres ent ed vi rtual l y e very on e i ncl ud i ng every s hare ho l der w ho re ce i ved a s ubpoe na . J os e f

s be r g a l s o r e pe a t e dl y s t a t e d tha tM i ntm i r e w a s notgui l ty of obs truc t i on. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , J os e f

s be r g t e s t i f

i e d tha t : ( 1) M i ntm i r e w a s pr ovi di ng l egal se rvi ce s w hen h e r ec om m ended (i n res po nse t o the G ov ernm ent ’ s s ub po ena) tha tL ogue r e pr e s e ntK e vi n B e l l i n the gr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i on; ( 2) c ouns e l f orone p a r ty m a y p r o v id e in f

o r m a tio n a n d th e o r ie s o n h o w to d e a l w ith th e f a c ts to34

coun se l for aw i tness ; (3) M i nt m i re ac t ed prop er l y w hen h e a dv i se d B el l that w i tne s s e s ha ve a r i ghtnott o s pe a k vol unt a r i l y w i th i nve s t i ga t or s , w he n he c ouns e l e d B e l l t o a dvi s e othe r s t o s t a t e tha tthe y di d notr e m e m be rw he r e the r e c or d e s t abl i s he s tha tthe y di d notr e m e m be r , a nd w he n he m oni t or e d the gr a nd ju ry in v e s tig a tio n b y , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , d e b r ie f in g B e ll a n d a tte m p tin g to o b ta in a l i s tof pot e nt i a l w i tne s s e s ; ( 4) M i ntm i r e w a s pr ovi di ng bo na f i de le g a l s e r v ic e s in conn ec t i on w i th the grand j ury i nv es t i gat i on and the S E C proceedi ng and act ed p r o p e r ly w h e n h e f

u lf ille d h is “m o r a l d u ty ” to m in im iz e h is s o n ’s in v o lv e m e n t in the ca se ; and (5) L og ue’ s i nt erpret at i on of the S E C subp oena se rved on M cG ow an w a s appr opr i a t e a nd the S E C s houl d ha ve m ove d t o c om pe l pr oduc t i on ori s s ue d a ne w s ubpoe na i f

i tdi s a gr e e d w i th tha ti nt e rpr e t a t i on.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, M in tm ir e c la im s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e ju ry ’s g u ilty ve r di c ta s t o both c ount s . H e a l s o c l a i m s tha tthe tr i a l c our te rr e d by nota c qui tt i ng hi m ba s e d upon the s a f

e ha rborpr ovi s i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1515( c ) a nd by i m pr ope r l y s hi f

t i ng the bur de n of

pr oof unde r§ 1515( c ) t o hi m by i ns truc t i ng the j ury t o d ec i de i f M i nt m i re (a s r el at ed t o C ou ntO ne) a nd K ei th L og ue (the al l eged un i nd i ct ed co-conspi ra t or of C ou ntT hree ) w er e “ ac t i ng as l aw ye rs ” w hen they com m i tt ed the ac t s i n q uest i on . F i nal l y, M i nt m i re ar gu es thatthe tri al w as t ai nt ed35

by the G ove rnm e nt ’ s j oi nde rof C ount s T w o a nd T hr e e , w hi c h c ha r ge d obs truc t i on of and con spi ri ng t o o bstructthe S E C i nv es t i gat i on i nt o cM eR un , w i th C ou ntO ne, w hi c h r e l a t e d t o obs truc t i on of a di f f e r e ntgr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i on, s uc h tha tthe pres ent at i on of evi dence as t o b oth i nst ance s c re at ed prej ud i ci al spi l l ov erand w as c onf us i ng a nd c orrupt i ng of a f a i rtr i a l . M i ntm i r e c l a i m s thi s w a s c om pounde d by th e a cq u ittal as to C o u n t T w o , w h ich th e d istrict co u rt d ism isse d o n M in tm ire’s m ot i on a tthe c l os e of

e vi de nc e ha vi ng f

ound tha tthe a l l e ge d a c t s pr e - da t e d the ef fe ct i ve dat e of 18 U . S . C . § 1 51 2(c) (2). A . S u ff

i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce . M in tm ir e ’s c h a lle n g e to th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is conv i ct i on s on C ou nt s O ne and T hree i nv ol ves quest i on s of l aw w hi ch w e r evi ew de no vo . U

ni te d State s v . D odds , 34 7 F . 3d 89 3, 90 0 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). A fa ctual f in d in g w ill b e s u f

f ic ie n t to s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n if , “a f te rv ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , any r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve foun d the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” Jack son v. V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . “[ A ]ll r e a s o n ab le i nfer ence s m ustbe draw n i n favor of supp ort i ng the j ury’ s ver di ct . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Sa w ye r , 799 F . 2d 1494, 1501 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t i ng G lasse r v . U n ite d S ta te s , 31 5 U . S . 60 , 80 (194 2))
.Neither Mintmi re nor

the Gover

nment has raised an issue a bout the court’s instruc tions 16 reg ardingthe elements of § 1512(c) (2). 36 V i ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the G ov ernm entand, as w e m us t , dr a w i ng a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty a s s e s s m e nt s i n the G o v e rn m e n t’s f

a v o r , U n ite d S ta te s v . H

a r r is , 20 F . 3d 44 5, 45 2 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ), w e f in d th at th er e w as m o re th an su ff icien t ev id en ce to su stain M in tm ire’s conv i ct i on s und erC ou nt s O ne and T hree . F i rs t , as t o C ou ntO ne, the tri al court pr ope r l y i ns truc t e d the j ury tha tthe G ove rnm e ntw a s r e qui r e d t o pr ove the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) the r e w a s a n of f i c i a l pr oc e e di ng t a ki ng pl a c e , i n thi s c a s e , a gr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i on; ( 2) M i ntm i r e “ e nga ge d i n c onduc tw hi c h c ons t i tut e d a subst ant i al st ep t ow ar d the com m i ss i on of the cr i m e of obstruct i on of an offi ci al proceedi ng ; ” ( 3) M i nt m i re ac t ed “ ‘ corrup t l y, ’ ” i . e. , “ w i th a n i m pr ope rpurpos e a nd to e n g a g e in c o n d u c t k n o w in g ly a n d d is h o n e s tly w ith th e s p e c if ic in te n t to s u b v e r t, i m pe de orobs truc t ” the gr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i on; a nd ( 4) “ [ t ] he na tur a l a nd pr obabl e e f

f e c tof [ M i ntm i r e ’ s ] c onduc tw oul d be the i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th the due a d m in is tr a tio n o f

ju s tic e .” Se e , e . g. , U

ni te d State s v . T

hom as , 916 F . 2d 647, 651 16 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( di sc ussi ng anal og ou s e l em ent s of 18 U . S . C . § 1 50 3). In thi s c as e, w e have no h es i t at i on i n con cl ud i ng thatthe j ury w as pres ent ed w i th a m pl e e vi de nc e f

r om w hi c h i tc oul d f

i nd tha tM i ntm i r e vi ol a t e d § 1512( c ) ( 2) by att em pt i ng t o o bstructa gra nd j ury i nv es t i gat i on . A s t o the fi rs tel em ent , there37

i s no d i sput e thatan “ offi ci al proceedi ng ” a s def i ned b y the st atut e w as i nd ee d un derw ay . A s t o the se cond and thi rd el em ent s, subst ant i al evi dence w as pres ent ed fr om w hi ch a j ury c ou l d i nferthatM i nt m i re “ engaged i n con du ctw hi ch const i tut ed a s ub st ant i al st ep t ow ar d the com m i ss i on of the cr i m e of obstruct i on of an offi ci al proceedi ng ” a nd thatM i nt m i re ac t ed “ corrup t l y. ” T he evi dence before the j ury sugg es t ed thatfr om the m om entK evi n B el l w as subp oenaed, M i nt m i re control l ed hi s part i ci pat i on i n the grand j ury proce edi ng s. A s partof M i nt m i re ’ s i ni t i al cont ac tw i th B el l re gardi ng hi s gra nd j ury s ub po ena, M i nt m i re cr ea t ed doc um e nt a t i on tha tm a de i tappe a rtha tB e l l ha d gi ve n M i ntm i r e the na m e a nd n u m b e ro f

a tto rn e y L o g u e . I n r e a lity , h o w e v e r , B e ll te s tif ie d th a t M in tm ir e to ld h im th a t h e h a d r e c e iv e d a g r a n d ju ry s u b p o e n a d ir e c te d to B e ll a n d th a t h e w o u ld have som eone (L og ue) e xp l ai n i tt o h i m . B el l ’ s ver si on of the event s w as c o n s is te n t w ith u n c o n tr o v e r te d e v id e n c e th a t ( 1 ) M in tm ir e h a d r e f e rr e d m a tte r s to L og ue i n the past , i ncl ud i ng the m att eri nv ol vi ng M cG ow an w ho w as subp oenaed i n the S E C i nve s t i ga t i on, a nd ( 2) M i ntm i r e a nd L ogue ha d know n e a c h othe rf or o v e rf if te e n y e a r s . E v id e n c e w a s a ls o p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l th a t M in tm ir e a tte m p te d to o r c h e s tr a te B e ll’s te s tim o n y to th e g r a n d ju ry . M in tm ir e s e n t n o te s to L o g u e s o th a t h e c o u ld

“ c oa c h” B e l l a c c or di ng t o M i ntm i r e ’ s ve r s i on of e ve nt s , butB e l l m a de c l e a rtha theThe jury also had evidencebefore it that many Clements shareholders had be en listed as 17 shareholders for

Fundae Corporation including B . Be ll, Davies, AnneMarie F ourdan, Merbac k, and Watson. 38 w a s una w a r e of

the f ol l ow i ng e ve nt s : ( 1) a tone poi nthe ha d ow ne d f i ve m i l l i on s ha r e s of C l e m e nt s s t oc k; ( 2) m i l l i ons of “ B e l l ’ s ” s ha r e s ha d be e n “ c a nc e l l e d; ” a nd (3) he w as an offi ce r a nd di re ct or of C l em ent s. B el l al so kn ew no thi ng abou tan 17 agre em entbetw ee n L uci d C on ce pt s, Inc. and C l em ent s C i trus S al es of F l ori da, w h e r e b y th e la tte r ’s s h a r e s w e r e a c q u ir e d b y L u c id - a n a g r e e m e n t o s te n s ib ly si gn ed by B el l w i th M i nt m i re ac t i ng as the i ss uer. M oreover, the j ury had evi dence b e f o r e it th a t, in s ta r k c o n tr a s t to M in tm ir e ’s a tte m p ts th r o u g h L o g u e to c o a c h B e ll, M in tm ir e r e p r e s e n te d to N A S D ( d u r in g its in q u iry c o n c e rn in g th e C le m e n ts ap p l i cat i o n ) th at : (1 ) fi v e m i l l i o n sh ares h ad b een tran sferred t o K ev i n B el l b y a p e r s o n n a m e d X a io - F e i D a v is ; a n d ( 2 ) B e ll w a s a n o f f ic e ra n d d ir e c to ro f

L u c id ( f /k/ a C l e m e nt s ) . K e vi n B e l l t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l tha the di d notr e c ogni z e the na m e of the “ C hi ne s e ” guy . T he j ury a l s o w a s pr e s e nt e d w i th M i ntm i r e ’ s s w orn de pos i t i on before the S E C , w hi ch cont ai ned n um er ou s m i sr epre se nt at i on s thatw er e di sput ed by w i tness es attri al , i ncl ud i ng thatm on i es gi ven t o the no m i nee s hare ho l ders w er e

“ l oans” a nd thatthe shar ehol ders w er e a w ar e of thatfa ct . T hi s e vi dence gi ves cont extt o M i nt m i re ’ s r ec orded con vers at i on s w i th B el l : for e xam pl e, w hen39

M i n tmi r e “ r e mi n d s ” Be l l th a tth e mo n e y w a s f o r“ f e e s ” M i n tmi r e a s k s h i m,

“ [W ] hatdi d I t el l you abo utthat ? ” A d d itio n a lly , d e s p ite th e te s tim o n y a d v a n c e d b y M in tm ir e ’s le g a l e x p e r t, J os e f s be r g, tha ta f

a the rha s a r i ght , e ve n a m or a l obl i ga t i on, t o s hi e l d hi s s on, the j ury c ou l d i nferthatM i nt m i re had i gn ob l y e m broi l ed hi s s on i n h i s m i sc on du ct . It i s i m po ss i bl e t o j ust i fy M i nt m i re ’ s s ug gest i on t o B el l - a nd throu gh B el l t o o ther po t ent i al w i tness es - thatthey kee p M i nt m i re ’ s s on “ ou tof i tt o the ext entthatthey ca n. ” M i nt m i re kn ew thathi s s on had recrui t ed a num ber of unsop hi st i ca t ed

“ i nve s t or s ” t o s e r ve a s nom i ne e s ha r e hol de r s , pa y i ng the m t o s i gn doc um e nt s a nd to h a v e th o s e d o c u m e n ts v e r if ie d b y v a r io u s b a n k o f

f ic ia ls . M i nt m i re al so sugg es t ed thatB el l t el l the other s hare ho l ders thati tw as ac ce pt abl e f

or them t o t es t i fy thatal l they c ou l d rem em ber w as thatthey s i gn ed do cum ent s. W hi l e bef

ore the S E C , M i nt m i re had d es cr i bed som e of these no m i nee s ha r e hol de r s t o be i ndi vi dua l s w ho w e r e notope r a t i ng a s a gr oup a nd w ho e xe r c i s e d i nde pe nde ntj udgm e nt . T o the c ontr a ry , the r e w a s m or e tha n s uf f i c i e nt evi dence t o ref

ut e M i nt m i re ’ s r epre se nt at i on and t o sho w thatM i nt m i re control l ed thei r s hare s. B y a tt em pt i ng t o p er suade B el l t o t el l the shar ehol ders thatthey m er el y had si gn ed do cum ent s, and h ad re l i ed on hi m i n d oi ng so, M i nt m i re w asAs noted ea rlier, a fter theclose of all the evidence , the district court rule d that the jury 18 would only

be per mitted to decide if Mintmire conspire d with L ogue and no oneelse. 40 a tte m p tin g to c o n c e a l th e tru th f r o m th e g r a n d ju ry , i . e. , h is s o n w a s h e a v ily in v o lv e d in th e illic it c o n d u c t. T he above a m pl e e vi de nc e a nd othe re vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l a l l ow e d the j u ry t o c o n c l u d e th a tM i n tmi r e w a s c o mmi tt i n g s u b s t a n t i a l s t e p s t o w a r d th e c r i me of obs truc t i on, a c t i ng c orrupt l y , a nd tha tthe pr obabl e r e s ul tof hi s a c t i ons w oul d be w ith h o ld in g in f

o r m a tio n f

r o m , o rp u ttin g m is in f

o r m a tio n b e f

o r e , th e g r a n d ju ry . A c c or di ngl y , the j ury ’ s ve r di c ta s t o C ountO ne tha tM i ntm i r e i nt e r f e r e d w i th the d u e a d m in is tr a tio n o f

ju s tic e is a m p ly s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d . T hi s s a m e r e a s oni ng appl i e s t o M i ntm i r e ’ s a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng C ount T h r e e ’s c h a r g e o f

c o n s p ir a c y to o b s tru c t th e S E C p r o c e e d in g w ith L o g u e . W ith 18
r e s p e c t to th a t c o u n t, th e c o u r t in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d to p r o v e : ( 1 ) M in tm ir e a n d L o g u e c a m e to a m u tu a l u n d e r s ta n d in g to try to a c c om pl i s h a n unl a w f

ul pl a n, i n thi s c a s e , t o c orrupt l y obs truc t , i nf l ue nc e a nd i m pe de ore nde a vort o obs truc t , the S E C pr oc e e di ng; ( 2) tha tM i ntm i r e , know i ng the unl a w f

ul purpos e of

the pl a n, w i l l f

ul l y j oi ne d i n i t ; ( 3) tha tM i ntm i r e orL ogue kn ow i ng l y c om m i tt ed atl ea ston e overtac t ; and (4) thatthe ov ertac tw as c om m i tt e d a toraboutthe t i m e a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nti n a n e f f or tt o c onc e a l thePor tio ns of Mintmire ’sc ro ss- e xaminatio n o f s omeof thesh areho ldersc e ntere d o n th e ir 19 education and their purpor ted investment sophistication. In his closing, Mintmire madea paltry attempt to c onvin c ethejur

y that B e ll a

nd oth e rswereno t du

pe d b y him . 41 f a c t th a t th e s h a r e h o ld e r s in F u n d a e w e r e ju s t n o m in e e s a n d th a t M in tm ir e w a s in a c tu a l c o n tr o l o f

th e irs h a r e s . T he j ury w a s pr e s e nt e d w i th e vi de nc e tha te ve n pr i ort o the f or m a t i on of

the c o n s p ir a c y , M in tm ir e m a d e v a r io u s m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s to N A S D in r e s p o n s e to thei r i nq ui re s r egar di ng F un dae, i ncl ud i ng fa l se l y s t at i ng thatthe i nv es t ors w er e: (1) kno w n t o the di re ct or of the com pany; (2) s op hi st i ca t ed; and (3) had “t ot al 19
ac ce ss t o al l com pany re cords pri or t o i nv es t i ng . ” L at er , af t erN A S D di sc ov er ed thatsom e of the shar ehol ders for F un dae a l so appeare d as s hare ho l ders “ w i th o ther c o mp a n i e s th a ti n v o l v e D o n a l d F. M i n tmi r e a n d M a r [ k ] M i n tmi r e , ” a n d N A SD i nq ui re d i f tho se shar ehol ders w er e operat i ng as a group , M i nt m i re re pres ent ed that

“ these i nv es t ors do n otac tas a group , ar e notac t i ng as a group and m ake a n i nd i vi du al j ud gem enton ea ch part i cul arcom pany t o w hi ch they a re i ntrodu ce d. ” M i nt m i re had al so re pres ent ed thatno on e butthe shar ehol ders on the l i sthad di sposi t i ve control of the com pany. T hese re pres ent at i on s, of course , w er e co n trary t o th e o v erw h el m i n g ev i d en ce th atth e sh areh o l d ers w ere n o m i n ees w h o se a c q u is itio n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f s to c k w a s to ta lly c o n tr o lle d b y M in tm ir e .42

M or e ove r , de s pi t e hi s c r i t i c a l r ol e i n r e c rui t i ng a nd or ga ni z i ng the shar ehol ders , M ark M i nt m i re w as no tm ent i on ed atal l i n the N A S D re spon se s prov i ded b y M i nt m i re . In re spon se t o a N A S D i nq ui ry re qu es t i ng thatM i nt m i re

“ de s c r i be a l l r e l a t i ons hi ps ora f f i l i a t i ons e xi s t i ng a m ong a nd be tw e e n the s ha r e hol de r s , ” M i ntm i r e onl y di s c us s e d the r e l a t i ons hi ps be tw e e n the F l or i da s ha r e hol de r s , a nd di d notm e nt i on e i the rthe A t l a nt a s ha r e hol de r s , ortha thi s s on, M ark M i n tm i re, recru i t ed al l th o se sh areh o l d ers. A gai nstthe backdrop of tho se m i sr epre se nt at i on s, the j ury l ea rned thatM ary C atheri ne M cG ow an re ce i ved a subp oena t o t es t i fy before the S E C , and that M in tm ir e r e ta in e d a tto rn e y L o g u e to r e p r e s e n t h e rin th o s e p r o c e e d in g s a n d p a id for herl egal bi l l . W hen M cG ow an appeare d b ef ore the S E C i n o rdert o g i ve her s w o rn s ta te m e n t w ith L o g u e a s h e rc o u n s e l, L o g u e o b je c te d ( a lle g e d ly p u r s u a n t to h is in te rp r e ta tio n o f

th e s u b p o e n a ) to M c G o w a n p r o d u c in g d o c u m e n ts r e la tin g to any e nt i t i es other than F un dae des pi t e the subp oena’ s i ncl usi on of other l i st ed c om pa ni e s . A l though L ogue r e m e m be r e d tha tM c G ow a n c ont a c t e d hi m a f t e rthe depo si t i on and t ol d h i m thatshe c ou l d n otfi nd addi t i on al do cum ent s, M cG ow an t es t i fi ed t o the di re ctop po si t e; thati s, thatshe had cal l ed L og ue and t ol d h i m that she had foun d add i t i on al do cum ent s. L i kew i se , L og ue t es t i fi ed thatas he w as

“ p r e tty g o o d ” ab o u tr e tu rn i n g p h o n e c a l l s , h e wa s c e r t a i n h e h a d c a l l e d SE CAt trial, Mintmire’s leg al expert ac knowledg ed the discrepancy in the testimony , and 20 whilehisop ini on

wa s th at L oguehad don eno thingwrong , h ea dmitte d th at th ejur y would decidewhom to believe. Thejury thus properly

weighed L ogue’s testimony ag ainst the testimony of McGow an and SEC counse l, and its verdict indicate s it found the latter witnesse s cre dible. 43 co u n sel an d i n fo rm ed h i m th atM cG o w an co u l d n o tfi n d an y ad d i t i o n al d o cu m en t s. A ga i n, thi s t e s t i m ony w a s di a m e tr i c a l l y oppos e d t o tha tof S E C c ouns e l , w ho te s tif ie d th a t h e le f

t L o g u e m u ltip le m e s s a g e s a n d th a t L o g u e n e v e rr e tu rn e d h is c a lls . C o n trar y to M in tm ire’s a rg u m en t, th e d iscr ep an cies b etw ee n L o g u e’s t es t i m on y a nd the t es t i m on y of M cG ow an and S E C coun se l di d n otm er el y c on ce rn w hether L og ue gave go od advi ce , or w hether the S E C w as suff i ci ent l y a gg re ss i ve. R ather, the cr edi bi l i ty s ho w do w n re l at ed al so t o w hether L og ue del i bera t el y tri ed 20 t o hi de i nf

or m a t i on f

r om the S E C . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , be c a us e of

the i nt e rr e l a t i on a m ong the shar ehol ders and h i s pre vi ou s m i sr epre se nt at i on s, M i nt m i re had reas on t o fea r the i nv es t i gat i on w ou l d u ncov erfa ct s s ho w i ng thatthe no m i nee s hare ho l ders had be e n dupe d i nt o unw i tt i ngl y pa r t i c i pa t i ng i n m ul t i pl e c orpor a t i ons w hos e s t oc k he c o n tr o lle d . M in tm ir e a ls o m a k e s m u c h o f th e f a c t th a t h e , a n d s o m e tim e s L o g u e , to ld som e of the shar ehol ders t o “ t el l the truth. ” B utthe “ truth” w as nece ss ar i l y l i m i t ed t o the i nf or m a t i on s uppl i e d by M i ntm i r e a nd hi s s on ( a nd l a t e rL ogue ) t o the44

n o m i n e e s h a r e h o l d e r s d u r i n g th e c o u r s e o f th e s c h e m e . T h a twa s v e ry l i tt l e . Of course , w e m ustre sol ve al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s, and the j ury’ s c re di bi l i ty c ho i ce s in f a v o ro f th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. U

n ite d S ta te s v . G u

p ta , 463 F . 3d 1182, 1193–94 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h is is n o t a c lo s e c a ll. T h e e v id e n c e w a s a m p le a n d e a s ily suff i ci entt o sup po rtM i nt m i re ’ s c on vi ct i on on C ou nt s O ne and T hree . B . J u ry In stru cti o n s. W e r e vi e w the l e ga l c orr e c tne s s of a j ury i ns truc t i on de nov o butde f e rt o the d is tr ic t c o u r t o n q u e s tio n s o f p h r a s in g ab s e n t a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. P rather , 20 5 F . 3d 12 65 , 12 70 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). D i stri ct c our t s ha ve br oa d di s c r e t i on i n f or m ul a t i ng j ury i ns truc t i ons , s o l ong a s the c ha r ge a s a w h o le a c c u r a te ly r e f le c ts th e la w a n d th e f

a c ts . I d
. W e w i l l no tre vers e a conv i ct i on on the basi s of aj ury c harge unl es s “ the i ss ues of l aw w er e pre se nt ed i nacc urat el y, or the charge i m prop er l y gui ded the j ury i n such a subst ant i al w ay as t o v i ol at e due process . ” I d
. (quo t at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). M i nt m i re ar gu es thatbecause C ou nt s O ne and T hree bo th i nv ol ved att orney c o n d u c t, h e w a s e n title d to th e b e n e f it o f th e s a f e h a rb o rp r o v is io n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 1 5 ( c ) ( “T h is c h ap te rd o e s n o t p r o h ib it o rp u n is h th e p r o v id in g o f la w f u l, bona f i de , l egal re pres ent at i on se rvi ce s i n con nect i on w i th o r a nt i ci pat i on of an offi ci al p r o c e e d in g .” ) . M in tm ir e a r g u e d h e w a s a c tin g a s a n a tto rn e y in h is45

c o m m u n i c a t i o n s wi th Ke v i n B e l l ( C o u n tOn e ) a n d Ke i th L o g u e ( C o u n tT h r e e ) . He a ls o a s s e r ts th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t’s in s tru c tio n ab o u t th e s ta tu to ry s a f e h a rb o rw a s in error f or tw o rea sons: (1) i m prop er l y a sked the j ury t o d ec i de i f he a nd L og ue w er e act i n g as l aw yers an d th erefo re treat ed S ect i o n 1 5 1 5 (c) as an affi rm at i v e d efen se ( a s oppos e d t o a n e l e m e nt ) of C ount s O ne a nd T hr e e ; a nd ( 2) f a i l e d t o s e tf

or th the s t a nda r d by w hi c h t o j udge the a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e , a nd i m pr ope r l y s hi f t e d the bu rden of proo f t o M i nt m i re . W e di sa gree . W e f i nd ourpr e c e de nte s t abl i s he s tha tS e c t i on 1515( c ) i s a n a f f i r m a t i ve d e f e n s e , n o t a n e le m e n t o f

th e c r im e s o f

w h ic h M in tm ir e w a s c o n v ic te d . See U n i ted S ta tes v. Klo ess , 2 5 1 F .3 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 7

– 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W ith r e s p e c t to the avai l abi l i ty of S ec t i on 15 15 (c ) a s adefe nse, the di stri ctcourti nstruct ed the j ury as fo l l o w s: T he l aw prov i des acom pl et e def ense com m on l y r ef

erre d t o as a n a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e t o the of

f e ns e s c ha r ge d i n C ount s 1 a nd 3 of the i nd i ctm entbecause one w ho i s per form i ng bo na fi de l egal r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s d o e s n o t h a v e a n im p r o p e rp u rp o s e . H is p u rp o s e to z e a lo u s ly r e p r e s e n t h is c lie n t is f u lly p r o te c te d b y th e la w . If yo u fi n d th atth e d efen d an tp ro v i d ed l eg al rep resen t at i o n serv i ces, i n c onne c t i on w i th the c ha r ge d c onduc ti n C ount s 1 or3, a nd the de f e nda ntw a s pr ovi di ng l a w f ul , bona f

i de l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on se rvi ce s i n con nect i on w i th o r i n ant i ci pat i on of an offi ci al p ro ceed i n g , th ati s, a g ran d j u ry o r S E C i n v est i g at i o n , th en yo u m u st f i nd the de f

e nda ntnotgui l ty . I n or de rt o f i nd the de f

e nda ntgui l ty , the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove a l l of the e l e m e nt s be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt a s I o r ig in a lly r e a d to y o u a s to C o u n ts 1 a n d 3 .46

I f y o u f in d th e d e f

e n d a n t p r o v id e d le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s , in c onne c t i on w i th the c ha r ge d c onduc ti n C ount s 1 or3, the gove rnm e nt m us ta l s o pr ove be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tthe de f e nda ntw a s not pr ovi di ng l a w f

ul , bona f

i de l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on s e rvi c e s i n c onne c t i on w ith o ra n tic ip a tio n o f

a n o f f ic ia l p r o c e e d in g . K ei th L og ue i s nam ed as a c ocon spi ra t or i n C ou nt3. If you fi nd that K e ith L o g u e p r o v id e d le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith the c ha r ge d c onduc ti n C ount3, a nd K e i th L ogue w a s pr ovi di ng la w f u l, b o n a f

id e le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s e r v ic e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith o rin a nt i c i pa t i on of

a n of f i c i a l pr oc e e di ng, the n y ou m us tf i nd the de f e nda ntnotgui l ty . I n or de rt o f i nd the de f

e nda ntgui l ty , the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove a l l of the e l e m e nt s be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt a s I or i gi na l l y r e a d a s t o C ount s 1 a nd 3. I f y ou f i nd tha tK e i th L ogue prov i ded l egal re pres ent at i on se rvi ce s, i n con nect i on w i th the charged c onduc ti n C ount3, the gove rnm e ntm us ta l s o pr ove be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tK e i th L ogue w a s notpr ovi di ng l a w f ul , bona f i de l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on s e r vi c e s i n c onne c t i on w i th ori n a nt i c i pa t i on of a n of f i c i a l pr oc e e di ng. A r e vi e w of

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j ury i ns truc t i ons m a de c l e a rtha tthe G ove rnm e ntw a s r e qui r e d t o pr ove e a c h e l e m e ntof C ount s O ne a nd T hr e e be y ond a r ea sonabl e dou btbefore the j ury c ou l d con vi ctM i nt m i re . T hu s, the j ury w as in s tru c te d to c o n s id e rw h e th e ro rn o t th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d d is p r o v e d th is a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. B e c a u s e th e ju ry w a s u ltim a te ly gi ve n the pr ope rs t a nda r d by w hi c h t o w e i gh the e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the a f f i r m a t i ve defe nse, any e rr or i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nstruct i on s on sec t i on 15 15 (c ) w as h a r m le s s a n d d id n o t “im p r o p e r ly g u id e [ ] th e ju ry in s u c h a s u b s ta n tia l w a y a s toTo be sure , thereis a serious question about whether Mintmire even made a minimal 21 s h o wi n g th ath e w as p er fo rm i n g bona fide leg al representation in connection with this matter. AsMintmire ’sc ouns e l c on c e de d at oral argument, to t hee xtent Mintmirewa s re taine d to represent the c orporation, he retained himself to do so. Although Jose fsbergwa s allo we d tote sti fy a s a n e xpe rt , h ewa s n ot t e sti fy ingin t hisc a se as a f act witness. Josefsberg ’s role w as limited to helping the jury interpret any

such evidence that was introduce d and g iving a n opinion as to whether such service s were“lawf ul, bona fide, le g al repre sentatio n s e rv ic e s in c onne c tio n w ithor

anti c ipatio n o f a

n o ff ic ial proc e e ding .”Thus , Jose fsbergc ould n ot p ro videany fac tual ba sisfo r M intmire ’sa ssertion that hewa s ac tinga s a lawyer in c onnection with the matter at issue and Mintmire did not (and c ould not) introduce evidenc e through J osefsbergto provide a f actual basis for the proposition that he wa s “providing leg al representation service s,” a prere quisite for the a pplication of 18 U.S.C. § 1515(c)’ s safe harbor provision. 47 vi ol at e due process . ” U ni ted Stat es v. P rather , 20 5 F . 3d 12 65 , 12 70 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). 21 C . P reju d i ci al S p i l l ov er . T h is c o u r t s e t o u t th e p r o c e s s f o re v a lu a tin g c la im s o f

p r e ju d ic ia l s p illo v e rin U n i ted S ta tes v. P ro sp eri , 20 1 F . 3d 13 35 (11th C i r. 20 00 ): In eval uat i ng cl ai m s of pre j ud i ci al spi l l ov er , w e c on si der s ever al fa cto rs th at w o u ldin d icate w h eth erp re ju d ice tain ted th e ju ry ’s ve r di c t . F i r s t , w e c ons i de rw he the rthe j ury m e t i c ul ous l y s i f t e d the e v id e n c e a d m itte d f

o ra ll c o u n ts . Se e U

ni te d State s v . Mi r anda , 197 F .3 d 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Ste f an , 78 4 F . 2d 10 93 , 11 01 (11th C i r. 19 86 ). R el evantt o thi s i nq ui ry i s th e si m i l ari ty o f th e ev i d en ce i n tro d u ced fo r th e sep arat e co u n t s: d is tin c t e v id e n c e is le s s lik e ly to r e s u lt in p r e ju d ic ia l s p illo v e r . See [ U ni ted Stat es v. ] P e lu llo , 1 4 F .3 d [ 8 8 1 ,] 8 9 8 [ ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ]. A di sc ri m i nat i ng ac qu i tt al al so ca n si gn al thatthe j ury w as abl e t o si ft th r o u g h th e e v id e n c e p r o p e r ly . Se e U ni te d State s v . E as on , 920 F . 2d 7 3 1 , 7 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 0 ) ; s e e a ls o P e lu llo , 14 F . 3d a t899. S e c ond, w e e x a m in e w h e th e rth e c o n te s te d e v id e n c e w a s in f la m m a to ry in n a tu r e , a n d th u s liab le to p r e ju d ic e th e ju ry . See [ U

.S
. v .] R oo ney , 37 F . 3d [847 , ] [] 85 5 [(2d C i r. 19 94 )] . T hi rd, w e c on si der w hether48

ad m issio n o f th e o th erev id en ce sig n ifican tl y a lt er ed th e d ef en d an t’ s tr ia l s tr a te g y . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . I

v ic , 70 0 F . 2d 51 , 65 (2d C i r. 1983) . F i na l l y , w e a s s e s s the s tr e ngth of the e vi de nc e a ga i ns tthe d e f e n d a n t o n th e r e m a in in g c o u n ts . See R oo ney , 37 F . 3d a t856. I d
. at13 46 . W e f

i nd thatthe G ov ernm enti ntrodu ce d d i st i nct , adm i ss i bl e e vi dence s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n M i ntm i r e ’ s c onvi c t i ons on both c ount s . M or e ove r , w e f i nd no m er i ti n M i nt m i re ’ s argum entthathe w ou l d h ave s ub st ant i al l y a l t er ed hi s tri al s tr a t e g y i f

C o u n t s T wo a n d T h r e e we r e s e v e r e d f r o m C o u n tOn e . T h e r e f o r e , we c onc l ude tha tM i ntm i r e ’ s c onvi c t i ons a r e nott a i nt e d by pr e j udi c i a l s pi l l ove ra nd s houl d be a f

f i r m e d. I I I . CONCL US I ON F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f

o r th ab o v e , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.