Jean E. Allan309 Waukewan Road

Center Harbor, NH 03226603-279-6425

jea@metrocast.net

January 9, 2009

[Sent as attached document via e-mail]

Mr. David Kotz – Inspector GeneralOffice of Inspector GeneralU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Civil Rights & Civil Liberties ComplaintsOffice of the Inspector GeneralU.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Room 4706Washington, D.C. 20530

RE: Issues to include in sweeping review of SEC Investigations practices and procedures.

Dear Inspector Generals:

Please consider this a follow-up communication to my last letter addressed to Natasha Dandridge and dated 12/29/08. I was prompted to write this case history letter after spending this afternoon listening to the Congressional Hearings that were Chaired by Congressman Kanjorski’s Capital Markets Sub-Committee. In his opening statement Congressman Kanjorski said the purpose of the hearing was that Congress needed to understand “How Bernard Madoff, did it!” The rest of the Committee members to a one cited ‘loss of confidence’ in the capital markets as their major issue of concern.

Also, at the hearing OIG Kotz promised that he would look at ‘all the tips’. There was also a statement alluding to the issue of possibly more regulation if warranted. With respect to that statement, I would point to the herein case study. In this Darwinian world of global capitalism there will always be predators and prey; and neither, more legislation, nor, regulation will succeed in instilling moral integrity into the predator; nor knowledge and investment savvy into the prey.

Since the breaking of the Glass Steagal barrier the concept of ‘investing’ which by definition contains a risk element, and the concept of ‘saving’, which by current law and regulation should be protected from risk, have been blurred. Mr. Goldstein, the only victim witness at the hearing was under the impression that SIPIC was a better insurance policy than the FDIC as it’s statements of assurances would return up to $500,000 of his principal. Mr. Goldstein is not alone in this misconception.

1

As I understand the object lesson of this ‘sweeping review’, it is to first determine how Bernard Madoff ‘Did it’, and then to consider internal issues within the SEC as to how better to detect the ‘predators’ while at the same time better educating the ‘prey’.

The following personal case study is my contribution to this ‘review’. My purpose herein is to lay- out facts and findings already in evidence via documents and affidavit testimony with respect to what I have found to be prior related schemes in which I was the equal opportunity target, and where the internal policies and procedures of the SEC and DOJ failed.

The front man of the segment of the organized global capital financial scheme that targeted American insurance industries was Alan Teale. By 1994, Alan Teale had been indicted and died in prison. However, the legacy of his ‘networking or pyramid scheme’ appears to have survived and lives on in the name of Bernard Madoff, and the many ‘feeder firms’.

NOTE: The case study below has been written in narrative form for ease of reading and comprehension. The supporting documents to these summary statements are available in case records in several Federal and State Courts; along with other documentation that should exist in the files of the US DOJ, SEC, FBI, Department of State and FDIC. And, copies of this documentation are in safe keeping in case any of the heretofore-mentioned files have been purged, or other wise cannot be located.

NASD Direct Participation Broker Dealer

In 1983, after being a real estate broker, I decided to widen my business opportunities by becoming a licensed NASD Direct Participation Broker Dealer. I incorporated a separate NASD DPP Broker Dealer company named INAMAN. It was a wholly owned subsidiary of my primary real estate company, Business Assets Management, Inc., located on High Street, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. By late 1983, INAMAN was opened for business.

INAMAN’S first client was a former business associate and client of mine. I had just completed a construction management contract for his company, Business Helicopters. The job entailed the design, permitting and construction of a private corporate aviation complex, named Flight One, at the Manchester Airport, Londonderry, New Hampshire.

My client’s request was that I perform due diligence on a real estate limited partnership offering by a company called Blondheim. Mr. David Williams was the principal general partner and Raymond Nolan was a minority partner in the general partnership. My client told me that several of his business associates had purchased limited partnerships for one hundred thousand dollars each. He was considering doing the same.

Shortly after I began my due diligence analysis, I recognized the offering to be a Ponzi scheme. [A complete description of the scheme and the schemers can be found in USA v David Williams/Blondheim. Several cases were tried in both US District Court in New Hampshire and New Hampshire Superior Courts. Mr. Williams was convicted and sentenced for 15 years. Many of my client’s business associates suffered financial losses. The authorities assured me that my role a ‘whistle-blower’ in uncovering the Blondheim Ponzi scheme would be protected. For

2

whatever reasons, it was not, and I became a target of the organized criminals that had been backing the scheme. This case study is a cautionary tail for all ‘whistle-blowers’.]

One of the reasons that I could easily spot the Blondheim Ponzi scheme was that the properties involved were local and I could personally view the real estate assets. Subsequent to my discovering the Blondheim Ponzi scheme, I began a more careful due diligence on all the other Prospectuses that my office received and notice too many similarities to make me comfortable in many recommendations, if any. One of the bothersome issues was the way the Partnerships were being financed. So I continued to concentrate on my primary real estate consulting and sale’s business.

Sometime in late 1985 a lawyer - whom I now know to have represented several clients that were stung by the Blondheim bust - said he wanted to list a client’s property with me. He said it was a development opportunity, and additionally gave me a list of potential developers. I took the listing. [The property was located in North Woodstock, New Hampshire, and has later become known as the High Birches Mountain Spring Water property, which is the central asset of all of my subsequent complaints to SEC, USDOJ, FDIC and Department of State, among several State authorities, as well as a multitude of civil actions.]

After listing the property I contacted the potential developer buyers whom were on the proffered list. One of the contacts was a Reginald P. Danboise [Danboise], a dentist by profession, but with a construction and development business on the side. His associate was the same Raymond Nolan [Nolan] from the Blondheim case. By that time the authorities had exonerated Nolan as a cooperative and innocent party; or so I was led to believe at that time.

In any event Nolan assured me that Danboise was an interest buyer in the No. Woodstock parcel and that he was a legitimate developer. I was taken to several prior sold out residential projects as an offer of proof. Danboise agreed to put an option on the No. Woodstock land, if my company Business Assets Management, Inc. [BAM] agreed to partner with him during the permitting process. David Gottesman was the lawyer for the partnership. It was agreed that the partnership would dissolve after the permitting process was completed.

However, by early 1986 it became apparent that the property, which by then was an asset owned by Senter Cove Development Co., Inc., was also a marital asset; and, Danboise determined, as was his right in the agreement, to buy my company out of the partnership, which he did. BAM contracted to continue to complete the permitting process for an equity position in the project. Soon after Danboise gained sole possession he gave a first mortgage to Plymouth Guaranty Bank, Plymouth, New Hampshire. The primary shareholder of Plymouth Guaranty Bank was Milo Pike, a former employer of mine. (I had quit my employment at his company Pike Industries, Inc. in 1980, due to sexual harassment issues. I did not bring formal charges at that time. However at the same time I quit, Milo Pike had been indicted on bid rigging charges. I am of the opinion and belief based upon verbal communications that Milo and others in the company, to include his then in-house counsel Edward Fitzgerald, that they believed and were acting upon the suspicion that it was I who blew the whistle on the bid rigging.) Unbeknownst to me until years later, Milo and his associates had incurred financial losses in the Blondheim bust. By mid-1986 it was public knowledge that I had been the Blondheim whistle-blower. A decade

3

later I learned that Danboise had also been a close associate of the Blondheim Ponzi schemers, but that information came too late to change my fate in 1986.

Shortly after the first Plymouth Guaranty mortgage was in place, Danboise informed me that he and his wife/ business partner Bonnie were getting a divorce. They had agreed to sell all their business assets as part of their financial settlement. BAM was offered 100% of the stock of the Senter Cove Development Co. Inc. [Senter] that was the sole owner of the property in No. Woodstock, which by now was almost completely permitted and valued at $5.2 million.

My business attorneys, McLane Graf Law Offices, refused to represent BAM in the purchase of Senter, and in fact dumped me as a client without any explanation. Attorney William Shaheen agreed to represent BAM at the stock purchase closing. [A decade later I had reason to believe that Attorney Shaheen had a conflict, which he never revealed to me at the time of the sale. His legal services were compromised.] However, the stock of Senter was purchased in March 1987 for $150,000 cash and note and the assumption of the first mortgage and contractor fees. BAM had several offers in hand to purchase the permitted project, which by that time was called High Birches, prior to purchasing the stock of Senter. Contractually the Danboises’ were to remain on the Plymouth Guaranty first mortgage until such time the project was either sold or refinanced.

Within weeks Plymouth Guaranty reneged on its commitment to fund the bond for the road permits, and in fact, made a demand call on the first mortgage. BAM needed to replace the first mortgage financing quickly. Stephen Oakes, of Oakes Financial, who offered to refinance the Plymouth Guaranty first mortgage including additional funds that would allow the permitting process to be finalized, approached BAM. The new loan was for $1.56 million. [Again unbeknownst to me Oakes was a front for Richard A. Cabral; another Blondheim Ponzi schemer that had suffered financial loses after I blew the whistle on the Blondheim Ponzi scheme. I found out a decade later that Cabral was also a partner with the attorney who listed the No. Woodstock land with me in the first place. Also a decade or so later I was informed that the Patriarch Crime family had a interest in the Blondheim Ponzi scheme. It is public hearsay that the New Hampshire ‘crime family’ representative was a client of the Shaheen Gordon Law Offices: A clear conflict of interest.]

Finally in August 1988 the all the necessary permits had been granted to complete the construction of the High Birches real estate development project. The permits included, among others, water and sewer. The water permit gave permission to draw up to 500,000 gallons of water per/day to satisfy the needs of the permitted real estate development, which had anticipated the construction of a condominium hotel and up to 400 residential dwellings. No more than three days later, an abutter made a legal claim for 58 of the 120-acre property. Upon further investigation by my then lawyers, Merrill & Broderick, after filing a Petition to Quiet Title, it was agreed that the abutter’s claim was valid.

The High Birches real estate development project was ruined. The lawsuits began. The clear solution was for Senter to purchase the out parcel that had been claimed by the abutter, while at the same time, it prepared to sue the surveyors and engineers. The out parcel was purchased on September 11, 1989. However, unbeknownst to BAM, Senter, and me, in October 1989, the engineers and certain corporate creditors and corporate lawyers Devine Millimet Stahl and

4

Branch along with litigation lawyers Shaheen Gordon conspired among themselves. In one instance Shaheen Gordon failed to show up for court hearing against the first mortgagee, Cabral. And, in another matter Shaheen Gordon allowed a Devine Millimet lawyer to file an illegal agreement with the second mortgagee, BankEast. The BankEast agreement was recorded in several New Hampshire Registry of Deeds.

At the same time, Devine Millimet continued to represent BAM, Senter and me in an effort to either refinance or sell the stock of Senter Cove. In the refinancing effort Devine introduced me to a finance company allegedly owned by Mr. John Iuele. Mr. Iuele assured me that he could get refinancing for me with several insurance companies and perhaps even Drexel Burham Lambert (sic – error in draft named EF Hutton). For several months Mr. Iuele met with me and called me with respect to his progress. At one time I was instructed to bring all the permitted documents to a business, which I did. [Years later I found that the business was affiliated with the Blondheim Ponzi schemers. In fact, years later I discovered that John Iuele was really Whitey Bulger, the crime boss of the Winter Hill Gang, and top echelon informant for the FBI.]

While I was still working with John Iuele he introduced me to, and I played tennis with John Iuele, and a man named Gus, whom I now have reason to believe was Cadillac Frank Silemmi, a Capo of the Patriarca crime family and Blondheim Ponzi schemer. Shortly after giving John Iuele $6,000 for processing fees for the refinancing, and after getting a highly likely to finance letter from Drexel Burham Lambert, John Iuele disappeared leaving me with a caution that I was in harms way. I immediately filed complaints with the New Hampshire Attorney General. To my knowledge there was no investigation. I did not recognize the true identity of John Iuele until 1995 shortly before his trial in absentia in US District Court, Massachusetts.]

After the Iuele financing fell through, Devine Millimet introduced me to another client, Martyn Redman. At first Mr. Redman claimed to be representing a company that had major real estate holdings in Portugal. He was also affiliated with a financing group located in Garden City New York. The company was called Metro Funding and the principal was Benny Maniscalco. Redman also claimed to represent a company called Consolidated Funding. And, another called Parthenon.

After several false starts Mr. Redman finally settled on a purchase and sales agreement where the purchaser would be a company called First Equity Insurance Company and was headquartered in Dallas Texas. Devine Millimet was in the process of doing the legal work for the insurance company’s Form A requirements. As part of the purchase agreement First Equity pledged publicly traded stock from its capital surplus in the amount of one million dollars. Devine lawyers informed BAM that Merrill Lynch had verified the pledged stock in a company called ECOTECH as being valued at around one million dollars.

On or about February 1991, BAM, Senter and me, as guarantor, entered into superseding agreements with all the creditors, secured and unsecured, of the High Birches project. All creditors agreed upon a schedule of replacement assets in lieu of their existing mortgages. The terms of the Creditors’ Agreement was found to be satisfactory to First Equity. Devine Millimet represented First Equity and my companies and me personally in the sale.

5

By March 1991, it was clear that First Equity had defaulted. Mr. Redman had disappeared. In accordance with the purchase and sales agreement, I took the pledged ECOTECH stock to Merrill Lynch with instructions to sell it in traunches so as not to flood the market. I had been told the stock was lightly traded. The first traunch sold and the funds were earmarked for the creditor’s escrow account that was being held by Attorney Barton Solomon, brother of Karen McGinley.

A Mr. Miller, who had claimed to Devine Millimet that the stock had been stolen, stopped the second traunch sale of ECOTECH stock. Several conversations ensued between Devine lawyers and Mr. Miller who had also identified himself as an attorney. Merrill then informed me that the market had collapsed for the ECOTECH stock. I immediately filed a formal complaint with the Boston Office off the SEC. A Mr. Steve Cohen contacted me. He said he could not tell me what had happened, but perhaps I could guess. I guessed that the stock was a fraud. I had guessed correctly.

Blondheim Ponzi Schemers in Cahoots with Alan Teale

Robert Tillman in his book titled “Global Pirates” devoted an entire chapter to the “Alan Teale Empire”. In my search for links between Alan Teale and Martyn Redman I was not aware of the most direct link until I was subpoenaed to testify in USA v Rennert, [See following citings and trial excerpts] in September 1996 by the prosecutor, AUSA Andrea Faulkes. At no time did my attorney Devine Millimet, inform me of the connection, although there is reason to believe that lawyers in the firm were aware of the connection.]

Public records now show that both Martyn Redman and Alan Teale were British citizens. Considering the fact that Redman rented the ECHOTCH stock from known associates of Teale’s and Redman at one time told me that he knew Alan Teale. The link is solid. [In fact, AUSA Andrea Faulkes told me during an interview that one of the reasons I was subpoenaed in the first place was that my complaint named Alan Teale. This would suggest that my file had languished in the SEC records since my initial complaint in 1991. From 1991 until I was subpoenaed in 1996, I had not heard word one from the SEC with respect to my complaint. Also of note is the fact that initially I was subpoenaed as a subject of the Teale investigation and not a victim. It wasn’t until after I had been interviewed that AUSA Faulkes and the other investigators recognized that I was a true victim who had suffered a significant financial loss.]

The only public documents that appear to cover the Alan Teale global scheme that can be located are found in an article written by Douglas McLeod, in October 8, 2007, on Business Insurance.com. The article is titled: “High Rates, Tight Capacity Ingredients For Insurance Fraud”. McCleod began his report by writing that “Scam artists offering too-good-to-be-true coverage take advantage of lax regulation, cost-conscious buyers.” [This analysis, almost word for word, has been recently written about Mr. Madoff.]

McLeod goes on to write “The late Alan Teale [he was found dead in prison in 1994], a former London broker and president of the now-defunct Insurance Exchange of the Americas in Miami, managed scores of fly-by-night companies from a suburban Atlanta office until the early 1990s. All of the companies were incorporated in domiciles with light or no regulation, mostly Caribbean nations, but also Belgium and Ireland, which at the time did not regulate re-insurers.”

6

The article continues to point out that “To attract business, these companies needed to be able to show plausible financial statements to brokers, and Mr. Teale spent considerable time arranging these.” [Sounds eerily familiar with the testimony provided to the Committee today]. “U.S. Senate investigators and state regulators examining the companies found that their capital and surplus accounts variously included worthless penny stocks that were "rented" from securities swindlers and reported at grossly inflated values, along with Government National Mortgage Assn. securities that the insurers did not actually own.”

In 1991, McLeod reported “Senator Sam Nunn chaired a series of hearing with respect to Alan Teale like frauds that had been plaguing the insurance industry. Those hearings uncovered a “vast network of white color criminals whose operations were global in nature, and whose activities went far beyond insurance to include crimes committed in the securities and banking industries”.” It is truly a shame that the trail, while hot, was not followed into those other industries. Instead the investigators concentrated on Teale thus allowing the other schemers to continue to prey on the lax laws and regulations that they found in America, Europe and Asia. At this time Congress, the SEC and DOJ among other Federal and State agencies have another chance to shore up the loopholes that the 1991 Nunn Hearings found existed.

A recent article in the January 5, 2009 Wall Street Journal reported that “In 1992, Mr. Madoff had a brush with the SEC's enforcement division, which had sued two Florida accountants for selling unregistered securities that paid returns of 13.5% to 20%. The SEC believed at the time it had uncovered a $440 million fraud.” Clearly had the SEC followed up on that investigation, it may have nipped Mr. Madoff’s criminal enterprise in the bud. Richard Walker, then-chief of the SEC's New York office, told The Wall Street Journal at the time "We went into this thinking it could be a major catastrophe." What happened there? Who was responsible for dropping the trail? An issue for the current ‘sweeping review’?

We now know that as early as 1992 the SEC probe turned up money that had been managed by Mr. Madoff. He said he didn't know the money had been raised illegally. With no investors found to be harmed, the SEC concluded there was no fraud. But the scheme indicated Mr. Madoff was managing money on behalf of other people.

High Birches Spring Discovered in 1993

In 1992, all our lawyers had abandoned my companies, and me. The Shaheen Gordon Law Office quit without informing me that it had sold me out. Orr & Reno, the law firm for one of the defendants attempted to convince the New Hampshire Superior Court judge that it did not have a conflict of interest in performing plaintiff litigation services for me, while defending one of the defendants. In a hearing that I requested, the Judge Ordered Orr & Reno off the case. With little time to find new counsel another firm Upton Sander’s & Smith was retained. Unbeknownst to me at that time the new firm was also conflicted but did not disclose its conflicts.

Cabral, the first mortgagee, and secured by the No. Woodstock property was poised to foreclose. No lawfirm would defend me in that case, so I acted pro se to enjoin the foreclosure. My argument was that I had just discovered what all the other parties who had prior access to an

7

earlier ground water study already knew: The engineering plans for the High Birches real estate development were frauds due to the fact that the entire property was holding some of the largest springs in New England. The property was undevelopable on its face! And, the highest and best use valuation for the property was as a source for the bottled water industry.

[Subsequent studies done by Senter in order to get permitted as a bottled water source have confirmed that the springs have a reservoir capacity of over 10 million gallons per day. The High Birches Springs were permitted by the State of New Hampshire to commercially extract up to 1 million gallons per day. Shortly after the wholesale spring water permit was granted in NH, other permits to sell High Birches Mountain Spring Water were granted by the State of Massachusetts. A Tetra Pak packaging facility then began to produce the branded High Birches beverages. It was located near New Bedford, Massachusetts where the High Birches warehouse was also located. The Corporate headquarters for Netmark International, Inc., the producer and distributor of the branded retail beverage products, was located at 10 Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts.]

On May 2, 1994, a concomitant settlement hearing took place in Boston, MA. By then Upton & Sanders had quit leaving the plaintiffs [me] in extremis. The BankEast creditor, if any, did not appear to claim its portion of the settlement as per its February, 1991 Creditor’s Agreement. At that time BankEast had failed, and the FDIC had already made claims to be the receiver of the company’s assets. At that time, the FDIC’s representative, Attorney Daniel Sklar -the very same attorney who was a party to the fraud upon me and the No. Hillsborough Superior Court along with Devine Millimet and Shaheen Gordon – was Noticed. He failed to appear. And to further compound matters the insurance company for the engineers who had committed the fraud on the No. Woodstock property was owned by Warren Buffet. He allowed Cabral’s successor in interest Martha HW Crowinshield to control the settlement. Neither my companies nor I had competent representation on May 2, 1994.

As a consequence of the May 2 event, Martha HW Crownishield filed legal documents in an attempt to cancel the water permits, among other things. Senter was given 6 months to attempt to refinance Crowninshield’s claim upon the Cabral first mortgage on the No. Woodstock property. Without the cooperation of the FDIC it was impossible to comply with Crowninshield’s demand.

The FDIC did not cooperate with me. [Several years later I found that FDIC was in fact in cahoots with Crowninshield, as BankEast had been with her predecessor Cabral. Devine Millimet was counsel to BankEast in the 1988 loan closing that created the second mortgage. Documents now in my possession clearly show that Devine Millimet committed a fraud upon my companies and me and BankEast. Facts clearly show that Devine Millimet’s primary clients were the Teale /Blondheim Ponzi schemers. And, Devine Millimet was also contemporaneously corporate counsel for the engineers who were responsible for the fraudulent engineering on the No. Woodstock property in the first place.]

In 1995, my companies and I filed a civil RICO case against Richard A. Cabral, Martha HW Crowninshield, and FDIC in its corporate capacity, and BONHAM, as FDIC agent.

1996 SIX Charged in Scam with Teale, write McLeod

8

McLeod wrote in 1996 on Business Insurance.com: “Stock allegedly used to prop up reinsurers PHILADELPHIA - Six men are facing federal fraud charges for allegedly supplying worthless penny stocks to now deceased con man Alan Teale to prop up his network of bogus offshore reinsurers. A federal grand jury last week indicted Philip A. Rennert and Nolan L.Mendenhall, officials of Forum Rothmore Inc., a Colorado stock vendor; Michael L. Miller, a Beverly Hills, Calif., lawyer who advised Forum Rothmore; and Jeffrey C. Hays, David R. Yeaman and George R. Jensen, officers, owners or promoters of the penny stock firms involved in the deals. ...

[Related Results Fed indictment alleges international ins. scam. (Alan Teale, Charlotte C. Rentz) New complaint filed in fraud suit. (health insurance fraud class action suit... Trust, E-innovation and Leadership in Change Foreign Banks in United States Since World War II: A Useful Fringe Building Your Brand With Brand Line Extensions]

The only problem with the above article was that I was never made aware of it at that time. My then lawyers, Lane Altman also had a conflict and never informed me that named parties in my 1991 complaint had been indicted. There is reason to know that Lane Altman knew the significance of this indictment because as soon as I was subpoenaed Lane Altman quit representing me in the civil RICO matter that was by then in arbitration with former Judge Alberti presiding. The case Judge was Nancy Gertner. The case citing was in re: 95-12496-ng. A complete record of the case should be found in US District Court in Massachusetts.

Shortly after I received the USA v Rennert subpoena Reginald Danboise, then a dental employee, of Oral HealthCare Management, Inc. a company owned by my family, took extreme steps to lock me out of the corporate head quarters in November, 1996. It was shortly after that incident that my family began to realize who Reginald Danboise really was. It is now clear that he, among other things, was chosen to be organized crimes’ ‘inside confidence man’. He was extremely effective.

In early March, 1997 I was subpoenaed to meet with AUSA Andrea Faulkes in order to share my information with the prosecution. As I have already stated, at the initial meeting AUSA Faulkes assumed that I too was a Teale insider and not a victim. I never did find out why she had that prior misconception. Finally, I testified. At the trial one of the defendant’s had complained that they were being tried when in fact they only made the ‘bullets’, i.e. the bogus stock, and that the ‘shooters’ or ‘schemer’s who were using the bogus stock to defraud its victims were allowed to continue in business. This statement is precedent in light of the recent collapse of the global financial industry.

A confirmation that the ‘schemers’ were somehow being protected came when, after my testimony I met with ASUA Faulkes and other investigators. I requested that as an actual financial loss victim my portion of the scheme be opened for further investigation. I was informed that at the ‘highest levels’ my request had been denied. I was on my own. And, the worse was yet to come.

9

Post USA v Rennert Testimony Events – 1997

Within days of my completed subpoenaed testimony, I was informed that the High Birches pump house had been sabotaged. The water piping, valves and controls in High Birches pump house had been smashed. The heating system supplying the pump house water system had been shut off allowing the water pipes to freeze and burst. I filed complaints with the local authorities and with the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire. I recall I even informed AUSA Faulkes. I believe it was at that time that she said she would try again to get the attention of the FBI with respect to our situation. [I am now aware that it was during this period that the FBI was in the midst of trials and other issues protecting its Top Echelon program, and Whitey Bulger and his Winter Hill Gang had already been named by me as an alleged perp in other related matters. It was around this time that I was informed that my records at the Boston FBI had ‘gone missing’. Apparently the Boston FBI did not want to raise any new complaints of mine at that time. I was never contacted by anyone from the Boston Office of the FBI, nor the USA prosecutor.]

At this time the civil RICO case that I had brought in 1995, was in arbitration. On September 9, 1997 at a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator signaled that he had read both arguments and was leaning in my direction. Three days later, on September 11, 1997, the main production well at the High Birches Springs located on westerly parcel of the No. Woodstock property, along with several adjacent monitoring wells had been found to be purposely contaminated with a cocktail of chemicals to include heavy metals and other carcinogens in criminal acts of sabotage, as defined by USC Hobbs Act and Title 18 RICO statutes.

A series of quick maneuvers by RICO defendants convinced US District Federal Judge Gertner to give possession of the entire No. Woodstock property to Crowninshield. The local authorities allowed Motions to be filed in the matter that stated I was the primary suspect. It should be noted here that the westerly parcel contained the production equipment that had been sabotaged, but it was the easterly parcel that contained the majority of the springs and at that time they remained untouched by any sabotage. I pointed this fact out to FDIC. Within days, the monitoring well on the easterly parcel was also sabotaged with a liquid contaminant which was later identified as a liquid equivalent in chemical make up to furniture stripper. Crowinshield had 24/7 Security guards on the site, at the time of the second contamination.

Within a day of the second contamination event, I was personally on the site, and saw a man in a red van that was later identified as belonging to the Winter Hill Gang. He was checking the monitoring well on the easterly parcel. It should be noted that only two people knew where that monitoring well was exactly located – myself and Reginald Danboise. When I attempted to read the license plate on the red van I was physically restrained from doing so by the local police. The red van quickly drove off after seeing the commotion.

In January, 1998 Judge Gertner had granted the RICO defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. One of the compelling reasons that she stated in her Order was that New Hampshire had expressed a desire ‘to police its own environmental problems’. To this day I do not know who from New Hampshire made the request that Judge Gertner acted upon. Jeanne Shaheen, wife of William Shaheen of Shaheen Gordon (my former lawyers who committed fraud upon me and the Hillsborough Superior Court) was Governor, at that time. Attorney John Broderick (former

10

senior partner of Devine Millimet and then of Merrill & Broderick; both firms with clear conflicts of interest against me) was Chief Justice of the NH Supreme Court, at that time.

Also of note is that I was informed by the Federal EPA investigator from the Boston Office, who had already begun his investigation into the commercial sabotage of High Birches Mountain Spring Water business immediately after I called him on September 12, 1997, that he had been “relieved of his duties” by his superiors. The clean-up was now under the control of civil RICO defendant Crowninshield, and the State of New Hampshire. Crowninshield paid the State of New Hampshire a reported $100,000 to decommission the main production well [over all my objections].

Crowinshield then brought a Petition to Foreclose in Grafton County Superior Court where the No. Woodstock land was located. [Crowninshield had already succeeded in obtaining a favorable ruling from Judge Edward Fitzgerald, one in the same person who by public accounts had been appointed to the NH Superior Court bench due to the influence of Milo Pike, one of the Blondheim Ponzi schemers, and his former boss at Pike Industries.] Essentially the prior ruling although now known to be in error, found that the water rights had never been separated from the land and therefore Crowninshield owned the water rights as well as the land. On August 23, 1999, over my strongest pro se objections, Judge Ftizgerald Ordered that Crowninshield’s corporation Bridgeton, Inc. could foreclose upon both the water and the land on August 25, 1999. Bridgeton was the only qualified, and winning bidder. I filed an Appeal. The Appeal was heard and denied. The panel of Justices appointed by CJ Broderick to hear the Appeal all were already biased. The managing Justice, Galway, had been a senior partner in Devine Millimet during the time of the foregoing narrative. He has since resigned from the bench.[I did not find this fact out until years later.]

In October, 1999 the heretofore missing successor in interest to the BankEast second mortgage made a claim upon the so called October 12, Judgment that has been previously discussed this is where Shaheen Gordon, Devine Millimet and BankEast’s attorney Dan Sklar obtained the judgment by fraudulent means. The October 1999 successor was the general partner, RFS, Inc. of RICO defendant FDIC. RFS claimed that it purchased sole interest in the October 1989 Judgment shortly before it made its 1999 claim. [By this time I had also discovered information that had previously been concealed in the corporate records, that Senter, while owned by the Danboise’s had committed bank fraud with a property in Fremont, New Hampshire. I reported this issue to the IRS. Reginald Danboise had filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the early 90’s.]

I had already filed a Petition in Belknap Superior Court in order to force discovery. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for July 8, 1998. At the hearing it was clear that the judge had been primed to be biased toward the fact that I was somehow a criminal as he warned me of my 5th Amendment rights. [The series of subsequent court cases should be available in the record files of the Belknap Superior Court. But, there is a caveat here. I already have found that the files are not complete.] The case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but not before the Judge made a separate find of facts in favor of FDIC.

In 2001, the parties were back in Belknap County Superior Court again on another Petition brought by me on a related issue of the property owned by the Jean Vorisek Family Trust on

11

residential property located in Center Harbor. This property had been claimed by RFS as part of the October 1989 Judgment. The RFS defendants defaulted and a default judgment was granted. However, just prior to the settlement date, RFS Intervenors by and through its McLane Law Office lawyers, Motioned for the Judge to re-open the matter. The Motion was granted. My claim was dismissed.

2001 was a very bad year. My 90-year-old blind mother who I was personally living with and caring for had become very distressed with the constant threats that were being made to take our home. She had also experience the distress of being erased from the US Government Pension records. The erasure caused her great effort to get reinstated. Subsequently she developed a bladder infection on March 9. By April 14 she was dead from what I allege to be suspicious causes. I demanded a forensic autopsy, but while she was in the custody of the NH Medical Examiner her body went missing and the case remains a mystery to me to this day. I demanded an investigation by the NH State Attorney General. No investigation was done. The information that I forwarded to the NH AG’s offices is incomplete. I complained to NH Governor Lynch. I also complained to the NH United States Attorney.

During the summer of 2002, I discovered that my identity had been erased form the Panama Canal Archives. It is undetermined by me when my information was erased from my father’s file. My father was Captain Robert A. Allan. He was a Panama Canal Pilot for 32 years. Several years prior to his retirement in 1966, he had been promoted to the position of Asst Port Captain of the Atlantic Side. I was born in Margarita, Canal Zone Panama in 1944. I legally entitled to be both an American and Panamanian Citizen. In January 2003 I was forced to take a trip back to the Republic of Panama to reinstate my birth information into the records. My birth information had been erased from the official records in both countries. After returning from Panama, in March of 2003, I was forced to legally change my name back to my maiden name of Jean Elizabeth Allan. This also necessitated that I change by legal new name with Social Security Administration. I was not able to complete the change as it was also discovered that my prior identity had been stolen and most probably used for criminal purposes. One of the ongoing complaints, among others, is my requirement from the US DOJ to either issue me a letter of immunity for any crimes that may have been committed in my former name of Jean E. Vorisek-Quinn, or, issue me a new social security number. As of this writing US DOJ has done neither.

In June 2003, the New Hampshire USA’s Office of DOJ referred my ongoing complaints to the Criminal Division in DC. AG Josh Hochberg was the contact person. I continued to provide information to AG Hochberg, but, he, nor anyone from his office, ever contacted me. On November 22, 2003, I came home, from running errands, to my home located at 309 Waukewan Road, Center Harbor, NH in time to put out a suspicious fire that had started. The smell of the smoke was very caustic. It appears that I inhaled a mixture, which included arsine gas. I filed a complaint with the local police, and the NH AG. Investigator Damian immediately informed me that there was no reason to investigate the matter. Case closed. Several months later in August, 2004 I was rushed Code One to Plymouth Hospital where the surgeon performed an emergency appendectomy on me. The surgeon said my appendix was gangrenous, a common symptom of arsine gas poisoning. Five years later I still suffer from the affects of that poisoning.

USA v Rennert Appeals

12

[Two days ago, I located the USA v Rennert Appeals information on Google. Over the years I have attempted to locate public information on USA v Rennert and have had no success. I now know that some of the related cases were never published. In 2007, Judge Fitzgerald claimed that with a ‘modicum of due diligence’ I could have located the heretofore unknown 1989 BankEast v Senter, BAM and Jean Vorisek Quinn case file. The file was misfiled in No. Hillsborough Superior Court on October 12, 1989: The hearing date that my lawyers had intentionally NOT notified me of in the first place.] [I consider finding these Appeals incorporated below to be a similar issue.]

In case no. 417 F.3d 358 UNITED STATES of America v. Michael Lewis MILLER, Appellant. No. 03-1519. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued December 5, 2003. Decided June 10, 2004.On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States April 4, 2005. July 29, 2005. Andrea G. Faulkes, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America. Christopher D. Warren, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.Before SLOVITER and ALITO, Circuit Judges, and OBERDORFER,* District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURTSLOVITER, Circuit Judge the following is of interest to this case study:

“Before us is the appeal of Michael Lewis Miller following the order of the United States Supreme Court granting certiorari, vacating the judgment of this court, and remanding for further consideration in light of its decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). As explained below, having determined that the sentencing issues implicated here are best addressed by the District Court in the first instance, we will remand for resentencing.”

In April 1997, a jury sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania convicted Miller (an attorney), as well as his co-defendants George Jensen, Philip Rennert, and David Yeaman, for their involvement in a complex scheme involving the leasing of worthless stocks of three public companies to the Teale Network ("Teale"). See generally United States v. Rennert, 374 F.3d 206 (3d Cir.2004); United States v. Yeaman, 194 F.3d 442 (3d Cir.1999).1 Teale, a network of fraudulent offshore and domestic companies, represented these leased stocks as assets available to pay claims pursuant to reinsurance contracts entered into with a Pennsylvania-based insurance company, the World Life and Health Insurance Company ("World Life"). When World Life attempted to liquidate these assets to pay outstanding medical reinsurance claims, the stocks were found to be worthless. The jury convicted Miller of conspiracy, wire fraud, and securities fraud for his role in the scheme. Rennert, 374 F.3d at 207.

The District Court also rejected, over the United States' objection, the application of additional sentencing enhancements for use of special skills (e.g., Miller's legal training) and for substantially jeopardizing a financial institution (the stock market). Rennert, 374 F.3d at 209.

13

By way of several unpublished opinions, see United States v. Rennert, Nos. 98-1145 & 98-1101, slip op., 1999 WL 1072198 (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 1999); United States v. Jensen, Nos. 98-1148 & 98-1104, slip op. 1999 WL 1072195 (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 1999); United States v. Miller, Nos. 98-1147 & 98-1103, slip op., 1999 WL 1072197 (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 1999), as well as one published opinion, see United States v. Yeaman, 194 F.3d 442 (3d Cir.1999), we affirmed the convictions in all respects. However, on the United States' cross-appeals, we remanded Miller's case, along with that of his co-defendants, for resentencing. See Rennert, 374 F.3d at 209. Specifically, we directed the District Court to reconsider whether there was a causal connection between the Defendants' misrepresentations and the fraud loss (and, if so, in what monetary amount) and, in Miller's case, whether an enhancement would be appropriate for Miller's use of special skills (i.e., his legal training).

Pursuant to our directive, the District Court, on February 3, 2003, held a resentencing hearing for Miller, Jensen, and Rennert

Considering, however, that in vacating our judgment, the Supreme Court did not discuss, let alone call into question, Miller's underlying conviction or our holdings thereon, this court will not remand the issue of Miller's conviction to the District Court. Thus, to be perfectly clear: the only issue that the District Court is to consider on remand is that of Miller's sentence. Cf. Agnew, 407 F.3d at 195.

We further note that, in its February 13, 2003 opinion calculating Miller's sentence, the District Court engaged in a fair amount of judicial fact finding. For instance, the District Court itself resolved the issue of causation with respect to fraud loss and further determined the amount of loss occasioned by Miller's crimes. It also decided — without any jury findings on such topics — that Miller had utilized special skills and had occasioned a loss of confidence in an important institution. In addition to engaging in such judicial fact finding, the District Court also necessarily resolved various procedural decisions at the sentencing hearing; for example, it declined to permit Miller to submit the additional evidence he proffered at the February 3, 2003 sentencing hearing. Rennert, 374 F.3d at 210. And, as discussed above, this court affirmed the District Court's factual findings, legal conclusions, and procedural decisions in all respects.

During the preparations for the trial [USA v Rennert . No. 96-cr-00051] that I testified as witness for the prosecution. I provided the prosecution with all the material that I had in my possession. I have no idea whether it was the entire universe of all the material to include communications between Devine Millimet, Attorney Miller, and their joint client Martyn Redman and/or First Equity. Considering all the conflicts of interest that my attorney Devine Millimet had with representing me in the sale of Senter to First Equity, I would suspect that there was material information that was kept from me. I am aware however that Devine Millimet was working with its clients First Equity and Martyn Redman on issues of factoring medical receivables, which was also aTeale scheme.]

14

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 03-1511UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHILIP ANDRE RENNERT, AppellantNO. 03-1518 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GEORGE RAYMOND JENSEN,Appellant NO. 03-1519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL LEWIS MILLER, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania(D.C. Crim. No. 96-cr-00051) District Judge: Hon. Clarence C. NewcomerArgued December 5, 2003 Before: SLOVITER, ALITO, Circuit Judges and OBERDORFER*, DistrictJudge(Filed: June 10, 2004)James H. Feldman, Jr. (Argued)Law Offices of Alan EllisArdmore, PA 19003-2276Attorney for Appellant,Philip Andre RennertPeter GoldbergerLaw Office of Peter GoldbergerArdmore, PA 19003-2276Attorney for Appellant,George Raymond JensenChristopher D. Warren (Argued)Philadelphia, PA 19103Attorney for Appellant,Michael Lewis Miller*Hon. Louis F. Oberdorfer, United StatesDistrict Court for the District ofColumbia, sitting by designation.Page 22Patrick L. MeehanUnited States AttorneyLaurie MagidDeputy United States Attorneyfor Policy and AppealsRobert A. ZauzmerAssistant United States AttorneySenior Appellate CounselAndrea G. Foulkes(Argued)Assistant United States AttorneyOffice of United States AttorneyPhiladelphia, PA 19106

15

Attorneys for AppelleeOPINION OF THE COURTSLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

“Appellants Michael Miller and Philip Rennert were convicted by a jury ofconspiracy, wire fraud, and securities fraud; Appellant George Jensen was convicted by a jury of securities fraud. Their convictions resulted from their involvement in a complex scheme underwhich they leased the worthless stocks of several public companies to the TealeNetwork (“Teale”), a fraudulent network of offshore and domestic companies. Thedetails of the operation of the Teale Network, through its principal Alan Teale,are set forth in our earlier opinion in United States v. Yeaman, 194 F.3d 442(3d Cir. 1999), and we repeat only such details as are necessary to decide the issues before us in this appeal.”

“In essence, Teale represented the worthless leased stocks as valuable assets that could be liquidated to pay claims pursuant to reinsurance contracts entered into with World Life and Health Insurance Company (“World Life”), a Pennsylvania insurance company that was already in financial difficulty. When World Life attempted to liquidate these assets to pay its outstanding medical reinsurance claims, the stocks were found to be worthless. World Life became insolvent at some point during or before 1988, but did not reveal its financial difficulty to regulators or to its insureds. In 1989 and 1990, World Life issued four group medical policies. Teale entered into contracts reinsuring World Life’s policies from November 1989 to November 1990. Pursuant to these agreements, Teale assumed 100 percent of the liability associated with World Life’s four group medical insurance policies in exchange for receipt of 92 percent of the premiums paidby World Life’s insureds on those policies. Appellants supplied Teale with stocksfrom offshore companies that Teale could list as putatively valuable collateral backing the company, though the stocks were essentially worthless. Yeaman, 194 F.3d at 447. In 1990, Rennert created Forum Rothmore to serve as an intermediary between Teale and the publicly traded corporations that desired to lease their stock to Teale. This arrangement created the appearance of legitimacy in two ways. First, Forum Rothmore helped the Teale Network comply with Pennsylvania reinsurance regulations that require unlicensed offshore reinsurancecompanies, such as Teale, to deposit in escrow accounts collateral (in the form of corporate stocks) equal to the liability associated with its reinsurance contacts.”

“Second, Forum Rothmore entered into “surplus contribution agreements” withTeale, which gave Teale the appearance of being backed by independent stockholdings. Id. Teale and Rennert first met and discussed this fraudulent scheme in August 1990 and executed the first of their surplus contribution agreements on September 1, 1990.”

“Under the terms of these agreements, public shell corporations leased their stock to Teale and authorized the sale of the stock, if necessary, to pay claims under insurance policies that Teale had reinsured. Teale then listed these shares at inflated values on the financial statements presented to World Life. After receiving insurance premiums from World Life, Teale paid monthly leasing fees to Forum Rothmore, which in turn split the fees with the stock providers. Id. The Teale Network was Forum Rothmore’s sole client, and Forum Rothmore was thewas the Teale Network’s only consistent source of assets.”

16

“In particular, Forum Rothmore entered into surplus contribution agreements with Ecotech Corporation (“Ecotech”). Jensen was at various times in control of and president of Ecotech. On December 15, 1990, Jensen manipulated Ecotech’s stock price and then leased one million dollars worth of Ecotech’s stock to Teale. [Teale, the fact show, then leased the ECHOTECH shares to First Equity who then pledged them to Senter as liquidated damages if the First Equity failed to close the sale (my emphasis)] Although Ecotech’s shares were virtually worthless, Appellants fraudulently over-valued Ecotech’s shares on the company’s financial statements.”

“Members of the conspiracy manipulated the market for Ecotech and other corporations’ stock in order to maintain the inflated trading prices. Miller, a lawyer, was corporate counsel for Forum Rothmore and a shareholder in Ecotech. The Ecotech stock at issue was not tradeable and carried a restrictive legend to that effect. Miller issued opinion letters stating that Forum Rothmore could remove that legend fromstock certificates so that it falsely appeared that the stock could be freely traded and leased to Teale.”

“The Government submitted evidence that Miller was paid $130,208 for representing the company and $104,000 from leasing Ecotech stock to Teale.”

“In 1991, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department discovered World Life’s insolvency and ordered its liquidation. Because Teale had been paying insurance claims with recently-received premiums and had no other significant assets to draw upon, this liquidation deprived Teale of the ability to pay further insurance claims. World Life’s policyholders thus were unable to receive insurance payments as needed.”

“Following World Life’s liquidation, the Pennsylvania Life and Health Insurance Guarantee Fund, a state fund through which Pennsylvania insurance companies pay the outstanding liabilities of insolvent carriers, provided approximately $6.4 million for group medical reinsurance claims left unpaid as a result of the fraud.”

“Appellants were indicted on February 6, 1996 and were convicted by a jury on April 16, 1997. At the sentencing hearing held January 22, 1998, the District Court assigned each Appellant a one-point upward departure for loss of confidence in an important institution, but found no monetary loss attributable to the Appellants because World Life was insolvent at the time it entered into reinsurance contracts with Teale. The District Court also rejected the applicationof additional sentencing enhancements for use of special skills and substantially jeopardizing a financial institution. Appellants appealed their individual verdicts and sentencing calculations to this court in 1998 and we set out the full factual and procedural history of their cases in prior unpublished opinions. See United States v. Rennert, Nos. 98-1145 & 98-1101, slip op. (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 1999); United States v. Jensen, Nos. 98-1148 & 98-1104, slip op. (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 1999); and United States v. Miller, Nos. 98-1147 & 98-1103, slip op. (3d Cir. Oct. 15,1999).”

“The Government cross-appealed, arguing that the District Court had erred in finding that there was no loss caused by the fraud, in failing to increase Miller’s offense level because he had used

17

special (legal) skills in furtherance of the conspiracy, and in failing to increase all Appellants’ offense levels for causing a substantial effect on a financial institution.”

“In Miller, we rejected Miller’s argument that he acted “only as an attorney.” Instead, we held that Miller’s involvement went “beyond the role of legal representation” and could not “be categorized as simple legal advice,” especially given Miller’s ownership of Ecotech stock and his letters regarding removal of restrictive legends. Miller, slip op. at 6.”

“However, we remanded all three cases for re-sentencing to consider 1) whether there was a causal connection between the Appellants’ misrepresentations and the fraud loss caused by Teale’s collection of premiums, and 2) in Miller’s case, whether an enhancement would be appropriate for Miller’s use of special (legal) skills. With respect to fraud loss, we clarified that the fraud loss calculation should be based onthe dates of Appellants’ agreement to the conspiracy, rather than the dates of their misrepresentations. Also, in a related case, we suggested that the loss calculation might be based on the net gain to Teale or the balance of unpaid claims.”

“On February 3, 2003, the District Court held a re-sentencing hearing for Miller, Jensen, and Rennert. Miller attempted to present testimony and documents in support of his argument that the scope of his involvement in the conspiracy was less than that of his co- conspirators and that the extent of the total loss caused by the fraud was not foreseeable to him. In particular, Millerattempted to contest the Government’s arguments that he was present at the August 1990 Teale-Rennert meeting, that he prepared opinion letters in support of the conspiracy, that he received payments for services as a stock provider, and that he falsified records bearing the date of Ecotech’s merger with a gold mine to create additional stock shares for Teale.”

“The District Court declined to permit Miller to submit additional evidence that was not already presented at trial because the issue was “subsumed” by the jury’s verdict and was therefore immaterial to sentencing. See App. at 350-53 (finding Miller’s factual allegations were “matters of defense for the trial, not for sentencing”).”

“On the issue of fraud loss causation, the Government presented two witnesses, a representative from the Liquidations and Rehabilitation Section of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance and a general counsel to a third-party administrator. They stated that, had their organizations known that Appellants’ assets were worthless, they would have halted the flow of premiums months earlier and forced World Life to obtain a solvent reinsurer.”

“On February 13, 2003, the District Court issued a sentencing opinion concluding that Miller, Rennert, and Jensen entered into an agreement conspiring to defraud World Life and its policyholders no later than August 30,1990. The District Court held that the total fraud loss caused by the Appellants was approximately $3.2 million: the difference between the total premiums paid to Teale minus the claims paid by Teale to World Life’s policyholders. The District Court further found that there was “a causal connection between them is representationsof the Defendants and the continued payment of premiums to World Life . . .and the Defendants.” App. at 12-13.”

“Finally, the District Court increased Miller’s sentence based on his use of

18

special skills and more than minimal planning. The Appellants also received upward departures for causing the loss of confidence in an important institution (the stock market). The District Court sentenced Miller to 51 months, Rennert to 63 months, and Jensen to 30 months of imprisonment. All three Appellants contest the District Court’s factual finding of a causal c o n n e c t i o n. We explained the causality analysis as follows: Teale could not haveentered and remained in the business of reinsuring World Life but for itsf r a u d u l e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s .”

“Although the District Court made no finding on the issue [before], the record would also appear to us to support the proposition that World Life was not capable of insuring any of the four group medical policies without having received a commitment for 100% reinsurance. It follows that if the Teale fraudulent reinsurance contracts had not been available, World Life would either havesecured other reinsurance or would not have issued the group policies involved. If reinsurance from a solvent reinsurer had been obtained, all claims under the policies would have been paid to the reinsurer; if the group policies had not been issued, the employers who purchased the policies from World Life would have obtained group medical coverage from another source and all claims of the beneficiaries would have been paid in full. In either event . . . there would havebeen a causal nexus between the fraud and all unpaid claims. Id. at 459. In short, we found that the most reasonable inference is that World Life relied on the Appellants’ misrepresentations about the value of their stock assets when it paid Teale additionalpremiums.”

“Had the true value of the Defendants’ stocks been known, at the very least, the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance would have stopped the payment of premiums to the Teale Network.”

Although Appellants argue that the District Court’s findings do not answer the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e i r misrepresentations caused the fraud loss, it is apparent that the Department of Insurance did not intercede because it didnot know “the true value of the [Appellants’] stocks.” App. at 13. That lack of knowledge was the result of Appellants’ misrepresentations of the value of those stocks. This, in turn, caused the Department of Insurance to permitWorld Life’s continued operation and caused World Life to continue providing Teale insurance premiums in reliance on Appellants’ misrepresentations.”

“Appellants’ attempt to sever the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i r misrepresentations and the Department of Insurance’s delayed intervention is unpersuasive.”

“If Teale were insolvent, it no longer could meet its contractual obligations to provide reinsurance to World Life. Because Appellants have identified no contract provision requiring World Life to continue providing premiums after Teale has materially breached their contract, we have no reason to assume that World Life would be bound to continue honoring a contract that Teale had breached.”

“But the fraud victim’s negligence or lack of diligence in uncovering the fraud is not a defense. United States v. Coyle, 63 F.3d 1239, 1244 (3d Cir. 1995) (“The negligence of the victim in failing to discover a fraudulent scheme is not a defense to criminalconduct.”) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Bennett, 9 F.Supp. 2d

19

513, 523 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (“Taking advantage of a victim’s self-interest does not mitigate the seriousness of fraudulent conduct.”) (quotations and citations omitted). Nor do the Appellants cite any case law suggesting that courts may not find fraud loss causation where the victim has not immediately assisted the authorities in investigating the fraud.”

“Miller contends that even if a defendant has been convicted of a conspiracy charge, the trial court must make particularized findings as to the scope of each conspirator’s involvement in order to increase the conspirator’s sentence under Section 1B1.3.”

“Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant’s offense level is subject to increase depending on the amount of loss caused by the fraud. Section 1B1.3(a) provides that the district court should adjust the specific offense level by taking into account all conduct relevant to the offense.U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). This includes “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of [a] jointly undertaken criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Miller asserts that United States v. Collado, 975 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1992), requires that we remand this case in light of the District Court’s lack of findings as to the precise scope and timing of his agreement to join the conspiracy.”

“Collado, we stated that the district court must consider whether the loss resultingfrom the actions of co-conspirators was 1) “in furtherance of the . . . jointly-undertaken . . . activity,” 2) within “the scope of the defendant’s agreements,” and 3) “reasonably foreseeable in connection with the criminal activity the defendant agreed to undertake.” 975 F.3d at 995 (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, application note 1); see also United States v. Duliga, 204 F.3d 97, 100 (3d Cir. 2000). We held that the relevant conduct provision depends upon each defendant’s role in theconspiracy and stated that courts must conduct “a searching and individualized inquiry into the circumstances surrounding each defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy” in order to “ensure that the defendant’s sentence accurately reflects his or her role” in the conspiracy. Collado, 975 F.3d at 995”

“We added that district courts also should consider other factors, such as whether the defendant profited or assisted others in the conspiracy. Id. At 991-94. We further clarified that a conspiracy conviction does not obviate the need for analysis under the relevant conduct provision. Id. at 993, 997. Collado dealt with the liability of two brothers involved in a larger drug conspiracy. The district court had not made any factual findings as to the scope of the brothers’ involvement in the conspiracy or in each other’s transactions, but instead only adopted the findings ofthe presentence report in attributing to each of them the drug quantity from theconspiracy.”

“We remanded the case to the district court to determine when the defendants had joined the larger conspiracy because the district court had made no finding on the issue and the record was not clear on this issue. Critically, however, we also affirmed the district court’s attribution toone brother the amounts the other brother supplied to the conspiracy. We affirmed this finding based on our review of the record, despite the district court’s lack of explicit findings on this issue. Because the record was clear on its face, the district court’s lack of particularized findings was not dispositive. We instead concluded that the district court’s accomplice attribution conclusion between the brothers was supported by the record evidence of their awareness of and

20

assistance to each other in drug transactions. See id. at 997

Here, the record evidence suffices to support the conclusion that Miller had agreed to the conspiracy by at least August 1990 and should be held liable for the full amount of loss caused by the conspiracy. [August 31, 1990 was when First Equity signed the purchase and sales agreement with BAM. Devine Millemet wrote the agreement]

Miller’s opinion letters on fraudulent stock transactions, his demand letters to protect artificially inflated stock quotes, and his letters advising the removal of restrictive stock certificate legends so that non- marketable shares would appear to be tradeable. Miller played a critical role, enabling the conspiracy to function and providing it an imprimatur of legitimacy.

The record evidence of Miller’s extensive involvement in the conspiracy supports theDistrict Court’s application of the relevant conduct provision. Rennert-Teale meeting, Miller provided Rennert with an opinion letter to support Forum Rothmore’s practice of leasing worthless assets. On July 13, 1990, Miller authored an opinion letter recommending the re-issue of the restricted Ecotech stock held by Jensen, Rennert, and Miller without a restrictive legend. This made it appear that Forum Rothmore could provide Teale with millions of marketable shares. In an August 28, 1990 letter, one week after the Rennert-Teale meeting, Miller wrote to Teale expressing his interest and commitment to what he termed the “credit enhancement program” that forms the basis of the fraud charges against the defendants, along with a $25million offer of stocks from Ecotech and other corporations. Supp. App. at 638-47.Regardless of whether he was present at the Rennert-Teale meeting, the remainder of Miller’s actions strongly support the District Court’s conclusion that he had joined the conspiracy by or before August 1990.

The court continued: “Yet, the cumulative effect of Miller’s aforementioned actions (the June opinion letter, the July letter recommending re- issue of stock, and the August letter to Teale) suggests that Miller was too central to the operation to believe naïvely that he and his associates were all within the bounds of the law. Based on the record evidence, Miller’s explanation is not credible and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Miller’s attempt to submit evidence regarding his presence at the Rennert-Teale meeting. Miller also attempted to submit evidence from his personal records and journals that he contended showed that he was not paid to provide stock to Forum Rothmore with knowledge of his co- defendants’ fraudulent activities, but only received legal fees and a loan. Miller emphasizes that Forum Rothmore’s faulty accounting system improperly denominated his payments as stock provider fees, rather than traditional payments for legal fees.”

“As the Government points out, the designation of Forum Rothmore’s payments as “leasing fees” or “legal fees” is inconsequential because the payment was made in exchange for Miller’s services in advancing a fraudulent scheme. Because Miller does not contest the District Court’s finding that he used his legal skills in furtherance of the fraud, the fact of payment for fraudulent services is the critical point while the form of his payment is irrelevant. Moreover, as wenoted in Miller, Miller’s services could not “be categorized as simple legal advice.”Miller, slip op. at 7.”

21

“Even if Miller did not falsify records until late 1991, there were still enough other indicia of his involvement in 1990, discussed above, to support the conclusion that he already had committed to the conspiracy in 1990, regardless of whether he committed additional frauds in connection with Ecotech’s merger with the gold mine corporation. In sum, even assuming that Miller would have been permitted to submit his proffered evidence, Miller’s evidence would not have been sufficient to undermine the basis in the record for imposing accomplice liability.”

“We hold the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miller’s proffer ofthe evidence. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court for the reasons set forth”.

Successors in Interest to BankEast 2 nd Mortgage – 2005

While the 1996 USA v Rennert Appeals were processing through the Federal Court system, the successors in interest to the BankEast loan became emboldened in their desperation.

Although I have no suspects to name in the attack against me in February 2005, the heretofore Ponzi schemers certainly had motive to shut me up for good. The attack that occurred in the downstairs hall of my home on February 5, 2005 left me lying unconscious in my own pool of blood, due to blunt force trauma to my forehead. I have no memory of the event. The last thing I do remember is coming out of the downstairs bathroom draped in only a towel after bathing. As I turned the corner the proverbial ‘lights went out’. When I awoke I was dazed and confused. I finally called my neighbor who drove me to the emergency room at the Plymouth Hospital. There I was given an MRI scan and seven stitches. I was diagnosed with a concussion, but my skull had not been fractured. [The treatment records should be on file at the Plymouth Hospital, Plymouth, New Hampshire.] I still suffer period blinding headaches and sleep disorders due to the attack.

Then a month later I was served with a foreclosure notice brought by Robin Arkley II’s company SN Servicing, Inc. for the benefit of its client Ingomar, LP. Judge Kenneth McHugh heard the case in Belknap Superior Court. [The case file should be on record in the Belknap Superior Court.] The foreclosure Petition was granted by Judge McHugh who determined that at that time I owed more than $850, 000 on the October 12, 1989 Judgment (a naked mortgage) which was only granted due to a fraud upon the court as I have already described herein. [At the time of Judge McHugh’s decision I was still not aware of the circumstance of the October 12, 1989 fraud upon the No. Hillsborough Superior Court so I did not argue that defense.] I appealed the case and lost.

At this time I clearly smelled a ‘rat’ so I took a Petition to US District Court of New Hampshire. During the discovery process of that case [06-cv-224-sm] was and only after trial Judge McAullife instructed Arklely’s lawyer from the McLane Law Office to divulge where the October 12, 1989 case file could be located, did I find, and immediately copy the file.

My federal Petition was dismissed due to Rooker Feldman considerations, but I thought I had what I needed to go back to Belknap Superior Court to reopen the foreclosure case, which I did. [Additionally I bundled up the discovery documents and testimony and sent it to US DOJ OIG. In January, 2007 OIG US DOJ sent me a letter that stated my complaint had been sent to the

22

Criminal Division of US DOJ for review. On September 4, 2008 Rep. Carol Shea Porter received the response from Principal Deputy Attorney General Keith B. Nelson that should be already in your file.]

An evidentiary hearing on my Petition to re-open the foreclosure matter was finally set on September 25, 2007 in Belknap Superior Court, Laconia, New Hampshire. Not to my great surprise: Judge Edward Fitzgerald presided. His Order came swiftly. Essentially he found that with a ‘modicum of diligence’ I could have found out all this information a long time ago, therefore, it did not qualify as newly discovered information. The foreclosure could proceed as scheduled.

I have in my possession a video recording of the foreclosure. By October 3, 2007 I filed an Appeal with the NH Supreme Court. [A complete record of that Appeal should be on file at the New Hampshire Supreme Court]. In my appeal I strenuously argued that Judge Fitzgerald was biased and was not fit to sit on my case then or on any of the prior cases. My argument fell on the deaf ears of Chief Justice Broderick, who should have recused himself from hearing this case as well, considering the other prior matters citing his conflicts of interests. Chief Justice Broderick’s law firm, if the reader will recall, represented me in the initial Petition to Quiet Title on the abutter’s claim against the No. Woodstock property. Additionally, Chief Justice Broderick was a senior partner in Devine Millimet when it represented the engineers who committed the fraud that was the proximate cause of all the subsequent civil matters to include this Appeal. And, additionally Chief Justice Broderick’s role in the ex-parte communication with Federal Judge Gertner has yet to be explained to any reasonable person’s satisfaction. It is well settled law that cases decided by biased Judge’s are void as a matter of law.

Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Judge Fitzgerald’s decision pursuant to the foreclosure it did not reach or consider my argument whether the first mortgagee on the subject property located at 309 Waukewan Road tortuously interfered. Since that issue remained undecided, I filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Banking Commission.

On August 14, 2008 I met with the banking and consumer divisions of the New Hampshire Banking Department. I was requested to file formal complaints against certain of Robin Arkley II’s companies, which I did. I also filed a complaint against Laconia Saving Bank. In both complaints I sought an opinion from the New Hampshire Banking Department whether any of the parties had violated NH banking regulations. I asked for restitution. [The complaints should be found in the files of the New Hampshire Banking Department.] I have had not response from the New Hampshire Banking Department as of the date of this writing.

The alleged high bidder at the September, 2007 foreclosure has effectively disappeared. Currently, I am in foreclosure limbo. I have written numerous letters to Robin Arkley II’s companies, but have heard no response as of the date of this writing.

Personal Observations

It is difficult for me to separate the above case study and the Bernard Madoff self-confessed to Ponzi scheme. As the January 11, CNN reporter has cited: “Fraud carries prison time of up to 20

23

years, though at this magnitude "it could be decades," says Piesch.

“And there's no such thing as helping a little bit when it comes to being an accomplice to fraud: If convicted, Madoff's ‘marketeers’ would be guilty of the full scheme. That's just the criminal side. On the civil side, the intermediaries are likely to face lawsuits from defrauded investors - and civil charges, lawyers say, are a lot easier to prove.”

A reasonable person, after reading my case study would have to come to the realization that most if not all the herein named ‘fraudsters’ and ‘Ponzi schemers’ considering many of them were in the legal profession, already knew their risk exposure and took all necessary steps to make certain they protected each other through out the system. “Pay to Play” was but one effective tool that furthered the enterprise by either committing fraud upon the Court systems, or influencing regulators and other agents of the government, be they appointed or political.

As everyone who has followed the Bernard Madoff Implosion knows all Ponzi schemes have to come to an end. The question only remains when and how.

In May, 1998, in Washington DC, in her prepared statement, Debra a Valentine, General Counsel for the US Federal Trade Commission gave a presentation on “Pyramid Schemes” to the International Monetary Fund’s Seminar on “Current Legal Issues Affecting Central Banks”. This cautionary speech was delivered seven years after the Nunn Hearings found that Alan Teale’s insurance scams had also affected the banking and securities industries. [And, also as a reminder here, the US Taxpayer is now on the hook for the $700,000 Billion TARP legislation. And, according to President Elect Obama, there is more out-lay to come.]

Ms. Valentine, more than ten years ago warned that: “Pyramid schemes now come in so many forms that they may be difficult to recognize immediately. However, they all share one overriding characteristic. They promise consumers or investors large profits based primarily on recruiting others to join their program, not based on profits from any real investment or real sale of goods to the public. Some schemes may purport to sell a product, but they often simply use the product to hide their pyramid structure.” [To date all the public reporting appears to point to the fact that Mr. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was in reality structured as a Pyramid, much like Alan Teale’s scams were structured.]

Ms. Valentine continued by stating: “A Ponzi scheme is closely related to a pyramid because it revolves around continuous recruiting, but in a Ponzi scheme the promoter generally has no product to sell and pays no commission to investors who recruit new "members." Instead, the promoter collects payments from a stream of people, promising them all the same high rate of return on a short-term investment. In the typical Ponzi scheme, there is no real investment opportunity, and the promoter just uses the money from new recruits to pay obligations owed to longer-standing members of the program. In English, there is an expression that nicely summarizes this scheme: It's called "stealing from Peter to pay Paul." In fact some law enforcement officers call Ponzi schemes "Peter-Paul" scams. Many of you may be familiar with Ponzi schemes reported in the international financial news. For example, the MMM fund in Russia, which issued investors shares of stock and suddenly collapsed in 1994, was characterized as a Ponzi scheme.” [Again, a perfect description of what has so far been publicly reported about

24

Mr. Madoff and his ‘feeder firms’ that include Robert Jaffe, a known associate of the Blondheim Ponzi schemers.]

As Ms. Valentine warned the International Bankers: “Both Ponzi schemes and pyramids are quite seductive, because they may be able to deliver a high rate of return to a few early investors for a short period of time. Yet, both pyramid and Ponzi schemes are illegal because they inevitably must fall apart. No program can recruit new members forever. Every pyramid or Ponzi scheme collapses because it cannot expand beyond the size of the earth's population. When the scheme collapses, most investors find themselves at the bottom, unable to recoup their losses. [Again, a perfect description of Mr. Madoff’s and his fellow investor’s plight. The very structure of the Ponzi scheme can dictates that whenever the collapse occurs, at least 70 percent will be in the bottom level with no means to make a profit. The real question however is whether there can ever be profits based upon an illegal scheme in the first place? Certainly, a question for the authorities going forward. It was not until the AUSA understood that I was not an investor in the scheme, but that the ECOTECH stock had been pledged to my company as liquidated damages, did she treat me as a victim.]

The following comments by Ms. Valentine go to the heart of an issue that must be somehow finally resolved. In 1998, Ms. Valentines stated that: ‘Pyramid schemes not only injure consumers. In many cases, they affect the daily operations of banks and taint the banking industry's overall reputation for safety and soundness.”

She continued to opine that: “Many pyramid promoters disparage the bank industry and promote their own program as a superior alternative to traditional banking and investment. Melvin Ford, a defendant in the SEC's recent case against International Loan Network, stated that his company's bonus program was "the most powerful financial system since banking." At the height of his popularity, Charles Ponzi actually proclaimed that he would form a new banking system and divide profits equally between depositors and shareholders.”

Ms. Valentine cited: “In FTC v. Cano the Commission observed first-hand the impact of pyramid schemes on the banking system and individual banks. In that case, the Commission targeted an alleged Internet pyramid scheme that operated under the name Credit Development International ("CDI"). For an initial payment of $130 and subsequent monthly payments of $30, consumers could join CDI's "Platinum Infinity Reward Program" and become a participant in its "3x7 Forced Matrix" -- a structure that promised commissions going seven layers deep and that required each participant to recruit just three new members. CDI represented that participants could earn more than $18,000 per month in this program.”

The Dirkeim Paradigm – after Emile Dirkheim [1858-1917], who postulated that criminal behavior is humanity's norm and that ethical conduct is anomalous – should be a concern to all regulators in this creative destruction world of global finance. Deterring the predators must encompass more than additional regulation. If the reader would refer back to the USA v Rennert Appeal cases they mostly concerned themselves with the issue of sentencing; and, more appropriately the downward departure of sentencing. Finding and defining the ‘financial loss victim’ appears to be the flaw in the sentencing guideline structure. Who or what institutions

25

were actually harmed by Alan Teale or Bernard Madoff, currently the Ponzi schemer ‘de la journee’.

As I stated in the opening of this letter educating the prey is a must. Ms. Valentine must concur as she stated in her seminar that: “Consumer education - Law enforcement is the cornerstone of the Commission's fight against pyramid schemes; however, we also try to educate the public so that they can protect themselves. In our educational efforts, we have tried to take a page from the con artists' book and use new online technology to reach consumers and new entrepreneurs. For example, on the agency's web site at "www.ftc.gov", the Commission has posted several alerts regarding pyramid schemes and multilevel marketing problems. The Commission records over 2 million "hits" on its home page every month and receives several thousand visitors on its pyramid and multilevel marketing pages.” [Clearly more has to be done in this area.]

Finally, all the education in the world and all the newly promulgated financial laws and regulations in the world cannot, nor will they prevent corruption of government. Fines alone have been considered as the cost of doing business. From my personal experience only a significant loss of personal freedom acts as a deterrent to organized white-collar Ponzi schemers, fraudsters, banksters, and gangster the likes of front men Alan Teale and Bernard Madoff represent. Each front man that is given a serious sentence, should act as a warning to other predators who are ready at a moments notice to fill the vacuum at the top of the pyramid.

Thank you for your attention to my case study. I am hopeful that it has been helpful to you and that in turn you will make an investigator available to assist me in gaining the restitution that my family is entitled to after all these many long years.

Sincerely,

Jean E. Allan

26