Annexe : Audience concernant la peine de L. J. Soteriou

Les repères suivants permettent d’accéder directement aux passages concernés :

• M. Parker au contact de la RSE
  
• Relation M. Parker/J.L. Soteriou/RSE
• M. Parker, le script de Birth of innocence, le modèle JZK/Ramtha
• M. Parker et technique de focalisation
• M. Parker et loterie
• Relation R. Hoffman/RSE
• Témoignage de R. Hoffman sur le concept de Ramtha

 .

Compte-rendu d'après transcription de l'audience sur la détermination de la peine de J.L. Soteriou

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF VERMONT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS LOUIS J. SOTERIOU

CASE NO: 5:12-cr-39-1

SENTENCING HEARING

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINA REISS CHIEF JUDGE

APPEARANCES: MICHAEL P. DRESCHER, ESQUIRE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 570
Burlington, Vermont 05402
Representing The Government

STEVEN L. BARTH, ESQUIRE
Assistant Federal Public Defender
126 College Street, Suite 410
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Representing The Defendant

DATE: August 19, 2013

TRANSCRIBED BY: Anne Marie Henry, RPR
P.O. Box 1932
Brattleboro, Vermont 05302

I N D E X

WITNESS: PAGE:

MALCOLM PARKER
Direct Examination by Mr. Drescher
Cross Examination by Mr. Barth 

ROBERT HOFFMAN
Direct Examination by Mr. Barth
Cross Examination by Mr. Drescher
Further Examination by Mr. Barth 

GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT
1 – Tape of Voice Mails

DEFENSE EXHIBITS:
L. – Lender Update
S. – 1-24-10 E-mail
Y. – Rosmarin’s Evaluation

(The Court opened at 10:00 a.m.)

THE CLERK: Your Honor, the matter before the Court is criminal case number 12-39, United States of America versus Louis Soteriou. The government is present through Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Drescher. The defendant is present in the courtroom with his attorney Assistant Federal Public Defender Steven Barth. The matter before the court is sentencing.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. BARTH: Good morning, Your Honor.

MR. DRESCHER: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I have read your sentencing memoranda and the Pre-Sentence Report. And the first order of business would be whether the Court should accept the plea agreement in this case. The plea agreement, once accepted, would be binding upon the Court and the Court would be obligated to follow it. The attorneys know. In this case the plea agreement calls for a below guideline sentence. And I know Mr. Barth’s point of view is the guideline in question is not reliable, that it wasn’t the product of empirical research and, therefore, isn’t really providing much of a baseline. I’m not as confident that I understand the government’s point of view, but my assumption it has to do with Mr. Soteriou’s health and mental health challenges, but I will leave that to you. So let’s first hear from both attorneys about whether the Court should accept the plea agreement because that will govern whether we go forward with sentencing. And let me start with you Mr. Drescher.

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, the Court should accept the plea agreement for several reasons, not only is it an agreement,a meeting of the minds between the parties, but that the maximum sentence, possible sentence contemplated by the agreement of 84 months in the view of the government would meet the objectives of 3553(a), it would reflect the seriousness of the offense, it would reflect the nature, the history and characteristics of the defendant, which include the, his age, which include his health, which include — and 14 includes the, the, to the extent the defendant’s — well, the defendant’s role in the offense and the nature of the offense itself. An 84 month sentence would be, which is what we are advocating for, would be well within the range of reason for those reasons, as well as the other reasons specified in our sentencing memo.

THE COURT: All right. And do you have — I know that there are many victims in this case. Do you have the victims’ support for this plea agreement?

MR. DRESCHER: You know, there are hundreds of victims. And I can say with a high degree of confidence that there are some victims who are probably unhappy with the agreement. And I can state with a similar degree of confidence that there are some victims that are — to which this agreement is acceptable. And it would be inappropriate for me to try and characterize the victim population as being uniform in that regard.

THE COURT: Okay. Let’s hear from you, Mr. Barth.

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, you’re familiar with our position. We believe the Court should accept this agreement. Let’s begin where the Court began. First, we’re talking about a guideline range that, as I detail I think in detail in my papers, that wasn’t based on national experience, empirical dealing, etcetera. It routinely results in unreasonably high sentences. What the parties have reached here is, yes, a below guideline sentence. However, this Court, I think counsel, and certainly I feel that often the guidelines, certain guidelines at least will result in unfair sentences. What we have here is a 56 year old man who I don’t think there’s any question suffers from mental health problems. No question he suffers from physical problems, serious problems. This is a man who through the first 56 years of his life has no criminal history whatsoever. He has a clean record. So the question is for a man who is currently living in his parent’s basement, who has performed admirably on pre-trial release, who has no criminal history and needs more than anything else mental health counseling and medical treatment for his ailments, what is the appropriate amount of time that a person like him spends in custody. Look, I understand that this is a case that is powerful to many people in Vermont. No more so than the hundreds of victims that it’s affected. And I understand that. That’s why we’re not suggesting that Mr. Soteriou not serve a prison sentence. I happen to think that white collar crimes are serious. And we’ve had a spate of them inthe State of Vermont. But for a man who has no criminal history and is suffering from the elements that I described in the paperwork, and I’ve given a thumbnail sketch of again, I think what we’ve asked for is reasonable. And I think the seven years that the Court has to work with, I mean this man would go from never spending a 18 day in custody, if the Court were to follow the government’s recommendation to seven years in custody, getting out in his early ’60’s. I, I think the Court has plenty of custodial rope to work with. And so we think it is absolutely a reasonable agreement for the Court to accept.

THE COURT: All right. The Court is going to accept the plea agreement in this case for the following reasons: First, the sentencing guidelines upon which the guideline range is based in this case have been criticized by a variety of courts on a number of grounds, including the way the guidelines were crafted was to look at what judges had been doing in the past with this type of crime and using that as a baseline for what would be appropriate assuming that judges had acted reasonably in the past and that should be the direction the sentencing guidelines should adopt. This guideline kind of took off on its own and has resulted in sentences sometimes that are far in excess of what the crime at issue is. I’m not so sure that that would be the case in this particular instance, but the guideline itself has been subject to criticism as unreasonable. And there was a very recent Second Circuit Court case where application of a guideline resulted in a 20 year sentences for a fraud scheme that had no success and no real victim, but that’s what the guideline suggested was reasonable, that’s what the judge imposed and it got reversed on appeal because it was procedurally inaccurate, but also that the dissenting judge said 20 years for a crime that wasn’t successful is certainly excessive. Again, not necessarily applicable in this case. In this case the Court finds that Mr. Soteriou presents certain unique aspects in that he has documented health challenges, both mental and physical, and that any sentence the Court imposes therefore will have a greater impact on him than other sentences for somebody who is healthy in both mind and body. Having said that the Court notes that its already factored in his age, his physical condition and his mental health in accepting the plea agreement and assumes that that was a driving force for the government in offering that. And so whether there should be any further reduction from the sentence is something that we’ll hear from defense counsel. The government rejects any further reduction from the sentence. For those reasons the Court accepts the plea agreement as a reasonable reflection of a sufficient but not greater than necessary sentence with considerable latitude to the judge. The next issue before we talk about how we’re going to proceed is restitution. And I was disappointed to find out that you still had not reached an agreement about restitution. And my understanding is that Mr. Soteriou has fewer objections, it’s Mr. Parker who is driving the objections to the restitution amount. We need a reasonable estimate of restitution with the goal of making people whole without, they don’t make any profit from the fraud scheme. And I want to hear some representations from the attorneys as to when this is going to happen. This is, this is a fairly belated sentencing with the idea that restitution was going to be resolved. We have some latitude of 90 days post-sentence to have it resolved, but I would be very reluctant to go forward on that basis and hear on the 89th day that you still do not have the restitution resolved. And my understanding is that the bankruptcy court is going to adopt the restitution order here as its restitution schedule in the bankruptcy. So let’s hear first from you Mr. Drescher about restitution.

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, the, as the PSR notes the parties have been working towards resolving the restitution question. As Your Honor points out the standard is one of reason, not hyper-precision. Notwithstanding that standard I think it behooves all of us to try to avoid rank inaccuracies in whatever proposed restitution judgment we offer the Court in fairness to certainly the victims, but also to the defendants. Mr. Parker’s legal team has pointed out what appear to be inaccuracies in the list of restitution creditors that was generated by the probation office. We’ve gone over that list. There are a handful of creditors that, in fairness to everybody, the government wants to drill down on a little but more to make sure there’s not an obvious inaccuracy. My expectation is, and we can certainly revisit  this on Wednesday at the Parker sentencing, but my expectation is we should have that resolved within 30 days following the conclusion of these two sentencings. It’s very possible we could get it resolved in less time than that. My anticipation is we would submit that to the Court as a proposed restitution judgment. There would be no need to have hearings on it. Obviously I can’t speak for the Parker legal team, but I would anticipate that being their position as well.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Barth, let’s hear from you.

MR. BARTH: Yes. The Court stated that I believe Mr. Soteriou had fewer objections than Mr. Parker. That’s not entirely true. We don’t have any objection. I recently have litigated this issue of restitution in this very courtroom. And I’m well aware that the standard is one of reasonableness. That is, the Court does not need to account for every nickel, dime and penny. For that reason I didn’t have an objection. We had done our own internal accounting. The probation officer’s was very close. I did sit in on one resolution conference between other parties. And it seemed that Parker had some, had raised some grievances about things that might be true. If that’s the case, fine by us. But it’s recent and so we’re — unless there’s a material change to what was in the Pre-Sentence Report we have no objection to the  restitution amount.

THE COURT: Okay. Here’s what’s going to happen with regard to restitution. One of the things that happened in this case is the attorneys asked for a further delay of sentencing and I said no because I had been monitoring the restitution effort through the probation office and more time is not necessarily going to yield a better result. And I am going to order that you have it accomplished in 45 days. So you need to put aside your other work and focus on  that. The probation office will be driving this effort. And it needs to be resolved. If not I will resolve it. I will schedule it for a hearing and we’ll have it resolved, but people have waited  long enough and there’s been plenty of resources devoted to it and it’s time to get the issue resolved. And as the attorneys know it’s not mathematical precision, it’s a reasonable estimate, and that will be the guiding principle. So the Court is not going to be able to take up the issue of restitution today. Let’s talk about what we’re going to do today. And let’s start with the Pre-Sentence Report. And Mr. Soteriou have you read the Pre-Sentence Report in this case?

MR. SOTERIOU: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are there any factual errors in it?

MR. SOTERIOU: No.

THE COURT: Do you agree with that, Mr. Barth?

MR. BARTH: Yes. We made certain additions which the Court is aware that were in the PSR addendum which we maintain. Certain footnotes were added based on our comments. But we think that the Pre-Sentence Report has done a valiant job of encompassing this case. And if I may I would be remiss. This is my investigator, Miss Susan Randall.

THE COURT: I have met her before, yes.

MR. BARTH: I just want to let the Court know. I checked with counsel. He’s okay with it. She’s been an integral part of the defense team so I ask that she be allowed to sit at counsel table.

THE COURT: All right. That’s fine. Any errors in the Pre-Sentence Report from the government’s perspective?

MR. DRESCHER: No.

THE COURT: The Court’s going to adopt the Pre-Sentence Report as its findings of fact in this matter. Let me ask if anybody planned on presenting any witnesses. And let’s start with the government.

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, we plan on calling Mac Parker.

THE COURT: And any witnesses for you, Mr. Barth?

MR. BARTH: Yes, one. We’re calling Robert Hoffman.

THE COURT: Okay. So here’s what I propose that we do is we take up the evidentiary portion of our sentencing, we’ll hear from the government’s witnesses and cross examination and we’ll hear from the defense witness. There aren’t going to be any factual findings because there’s no disputed facts, but I understand you may want to call witnesses for certain emphasis you want to make on role or culpability or disparity between the parties. I will then ask Mr. Barth to make arguments on all issues including 3553(a) factors. The Court’s bound by the plea agreement. So the Court will follow the plea agreement. Mr. Soteriou, I’ll ask you if you want to make a statement on your own behalf. As I mentioned to you at your change of plea you don’t have to, I won’t hold it against you, but you have a legal right to do that. I’ll then turn to the government for arguments on all issues including 3553(a) factors. I’ll give Mr. Barth an opportunity for a brief response. I will do a guideline calculation in the courtroom. I will analyze the 3553(a) factors, impose the sentence and notify the parties of their rights of appeal. Any problem with proceeding in that manner?

MR. DRESCHER: Yes. I understand there are some victims who would like to give a statement to the Court before Your Honor imposes sentence.

THE COURT: And they, I should have mentioned that. In your case one of the things you can make remarks is ask victims to come forward and make statements. They have a right to be here and be heard. And that usually occurs as part of the government’s case. So, of course, that can happen.

MR. DRESCHER: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. BARTH: One brief comment about victim impact statements. I just — of course the victims have a right to be heard about the impact that this crime has had on their lives and their finances, etcetera. But what I don’t want is them to turn into fact witnesses. I.E., I don’t want them to start testifying about the relative culpability, who  was to blame, who wasn’t to blame. That would be the province of the fact witness called by the government. And so I don’t know that there are such witnesses who are going to do that, but I have some suspicion that that may happen. And I can tell the Court that if they are simply discussing and stating the impact that this has had on them I have no objection, but if they begin making testimonial statements about facts in the case, relative culpability, etcetera, I will object to that.

THE COURT: All right. Well, there aren’t going to be any disputed issues of fact. The victims will not be under oath. So it won’t be testimonial. And they are free to talk about their view of relative culpability. That is something a victim can do. They can say, this perpetrator affected me in this way, this perpetrator affected me in that way, this is how I feel about it. That’s the whole purpose of the victim’s impact statement to tell the Court how the crime impacted them. And sometimes people feel one way about one criminal defendant and a different way about another. And they can certainly present that to the Court. And I will allow that. So let’s start with the government calling its first witness.

MR. DRESCHER: Very well. We call Malcolm Parker. Your Honor, and I anticipate while Mr. Parker is a witness presenting three voice mails that were left by the defendant on the Parker’s home telephone. Those were voice messages recorded on a disc. I anticipate playing them from my computer without putting the disk in the computer, but I’ve marked the disc as an exhibit. I don’t believe there’s an objection to the admission of the exhibit. And I would ask that it be admitted.

THE COURT: Any objection to the admission of Government’s Exhibit 1?

MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It’s admitted.

MALCOLM PARKER, The Witness, after being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, I don’t know if the podium moves, but I believe I’m obstructing defense counsel’s view of the witness.

THE COURT: It does move, but we’ve had some bad luck with it moving, correct, Pat?

THE CLERK: Correct.

THE COURT: Yes. So it doesn’t move today. And

Mr. Barth where ever you want to sit so that you can have an unobstructed view.

MR. DRESCHER: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DRESCHER :

Q. Good morning, Mr. Parker.

A. Good morning, Mr. Drescher.

Q. Sir, how old are you?

A. Excuse me?

Q. How old are you?

A. I’m 56 years old.

Q. Where do you live?

A. I live in Addison, Vermont.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Um, approximately 15 years.

Q. Before that where did you live?

A. Ferrisburgh, Vermont.

Q. Where did you grow up?

A. I grew up in the Northeast Kingdom um, based on a farm in North Danville and in various small towns um, in the Northeast Kingdom.

Q. Describe your family please briefly, your immediate family?

A. Um, my family of birth do you mean? I’m sorry.

Q. Your immediate family. Your wife, your children.

A. Thank you. Um, I’m married to Julianna Simon Parker. And we have a 15 year old daughter Sophia.

Q. Sir, you’ve pleaded guilty before this Court?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What crimes have you pleaded guilty to?

A. Um, conspiracy to commit fraud and submitting an incorrect tax document.

Q. With whom did you conspire to commit fraud?

A. With Dr. Lou Soteriou.

Q. How did you meet Mr. Soteriou?

A. Um, I was in a relationship with Julianna who later became my wife. In 1989 she was functionally disabled with a condition known at the time as chronic fatigue syndrome. And we were — she was — a friend of hers recommended Dr. Soteriou as, what she described, as an extraordinary healer.

Q. Approximately when was this?

A. This was in the fall of 1989.

Q. And I take it from the answer you were giving a moment ago you eventually met Dr. Soteriou around that time?

A. I did. We went to receive — I drove Julianna to receive her first treatment on the day before Thanksgiving of 1989. And I scheduled a treatment for myself on that same day. And that was the date that I met Dr. Soteriou.

Q. Where did you meet him?

A. In, at his office in Middlebury, Connecticut.

Q. And at that time were you and your then future wife living together?

A. Yes, we were.

Q. Where were you living?

A. We were living in Ferrisburgh, Vermont.

Q. You indicated that you scheduled an appointment for you to see him. Did you make the appointment the day you saw him or had you scheduled it beforehand?

A. No, I had scheduled it before him and I had the appointment on the same day that my wife had her first appointment.

Q. Describe your initial encounter with Dr. Soteriou.

A. Um, well, my wife was treated first. And I could tell from her response coming out of the treatment room that it was beneficial and that it was something that was going to — we were going to be doing again.

Q. How could you tell?

A. Um, I just could tell from her manner coming out of the room she was grateful and she was enthusiastic and she told me at the time that, it was just a brief interaction, that it had been useful for her. And I knew her well enough to  read that, that it was something that, that was helpful to her.

Q. And then you had your appointment?

A. I did. And then I went in and I was — I had my first treatment session with him immediately following hers.

Q. And what happened in your session?

A. I experienced — um, Dr. Soteriou, I’ve always called him Lou, do you want me to call him Lou, do you want me to call him Dr. Soteriou?

Q. However you want.

A. I experienced Lou to be a extremely dynamic person, very confident in his treatment. I experienced him as having an uncanny ability to know things about my life  experience that I had no way of understanding how he could know them.

Q. Can you give an example?

A. Um, in the first treatment that I had with him he talked extensively — one of the formative experiences in my life is that my father died when I was just, when I just turned nine years old. And that was a, both a devastating and a formative experience in my life. And Lou talked in ways that were quite remarkable to me about the effects, without my even describing what had happened, without him, without even telling him what had happened he talked about not only what had happened but the impacts on me for the rest of my life, how that had shaped my personality, how he could read that in my body and ways that he could help me to um, move beyond that.

Q. During your initial appointment with Mr. Soteriou was it a physical manipulation that some associate with chiropractors or was it more of a speaking, counseling session?

A. It was both. Um, he — Lou always described himself as eclectic in his — in how he treated people. He did have, as I understood it, his formal training was as a chiropractor, but he had done extensive research and gone to seminars and was a student of many forms of healing science, you know, physiology, neurology. And so he did do spinal manipulation. He also, I don’t remember the specifics of what he  did in the first session, but he did various forms of what I  would consider to be energy work. And it was talking the whole time about my experience and what he could read from reading and treating my body.

Q. Why did you schedule a appointment yourself with him on that occasion?

A. It was something that I periodically did when Julianna was going to be treated by various practitioners because I had a genuine curiosity myself about ways that my own — I had a sense of my own personal limitations. And that I was at a time where I was questioning and looking for incite  from people who might have perspectives that I had not yet achieved in my life.

Q. During that first meeting with Mr. Soteriou did he know without you saying that your dad had died when you were young or did you provide him with that information?

A. Um, my recollection is that he knew without my even saying it.

Q. After the initial appointments that you and your wife had with Mr. Soteriou in November of 1989 how often did you — I take it you returned to see him?

A. I did.

Q. How often did you do that?

A. Can I add one other thing that was important to me from that first session?

Q. Yes.

A. One of the things that was so striking to me is that everything that, the treatments that Lou did and the way that he talked was all in the context of aligning our lives with God. And he stated in that, as I recall, in that  initial treatment and in virtually every other treatment and conversation that I had with him that his process, his practice and his process was all about helping people to align with what he described as the God within us. And he communicated a high degree of confidence in his ability to help people make contact and helped me make contact within myself and move beyond limitations that I already sensed  that I had and limitations which, further limitations which he also pointed out.

Q. After the initial meeting with Mr. Soteriou how often in the next year or two, how often did you and your wife meet with him?

A. I don’t remember specifically, but I, we, I believe that we would go every, initially perhaps every few weeks to once a month in that range initially. It was a long drive, but my recollection was that it would be about every few weeks to once a month initially.

Q. What were you doing for work at that time?

A. I was a performer. I was a performing story teller.

Q. I take it, well, let me ask you this, how were you paying Dr. Soteriou? What was the source of money that you paid Mr. Soteriou?

A. I was paying him from income that I received through the performance work that I did.

Q. A term you used a moment ago in describing your meeting with Mr. Soteriou was that he was engaging I believe your term was in energy work?

A. Correct.

Q. What did you mean by that?

A. Well, there were um, various ways that, that he would do a treatment. He would, sometimes he would um, in most sessions he would do spinal manipulation. He would also, for instance, put his hands on your feet and do, I don’t  tend to experience these kind of energies in ways that other people that I know do, but he would put his hands on your feet and run energy through your body. At times he would work on my chest um, opening heart. Sometimes he’d put his hands on my head. There were a variety of things, often non-verbal, that he was doing.

Q. What effect, if any, did these treatments have on you?

A. Um, for me the physical effects were subtle. Um, for me, from very early on what was most important about my relationship with Lou was that he became a teacher. I saw him as someone who knew things. I saw myself as a real babe in the spiritual woods and not having a lot of knowledge or understanding of how things worked in the spiritual realm. And I saw — he communicated a great deal of  confidence in his understanding of these and his ability to teach me about them. So for me what was most significant was the, the teaching and the guidance, the personal guidance more so than the physical work.

Q. What sort of personal guidance are you talking about?

A. Um, —

Q. And, again, we’re focusing now to the first few years of your relationship with Mr. Soteriou.

A. It was very broad and inclusive of many things from um, help in, personal help in my relationship with my partner, to become wife. Um, the primary, um — I guess the overarching theme of it was how can I align myself with my, my life, my work life, my personal life, my business life with a higher set of divine principles. And, you know, that’s —

Q. What effect did you observe, if any, that the appointments with Dr. Soteriou had on your wife?

A. I experienced, from my observation and from her talking about it, that the effects for her were profound, very significant from the first, very first session. And she made very steady progress in the work that she did with him until, I don’t remember the specific timeline, but after a year or two of working with him her health had, after being treated by a variety of traditional and alternative practitioners her health had not improved. And her health  improved significantly during that time. And both of us attributed that to her own efforts, but also to her work with Lou and the guidance and the specific help that he was giving.

Q. How long had she suffered from chronic fatigue before you meet with Soteriou the first time?

A. It had been — this was the second bout for her. Um, she had had a bout of it before I met her in 1987. And then she had a recurrence of it shortly after I met her in 1987. So at that point it had been about two years.

Q. Do you recall what Dr. Soteriou was charging at the time you started to see him?

A. I do not recall specifically. I believe that it was in the neighborhood of $200.

Q. Per appointment?

A. Per appointment, correct.

Q. From 1989 through, up until the late ’90’s did the frequency with which you met with Mr. Soteriou change?

THE COURT: So let me ask for an offer of proof because Mr. Parker is not a victim and he’s plead guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud. So we are hearing about this  relationship because of what?

MR. DRESCHER: You’re hearing about this relationship, Your Honor, because it goes to the nature and circumstances of the crime that Mr. Soteriou and Mr. Parker engaged in together.

THE COURT: And in what way does it go to that?

MR. DRESCHER: Mr. Soteriou’s sentencing papers will, I believe, try to distance him from a role, that his role in the movie. I believe, and my offer of proof to Your Honor will be, that through the testimony of Mr. Parker you will hear that Mr. Soteriou had an intimate role in this movie and the movie project and had a significant affect on how Mr. Parker went about getting money from victims in this movie, victims who thought they were investing in this movie project. This background section of his testimony is intended to provide Your Honor with a framework from which you will, I hope, understand how it was that Mr. Soteriou and Mr. Parker worked together in this crime.

THE COURT: Okay. So I’m more interested in focusing on the criminal activity. I don’t believe that there’s going to be a proffer that Mr. Parker was motivated solely with the desire of obtaining treatments and that he was misled by Mr. Soteriou. So let’s focus on the crime and the roles they played and less about the treatment and of the wife and how she suffered in the past. I understand you’re suggesting to me that Mr. Soteriou was a figure of prominence to Mr. Parker.

Q. (By Mr. Drescher:) Very well. I’ll fast forward through a few years in the ’90’s. What year was your daughter born?

A. 1998.

Q. What effect, if any, did your wife’s pregnancy have with regard to your relationship to Mr. Soteriou?

A. Um, Mr. Soteriou — Lou was very disapproving of the fact that Julianna had become pregnant um, and considered that it was and communicated to her that it was going to set her back physically in terms of the work and the progress that she had been making in her own recuperation. And this was um, a very hurtful and serious breach in what had been a very meaningful and profoundly healing process for my wife.

Q. Around the time of your wife’s pregnancy did Mr. Soteriou discuss with you the future of his chiropractic practice?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. What did he say in that regard?

A. Um, he communicated that he would not be — that being a chiropractor or being a healer was only one phase of his life. That he wanted to move on to other spiritual pursuits and that he would be closing his practice sooner than later. And that when he did that we would not continue to have access to his help, his, his treatments and his help.

Q. What effect did that have on you and your wife?

A. Um, well, that was um, alarming to us because at this point Lou had a very um, powerful influence um, if, if it’s all right with you I would prefer to speak of my own personal experience. My wife’s experience is certainly related, but also very much her own. So if that’s all right I would like to —

Q. Let me try and focus my question for you in the hope of —

A. Yeah.

Q. — of making your testimony more pertinent to the issues before the Court. Around the time of your wife’s pregnancy and the birth of your daughter was there a hiatus in, now looking back, in your relationship with Mr. Soteriou?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Now, the word hiatus, you know, a break in the relationship. What happened to cause that break in the relationship?

A. Um, Lou essentially communicated that Julianna had missed her chance at what he saw as a, the spiritual potential that he had been holding out for her and that she had given away that chance or as he put it at the time blown her chance by getting pregnant and choosing to become a mother over choosing her own spiritual process as he had been outlining it.

Q. During this, the term I’ve called hiatus, during this hiatus did you see — did you have any meetings with Mr. Soteriou?

A. There were — there was an extensive period where we had no meetings at all. Where um, he was, had said that he was in the process of leaving his practice. And it was not clear to us that we would ever see him again.

Q. But you did see him again?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did that come about?

A. Um, some time after the birth of my daughter, I believe it was before she was even a year old, Lou called at the end of a period of time where we had been essentially cut out of his life and had not been seeing us, not been in communication with us. He called to — called out of the  blue to say that his brother had died suddenly of testicular  cancer and that this had been very upsetting for Lou. He was uncharacteristically emotional and open about it. And he had this conversation with my wife. And she reported it  to me. Um, and he said that his first — one of the things that he communicated in that conversation was that one of his first thoughts upon learning that his brother had died was oh, my God, Mac and Julianna are going to die as well if I don’t help them. And he said he did not want that to happen. And so that he was going to begin treating both of us again and that we could come down to be treated by him. Um, I, believe we left perhaps as soon as the next day, but soon.

Q. How old were you at that time?

A. Um, I don’t remember the math. My guess is, my recollection is that I would be in my early 40’s.

Q. How old was your father when he died?

A. My father was 46 or perhaps 47, mid 40’s.

Q. Upon the resumption of your relationship with Mr. Soteriou that you just described were the financial terms different than they were before?

A. Um, yes, they were.

Q. How?

A. Um, um, Lou began asking for larger sums of money, payments up front for services. Um, and an escalating series of what I experienced as demands if I wanted to maintain access to his resource, to his guidance, to his treatments for my wife um, that I needed to come up with a larger and larger sums of money to keep, as he called it, keep that door open.

Q. Did Mr. Soteriou ever say anything to you about the relationship, financial relationship between him and his brother who had died?

A. Um, he did. I don’t remember exactly when, but he did. He told me that he had — he did tell me that he had some sort of arrangement where following the, Lou’s closing his practice that George had, his brother had um, been supporting him in his spiritual pursuits. I did not know the details of that, but he did say that they did have that arrangement.

Q. You testified a moment ago that he was increasing his financial demands to you?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Can you give an example?

A. Um, well, he, I do not remember the specific dates and times, but he, during the course of 1999 he asked me for several sums of money. Um, I believe there was a, a request for $5,000 which he described as an advance payment on  treatments. Then there was a request for $10,000. Then there was a request for $50,000. And ultimately um, in the late summer or fall of that year there was a request for $150,000.

Q. Did you pay those sums?

A. I did.

Q. Where did you get the money?

A. Um, the —

Q. Generally where did the money come from?

A. The $10,000 and the $50,000 came from family and at great hardship to them. Um, and the hundred and 50 thousand dollars um, I raised by selling the rights to the video Let’s Go To The Farm that I had worked on and that I — at that point owned the rights to. And also selling um, Farm Stories For Families, another video that I had produced in conjunction with Vermont Public Television in the summer of 1999.

Q. After or around the time you came up with those sums did you — did you follow Mr. Soteriou — let me ask it differently. What happened next with regard to your relationship with Mr. Soteriou in 1999?

A. Um, well, um, if I may, I would like to explain just one of the — I don’t know Your Honor if, if this is within the parameters that you’re asking for. Um, but if, with your permission I would like to explain one dynamic that was at work with Lou during that time. And then I can answer the specifics of the question.

THE COURT: Mr. Drescher, is that acceptable to you?

MR. DRESCHER: Yes.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. The nature of my relationship with Lou had begun in a very trusting way where I experienced him as someone who was profoundly helpful to me and my wife. There was also an unfortunate level of fear that he worked with that I was vulnerable to in ways that I did not understand at the time. And so there became a kind of, what I experience in retrospect as a kind of rope that was woven between my trust in the work that he did and a very explicit way that he used fear to get me to do things with the threat that if I did not do those things not only would I die, but my wife and my daughter would not um — that I would die, that I would do to my daughter what had been done to me. I would leave her before she had had a chance to become who she was to become. And so there was a very what, I experienced in retrospect, I did not recognize it at the time, but I experienced in retrospect an insidious mixture of inspiration and fear that I had come to believe was necessary for my own um, not only spiritual process, but for my life.

Q. How is it that you credited Mr. Soteriou’s prediction that you would die if you did not work with him?

A. Excuse me?

Q. How is it that you credited his prediction that you would die if you did not work with him?

A. You mean if I stopped working with him?

Q. Yes.

A. Um, he stated that once you are on a spiritual path if you, if you took the um, if you decided to get on to what he considered to be a higher spiritual path and you fell off that path that the consequences were even more severe than if you had never gotten on that path to begin with.

Q. And you believed that?

A. And he described the dynamics — he described the dynamics of what he called my family gene pool as dying young. That my father had died young.

Q. So I appreciate you’re telling us what he said. My question is how is it that you believed what he was saying?

A. Um, he had cited many examples of other people that he had worked with who had not followed his advice and had experienced either serious calamity and usually death. And I had, by this point, unfortunately given so much of my own control and power to him that I believed that he had an understanding of how these things worked that I didn’t.

Q. So you did follow him on this path?

A. Excuse me?

Q. You did follow him on this path?

A. I — yes, I did.

Q. And in 1999 where did that path take you geographically?

A. Um, at the conclusion of raising the hundred and 50 thousand dollars, which was his, the biggest challenge and threat that he had laid out to me to date um, he had us go to Ramtha School of Enlightenment in Yelm, Washington for a — that was in the fall of 1999, for a beginners event. Um, which he stated if all went well we would stay then through the, there was a follow-up retreat after that. And we ended up staying for the follow-up event as well.

Q. We meaning who?

A. Um, my wife, my daughter and myself.

Q. What happened at the Ramtha School of Enlightment?

A. Ramtha School of Enlightenment was a school that Lou had become involved with. Um, and it’s, it’s a school where they teach you a variety of what they call spiritual disciplines to advance you on the spiritual path.

Q. And it’s located where?

A. Yelm, Washington.

Q. And how long were you and your family there?

A. I don’t recall specifically, but my recollection it was somewhere between three and five weeks total.

Q. Where and when did Mr. Soteriou first discuss with you the idea of creating a movie?

A. Um, it was in the fall of 1999. Um, I — as you and I have discussed I cannot remember the precise moment that it happened. My recollection was that it was over the phone after the events at, in Yelm at Ramtha School of Enlightenment. He instructed me that we were going to make a film and that the film would be called, his initial description of it, which I remember, was Wide Eyed Wonder The Birth Of Innocence.

Q. Was there — were you aware of any relationship between the idea for creating this film and the Ramtha School of Enlightment?

A. Um, I was aware that that school and that spiritual process was an influence on him at that point. And certainly some of what he taught me during that time and what he was having me work on was coming from Ramtha School of Enlightenment, yes.

Q. And what relationship, if any, was there between this movie idea and what Mr. Soteriou was having you work on?

A. Well, what he was having me work on, as he described it at the time, was developing my own consciousness so that I  could become the creator of this film. So he was having me do spiritual disciplines. The predominant one was Ramtha School of Enlightenment which is a lot about focusing the mind to sharpen your ability to manifest your own reality. So one of the things that he had me do was focused discipline which involves putting on a mask and focusing your mind on some particular image or goal that you want to manifest in your life.

Q. You testified a moment ago that Mr. Soteriou had the title of the movie in mind when you first discussed the idea with him?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And is it correct that it was his idea?

A. It was.

Q. Did he discuss anything about the movie beyond the title?

A. Um, I don’t remember in the — in that initial conversation, but very early on we had, yes, a multitude of discussions about how the process would work, what the film would be. You know, he described it — that fundamentally it was going to be an expression, a beautiful expression of the spiritual process that we were learning and that he was  teaching.

Q. Did the two of you agree as to an allocation of roles relating to the movie?

A. Um, he described an allocation of roles and, and I  agreed to it, yes.

Q. And what role were you to play? What role was he to play?

A. I had multiple roles. I was to create the script, um, I mean, I — and before that I, I was to continue to do the work to develop my own consciousness so that I could create the script. I would find the production crew, I would do the pre-production work, I would do the filming, I would direct the filming. Um, I would do the post-production work, not do it myself, but hire a post-production crew. And so I was responsible for the on the ground leg work creating the film from the script through to its completion.

Q. What role was he to play?

A. And, and I was also to be responsible for raising the money needed to create the film.

Q. What role was Mr. Soteriou to play?

A. Um, Lou described his role as doing the work in consciousness. To, that he would then teach me that, so that I could incorporate that wisdom, as he called it, into, and truth into the film so that the film would have the integrity and the experience behind it to be something, a film that — he described that it was important that it be doing more than philosophy. It needed to be personal experience. And his job was to be the person who did the work  in consciousness so that the film itself was an expression of someone’s experience.

Q. What does that mean, work in consciousness? What does that mean?

A. Well, he was — I did not know explicitly what it meant, but he described himself as doing where I would be, for instance, doing one hour of focused discipline he would be doing three or four which then increased to six or eight, 10 or 12. He was um, pursuing a spiritual path um, that was about discovering the deeper truth of our spiritual potential as human beings. And he was to be on the, on the, he sometimes described himself as the lead scout. He was to be doing the work, kind of the advance work in consciousness. I was going to be the rear guard doing the work, the on the ground work of putting the film together, working with the crew, writing the script, raising the funds, all of that.

Q. And so the project started. And you indicated one of your jobs was to raise the money ; correct ?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Did you have early on discussions with Mr. Soteriou about how to go about raising the money?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you have a budget for the film?

A. No, we did not.

Q. Tell us about the discussions you had with Mr. Soteriou with regard to fundraising for the movie?

A. Well, he instructed me to begin raising funds shortly after I returned, we returned from Ramtha School of  Enlightment. He told me — he instructed me to — in the early times he instructed me to work with what he called salt of the earth people um, my friends, my neighbors, my community um, people who knew me and trusted me. Um, he instructed me to avoid making appeals to what he called big money people. Um, he instructed me to, when I was, you know, he, he instructed me to come up with a contract um, so that there would be a way of documenting with these people what the arrangement was. He instructed me as, in coming up with that contract to do that myself, to not consult with attorneys um, but to come up with a, my own um, version of a contract to document what the arrangement was. And he instructed me — and he told me from the very beginning that he would be um, personally responsible for assuring that every loan that was made to me and to the project would be repaid with a generous rate of return.

Q. And you then prepared a form of an investor agreement?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you ever show that investor agreement to Mr. Soteriou?

A. Um, no, I did not.

Q. But you’re familiar with the agreement?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Why does that agreement not say anything about Mr. Soteriou’s promise to repay back the investors?

A. Um, from the very beginning Lou instructed me that this was to be my project. Um, that I would do all the work, that I would get all the credit. Um, and that he did not want — he explicitly told me that he did not want anyone to know about his involvement in the project um, and that I was not to tell anyone about his involvement in it.

Q. Did he say to you why he did not want his involvement disclosed?

A. Yes, he did. Um, he expressed that the nature of the work in consciousness that he was doing required him to be isolated and undistracted by um, people wanting him to do interviews, people wanting him to describe the work that he  was doing. He described it as he needed to um, he said basically he wanted to disappear to do the work in consciousness that he needed to do and that it required that  level of privacy and protection.

Q. And so you started raising money from investors in or around the year 2000; is that right?

A. Um, the first, as I recall um, um, the first contracts that I wrote were in November of 1999.

Q. You started receiving money around that time?

A. That’s correct.

Q. What did you do with the money you received?

A. Um, the vast majority of it in the beginning went directly to Lou.

Q. In what way? How was it sent to Lou?

A. Um, I do not recall the first payments, but they would have been in a check from me to Lou. So I would deposit the funds into my account and then write a check to Lou.

Q. And over time that system changed?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. And describe briefly how it changed?

A. Um, I don’t remember the exact timing, but at some point Lou asked me to send him — I believe the first time was three checks, signed checks signed by me made out to him um, so that when he needed money he could contact me and he would have the check and fill out the amount if he, once he learned that I had that amount in my account.

Q. And that system continued by which you would send him blank checks?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Signed?

A. That’s correct.

Q. So you start raising money in late 1999. And that process continues for the next decade; is that correct? The fundraising process?

A. That’s correct.

Q. What was going on — describe the early steps towards the creation of a movie, please?

A. Um, well, there were various ways that I — the first thing that I needed to do was to write the script. And there were various ways that I went about doing that. One instruction that Lou gave me was to transcribe a talk that Ramtha had given at the school, in which I had on tape, to transcribe the whole tape and um, so that I would have it. And he said at that point the whole film is in that talk. And I didn’t know what that meant at the time, but I believed that, that, that um, it was a part of my teaching to sort of steep myself in that school of thinking. Another thing that I would do that was more personal to me is I would drive in my old Toyota pick-up truck to a place that I went either walking or skiing in the woods and would either walk or ski and just sort of think about what, what I was learning, what I wanted to communicate in this film, um, what was important about it to me. And I would, then I would come back and sit in the truck and write down ideas that came to me.

Q. Did you and Mr. Soteriou during the first year or two, 2000, 2001, 2002 did the two of you talk about the movie script?

A. Um, we did — we talked frequently. And he talked — the nature of our conversations was not specifically talking about the script. He was very clear that he wanted me to create the script myself based upon what I was learning from him. So it was very much about the um, the spiritual process, the teachings, the experiences that he was having that he was teaching me. And then my job was to take that and process that and to communicate it through the script.

Q. How often during that time were you communicating with Mr. Soteriou?

A. Um, well, to be clear I was not communicating with Mr. Soteriou. He was communicating with me. One of the natures of our — one of the —

Q. How often during that time were the two of you in contact by voice or in person?

A. Very frequently. Um, usually every day, usually multiple times every day.

Q. Did you see him? Did you meet with him?

A. I did not meet with him, no. It was almost exclusively over the phone.

Q. Would you call him or would he call you?

A. He called me. Always. He explicitly did not want me calling him.

Q. During your telephone calls with him did he ever question your ability to make the film without him?

A. Um, yes.

Q. Describe that, please.

A. Well, he — again, working with Lou is a combination of inspiration and what I experienced as threat. Um, and so  sometimes he would be very inspiring and says, you can do this, it’s going to be beautiful. This is, you know, um, it’s going to have, it’s going the touch something very deep in people because it’s our experience. Um, then at other times he would say um, you can never do this without me, you don’t have the consciousness to do this, you’re um, without me this would all be BS, without me this would be you making up something that might sound good and everybody would say, oh gee isn’t that nice, but it didn’t really have the, the experience behind it. So specifically to answer your question yes, he, he communicated that without his resource and consciousness I would not be able to create a film that would be successful to the degree that it needed to be.

Q. Eventually you began filming the movie?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And during the filming — how long did the filming process take?

A. Um, approximately two years.

Q. During that time what role, if any, did Mr. Soteriou have with regard to the film?

A. Um, he was in communication with me regularly. Um, I did not, I don’t even know if cell phones existed yet, but I didn’t have one. So when I was filming I would not be in contact with him. But whenever I was at home he would be in contact with me asking me how it was going. Um, you know, asking for details about the filming um, about the crew. Um, so we were in regular contact.

Q. At that point, during the filming process, had you shared with him a version of the script?

A. Um, no, I, I had not at that point.

Q. Why not?

A. He explicitly said that he did not want me to. Um, he wanted this to come from me. Um, and at — he said different things at different times, but one of the things that he said frequently during that time is I don’t even want to know, you know, it’s, I’ll probably never see the film. But because my consciousness is behind it and because you’re working with the God within you I know that it’s going to be what it needs to be.

Q. What affect did he have on or influence did he have, if any, on the crew working on the movie?

A. Um, —

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, to the extent that this is going to get into the realm of speculation I guess I would object.

THE COURT: So it needs to be based on your personal knowledge, not something that you are guessing at. And so the objection is sustained in part.

Q. (By Mr. Drescher:) Mr. Parker, based upon your direct personal observations and communications with Mr. Soteriou and your dealings with the movie production crew what role did Mr. Soteriou have with regard to the movie crew, the production crew?

A. Well, there were times, there were several times um — Lou maintained a certain kind of control by intervening at various points um, very forcefully and saying this needs to happen. Um, for instance there was a time where we were considering working with a composer who came from California. And um, I met with her and the crew and she was someone who was contacted by the line producer on the film, Andy Reichsman. And we had a dinner with her — we showed her parts of the film and we had a dinner with her. And um, then when I got home from that Lou said I didn’t tell you to have dinner with her, I didn’t tell you to introduce her to the whole crew. So he intervened and pretty much excoriated me from making that mistake, what he called a mistake. And for not listening to him.

Q. Did he ever instruct you to fire a member of the crew?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Describe that episode, please.

A. Towards the end of the production there was a woman, Robin, who was an associate producer, production — associate production manager, I forget specifically what we called her. But she was, worked very hard on the film and had done a lot of the logistical arrangements. And towards the end of the production, I believe most of the filming was completed, she had an opportunity to — she was offered by Allen Dater who was the cinematographer for the film to go to Africa to film him. He was — to do some work with him. He was filming the Noble Peace Prize Winner Wongari from Kenya. And he invited Robin to go. And Lou thought that this was — Robin was being disloyal and that I needed — he just said fire her. Fire her. And I did not want to fire her um, did not feel right to me. Um, but I ultimately did it because I knew that when Lou told me to do something and if I did not do it then there were very serious consequences to that.

Q. What sort of consequences?

A. Um, he would threaten to abandon the project, he would threaten — he would become furious with me, he would say, do you know how to make this movie, do you understand the consciousness behind this? Um, you’re going to, you, is it more important to you to have Robin on this crew than it is so have the film be successful? He was um, extremely threatening, extremely angry. And um, would, the ultimate threat would be that he would leave the project and not help me complete it.

Q. Now, to be clear, during the filming was Mr. Soteriou ever present physically?

A. No, he was not.

Q. Your communications with him were over the phone?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, at some point in the production process you believed you had a pretty good rough cut of the film; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And up until that time had Mr. Soteriou seen any of the images from the film?

A. No, he had not.

Q. And you had not showed him the script?

A. That is correct. I had not.

Q. And your view, once you had that rough cut, how close to completion did you think you were?

A. Um, I felt like we were close to completion of the film. We had a, we were there from start to finish. There were some um, special effects or sequence at the beginning that had not been established, but I felt like we had a line all the way through the film and I expected that we would be completed in the near future.

Q. And what time period are we talking about? What’s your best estimation when you had this rough cut?

A. It would have been in the mid-2000’s, 2004, 2005, somewhere in there.

Q. So you had this rough cut and you have your feeling that you are getting close to done, what happened next with regard to the movie?

A. Um, I remember very specifically what happened. I, the crew that I was working with Allan Dater, Andy Reichsman were in Marlboro, Vermont. And I was working with an editor, Kate Purdy. And we had completed our rough cut of the film. I had been down there working with her and I believe doing some final shooting. And the last thing I did before we left is I watched a complete rough cut of the film start to finish. And I drove home thinking we’re — I think we’re almost there. And when I got home my recollection is immediately Lou called and said um, I have a curve ball to throw you, I’m going to throw you a curve ball. And he said um, I’ve, I have a new idea for the beginning and the end of the film. Um, and I expect that that will change the beginning of the  film as well, excuse me, the middle of the, the mid-section of the film as well.

Q. And what happened next?

A. Um, well, he described his ideas. He had — he wanted to use some of the imagery from the Hubble Spacecraft um, Hubble Telescope um, as a way of um, as an opening sequence of the film and also as a closing sequence of the film. So um, and he instructed me to begin looking at those images and begin thinking about how they could be used. I don’t remember the specific timing, but then we also, he said it was also time for him to look at the script to see what I had done. So he did um, that was, that was the time that I showed him the script for the first time.

Q. Did you show it to him or did you read it to him?

A. My recollection was initially that I showed it to him.

Q. How?

A. Over the phone.

Q. Did you have a video connection?

A. No. No. I mean I just showed — I’m sorry, I read him the script. I did not show him any of the film.

Q. And what happened next?

A. Um, he, we, he told me the parts of the film that he felt like were strong and he told me the parts of the film where he felt like I was — had not captured it, where I was wrong. And he um, did, he — there was one section of the film that he felt like I was not equipped to write. And so he um, essentially wrote that part himself. And the rest of the film, he helped the rest of the script, excuse me, he helped me to edit. I worked extensively with him over a period of a few weeks to um, come up with what he considered an improved version of the script that I had written.

Q. And the time period we’re talking about now is what?

A. Um, it would have been somewhere in that same 2004-2005. I don’t remember precisely.

Q. Now you said he was helping you edit the film?

A. I’m sorry. Helping me edit the script. That’s what I mean. My mistake.

Q. Helping you edit the script. At this time had you shared any visual components of the film?

A. No, I had not. And, again, that was — he said that he did not want to see that. He was just — all he needed to see was the script.

Q. You’ve used the term in your testimony today focus discipline. What is —

A. Focused discipline.

Q. What is a focused discipline?

A. Um, it was what I was describing to you earlier. You put on a mask that blinds your eyes, you can either do it at — the Ramtha School of Enlightenment they do it in a big field, you know, walking around focus, you are focusing on a particular image of um, either a quality or something that you want to manifest in your life. The idea being that the human mind has a tremendous capacity to create, but we’re very distracted and fractured. And so that if you bring the mind to a point of focus it brings you greater clarity and you can actually in Ramtha’s terms you can create the reality that you are focused upon.

Q. Were there connections between the film and focused — and doing focused disciplines?

A. Um, not in terms of content. Um, but my understanding was that the connection was that I was doing the focused discipline to bring greater clarity to my own spiritual practice that would then be translated into the film. So it wasn’t like I was — focused discipline was not part of the film, no. It was the process of achieving greater clarity which then I was expected to bring to the film.

Q. After Mr. Soteriou threw you the curve ball, so to speak, who were you working with with regard to the film production at that time?

A. Um, Kate Purdy was the editor at that time. We were still doing some pick up shots, final filming with um — Alan Dater was the cinematographer, Andy Reichsman was the line producer, essentially production manager. And Kate Purdy was the, the film’s editor.

Q. And eventually you changed editors?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Did Mr. Soteriou have anything to do with the decision to change editors?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And what was that?

A. Um, he instructed me to stop working with Kate Purdy. And um, I don’t remember the specific sequence, but I had begun working with another editor in, with Horace Williams.

And ultimately he instructed me to work with Horace.

Q. Had he ever met Horace to your knowledge?

A. No.

Q. How is it that he’s able to instruct you to work with somebody that he had not met? Can you explain that?

A. Well, the nature of my experience of working with, with Lou both before the Birth Of Innocence project and during the project is that he had an uncanny and un — an uncanny ability, and one that I had not experienced before, to know things about people without having direct personal contact with them. And it was common for him to talk about someone or this, you know, oh, this is a good person, somebody he had never met. He described himself as having the ability to feel into anyone, anywhere and essentially feel what kind of person they were.

Q. During the course of the, the film production process that we’ve been talking about so far in your testimony did you ever revisit with Mr. Soteriou in discussion the idea of sharing the fact of his involvement with investors in the film?

A. Um, this was something that came up several times, yes.

Q. Can you describe that, please? How would that come up and what would Mr. Soteriou’s response be?

A. What would come up, because one of Lou’s oft repeated phrases and things that he stressed as — bless you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: — as crucial to this process was the importance of being consistent with spiritual loss. And  I had a certain discomfort with the fact that he was speaking about being consistent um, and being truthful and was at the same time requiring that I not divulge his involvement in the project to other people. So I raised that in that context. I remember saying tentatively because honestly Lou was a difficult and dangerous person to disagree with. But I would say, you know, somewhat tentatively, how is it not inconsistent with these principles that you are teaching me to be involving people like the people who are sitting here in, without telling them how important you are to this process, that you are involved in this process, that this is your idea. And he would, he insisted that that was not a problem.

Q. Did you ever discuss your concern about the investors with him?

A. Um, well, yes, I did. I mean this is a long period of  time and there are different stages of it. So if you can direct me which, at which time we’re —

Q. I’ll revisit that actually. So let me talk about 2006, 2007, 2008. At this point in time you’re continuing — it’s after the curve ball?

A. Yes.

Q. And you’re continuing to raise money using your investment contract to get investments in the film?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you are — and where is that money going that you’re getting from people at that time?

A. Um, that money at that point was going to a variety of — it was, it was going in a number of different directions. Um, as had been the case um, a significant portion of it was going to Lou especially during the production time. Those years of, where the actual filming and bulk of the production work was going on um — a significant portion of it was going to production. Following that part of it it was going to post-production. Um, then um, by that point I was actually paying out interest to some of the investors, lenders as we went. So there was money that was going towards interest payments for investors um, and some repayment of investors. And I was also taking money as — to pay my own household expenses and living expenses. My, the best of my recollection that’s an accurate breakdown of where the money was going.

Q. As the project continued is it fair to say you were spending more and more time seeking money?

A. That is true.

Q. And conversely less time working on the movie?

A. That is true.

Q. So what was happening with regard to the creation of the movie late in the game, 2008-2009?

A. Well, back to your sequencing after what we’re describing as the curve ball I then worked for a period of, I don’t recall, but I believe it was probably a year and a half with Horace Williams to create the version of the film based on the input that Lou had made and based on my own, the evolution of the script. So I worked with him extensively throughout that time. And we reached a level of completion. And during that time I worked with him, you know, the entire, every time we were working on the film we were there together. Um, then I believe it was, I don’t know that, the precise time, but I believe it would have been towards the end of 2007 the film as it exists now was pretty much structurally complete. I would say it was another, a new version of a rough cut. Um, and we had been through several refinements at that point. Then in two, late 2007 and especially 2008 and 2009 it just became more and more difficult for me to keep up with raising the money that was needed to keep up with this unwieldy and unworkable and unsustainable arrangement. Um, so I was having to work um, close to full-time — well, I was working more than full-time just on the finances. And I was working very, very — to a very limited extent on the film.

Q. Earlier you said after the curve ball there was a portion of the script that Lou needed to write? Was that an accurate — is that — did you say something to that effect?

A. What I said there was a — when he intervened and read the script there was a part of the script that he kept trying to get me to write that he was not satisfied with my efforts to write it. I had written most of the script. And most of the script by that point with some edits he approved of. There was one section that he believed he needed to write on his own. So that’s what I’m referring to there.  I believe what you’re asking is then there was another place later on that I still felt like after we had completed this next version of the film that I still didn’t feel like I had the wisdom or understanding to complete on my own and I believed I needed input from him.

Q. What was it that you needed from him?

A. Well, the film, as I understood it is a, is about the process of spiritual evolution. And it, it starts from our um — well, I won’t go into a long version of it, but there was a specific part of the spiritual process which I believed at the time that I had not experienced which Lou was experiencing. And so for the film to have integrity and to be truthful I needed his input on what that was going to be. It was a small section of the film, but I saw it as a crucial one.

Q. What, as the, as the story goes later into the first decade of this century how often, how did the nature of your communications with Mr. Soteriou change? Were you in contact just as often or what was going on in that regard?

A. No. I would say that for the first, from 1999 to probably 2005, 2006 the, the contact was extremely frequent um, multiple times every day with few breaks in that.  In 2006 and 2007 there were some changes, which I did not know what they were at the time. I’ve since learned some of what they were about. There were times when he was not as available. And what he described it at the time was he was giving — that I was sort of growing into myself in this process, he didn’t need to be as much in touch with me and overseeing what I was doing. And so he was letting me do my thing. Then, that would be kind of 2006 and 2007. Late 2007, 2008, 2009 I finally just told him, you know, whatever spiritual breakthroughs you need to do to, to fulfill your promises to, that you’ve made to me and implicitly to these other people do them as quickly and expeditiously as possible because I don’t have time to have the same kind of long conversations with you on the phone. I’m simply working too many hours already trying to keep up with this. So I had significantly less contact with him in 2008 and 2009.

Q. And it’s — at that point he would also leave voice mails at your home?

A. That began later, yes, during that time, yes.

MR. DRESCHER: At this point, Your Honor, I’d like to play three of the voice mails that are all on Exhibit 1. The first one there’s, I will represent to the Court, I don’t believe there’s any dispute, was left on the Parker’s home voice mail system on September 15, 2008.

(Tape playing:)

Q. (By Mr. Drescher:) Your voice mail system had a two minute limit?

A. Yes. As I recall these were coming in, we had had an office phone and we had a home phone. This came in on the home phone.

Q. And is it correct that you recognize the voice to be Mr. Soteriou’s?

A. That is correct.

Q. I want to ask you about a few other things he said during that voice mail. He said at one point, I believe, quote, as I go you guys shall come too. Did I hear that correctly?

A. Yes, you did.

Q. What was he talking about? What did you understand that to mean?

A. Well, Lou always, well not always, but towards the end always talked about um, he was working towards a level of spiritual attainment that he would then teach to us as um, part of the reward of doing this, this work and making this process possible for him. So there was a spiritual element that we would get to learn and he would teach us what he was learning and so that we could have those experiences. And there was also a physical component that he would, you know, we would — where ever he was living, where ever um, he was going to go that we would get to be part of his life and to go there with him.

Q. During the voicemail we just heard there was a mention of how light toilet paper is compared to Mr. Soteriou’s hand. Can you explain what that was all about?

A. Um, well, at this point um, Lou was involved in a process, as he explained it to me, where he believed he was in the latter stages of what might be called, what is called in some traditions ascension where you, where you um, dissolve the physical body into its spiritual essence. And Lou believed that he was, that his physical body was dissolving. And one of the things that he said during this time is that if you held his — if you picked up his hand that it would be as light as a piece of toilet paper because his material physical body was in fact dissolving. That’s what he stated and that’s what he believed.

Q. I believe you made reference on that voice mail he used the word Kundalini; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. How does that fit into this? What is the Kundalini?

A. Well, the Kundalini as I understand it is a fundamental life force that has been understood for centuries in mystical traditions that, it’s a very powerful fundamental life force that every human being has and that some spiritual traditions um, pursue the process of raising that Kundalini from where it rests at the base of the spine up through the physical body all the way to the, to the head and out the top of the head.

Q. Did he speak, did Mr. Soteriou speak with you about the Kundalini during the time you were having office visits with him?

A. I don’t recall that he did at that time, no.

THE COURT: So let me, we’re almost at the noon hour, and let me get an offer of proof because it does not  strike the Court that much of this goes to any contested facts. And having presided over the case for a lengthy period of time, both cases, most of this is not new information. So tell me why are we hearing about the Kundalini and the hand is the toilet paper and all of that?

MR. DRESCHER: I am — Your Honor, I intend to play two more voice mails, both which are shorter than the ones we’ve heard so far, less than two minutes. And then I intend to inquire as to the relationship between this process that is being, that is, that Mr. Soteriou is describing in this voice mail and the completion of the movie. And um, which is um, in large part about what this case is about, Mr. Soteriou’s control over the completion of the movie.

THE COURT: All right. And the contested issue is the disparity between these parties’ roles in completing the film or what issue does it go to that the Court needs to consider in sentencing?

MR. DRESCHER: It certainly goes to Mr. Soteriou’s role in the completion, role in the offense, role in the conspiracy. Um, and it, you know, principally it goes to, it goes to that role. Certainly it goes to Mr. Soteriou’s relationship with his principle co-conspirator, Mr. Parker, how they were working together. Um, and in the following two voice mails you’ll hear about the flow of funds from one to other as well.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don’t we play the following two voice mails and then we’ll break for the noon hour.

MR. DRESCHER: Very well. The next voice mail was delivered on November 23, 2008.

(Tape playing:)

Q. Before I ask you about some of what we heard on that voice mail I will play the next voice mail which was delivered on January 19, 2009.

(Video playing:)

Q. We heard on those two voice mails Mr. Soteriou stating that he was going to put in 10. What did that term mean?

A. That he was going to deposit one of the checks that he had from me um, in the — and write it out for $10,000.

Q. We heard him talking on those voice mails that it was pushing to get out and um, that was getting close. To what was he referring?

A. My understanding of that is he’s referring to the Kundalini which he believed and stated at that point he had  raised to his head and it was um, pushing to — the energy was pushing to pop out of his head. And that was some part of the attainment of this spiritual goal that he was working  towards.

Q. What was the relationship, if any, between his attainment of that spiritual growth and the completion of the movie?

A. Well, he um, was not willing to um, work on — he was focused — he believed that this level of spiritual attainment was necessary before he would stop and come back and help to work on the film. And so he continued to push on this um, working in that spiritual discipline for that level of attainment um, and was not willing to stop that to deal with the completion of the film.

THE COURT: Is this a logical breaking point?

MR. DRESCHER: It is.

THE COURT: All right. We will take an hour break for the lunch hour. Anything to bring to my attention from the attorneys before we break?

MR. DRESCHER: Not from the government.

MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(The Court recessed at 12:00 noon and resumed at 1:05 p.m.)

THE COURT: We are back on the record in the United States of America versus Louis Soteriou. We have Mr. Parker on the witness stand. He is still under oath. And we are in Mr. Drescher’s direct examination.

MR. DRESCHER: Thank you.

EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. DRESCHER :

Q. When we broke you had testified briefly about the relationship between the idea of Mr. Soteriou’s ascension and the completion of the movie; is that right.

A. That’s correct.

Q. What, if anything, was the relationship between the so-called ascension and the ability to repay investors?

A. Well, as I understood it, again, back to what I was saying earlier, this film was ultimately to be a reflection of, and an expression of a spiritual process that Lou was doing these disciplines in order to complete. And so the successful completion of the film he believed, and stated to me, needed to come upon a certain attainment of spiritual consciousness that he was working to achieve. So that the completion of the film and the ability to, and the promise to repay the lenders kept being deferred because that state was not achieved.

Q. We’ve heard the term popping in connection with this case. Are you using the term ascension synonymously with popping?

A. Um, I don’t know if I even understand it well enough to do that, but what, what Lou, what I understood as popping was popping out of the body. That was the description that Lou used about the spirit physically leaving the body. Q. Was it your understanding, based upon your discussions with Soteriou, that his, what you described earlier today as an ascension was the same as leaving your body, the popping that you’ve just described?

A. I would, I would describe ascension of a more general description of the process of raising consciousness and, yes, ultimately being free of the physical form.

Q. Was Mr. Soteriou’s ability to achieve this desired spiritual state, was it your understanding, based upon your discussions with Mr. Soteriou, was it your understanding that his ability to achieve that state would have any relationship to your ability to repay investors?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And you’ve talked about its relationship to the completion of the movie. Was there a connection between that desired state and access to money?

A. Um, as he stated it, yes, there was.

Q. And what was that?

A. Well, that having access to higher um — what he stated is that having access to higher levels of consciousness um, one of the phrases that he used was changes all the rules in terms of one’s ability to manifest or um, have access to money in ways that are different than the traditional ways that we look at it.

Q. What does that mean?

A. Um, well, he described things like if you are out of the body you’re out of time, you have the ability to go forward in time and go back in time. Um, these were things that he described that I did not completely understand. What I did believe for myself was that this, you know, he had always described this level of consciousness as something that was extremely rarely achieved. And from my perspective if he in fact were to achieve this that this would um, not only have benefit for the film but also have value in terms of other potential projects; books, lectures, that kind of thing.

Q. Playing the lottery?

A. That was one thing that he discussed, yes.

Q. What did he say in that regard?

A. Well, he said if, if you’re out of time he, he described himself as being able to go forward in time, read the lottery numbers, come back, fill out a lottery ticket and, and win the lottery.

Q. What was the context of the conversation that he said that? What were you talking about when he said that?

A. I don’t remember the context.

Q. I want to draw your attention now to October 1, 2009. On that date you met with employees of the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Healthcare Administration, otherwise known as BISHCA; correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And during that meeting the representatives of BISHCA expressed concern to you about the legality of how you were raising money for the film production?

A. That is correct.

Q. They advised you to get a lawyer?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. They advised you to not — they advised you to take down your web page?

A. Um, I don’t recall that, but I recall reading that that — so I believe that that did happen that, then, yes.

Q. And after you met with regulators that day you deposited additional investor funds into your bank account; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you did so again the following day; is that right?

A. I do not recall, but I believe in your records that that, that happened. So I certainly don’t dispute it.

Q. And that you also, during the course of that second deposit, helped yourself to or took out a thousand dollars in cash?

A. Yes. Um, again, I don’t specifically recall that, but I don’t — I don’t question that I did that.

Q. At what point did you share with Mr. Soteriou BISHCA’s concern about the legality of what you were doing?

A. Um, well, I was contacted by BISHCA prior to the October first meeting. I believe it was sometime in the middle of September. And at that point I was very upset and frankly panicked about this situation. And I contacted Lou who I had already been urging to — that whatever his promised means of being able to repay people that it needed to happen soon. And when the, when I heard from BISHCA it just became extremely clear to me that it needed to happen immediately.

Q. How did he respond to your explaining to him BISHCA’s concern?

A. Um, I recall — I don’t recall specifically, but I recall that it was one of my first areas of concern that he seemed more vague than I would have expected him to be under the circumstances.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Drescher, there is no objection, but your last question assumed facts not in evidence in that Mr. Parker has not yet testified that he told Mr. Soteriou about BISHCA. So I think he said he was more concerned with BISHCA, but there was no evidence about what he told Mr. Soteriou.

MR. DRESCHER: I appreciate Your Honor’s point. I’m trying to move it along. I’ll also try to be careful in that regard.

THE COURT: Well, this is an important point because if Mr. Parker told Mr. Soteriou that BISHCA was advising that the scheme was illegal and needed to stop and yet both continued that is a material point.

Q. (By Mr. Drescher:) When — did you tell Mr. Soteriou about BISHCA’s concerns?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you tell him that?

A. Um, immediately after being contacted by them and then immediately after my meeting with them.

Q. And how did Mr. Soteriou respond?

A. Um, well, this was an extremely difficult time for me. I don’t recall every specific, but this was — it was during  this time that I was trying very hard to get Lou to return to Vermont to address this situation.

Q. Do you recall how he responded to hearing about BISHCA’s concerns about the legality of the manner of fundraising?

A. Um, I — what I recall is that because of the nature of his promises I had expected a sort of — a definitive okay, of course we need to address this, I’ll be right there. But there was um, certain reluctance and vagueness in his response that was alarming to me.

Q. What happened next?

A. Um, I informed him that whatever his means were, whatever the means were he had promised me repeatedly that he would be personally responsible for repaying this money. And um, I informed him in no uncertain terms that given this development this needed to happen — whatever those means were this needed to happen immediately because I knew that this situation um, put me in a very compromised position legally. And yet I felt the same responsibility that I had always felt to repaying the people that I had promised that I would repay. So when he did not come through with the funds that he had always promised and that he promised were emanant I made the wrongful, admittedly wrongful choice to continue to raise funds because I believed — I was fully aware that this compromised me legally, but I believed that my greatest responsibility was to the people who had loaned me money and to whom I had made promises.

Q. Did you advise Mr. Soteriou that you were continuing to raise funds despite BISHCA’s concerns?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How did he respond?

A. Um, well, again, this was where I began to see that the vagueness and the, um — I had attributed a level of, you know, as embarrassed as I am to say, sort of a God like quality to him that he could do, you know, this had been my experience personally, and I believed that he had the capacity to deliver on his promise. And he did not deliver on his promise. And he seemed, again, sort of to defer it and, you know, I was saying you have to come back and help me with this now. And he said, yeah, well, we’re going to pack up and we’re going to come back, but he did not meet it with the um, authority and um, commitment that I had always believed that he had.

Q. What was the help you were looking to get from him in October of 2009?

A. Whatever — again, it’s difficult to understand, but the nature of my relationship with Lou was that I was not really allowed to question um, his approach or his promises. He —

Q. What did you want Mr. Soteriou to do?

A. I wanted him to deliver on the promise that he had always made that he would make good on these investments.

Q. He came to Vermont in October of 2009?

A. I, again, um, the specific timing is not clear to me but, yes, I believe it was October.

Q. He came after you met with BISHCA?

A. I believe that that’s the case. I couldn’t swear to it, but I believe that’s the case.

Q. And before you laid eyes on him on that occasion, late 2009, how long had it been since you had seen him in person?

A. Um, I don’t remember, but it had been a number of years. Perhaps as many as five, six, seven years. You may even know that better than I do. I don’t —

Q. When you saw him in 2009 what was your impression?

A. Um, he was physically a very different looking individual than the man that I had known when I was being treated by him and when I knew him during the ’80’s and the ’90’s, the early —

Q. Did, did you speak with him about his changed physical appearance?

A. Um, I did not — did I speak with him about it? Yes. And he told me — he attributed his physical appearance to the same thing that I was testifying to earlier that this was part of his spiritual process that his body was gaunt because he was — this was part of his um, the process of his dissolving.

Q. When he came to Vermont for the first time in 2009 where did he stay?

A. Um, he stayed — well, when he came east I believe he first went to his parent’s in Connecticut then he came to Vermont and stayed with us.

Q. When he came to Vermont did he stay with you?

A. He stayed with us.

Q. And what’s your best recollection of how many days he was there approximately?

A. My guess is that it would be somewhere between a couple weeks and a month total that he spent with us.

Q. And what did — I take it you spent time with him?

A. I certainly did.

Q. What did the two of you do?

A. Um, we talked about how to resolve this situation. I um, we talked about the film. Um, he —

Q. What about the film?

A. Well, I told him that we really needed to finish the film. And we worked some on the area of the script that I um, felt like um, I needed his help with. And as it ended up um, I ended up doing it myself.

Q. Did you show him the movie?

A. I did show him the movie.

Q. Had he seen the movie before the fall of 2009 to your knowledge?

A. He had not seen the movie before, no.

Q. Where did you show him the movie?

A. At the Little Castle Studio where, Horace Williams’ studio where we were doing the editing.

Q. After Mr. Soteriou viewed the movie did he have any comments on it?

A. He said that it was beautiful.

Q. Anything else?

A. Um, not that I can recall at this moment.

Q. So did it seem the movie was done at that point?

A. No, it wasn’t done. There were still refinements and, and um, still needed to do some editing on the sequence that I had just written.

Q. And did Mr. Soteriou play any role in the continued work you just described?

A. He played a role um, but to my alarm it was not the role that I had expected him to be able to play.

Q. How do you mean?

A. Um, his um, comments were not — his creative contributions were not workable or not insightful. Um, and clearly to me were not um, frankly, good enough to be integrated into the film.

Q. How is it that the person you’ve been testifying about  today who had such influence over the course of this film was now unable to persuade you to make the edits he wanted?

A. Um, I experienced him to be a fundamentally different person than the person I had known.

Q. After your meeting with BISHCA did you ask Mr. Soteriou  to come up with money?

A. I asked him to fulfill the promise that he had made, yes.

Q. And did he come up with any money?

A. He did come up with some money, yes.

Q. Do you recall how much?

A. I don’t recall specifically, although I believe it was in the vicinity of $60,000.

Q. So after late 2009 describe for us please your efforts to stay in contact with Mr. Soteriou?

A. I’m sorry, could you repeat the question?

Q. Describe for us your efforts to stay in contact with Mr. Soteriou.

A. Well, he — during the late fall, early winter of 2009 he went back and forth between our home and Connecticut. His family, his parent’s home in Connecticut. Um, the Christmas Eve um, of 2009 I was extremely distraught about this situation and anxious and just knew that we were in a terrible situation. And he told me that he wanted to go home to his family’s in Connecticut for Christmas. And I was concerned about that and, frankly, did not want him to go and asked him not to go. And ultimately he decided to go anyway and did not come back. And I can’t recall, I may have talked with him a couple of times after Christmas, but I remember that the last time that I talked with him was early January. Um, I talked with him and my wife Julianna was also on the phone. And at the end of that conversation I got another call from someone um, and I told him I would call him back. And I tried to call him back and I could not reach him. And I was never able to reach him again. I tried repeatedly. He stopped calling me. He stopped returning my calls. Um, I would call his parent’s number where I knew he was staying and they would hang up the phone on me as soon as they learned it was me. And so it was clear that he had um — well, it was clear he was no longer willing to be in contact with me. He never told me that. He just ceased returning my calls and ceased answering his cell phone.

Q. During the course of your dealings with Mr. Soteriou did he ever make comment to you connecting your ability to raise money to his spiritual progress?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. What sort of comment did he make in that regard?

A. He said that I couldn’t be doing this work without you. Um, he said um — he called me the financier, you know, that I was financing his spiritual process. And he said that this would not be possible without my efforts. Um, and he was forever grateful. And he told me that he would never leave me or my family in the lurch after all that we had done for him. And he expressed this profound gratitude. And he said you’ve worked so hard and I know what you are doing and I’m so grateful. Repeatedly he said these things.

MR. DRESCHER: If I can have just a moment?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DRESCHER: Thank you.

THE COURT: Any cross examination, Mr. Barth?

MR. BARTH: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BARTH:

Q. Sir, afternoon.

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Barth.

Q. You’re a story teller; correct?

A. Um, I have for a certain period of my life I called myself a story teller, correct.

Q. That’s a yes; right? You are a story teller?

A. Yes, I’m a story teller.

Q. Part of story telling for you is writing; right? Writing stories?

A. Yes.

Q. Part of it’s stage performance; correct?

A. Um, not at this point, but it has been, yes.

Q. And you’ve earned a living doing that; is that true?

A. I have.

Q. And you know that part of story telling is taking the listener to a place they have not been or a place they want to return to; correct?

A. I would say that’s a fair description of it, yes.

Q. And you have a talent in that regard?

A. Yes, I believe that I do.

Q. The Birth Of Innocence, the movie, while you worked on it for a period of give or take a year, 10 years; fair to say 10 years?

A. Yes.

Q. You believed that there was great value in that project; correct.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You believed in the spiritual value?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. To you; correct?

A. Um, to me, yes.

Q. And to the community?

A. Absolutely.

Q. It was touching your life; correct?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And you hoped it would touch people in the community as well?

A. I certainly did.

Q. And you believed it would?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And in that sense you believed that this movie that you were working on was not only of spiritual value you believed it had a financial value too; correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In fact, I think you’ve stated to authorities that if the movie had lived up to your expectations it would have, at least at that time you believed, had the power to pay all the investors back?

A. Um, yes, I did believe that.

Q. And so when you testified earlier this morning that the understanding is that you would get all the credit for this movie, it’s fair to say at the time you were making it you knew you had a financial asset that was in development?

A. I knew I had a financial asset that was in development?

Q. Correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And it was always understood that that asset was yours, not Mr. Soteriou’s?

A. Um, that it was mine? I don’t know that I had a proprietary sense of it. That it was — that it — because I had a very committed relationship with the people who had loaned the money to produce it.

Q. A group of investors has attempted to force bankruptcy upon you; correct?

A. Yes, they have.

Q. And the purpose of that forced bankruptcy is to get control of proprietary interest of this asset from you; correct?

A. That is my understanding of their intention, yes.

Q. And you have resisted that intention; correct?

A. Um, I have resisted that, yes.

Q. Yes. You don’t want to give up control of this asset?

A. Um, no, I wouldn’t state that that’s accurate.

Q. No, it’s not. So resisting the attempts of the investors to take control of the asset is not your attempt to retain control of it?

A. No.

Q. Okay. You know that this forced bankruptcy will take time to litigate; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You know that in a few short days you may be sentenced to prison time?

A. Yes.

Q. Both of which may delay your desire to complete this film; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And nonetheless you resist attempts by the investor group to take control of the movie?

A. Um, I, I disagreed with those attempts. And I took a different position, yes.

Q. So the answer is yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Thanks. Let’s Go To The Farm. That was a children’s film you were involved in?

A. Yes.

Q. You narrated it; correct?

A. I narrated it.

Q. And that was a very popular film particularly in Vermont; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And we can all agree that that particular movie had real currency. Would you agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. And that gave you trust equity with the people of Vermont? Do you know what I mean when I say trust equity, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree with my statement would you not?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Not only did it give you trust equity, but it gave you the reputation of a person who had been at least involved in a successful film production?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Soteriou too had the impression that you had been involved in a successful film production?

A. Is that a question?

Q. It sure is.

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree, would you not, that one of the reasons Mr. Soteriou approached you about Birth Of Innocence is that impression that you gave him, that he had, let’s put it that way, that you had been involved in a successful film production?

A. I would say that that was one of the reasons.

Q. One of the reasons. And as you testified at deposition —

A. May I, may I respond further to that, to that previous question?

Q. No.

A. Okay.

Q. And as you testified at deposition, sir, you were not involved in the production of that film; correct?

A. Yes, I was involved in the production of that film.

Q. You were a narrator?

A. I wrote the script.

Q. You wrote the script. Did you, sir, develop a budget for that movie?

A. No.

Q. Were you involved in the financing of that movie?

A. I was not.

Q. Was the inspiration, the idea for that movie yours?

A. No, it was not.

Q. No. Did you have an understanding of the draw schedules of the movie? Do you know what I mean by the draw schedules?

A. No, I don’t.

Q. Did you have an understanding of the financial schedules, the payment schedules in that movie?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you have an understanding of the type of insurance or bonding that was needed to secure such a movie?

A. No, I did not.

Q. And I suspect that when you solicited investments from, I’ll call them the lenders, you know who I’m talking about when I say the lenders, the people who invested in The Birth Of Innocence?

A. Yes.

Q. When you solicited investments from those lenders I suspect you didn’t tell them that you had had no experience on Let’s Go To The Farm in anything but the narration and the script writing?

A. Um, I don’t believe that ever came up, no.

Q. It didn’t come up. And point in fact when you began work on Birth Of Innocence you did not produce a production budget; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Neither pre-production, production or post-productio budget?

A. Um, there was a production budget at one point, but the, the other statements are correct.

Q. At one point?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. When we um, the line producer did do a production budget for the actual filming.

Q. Which line producer was that, sir?

A. Andy Reichsman.

Q. So you had a production budget. You did not have a pre-production, post-production budget. Did you budget for editing?

A. No.

Q. Sound mixing?

A. No.

Q. Graphics?

A. No.

(Attorneys conferring off the record)

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, if I may approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) I’m showing you a document for the Court’s, for the record I should say this is Defense Exhibit L. It was a part of the initial filing. So it’s already been filed. It is the same in substance. Can you take a look at that, sir? Tell me when you’ve had a chance to look at it.

MR. BARTH: Does the Court wish to have a copy? I know it’s attached to my memo.

THE COURT: No, I have it. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: I recall — do you want me to read it word for word? I recall this document.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) You do recall this? This was one of your lender updates; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That was sent in July of 2010. I believe Christopher White sent it as your proxy; am I right about that? Sent it as an attachment?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Fair enough. But you remember the document itself?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you agree it was sent to the investors?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, this, just so I can put in perspective for those in the courtroom, including the Court, this was a e-mail responding to Horace Williams; right?

A. It —

Q. It was a response to claims you said Horace Williams was making about you?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And to remind the Court, Horace Williams was one of the editors that worked with you for a period of years on the production of Birth Of Innocence?

A. That’s correct.

Q. 2005 to 2007; about right?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, after the financial calamity that fell, befell I guess I should say, The Birth Of Innocence, in 2010 a rift developed between you and Mr. Williams; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Over who had proprietary interest over this film?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Okay. I’m going to read a short portion of this. And these are your words.

THE COURT: So should we admit this document?

MR. BARTH: Absolutely. I, Your Honor it’s already been filed as part of my sentencing memorandum. The government hasn’t objected to it. We’ve had discussions about it. If you’d like me to move it into evidence I absolutely will.

THE COURT: Well, usually we do when a witness reads from a document that’s not admitted. You could read it and ask him questions about it. What’s your preference?

MR. BARTH: I’m going to read to him and he will, I’m sure, affirm that these are his words. But this is, this is part of the record already. That’s the most important thing for me.

THE COURT: So then you better move it into evidence if that is your intent because this is an evidentiary portion of the hearing. And your sentencing memorandum are in the public record but they haven’t been admitted as exhibits in this proceeding.

MR. BARTH: Very well. I moved to have it admitted. And, Your Honor, I might as well say at this point I move to admit any relevant documents that I’ve attached to my sentencing memorandum. I don’t think the government’s going to have any objection to that, but I think many of them are relevant. I’m not going to cover them all with the witness, but I think they are all relevant, many of them are relevant.

THE COURT: Any objection to the admission of Defendant’s Exhibit L?

MR. DRESCHER: No.

THE COURT: It’s admitted.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) Okay. Sir, thank you. You wrote, in response to claims by, claims of Horace Williams that he should have some propriety interest in the film you wrote, I have spent literally thousands of hours researching, writing, refining the script — I apologize. I will slow down. I have to admit I’m trying to speed this up a little bit.

THE COURT: Well, when anybody reads you speed up. And so that’s why —

MR. BARTH: Sure. And Mr. Parker, I apologize. I will slow down. I’ve spent literally thousands of hours researching, writing, and refining the script for Birth Of Innocence. I spent another two years with Marlboro Productions carefully planning and shooting every frame of the file and preparing the beautiful marriage between film footage and script that I envisioned. This was long before I hired Horace to provide his technical skills for the next stage of post-production. I have lived and breathed this project for 10 years now. The film, the financing, the network of people involved in the spiritual life underlying it all. As for editing I worked with Horace in the studio on every major sequence we edited and I was always the final decision maker. The few short sequences I allowed him to edit by himself were always subject to my final approval and always required significant changes. You were the decision maker were you not, sir?

A. In, yes, in relation to Horace I was, yes.

Q. You had final approval did you not, sir?

A. In relation to Horace, yes, I did.

Q. You are creating a fine distinction I see. You, sir, were the one that prepared the beautiful marriage between film footage and script that you envisioned; correct, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. This e-mail, to the best of your recollection, July of 2010?

A. I don’t recall, but I believe that that would be correct.

Q. Well, it certainly was after the BISHCA investigation;  correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You would agree, would you not, you don’t sound like a person who was working under the thumb of someone else do you?

A. I — that’s — I don’t know, I don’t know how to answer that question, Your Honor.

Q. I can understand why. You sound like somebody who had complete control over his faculties and the decisions he was making. Doesn’t this e-mail not corroborate that, sir?

A. I would agree with that.

Q. You would agree, would you not, that this is not the e-mail of a person walking around fearing for his life?

A. I would not agree with that.

Q. No?

A. No.

Q. In that regard let me remind you of your testimony this morning. You said in the range, 2008 to 2009, you had a conversation with Lou Soteriou over the phone in which you told him, sir, you need to fulfill your promises to me, in your words, and implicitly these people, the investors?

A. Yes.

Q. That was you dictating to Lou Soteriou? Your testimony this morning, sir?

A. That, that was not me dictating to Lou Soteriou. That was me — that was my attempt in a very desperate situation to hold Mr. Soteriou to promises that he had made to me.

Q. You said in the very next sentence that you told Mr. Soteriou, Lou, I don’t have — no, quote, I don’t have time to have the same conversations with you over the phone.Again, you dictating to Mr. Soteriou in 2008-2009; correct?

A. Um, I can understand the truth in that statement.

Q. Thank you. I appreciate that. You, sir, grew up on a farm in Vermont; right?

A. I was born on a farm in Vermont. I did not —

Q. Great. Sorry. Continue.

A. — physically grow up on the farm. The farmhouse burned the first year that I was born. And my father became a minister. So the farm was always in our family. I was born on a farm and I was raised as both a farm kid and a preacher’s kid.

Q. You worked that farm as a child did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. That farm was an inexplicable part of the Parker family?

A. Yes.

Q. You would agree, would you not, that working a farm, particularly family farming, is, while perhaps rewarding, a difficult, an arduous life?

A. Yes.

Q. You and your family looked out for each other on the farm did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Found strength in each other; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In some ways small farming is a uniquely familial endeavor is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And despite the fact that your farmhouse burned your family persevered; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, sir, after your ninth birthday, as you testified to this morning, your father passed; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But you continued to work the farm did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And according to the sentencing memorandum you filed with this Court you became fiercely independent and you developed a quote toughness based on your working of the farm?

A. Yes.

Q. By your mid-teens you were making the decisions in your own life?

A. Many of them, yes.

Q. You graduated top of your class at St. Johnsbury Academy?

A. I did not graduate from St. Johnsbury Academy, but when I left there after my sophomore year I was at the top of my class, yes.

Q. You attended the University of Vermont?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. According to your letter you excelled at school?

A. That’s correct.

Q. You married an intelligent woman as well did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. She has a degree from Cornell University?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And as you talk about in your sentencing memo at a young age you were an integral part of re-evaluation counseling?

A. Correct.

Q. You set up — why don’t you tell us what re-evaluation counseling is, sir?

A. It’s grass roots um, counseling organization that works  to empower individuals to help each other learn counseling skills, to heal from the effects of both individual and societal pain.

Q. And you yourself were a counselor were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. You yourself provided spiritual help to your clients, your patients?

A. It was not spiritual help. It was specifically not spiritual. It was —

Q. Emotional?

A. Correct.

Q. Were you licensed?

A. No.

Q. So you were providing psychological, emotional counseling to those who had suffered societal or personal traumas?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Did I read that you somehow even helped with the issue of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some meaningful way?

A. No, that’s not what I said.

Q. What did you say?

A. I said that I attended world conference of this organization in which one of the workshops was um, among Arabs and Israelis attempting to resolve this conflict in meaningful ways.

Q. And isn’t it true that you described yourself, at least to the psychiatrist who evaluated you, as a nationally known treater and lecturer?

A. I’m sorry, I missed the last part of the question.

Q. A nationally known treater and lecturer. You described yourself to the psychiatrist —

A. Nationally known treater and lecturer?

Q. Correct.

A. I suppose — within the context of that organization that’s a fair statement, yes.

Q. And as a teacher?

A. Correct.

Q. You chose the investors, did you not?

A. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the question.

Q. You chose the investors?

A. I did.

Q. You were the one who approached them?

A. I’m sorry, I —

Q. You were the person that approached the investors?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Lou Soteriou didn’t approach the investors?

A. No, he did not.

Q. These were people that trusted you; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. These people did not trust Mr. Soteriou, they did not know him?

A. That is correct.

Q. Some of these people trusted you because they were your friends?

A. That is also correct.

Q. People who had known you the bulk of your life?

A. Yes, some of them that’s true.

Q. Some of them, of course. In some cases people who loved you?

A. Absolutely.

Q. You went into their homes; did you not?

A. I did.

Q. You went to their places of work?

A. I did.

Q. You went into the fields that they, that they toiled in?

A. I did that.

Q. You looked them in the eye?

A. I did.

Q. You shook their hands?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Some of these people were farmers; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Some of them were people who, because of your background, you had a unique connection with; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. A connection that you could take advantage of; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. People like your father; correct?

A. I would say, yes, there are people like my father. Yes.

Q. These people that we’re talking about are the people you lied to?

A. That is correct.

Q. You led them to believe that The Birth Of Innocence was your idea; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. It was not; right?

A. That is correct.

Q. You led them to believe you were the sole creative force in this movie and you were not; correct?

A. That is also correct.

Q. You lied to them about the number of investors that preceded them in many cases; correct?

A. Um, in — I would say in some cases, yes, I did.

Q. You lied to them about the amount of money that had been invested in the film to date in many cases?

A. I would say, again, yes, I did do that. I don’t know if many or some, but, yes, I did do that.

Q. You lied to them in many cases about using their money to pay back other people who had already invested?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In September of 2009 it came crashing down right. BISHCA learned of your fundraising and they approached you?

A. Correct.

Q. You met with them on October first; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Of 2009? And just so we’re clear, BISHCA is the department that regulates, among other things, the distribution of securities in Vermont?

A. Yes.

Q. When you met with BISHCA on October first, 2009 they  told you to stop soliciting investments in The Birth Of Innocence?

A. Um, actually that’s not true. They told me specifically that they could not give me that — they could not function as my counsel, but they certainly made it clear that this was not a wise thing for me to be doing.

Q. I want to make sure we understand each other because I’m hearing a couple different things. First, you said, no, they didn’t say that to me. And then you kind of hedged and said, well, they communicated to me that it would not be a wise thing to do. So let me make sure I’m clear. Did they tell you not to sell, take that back, did they tell you not to solicit additional funds for Birth Of Innocence?

A. No, they didn’t.

Q. They did not?

A. No.

Q. You’re sure about that?

A. Um, what I recall specifically is that they told me — because I had asked them that explicitly. And they told me that they could not give me advice specifically about whether or not to do that. But it was — the point remains clear that they made it clear to me that this was not something that I should be doing.

Q. Very well. And in any case I should forget I direct the Court’s attention to Paragraph 31 of the Pre-Sentence Report where it’s uncontested that BISHCA did, in fact, tell him to stop investing.

Certainly, whether or not they told you or just strongly hinted at it, you were undeterred; correct?

A. Um, I don’t know that I would say that I was undeterred, but I did continue to raise money, yes.

Q. Well, you weren’t deterred; right? You kept raising money?

A. That is true.

Q. And you didn’t go back to BISHCA and say, hay, look, I thought it over and I’ve decided to go in the other direction and I’m going to continue to invest? You didn’t do that did you?

A. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the question.

Q. You certainly didn’t inform BISHCA that you were undeterred in soliciting funds from investors?

A. No, I did not.

Q. And, in fact, you were aware, were you not, that if caught soliciting more funds after meeting with BISHCA on October first, 2009 you could be in more trouble?

A. I was definitely aware of that, yes.

Q. All right. And those contracts that you had investors sign after the period, after October first, you back-dated them; right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you did that because you knew if you were discovered you might get in more trouble?

A. That is correct.

Q. And back-dating those contracts was a lie?

A. It was.

Q. And by having those investors sign the contracts and back-dating them you made the investors complicit in your lie?

A. I would agree with that, yes.

Q. You knew you could get in more trouble if found out so you back-dated the contracts. You just testified that — in other words, it’s fair to say to avoid additional trouble, to avoid trouble you were willing to lie?

A. I suppose that’s true.

Q. You testified — you said when Mr. Drescher, I think after the lunch period, I could be wrong, when he asked you why you did that you said you owed it to the people that you had already gotten money from; right? That’s what you testified to?

A. I don’t think that’s precisely what I said, but —

Q. Words to that effect? No?

A. Um, I, I can’t recall the specific words. I can —

Q. Well, then, let me ask you, you did in your mind do this or at least your justification for doing it was you owed to it the investors that came before?

A. I had a, made a commitment to people that I felt unwisely and wrongly was, I was obligated to follow through on it. Yes.

Q. And that, of course, wouldn’t apply to those investors who you were soliciting funds in 2009 after the BISHCA investigation?

A. It did apply to them.

Q. Your relationship with Mr. Soteriou — your wife Julianna I’m sure you have a close relationship now?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. You, forgive the obvious, love her?

A. Excuse me?

Q. Forgive the obvious, but you love your wife; correct?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Very much I would assume?

A. Indeed.

Q. Your wife, as you’ve testified this morning, in the 1980’s, in the mid to late 1980’s was functionally disabled; correct?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. I mean I saw in one report of investigation she was, you said she was barely ambulatory for nearly a year at a time?

A. Um —

Q. Correct? Did I read that right?

A. I don’t believe that was my statement, but that — but she was, she was indeed functionally disabled, yes.

Q. For a long — for long periods of time?

A. Yes.

Q. She was depressed; correct?

A. No, I don’t believe that I would say that she was depressed, no.

Q. Your wife was functionally disabled suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome and you’re saying she wasn’t depressed?

A. I, I have never had that as part of her diagnosis or my experience of her, no.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Barth, Miss Parker is not a party to the case. And she does have some privacy interests that remain. Let’s hear an offer of proof as to — I stopped Mr. Drescher from a lengthy explanation of this in that we don’t have a contested fact, it’s 2 o’clock, and we’re focusing on the crime for which Mr. Soteriou is being sentenced. So let’s hear an offer of proof as to why we need to know Mr. Parker loves his wife and about her past medical condition?

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I think this goes to, directly to the implication, however strong or weak it may have been, that Mr. Parker was under the thumb, so to speak, of Mr. Soteriou. The fact of the matter is, as I think we’re going to learn, the relationship was much different than that.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let’s focus on that relationship then.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) Okay. This is a medical condition, as you’ve been told, that can be difficult to cure; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Doctors don’t know a whole lot about it?

A. That was my understanding at the time.

Q. They don’t know the causes of the panoply of —

A. Right.

Q. — panoply of symptoms that is part of the syndrome?

A. That was my understanding and experience.

Q. And before going to Mr. Soteriou you had gone to at least a dozen different medical professionals or homeopathic healers?

A. Um, yes. I would say practitioners, both traditional and alternative. Yes.

Q. And both you and your wife were frustrated that the symptoms continued?

A. Um, there was a degree of frustration. Yes.

Q. When you went to see Mr. Soteriou there was a 180; right?

A. A 180?

Q. Yes. You stated she experienced a level of healing that she had been seeking for years and saw immediate, significant and ongoing progress toward recovery?

A. Correct.

Q. This was a service that was provided to you by Mr. Soteriou, the healer; correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. It was not just your wife, but you yourself were suffering from emotional problems?

A. That’s not how I would categorize them, but I received benefits for my health from Mr. Soteriou, from Lou.

Q. Both you and your wife received immediate benefits from Mr. Soteriou; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And Mr. Soteriou was providing you a service um, that you had desperately sought and now were receiving?

A. Um, I would not categorize it as desperately sought. No.

Q. So when you said that you were frustrated in the failed attempts to alleviate your wife’s symptoms that didn’t cause desperation on your part?

A. No.

Q. You were willing to pay for these immediate, significant and ongoing progress toward recovery; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were willing to travel several hours south to see

Mr. Soteriou on a regular basis?

A. Correct.

Q. And as a result your life and your wife’s life improved dramatically?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And these treatments, I want this to be clear, continued for two decades?

A. No, that’s not correct.

Q. No? Your wife didn’t receive counseling from Mr. Soteriou through 2008?

A. No.

Q. No?

A. She — well, that’s different levels of my wife experienced — what was beneficial to my wife was the in person office treatments that Lou gave her that ended in the late 1990’s. She had some consultation and conversation with Lou following that, but it was extremely limited and not the kind of contact that was the most meaningful or valuable to her. That time was not — she was not — and she would certainly not describe herself as being treated during that time.

Q. You testified this morning, let me remind you, that while working on the film Mr. Soteriou would have you engaged in focused disciplines; correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And Mr. Drescher asked you what connection to the film did these focused disciplines have. You remember him asking you that?

A. Yes.

Q. And your answer was, it wasn’t part of the film, it was for my benefit, for me achieving clarity?

A. Which I was then to apply to the film.

Q. I see.

A. Yes.

Q. So after 1999 it’s fair to say that, however you want to frame it, Lou Soteriou remained your spiritual mentor; correct?

A. He, I’m sorry, he what my spiritual mentor?

Q. He remained your spiritual mentor?

A. That is true.

Q. And you testified earlier that he wanted to remain anonymous, that the reason for that, as you understood it, was because he wanted to remain isolated and undisturbed so that he himself could ascent; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, when you went to the investors did you say to them, I’ve got a film, I’ve got an idea, it’s great, I think it’s going to work, but you should know I have a spiritual mentor um, and in part he’s the inspiration of this movie, and he’s helped me and my wife out, but he wants to remain anonymous. And I’m the point man on this movie, and if you want to invest knowing that I — this person has my full faith you can do so, but I can’t reveal his name, identity or contact information, you could have done that could you not?

A. Um, I could have done that.

Q. And you did not do that?

A. No, I did not.

Q. After you met with BISHCA you testified you were advised to hire an attorney; correct?

A. I’m sorry. I cannot understand you.

Q. You were advised by BISHCA to hire an attorney?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And ultimately you did; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. You ultimately ended up with Langrock, Sperry and Wool?

A. Correct.

Q. But as time wore on you didn’t have the funds to pay them; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And as a result of not having the funds in February of 2010 your lawyers and some of the investors who had maintained allegiance to you set up an auction of innocence; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Where lenders were invited; correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. To bid on certain items of value; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Some of which were provided by other lenders?

A. That is correct.

Q. And at that point in February of 2010 you had not issued your lender update 18 which divulged the identity of Lou Soteriou?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Many Birth Of Innocence investors attended the auction of innocence; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Many of them donated money and bid on things of value at that auction?

A. I would say that’s true, yes.

Q. You, in fact, continued to solicit investment, or I take that back, donations to The Birth Of Innocence legal fund through at least May of 2010; is that correct, sir?

A. I don’t recall the specific dates, but that sounds like a reasonable timeline, yes.

Q. In a solicitation of investors in May of 2010 you described the excellent work that the lawyers of Langrock Sperry and Wool were doing for you; correct?

A. I recall stating that, yes.

Q. Yes. In fact, you referred to them as a quote team of exceptional lawyers?

A. I believe that I would have said that, yes.

Q. Who worked for you tirelessly and their fees were well earned. Do you remember writing those things to the investor group?

A. Yes.

Q. And this, again, was sent out to the very same investors that had put the money toward The Birth Of Innocence?

A. Correct.

Q. And so in an ironic twist you were soliciting funds for the defense of your fraudulent activities from the very people you defrauded were you not?

A. Yes.

Q. I want to talk to you a little bit more about that. That May of, 2010 solicitation of funds or funds for your Birth Of Innocence defense, as we discussed a moment ago, you described the, the work that your attorneys are doing for you as exceptional; correct?

A. I believe that that’s correct.

Q. So these exceptional attorneys were providing you a service that was helping you; correct?

A. Yes, that was my understanding of it at the time. Yes. Yes.

Q. And so when they asked you for an additional $90,000 in the spring of 2010, as you stated in your solicitation letter of May of 2010, it was a well earned $90,000 that you needed to raise?

A. That was my assessment of it at that time, yes.

Q. In other words, you were told by a reputable law firm that, who you believed was providing you great service, that they needed a large sum of money from you; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And as a result, because you felt their services warranted that $90,000, you were willing to solicit your friends and the investors in The Birth Of Innocence; right?

A. Yes.

Q. You see the parallels; right?

A. Well, at that point they had, they had threatened that they would cut me off if I did not come up with that $90,000.

Q. Sure. They are threatening to cut you off, Langrock was threatening to cut you off?

A. That’s correct.

Q. It seems an awful lot of people are threatening you and you have to then raise money to meet those threats is it not?

A. I can see where you would draw that conclusion.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Barth, let’s hear a time for the remainder of your cross. How much more time do you think you need?

MR. BARTH: Um, half an hour. Estimation.

THE COURT: I would like both counsel to keep in mind that when you told me that there were no factual challenges to the Pre-Sentence Report and I adopted it that I am not going to be making any factual findings. So this strikes me as a factual inquiry with no end. And so I would like you to be expeditious and so we can get your witness on and we can conclude the sentencing today.

MR. BARTH: In light of the testimony this morning Your Honor I think this is important. The witness has suggested to the Court over and over again in his filings, and now in testimony, that he was a victim of Mr. Soteriou. And we never agreed to that in the Pre-Sentence Report.

THE COURT: And I reminded Mr. Drescher that Mr. Parker is not here as a victim. He’s here as a co-conspirator. And I directed him to the facts of the crime. Your cross examination is proper. You may continue. But there is no jury here. And I have read the Pre-Sentence Report and everything in this case. So please proceed.

MR. BARTH: Very well, Your Honor.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) You’ve — let me just make sure I get this right. When you were interviewed by Dr. Rosmarin, you remember that when you were interviewed by him?

A. Certainly.

Q. I just want to get this right. And Dr. Rosmarin was a doctor hired by your defense attorney to put together an evaluation for you to submit to the Court?

A. I missed the last part of the question.

Q. Dr. Rosmarin was hired by your defense attorney to do a psychological evaluation of you which he typed up and was to be submitted to the Court?

A. Correct.

Q. During that interview, that evaluation Mr., Dr. Rosmarin asked you how you view yourself presumably in relation to this case. And your response was, I am a fraud victim. Those were the first words that came out of your mouth. Do you remember saying that?

A. I do not remember that those were the first words that came out of my mouth, no.

MR. BARTH: If I may approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) I have here what’s been previously marked as Exhibit Y. I think it’s in the Court’s possession. Can you read that? Do you see what I’m pointing at, ask how he views himself. The first words in response, I am a fraud victim?

A. But not just a victim.

Q. But not just a victim?

A. Right.

Q. I made commitments I’m responsible for and I can only try?

A. I can only promise to try. Yes.

Q. So your response was not I made commitments, I’m going to try to live up to them, it was preceded by I am a victim, I am a fraud victim; correct?

THE COURT: Is that a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) Sir, during this time period Mr. Soteriou didn’t live with you; right? I mean with the exception, as you testified about, a month or month and a half in November of 2009 he never lived with you; right?

A. No, he didn’t.

Q. He never forced you to change locations? You were living in your own home; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were living with your wife and daughter; correct?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. The only contact you had with him as you said for the five, six or seven years prior to him coming up in 2009, in November of 2009 was over the phone?

A. Correct.

Q. So this was not a person that was capable of hitting you; right?

A. No.

Q. Kicking you; right? Strangling you? He never did any of those things?

A. No.

Q. In fact, he was living thousands of miles away?

A. Correct.

Q. And, in fact, you testified this morning, or perhaps this afternoon, that after 2006 quote, he, meaning Lou Soteriou, let me do my thing. Those are your words.

A. Those are in part my words.

Q. No. No. Those are your words, sir. You remember testifying that way?

A. I remember — I remember the testimony differently than you’re seeing it.

Q. Do you remember saying that when he arrived in 2009 you hadn’t seen him for five, six, seven years, you told him that he had to get their money back, the lenders’ back, you  remember testifying that way, and you have to help me get their money back?

A. Yes.

Q. You dictating to Mr. Soteriou. And I think you testified that you had a moment of clarity when Mr. Soteriou arrived in 2009, that all of a sudden you realized how debilitated this man was; right?

A. No. I did not realize it all of a sudden. It was a gradual process of learning about his condition over the, over the course of the time that I saw him that fall.

Q. That fall. I must have misinterpreted your testimony about moments of clarity. The fact is it didn’t take you that long. You told Dr. Rosmarin he was gaunt, he was feeble and in fact quote, he was pooping in his pants. You remember telling that to the doctor?

A. I do.

Q. Now, this was the man who you are claiming this gaunt, this feeble, this man who can’t control his own bowels, this was the man you are now claiming caused you to be a victim, do you understand that correctly?

A. Well, at that point that was his condition. That was not his condition when this process and this project was initiated.

Q. In 1999?

A. Correct.

Q. What changed?

A. I don’t know.

Q. You told investigators you thought maybe it was the strokes and the heart attack?

A. I had no firsthand knowledge of that, but that —

Q. You are well aware of course that those events, those medical events happened in 2006?

A. I’m well aware of that now. I was not well aware of that in 2006. He did not tell me.

Q. You described, I’ll admit eloquently in your letter, the hole in your life that the passing of your father created for you. You remember what I’m talking about?

A. I do.

Q. And you yourself have a young daughter; right?

A. I do.

Q. And you don’t want to be taken away from your family; correct?

A. No.

Q. You choked up this morning when discussing your wife and daughter and the thought that they might not live a full life or a healthy life, do you remember doing that?

A. I do.

Q. And you know that without a father or a husband that life won’t be as full as it would be with you there?

A. I do know that.

Q. And you would do anything to increase your chances of staying with them; right?

A. No, I would not, sir.

Q. One final thing. Do you think those same investors, the ones who loved you, who had that trust equity in you, who believed you, who connected with you, if you had gone to them and said to them, as I spoke about before, I have this idea for a film, it’s going to be a beautiful film, and I have an inspiration for this film, and a spiritual mentor is going to help me out with this film, but he’s got to remain anonymous because he himself is on a spiritual journey and I will be his voice, you think if you told that to the investors many of them, maybe not all of them, but many of them would have still invested in your film?

A. I believe that that’s true.

Q. In the alternative, sir, if you had gone to them and said the same things, but then you added, and you should also know that before you there were 100, 200, 300, 400 sometimes 600 investors that came before you, many of whom I haven’t paid back, and your money will go to pay them, it’s a fair statement, is it not, sir, that that disclosure would have greatly diminished the number of people that invested in your film?

A. Yes, I believe that’s true.

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, if I may have a moment?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BARTH: Very briefly, Your Honor.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) It’s fair to say that Mr. Soteriou was expensive, correct, in providing services to you?

A. That’s correct.

Q. I think the numbers that you’ve provided that I’ve gotten from my client are between 300 and $400 an hour per consult?

A. Correct.

Q. Fair enough; right? And it’s fair to say that as your phone and in person consultations increased it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for you to pay for those?

A. I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question.

Q. As your phone consults and in person consults increased it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for you to afford his services?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Any re-direct? Mr. Drescher?

MR. DRESCHER: No.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. You may take a seat. We’re going to take our mid afternoon break, approximately 10 minutes. We’ll come back for Mr. Barth’s witness. Anything to bring to my attention before we break?

MR. DRESCHER: Not from the government.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(The Court recessed at 2:30 p.m. and resumed at 2:40 p.m.)

THE COURT: We are back on the record in United States of America versus Louis Soteriou. And Mr. Barth you wanted to call a witness as well?

MR. BARTH: One witness, Your Honor. The defense calls Robert Hoffman.

ROBERT HOFFMAN, The Witness, afte being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BARTH:

Q. Good afternoon, sir.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Can you tell us what you do for a living?

A. I apologize. I did not hear you.

Q. Are you a little hard of hearing?

A. Yes, I wear hearing aids.

Q. Okay. Can you tell us what you do for a living, sir?

A. Say again, please?

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may approach, but we also have sometimes it will —

THE WITNESS: There’s an echo caused by the —

THE COURT: Yes, we have this large ceiling so you are not the first person, but if we put these on you you might be getting a direct feed or it will make it worse. Those are your two options. Let’s give it a try.

THE WITNESS: These probably will not work because I have hearing aids that are totally in the canal. So unless they cover the ear. I apologize.

THE COURT: Let’s just try it. And if they don’t work we’ll know that we will get Mr. Barth closer to you.

MR. BARTH: Even just being away perhaps from the microphone. Can you hear?

THE WITNESS: Thank you. That works very well.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) Okay. Great. Can you hear me, sir?

A. Very, very well.

Q. I’ll back away from the microphone. Sir, can you tell us what you do for a living?

A. Yes. I am the chief financial officer for a group of businesses controlled by medical doctors who provide oncology services in the treatment of cancer.

Q. And can you tell us are you a certified public accountant?

A. Yes, I am a certified public accountant, however I’m no longer in public practice.

Q. You work for this company you just described?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. So you are an accountant, sir; correct?

A. I am indeed.

Q. And how long have you been doing that?

A. Many years. Probably 40 years.

Q. Forty. Okay. Do you know, sir, Lou Soteriou?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. In fact, you see him here in the Court today?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I’m not going to bother identifying him, Your Honor. Can you tell us how you met Lou Soteriou?

A. Yes. At the time I was in Washington State I had a client by the name of Ramtha School Of Enlightenment where I provided financial services. And I also attended as a student.

Q. If I may, was this one of your clients that you had as a public accountant?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. So you had a stable of clients I assume?

A. Yes.

Q. And this was one of several?

A. One of several. That is correct.

Q. Can you tell us a little bit about what Ramtha School Of Enlightment is?

A. It is basically a business that has conferences or classes where they teach techniques to enable one to use consciousness and energy to take control over their own life and create their own reality.

Q. And I think you already testified to this, but this is where you met Mr. Soteriou?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And can you tell us about what timeframe this is?

A. Late ’90’s.

Q. ’98, ’99, that timeframe?

A. Yes. Correct.

Q. Did Mr. Soteriou become somebody that you had some amount of regular contact with?

A. Yes. The manner in which I met Dr. Soteriou, who I know as Lou, my wife and daughter had an interest in nutrition. Lou’s wife Julie was also interested in nutrition. So the wives got together. And I was ultimately introduced to Lou through that connection. After that I probably saw Lou maybe once a month or so when there was teaching going on at the school where he attended and I was also there.

Q. When you say school, we’re talking about Ramtha School of Enlightenment often known as RSE?

A. That is the acronym. Correct.

Q. Did there come a time when you had less regular contact with Mr. Soteriou or Dr. Soteriou?

A. Yes. Um, I do not recall the exact year, but Lou’s brother died. And Lou returned from, excuse me, at the time I believe he was residing in Yelm. He left Yelm and returned to Connecticut in order to take care of the affairs of his brother and I believe take over the health club that the brother owned prior to.

Q. When you say Yelm you’re referring to Yelm, Washington where RSE is located?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Did you hear from Mr. Soteriou thereafter?

A. Yes. Lou would call on the phone perhaps um, every couple of weeks, every few weeks for a period of time inquiring if there was any new information coming from the school.

Q. Was there a time when ultimately you lost contact with Mr. Soteriou?

A. Yes. As frequently happens with the passage of time the contact became less and less going from once a month to once a quarter to once a year and then stopped for all intent and purposes a long period of time until this event occurred.

Q. Do you remember when it was that Mr. Soteriou — well, I guess I’ll do a foundation for this. Did Mr. Soteriou eventually reengage you, make contact with you?

A. Yes. Um, that occurred in December, 2009 as I recall. Whenever Lou and Mr. Parker, who I know as Mac, were having questions raised by the Vermont Banking Insurance, Securities and Healthcare Administration that I refer to as BISHCA.

Q. And it was Mr. Soteriou who reached out to you for help?

A. Yes. Lou knew I had a background in certified public accounting. So he thought I might be able to have some suggestions as to what to do.

Q. And can you tell us what happened after Mr. Soteriou got in contact with you looking for help?

A. Um, yes. Basically Mac, Lou and at time Julianna, Mac’s wife, we had conference calls and discussed some potentialities. One of the potentialities that I thought was something that could work to resolve the BISHCA issue was to move the movie into a private placement memorandum, a PPM.

Q. Sure. Many people in the courtroom probably don’t kno what a PPM or a private placement memoranda is. Can you give a very brief description of what it is?

A. Yes. It is a dissemination of information of a potential business that is going to be provided to potential investors for them to invest money into the business that the PPM is presenting.

Q. When Lou and the Parkers contacted you would you describe them as sharing a common goal?

A. Yes, absolutely. They were um, involved in the long-term creation of a movie referred to as Birth Of Innocence as I understood it.

Q. What about with regard to BISHCA and the investigation?

A. It was my understanding that BISHCA had been approached by investors solicited by Mac and had contacted Mac as a result of that to get information regarding how Mac was raising funds. Based on what Mac shared with them at that time they essentially told Mac that he should cease raising funds under that mechanism.

Q. Did the parties wish to resolve the issues with BISHCA?

A. Absolutely. Um, we were looking for a solution that would allow completion of the movie and restitution made to the investors.

Q. And your involvement with Mr. Soteriou and the Parkers in this regard was primarily by phone; is that correct?

A. Phone and e-mail.

Q. Did you ever speak to both Mr. Soteriou and the Parkers at the same time on conference calls?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you ever speak to the parties independently?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And how long were you involved in helping to resolve the problems that arose in the wake of the BISHCA investigation?

A. My total time of involvement was perhaps a little over three months.

Q. A little over three months. Can you describe to us when you were first introduced to the Parkers by Mr. Soteriou what type of a relationship that the three shared?

A. Close friendship with sincere affection as articulated several times by Julianna, Mac’s wife.

Q. And did you get the impression that that sincere affection was reciprocated by Mr. Soteriou to the Parkers?

A. Yes. It appeared to me that they were close friends that engaged in this project.

Q. During your discussions with the Parkers and Mr. Soteriou about the private placement memorandum what was communicated to you about who would have proprietary interest in the product or film Birth Of Innocence?

A. It was my understanding that Mac had 100 percent ownership in his personal name with regards to the asset at that time. With regards to the ownership after the PPM was authorized and accepted by BISHCA the entity that was created as part of that PPM would have become the owner. Mac would have essentially assigned his interest to the new entity. I had proposed two classes of membership; one that would result in the investors being paid the total amount owed to them before Mac would receive any, any funds from the new business.

Q. And was it your understanding that — can you give us a description of what your understanding was from the parties about what roles Mac and Lou played in the production or creation of Birth Of Innocence?

A. It was my understanding that the creation of the movie, if you will, was basically under Mac’s tutelage. Mac is the one who had the experience in that arena whereas Lou did not. It was my understanding that Mac, after having done Let’s Go Down To The Farm, had a desire to do a movie. Lou, on the other hand, had a desire to get a message out to the world that he thought would help them become greater than they were. It was my understanding that Mac hired Lou on a fee for service basis to essentially create the message, create the script that would become part and parcel to the movie itself.

Q. And fast forwarding a bit, did there come a time when the sincere warmth and affection you’ve described earlier changed?

A. Yes. That changed mid to the latter part of January. The Parkers became frustrated with their inability to have any contact with Lou. Lou basically indicated to me that as the pressure from BISHCA increased the telephone conversations that he was having with the Parkers in his estimation were becoming more verbally abusive to him. And he simply chose not to deal with it. He said he could not deal with it any longer. And so he simply ceased communications with them. I believe what had happened was that was looked upon by the Parkers in a bad light. And as a result the attitude towards Lou changed significantly.

Q. Did Lou ever talk to you about efforts to get him to undraise?

A. Yes. Lou indicated that Mac had requested Lou to ecome active in soliciting funds when BISHCA advised Mac that he needed to stop doing so.

Q. Did Mr. Soteriou solicit advice from you about the Parkers’ desire to have him fundraise?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And what did you tell him?

A. I told him that it was my understanding from what I understood from the BISHCA request that efforts to raise money for the film were in question, not simply the efforts put forth by Mac. And I advised him that he should not do fundraising before getting authorization or release or guidance from the attorney.

MR. BARTH: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

Q. (By Mr. Barth:) I have in my hand, and I’m handing to the witness, what has been previously identified as defense Exhibit S. Sir, can you take a look at that?

A. Yes.

Q. Take a moment. When you’ve had a chance let me know if you recognize it.

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is this?

A. This is an e-mail that I received from Julianna in, January 24th.

Q. Of 2010?

A. 2010.

Q. And was this e-mail one of the first indications that the feelings of warmth, sincere feeling of warmth that the Parkers had for Mr. Soteriou was changing?

A. It was not one of the first indicators, no.

Q. Was, it was an indicator?

A. It was an indicator.

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I would move Exhibit S. into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. DRESCHER: No.

THE COURT: It’s admitted.

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I have no further questions.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Drescher, any cross examination?

MR. DRESCHER: Yes.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DRESCHER :

Q. Mr. Hoffman, how — you testified you met Mr. Soteriou in the late ’90’s?

A. As I recall it was the late ’90’s, sir.

Q. And he — and you’ve stayed in touch with him. And then there was a period of no contact until December of ’99?

A. Yes. December of 2009.

Q. Thank you. 2009. I was off by a decade. Approximately how much time had passed between communications from Mr. Soteriou before the December, 2009 communication?

A. Several years. Two, three years.

Q. And during the course of your, let me take a step back, you met him face to face in Yelm in the late 1990’s?

A. That is correct.

Q. And then he left when his brother died?

A. That is correct.

Q. And after that was your, was your dealings with him exclusively through the telephone?

A. I may have received an e-mail or two, but primarily through the telephone.

Q. From late 1999 until 2009 did you ever discern anything different about the, his thought processes and how he wa communicating with you over the phone?

A. No, I have not.

Q. You testified that based upon some conversations you were having in 2009, 2010 that you were under the impression that Mac had hired Lou?

A. Yes, it was my understanding that the relationship between Lou and Mac was that Mac was paying Lou to create the message, to create the script that was going to become part and parcel to the movie.

Q. At some point in 2010 did Lou Soteriou stop returning your calls?

A. I had no contact information for Lou um, until I received a telephone number from Mac, which was I believe Lou’s parent’s where he was felt to be residing at the time. I called the number provided to me. The phone was answered by an answering machine. I used the voice mail message and left it to have Lou call me back. He did return my call from that call I made.

Q. Do you recall why you were trying to call him on that occasion?

A. Um, Mac had requested that I do so to find out if everything was okay with Lou, why Lou was not returning the calls given the fact that we were still dealing with the BISHCA affair.

Q. Did you ever receive an explanation from Mr. Soteriou as to why he did not return your call?

A. He did return my call.

Q. I’m sorry, I thought you said he did not?

A. No, I left a voice mail and he did return my call.

Q. Okay. And, and I was under the impression that he stopped returning your calls at some point in 2010?

A. Um, that was the only call that I made to which he did respond. There were no other calls that I made to him.

Q. I wanted to follow-up on your description of the Ramtha School. You indicated it teaches people skills in an effort to create their own reality?

A. Yes, sir. That is correct.

Q. What does that mean?

A. Basically it is a teaching whereby you are to maintain a consciousness that you assume responsibility for your own life, your own reality and from that consciousness apply energy to it to create the reality that you chose as opposed to allowing others to do it for you.

Q. Are you familiar with the term popping?

A. No, that is not a term I’m familiar with.

Q. Are you familiar with the concept which somebody could evolve spiritually to the point where they could travel back and forth in time?

A. Yes. I, I believe there are philosophies to that extent.

Q. And is that also part of the Ramtha philosophy?

A. No, it is not.

Q. Who is Ramtha?

A. Ramtha is a, by definition a 35, 35,000 year old entity who channels through the body of JZ Knight.

Q. So is Ramtha not traveling in time then for him or her to be appearing through the entity of somebody in Yelm in this day and age?

A. It’s my understanding as, as explained by all the cientists that have tested JZ Knight during the process in which he comes into her body that’s a transference of energy. So I, I guess the consciousness of Ramtha is traversing time as opposed to the body.

Q. Other than Ramtha and JZ Night having this relationship are you aware of any other consciousnesses traveling in time in this fashion?

A. No, I personally am not.

Q. Are you aware of any students at Ramtha trying to achieve that same ability to communicate with other periods of time?

A. I am personally not aware of any student doing that.

MR. DRESCHER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Any re-direct?

MR. BARTH: Very briefly.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. BARTH :

Q. You remember describing some of Lou’s beliefs as borderline fanatical?

A. Lou has an extreme passion in his belief and an extreme passion in his personal development towards those beliefs. Um, I do not know where one defines the difference between fanaticism and a high level of passion.

Q. Would you describe his high level of passion as sincere?

A. Absolutely. He, he truly believes, in my opinion, in his beliefs and his desire to accomplish those.

MR. BARTH: I have nothing else, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Any recross?

MR. DRESCHER: No. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step down. And I’m going to ask as you leave if you would hand that exhibit to the deputy clerk.

MR. BARTH: Your Honor, we have an extra copy for you.

THE COURT: That’s okay. She needs to mark it.

THE WITNESS: Thank you for the hearing device.

THE COURT: Thank you. That, according to the Court, is the only witnesses we are going to have. So am I wrong about that?

MR. DRESCHER: I don’t think so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BARTH: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So let’s start with you Mr. Barth on sentencing arguments on all issues including 3553(a) factors. And keep in mind that I have read your sentencing memoranda.

MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor. I will. I think it’s important that I highlight a few things in Exhibit S. because this was not attached to my sentencing memorandum. To refresh the Court’s recollection of this, this was an e-mail which was part and parcel of the sea change in attitude from the Parkers directed towards Mr. Soteriou. And the Court will have this to review, but just some important things. This is Julianna Soteriou writing to Bob Wanda who is an attorney for Langrock and Sperry and Wool and Mac, her husband. It says, and I’m reading in pertinent part, second paragraph, second sentence, I am concerned about his well-being, speaking of Lou Soteriou, his integrity, perhaps even his sanity and the impact of his current behavior on this project. Going down to the fourth paragraph. The way Lou is going about this position — this position seems to have a sorted role in the story instead of revealing him as a good, honorable person in service of righteous and sacred dream whether able or now too disabled to fill the commitments he has made. Going down to the sixth paragraph, second sentence, Lou’s behavior at the moment is seriously out of line with this spirit, with the integrity of the project and the story line we’re communicating about this whole situation. If we don’t handle that with care it has a potential to create a lot of problems and heartache. I don’t want lenders to feel violated by this. I don’t want Lou to be cast as a rat if we can at all prevent it. It would be easier if he was helping us prevent it instead of apparently acting apart. The next page, first full paragraph, I think if we can agree on a unified approach and we have a coherent story to explain this that will help. Skipping two sentences. I would also like to get through to Lou about this and see if we can help him get on board in some way too before this part of the story breaks. Remember this was, February was coming up. And the auction of innocence was happening as was the accounting at BISHCA had ordered. At least to know where he stands because I really don’t know that right now. And, finally going, to the Ps, Mac has written a draft of a statement to lenders explaining Lou’s involvement with the project from the beginning. Don’t worry Wanda he’s not sending it to anyone just wanted to get it clear in his own mind, clear in his own mind and prepare himself for communicating about this to the lenders in public. Mac provides a graceful line through for Lou to be respected for what he has contributed even if he is too disabled to continue. But Lou would have to be available to be in contact with us in order for this approach to work. Your Honor, there are two men involved in this scheme. We’re not suggesting there isn’t. And the scheme deprived many people, hundreds of people in our state, the State of Vermont, money, hard earned money in some cases, in many cases. And some cases it, the deprivation of those funds, that money was life altering. And there’s no doubt about that. And there’s no doubt that both men needs to be held accountable. I don’t take issue with the Pre-Sentence Report. I don’t take issue as my client’s attorney with the suggestion that, the obvious suggestion that he is guilty and culpable and needs to be held accountable for this crime. The only thing that I take umbrage here today is the suggestion that Mac Parker was somehow more the victim and Mr. Soteriou more the villan. That simply isn’t the case. In their role in depriving investors of money as sincere as I tend to believe both parties were, they were both villans. And I think that the fraud that took place here is multi-fold in that it was not just that the investors were misled about who was the inspiration for this film. I think the cross examination and the testimony that has come out has shown that Mac Parker had plenty of discretion about what he could and couldn’t do with this film, but certainly that was part of the fraud. But there were other parts of this fraud that were shared by Mac with Lou if not shared more by Mac. The lies that he told them about previous investors, leaving that out. Lying about the number of investors and the amount of money already put into the film. And Mr. Soteriou had no part in that aspect of the fund solicitation. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Soteriou has a mental health disorder, a delusional disorder. He sincerely believed in this project as —

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you about that because you’ve mentioned a couple times how sincere they were. But this is not a case where they were out distributing alms to the poor and helping the disabled. The money went right into their pocket. It went to luxury items for both of them. They used it for their living expenses. So it wasn’t, it would be hard to say as you were staying in a very expensive hotel in Telluride that this was some delusional belief in your spiritual evolution. I mean I could see if they were passing out money indiscriminatively to other people and trying to help the universe, but this was money going directly into their pocket, used for their own personal expenses, and quite a few luxuries along the way. So how sincere could you be in the grand scheme of things if that’s where the money’s going?

MR. BARTH: So, first of all, there’s no doubt the Court is right in the suggestion that there was a callousness to this venture. There was a lack of accountability and thoughtfulness to this venture, to the scheme, the fraud scheme. No doubt about it. And that resulted in millions of dollars being lost by investors. But I don’t think, Your Honor, that one — I think that Your Honor’s suggesting that subsistence living is what Your Honor envisions for spiritual transcending. And maybe in some philosophies that’s true, but that’s not true —

THE COURT: No, I’m saying that if the philosophy is, you know, I believe I wrote down a higher set of divine principles then I would expect if we followed the money it would be going in that direction. And your client in particular purchased many luxuries for himself. So nobody said he had to live at the poverty level, but he was living far beyond that at times. And that I, that’s where the sincerity of the scheme is lost on me.

MR. BARTH: And for a great period of time too. For a decade. But remember as the government has acknowledged in its sentencing papers Mr. Soteriou was a very successful chiropractor. He had a very successful business where he had high six figures two, $300,000 a year in his practice. He was considered by word of mouth, by referral, extraordinary as a healer. This was not a great change in his life-style. But the Court’s correct there was a bunch, there was a ton of money taken by both parties. More by Mr. Soteriou. Absolutely. But, of course, Mr. Parker had the promise of the proprietary control over the asset of the film that he believed would be incredibly successful. But to the extent you are, Your Honor is suggesting that they need to be punished we don’t disagree. We’re in agreement. The only thing I take umbrage is today is, again, is this idea that Mac Parker, story teller, not suffering from a delusional disorder, educated man, family support, salt of the earth, making his own decisions at a young age, independent farmer, was under the thumb of Lou Soteriou. It’s just not the case. When the walls caved in on this financial venture Birth Of Innocence and the Parkers demanded Lou Soteriou to pay the investors back, which was always going to be through the production of the movie. Lou went to his, went to Robert Hoffman the man he reached out to and said should I do this. And he was advised not to. Why? Because it was illegal. And the Parkers wanted him to raise funds as they were doing. Mac Parker didn’t listen to BISHCA. They told him not to. He denies it now. But we know they did. He didn’t listen to them. He broke the rules. He back-dated, made investors part and parcel of his crime and then has the gall to suggest that it was Lou Soteriou who was the villan here. Indeed he was, but no more so than Mac Parker. When Lou Soteriou refused to raise funds fearing that he would run afoul of BISHCA and the law the fangs came out. The narrative changed. The approach changed. They wanted Lou to get on board, but he wouldn’t fundraise. And so the narrative changed and now Lou goes from respected contributor to the film to rat. Now, I assure you this was, this e-mail was late January of 2010. Investor Update 18, which is part of the government’s sentencing memorandum, is one of the last attachments which is the first investor update after this, I guess you would call it threatening e-mail, get on board or get cast as a rat. Absolutely had no graceful line for Lou’s respected contribution to the film. No. It demonized him as the person who had used Mac Parker, had betrayed the Parkers and betrayed The Birth Of Innocence. I really didn’t, I had hoped this hearing wouldn’t become, no, who is the bad guy. I, I think that they both share blame. I want to transition now to my client and my client alone. He’s a sick man. He’s had a heart attack and series of strokes. He’s very sick physically and mentally. We’ve attached testimony from many of the lenders, several of the lenders. We’ve heard from Mr. Parker what a debilitated state he’s in as of 2009. And this is a man who will not fair well in custody. He’s in need of mental health treatment. He’s in need of medical care. And finally he’s a 56 year old man living in his parent’s basement with these health issues, both psychological and physical, with no criminal history, much like Mr. Parker. Not so much as an arrest. I know that the Court is concerned with general deterrence and the defense acknowledges this, but unlike Mac Parker we’re not requesting probation. We’re requesting a reasonable sentence. Two and a half years in a federal prison to be followed by a lengthy term of supervised release where I suggest home confinement. Two and a half years in federal prison for this man is not going to make up, I understand that, the funds lost by investors. But considering his role in it, considering his current state of affairs, physical and mental, and considering his lack, utter lack of criminal history, the Court does not need to be worried about specific deterrence and the Court can be assured that Mr. Soteriou will fair well on supervised release. So we’re asking for that 30 month sentence. Unless the Court has questions I would submit.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Soteriou, did you want to make a statement on your own behalf?

MR. SOTERIOU: Yes, Your Honor. Um, that no matter what I say, the words that I say to you people cannot affect the loss, the financial loss, not only the financial loss, but also the emotional losses that everyone’s encountered from all this, the stress they’ve endured from all this. Um, for that I’m truly sorry, but that’s not, that’s not enough. That’s why I’m still saying how this process is still real and I’m still pushing to become what this film represents that the investors will be paid and their interest and the film be done. I mean it’s, it’s, I’m still sticking true to that line.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. SOTERIOU: It’s just that I’m very, very sorry. And I, they don’t mean — it’s, it’s, it’s just not going to do anything to help them. The only thing I know what to do is to help them is do what this film is. It’s, that’s it.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Drescher let’s hear from you. And I know that you want to allow certain time for victim statements and you may do so.

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, I just I would like to invite victims who wish to make a statement to come forward. I understand we have at least two maybe more. I would introduce to the Court Mr. Mark Boivin.

MR. BOIVIN: Good afternoon. I’m Mark Boivin from Addison, Vermont. I’m a farmer. I’m going to be 66 years old pretty quick. So I prepared written statements and I brought a copy so I when I read them you don’t have to do it. But there’s a couple comments that were made that I would like to add first. Is with regard to age and infirmity I do not believe that should be considered by the Court at this point. If somebody had a mental disability at the time of the crime that would be — should be recognized by the Court. But the last witness just testified that Mr. Soteriou was competent at that time. The other point was that kind of a point of honor. There was a reference made to farmers and people that — when Mr. Parker was being questioned or cross-examined about counseling and not having a degree. Well, I don’t have a degree in counseling. I consoled my sister during her divorce. I’ve counseled lots of people. And the idea that, you know, maybe farmers were being taken advantage of I don’t think farmers should be treated any different or any less than anybody else. As far as things that I have done, I have practiced law. I don’t have a law degree. I testified as, I acted as my own lawyer pro se before The Second Circuit. So I figure we should consider farmers not as being less competent than anybody else. So I wanted to add that as a point of honor. My statement I begin first by identifying myself and my brother and address so I’ll just skip that. It is undisputed that the money collected from multiple persons under the guise of funding for the creation of the movie The Birth Of Innocence was used for other purposes. That both defendants benefited from the diversion of these funds to personal use. They, both defendants agreed to keep the role of Mr. Soteriou secret. Neither the diversion of funds nor Mr. Soteriou’s role were disclosed.

THE COURT: So when you read just like I said to the other person we all speed up when we read. So you’re doing a nice job just go more slowly because we want it in the record. No, she’s got to type. So do what you’re doing, but just a little bit slower.

MR. BOIVIN: I’m sorry. So where did you leave off? And that neither the diversion of funds nor Mr. Soteriou’s role were disclosed. These actions constitute fraud. We submit that both defendants were willing and are jointly responsible for this fraud. Therefore, the Court should reject any and all claims that one was the only the instrument of the other or in any way less culpable. Under the doctrines of sana quad non and the old English one, and a penny for a pound, etcetera, both the defendants should be liable for the entire amount of any restitution ordered by the Court. We also submit that the sentence each defendant receives should be proportional to the amount of money that they received under the scheme. In short, the penalty should reflect the relative benefits they received under the scam. All claims of mental infirmity are clearly contrary to the evidence that both defendants knew where the money was coming from and conspired to divert the funds to personal use. The unmistakable attempt at concealment over the years is prima facie proof of mental capacity. Similarly, claims of infirmity and age should b rejected because many of the persons that have been swindled are older and more infirmed than the defendants. We also ask this Court to distinguish between the collection of money to start or fund an enterprise from the crimes of misrepresentation, fraud, misappropriation of monies, etcetera. As Mr. Lewis, later Justice, Brandeis noted over 100 years ago in his treatise, other people’s money and what banks do with it most of America’s major industries would not exist without private funding at their start. This is as true today as it was then. Therefore, we pray the Court not create a precedent that the solicitation of funds for enterprise as a crime but clearly state that the defendants’ fraud, fraudulent actions were that that constitute the crime. Lastly we petition to the Court make public in its decision or supporting documents an accurate finding of the amounts of money that were involved and where it went. This was signed by myself and my brother. Both of us provided funds to Mr. Parker. Um, there was one other thing that was, if the Court please, there was the question of the bankruptcy proceeding and a motion to have a company take over that. We did get an e-mail on that. It was a request for us to give up our rights under this, any rights we have. It did not constitute a contract, did not clearly state who was there or what the benefits were. It, and so we considered it totally invalid at that time.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, the next is Ms. Gloria Rapolee.

MS. RAPOLEE: Your Honor, I’m Gloria Rapolee from North Duxbury, Camel’s Hump. I am an investor. Um, I am the average in this. Um, every pennies — everyone’s penny is worth the same. We are all at the same level now. We are all at zero. None of us have been paid since um, November 18, 2009. Um, it’s hard to speak about um, one or the other of the men without talking about them together because it was a scheme. They each had their own scheme. They each had their own schemes together. The purpose was to make money off the investors um, and at the same time live well. And that’s — well, that’s well shown in the documentation that we’ve all read. I’ve read every single thing that’s been, been put out there this week, this last week. They were never going to finish the film while the money train was still running. Um, during the course of their scheme, scam, and to this day, each man showed and continues to show absolute disregard for the investors. Um, overriding everything is justice for the victims. That’s why we’re here. So that the punishment for the crimes and since both men stole millions from us over 10 years I believe that most both men should serve at the very least a total of 10 years each. I believe they should serv the maximum. Um, we’ve been, we’ve been not having any money come back in for almost four years now and they raised money for 10 years. So I think the maximum imprisonment and the maximum supervised release and as outlined in the plea deals. Um, each and every penny of any and all proceeds from any and all creative projects or anything that um, either one talks about as how to make restitution should be returned to the investors. Neither man should profit ever again from their crimes. The impact on me is that for me this was a business deal. I worked hard for my, to earn my original investments, which is the average, and paid taxes on this money. Not only, in fact, paid taxes on money that I didn’t receive. Um, called phantom interest. Even the I.R.S. calls it that. Um, I invested in a project which I expected would be a success. My original principal would go back into the bank and the, and the earned interest would go towards an addition to my house. Today outwardly I diligently put most of this behind me. However, inwardly carry deep disappointment and I do not foresee building an addition to my house any time soon. I have not recouped any of my original investment nor do I expect to any time soon. Um, again, it’s hard to speak without um, speaking of both, but um, and Mr. Parker was speaking today. And so I’m going to say that my um, I don’t know Mr. Soteriou. I have never met him. I only know what I read in the papers and what I read that’s posted on the Court cite. That’s all I know. And I don’t think it’s good, not good for us. Um, Mr. Parker um, I have known for a long time. I know his family. I was their forester in Danville. Um, I, I um, highly respect his brothers um, and his mother and his sister-in-law. I think they are great people. I don’t know where Mac went in this journey but um, I don’t know, he’s hurt a lot of people and we’ll be talking about that on Wednesday. Um, I signed my contracts in good faith, but Mac did not. Um, and here we are, you know, we should not be standing here in this, if he had shut it off a long time ago, if he followed his sense, if he followed his family sense, if he followed everything we would not be here today and that’s part of the crime. Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, I understand Mr. Jerry Rule would like to make a statement.

MR. RULE: Hi. My name is Jerry Rule. Um, I didn’t write nothing out so I hope you can bare with me. Um, I built a very large business and I sold it. And um, because I, I had a very hard thing happen. And I, I was going through a divorce and um, I got in a bad motorcycle accident and took out my femur. And my wife died three weeks later from septic infection from a kidney stone. And Mr. Parker came to me at that time and I had four children to take care of at the same time. And I worked very hard. Um, I started with absolutely nothing and built a business, not through — through a lot of hard wor and sweat and tears and the whole. And I sold my business because of all the bad things that were happening to me all at once. And um, Mr. Mac Parker knew this at this time what kind of position I was in and how weak I was. And I am still to this day seeking counseling and having a lot, a lot of troubles. Um, but I gave Mac Parker almost every single bit of the money that I had left from the sale of my business, which was exactly $320,000, which is a life time worth of money. I worked hard so I could retire early so I could spend time with my kids. I’m all they have left. And um, I was lied to. I was um, I’m very sorry, I came here shaking. And I spent the last three years um, struggling having to go to my family for money um, to get through the winters, um, having a very difficult time doing whatever I’m supposed to do to be a man after building a business that I was able to support myself my whole life. And to put as much trust as I did and then to come to these court proceedings and listen to all of this um, it’s just incredible. And for me um, trying to figure out why I keep hearing that these two men, I don’t know Mr. Soteriou, I know that’s what we’re here for, but um, to hear that there’s chances that they may do two and a half years to three years time for their crime and or whatever else they have to do just doesn’t seem like nothing compared to a life time, this, this is a life, my whole life is gone. I’ll never ever earn that money, that amount of money again. I’m disabled now and there’s no way I’ll ever get there. Um, and I think that, you know, if they don’t do 10 years time, both of them, that something is wrong with the courts. Um, this is not — I’m talking about myself right now, but I’ve also been to a lot of meetings with all the other investors and helped with um, helped raise money because none of us knew, none of us knew and we were continued to be lied to. I didn’t invest later on, until like November, 2008 and then again in 2009. Um, and I believe that he knew that he was in some kind of trouble at that time. And it’s just um, I really believe that and hope and pray that each one of these men get 10 years. Mac is the one that lied to me and did all — I believe Mac is the one that did most of the damage. I think that Mr. Soteriou was able to pretty easily live off from all of Mac’s lies and benefited a lot from it. But I was lied to and taken advantage of from Mr. Parker. I don’t know anything about Mr. Soteriou.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. RULE: Thank you.

MR. DRESCHER: Your Honor, I believe that concludes the victim statements. I do know that there were a couple of victims here earlier today who were not able to stay through the afternoon. And so they are, I’ll represent to the Court that this presentation was somewhat truncated as a result of the duration of the examination of the witnesses. I think a handful of points I want to make with regard to what is the just sentence here. And our position that it is the 84 month maximum contemplated by the plea agreement that Your Honor has accepted. As some of the victims who spoke a moment ago explained and whose some of the statements that are, that are contained in the Pre-Sentence Report show, and portions of others that we have filed separately show, it’s a diverse set of victims. Some of them have lost their life savings. Some of them are unable to put additions on to their houses. Some of them, as we just heard from Mr. Rule, now have to appeal to their family to get help through the winter. There are many people that invested their retirement accounts into this scheme. The money that these people had earned and saved and collected went to pay Lou Soteriou and went to pay — and they had no idea that it was going to Lou Soteriou. They had no idea that it was going to Lou Soteriou because Lou Soteriou directed that his involvement in this scheme remain a secret. Literally, Mr. Soteriou was provided with blank checks that were going to be funded by the dollars paid to Mr. Parker by these victims. Funded by people who had absolutely no reason to expect their money was going to Mr. Soteriou. In one of the victim impact statements there was the observation that one of the nice things about living in Vermont is that you can leave your door unlocked at night. There is a culture of the trust in Vermont. And I’ve touched on some of the economic costs and impacts on these victims. But the, the culture of trust that is reflected by people being willing to leave their door unlocked at night has also suffered a cost. Mr. Parker was able to get these people to provide money to this project because they could trust him. And at the direction of Lou Soteriou he was lying to them. As Your Honor pointed out in response to Mr. Barth’s suggestion that his client’s mental illness should mitigate his sentence beyond the maximum that is contemplated by the plea agreement the — Mr. Soteriou lived a windfall life-style for nearly a decade funded by Vermonters, mostly Vermonters, there were a few from other states, principally Vermonters who thought they were helping to create a beautiful, inspiring film. Mr. Soteriou, by any measure, was a skillful chiropractic manipulator. I believe the testimony you heard today from Mr. Parker establishes that he was also a skillful manipulator of Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker’s going to face his sentencing day on Wednesday. And we will take u his culpability at that time. Both men have, have pleaded to a conspiracy. Both men participated in the same conspiracy. And we can quibble about whether Mr. Soteriou is more culpable or Mr. Parker is more culpable, but the fact of the matter is they are both extraordinarily culpable. There has been a suggestion in counsel’s argument that Mr. Soteriou’s physical and mental health should somehow result in a, in a reduced sentence. I note that there’s been no evidence presented. We have had no opportunity to cross-examine the provider whose report is in the record. I note that as Your Honor knows the Bureau of Prisons has medical facilities that can address physical, physical and mental health concerns. I also note as the PSR points out that Mr. Soteriou is refusing to take medicine for his, for his current physical addiction or physical impairments. And it would be indeed perverse for a physical  impairment that Mr. Soteriou is not cooperating in the treatment of to result in a diminution of the sentence that he would otherwise receive. Ultimately the standard for whether a sentence is legal or not is one of reasonableness. This is a crime that included hundreds of people giving millions of dollars over a decade. And that it is, it is our position that it is extremely important that the Court’s sentence, whatever it be, send a signal that crime does not pay. Mr. Soteriou lived a luxurious life-style for a decade. And that we would suggest a sentence shorter than the maximum 84 months contemplated by the plea agreement would very much risk sending a signal that crime does pay. That the 84 months that we’re asking the Court to impose strikes a reasonable balance of all of the factors contained in 3553(a), including the parsimony clause as well as the history and characteristics of this man. But most importantly it sends a signal that somebody who engages in this type of criminal enterprise does not get away with it and needs to suffer the consequences in the form of incarceration for a long period of time.

THE COURT: Thank you. Brief response, Mr. Barth? You don’t have to, but you have that opportunity.

MR. BARTH: Thank you, Your Honor. No, unless the Court has particular questions.

THE COURT: All right. The Court’s going to begin with a guideline calculation. Pursuant to the decisions of the Supreme Court in United States versus Booker and Gall versus United States and The Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States versus Crosby in determining the following sentence the Court has considered the United States Sentencing Guidelines applicable in this case including all departure authority contained in the guideline policy statements as well as all the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C., Section 3553(a). The Court finds as follows in this case: The offense of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C., Section 1349, and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C., Section 1957 occurred from in or about 2000 to November, 2009. Hence, the sentencing guidelines apply in this case. Counts 15 and 16 are grouped for guideline calculation purposes pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 3D 1.2(c), U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 2S 1.1 comment note 6. The guideline for this offense is found in Section 2S 1.1 of the guidelines manual November first, 2012 edition. The base offense level will be determined using the underlying offense guideline from which the laundered funds were derived. As determined by U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 2B. 1.1 the base offense level is 33. Pursuant to Section 2B 1.1 offense level the defendant was convicted of an offense referenced to Section 2B 1.1 and the offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more. Therefore, the base offense level is seven pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 2B 1.1(a)(1). Section 2B. 1.1 specific offense characteristics. The offense involved the loss of more than seven million dollars but less than 20 million dollars which results in a 20 level, offense level increase pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 2B 1.1 (B)(1)(k). The offense involved more than 250 victims which results in an increase of six offense levels pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Section 2B 1.1 (B)(2)(C). Specific offense characteristics apply in this case. The defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C., Section 1957 which results in the addition of one offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 2S 1.1 (B)(2)(A). The adjusted offense level is 34. The defendant has clearly manifested an acceptance of responsibility for his offense resulting in a reduction of three offense levels pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 3E 1.1. The total offense level is 31. The defendant has zero criminal history points resulting in a criminal history category of one. The guideline imprisonment range for an offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of one is 108 to 135 months. The authorized term of supervised release is at least one year, but not more than three years. Since the applicable guideline range is in Zone D. of the sentencing table the defendant is ineligible for probation. The Court has accepted the parties’ binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 C1C which pursuant to that plea agreement the Court may not sentence the defendant to a sentence of more than 84 months. In addition to the sentencing guidelines and the parties’ plea agreement the Court looks at the law that we’ve been talking about, 18 U.S.C., Section 3553(a). An that’s a law that requires the Court to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary. So, sufficient, the punishment needs to meet the crime, but not greater than necessary. Not unduly harsh just because those sentences may be available. In deciding what is a sufficient but not greater than necessary sentence the Court is directed to look at a number of factors; the nature and circumstances of the crime, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the needs for the sentence imposed, the kind of sentences available, the need to pay restitution to any victim, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between defendants with similar criminal histories who have committed similar crimes. So you should not get a sentence that is substantially more lenient or more harsh than somebody also in criminal history category one who also committed this crime unless there’s a reason for it. In deciding the need for the sentence imposed the Court is directed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, impose just punishment, protect the public from future crimes by you, impose what we call specific deterrence. Say to you, Mr. Soteriou, don’t do this again, it has consequences. Hopefully that will motivate you. And also general deterrence, speak to the community at large and say this crime will not be tolerated, this is how the law treats it. And hopefully people will be deterred from engaging in this kind of fraudulent scheme. The Court also needs to make sure you get mental health treatment and medical treatment in the most effective manner possible. In this case focusing first on the nature and circumstances of the crime this is one of the biggest fraud schemes, if not the biggest, in the District of Vermont. It played out over a lengthy period of time, 10 years. It involved numerous acts of deceit. And it had numerous victims. And it also had some special characteristics not usually seen in a fraud scheme. And that was the predatory capitalization on the victims’ desire to do something good for the universe, be part of something positive, and thinking that they were doing this and it was going to create this beautiful film and maybe they would make some money at the same time. And that was the theme in which the fraud was committed. And to some extent it was continued today. That this is still a beautiful project, with all the best intentions that somehow went awry. And that’s not what happened here. It just is not what happened here. This was a scheme that put cash in your pocket and cash in Mac Parker’s pocket. And it paid for luxuries. And it paid for living expenses. And never mind telling the investors that you were behind the project. How about telling them do you want to support us for 10 years, nobody’s going to have a job, we’re going to put very little money towards the film and you’re going to be paying all of our living expenses. Um, not too many people would invest  in that kind of project. One of the things that’s very telling in this case is following the money. And the money tells the story. So 2000 is the year the fraud scheme got going. Five — half a million dollars paid to you. Zero to the film production. Zero to the investors. 2001 is $409,000 paid to you. $4953 paid towards the film. A hundred and nine, no 11,123 paid to the investors. And the numbers continues on that path. Money going to you, going to Mr. Parker, very little is really going to the film. And enough paid to the investors to keep the early ones quiet so that you could real in the new ones. That’s called a Ponzi Scheme. It works that way. In many different businesses you pay off the first investors so they are not squawking. You get new investors. You don’t tell the new investors about the old investors. So this was a pervasive scheme of fraud and the purpose of which was primarily to benefit yourself and Mr. Parker and maybe make a movie in the meantime. And the idea that this was all for a higher purpose seems to be directly undermined by where the money went. Like I said, it wasn’t alms to the poor or helping third world nations. You were staying at very expensive hotels in Telluride, buying personal care products, paying for your pets. The Parker’s pets were getting Chinese herbs. Neither of them had to have a job. That’s where the money was going. So if it was truly to achieve a higher purpose money didn’t seem to flow in that direction. Your personal role in this was actually less direct deceit than Mr. Parker. He told the lies and you concealed your role. And what is really concerning is that even after BISHCA said stop, what you are doing is wrong, it’s illegal, it continued. And nobody was particularly deterred by that likelihood. In fact, money went, you know, I think the next day money was solicited. So it wasn’t like you are babes in the woods and didn’t realize what you were doing. Even when you had somebody who had enforcement authority telling you stop, you know, this is wrong it continued. I think there’s been a lot said about the roles between the two parties. I see them as fairly equal. And I am here to sentence you so I’ll talk about some of the deceit that you engaged in. First, I don’t think there was any suggestion that let’s tell the investors that I’m going to quit my business and I’m going to be living off of them for 10 years and the longer I can keep this transformation process going the longer they’ll be supporting me. You actively told Mr. Parker, don’t disclose my role, don’t involve lawyers, don’t go after big money. And those are not somebody whose under a delusion. Those are somebody who realizes if these things are disclosed that’s not going to be good for the fraudulent scheme because people are going to say to themselves why are we investing in this. So you had a very significant role, but in terms of lying to the victims you had a substantially lesser role than Mr. Parker. On the other hand, in terms of cash in hand and money spent on luxuries you got the lion’s share and you have nothing to show for it. The money’s gone. You spent it. You spent it on yourself. And the likelihood that you are going to be able to pay restitution is very slim. So that’s very, very concerning in this case. I have already considered your mental health in accepting the plea agreement, but I want to make clear what it is not. You did not get a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Dr. Whecker said possible schizophrenia paranoid type. But he noted on all the criteria in A. for schizophrenia was not met. There are no hallucinations, no disorganized speech, no grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior, no negative symptoms such as a flat affect or poverty of speech. And he concluded the data do not support the evidence of any other so-called positive or negative factors of schizophrenia. o you might have some delusions and some different beliefs but your friend and trusted C.P.A. certainly did not believe he was dealing with somebody who was psychotic or delusional. Mr. Parker didn’t reach that conclusion. And nobody that you were coming into contact was concluding that this person needs to be hospitalized, he’s completely out on a limb. So I believe you have mental health challenges. I factored that into the decision, but they are ones that are working for you because when pressed about, okay, we got to pay these people back, we got to do this, that’s when it’s convenient to be vague and delusional I got to, you know, attend to my spiritual growth, I can’t face the real money issues of paying these people back. I think it is good that after BISHCA got involved you did tap into your personal funds and return some money, $60,000, plus or minus. Um, but you knew that you had no money to return to them so that’s the emptiness of the promise that everybody would be paid. And it wasn’t just as you said from the production of the movies. One of the things was you’re going to be predicting lottery numbers and that’s how people are going to get rich. And that just seems like a convenient way to tell yourself not to worry, this is a problem that I can live down the road. So very, very serious crime Your history and characteristics have been taken into consideration. And the question is what’s the appropriate response in this case. And, yes, this is your case, and it’s not Parker’s. And, yes, I already said that I found you very much similarly situated. But we have hundreds of victims that are probably going to go away with nothing. And they are not going to be able to, you know, recover the ground that they lost. Some people are just going to be out substantial portions if not all of their life’s savings. So how do you sentence somebody for one of Vermont’s largest frauds, most long-term frauds, most pervasive frauds, and one that capitalized on the goodness of people, in your investors in a way to make money and put money in your pockets. And this wasn’t a case in which you took a movie and padded everybody’s salaries and production costs and had the meals for the movie paid through the production budget and everybody kind of got rich this way. This was money that went directly into your pocket and Mr. Parker’s pocket not stopping at the movie at all. I think that you profited immensely from this crime and I think you should have the full consequences of this crime. And I think the 84 month sentence is a sufficient but not greater than necessary sentence. So Mr. Soteriou please stand: It is the sentence of the Court that the defendant be committed to the custody of The Federal Bureau of Prisons for a term of 84 months in Counts 15 and 16, each count concurrent, to be followed by a three year term of supervised release. The conditions of supervised release are as follows: The defendant shall not commit any crimes; federal, state or local. The defendant shall not possess any illegal controlled substances. The defendant shall abide by the standard conditions of supervision recommended by The Sentencing Commission. The defendant shall participate in a mental health program approved by the United States Probation Office. The defendant shall contribute to the cost of services rendered in an amount to be determined by the probation officer based on ability to pay or the availability of third party payment. The Court finds that the defendant presents a low risk of substance abuse and in accordance with 18 U.S.C., Section 3583D and 3563A (5) suspends the requirement that the defendant participate in drug testing while under supervision. The defendant shall make restitution payments in an amount of at least 10 percent of the defendant’s gross monthly income until the financial obligation is paid in full. The defendant shall not incur new credit charges or open any additional lines of credit without approval of the probation officer until the financial obligation is paid in full. The defendant shall permit the probation officer access to any requested financial information until the financial obligation is paid in full. The defendant shall not possess a firearm or dangerous weapon. The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer. The guideline fine range is from 15,000 to 150,000. The defendant has demonstrated an inability to pay a fine hence all fines are waived. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 3663(a) restitution shall be ordered in this case. However, the finalization of the restitution list remains an ongoing process that requires additional investigation. Consequently pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 3664(d)(5) the Court will continue the final determination of restitution and will order restitution in the amount determined. This shall not occur more than 90 days after sentencing. And the Court has ordered the parties to have the issue resolved in 45 days. A special assessment of $200 is imposed due immediately. The Court recommends that the defendant receive medical treatment and mental health treatment and counseling while incarcerated. Both the defendant and the government may have the right to appeal this sentence as set forth in Title 18, U.S. Code Section 3742. If the defendant is unable to pay the cost of an appeal he has the right to apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis in which event we would waive the cost of appeal and request the Court to appoint counsel for him. If the defendant so requests the Clerk of the Court shall prepare and file forthwith a notice of appeal on behalf of the defendant. Notice of appeal by the defendant must be filed within 14 days of the date judgment is entered on the docket pursuant to Rule 4B of The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mr. Barth, do you have any recommendations as to where Mr. Soteriou serves his sentence?

MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor. Probably already covered by the conditions, but we ask that he go to a facility that can address both his physical and mental health issues. And we would ask that the Court recommend a facility that is minimum security and a facility as close to Connecticut as possible.

THE COURT: All right. Any objection to those recommendations from the government?

MR. DRESCHER: No.

THE COURT: The Court recommends that the defendant be incarcerated in a facility that can address his physical and mental health problems, that the facility be as close to Connecticut as possible and that he have the lowest security setting available to him. Mr. Drescher, do you have counts of the indictment that need to be dismissed?

MR. DRESCHER: Yes, Your Honor. Counts 1 through 13 14, 17 and 18, as well as the forfeiture notice.

THE COURT: And I assume there’s no objection?

MR. BARTH: Correct.

THE COURT: They are dismissed. Anything further in this matter?

MR. BARTH: The parties are jointly requesting a self surrender date, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Is that acceptable to you?

MR. DRESCHER: Pursuant to the plea agreement we recommend that he be allowed to self-surrender.

THE COURT: All right. We will get a date for you to self-surrender. Let me explain a couple things about that.

MR. SOTERIOU: Can I sit down?

THE COURT: You may sit down. Sure. I’m sorry about that. Not everybody gets to self-surrender. At this point it’s advisable because it saves the tax payers money and your case will inevitably cost the tax payers funds through the Court proceedings, the bankruptcy, etcetera. You have to be there on time and you cannot be under the influence. If you are under the influence of anything you generally go into a disciplinary status. If for some reason you commit a crime between now and then we will have you arrested immediately and you will go forthwith and you’ll have a disciplinary status as you go in. If you don’t show up we will issue an arrest warrant. They will treat you as an escape. You nod your head but on occasion it happens. The last person got an additional year in prison. You need to be there and you need to be there on time. You are subject to your conditions of release during that time period between now and your self-surrender date. Pat, do you have a surrender date for Mr. Soteriou?

THE CLERK: Six weeks would be October first.

THE COURT: October first. And is that before noon?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. October first, 2013 before noon. Anything further in this matter?

MR. BARTH: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. DRESCHER: No, thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(The Court recessed at 4:10 p.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, Anne Marie Henry, Official Court Reporter for the United States District Court, for the District of Vermont, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true and accurate transcription of my shorthand notes taken in the aforementioned matter to the best of my skill and ability.

Anne Marie Henry, RPR
Official Court Reporter

---

Retour à >>  Autour, des procès, des affaires, des histoires