Notes

STEVEN THOMAS BREWER, WIRE FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING CONVICTIONS SOON OVERTURNED!

<br>
<br>This was a civil matter at best. Mr. Brewer's evidence and testimony showed that project funding worldwide as a whole was drying up and was speculative at best, and was risky business. There was evidence put on by Brewer's attorney that he had secured collateral with the value of $1.2 Billion for Ms. Nicolas' company and was held in a secured safety deposit box in one of Hong Kong top banks.&nbsp; Evidence of correspondence from top banks in Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore showed proof that loans in excess of $500 Million were being considered for project funding for Nicolas's company and the valuation of the asset/collateral
<br>
<br>
<br>had to be approved. Brewer provided evidence that he not only relied on that $1.2 Billion collateral as a means of funding, but he had secured other financial instruments like corporate and government bonds to be considered as well. During the testimony of Rollie Pederson an attorney with 45 years of experience and a former prosecutor, presented evidence that project funding was also in the works with a former General out of the country Bahrain, represented by one of the largest law firms in DC. This general was using his collateral as means to provide funding for Brewer and Nicolas.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Mr. Pederson was asked why would someone like the general and others pledge their collateral for someone else to get a loan. He said" it’s the money that these collateral providers would make. Their collateral is secured, they get an upfront fee and a fee once the loan is secured". This all made sense to me.&nbsp; Evidence showed that a top appraisal firm out of Europe was appraising the collateral that was transferred from the Bank in Hong Kong to a top bank in Switzerland. My takeaway from this evidence was that Brewer was operating under international private banking laws and not US commercial banking laws. Furthermore, overseas banks regulation are far less restrictive than US banking laws.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>I now believe the government got it wrong in this case. It's clear they wanted to convict these defendants because, up until that point funding had not occurred. It is clear that the government didn't understand international private funding, which was evident in the government's cross examination of Brewer that lasted only 45 minutes when he had testified on the stand for over 3 days with evidence and facts to support his claim. It was the Judge that did the cross-examination basically, which is an abuse of discretion. The Judge consistently asked Brewer questions about the private funding process. When he didn't understand, he made it very clear to the Jury by saying "I just don't understand, it makes no sense to me" thereby prejudicing the jurors with his lack of knowledge just because one does not understand something, it does not make it wrong.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>When I interviewed one of the jurors, I asked her what made you convict these people. "She said Well we didn't really understand all of the information about banking overseas and when the Judge didn't understand what defendant Brewer was saying, we just figured what he was doing was wrong". I was shocked to hear that that was pretty much all they had to go on to convict these defendants in this case.
<br>
<img width="410" src="https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/59d5806f31358e542c0356b8/416x416.jpg?background=000000&amp;cropX1=2370&amp;cropX2=4230&amp;cropY1=156&amp;cropY2=2014">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>A first-year law student would know the Judge had no right to cross-examine Brewer or the defendants in this case, and why he felt compelled to do so is a mystery to me. I have an opinion as to why. Like most people sitting and listening to the prosecutions side of the case, everyone was totally convinced that this was one big scam, including me. I know the Judge was convinced. However, after the defense put on their evidence and testimony the opinion of all in the court room had greatly shifted. Brewer appeared forthright in his testimony; there were no signs of deceit on his part. His witnesses were professionals both locally and internationally and explained clearly their effort and intent.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>I noticed the Judge stop sleeping during Brewer's testimony as he was during the prosecution’s case, where they only presented the money that the defendants spent from the fees in which they earned. The way the prosecution presented their case was as if they were not entitled to such fees. After reviewing all the facts of both sides, I could see how the defendants earned their rights to the fees at the center of this case. I believe the Judge had already formed his opinion that the defendants were guilty because he didn't understand international private funding to be like US commercial funding; therefore, he saw the need to cross-examine the defense. Never once did he cross-examine the prosecution witnesses Who admitted to some form of risk taking on their parts.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>It was his job to be the referee, not the prosecutor. I was disturbed by his action on bench. Going back to the fees Brewer received for securing collateral and for himself, during the interview of Juror she mentioned the fact that the defendant's had spent the fees and to her, it was wrong, but the agreement stated that the fees were to be released and to whom. These fees were released from the client themselves. The defense clearly demonstrated money was spent on worldwide travel for funding. There were hundreds of email correspondence with top ranked international banks seeking and structuring loans for projects for Ms. Nicolas's clients that were produced. I can't remember the last time I took a job and worked for free. However, the prosecution made it seem as though working for fees was illegal and the Jury bought that message and convicted the defendants in this case.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Out of all the defendants, Nicolas pleaded guilty to the charges and received
<br>a 5-year sentence. Court records show she later tried to withdraw her plea of guilty to not guilty, stating she was convinced by her attorney that she would lose at trial and she should plead guilty. She stated that she and the other defendants never conspired to steal people's money or defraud them. Funding efforts were real and once they had been arrested, the government caused the funding efforts to be stopped. According to court records, during Brewer's bond hearing, the Judge ordered him to cease his overseas effort until the trial came to a resolution.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br> finance (Brewer) who was telling the truth (based on records) received more time than all of them. In the federal system, you are penalized at sentencing if you go to trial, take the stand and lose. Attorney Rollie Pederson testified on behalf of Brewer. He said " this man is the most honest man I have ever met. He constantly told everyone to keep things above board and be transparent and he meant that".
<br>

Homepage: http://www.gregthomaspublishing.com