< 31. | Alexandria | 33. >

not sentencing today in a vacuum nor indeed in reliance upon the report in my judgment. You heard the trial, but I would point first to paragraph 15 on page 5, where the statement is made that Mr. Wertz was, quote, "Principally responsible for the implementation and operation of the loan program." I would simply point out that that is not correct insofar as it implies the entire loan program. He was not involved at all with the repayment end of it. Quite frankly, that's one of the structural problems in the organization that probably got him into trouble here, and his only involvement was his solicitation, so if I ask you to something, I guess I would ask you to strike the word "program" and just simply change that to loan solicitations, which would be a more accurate representation of his responsibilities.
The next point is again on that same page, actually all my points are on that page. In paragraph 16, where it states that he established the quotas. Again, that's just not true. I think the evidence is and the information that's subsequently made available to the probation office is that he was part of a group of people who put together the quotas and that he passed them on; and if the report would merely state that he passed on established quotas, I think that would be accurate.
Again, I don't think these are major points, but I just don't know whether or not they will raise any problems

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on August 31, 2007, at 11:16 PM