< 36. | Alexandria | 38. >
and pretty soon, they were in a hole. And one thing led to another. They never really dug themselves out of the hole, and things just kept getting worse and worse and worse, but did they set out to do this? I don't think they did. I don't think there was any evidence at all that would equate this in any fashion with a let's sit down and scheme a way to get money to deprive people of money through loans, and of course we are never ever going to pay them back.
As a matter of fact, the theory of the Government's case was never that they were not going to pay this back or that they did not have an intention to pay it back. The theory of the Government's case always was that they weren't going to pay it back according to the promises and the representations as to the time frame and as to the interest rates.
I think I made that point as well as I can. I think the evidence supports that this was not what they designed from the outset.
Now, what about my client, Will Wertz? I have to start out as far as Mr. Wertz individually is concerned, Your Honor, by pointing out the absence of greed in this case. I have never seen a fraud case where there was not some element of personal greed somewhere involved with the perpetrators of the scheme or with the defendants. I haven't seen it here.
I think that overarches everything that I can say