< 79. | Alexandria | 81. >

Mr. Small's beliefs relating to the war on drugs. We simply attempted to say that just wasn't relevant to his duty to be truthful in the course of his loan solicitations. I think it comes down to what price Mr. Small was willing to pay to fight his war on drugs. And I think what we saw in this trial was that in essence the defendants were willing to do anything, to say anything, to get money from people. Even if it meant lying to them. And that is exactly what they did.
Mr. Small's involvement was nationwide. What we saw in this case was his participation with other fundraisers nationwide. He participated with a fundraiser from California, I believe it was, in contacting Mr. Rither. He also obviously worked with fundraisers out of the national office.
So while it is true that he was not in a managerial position, he was in a position of considerable responsibility, indeed, nationwide responsibility. And we introduced into evidence at trial the contact card that he maintained in his own handwriting which showed at least a million dollars in loans that Mr. Small was writing down on his credit card. To be sure, he probably split credit with those loans with other persons in the organization, but obviously that was substantial involvement.
And, finally, as to Mr. Moffitt's claim that at worst what his client did was turn a blind eye to the

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on September 04, 2007, at 04:42 PM