An Endless Stream of Lies (15 page)

EPISODE EIGHT: THE THIRD VICTIM ADDRESSES THE COURT

Your Honor, thank you for letting me speak at this one, too. You heard what I went through the first time, which Alex has not. His wife talked about going through health issues. We’ve gone through colon surgery, colon cancer, chemo. Now we’re going through lung. We’ve had gallbladder. So we’ve had a lot in the last four years, and this is because of stress that we’ve been through from losing all our savings.

And the thing about it is, I know Alex helped with Bryan, but he broke his plea bargain; he lied on the stand. He’s been out for a year, walking the streets, getting to do what he wants to do.

What’s all these people been doing? They’ve been suffering. He’s just out living a free life. And I know that they’re just asking for ten, but I agree with the other two ladies, and they said a lot more things that I would have liked to have said, but I think he needs more than ten years. Thank you.

EPISODE NINE: THE COURT IMPOSES SENTENCING

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and United States vs. Booker and 18 U.S. Code 3553(a), the defendant will be committed to custody for a term of 87 months. This sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of 3553(a).

The Court recommends — the defendant has a history of mental health issues and recommends that he be allowed to participate in any available mental health treatment program while incarcerated.

Upon release, he’ll be on supervised release for a term of 3 years. Within 72 hours of release from custody, he shall report in person to the probation office in the district to which he is released.

While on supervised release, he shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime, and shall comply with
the standard conditions adopted by this Court and the
following additional conditions:

He shall be prohibited from engaging in any occupation, business, or profession requiring the handling of monetary instruments or securities unless approved by the probation officer in advance.

Further ordered that he pay the special assessment of $100.

The Court, having determined the amount of restitution, will order that it be paid as follows: The investors of CEP and Pinnacle, $10,513,465.67; Carolina First Bank, $91,572.02, for a total of $10,605 — $10,605,037.69. That’s the total. Any payment not in full will be divided proportionately among the victims named and listed in the presentence report and associated documents.

The defendant is jointly and severally liable for the total amount with Bryan Keith Noel, Docket No. 1:09cr57.

The gavel comes down, strikes wood, and that’s it. If Hermes was indeed seen as the god of transitions and boundaries, this, for Alex, is most assuredly a transition. Continuing, Alex, who had, in the commission of fraud, broken legal as well as moral boundaries, now had a specific set of boundaries placed upon him—eighty-seven months of incarceration followed by three years of direct supervision and ten million dollar restitution.

Up to this point, we have been trekking upstream through various tributaries, seeking to understand the parts that made up the whole. With Alex’s adjudication, we change our perspective one hundred eighty degrees. Now, we turn and look downstream. We turn from endeavoring to understand the past, to contemplating the future.

Where will the stream flow to from here? Traveling upstream is investigatory. Looking downstream is speculative. Immediately, we notice that there is a significant bend, just ahead in the stream. We can’t see around it. What lies just around the bend? What water hazards, if any, are waiting patiently, biding their time, further on downstream? Or is it all just smooth sailing ahead?

There is a most telling scene in Shakespeare’s
Richard the Second
. Richard, no small-time fraudster himself, is struggling with whether to abdicate and turn over his crown to his cousin, Bolingbroke. They meet. Richard speaks:

KING RICHARD II

Give me the crown. Here, cousin, seize the crown;
Here cousin:
On this side my hand, and on that side yours.
Now is this golden crown like a deep well
That owes two buckets, filling one another,
The emptier ever dancing in the air,
The other down, unseen and full of water:
That bucket down and full of tears am I,
Drinking my griefs, whilst you mount up on high.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE

Are you contented to resign the crown?

KING RICHARD II

Ay, no; no, ay; for I must nothing be;

It all comes down to water—in our continuation of water as a financial metaphor—in a bucket, doesn’t it? That is the struggle, isn’t it? Like the Apostle Paul pondered, “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I” (Romans 7:15). Richard articulated well the vacillations of the inner chamber of the heart with, “Ay, no; no, ay”—yes, no; no, yes.

Barry Minkow became a convicted fraudster at a young age. Once out of prison, he portrayed himself as a “fraud fighter” and became a pastor of a church. Ultimately, he was convicted of embezzling three million dollars from The San Diego Community Bible Church—the face of an innocent man and the body of a serpent.

Paul: “But what I hate, that do I.”

My grandmother, Lacy Watts Brown: “You can never tell about people.”

Alex Klosek: “I had a plan.”

THOUGHTS, COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS

What are your impressions, to this point, with regard to this circumstance?

Exactly what do you know?

What is it that you
know
that you don’t know?

What questions would you ask in order to know?

What steps would you take in order to know?

POINTS TO PONDER

1. Do you think the comments of the victims played a part in the determination of Alex’s sentence?
   
2. Do you think the comments of those who spoke on Alex’s behalf played a part in the determination of Alex’s sentence?
   
3. Do you think that the scope of Alex’s sentence was commensurate with what he had done?
   
4. Why or why not?
   
5. What questions would you pose to Alex at this point?
   

CONTENT – CONTEXT APPLICATION

A city clerk with thirty-seven years of service was charged with embezzling over $45,000 of public funds. The embezzlement took place over a period of two years. In the warrant, it was stated that she diverted municipal funds directly into her own bank account. In her statement of admission to the law enforcement authorities, she stated that the stolen funds “did not go for vacations or such but did go to pay credit cards and help family members.”

1. Should her stated reasons for stealing the funds be a factor in her sentencing?
   
2. Why or why not?
   
3. What questions would you pose to this individual?