Renner will receive more than $150,000 in seized funds that the companies owe him.

So he is/might be behind bars and yet he can still “earn” $150K of what might be money from a ponzi scheme? Something sounds very wrong with this decision. I don’t suppose the relevant court documents are available to read anywhere.

You are right Patrick, it is nothing more than a diversion to the members of iNetGlobal from the serious issues and crimes. They are trying to give them false hope this will all soon be over and they will be back to business as usual shortly. They are following the ASD template, although not as bizarre as the ASD people; At least not yet.

This sounds a lot like when Andy Bowdoin told everyone on a conference call that the state of Florida had dropped the Ponzi charges against ASD. The problem was, there never were any Ponzi charges. We are dealing with professional prevaricators, adept in equivocation. They could provide the Earth with an unending supply of fertilizer with the amount of BS that they spew.

hospitalera: One thing that puzzles me you write, and I have no reason to doubt that information, “Renner, 55, was listed last week as in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and “in transit” to a federal detention facility to begin serving an 18-month sentence for income-tax evasion.” but also “SteveRenner.com described the agreement with the prosecution as “an incredible turn of events,” reporting it was “worth millions.” and I read the blog post there myself. Does that mean that Mr. Renner was allowed to take his laptop or similar to jail? Does somebody posts in his name (obscuring the fact that he is in jail and can’t post himself)? Or has he still not arrived in jail? Just wondering and being puzzled about the US system, SY

Hello SY,

At the moment, I don’t have the answer to your questions. Perhaps an INetGlobal member will stop by the PP Blog and enlighten readers.

The “worth millions” comment on the Renner site struck me as odd. The agreement appears to make available about $1.76 million of the roughly $26 million seized and has a provision to release more in $200,000 monthly increments, if needed.

So, roughly $24.24 million (about 95 percent) of the money still is in control of the government.

How long the agreement will remain in place is indefinite because the government could decide to file criminal charges or a forfeiture complaint at any time. It also has the option not to prosecute.

The government said in April that a “major fraud and money laundering investigation is under way bearing serious criminal consequences,” describing the probe as in its early stages.

In April, Judge Frank sought clarification of the money issues. He sent the case back to Judge Noel, and the interim agreement appears to have been fashioned from framework laid down by Judge Frank that would give INetGlobal a minimal amount of operating capital while the investigation proceeded.

http://patrickpretty.com/2010/04/17/federal-judge-delays-ruling-in-inetglobal-case-saying-attorney-may-be-primary-fact-witness-sends-case-back-to-magistrate-judge/

“The focus of the Status-Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Noel, absent agreement of the parties to broaden the scope and focus of the conference, will be the return of some portion of the money so that Steven Renner and the associated business entities can maintain the status quo of their business, including the maintenance of a skeletal crew of employees and the insurance for those employees,” Frank ordered, in April.

That’s why the “worth millions” comment on the Renner Blog struck me as odd. The agreement preserves about 95 percent percent of the seized money and places about 5 percent in the control of a court-appointed attorney to preserve the status quo at INetGlobal.

These are serious legal issues. To say the agreement is “worth millions” is to interject marketing fluff into a solemn process — and ignores the reality that there are other legal issues on the table.

When people attend a wedding, they want to focus on the bride and groom. If someone in the wedding party is wearing muddy shoes, guests might be distracted by them, thus taking their focus off the main event.

To me, the “worth millions” claim in the context of the INetGlobal case is like those muddy shoes. It distracts from the serious legal issues, which are the main event.

Patrick