UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION,

Case No. 8:19-CV-886-T-33SPF

Plaintiff,

OASIS INTERNATIONAL GROUP,

LIMITED; OASIS MANAGEMENT, LLC;

SATELLITE HOLDINGS COMPANY;

MICHAEL J. DACORTA; JOSEPH S.

ANILE, II.; RAYMOND P MONTIE III;

FRANCISCO “FRANK” L. DURAN; and

JOHN J. HAAS,

Defendants,

and

FUNDAMDINISTRATION, INC.;

BOWLING GREEN CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT LLC; LAGOON

INVESTMENTS, INC.; ROAR OF THE

LION FITNESS, LLC; 444 GULF OF

MEXICO DRIVE, LLC; 4064 FOUNDERS

CLUB DRIVE, LLC; 6922 LACANTERA

CIRCLE, LLC; 13318 LOST KEY PLACE,

LLC; and 4 OAKS LLC,

Relief Defendants.

RECEIVER’S SUPPLEMENTAL INTERIM REPORT

REGARDING THE CONTINUING OBSTRUCTION OF THE

RECEIVERSHIP AND POSSIBLE RECOVERY SCAM

TARGETING INVESTOR VICTIMS

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID 18319

Burton W. Wiand, the Court-appointed receiver over the assets of the

above-captioned defendants and relief defendants (the “Receiver”), pursuant

to 18 U.S. Code § 3057 and the Court’s order dated July 11, 2019 (the

“Consolidated Order”

), submits this supplemental interim report to notify

the Court of the continuing obstruction of the Receivership and recent

developments in a possible recovery scam targeting defrauded investors.

SUMMARY

As discussed in the Nineteenth Interim Report, the Receiver suspects

that Michael DaCorta’s legal defense has been funded with money obtained

from defrauded investors after the appointment of the Receiver through

misrepresentations that the funds will be used to recover the full amount of

all victims’ losses. See Doc. 800 at 12-20. The Receiver has recently obtained

emails sent by the so-called “Oasis Helpers Group” (the “Helpers Group”)

which demonstrate that his suspicions are true; the claimants are being

asked to continue to fund DaCorta’s legal expenses based on the

On July 11, 2019, the Court entered the Consolidated Order (Doc. 177), which combined

and superseded two prior orders (Docs. 7 and 44) and is the operative document governing

the Receiver’s activities. See also Doc. 390 (reappointing Receiver).

See https://oasisreplevin.net/?page=about (“We are an informal, largely volunteer, group of

people who are working together to right a serious injustice that has been visited upon our

friends and family members by our government agents. Our group has in it an electrician, a

nurse, an attorney, a couple paralegal assistants, a couple former law-enforcement officers,

business men [sic] and women, a teacher, a Forex trading coach, an accountant, and a

professional computer programmer. Additionally, others lend us a hand when the need

arises. We are wholly dedicated to the complete restoration of Oasis International Group's

assets and those of its lenders.”).

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID 18320

misrepresentation that their contributions will lead to a full recovery of their

losses.

Beginning on April 10, 2024, the Receiver and his professionals have

been inundated by email with so-called “Final Address Confirmation Forms.”

These forms were created by Brent Winters and/or the Helpers Group. They

serve no purposes other than to justify fees being charged to claimants by

Winters and the Helpers Group, waste Receivership time and resources, and

attempt to prevent any communication with claimants by the Receiver and

his professionals. The emails sent by the Helpers Group urging that

claimants complete these forms are rife with misinformation and are to the

detriment of all claimants, especially those who are being duped by Winters

and the Helpers Group to pay more money with the empty and impossible

promise that it will lead to a greater recovery.

CLAIMANT VICTIM INVESTORS ARE FUNDING,

AT A MINIMUM, DACORTA’S APPEALS

Both civil and criminal courts have found that DaCorta perpetrated a

fraudulent scheme on the Oasis investors. On December 6, 2023, the Court

granted the CFTC’s motion for summary judgment and denied DaCorta’s

motion for summary judgment. Doc. 780. In a detailed 46-page order

outlining all claims against DaCorta, the Court emphasized that there was

no genuine dispute of material fact regarding any of those claims. In stark

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID 18321

contrast to the assertions made by the Helpers Group and DaCorta’s lawyers,

the Court found that DaCorta did not provide any evidence that created a

dispute that he violated the Commodities Futures Act, committed ongoing

fraud, and conducted a Ponzi scheme. The Court found that DaCorta’s

scheme was carried out to intentionally defraud the Oasis investors. The

Court entered judgment against DaCorta in the amount of $53,270,336.08

plus post-judgment interest and a civil penalty of $8,453,629. On January 5,

2024, DaCorta filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order. Doc. 795.

Similarly, DaCorta stood trial in April 2022, and after two weeks of

testimony and argument, a jury found him guilty on all counts, including

mail and wire fraud and money laundering. See United States of America v.

Michael J. DaCorta, Case No. 8:19-cr-605-T-02CPT (M.D. Fla.), Doc. 192. On

October 20, 2022, DaCorta was sentenced to 23 years in prison for his role in

this scheme. DaCorta is appealing his conviction while in prison. Id. Doc. 234.

Ronald J. Kurpiers represented DaCorta in the civil proceeding as co-

counsel with Winters (who has never successfully appeared in this or any

related action). As explained on prior occasions, Winters also purports to

represent more than 400 victim investors pursuant to power of attorney

agreements.

Determining the nature and scope of Winters’ representation

Winters submitted more than 400 proof of claim forms on behalf of claimants pursuant to

powers of attorney. Since that time, given conflicting reports from claimants, the precise

number of claimants still represented by Winters is less clear. Currently approximately 281

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID 18322

has been difficult because of gamesmanship and inconsistent positions.

Despite the plain language of engagement agreements and other documents

the Receiver has obtained, Winters claims he is acting as an “attorney-in-

fact” rather than an “attorney-at-law.” From numerous conversations with

claimants associated with Winters, the claimants do not understand this

distinction. Indeed, the Helpers Group itself refers to Winters as the

claimants’ attorney without qualification.

See Email dated April 13, 2023,

attached as Exhibit 1 (instructing claimants to not communicate in any way

with “the RECEIVER or any of his agents. Your attorney is handling this.”)

By subpoena, the Receiver obtained the retainer agreement for

Kurpiers, effective July 29, 2022, which showed that Winters paid Kurpiers

$100,000 to act as “co-counsel” with him on DaCorta’s behalf in this CFTC

enforcement action. The Receiver subpoenaed and received documents from

claims have designated Winters as the authorized address to receive all communications

including distribution checks, and claimants for an additional approximately thirteen

claims have communications copied to Winters.

Aside from these dubious distinctions, Winters’ involvement has concerned the Receiver

from the outset because he is not licensed to practice in the state of Florida, has been

unable to appear pro hac vice in this case or any related litigation, and was suspended from

the practice of law for nearly four years because he was convicted in criminal court for filing

a false tax return. In addition, as discussed below, the Receiver has been unable to locate

any office for Winters nor has Winters provided a physical address to the Receiver for

service of a subpoena despite repeated requests.

Cf. Doc. 177 ¶ 32 (“The Receivership Defendants and … any person acting or purporting to

act on their behalf shall cooperate with and assist the Receiver in the performance of his

duties.”); id. ¶ 33 (“The Receiver shall promptly notify the Court and the CFTC’s counsel of

any failure or apparent failure of any person or entity to comply in any way with the terms

of this Order.”).

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID 18323

the bank that transferred the $100,000 to Kurpiers and has uncovered that

those funds were derived, at least in part if not wholly, from deposits made by

Oasis investors who claimed to be represented by Winters. The Receiver has

attempted to serve Winters with a subpoena at least four times at four

separate addresses across three states. To date, efforts at service of this

subpoena have been unsuccessful because Winters has no discernible

residence. His published office address is a UPS store. The Receiver highly

doubts that the Helpers Group has informed the victim claimants of this or

that Winters is a convicted felon. Winters also has not responded to the

Receiver’s professionals’ emails requesting that he accept service of the

subpoena or provide a physical address.

On February 2, 2024, the Helpers Group sent an email to at least one

investor seeking to collect outstanding amounts allegedly pledged for legal

services “being provided on their behalf.” See Email dated February 2, 2024

attached as Exhibit 2.

The email states as follows:

We have not yet received the full amount of the pledge you

promised to help pay for legal services being provided on your

behalf. If you have sent a check since our request of January

The Receiver also served a subpoena on Intermountain Precious Metals (“IPM”), which

received more than $190,000 in funds from the subject bank account. The company is

refusing to comply with the subpoena. From the form of the papers filed by the owner of

IPM in opposition to the subpoena, it appears that Winters is also representing or assisting

with the representation of IPM.

The Receiver has redacted possible identifying information to protect the privacy of the

claimant who provided this email.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID 18324

20th, please ignore this message. Otherwise please send a check

for the balance shown below at your earliest convenience.

A filing deadline set by the Court of Appeals made it necessary

for one of your fellow Lenders to provide a bridge loan in order to

cover the attorney's fee so he can begin work without further

delay.

Ex. 2 (emphasis added). The email then provides that the total alleged pledge

amount is 2.5% of the claimants’ claim. The Receiver understands that this

email is exemplary of communications sent by the Helpers Group used to

raise money that was used and is currently being used for DaCorta’s defense.

As shown above, the email states that the requested funds are for legal

services provided on the claimant’s behalf, but then states that the money

is going to repay a bridge loan extended by another “Lender” (a.k.a., investor)

for work in the Court of Appeals. There is no action involving any claimant

in any appellate court relating to this case. The only pending appellate

actions are those filed by DaCorta. It is clear that the defense of a perpetrator

of the Oasis Ponzi scheme could not conceivably benefit any of the victims

from whom the Helpers Group is raising money.

In another email from the Helpers Group, dated December 15, 2023,

the group attacks the Receiver and his professionals and spews

misrepresentations in an effort to obtain more money from investors. The

group claims that it cannot achieve its “goal of full restitution for everyone in

our group without more financial support.” See Email from Helpers Group,

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID 18325

dated December 15, 2023, attached as Exhibit 3. This has all the hallmarks

of a recovery fraud.

The Helpers Group is clearly misleading investors into

believing that, if they provide more funds to the group, they can recover all of

their money. This is not true. Even if DaCorta wins his appeals, there is no

more money available to the victims other than that which the Receiver has

already been able to recover. Pursuant to the Court’s mandate and as

explained in prior interim reports, DaCorta’s assets have been seized and

liquidated for the benefit of investors with allowed claims. DaCorta should

have no funds available to repay claimants, as evidenced by his apparent

reliance on investors to fund his appeal(s). The assertion that the Helpers

Group is attempting to recover all of the victims’ money is fraudulent.

The Receiver believes that the obstruction of the claims process and

vilification of the Receiver and his professionals is an attempt by Winters and

the Helpers Group to justify additional fees and to keep the claimants from

discovering this new fraud. In the Nineteenth Interim Report and prior

interim reports, the Receiver has previously detailed Winters’ and the

Helpers Group’s disruption of the claims process and the unnecessary fees

See www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/RecoveryFrauds.html

(“Recovery scams are a form of advance-fee fraud—when you are asked to pay upfront for

the chance of getting a much bigger sum of money later. Recovery frauds target victims

already harmed by other frauds.”)

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID 18326

and costs that have been incurred as a result.

These efforts are continuing

through the date of this report.

FURTHER OBSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS PROCESS

As mentioned above, on April 10, 2024, the Receiver and several of his

professionals began receiving by email so-called “Final Address Confirmation

Forms” from claimants represented by Winters. A copy of a Final Address

Confirmation form is attached as Exhibit 4. The forms claim to prevent the

Receiver from wasting resources by purportedly requiring the Receiver to

send distribution checks and related communications only to Winters. To the

contrary, the Final Address Confirmation Forms are unnecessarily causing

significant expense to the Receivership and delaying the second interim

distribution. The forms are being sent to four emails associated with the

Receivership, copying

winterslaw@nym.hush.com and info@oasisreplevin.net.

This means each form is being received in quadruplicate. The Receiver’s

professionals are forced to review these unnecessary forms to confirm that

there is no change to the mailing information for a distribution check.

The Receiver stated in his Motion to Approve Second Interim

Distribution (Doc. 805) that he would mail courtesy copies of the

Ironically, the Helpers Group has repeatedly taken issue with fees that the Receiver’s

professionals purportedly charge and urged the claimants to not communicate with the

Receiver to save money when, in reality, it is the gamesmanship and malpractice

committed by the group and Winters that has imposed significant unnecessary expenses

and delays.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID 18327

correspondence and check that will be sent to Winters also to the respective

claimant so that the claimant could ensure that the check was timely

negotiated. Neither Winters nor any party or claimant objected to this

proposed courtesy. Nevertheless, the Helpers Group has characterized the

Receiver’s courtesy copies to claimants as disregarding the power of attorney

given to Winters and an attempt to line the pockets of the Receiver and his

professionals. See Email from the Helpers Group, dated April 21, 2023,

attached as Exhibit 5. In reality, the Receiver is doing everything possible to

try to protect innocent victims from being further victimized.

The Receiver will again send courtesy copies to claimants for the

approximately 281 second interim distribution checks to be mailed directly to

Winters. A copy of the form letter to be sent to claimants with the second

distribution is attached as Exhibit 6.

These letters and respective

The Helpers Group claims that the Receiver is violating the Florida Bar Rules of

Professional Conduct by sending letters and communicating directly to claimants. Not

surprising for an attorney who is not licensed to practice in the State of Florida, this is

false. A power of attorney does not preclude contact with the person who conferred the

power of attorney, especially when that person has represented that he is not representing

the individuals as an attorney-at-law, as Winters has done repeatedly. See, e.g., Letter from

Winters, dated August 31, 2020, attached as Exhibit 7 (“Mr. Winters affirms again that he

is not attorney-at-law for any clients in the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida; in fact, he has not entered an appearance on behalf of any client in the

Case. Accordingly, Mr. Winters renews his demand to not communicate with him, or

continue to refer to him, as though he represents clients before the U.S. District Court,

Middle District Florida as an attorney-at-law. Mr. Winters is rather under power-of-

attorney to his principles [sic]: certain Oasis Claimants. Mr. Winters’s principles [sic] have

delegated authority to him as POA to provide the Receiver with information relative to

their claims.”). Further, even if the power of attorney constituted representation by an

attorney in the State of Florida, the Receiver is not acting as an attorney in this matter and

is allowed to communicate directly with claimants as a client would be able to communicate

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID 18328

envelopes were prepared prior to the onslaught of the Final Address

Confirmation Forms. The Receiver had hoped to promptly send distribution

checks to claimants upon entry of the Court’s order approving the second

interim distribution, but these efforts have been confounded by the Helpers

Group.

The Receiver has also obtained these new forms from certain claimants

whose claims were denied due to Winters’ failure to ensure that the

claimants properly complied with the Court’s approved claims procedures.

Winters also failed to object to the denial of these claims within the time

allowed by the objection procedure and did not include them in his (and

Kurpiers’) untimely efforts to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 705), which determined that the Receiver’s motion to

approve a first interim distribution of $10 million should be granted (Docs.

with an opposing client in any legal matter. “A receiver is a neutral court officer appointed

by the court, usually to take control, custody, or management of property that is involved in

or is likely to become involved in litigation for the purpose of undertaking any appropriate

action.” Sterling v. Stewart, 158 F.3d 1199, 1201 n.2 (11th Cir. 1998). “It is well recognized

that a receiver is the agent only of the court appointing him; he represents the court rather

than the parties.” Ledbetter v. Farmers Bank & Tr. Co., 142 F.2d 147, 150 (4th Cir. 1944);

United States v. Smallwood, 443 F.2d 535, 539 (8th Cir. 1971) (“A receiver is an officer of

the court. He is not an agent or employee of either party to the litigation in which he was

appointed.”) (citation omitted); S.E.C. v. Loving Spirit Found. Inc., 392 F.3d 486, 490 (D.C.

Cir. 2004) (“Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant, the receiver functions as an arm of the

court appointed to ensure that prevailing parties can and will obtain the relief it orders.”)

(citation omitted); S.E.C. v. N. Am. Clearing, Inc., 2015 WL 13389926, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan.

12, 2015) (describing receiver as an officer of the court), aff’d 656 F. App’x 969 (11th Cir.

2016); S.E.C. v. Nadel, 2010 WL 146832, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2010) (same).

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID 18329

715-723 (purported objections)). More than two years after the deadline to

submit objections, Winters has directed these claimants to submit a

fabricated form to the Receiver with mailing instructions under the apparent

misapprehension that this will somehow allow a claimant to recover on a

claim that Winters and the Helpers Group failed to protect. These efforts are

too little and too late.

Any recourse on behalf of claimants with denied or

unsubmitted claims must be sought from the Court.

It appears that Winters blames his malpractice on not receiving the

claimants’ claim numbers. This is completely untrue. Winters was sent

correspondence identifying the assigned claim numbers for all claims he

submitted on behalf of claimants beginning on March 25, 2022. See Example

of Form Letter Sent to Claimants with Claim Determination and Objection

Procedure, attached as Exhibit 8. Further, all claimants were sent this same

correspondence with their respective claim number(s). The Helpers Group

asserts that 92% of claimants did not know their claim number. See Email

from Helpers Group, dated April 17, 2024, attached as Exhibit 9; see also

Exhibit 3. This is not possible given the correspondence that has been sent

While Winters and the Helpers Group have directed claimants in submitting

inappropriate, false, and unnecessary documents - many of which have been stricken by

this Court - they have failed to help a significant number of claimants submit necessary

documents in this case, unfortunately causing some claimants to lose their opportunity for

recovery.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID 18330

to Winters and the claimants with their claim numbers. If it was true, it begs

the question as to how the other more than 300 claimants who did not

provide a power of attorney to Winters and submitted their own claims

without paying any additional money all apparently know their claim

numbers and understand the claims procedure while receiving the identical

communications from the Receiver.

CONCLUSION

The Receiver files this report due to his ongoing concern that the victim

claimants of this Receivership are being misled and swindled by individuals

posing as agents and/or attorneys who claim to be providing them assistance.

The Receiver wants to ensure that the Court, parties, and claimants are

aware of this ongoing problem. Pursuant to the Receiver’s obligation as a

fiduciary and under Section 3057(a) of Title 18, United States Code, this

report along with its exhibits and additional evidence are being provided to

appropriate law enforcement agencies.

/s/ Burton W. Wiand

Burton W. Wiand, as Receiver

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID 18331

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 19, 2024, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I have

also provided the following non-CM/ECF participants with a true and correct

copy of the foregoing by electronic mail to:

Gerard Marrone

Law Office of Gerard Marrone, P.C.

66-85 73

Place

Second Floor

Middle Village, NY 11379

gmarronelaw@gmail.com

Counsel for Defendant Joseph S. Anile, II

John J. Haas

[email protected]om

Raymond P. Montie, III

RayMontie7@yahoo.com

/s/ Chemere K. Ellis

Ailen Cruz

Florida Bar Number 105826

acruz@guerrapartners.law

aavery@guerrapartners.law

Chemere K. Ellis

Florida Bar Number 125069

cellis@guerrapartners.law

droush@guerrapartners.law

GUERRA & PARTNERS, P.A.

The Towers at Westshore

1408 N. West Shore Blvd.,

Suite 1010

Tampa, FL 33607

Tel.: (813) 347-5100

Fax: (813) 347-5198

Attorneys for Burton W. Wiand, Receiver

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811 Filed 04/19/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID 18332

EXHIBIT 1

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18333

From: The Oasis Team <[email protected]>

Date: April 13, 2023 at

To:

Subject: Message to Lenders (4/13)

Reply-To: helpingoasis@gmail.com

Hello Lenders,

Our attorney's internet connection has been down all day. We're waiting for it to be

restored so we can give you specific instructions concerning the letters you've been getting

from the Receiver. Hopefully, that will happen later this evening or tomorrow.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY CORRESPONDENCE (letters, forms, emails, or phone calls)

TO THE RECEIVER or any of his agents. Your attorney is handling this.

The Receiver's office bills in minimum 6-minute increments. This means that the lender

fund will be drained for 10% of an attorney's hourly billable rate if you take up even 1

minute of their time to respond or log your information. This is why we asked Brent to file

all the claims at once and, more importantly, it's why HE and he alone needs to be the

person that the Receiver corresponds with about your claim.

ANY correspondence with the Receiver group costs the lender fund between $13.50 and

$36.00 for just 1-6 minutes of their time.

Imagine what it would cost the aggregated lender funds, which your money will eventually

come out of, if they could deal with all 400+ people in our group! In a short while, there

would be very little left of the fund to make a second distribution with.

If each of you called, or wrote an email, phoned, or sent in a form JUST ONCE and it took

the Receiver's office less than 6 minutes to deal with it, the fund would be depleted by

$5,400 at minimum! And that's if you contacted the lowest level paralegal and not a more

expensive lawyer, which wouldn't happen.

We'll have a LOT more to say about this in the near future, but just for now - PLEASE be

patient just a little bit longer before you cash your check or respond with an address

verification.

Thank you,

The Oasis Helper Group

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 18334

Our mailing address is:

Helping Oasis

PO Box 165

Intervale, NH 03845-0165

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?

You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 18335

EXHIBIT 2

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-2 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18336

On Feb 2, 2024, Michele <[email protected]> wrote:

The Trust, LLT

P.O. Box 626

Elkville, IL 62932

Email: [email protected]

February 2, 2024

Dear

We have not yetreceived the full amount of the pledge you promised

to helppay for legal services being provided on your behalf. If youhave sent a

check since our request of January 20th, pleaseignore this

message.Otherwise please send a check forthe balance shown below at

your earliest convenience.

A filing deadlineset by the Court of Appeals made it necessary for one

of yourfellow Lenders to provide a bridge loan in order to cover theattorney's fee

so he can begin work without further delay.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-2 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 18337

Given recent FirstClass delivery inconsistencies, we advise that you

mail yourcontribution by U.S. Priority Mail, which will provide atracking

number for your records.We are not set up toreceive bank wires, ACH

transfers, or any other form ofdigital deposit.

Below is a summary record of your contributions to date. If you had

more than one Oasis account, they've been added into one to calculate the

Balance Due.

Total Pledge Amount (2.5% of your claim)

Amount of 1 Quarterly Installment

Number of Contributions Made

Balance Due

Please bring your account current as soon as possible by mailing a

check made to “The Trust, LLT” for the Balance Due shown above via

Priority Mail to:

The Trust, LLT

P.O. Box 626

Elkville, IL 62932

Best Regards,

Oasis Helpers Group

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-2 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 18338

EXHIBIT 3

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-3 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID 18339

From: Oasis Helpers <oasishelpers@oasisreplevin.net>

Date: December 15, 2023 at

To:

Subject: A Letter to our Oasis Friends and Family - Where We're At and Why We're Here

Dear

NOTE: This may be a duplicate of the email we sent this morning. Nearly a third of them

bounced back so we're sending it again. Please forgive the intrusion if you've received this

before and just delete it.

I know most of you have not been keeping up with the activities going on with all the Oasis

cases. Most have just been wondering if they were going to get more money back. The

answer to that is we don’t know. We should because in the Receiver’s latest interim report

he says he has another almost $11 million in hand from the liquidation of Oasis assets. As

we know, he would be more than happy trying to keep it for himself and his minions. They

have already made more money off Oasis than any of the Defendants ever did.

The reason for this letter is to inform you and to educate you on some facts of what’s

really gone on with our money. You may have recently received an email from paralegal

Amanda Stevens, who works for the receivership. In that email, she tells you that the judge

granted a summary judgment in favor of the CFTC. Thereafter in the email she attacks the

Oasis Helpers Group, trying to discredit us because of all the corruption and lawlessness

that our group is exposing (and we’ve really just begun). Remember, most of us in the

Helpers Group have also lost all of our money. So why would we not be trying to help

everyone get back as much as possible? Those working for you in the Oasis Helpers

Group are not spending countless hours for any other reason than to achieve our goal of

helping everyone in our group get back all the money that’s due them. Aside from that, it’s

important for you to know that almost all of our work is done voluntarily, without

compensation. To date, not counting our attorneys’ time, the volunteers in our group have

logged over 6,500 hours of work on your behalf since April 2020.

From the beginning the Receiver has continuously attacked us in his court filings

and emails, obstructed our efforts to secure legal counsel, and even tried to get our Power

of Attorney, Mr. Winters, disbarred for practicing law in Florida without a license. First off

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-3 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID 18340

you don’t need a law license to be a POA. You would think an entire law firm of lawyers

should know that, right? Well, they did but that’s lawfare. Since you can’t have someone

exposing your corruption, make them out to be the criminal. Mr. Winters had to hire his

own attorney to defend against the Receiver’s charge and then the Florida bar threw it

out. Meanwhile, the Receiver charged the Receivership Estate thousands of dollars for the

time he spent attacking Mr. Winters. How does that benefit you? It didn’t. It only benefited

the Receiver.

Through thousands of hours of research we have uncovered a multitude of bad

actors and unlawful behavior. The funny thing is that the perps are not all those you may

have suspected. Almost all of the evidence that proves our case comes from the

government’s own submissions of evidence and statements. For starters, and the very first

red flag that made us ask questions coming out of Mike DaCorta’s trial, is what we refer to

as “the whiteboard question”.

Do this math problem and pretend that it’s your checking account.

OIG funds deposited into ATC London Account $22,000,000 (funds in)

Trading losses - $60,000,000 (funds out)

Balance (Positive) $ 2,000,000

How did your math work out? Did you get a positive balance after subtracting $60M from

$22M? We didn’t.

Would your checkbook balance the same way this trading account did? Put in 22 take out

60 and still have 2 not bad at all.

 The government claimed that Oasis lost all this money in a trading account.

 Evidence shows the trading account earned $54,000,000 in spread fee income.

 But during the criminal trial the Government said that spread fees were fairy dust.

 The whole reason Oasis needed the broker dealer license was to charge and collect

spreads to in return pay you your loan interest if the earned monthly spread fees came to

more than the 1% otherwise guaranteed in your Promissory Note.

It is so hard not to get off into the weeds trying to explain every little statement made in

order to show you the supporting evidence that backs up that statement. We wanted to

keep this as short as possible, but hopefully pique your interest and understand why we

feel that all this work is worth the effort. Even this summary is just the tip of the

iceberg. There’s so much more we’d like to share and we’re doing our best to do so, but

you have to engage with us for that to work.

This is your money and ours and we are fighting for transparency. Our Strength is our

ability to stand together. They have never encountered a group where everyone is only 2

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-3 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID 18341

degrees separated from anyone else in the group. We are dealing with evil people who

don’t care who they put in prison or whose money they take, as long as they get it all. They

are operating a distinctly corrupt business model designed to steal as much as they can

from you and others like you under cover of law. Shut down companies seize all cash and

assets. Make sure no one can afford to defend themselves and make the steal stick

through misdirection, misrepresentations of evidence, falsifications, suppression of

discovery, and other court operations. It’s really easy to see if you follow the money and

where the majority ends up when the smoke clears. I promise it won’t be in our pockets.

The Oasis Helpers have given us an opportunity to peel back the onion. The more we

peel back, the more rotten and disgusting it gets. This is why we have done many things

like created a website (OasisReplevin.net) and made videos to explain what happened in the

trial, with more to come. We turned the videos into audio files so you could listen to them

while on the road or wherever you are. We produced several dozen email update Reports

with timelines and supporting documents and attachments and actual court filings and

much more. This takes massive amounts of time to do and, again, it’s most all done

voluntarily. The whole purpose is to find the Truth!

We understand Mike DaCorta was convicted. Once again, not to get too far into the

weeds, but here’s just one example of what wasn’t submitted at the criminal trial. This was

a financial crimes case, a so-called Ponzi scheme, which is tried as fraud, yet the financials

of the company were never submitted as evidence during trial. Not by prosecution, nor by

Mike’s public defender. No financials were shown anywhere until our group produced a

balance sheet that showed the solvency of the companies. No one had ever made a

balance sheet to see the financial health of the company. This is critically important

because:

 By law a Ponzi scheme is defined as insolvent from its inception. You prove solvency by “a

balance sheet test“.

 The Government, Receiver, and all parties involved have thrown around the word Ponzi

from the very first complaint. Wouldn’t you think some of these federal investigators at the

CFTC, FBI, and IRS would have completed a balance sheet test before making such

allegations, shutting the Company down, seizing and liquidating all of its assets?

 Assumptions and allegations not facts

 The Receivership Estate has paid hundreds of thousands to forensic accountants to do

something. What did they do?

 See the Receiver’s deposition page 7 – 9, attached.

The Oasis balance sheets show that both Oasis Companies were solvent!

From the beginning, this whole case was built and prosecuted exclusively on

accusations and allegations. They made Mike DaCorta into a criminal through a show trial

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-3 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID 18342

where the defense was given only two days (the prosecution had 10), only 3 of the 33

witnesses prepared to testify on Mike’s behalf were allowed to take the stand, and

exculpatory evidence and expert witnesses available to the Defense were not presented to

the jury. Then they use that judgment to shut down the civil case. The CFTC did not want

this to go to trial in the civil case. For a summary judgment to be made there cannot be any

material facts in dispute. In this case, about 45 facts in dispute were presented to the

Court. The 5 counts in the civil case are all based upon the allegation that Oasis operated

commodity pools. Oasis didn’t have commodity pools. Oasis was an Eligible Contract

Participant (ECP) trading exclusively for itself, not for individual investors. In the summary

judgment Order, the five counts were never discussed. They were also never discussed in

the criminal trial, so the judgments in the criminal should never have been allowed to

persuade judgment in the civil trial, but they did.

Also in his deposition, the Receiver claimed Oasis had only minimal assets, yet all the

Houses, office and apartment real estate, Rental incomes, gold, and silver were owned by

OIG and not by Mike DaCorta. (Deposition, page 8 line 10 – 14)

 All of those assets sold off for millions more than the $10M credited in the Receiver’s

Deposition.

 The receiver was so kind to give us back 17.5% of our original contribution. Has he ever said

anything else about the almost $11,000,000 that he still has of ours? In his June 15, 2023

Deposition and in the last two Interim reports he identifies having those funds.

 Did he ever tell us all the property that the local police, United States Marshall Service,

seized they are keeping? The United States Marshall Service is keeping almost $6 million of

real estate sold that the Receiver seized and sold for them – not for us.

 All the assets of Oasis were bought as a hedge and used to build a financial foundation for

the company. Every property was owned by Oasis International Group or Oasis

Management, and almost all properties were paid in full. Mike DaCorta personally owned

none of them. Did you know the Receiver sold all the properties, did all the legwork for the

United States Marshall Service, and then gave them all the money, which the Dept. of

Justice will keep? Did you know that for all this work the Receiver charged the Receivership

Estate (i.e. you) for all that time, and also charged over $757,000 in commissions for selling

them.

 So, what we are saying is that Mike goes to prison for 23 years for supposedly living the high

life after he’s illegitimately convicted a criminal. There is no civil jury trial allowed to review

the facts of the case presented by a non-governmental, independent attorney (Ron

Kurpiers). Long before Mike’s criminal trial even happens and even though all the real estate

was bought with our money and all properties were solely owned by OIG or OM, the

Receivership, United States Marshal Service, and all parties involved in their liquidation

charged us to sell them, and then kept all the money from the sales instead of giving it back

to us, the so-called victims. That’s what Civil Asset Forfeiture does.

 In the past five years how many times has the Receivership sent out an update email to the

so-called victims? I think three or four, but each one of them was basically trying to attack

the Oasis Helpers Group so we could never find out what’s really going on.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-3 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID 18343

 Starting with Michele Utter in autumn 2019, the Receiver has tried to crush absolutely

everyone who has asked questions or tried to defend themselves regarding this case.

 Let me ask you this, when did you lose all your money? Was it during Oasis operations or

after the government came in and shut Oasis down? Before the government made one, no

one had ever filed a complaint against Oasis, nor had anyone been unable to receive their

principal plus interest back if requested.

 At the end of 2018 if you did not sign the new promissory note your money plus interest

would have been sent back to you, even if you didn’t ask for it. The people who were

automatically refunded that way later became Clawback Defendants, sued by the Receiver.

Side note: who, running a Ponzi scheme, sends people back their money plus interest

without them requesting it because they didn’t sign some paperwork?

We are not saying that everything Oasis was peachy. Mike DaCorta, Joe Anile, and

Ray Montie did not have a tight business operation or adequate partnership

communications. Too much trust and authority was given out without good checks and

balances. With no contractual agreements for partner compensations, poor

bookkeeping, inadequate staff (no CFO), it all added up to disaster and made it easier

for the CFTC to do what they have done.

 Oasis PARTNERS had major losses in the trading account, but these were largely offset

by tens of millions in spread fee revenues, which is how the “the white board” test works

– while +$22M deposited minus the alleged $60M in losses should result in a negative

$38M, the undisputed fact that there was a $2M positive balance left in the account is

explained by the fact that Oasis earned more than $40M in spread fees, which were kept

in the account.

 After OIG was formed, Joe Anile had exclusive control of the purse strings. The

government-supplied account records that our people spent over 2,500 hours of

uncompensated time expertly examining, show that after Anile gained financial control

he began overpaying himself and also embezzled about $2.7M from the Company.

That’s probably why he made the plea deal and his criminal behavior enabled the

government to use him as a puppet on the stand during the criminal trial.

 Even though every witness, both prosecution and defense, identified Anile as Oasis’

attorney, he denied being the company attorney and lied about almost everything. The

defense had all the evidence to prove him a liar and never used it. The prosecution

used the Anile testimony to dig Mike’s grave.

 The jury may not have understood anything else in the complicated and confusing string

of allegations made at Mike’s trial, but they were told by the Receiver, an FBI Agent, and

Joe Anile, Mike’s own partner, that Mike was operating a Ponzi scheme. Anile falsely

testified that Mike had admitted that to him. Every juror certainly knew that a Ponzi

scheme is a fraud, so even if they took nothing else away, the were given to believe that

Mike perpetrated a fraud and that’s what he was convicted for.

There is still a possibility for Mike to appeal the Summary Judgment against him in

the civil trial. He is already appealing the criminal trial. We are going to continue to help

everyone in our group as much as we can, but much of the work ahead of us will require

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-3 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID 18344

help from attorneys and they are very expensive. We cannot hope to achieve our goal of

full restitution for everyone in our group without more financial support. Many folks have

pledged, but not yet produced, a contribution to the legal efforts. We will soon be asking

that they fulfill their pledges.

Our only real satisfaction comes from helping you, but for the most part our work is

done with almost no feedback from the more than 400 lenders in this group. We’d like to

hear from you. We set up OasisReplevin.net to make it easy for you to post questions and

comments, but so far no one has – why? When our update reports go out, typically only 3

or 4 responses come back to show that they’re being read and even then, the most

common responses simply ask if there’s more money coming. Even if you don’t

understand everything in the Reports, please read them. If you only understand 50%, then

ask about the parts that aren’t clear by posting questions on our website. Chances are

you’re not the only one who would like an answer to the questions you have. We spent

hundreds of hours making the trial review videos found on OasisReplevin.net, but there’s

practically no indication that anyone has watched them. Why? There’s no better way for

you to understand what happened at Mike DaCorta’s trial and the implications it has for you

than to watch the videos, which explain the depraved miscarriage of justice that took place

last April and May. We understand that the first 3 videos are kind of dry because they just

go over jury selection and the legal foundation of the government’s claims. But that’s

important, and after those first 3 the others get a bit more interesting and more entertaining

too. We can’t encourage you enough to go watch (or listen to) them.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is real and it needs to be exposed for the corrupt practices it

produces, the inversion of our fundamental rule of law that the accused is innocent until

proven guilty, and for the theft of innocent people’s property’s that result from it as has

happened in our case. The Receivership, those who worked for it, and the U.S. DOJ, all

made millions off this case and are already looking for the next one. Who would spend

hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to expose the truth to get a hundred

thousand back? Therefore, when they tell you that you are a victim, they either get the

defense attorneys to settle for a huge amount or go criminally convict one of the civil case

Defendants to use that conviction to prevent an effective defense in the original civil case.

After that, they hope you will take your 17.5% refund and consider yourself lucky, while

they ride off as heroes with millions, fully aware that this corrupt business that they created

may continue to make them wealthy until Congress steps in and takes civil asset forfeiture

off the books. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has a bill before the Senate designed to do

just that. We’ll be letting you know how you can help get it passed!

Enc: Pages 7-9 of Burton Wiand Deposition Transcript 06-15-2023.pdf

Oasis Helpers

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-3 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID 18345

EXHIBIT 4

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-4 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18346







INSTRUCTIONS:

Due to the enduring uncertainty and ambiguity resulting from the

Receiver’s confusion over Personal Verification Forms timely submitted by claimants or their Power

of Attorney and any other imprecision that may persist in his office regarding my claim(s), I

am respectfully submitting this Address Confirmation Form (ACF) with final answers

to the questions previously requested by the Receiver, to which I have previously responded.

If any additional information is required, the Receiver is hereby instructed to make

requests for clarification through my Power of Attorney, Brent Allan Winters, at his

postal and email addresses provided here below.

To assure that this message is properly acknowledged, duplicate copies will be simultaneously

emailed to the addresses below. If a copy is not returned as undeliverable by my email server,

confirmation of delivery will be assumed:

• [email protected] (as originally instructed)

• [email protected] (for attorney Jared Perez)

• [email protected] (for attorney Ailen Cruz)

• [email protected] (for receiver Burton Wiand)

• [email protected] (for attorney-in-fact Brent Winters)

• [email protected] (for the record)

 





All claim numbers for which this address confirmation is being submitted.



The

one

mailing address where the claimant authorizes the receipt of all future

communications relating to the claim(s) identified in number 2 above, including any

distribution checks the claimant(s) may be entitled to receive.













The ONLY

email address where the claimant authorizes the receipt of all future

electronic communications relating to the above claim(s) is:



The Receiver is instructed to process the mailing of distribution check(s) for my claim(s)

through the offices of Attorney-in-fact Winters via the postal address given below.

NOTICE to Agent is Notice to Principal. Do NOT contact me directly again. All future

correspondence with respect to my claim(s) is to be directed to my Power of Attorney.

Brent Allan Winters is my representative under Power of Attorney for all

claim-related matters. Direct all future correspondence to him.

  

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-4 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 18347

   













/s/















/s/







Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-4 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 18348

EXHIBIT 5

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-5 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID 18349

Begin forwarded message:

From: The Oasis Team <[email protected]>

Date: April 21, 2023 at

To:

Subject: Ongoing Nonsense (4/21)

Reply-To: helpingoasis@gmail.com

Ongoing Nonsense

You have to give the Devil his due now and then...so we will.

The latest wrinkle in the on-going fiasco the Receiver's office designed to

collect as much revenue from the simple task of getting a refund check into

your hands is that some of you may receive a mailed letter with a COPY of your

check in it, but not the real thing. That's still coming (at least you'll learn how

much you're going to receive - as well as the secret "claim" number you were

assigned).

The following TOTALLY unnecessary, expensive and time-consuming steps will

have to be taken place for you to receive such a letter:

 Your name and address be printed on an envelope - (paper, ink and time

to print added)

 Your check will be copied - (more paper, copy toner, and the copier's

time)

 Your address on the INSIDE letter will be changed to c/o Brent Allen

(sic) Winters (time billed)

 The letter printed - (paper, ink, and time)

 All 3 pages stuffed into the envelope - (time)

 Postage added - (63¢ each)

 A trip to the Post Office unless picked up at the office

 A copy of this all mailed to Brent (with all the above repeated)

Mind you - This already happened at least once before when some people

received a letter with a check and most others without one included. So this is

the second time for a mailing, not including the 3 boxes of copies sent to Brent

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-5 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID 18350

this past week - which included ALL of the pages when only the first one was

needed.

ALL of this is, and always was, unnecessary so ALL of the associated charges

should be restored to the Receivership Estate. Why? Because all the Receiver

ever had to do was send ALL the checks to your Power of Attorney and you

would have had your check in hand 2-3 weeks ago.

There was never a need to assign a unique "claim" number to every lender.

Because you already had TWO unique numbers - your Oasis Account Number

and Your Oasis IB number. They were just as anonymous as the claim

numbers assigned by the Receiver, except that your P.O.A. knew who was

associated with them and the Receiver DID NOT disclose who associated with

his "claim" numbers to your agent. As far as we can tell from talking to nearly a

hundred folks, about 93% of you didn't know what your claim number was

either.

All of this added a tremendous amount of unnecessary time, expense, and

frustration to the whole debacle. All that money, paid to attorneys and

paralegals, needs to be restored to the Estate and sent back to you, the

lenders.

The Receiver's mandate is to maintain the value of Oasis' property on behalf of

its creditors, not to enrich himself and his friends. That's what all receivers are

authorized to do. Not what's been happening.

Have a great weekend. All things must pass.

The Oasis Helper Group

P.S. We are still working to obtain the necessary forms and contact information

for the 4 different IRA/401k custodial companies Oasis used. You will need to

deposit your IRA or 401k refund check into the custodial company that your

check is made out to. We expect to have that information for you sometime

next week.

We will be unable to supply information beyond that.

For directions on how to handle the tax aspects of these refunds, please

contact your professional tax preparer or CPA for advice.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-5 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 18351

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:

Helping Oasis

PO Box 165

Intervale, NH 03845-0165

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?

You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-5 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18352

EXHIBIT 6

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-6 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 18353

BURTON W. WIAND, COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER

FOR OASIS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LTD. ET AL.

Re: Oasis Receivership

Claimant Name:

Claim Number:

Dear Claimant:

I am writing to you as the Court-appointed Receiver in the above matter. Recently, the Court granted

my Motion to Approve a Second Interim Distribution as it relates to the above claim (see

www.oasisreceivership.com). Pursuant to this order, I am happy to enclose your second interim distribution

check. This interim distribution totals approximately $9 million, and this check represents this claim’s pro rata

share of the distribution. The amount of the check equals approximately 15.76% of the claim’s approved amount.

The enclosed check must be negotiated within 120 days. After 120 days, the check will be null and void and

the money will revert to the Receivership. Further, please be advised that claimants will be charged a $100.00

administrative fee for the reissuance of a distribution check that was brought about by a claimant’s own voluntary

actions, such as a change of custodian after the issuance of a distribution check.

The work to gather and distribute assets for victim investors is long and difficult. Through the hard work

of the attorneys who have assisted me, as well as accountants and others, we have achieved success in recovering

assets to offset your losses. Our work is not done, and we hope to increase the amount recovered. I am unable

to predict when these efforts will end or the total that will be recovered, but rest assured my goal is to maximize

the assets collected and distributions to victim investors.

I recognize this process is not an expeditious one and I appreciate your patience. To minimize expenses

to the Receivership, if you have any questions regarding this distribution, please email info@guerrapartners.law.

If you would like a return call, be sure to include in the email your phone number and the claim number about

which you are inquiring. For more information regarding the progress of the Receivership, please refer to the

Receivership website, www.oasisreceivership.com.

Sincerely yours,

Burton W. Wiand

as Court-Appointed Receiver

Copies Provided To:

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-6 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18354

EXHIBIT 7

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-7 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID 18355

Brent Allan Winters

5105 S. Hwy 41

Terre Haute, Indiana 47802

317-515-7695

brentwinters@use.startmail.com

Power of Attorney for certain

Oasis-Group Claimants

Case 8-19-cv-00886

Lawrence J. Dougherty

Wiand Guerra King

5505 W. Gray Street

Tampa, Florida 33609

August 31, 2020

Lawrence J. Dougherty,

In response to your most recent requests, the following is Mr. Winters’s understanding

of relevant facts of the Case No. 8:19-CV-886-T-33SPF, U.S. District Court, Middle

District Florida (sometimes herein the “Case”):

The Receiver in this Case (“Receiver”) is a Court-appointed officer. (Dkt. 44: Order of

April 30, 2019, Appointing Receiver and Staying Litigation).

Chronology of Communication Respecting Oasis Claimants

June 15, ’20 Mr. Winters sends certain Beneficiaries’ claim forms to Receiver as

attorney-in-fact under Claimants’ grant of Power-of-Attorney

(“POA”).

July 8, ’20 Lawrence Dougherty (“Mr. Dougherty”), legal counsel for the

Receiver, sends Letter #1 to Mr. Winters.

July 31, ’20 Englander-Fischer attempts to contact Mr. Winters by telephone,

and leaves a voice message, asking him to call.

July 31 ’20 Mr. Winters returns that call to Englander-Fischer, but got only a

recording with voicemail; Mr. Winters leaves a voice message

identifying himself;

July 31 ’20 Mr. Winters then sends a Letter to the firm Englander-Fischer,

instructing it not to contact him respecting Clawback Defendants in

Case 8:20-CV-00862 because Mr. Winters does not represent those

Defendants as attorney-at-law; Englander-Fischer has not

attempted to contact Mr. Winters since.

Aug. 8, ’20 Mr. Winters answers Lawrence Dougherty’s Letter of July 8, 2020,

and at the same time sends copies of his principles’ (Claimants in

the No. 8:19-CV-886-T-33SPF) POAs to Mr. Dougherty by Fed Ex.

Aug. 21, ’20 Mr. Dougherty, legal counsel for the Receiver, sends Letter #2 to

Mr. Winters, asking some of the same questions Mr. Winters had

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-7 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID 18356

answered in response to Mr. Dougherty’s Letter #1; and accusing

Mr. Winters of practicing law without a license.

Aug. 31, ’20 Mr. Winters sends this Letter in response to Mr. Dougherty’s Letter

#2.

Mr. Winters affirms again that he is not attorney-at-law for any clients in the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; in fact, he has not entered an

appearance on behalf of any client in the Case.

Accordingly, Mr. Winters renews his demand to not communicate with him, or continue

to refer to him, as though he represents clients before the U.S. District Court, Middle

District Florida as an attorney-at-law. Mr. Winters is rather under power-of-attorney to

his principles: certain Oasis Claimants. Mr. Winters’s principles have delegated

authority to him as POA to provide the Receiver with information relative to their

claims.

The following are Mr. Winters’s responses to Mr. Dougherty’s questions of his Letter #2

to Mr. Winters:

Question 1 Response: Except for the Claimant’s identification, provided on page two

on each power-of-attorney (“POA”), the first page of each POA is identical. Mr. Winters

did this in order to save the Beneficiaries’ money. It is neither necessary nor cost-

effective to expend time, effort, and expense to duplicate the first page of each POA for

each Claimant. As a fiduciary I trust you understand the importance of taking such cost-

saving measures.

Question 2 Response: The Receiver has asked and Mr. Winters has answered this

request of Question #2 in his response to Receiver’s Letter #1 of July 8, 2020. Mr.

Winters signed the claim forms he submitted to the Receiver on behalf of individual

Claimants in Case No. 8:19-CV-886-T-33SPF, as power-of-attorney only; and not as

attorney-at-law, in accord with the Receiver’s instructions to Claimants. (Proof of Claim

Forms, Receiver’s Instructions, p. 2, para. 2). Accordingly, Mr. Winters follows his

signature on each claim form with the letters “POA.”

Question 3 Response: Receiver has already asked this question in his Letter of July 8,

2020, regarding changes made to the claim form. And Mr. Winters has answered it in

full detail in his previous response to that Letter. Further, references to claim amounts

have no bearing upon the immaterial changes Mr. Winters made to the claim form or

the explanation thereof that he made to Question 3. Moreover, Mr. Winters made these

changes by the leave of the Receiver’s instructions.

Mr. Winters wrote the following in his response to Receiver’s Letter #1 of July 8, 2020:

Winters made the following modifications to the Proof of Claim Form for the

following reasons:

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-7 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 18357

On 17 March 2020, the Receiver issued a letter Re: Oasis Receivership directed to

“Dear Potential Claimant,” which stated in pertinent part (¶ 1),

[Y]ou MUST submit a completed and signed Proof of Claim Form (or a form

that substantially conforms to the attached Proof of Claim Form and

which contains responses to all of the questions in the Proof of Claim Form) . . .

(bold and underline added).

All Claimants, having delegated a power of attorney to Mr. Winters, have complied

with this instruction.

In short, Mr. Winters made no “wholesale change” to any claim forms he submitted

to Receiver, but only small adjustments to format for easier reading.

Question 4 & 5 Response: All claims arose and were submitted during the pendency

of Case 8:19-cv-00886, which, by definition was, and remains to date, in suspense.

To sum up: Mr. Winters is not attorney-at-law for the Claimants in the Case No. 8:19-

CV-886-T-33SPF, nor for Clawback Defendants in the Case 8:19-cv-00862. He does not

presently represent, as attorney-at-law, any clients in the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida. He is however, attorney-in-fact in the Case No. 8:19-

CV-886-T-33SPF; and has exercised that limited POA under authority of certain

Claimants, by preparing, filling out, and submitting claim forms, along with additional

relevant information.

Finally, Exhibit A of the June 11, 2020 letter, refers to only claimants having granted

power-of-attorney to Mr. Winters in the Case, and nothing further. Mr. Winters’s email

of July 31, 2020—which you provide as Exhibit B—clarified that point to you.

Brent Allan Winters

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-7 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18358

EXHIBIT 8

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-8 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID 18359

BURTON W. WIAND, COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER

FOR OASIS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LTD. ET AL.

March 25, 2022

Re: Oasis Receivership

Claimant Name:

Claim Number:

Dear Claimant:

I am writing to you as the Court-appointed Receiver in the above matter. On March 7, 2022,

the Court entered an Order granting my Motion to (1) Approve Determination and Priority of

Claims, (2) Pool Receivership Assets and Liabilities, (3) Approve Plan of Distribution, and

(4) Establish Objection Procedure (the “Motion”). A copy of this Motion and Order are available

on my website at www.oasisreceivership.com. If you are unable to access this website, you may

contact Amanda Stephens at astephens@guerraking.com or (813) 347-5120 to request a copy of

the Motion and Order.

The Court has approved my recommended determination of the above claim. This

determination is set forth in the Exhibits attached to the Motion and is addressed in the body of the

Motion. You are strongly urged to review my Court-approved determination of your claim as

stated in the Motion and its Exhibits. There are instances where the Court approved my

recommendation to either deny a claim or allow a portion of the amount claimed. There are also

instances where the claimant is required to take additional action to maintain the claim. For

instance, if you submitted your claim through Brent Winters, you are required to complete and

return a Personal Verification Form. Also, certain claimants who invested through New Horizon

Capital Ventures, Inc. are required to submit a Proof of Claim Form for their respective claim. If

you are required to submit any such form, documentation, or additional information, you must do

so no later than April 14, 2022 or your claim may be deemed denied. The Personal Verification

Form and Proof of Claim Form are available on the Receiver’s website or may be requested

through Ms. Stephens.

If you wish to dispute my determination of the above claim, its priority, or the plan of

distribution, you MUST serve me with a written objection no later than April 14, 2022. Your

objection must clearly state the nature and basis of the objection and provide all supporting

statements and documentation that you wish me and, if we are unable to resolve your objection,

the Court to consider. Please also include your claim number, name, and telephone number with

your objection.

Failure to properly and timely serve an objection to the determination of your claim,

its priority, or plan of distribution shall permanently waive your right to object to or contest

the determination of your claim, its priority, and plan of distribution and your final claim

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-8 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID 18360

Page 2

amount shall be set as the Allowed Amount determined by me and approved by the Court as

set forth in the Exhibits attached to the Motion.

By submitting an objection, you reaffirm your submission to the jurisdiction of the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. If you serve an objection, you are entitled

to notice of Court filings or proceedings, but only with respect to the adjudication of your particular

objection and the claim to which it is directed.

All objections, Personal Verification Forms, Proof of Claim Forms, or other required

documentation must be served on me at Burton W. Wiand, as Receiver c/o Maya M. Lockwood,

Esq., Guerra King P.A., The Towers at Westshore, 1408 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 1010, Tampa,

Florida 33607, and should not be filed with the Court. Proper service may be accomplished by

sending your objection, required form, or other documentation by one of the following means:

(1) U.S. mail to the above address; (2) facsimile to the above address at (813) 347-5198; or

(3) overnight or other express delivery to the above address. Service by mail is completed upon

mailing and service by facsimile is completed upon transmission.

I may attempt to settle and compromise any claim or objection subject to the Court’s final

approval. At such times as I deem appropriate, I will file with the Court: (1) my further

determination of a claim with any supporting documents or statements I consider are appropriate;

(2) any unresolved objections, with supporting statements and documentation, as served on me by

claimants; and (3) any settlements or compromises that I wish the Court to rule upon.

The Court may make a final determination based on the submissions identified above or

may set the matter for hearing and, following the hearing, make a final determination. If you

dispute my determination of your claim, you will have the burden to prove that your position

should prevail. I will provide you notice of the hearing if the Court sets a hearing on your particular

objection.

As noted above, the Court approved my proposed plan of distribution, which contemplates

interim distributions to be made on a pro rata basis and subject to certain exceptions discussed in

the Motion. I intend to file a motion to approve a first interim distribution to investor claimants

with allowed claims as soon as practicable after the period for objections has expired and I have

had the opportunity to review any objections. I will make every effort to make a prompt

distribution. However, depending on the nature of any timely objection I receive, the first interim

distribution may be delayed until any objection warranting such delay is resolved.

I have tried to make the claims process as simple and unintrusive as possible. I have

carefully considered each claim and believe that all claims have been afforded fair and equitable

treatment. Unfortunately, this is not an expeditious process, and I appreciate your patience. I am

unable to predict the total that will be recovered, but please know my goal is to maximize the assets

collected and the amount of distributions to victim investors.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-8 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 18361

Page 3

If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email Ms. Stephens or Larry Dougherty

at (813) 347-5100, [email protected].

Sincerely yours,

Burton W. Wiand

as Court-Appointed Receiver

Copies Provided To:

Brent Allan Winters

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-8 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18362

EXHIBIT 9

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID 18363

Begin forwarded message:

From: Oasis Helpers <oasishelpers@oasisreplevin.net>

Date: April 17, 2024 at

To:

Subject: Lender Update re 2nd Refund Distribution

The Trust, LLT

P.O. Box 626

Elkville, IL 62932

Email: [email protected]

(Note: A better formatted copy of this update is attached in pdf format)

April 17, 2024

Dear

Good afternoon, I just sent you the final address confirmation forms to the emails enclosed

in your request, within minutes the receiver called me, asking why I sent him this form. I

told him it was because he was not accepting Mr. Winters as my POA , he then said Oh he is

not your lawyer.

I then said, “I cannot talk to you.” and I hung up.

- Email from lender G.C. – 12 April 2024 4:39 pm

This Message At-A-Glance

 Please return the Final Address Confirmation Form (FACF) sent to you by

email on April 10th. It’s important. We explain why.

 The Receiver’s shenanigans produced unnecessary, expensive, and time-

consuming divisions in our group of lenders. In the first refund cycle, you

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID 18364

ended up in one of 7 groups that were each served differently. We

explain the differences.

 As the second round of refunds is being prepared, the FACF is meant to

overcome the confusion experienced in the first round. (BTW: the second

release of funds has been approved by the Court)

 The Receiver spent a lot of time, effort, and money trying to remove your

Power of Attorney, Brent Winters, from helping you. He even went to the

extreme of filing a criminal complaint against him. We explore why he

did that and mention that he continues to do so.

 We ask you to confirm your postal mailing address.

The Final Address Confirmation Form is Necessary:

1) because the Receiver is not acknowledging Brent Winters as your Power

of Attorney (P.O.A.) despite having no authority to decide who is or isn’t

your P.O.A.; and

2) to reduce the confusion caused by the Receiver’s division of our lenders

into several different groups; and

3) so that all checks are sent in one or two packages to your P.O.A.; and

4) so we can keep track of who is and who isn’t being paid properly and thus

help Mr. Winters address problems (of which there were many the first

time).

The First Refunds Divided Us

Here’s what happened in the first round of refunds… Our group’s claims were

divided into seven divisions based on the way they were (or weren’t) handled by

the Receiver:

Group 1: 16 lenders were denied a refund because they were in the clawback

group. Most of these were not assigned a “claim number” by the Receiver, but 4

were.

Group 2: 18 were partially denied for various bogus reasons, but in his motion

for a second refund the Receiver lied to the Court by stating that all but 3 of

these folks were PAID IN FULL the total amount “allowed” when they were

not. One lady was denied over $60,000, but he told the Court he had paid her in

full.

Group 3: 23 were entirely denied a refund for specious reasons, including 8 who

were denied because they had some relationship with a Defendant in the case

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID 18365

(however distantly), despite the fact that refunds were issued before any

judgment had been made in the case.

Group 4: without any reason given, 8 lenders were not assigned a claim number

at all and were thus denied a refund.

Group 5: 13 were denied a refund because they had not personally returned a

Personal Verification Form, even though the Receiver acknowledged that their

P.O.A., Brent Winters, had done so for them, which was proper legal procedure.

Group 6: 176 Received their first refund directly from the Receiver, despite the

fact that he had copies of their Power of Attorney contracts with Brent Winters

and thus was legally obligated to send the checks through Mr. Winters and not to

them directly.

PLEASE NOTE: It is especially important for those in this group to return the

Final Address Confirmation Form. Here follows the claim numbers for this

group:

1, 9, 13, 20, 46, 112, 140, 151, 154, 156, 180, 182, 196, 202, 204, 217, 242, 272, 279, 282, 283,

284, 286, 287, 289, 290, 297, 301, 302, 305, 306, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 318, 319, 320,

321, 322, 323, 329, 330, 334, 339, 343, 344, 345, 349, 350, 354, 355, 356, 357, 368, 370, 371,

378, 382, 383, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 392, 393, 394, 395, 397, 401, 403, 405, 406, 407, 410,

411, 412, 419, 425, 426, 434, 438, 440, 441, 446, 447, 448, 450, 451, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461,

462, 465, 466, 476, 477, 483, 484, 485, 486, 499, 501, 502, 503, 504, 512, 514, 523, 524, 525,

526, 527, 528, 532, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 548, 549, 551, 563,

575, 581, 583, 586, 587, 589, 597, 598, 601, 602, 603, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613,

614, 615, 616, 621, 622, 623, 635, 639, 640, 646, 651, 656, 659, 671, 673, 676, 677, 679, 680,

693, 695, 696

Group 6b: 1 person was assigned claim number 681 and hopefully received a

refund directly from the Receiver who acknowledged they had a P.O.A. with

Brent Winters, but we don’t know who that person is.

Group 7: 201 Appropriately received their first refund through Mr. Winters.

Turn-around was same day in every case.

The Receiver Blocked Your Power of Attorney

When Mr. Winters inquired about any refund deduction or denial, he was told

that his inquiries were barred by a deadline established at the time the claim

numbers and proposed distribution amounts for the first refund were filed. That

would have been at least 5 months before checks were issued and Mr. Winters

had the first opportunity to learn who was associated with which claim number.

Neither Mr. Winters nor 92% of his lenders were told which claimant was

correlated to which number. The Receiver’s publication of his distribution plans

in November 2021 and again in December 2022 only included claim numbers for

reference, so there was no way to make a timely complaint about the proposed

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID 18366

distributions, deductions, or refund denials! Mr. Winters didn’t begin to know

who correlated with which claim number until checks were issued last year. The

checks showed the claim numbers, which allowed him to begin identifying the

names attached to them. But, according to the Receiver it was by then too late to

argue about denials and other issues with the distributions.

By the Florida Bar Rules for Professional Conduct, the Receiver was barred from

corresponding with Mr. Winters’ clients and obligated to notify him of the claim

numbers assigned to his clients so that questions about refund issues could have

been timely addressed. But that didn’t happen. According to the professional

rules of conduct attorneys are not supposed to contact other attorney’s clients

without permission.

The Receiver questioned the accuracy of information provided in your filed

claim form, which included your name, account number, and IB number, any of

which could privately identify you with your claim. Additionally, your claim form

stated that all communications about it should be directed to your Power of

Attorney, Brent Winters.

As your Power of Attorney, Mr. Winters presented himself as the single person

to help the Receiver get answers to questions concerning the more than 480

claims that Brent filed for his P.O.A. clients. Mr. Winters intended to streamline

communications and facilitate a rapid distribution of refunds. This would have

eliminated unnecessary billings by the Receiver since he wouldn't have to

correspond with each individual lender. He didn’t want that.

The Personal Verification Form Was Used to Complicate Things

Instead of choosing the quickest and most efficient way to process refunds

through your P.O.A., the Receiver asked for permission to make you submit a

Personal Verification Form (PVF). The unnecessary PVF merely verified the

information already given on your claim form. This resulted in more make-work

for the Receiver and his team, allowing them to bill more hours to process them.

At paragraph 2. the PVF stated: “Brent Winters is representing me in this

Receivership. [sic] including my claim to any Receivership assets: Yes ___ No ____.”

You were expected to check off Yes or No. On the fillable form you used that

question’s answer was PRE-FILLED with an “X” on the “No” line, which couldn’t

be changed for a very good reason, but that answer created an alleged confusion

that benefited the Receiver, delayed the refunds, and divided our group. The

Receiver never contacted Brent to clarify his “confusion” about that answer.

The reason the PVF was PRE-FILLED “No” was because “representing” in

law can mean “To serve as one’s attorney.” “Attorney” can be further defined as

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID 18367

an “attorney-at-law”, which is NOT the capacity in which Mr. Winters serves you

as your P.O.A. By the time the PVFs were filled out, there were several good

reasons to suspect the Receiver was trying to trap Mr. Winters and potentially

destroy his legal career.

The Receiver Tried to Set Up Your P.O.A. and Cost him His Law

License

Okay – now follow along here because the chronology of events leading up to the

PVFs is very important. Take notice of the dates:

2020

 03 February 2020: The Receiver files a motion for the Court to approve

his procedure to administer claims and proof of claim forms. No mention

is made of issuing “claim numbers” to anyone. (Doc. 230)

 17 March 2020: The Receiver issues “Claims Process Instructions” which

include the following text:

o Page 4. “Each Proof of Claim Form submitted must conform substantially

to the Proof of Claim Form approved by the Court and provide responses

to all of the questions in the Proof of Claim Form…” and “Each Proof of

Claim Form must be legible…” [underline added]

 Adhering to these instructions, we created a “substantially”

conforming Adobe Acrobat version of the Proof of Claim Form that

could be filed out digitally, which assured that every form was

legible. This was done so that no time or money would be wasted

trying to read illegible entries. The Receiver has since repeatedly

complained that the digital Claim Form everyone in our group

used was non-conforming, which is utterly false – just compare his

version to ours!

o Page 5: the following appeared in bold text. “A holder of a claim or

potential claim against a Receivership Entity may wish to consult an

attorney regarding this claims process. The firm of Wiand Guerra King

P.A. acts as attorneys for the Receiver and its lawyers cannot give

personal legal or other advice to Claimants.” This is EXACTLY what

everyone in our group did by engaging Mr. Winters as their P.O.A.!

 June 2-15, 2020: Brent Winters, acting as your P.O.A. files your

claims. The Receiver reacts by demanding copies of EVERY Power of

Attorney agreement given to Brent, hard copies of which were sent to

him via Federal Express. The Receiver has a copy of your P.O.A.

Agreement with Brent.

 17 August 2020: The Receiver notifies the Court that he may “contact the

[Florida] bar” about an issue he has with Mr. Winters. He tells the Court

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID 18368

that the party he is concerned about (Brent) is licensed to practice law in

Illinois (Clawback case Doc. 351)

 31 August 2020: The Receiver notifies the Court that he is filing a “Bar

Complaint Regarding Brent Winters’ Unlicensed Practice of Law”

(Clawback case Doc. 395) – even though he KNOWS that Mr. Winters IS

LICENSED as he stated in the 17 August hearing. His filing with the Bar

constituted a CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against your P.O.A., which could

have cost Mr. Winters his license! During the August 17 meeting, even

the Judge advised the Receiver against doing this.

 9 November 2020: The Receiver files a request to make those under

Brent’s P.O.A. use the Personal Verification Form to confirm what’s

already on the Claim Form itself. (all Claims had been filed by the end of

June 2020) (Doc. 439).

o The Judge, who expressly believed that Mr. Wiand was an

“experienced, trustworthy individual” who “has done a good job”,

simply gave Mr. Wiand permission to require a PVF. (See 22-12-12

Hearing Transcript on Motion to Dismiss, pp. 19-20)

2021

 16 February 2021: The Florida Bar closes the case that Mr. Wiand had

filed against Mr. Winters 5 ½ months earlier and states that all of Mr.

Winters’ activities were authorized under Bar Rules – see attached (“21-

02-16 Florida Bar Acquittal”}.

 04 June 2021: The Receiver files a motion for leave to file claimant

identities under seal (hidden from the record). In this document he

claims that “The purpose of filing this information under seal is to protect

the privacy of Oasis investors and the financial repercussions they

experienced… Sealing the Cross-Reference List will neither prejudice any

party’s interests nor cause any harm to any third parties.” Further… “The

Receiver respectfully submits that the narrow request to file under seal a

list of the names of the Claimants with corresponding claim numbers used

in the Claims Determination Motion to protect the privacy of the Claimants

outweighs the public’s qualified right of access to this information.” (Doc.

405)

o Problem: We assert that since virtually no one in the public could

possibly have correlated the private Oasis account or IB numbers with

anyone’s name, the real reason for this was to prevent your P.O.A.

AND YOU from knowing what the Receiver was planning to do when

he got around to distributing the first refund.

 11 November 2021: Receiver Wiand moves the Court to Approve his

determination and priority of claims and plan of distribution. This is his

first, but not the final plan by which claims are “allowed”, “allowed in

part” (aka denied in part), or “denied”. Some of the claim numbers and

the category they were placed in in this filing are later overridden by a

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID 18369

subsequent Motion made 14 months later (see next item). Copies of the

PVF (Doc. 439-9) and one of Brent’s Power of Attorney documents (Doc.

439-8) are included as exhibits. (Doc. 439).

2022

 09 December 2022: The Receiver files his final “MOTION FOR AN

ORDER (1) APPROVING A FIRST INTERIM DISTRIBUTION OF $10

MILLION; (2) APPROVING THE RECEIVER’S FINAL DETERMINATIONS

REGARDING UNPERFECTED OR INCOMPLETE CLAIMS; AND (3)

OVERRULING LIMITED OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN CLAIM

DETERMINATIONS”. The Motion is Granted by the Court on 15 March

2022 and refunds start to issue on or about 06 April 2022 – they

continue through August.

2023

 ~20 April 2023: Mr. Winters starts receiving copies of letters mailed

directly to his Group #7 P.O.A. clients informing them that they will not

receive a check until they fill out yet another Address Confirmation Form

(ACF). We spend months helping those in this group who need to get the

new form sent in. At one point, well into the summer, more than 80

people still hadn’t done so. We postal mailed them a letter with the ACF

included. Eventually, they all sent in the ACF.

 ~20 April 2023: Mr. Winters also receives SOME, but not all copies of

letters sent by the Receiver directly to his Group #6 clients, which

included refund checks.

o NOTE: EVERYONE signed the same PVF with “No” checked off – so why

did some receive a check from the Receiver while others had to

submit yet another Address Confirmation Form before getting theirs?

o Further – Why were those in Group #5 ENTIRELY DENIED a refund,

even though the Receiver acknowledged getting a PVF from their

P.O.A. and even though they had sent him an Address Confirmation

Form?

On January 19, this year, we issued Report 9 in the Autumn/Winter 2023-24

series, which was entitled “Receiver Wiand’s Misuse of Funds”. In that Report

we gave you the itemized list of charges billed against the Receivership Estate to

pay the Receiver for trying to derail Mr. Winters’ efforts to help you. Between

June 2020 and May 2023, those costs were already up to $24,802. They continue

to mount up even now.

The Receiver’s billings for personal contact with lenders between April 2019 and

March 2020, which is as far as we researched, were $12,357, but such charges

continue to date.

If you want to review Report 9, see the attached Directory with hot links to all

the Reports we’ve issued.

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID 18370

Do you see how lengthy, confusing, unnecessarily expensive, and in fact

dangerous the Receiver has made this whole thing for you and your P.O.A.? We

sincerely hope you do. And we earnestly hope that this letter has helped you

appreciate a little better the massive amount of work being done behind the

scenes to protect you and recover your losses.

If you haven’t done so, please FOLLOW The DIRECTIONS in the email we sent to

you on April 10

and return the FINAL Address Confirmation Form (FACF). If

you need another copy of that email, please let us know and we’ll resend it.

Finally, to be sure that your next refund reaches you, please confirm that the

mailing address shown below is correct. If it isn’t, please notify us immediately

of the correct address.

This applies only for checks processed by Brent Winters. He is no longer making

address corrections for the Receiver since the Receiver is not supposed to be

corresponding directly with you. If you don’t return the FACF, there’s a chance

the Receiver may mail your check to the wrong address.

Street:

Addr. 2:

Addr. 3:

City/Town: State: Zip Code:

Phone:

As always, we wish you and yours only the best that life has to offer.

Pray for Replevin

Attached:

21-02-16 Florida Bar Acquittal [of Brent Winters]

24-03-04 Lender Live Update Directory

Case 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF Document 811-9 Filed 04/19/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID 18371