Quatloos!

notorial dissent wrote:I had intended to add in my previous remarks, that I certainly hoped they restricted, as in not allowed at all any internet access and closely monitor his incoming and outgoing mail, or I will bet you dollars, Canadian or otherwise, to donuts he'll be back at it in no time at all. Jimmy doesn't strike me as the repenting kind, and he's not happy unless he's conning someone. I'm betting they'll have to keep a close watch on him in prison as well or he'll be right back at it.

Quite frankly, I don't think the sentencing recommendation was "nasty" enough, considering his past actions.

Let's be fair here. The judge did her best, as she said:

Based on the above, the applicable Guidelines range would be 262-327 months’ imprisonment. However, because the statutory maximum penalty is 240 months’ imprisonment, the Guidelines range is a sentence of 240 months, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a).

So she gave him the max. I believe he is 64 so the 20 sentence is probably life.

Poor Normy can't catch a break. He wanted his sentence reduced by the amount of time he was languishing in a Canadian jail (entirely voluntary, he could have agreed to extradition) but we treated him too well!

4 Norman seeks a reduction in the sentence to be imposed by the Court in order to give him extra credit for the conditions of his pre-extradition detention in Canada. (Norman Br. at 3-4, 15-17). The Government notes, however, that the conditions in Canada do not appear to match the level of conditions faced by defendants in which a downward departure under the Guidelines could have been or was warranted. See, e.g., United States v. Carty, 264 F.3d 191, 193 (2d Cir. 2001) (small cell without light and housing several inmates; 10-15 minutes per day outside of cell; no running water); United States v. Mateo, 299 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (defendant sexually harassed by prison guard and was forced to give birth in prison without proper medical attention).

However looks like he will get some credit for time served:

Moreover, the Court should not discount Norman’s sentence to reflect time he spent in Canada while fighting extradition. By statute, credit will automatically be given by the BOP for the time Norman has served in official detention prior to the date of sentencing, at least where, as here, there is no possibility that the detention was attributable to another offense. This rule is set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3585(b), which reads, in relevant part:
“(b) Credit for Prior Custody. - A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences - (1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed . . . that has not been credited against another sentence.” It is the Government’s understanding that the BOP applies Section 3585(b) to time spent in custody as a result of the offense at issue (as is the case here), regardless of whether such detention was in a foreign country. Accordingly, while the Government would not oppose a request by Norman that the Court recommend that the BOP credit him for the time he spent in prison in Canada prior to extradition, the Government believes it would be inappropriate for the Court to reduce the overall sentence imposed on Norman on those grounds.

Essentially just avoiding double counting. Judge doesn't want him to get credit for time served in Canada and get a reduction in the sentence for that same time served on top of that. As I said in my prior post; given his age and the length of his sentence it is probably irrelevant whether or not he gets some time knocked off for his Canadian incarceration.

WOW..20 years!! that is some sentence especially at his age of 64. Not that I feel for him, the bastard. Crime and Punishment! Since he was ordered to forfeit $2,197,637 and pay $1,731,805 in restitution, in addition to a $100 special assessment fee, does that mean he had the above amount in his account(s), if so can victims apply to be made whole ?

supergrover wrote:Since he was ordered to forfeit $2,197,637 and pay $1,731,805 in restitution, in addition to a $100 special assessment fee, does that mean he had the above amount in his account(s)

Short answer: no. The Guidelines make restitution orders mandatory on conviction of frauds. I think Norman's assets are far closer to $.18 than $2.2M. Far, far closer.

if so can victims apply to be made whole ?

You can try, but this isn't a case like Ad Surf Daily or Zeek where there is a fund for a receiver to distribute. You might start by contacting the AUSA. Before doing that, though, I'd be very, very sure that no one is going to say that you recruited them into the Norman scam. Victim good, co-conspirator bad.

Good luck.

I think it was in 2005 when I began to assist ElfNinosMom with the Norman case both within the Q and on my own. Using multiple alias' and working angles from music to expensive toy cars, I was able to access a website where Norman was building a CV that would imply he held a Swiss banking license. The whole thing was a mess with Norman trying to back up a claim of holding the highest scores on some genius level by using the common codes doctors use to process procedures and items for insurance payments. (called ICD-9 codes) Never the less Jim viewed this miss-mash of self aggrandizing junk as a surefire way of gaining investors in his humanitarian driven ESPAVO corporation for African relief.

I am glad to have had a part, albeit a very small one, in stopping Jim Norman. Although he may be mentally ill, his delusions are sparked by greed and a sociopaths belief that his unmatched superiority places no limits on his actions; to that end, in my opinion, he is very dangerous and is now where he belongs.

Many other members of Q applied their time and considerable talents to these matters; they own my greatest respect.

Two years ago I was working with ENM on a simple legal matter, when she abruptly dropped from sight. Wherever she landed, she must still there. I've not heard a word.
And so it goes. I'll be over on the NESARA page.

Just looked Jim Bo up on the BOP ...

1. DAVID NORMAN 65940-054 64-Black-M 05-10-2027

the 2027 release date, I thought he got 20 years?

Looks like BOP is giving him jail time credit for the time he spent in Canadian jails. That's in their power.

About 2 mos/yr good time, so he serves about 16.5 years of the twenty. Release date 14 yrs from sentence, meaning 2.5 missing - just about the time he spent in jail fighting extradition.

wserra wrote:Looks like BOP is giving him jail time credit for the time he spent in Canadian jails. That's in their power.

About 2 mos/yr good time, so he serves about 16.5 years of the twenty. Release date 14 yrs from sentence, meaning 2.5 missing - just about the time he spent in jail fighting extradition.

My thought too. As I said in a prior post in respect to Norman wanting both a credit for his Canadian time served and also a reduction in his sentence to reflect the Canadian time:

Moreover, the Court should not discount Norman’s sentence to reflect time he spent in Canada while fighting extradition. By statute, credit will automatically be given by the BOP for the time Norman has served in official detention prior to the date of sentencing, at least where, as here, there is no possibility that the detention was attributable to another offense. This rule is set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3585(b), which reads, in relevant part:
“(b) Credit for Prior Custody. - A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences - (1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed . . . that has not been credited against another sentence.” It is the Government’s understanding that the BOP applies Section 3585(b) to time spent in custody as a result of the offense at issue (as is the case here), regardless of whether such detention was in a foreign country. Accordingly, while the Government would not oppose a request by Norman that the Court recommend that the BOP credit him for the time he spent in prison in Canada prior to extradition, the Government believes it would be inappropriate for the Court to reduce the overall sentence imposed on Norman on those grounds.

Essentially just avoiding double counting. Judge doesn't want him to get credit for time served in Canada and get a reduction in the sentence for that same time served on top of that. As I said in my prior post; given his age and the length of his sentence it is probably irrelevant whether or not he gets some time knocked off for his Canadian incarceration.

Is there a way I can request that BOP to reconsider the time reduction ?