Salzano's House on Line

NorVergence bankruptcy trustee Charles Forman in early March sued Thomas J. Salzano, 23, son of the alleged mastermind of the NorVergence scandal, Thomas N. Salzano, chief managing officer, for allegedly charging trips to bars and clubs, clothing and other personal expenses totaling $268,795 to NorVergence American Express card, plus reportedly using $200,000 from NorVergence to buy a $622,000 house in Glen Ridge, New Jersey. To add insult to injury, he reportedly never worked at NorVergence.

The various web sites and blogs, such as ww.fightthescam.com, www.lesseerights.org, and "TheAberdeenKid ( http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheAberdeenKid )" had a field day.

Allegedly they even set the listing of the house with its picture:

Description:

http://leasingnews.org/PDF/NJ_RE_Listing_%20Montclair.pdf

Now the NorVergence bankruptcy trustee Charles Forman has found that the mother, (wife of Thomas N.) also used the corporate American Express card: for vacations, groceries, massages, manicures, evidently whatever she wanted.

According to the lawsuit filed by bankruptcy trustee Charles Forman, Jamie Salzano charged $135,628 to a NorVergence corporate card between November 2002 and March 2004.

Jamie Salzano allegedly also collected at least $73,076 in wages during that period even though, the lawsuit charged, although many claim she was a "no-show employee."

Peter Salzano filed bankruptcy and they report Thomas N. has not since he filed it within the seven year period before.

This is the latest after the police closed down the Salzano cardboard charity box operation placed at small stores by commissioned salesmen and Salzano gets caught because he reportedly stiffs the landlord who is well connected in Jersey, who called for Salzano's immediate eviction, and enforcing the order, the cardboard box charity operation comes to light of law enforcement eyes.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the 2A provision in the NorVergence "Equipment Rental Agreements," seeming do not apply since the company was the supplier (and perhaps "manufacturer") which then affects the "hell and high water" provisions, according to several defense attorneys. As more comes to light with "hold backs," personal property and insurance claims based on the "stream of payments" or” buy-out" provisions (many seeming to be pegged to creditworthiness, they say,") the United States attorney may be getting involved regarding "conspiracy," the FTC regarding civil matters, and a number of state attorneys generals offices are back talking with each other. Several are able to understand the basics of “Lease Plus” computer accounting from LeaseTeam.

Brandied about in many recent articles and NorVergence lessees are terms such as “bribery,” “perjury,” “fraud” and “conspiracy.”

These words do not mean the same as in Webster's Dictionary as used in the courts of law. The various states and federal laws also have finite definition.

One of the best written on the subject comes from the two United States attorneys in their 47 page “Preliminary Statement” as “attached instructions it its charge to the jury” in United States of America against Barry Drayer and Stephen Barker ( known to us as the RW Professional Scandal.)

These are portions that explain these definitions as written by Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, and Linda A. Lacewell and Steven Tiscione, Assistant U.S. Attorneys ( of Counsel.)

“Fraud” is a general term, which embraces all the various means by which human ingenuity can devise and which are resorted to by an individual to gain an advantage over another by false representations, suggestions, or suppression of the truth or deliberate disregard for the truth. Thus, a “scheme to defraud” is merely a plan to deprive another of money or property by trick, deceit, deception or swindle...

“The deception need not be premised upon spoken or written words alone. The arrangement of the words, or the circumstances in which they are used may convey the false and deceptive appearance. IF there is deception, the manner in which it is accomplished is immaterial.

“The failure to disclose information may also constitute a fraudulent representation if the defendant was under a legal, professional or contractual duty to make such a disclosure, the defendant actually knew such disclosure out to be made, and the defendant in question failed to make such disclosure with the intent to defraud.”

Prior Inconsistent Statement: “...If you find that the witness made an earlier inconsistent statement that conflicts with his or her trial testimony, you may consider the fact in deciding how much of his or her trail testimony, if any, to believe.

“In making this determination, you may consider whether the witness purposely made false statement or whether it was an innocent mistake, whither the inconsistency concerns an important fact, or whether it had to do with a small detail; whether the witness had an explanation for the inconsistency, and whether the explanation appealed to your common sense.

“It is exclusively your duty, based upon all the evidence and your own good judgment, to determine whether the prior statement was inconsistent, and if so, how much to believe all or part of the witness' testimony.”

Unlawful Agreement: “ ...Now, the Government need not prove that members of the conspiracy met together or entered into any express or formal agreement. You need not find that the alleged conspirators stated, in words or writing, what the scheme was, its object or purpose, or every precise detail of the scheme, or the means by which it was to be accomplished. It is sufficient to show that the conspirators tacitly came to a mutual understanding to accomplish an unlawful act by means of a joint plan or common design.”

“...The key question is whether the defendant joined the conspiracies with an awareness of at least some of the basic aims and purposes of the unlawful agreement.

“To act ‘knowingly' means to do something voluntarily and deliberately, and not because of mistake, negligence, inadvertence or some other innocent reason...

“...the fact that a defendant, without knowledge, merely happens to act in a way that furthers the purposes of or objectives of the conspiracy, does not make him a member. More is required under the law. What is required is that a defendant must have participated with knowledge of at least some of the purposes or objectives of the conspiracy and with the intention of aiding in the accomplishment of those unlawful ends.

In sum, a defendant, with an understanding of the unlawful character of the conspiracy, must have intentionally engaged, advised, or assisted in it for the purpose of further the illegal understanding.

“If you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth, and that the defendant acted with a deliberate disregard of the facts, you may find that the defendant acted knowingly.

“...Now, the extent of a defendant's participation in a conspiracy has no bearing on the issue of guilt. Each member of a conspiracy may perform separate and distinct acts and may perform them at different times. Some conspirators may play major roles, while others play minor parts in the scheme. He need not have been fully informe3d as to all of the details or the scope of the conspiracy. He need not have been a member of the conspiracy for the entire time of its existence. The key inquiry is simply whether the defendant joined the conspiracy with an awareness of at least some of the basic aims and purposes of the unlawful agreements and with the intent to help them succeed.”