Behind the Sentencings

James Horton, David Roepke, and Jonathan Mast have all pleaded guilty and have been sentenced. Who got a tough sentence and who got leniency? It can be rather hard to tell unless you have a little background knowledge about the sentencing process.

James Horton: Horton got a favorable, relatively lenient sentence. He pleaded guilty to a bunch of charges, including one with a maximum sentence of 20 years and one with a maximum sentence of 30 years. He received as a sentence 90 months incarceration to be followed by 3 years probation. His special conditions of probation included that he was to undergo a substance abuse evaluation (he began to drink a lot working for Barton. Who wouldn't?). Part of the reason Horton got a sentence substantially lower than the 30-year maximum was that he cooperated with the authorities and did so in a forthright and honest manner. This cooperation (30 hours off interviews) was considered by the prosecutors to be of "substantial assistance," resulting in a motion by them to reduce Horton's sentence below the sentencing guidelines. As a result, Jim Horton got one-quarter of the maximum sentence.

Dave Roepke: Dave got a major break. As I have said before, the worst that can be said of him was that he ignored what was going on around him because he believed Barton's lies. This is hardly a moral failure. Barton was a VERY good liar. His crime was, on the last day CyberNET was in business, he made a couple wire transfers from the fraudulent shell companies to various persons including himself. The leniency Roepke was less given was a result of his minimal involvement in the hands on frauds, not so much as a result of his cooperation, although he did sit down with investigators and tell what he knew. The sentence was so lenient that the US Attorney's Office is taking the rare step of appealing the sentence. This is an uphill battle for them.

Jonathan Mast: Jonathan got hammered by the judge. It cannot be said that he received any leniency whatsoever, since the judge sentenced him to the maximum possible sentence that he could: five years. Jonathan presents a dilemma for those who would presume to judge him. He was Barton's best friend for years, going to strip clubs with him, and racing SUVs up and down sand dunes. He was referred to by everyone at CyberNET in the earlier years as "Barton, Jr." as he emulated Barton in every way possible, in his bullying manner and his obesity. Furthermore, when Barton lied, Mast would swear to it. Unlike Horton, who was universally popular among staff, Mast was disliked.

According to Jonathan, by the time he met the woman who would become his third wife, he began to undergo a moral transformation. Having dropped out of Calvin College, Mast could be called a lapsed Christian during most of his time at CyberNET. At first, Jonathan was willing to make fraudulent telephone calls to lenders and lie to them, pretending to be an employee of Teleservices. Finally, Barton needed Jonathan to actually meet with a lender in person and continue the masquerade. Jonathan refused to do so, and Barton was furious. After this refusal, both Jonathan and Barton knew that he was no longer of any use to Barton and would have to leave. Saying no to Barton was certainly difficult to do, and certainly represented Jonathan reaching a limit as to what criminal acts he was willing to do.

After leaving CyberNET with a modest severance package, Jonathan sold used cars for a time, and then retreated completely into his local church and his small hobby farm. At sentencing, Jonathan was able to muster some 22 letters from friends and (mostly) people he met through church. The letters almost all were from people who had known Jonathan less than three years, and expressed the opinion that "nothing would be gained by sending him to prison." In support, they cited Jonathan's renewed faith in Christ. It is quite obvious that Jonathan honestly hoped for a sentence similar to Roepke's no jail sentence, or at least, as his lawyer said, "substantially below" the 60 month maximum.

Jonathan also make a rookie mistake at sentencing. His sentencing memo whined incessantly about how Barton was responsible for influencing Mast's conduct. The last thing any judge wants to hear at a sentencing hearing is about how it was all someone else's fault. Sentencings are about the person being sentenced. Casting blame broadcasts a lack of remorse and an unwillingness to own one's actions.

In short, Jonathan's sentencing argument was, "Give me a break, Judge, because 1. I am a Born Again Christian, and 2. Barton made me do it." For whatever the reason, the sentencing judge was buying none of it. Jonathan got the maximum sentence.