Darlene Bishop Paradize Funding

[webhick]

No they dont have them all. The reason i am on the internet tonight is because my sister entered this program. Promises have been made since December and no payout. I have read this entire forum and my heart is broken. I dont even know how to tell her the things i have learned via this forum. Based on what i am reading...there is no hope of getting the money promised her. My prayer is that will deal this in a MIGHTY way. What agency should she contact to give her statement.

Darlene Bishop was arrested in Odessa, Texas by the FBI and US Marshall yesterday (April 26, 2012) I pray that she gets what she deserves and many years behind bars for all the monies she stole from people......hope this gives you a little feel of justice!

Do you have a link to a news article or police log or something?

[wserra]

Do you have a link to a news article or police log or something?

How about an indictment?

At material times to this Indictment, Darlene Aurelia Bishop was the owner and operator of several businesses, including Ameritex Brokers, Paradize Funding, and JonDar Enterprises. Through these businesses, Bishop purported to offer "funding solutions" and "credit enhancement opportunities" through use of "bank instruments" for various types of commercial projects.
...
Together, Bishop and Apogee, in order to dupe their clients, or help clients dupe other individuals, would create false "Proof of Funds" (POF) letters on bank stationery stating that accounts existed and contained funds.
...
Bishop convinced clients to wire tens of thousands of dollars to her in exchange for a POF letter that showed that they had tens of millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of dollars in a bank account. For example, on or about September 18-19, 2008, Bishop received a combined total of approximately $164,000 from one client. In exchange, Bishop provided to that client a fraudulent POF letter showing that the client had $100,000,000 in a Wachovia Bank account when in fact the client had no such account or money.
...
From in or about September 2008 to in or about February 2009, Bishop received approximately $5,800,000 directly into her various bank accounts from individuals seeking a POF letter in exchange. Bishop distributed that money to herself in other accounts owned by Bishop, as well as to other people with whom she was working in concert, such as individuals at Apogee and others.

There's more.

Looks like this thread was pretty well-founded.

[notorial dissent]

Any further word on our good buddy sknarf and his buddies at Dresdener financial? Wouldn't want them to miss out on any of the fun now would we?

[ArthurWankspittle]

I was curious about sentencing guidelines on these sorts of cases and how old Darlene A Bishop was, so I was just doing some Googleing. Allowing for some concurrency of sentencing, if convicted, am I right in thinking she could be looking at up to 15 years but more likely between 5 and 10 ?

Googleing did throw up some interesting hits though:
Cash Flow Financial v Darlene Bishop
Possibly wanting their money back? (I don't have PACER access) As mentioned in :
Commodities Futures Trading Commission v Cash Flow Financial

Beginning in December 2008, Watson invested $4,850,000 of CFF pool
participant funds in a money leasing scheme with Darlene Bishop and Paradize Funding
Network in Texas. See Cash Flow Financial LLC v. Bishop, No. 09-CV-00029 (W.D.
Tex.).

[wserra]

Bishop has been detained (no bail set) pending a court-ordered psychiatric examination. The Court was concerned over "testimony and information concerning the Defendant’s comments on suicide and her family’s concern that she may harm herself rather than go to jail".

The order contains a very curious provision, one that I've never seen before:

If there are any objections to the administration of psychotropic drugs to the Defendant while under examination, objections should be made to Dr. Marchioni [the examiner - WS] in writing. This Court is not aware of any such objections at this time.

I have a question for the M-J who entered the order: if she really is a wacko, how can she consent to "the administration of psychotropic drugs"? Such drugs can, in the right circumstances, be administered without consent - in an emergency, for example, or where someone has already been civilly committed as incompetent. Neither of those is the case here. And what kind of psychiatric examination requires such administration? One would think that an examiner would want the patient not under the influence of meds.

[notorial dissent]

I can't say that order makes a whole lot of sense either judicially or medically.

I can see them have her under a psych watch, she may well be suicidal, or just plain nuts for that matter, but I was always of the understanding that they COULDN'T administer drugs unless someone had already been adjudicated incapacitated. I can see having her under observation, and in for determination, that may well be necessary.

The only thing I can think is that they may figure it may be necessary to prescribe drugs if she is that suicidal to protect her, and that would come under medical necessity for her protection rather than anything else. It may just be a very poorly worded order.

[westtexasgirl]

For those of you who seem to think you know it all about Darlene. She is not suicidal, she had made those comments about killing herself in the same text i am sure many of you had used. We have all said at some point " I'd kill my self before I would do that" it doesn't mean we really would. As far as the meds go, she might be put on some antidepressants, that doesn't make her nuts, many people walk the streets on these, probably even you or someone you love. Don't you think she is being beaten down enough also without the mean and ugly comments that are being left on this blog. Also realize these don't only hurt her but the family as well, who have done nothing. Darlene has a good heart and may have gotten herself into something bad, but I don't think she would ever intentionally try to rip someone off or hurt anyone.

[Kestrel]

For those of you who seem to think you know it all about Darlene... Don't you think she is being beaten down enough also without the mean and ugly comments that are being left on this blog. Also realize these don't only hurt her but the family as well, who have done nothing. Darlene has a good heart and may have gotten herself into something bad, but I don't think she would ever intentionally try to rip someone off or hurt anyone.

I'm sorry you feel offended on behalf of poor, beaten-down Darlene. Would you perhaps be one of those innocent family members now suffering from the bad publicity?

A truly good-hearted person who got involved in something bad would, 1) apologize, 2) take steps to fix the damage she caused and repay the victims, and 3) not escalate her misdeeds (or perpetuate her willful blindness) to the point where she was using multiple business fronts to take millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims. If the allegations in the indictment are even close to the mark, you're trying to sympathize with the wrong person.

Were I in your shoes, I'd consider cutting my losses as far as Darlene is concerned. Then I'd work to regain my position in the community by trying to do something for her poor, beaten-down, and now financially devastated victims who have done nothing (except trust her).

[westtexasgirl]

First of all my position in the community has not been affected. I am not saying that if she is found guilty she should not suffer the consequences, but it was always my belief that you are innocent until found guilty. And who are you too be her judge and jury? She is still a human being and should be treated as such. I hope and pray you or someone in your family never is found to be guilty in something and you suffer the name calling and ridicule that Darlene and her FAMILY have, esp her husband who was not involved at all. Y'all are just plain mean.

[Kestrel]

First of all my position in the community has not been affected. I am not saying that if she is found guilty she should not suffer the consequences, but it was always my belief that you are innocent until found guilty. And who are you too be her judge and jury? She is still a human being and should be treated as such. I hope and pray you or someone in your family never is found to be guilty in something and you suffer the name calling and ridicule that Darlene and her FAMILY have, esp her husband who was not involved at all. Y'all are just plain mean.

I don't know if Darlene has any kids, but if she does I definitely understand the pain they feel. And I'm sorry that happens. But they're not the only ones hurt. The kids of Darlene's alleged victims got hurt much worse than with simple name calling and ridicule. If I was Darlene's kid I'd start thinking that I need to raise my high school GPA, because (just like the victims) my parents may not be able to help very much with paying for college.

As for the adults... Looking at the other 9 people involved, and seeing the 100% criminal conviction rate and the sentences imposed, I'd think "name calling and ridicule" would be the least concern of Darlene's adult family members.

According to the indictment, Darlene's family (which would include her husband) were recipients of ill-gotten gains, whether or not they knew it:

Bishop received approximately $5,800,000 during the scheme. At no time did Bishop ever report this income to the Internal Revenue Service. Bishop used the money received from her fraudulent activities to purchase a second residence and vehicles for herself, and her family members.

She also paid off the mortgage on her home. If Darlene's husband filed a joint tax return with her, the law presumes he knows the reported income and expenses (or lack thereof - including the lack of a mortgage interest deduction). So even if he was completely ignorant of where the money came from, he still would have known there was a lot of unreported money changing hands which benefitted him.

If I were Darlene's husband, I'd be less worried about name-calling and more worried about the potential forfeiture of his home and sentence to pay $5.8 million in restitution to her victims.

[notorial dissent]

A bit defensive and prone to misconstruing things aren't we???

No one here has made comment one way or another concerning Darlene, her character, or her mental status, in fact it was people at this site who insisted that non member posters back up what they were saying rather than just making wild rants and accusations. Unfortunately for Darlene, they did.

The current discussion was over the most current court order in the matter in that none of us understood why it was worded the way it was, and still don't for that matter, although you have supplied a little useful background in the matter. And no one has implied anything other than curiosity over the order, and made no suppositions beyond that, and no one has said, implied, or called her "nuts", those are your words, not ours.

Somehow, I think it is a bit more complicated than that. If you don't want to get placed on suicide watch or sent for evaluation, it is always wisest not to make comments of that variety within the hearing of a judge, or someone who has to by law report them, so which is it? Now if she is on, or going to be placed on, as you suggest, anti- depressants, that is understandable considering the stress she would currently be under, and is what it is, and implies nothing beyond that fact.

I would, under other circumstances, say I was sorry that the earlier opinions and statements made by outside posters hurt your, your family's, or Darlene's feelings, but baring that they might have been made with less than altruistic reasons, they did, and still do for that matter, seem to have been heart felt and honest representations by those individuals and of the situation, and the indisputable fact that Darlene is now under indictment and arrest on those very charges rather mitigates any tendency towards sympathy or credulity I might otherwise have had. The truth is an absolute defense, however painful or unpleasant it may be.

To paraphrase what a previous poster has said, if Darlene were a "good-hearted" person, she would not have been involved in what she was doing, as what she was doing sounds very much like a concerted effort at serious financial fraud. Based on the indictment, and the other things I have looked at so far, Darlene does not at all appear to be a "good-hearted" person, and I suspect that this latest involvement with the law will prove most unpleasant for her.

At the moment, I have no real opinion one way or another concerning Darlene herself, and I figure the courts can sort that out and settle the rest of it in due time.

[donangelllc]

I am a victim and have three kids that have suffered greatly . My wife has suffered greatly . My businesses are decimated ! While I am not happy anyone goes to jail or prison , you reap what you sow , Darlene A. Bishop deserves it . Her last email to me " if you send me more people I will help you out of your current position " this was June 2009

[notorial dissent]

At which point I would strongly suggest you contact the DA who is handling this and add your name to the list of victims, at which point you may be in line for restitution, always assuming there is anything for restitution.

[JamesVincent]

I am a victim and have three kids that have suffered greatly . My wife has suffered greatly . My businesses are decimated ! While I am not happy anyone goes to jail or prison , you reap what you sow , Darlene A. Bishop deserves it . Her last email to me " if you send me more people I will help you out of your current position " this was June 2009

Welcome to Quatloos. I wish we had met under better circumstances. I am sorry to hear that have been a victim and I hope, like Notorial said, you may be able to collect some restitution. It might sound like a weird thing to ask but if its possible can you describe what went on with your dealings with Ms. Bishop? Quatloos is an anti-scam site and the more information we can put out there for others to see the more likely we will be able to prevent others from going through the same thing.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Bishop has been detained (no bail set) pending a court-ordered psychiatric examination. The Court was concerned over "testimony and information concerning the Defendant’s comments on suicide and her family’s concern that she may harm herself rather than go to jail".

The order contains a very curious provision, one that I've never seen before:

If there are any objections to the administration of psychotropic drugs to the Defendant while under examination, objections should be made to Dr. Marchioni [the examiner - WS] in writing. This Court is not aware of any such objections at this time.

I have a question for the M-J who entered the order: if she really is a wacko, how can she consent to "the administration of psychotropic drugs"? Such drugs can, in the right circumstances, be administered without consent - in an emergency, for example, or where someone has already been civilly committed as incompetent. Neither of those is the case here. And what kind of psychiatric examination requires such administration? One would think that an examiner would want the patient not under the influence of meds.

Been thinking about this and concluded that it is a muddled attempt to pre-empt an appeal on the grounds that the defendant was under the influence of medication. In other words, yes the defendant was taking medication but the doctor says it's OK/not enough to cause an issue.
I'm sure there will be precedents in law but maybe we have the situation that the defendant isn't "normal" enough to stand trial without the medication?

[wserra]

Been thinking about this and concluded that it is a muddled attempt to pre-empt an appeal on the grounds that the defendant was under the influence of medication. In other words, yes the defendant was taking medication but the doctor says it's OK/not enough to cause an issue.

That certainly is a possibility. However, if so, it seems likely that she has been on such medication from before her arrest. There hasn't been enough time to establish the basis that Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), requires for forcible medication, and there would be some indication in the docket that such proceedings had occurred.

I'm sure there will be precedents in law but maybe we have the situation that the defendant isn't "normal" enough to stand trial without the medication?

Assuming a non-dangerous defendant, that's Sell. It has proven, not surprisingly, to be a complete mess. Lower courts are all over the place on the exact circumstances under which such a defendant can be forcibly medicated. One could write a law review article on the subject, and one probably has. For a far more interesting experience, read about the fascinating Susan Lindauer case. Wikipedia has a generally accurate summary. In 2006, then-Judge Michael Mukasey ruled that the govt could not forcibly medicate someone who all (except she) agreed was incompetent. IMHO it's a terrific opinion, but probably not in the mainstream of Sell jurisprudence - if such a thing exists - and thankfully so, because Judge Mukasey was right.

[wserra]

Her last email to me " if you send me more people I will help you out of your current position " this was June 2009

The position that she got you into in the first place. Nice.

[willrob]

Someone asked what for details of Darlene Bishop's scheme. There was an article in the Odessa American on May 3, 2012 (last week) that detailed what she was doing. Interesting blog comments in there also. Appears to be a federal case so I believe the US Attorney in Midland, TX (not the DA) or the agency investigating would need to be contacted if you feel you are a victim or know someone that has been or is a victim

[donangelllc]

Thanks , and if you check the first couple of post's on this thread I was one of the first to report her to authorities .

[wserra]

Update: Bishop has been found competent to proceed. Trial now scheduled for January 7, 2013.

And, as Kestrel predicted, the govt has begun the process of forfeiting Bishop's home by filing a lis pendens. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, that's a notice that an action affecting the title is pending, effectively preventing her from selling it.