Horwitz & Fussell

December 24, 1998

Mr. A. Phil Catalfamo

United States District Court

Probation Office

80 North Hughey, Room 310

Orlando, Florida 32801

Re: Chantal McCorkle

Dear Mr. Catalfamo:

This letter is to set forth the position of Chantal McCorkle in relation to the charges pending against her.

Mrs. McCorkle met her husband when she was visiting here from England. As their relationship grew she began working for Mr. McCorkle helping him out in his real estate office. Mrs. McCorkle’s efforts centered around clerical assistance in those early days. Upon their marriage, she continued to work in the same office building with Mr. McCorkle and placed her emphasis principally on the Central Florida Real Estate Guide which was a magazine that advertised homes. The magazine obtained income by charging advertisers for space in the magazine. During the course of this time period, Mrs. McCorkle also would assist her husband as he requested in his preparation of infomercials. At all times, Mrs. McCorkle believed that her husband’s produce, that is, the method of buying and selling real estate, was legitimate and worthwhile, Mrs. McCorkle’s activities on the infomercials were at the direction of her husband and she believed that the statements within the infomercials and the recreations set forth in the infomercials were either true or were representations of the worth of the product that were justified based upon her belief in her husband’s products and his representation to her concerning acceptable advertising practices.

After the sale of the Central Florida Real Estate Guide magazine, Mrs. McCorkle continued to work with her husband as the business grew. Mrs. McCorkle’s activities were principally concerned with the construction and renovation of the new office facility and being directly concerned with personnel and administrative matters. Within the realm of activity, Mrs. McCorkle also was involved in the checking account activity and direct supervision of the bookkeeper. Mrs. McCorkle was not however, involved in sales or marketing of the product. Her daily activities did not bring her into contact with any of the telephone marketing activities including preparation or review of scripts. Mrs. McCorkle believed in and relied upon her husband and his representations that the products sold by the company were worthwhile.

Mrs. McCorkle owned stock and held offices in various other corporations that are defendants. Her ownership and position as officer and director was at the request of her husband who felt that her holding such position would be more appropriate in light of his previous bankruptcy.

Finally, in relation to the perjury count, it is Mrs. McCorkle’s position that the statements in the affidavit submitted before the Magistrate were true and correct. The affidavit was submitted to the Magistrate in reference to whether the seizures by the government and its continued control over the assets and funds was causing harm to the corporations and businesses. Her affidavit set forth the nature of the harm, which is self-evident, whenever a business suffers a seizure of almost all of its funds. Mrs. McCorkle clearly related in the affidavit that additional income was coming to the corporation in the form of sales, although greatly diminished after the seizure and return of certain prepaid advertisements.

Mrs. McCorkle never intended to commit wire fraud and mail fraud or money laundering, but rather, was helping in a business which was controlled by her husband and which sold a product that she believed in and seen countless examples of success stemming there from.

If you have any other questions concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

MARK L. HORWITZ