That's Milton Hirsch (I'm a sucker for Star Trek references) on Ben Kuehne's indictment, which is covered today in the DBR. The article focuses on the defense motions filed in the case.
The AP also had a story this weekend on the case.
Interestingly, Kuehne's lawyers have decided not to comment on the case at all. I guess they can do that because the criminal defense bar has (rightly) rallied behind Ben and comments on his behalf. Edward Bennett Williams has a policy at Williams & Connolly that no one was to comment to the press -- he could have that policy because he was best friends with the owner and editor of the Washington Post and gave lots of background info to the papers. I don't think W&C has that policy anymore.
Thw WSJ Blog covers defense lawyers talking to the press in the Scruggs case here. It's an interesting read.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
9 comments:
Isn't the South Florida legal community great? Former AUSAs and "high-profile" defense attorneys (who likely have not read appellate decisions on money-laundering and are barely familiar with the intricacies of 1956, and do not know the facts of the case) can give their two cents about the government proceeding incorrectly legally or with a bad motive. This case is not about sending a message to the defense bar or about anyone being Al Gore's attorney. Now, let's go back to discussing what integrity Ben has and how great an attorney he is . . . that's real helpful to him too (not). Before anyone is allowed to comment on the case, they should be required to read the 8 or so 11th Circuit opinions on 1956 that could matter. BTW, I see the odds in Vegas are 8/5 that the 1503 count will be dismissed.
Sourpuss, common now. You know this is a prosecution that should never have occurred. Let's see - the government gave the money to bad guys and tracked it to Ben's account. Don't you see a problem with that when the US Atty was being asked for a blessing on the fees? Come on S.P., this discussion was way more interesting when Jimenez was writing in to offer up his own defense to indefensible actions.
Why does the U.S. Atty have to bless anyone's fees? The mere fact that a blessing of the fees was sought is not an appealing argument, especially because the US Atty DID NOT bless the fees. So the implication of bad faith on the part of the government simply because a blessing of the fee was sought, but not given, is unavailing.
I am very dissapointed in the length of time it took for all the Government folks to chime in and try to sell the company line.
Anyone that thinks this is a worthwhile prosecution has a corrupt sense of justice.
It is more than that - It is the lack of blessing coupled with the knowledge of exactly where the fees came from. What would have been so terrible about saying 'you can't take the fees, they are tainted'? It is this type of doubledealing, hide the ball, ethos that makes me sorry for the state of our doj.
So, let me get this straight: DOJ has a responsibility to tell someone not to do something illegal? That's a very interesting position to take.
DOJ is not the department of prosecution or trickery or setting people up. It is supposed to be the department of JUSTICE. If somebody asks for their opinion as to whether or not specific conduct is illegal, then I would hope that my country's doj would say, 'no, you can't do that.' Instead, the doj goes around misleading people and tarnishing the notion of justice in this country. The people in charge of the office during the time frame should be embarrassed.
Shame on them and you if you think you are there only to lock people up by hook or crook.
What disturbs me is that Kuehne was looking into whether property Ochoa sold was tainted by Ochoa's illegal activities. I have not heard/seen any information that that property was tainted by Ochoa's illegal activities or that the sales were shams set up by Ochoa's people. In essence, the Gov't takes this a step further by creating the taint themselves, through a cooperating witness who used the alleged proceeds of illegal activities to purchase property from Ochoa. So if my client with clean money happens to sell something (his house, maybe...) to a drug trafficker...you see where I'm going. I keep reading about this alleged letter from the cooperating witness. From what I have read, it seems the Gov't was responsible for forging the signature on the letter. Are you kidding me?
How do we know the indictment was really signed by the foreperson...?
What the hell is going on here? That's the question to which I would like an answer.
Did anyone notice that Mukasey actually showed up at the Supreme Court and argued a case. Apparently, it hasn't happened since Reno did it back in 96?
Post a Comment