More trouble for Kuehne prosecution and other lawyer news

In what already looks like a doomed prosecution against attorney Ben Kuehne, it just got tougher. Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Cuellar v. United States, which holds (9-0 per Thomas) that the federal money-laundering statue did not require proof of “appearance of legitimate wealth” and the statute could not be satisfied solely by evidence that a defendant concealed funds during transportation. The Kuehne team will be pouring over every word of the opinion, I'm sure...

In other lawyer news, Goeffrey Fieger was acquitted yesteday. His lawyer, Gerry Spence, remains undefeated! Fieger had this to say (apropos of the above case): "I'm very pleased with the American system and the jury. I thank the jury for listening. I hope this puts an end to political prosecutions in the age of Mr. Bush."

And finally, attorney Mel Weiss was sentenced to 30 months (3 months below the advisory guideline range agreed on by the parties).

Ben Kuehne receives award

The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers-Miami Chapter had its annual banquet Saturday night. Of note for this blog, Ben Kuehne received the lifetime achievement award (which the group decided to give him after he was charged, not before as was reported in the NLJ and WSJ blog -- I know this because I was at the meeting where we unanimously agreed on the award). Ben spoke eloquently after he was introduced by Hank Coxe, former president of the Florida Bar.

The Jose Padilla defense team was also given awards. They were introduced by Kathy Williams, who gave a wonderful and fiery talk. Michael Caruso's speech was well done; he spoke about how important it was to have an independent judiciary and he applauded Judge Cooke for upholding her role in this respect.

On the state side, Steve Leifman received the judicial distinction award. He does such good and important work for the mentally ill. His award was well-deserving.

In addition to the awards, it's always fun to people watch at these things.... All in all, a fun night.

UPDATE -- apparently the WSJ blogger was there.

Ben Kuehne to receive award from FACDL-Miami this weekend

Saturday night the Florida Association of Criminal Defense lawyer will be having its annual banquet. Ben Kuehne will be receiving the Daniel S. Pearson-Harry W. Prebish Founder's Award, FACDL's highest honor. The Jose Padilla defense team will be receiving the Rodney Thaxton "Against All Odds" award, and Judge Steve Leifman will receive the Gerald Kogan Judicial Distinction Award.

Julie Kay writes about it here.

Weekend reading

1. Ben Kuehne. The feds decided to drop the obstruction count, but added a wire fraud count:

Federal prosecutors have added and subtracted charges in the money-laundering indictment brought against prominent Miami attorney Ben Kuehne and two others.
In a superseding indictment filed Friday, the Justice Department added a wire-fraud conspiracy count but dropped an obstruction of justice charge.

2. Trials. in 2007, the SDFLA had 155 trials, more than any other district, followed by SDNY (108), MDFL (108), SDTX(106) and WDTX(105). In fact, we had more trials than the entire 1st Circuit, and almost as many as the 3rd and 10th Circuits.

3. Libery City 7. Vanessa Blum examines why the government is having so much trouble in this case -- perhaps it was because they arrested too early:

The failure of federal prosecutors to convict any members of an alleged South Florida terror cell after two trials highlights the obstacles in a legal strategy of arresting terror suspects before they strike.That approach, known as preemption, has been the Justice Department's mandate since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, drove home the potentially lethal consequences of not acting soon enough to stop terrorism.But moving too quickly may have doomed the so-called Liberty City 7 case by leaving prosecutors without sufficient evidence to back up their sensational allegations that the men wanted to launch a ground war against the U.S. government.Violent rhetoric caught on tape from the group's leader and a grainy video of the defendants swearing an oath of allegiance to al-Qaida have not been enough to convince jurors the men were conspiring to join forces with the terror group and not, as defense lawyers argued, simply playing along in a scheme for money.

4. There is a white collar seminar in the Middle District coming up with some impressive speakers.

Scooped...

So we scooped the Ben Kuehne story yesterday, reporting that new prosecutors were considering dropping some counts in the indictment. A bunch of others (WSJ, DBR, NLJ) picked up on the story with no hat tip to us! How dare they! At least the Review quoted me...

Again, thanks to my tipster for the info...

Dismissal of some counts in the Ben Kuehne case?

Thanks to a tipster, check out this Government motion for extension of time to respond to the defense motions:


GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE COUNT AND FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
The United States, by and through the undersigned attorneys,
respectfully requests that this Court grant an enlargement of
time for the Government to respond to the Motion of Defendant
Kuehne to Dismiss Count Six of the indictment and for a Bill of
Particulars. Defendants Florez-Velez and Saldarriaga have both
moved to join in the motion to dismiss. The reasons for this
request are set forth herein.
The Government’s responses to the above pleadings are due to
be filed on March 24, 2008. The undersigned prosecutor has
recently become lead counsel in this matter and has undertaken a
review of the current charges in the case. As part of that review
process, there have been discussions at the Department of Justice
concerning whether there should be a voluntary dismissal of these
counts. In that event, the current defense motions would become
moot. Unfortunately, the Department has not been able to reach a
conclusion as to this matter and the undersigned has been
instructed to seek a brief continuance - in the nature of three
weeks - so that the matter can be subject to further discussion.
In accordance with Local Rule 88.9, the undersigned has
personally spoken with Joaquin Mendez, Esquire, counsel for
defendant Saldarriaga, who indicated no objection to the
requested continuance. In addition, John Nields, Esquire,
counsel for defendant Kuehne, has indicated that he has no
objection to the requested continuance. The undersigned left a
voice message for Henry P. Bell, Esquire, counsel for defendant
Gloria Florez Velez, informing him of the request.
A draft order is attached hereto for the Court’s
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
KENNETH BLANCO, CHIEF
NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS
DRUG SECTION
RICHARD WEBER, CHIEF
ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY
LAUNDERING SECTION
/s/ Robert Feitel
By:
ROBERT FEITEL
JOHN W. SELLERS
THOMAS J. PINDER
TRIAL ATTORNEYS
United States Department of Justice
1400 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 307-3586

So, the Government has a new lead lawyer and is now reviewing some of the counts to see if they should be dismissed. Thoughts?

Trials...

The Liberty City 7 (six) case is winding down. Closing arguments started today. Coverage from the usual suspects here, here and here.

Can you imagine if this case hangs again (as the first set of jurors suggested after they couldn't reach a verdict). Would the government try it again? Should they?

As for Ben Kuehne's trial, it's set for Jan 2009.

"This prosecution boldly goes where none has gone before."

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.

It's official...

...just about everyone thinks the Ben Kuehne indictment is BS.

Weekend reading...

1. Jay Weaver keeps us informed on the Ben Kuehne case. Rumpole summarizes the article this way:
The Government was using an informant to feed Kuehne phony information that drug money was legitimate. They ought to hang their heads in shame for prosecuting this man.

2. Curt Anderson has this article, titled: "Huge Drug Euro Laundering Scheme Found." Here's the intro to the article:
Every day, American Airlines Flight 914 takes off from Bogota, Colombia, at 8:20 a.m. and touches down at the Miami airport at noon. In the jet's cargo hold are usually bags and bags of euros that investigators say are part of a huge $1.4 billion cocaine money-laundering scheme.Crime is happening right on schedule in Miami, almost every day, federal prosecutors say. But so far, despite nearly four years of investigation, they have apparently been unable to build a strong enough case to stop it.Instead, they are attacking the problem piecemeal. The U.S. Justice Department this week went to federal court in Miami seeking forfeiture of nearly $11 million seized last June and July by federal agents, who used drug-sniffing dogs to find cocaine residue on some of the cash.

3. And here's Vanessa Blum on a doctor charged in a prescription fraud case in which someone died. Could that death have been prevented?
Before a West Palm Beach resident died from a prescription drug overdose in June, federal agents received at least two warnings the man's doctor was prescribing drugs irresponsibly and perhaps illegally, according to court records.Dr. Ali Shaygan, 35, of Miami Beach was arrested Monday on charges he wrote prescriptions outside the scope of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose. The 23-count indictment accuses Shaygan of causing the June 10 death last year of 29-year-old James "Brendan" Downey.Downey's older brother, Timothy Downey of Wellington, said his brother became addicted to painkillers after breaking his ankle in a 2005 car accident.

If a criminal defense lawyer made this call, he'd be in an awful lot of trouble:

"Dr. Shaygan is the doctor that prescribed them for him — prescribed whatever he wanted, it seemed," he said. "I think the best thing to happen for society at this point is to get him and every other doctor prescribing pills to these children off the street." Timothy Downey abruptly ended the interview saying he had received a call from someone in the U.S. Attorney's Office instructing him not to speak with reporters about the case.

More about the timing of the arrest:

A sworn affidavit from Agent Christopher Wells of the DEA detailing the investigation suggests authorities may have missed two chances to stop Shaygan from prescribing before Downey's death. The affidavit was filed Feb. 8 with an application to search Shaygan's Miami Beach condominium for pharmaceuticals, records, customer lists and other items

According to Wells, Shaygan was fingered in February 2007 by a drug suspect who said the doctor sold him prescriptions for large quantities of pain medication "with no medical examination."About a month later, authorities arrested a second drug suspect carrying one-half pound of methamphetamine and a prescription signed by Shaygan. The man said Shaygan would write him prescriptions "for any medication" he requested, Wells stated.Court records do not indicate how those tips were handled. What is clear is that after investigators linked Shaygan to Downey's death, the DEA launched an aggressive criminal inquiry that involved sending two undercover agents into Shaygan's Miami Beach office.

I smell a snitch

Jay Weaver details here the New York case of Hernando Saravia, who appears to be the snitch in the Ben Kuehne case:

Hernando Saravia allegedly gave $1.8 million in drug proceeds to a Colombian kingpin's defense attorney in Miami, but Saravia was not charged in the recent indictment against Kuehne.
Instead, Saravia was indicted on one count of money laundering in New York at virtually the same time. The charge stemmed from his alleged attempt to launder $400,000 in drug sales during a New York undercover operation in early 2002. Saravia faces an indictment similar to that lodged against Kuehne and two Colombian codefendants. It's unclear how the two investigations are connected -- federal prosecutors have declined to comment -- but they appear to overlap.

Here's Myles Malman, a former federal prosecutor, on Saravia:

Malman, the former prosecutor, said Saravia appears to be working as a witness for the government, starting with the initial New York case in which he was caught trying to launder $400,000.
''Based on my examination of the two indictments, the Saravia case bears the earmarks that Saravia is cooperating with the government,'' said Malman.
''There is a strong possibility Saravia was pressured by law enforcement to provide cooperation in the Kuehne case based on his own case,'' he said. ``His own case appears to be the tip of the iceberg and a possible placeholder for prosecutors not wishing to show the rest of their hand in the New York indictment.''
Saravia, aka ''Bacalao,'' has yet to be arrested in the New York indictment, according to court records. On Monday, the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan did not respond to a question about his status.

Can it really be that the government is going to rely on this criminal's word over Ben Kuehne's? Tell me that's not true.

White Collar Crime Blog on Ben Kuehne's case

The White Collar Crime Blog raises some good questions in a number of posts (here, here and here) about the Kuehne prosecution. Professor Ellen Podgor sums up:

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this indictment is that it represents yet another instance of the government interfering in the payment of attorney fees for the criminally accused. As opposed to going to court and asking for the fees to be returned as improper, they have opted to proceed with criminal charges that in some cases carry up to 20 years.

Here are a number of concerns and questions that she and Peter Henning raise in separate posts:

-- ...But did this DC office investigate the individual charged? Does the fact that 50 lawyers showed up to support Kuehne (see here) mean anything? And did the fact that this top criminal defense attorney (see here) who represented former Vice-President Al Gore make a difference in the DC office bringing this indictment? Clearly the government will say "no" to this last question. But one does have to wonder who has the conflict here?
-- Why did the government select to proceed criminally here? Do they really want opinion letters to be considered an indictable offense? Will they be proceeding criminally against government individuals who gave opinions on matters that might be considered illegal?

-- If the government knows the source of the funds is improper because of their "undercover operation" would it not be logical that the defense attorney could not know the source of these funds - after all it would mean that the government undercover operation was not working effectively.

-- The indictment is preceded by a page titled - "Motion to Seal." It is signed by a "trial attorney - DOJ." It requests the indictment be sealed "for the reason that the named defendants may flee and the integrity of the ongoing investigation may be compromised." - Did the government really believe that Attorney Ben Kuehne would flee? A later sentence states that"many of the named defendants are foreign nationals." But the government fails to limit the language used in the prior sentence that explicitly states "that the named defendants may flee" to only those who might be foreign nationals. That is a powerful statement to claim that a prominent Miami attorney might flee. If they didn't mean to apply this statement to him, is it prosecutorial over-reaching, an attempt to taint the accused, or just sloppy drafting?

-- The indictment alleges that Kuehne's opinion letters were inaccurate in stating that some of the moneys had come from an individual/company that "his investigation" "had determined.... were reputable and well-established, without any connection to illegal activities." The indictment claims that some of these opinions were untrue because moneys had in fact come from "undercover law enforcement operations." ---- Isn't the very purpose of an undercover operation to make it seem like things are real? Is this a situation of accusing someone of issuing incorrect opinion letters because the government did a good job of misleading him?

-- Count Six of the Indictment charges Obstruction of Justice. The charge is expressed in a total of 2 sentences. It states:
"From on or about January 23, 2003, continuing to the date of this indictment, the defendants, .......did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice; that is investigations by the grand jury; to wit, endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede a federal investigation, as set forth above. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, s 1503." (names omitted)
A charge without any facts? Did the government actually put a mere restatement of section 1503 as the basis of a criminal charge against an attorney? Co-blogger Peter Henning called the Indictment of Ben Kuehne a "head-scratcher," but that was prior to receiving the document. But after reading it, I'd go a step further - they have actually indicted an attorney for obstruction of justice and alleged no facts in this count to support the charge. It almost sounds like a case the 11th Circuit reversed, U.S. v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 547 (11th Cir. 1990).

-- But when an attorney is asked to opine on the legality of funds to pay for the defense of a drug lord, it seems counterintuitive to say the least that he would give his imprimatur knowing that the funds were in fact the proceeds of narcotics transactions that the government was likely to scrutinize carefully. Given Kuehne's pristine reputation, it is hard to believe he would risk his entire legal career for an amount that, while significant, is hardly worth the loss of prestige and income he would suffer from a money laundering conviction. Would you sell your law license and career for a quarter of a million dollars?

More on Ben

Some interesting points --


1. The Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office did not sign the indictment. It recused.


2. Ben's legal team has already filed a motion to ask for an early status conference to address "unprecedented" issues.

3. Lots of coverage around the blogosphere and the press. TalkLeft, AbovetheLaw, Discourse, WSJ.

4. Did Ben's politics have something to do with it? Some have contended that because Ben is a liberal Democrat, he may have been targeted. Others disagree. What do you all think?

I note here that I previously posted quotes from Jeff Weiner, a nationally respected criminal defense lawyer who is actively defending Ben publicly and privately. Jeff had one quote in the DBR about his perception about the prosecutor in this case. It did not occur to me that someone -- especially anyone that knew Jeff -- could misread the quote as defending the prosecutor or the prosecution. Apparently, some people did misinterpret Jeff's quote. For that I am sorry, and I wanted to clear this up -- Jeff believes that Ben is innocent and that the prosecution is unjust. He also believes that Ben is being prosecuted because he is a prominent criminal defense lawyer, not a prominent Democrat. The quote from the DBR unfortunately only had this last part and may have left the reader with the wrong impression. I hope this update clears that up.

Sad day

Typically I try to blog objectively and just report what is occurring in our District.

Today I can't do that because what happened this morning in magistrate court should not have happened.

Ben Kuehne, one of the pillars of this community, was indicted on money laundering charges. (read indictment here)

The government's theory of prosecution is outrageous. According to Jay Weaver's article:

Justice Department officials allege that Kuehne broke the law in 2002-03 when he vouched for millions paid by one-time Medellín drug lord Fabio Ochoa Vasquez to his high-profile trial attorney, Roy Black.
Kuehne's research gave Black the confidence -- in the form of legal opinion letters -- to accept payments totaling $3.7 million in fees and $1.3 million in expenses from Ochoa, according to several sources. Kuehne earned a portion of the expense payments -- $220,000 to $260,000 -- from Black for vetting Ochoa's payments.

**

Federal prosecutors face a formidable challenge in proving the case against Kuehne. They will have to prove that Kuehne knew Ochoa's money came from the sale of family assets to drug-trafficking associates...

This means that Ben had to have knowingly and willfully lied to Roy when telling him that the fee was okay. But what motive would Ben have for doing this? The money certainly wasn't enough to risk all of this. And Ben Kuehne of all people wouldn't have done these things for a million dollars. He's as ethical a person and lawyer as I know. I'll comment a lot more on the charges once I've had a chance to digest the indictment which was unsealed this morning in mag court.

We all know the real reason for this prosecution -- to discourage lawyers from taking these kinds of cases.

I went to court to support Ben. Half of the legal community was there to show their support. (He was released on a $250,000 personal surety bond.) Watching this unfold really stuck in my gut. I am still in disbelief. I actually had a case in the past with the lead prosecutor from DOJ. I went up to him to say hello and he exclaimed without prompting: "This is a wonderful day for the government." The comment was unnecessary and it sickened me.

I walked away from him thinking just the opposite. This is a terrible day for our country. Ben will be acquitted. But at what cost to him? And our justice system? Now, more than ever, it's critical to fight for our Constitution and our justice system.

In court, Ben commented to Magistrate Judge Brown: "since I am completely innocent of these charges, I am entering a plea of not guilty.'' He is represented by John Nields and Jane Moscowitz.

A bit of good news -- the case was assigned to Judge Marcia Cooke. As I have commented before, she is as fair and just.

UPDATED -- here's a DBR story about the case.