The estimated 5 week trial is in front of Judge Cohn in Ft. Lauderdale. The Herald is covering it here:
The fraud trial of six law enforcement officers accused of helping to run a multi-million dollar home loan scam got underway Tuesday with opening statements in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale.
According to federal indictments filed in July, John Velez, Daryl Radziwon, Casey Mittauer, Joseph DeRosa, all current or former Plantation Police officers, along with Lauderhill Police officer Joseph LeGrasta and FBI Special Agent Robert DePriest, of Plantation, fraudulently secured $16.5 million in mortgage loans in a house-flipping scheme during the housing boom several years ago.
The men are charged with offenses, ranging from conspiracy to mail and wire fraud, to obstruction of justice, and making false statements. All but the false statements charge carry penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment. The latter charge comes with as much as five years of prison time.
Is the case about greed or simple cops?
Federal prosecutors argued that the defendants were willing participants in the plan and had to have known Rodriguez and Gulla were forging documents in their names. Prosecutors also suggested the defendants were motivated by earnings they couldn’t achieve through real estate investments made with their own money and their own credit worthiness.
But defense attorneys opened their cases by arguing their clients were good cops and simple investors, too naive about the workings of fast-paced real estate financing to know their personal information was being used to defraud lenders.
Judge Cohn has to try the case twice:
At the conclusion of this trial, a second trial will start for Joseph Guaracino, his brother Dennis Guaracino, also a former Plantation Police officer, and attorneys Steve Orchard and Stephen Stoll, who allegedly helped seal the fraudulent deals by handling the loan closings.
Some of members of the fraud ring had to be tried separately because they have made incriminating statements about other defendants, and prosecutors believe those statements could tarnish possible convictions and bring about mistrials.
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
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Justice Scalia issues strong dissent in favor of criminal defendant
Here is his intro in Michigan v. Bryant:
Today’s tale—a story of five officers conducting successive examinations of a dying man with the primary purpose, not of obtaining and preserving his testimony regarding his killer, but of protecting him, them, and others from a murderer somewhere on the loose—is so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution. But reaching a patently incorrect conclusion on the facts is a relatively benign judicial mischief; it affects, after all, only the case at hand. In its vain attempt to make the incredible plausible, however—or perhaps as an intended second goal—today’s opinion distorts our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and leaves it in shambles. Instead of clarifying the law, the Court makes itself the obfuscator of last resort. Because I continue to adhere to the Confrontation Clause that the Peoplea dopted, as described in Crawford v. Washington, 541
U. S. 36 (2004), I dissent.
The conclusion is strong too:
Judicial decisions, like the Constitution itself, are nothing more than “parchment barriers,” 5 Writings of James Madison 269, 272 (G. Hunt ed. 1901). Both depend on a judicial culture that understands its constitutionally assigned role, has the courage to persist in that role when it means announcing unpopular decisions, and has the modesty to persist when it produces results that go against the judges’ policy preferences. Today’s opinion falls far short of living up to that obligation—short on the facts, and short on the law. For all I know, Bryant has received his just deserts. But he surely has not received them pursuant to the procedures that our Constitution requires. And what has been taken away from him has been taken away from us all.
Justice Ginsburg also dissented in a short opinion.
Justice Sotomayor, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion, which held:
[The witness] Covington’s identification and description of the shooter and the location of the shooting were not testimonial statements because they had a “primary purpose . . . to enable police assistance to meet an on-going emergency.” Davis, 547 U. S., at 822. Therefore, their admission at Bryant’s trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Yikes. I stick to what I have said before that Justice Scalia is the criminal defendant's best friend on this Court. I know that's not saying much, but it's true.
Today’s tale—a story of five officers conducting successive examinations of a dying man with the primary purpose, not of obtaining and preserving his testimony regarding his killer, but of protecting him, them, and others from a murderer somewhere on the loose—is so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution. But reaching a patently incorrect conclusion on the facts is a relatively benign judicial mischief; it affects, after all, only the case at hand. In its vain attempt to make the incredible plausible, however—or perhaps as an intended second goal—today’s opinion distorts our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and leaves it in shambles. Instead of clarifying the law, the Court makes itself the obfuscator of last resort. Because I continue to adhere to the Confrontation Clause that the Peoplea dopted, as described in Crawford v. Washington, 541
U. S. 36 (2004), I dissent.
The conclusion is strong too:
Judicial decisions, like the Constitution itself, are nothing more than “parchment barriers,” 5 Writings of James Madison 269, 272 (G. Hunt ed. 1901). Both depend on a judicial culture that understands its constitutionally assigned role, has the courage to persist in that role when it means announcing unpopular decisions, and has the modesty to persist when it produces results that go against the judges’ policy preferences. Today’s opinion falls far short of living up to that obligation—short on the facts, and short on the law. For all I know, Bryant has received his just deserts. But he surely has not received them pursuant to the procedures that our Constitution requires. And what has been taken away from him has been taken away from us all.
Justice Ginsburg also dissented in a short opinion.
Justice Sotomayor, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion, which held:
[The witness] Covington’s identification and description of the shooter and the location of the shooting were not testimonial statements because they had a “primary purpose . . . to enable police assistance to meet an on-going emergency.” Davis, 547 U. S., at 822. Therefore, their admission at Bryant’s trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Yikes. I stick to what I have said before that Justice Scalia is the criminal defendant's best friend on this Court. I know that's not saying much, but it's true.
Clarence Thomas is pissed
Check him out here, via Politico:
From the article:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – his impartiality under attack from liberals because of his attendance at a meeting of conservative donors sponsored by the Koch brothers and his wife’s tea party activism – struck a defiant tone in a Saturday night speech in Charlottesville, Va., telling a friendly audience that he and his wife “believe in the same things” and “are focused on defending liberty.”
Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”
He also lashed out at his critics, without naming them, asserting they “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution. Such criticism, Thomas warned, could erode the ability of American citizens to fend off threats to their way of life.
“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that – that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties,” he said, according to a partial recording of the speech provided to POLITICO by someone who was at the meeting.
“And that’s long after I’m gone, and that could be either a short or a long time, but you’re younger, and it’s still going to be a necessity to protect the liberties that you enjoy now in this country.”
Meantime, the Supremes have decided to take up an arbitration case from our District. More from Pacenti:
A scam targeting law firms is the nexus of a Miami case heading to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine when businesses waive their right to arbitration in consumer litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a liking to arbitration and arbitration cases, often siding with businesses that make binding arbitration part of their contracts in the interest of judicial efficiency.
From the article:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – his impartiality under attack from liberals because of his attendance at a meeting of conservative donors sponsored by the Koch brothers and his wife’s tea party activism – struck a defiant tone in a Saturday night speech in Charlottesville, Va., telling a friendly audience that he and his wife “believe in the same things” and “are focused on defending liberty.”
Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”
He also lashed out at his critics, without naming them, asserting they “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution. Such criticism, Thomas warned, could erode the ability of American citizens to fend off threats to their way of life.
“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that – that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties,” he said, according to a partial recording of the speech provided to POLITICO by someone who was at the meeting.
“And that’s long after I’m gone, and that could be either a short or a long time, but you’re younger, and it’s still going to be a necessity to protect the liberties that you enjoy now in this country.”
Meantime, the Supremes have decided to take up an arbitration case from our District. More from Pacenti:
A scam targeting law firms is the nexus of a Miami case heading to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine when businesses waive their right to arbitration in consumer litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a liking to arbitration and arbitration cases, often siding with businesses that make binding arbitration part of their contracts in the interest of judicial efficiency.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Housewives and The Boys
Jay Weaver explores the connection between the Miami Housewives and Willy & Sal:
Long before they made their debuts in The Real Housewives of Miami this week , they played bit parts in a drama with a lot more reality: the life and times of legendary cocaine cowboys Willy and Sal.
Three of the new Bravo show’s trophy wives – Alexia Echevarria, Marysol Patton and Lea Black — shared six degrees of separation with Willy Falcon and Sal Magluta, dubbed “The Boys” during the real Miami Vice era.
Echevarria, 43, was once married to a codefendant who pleaded guilty and cooperated as a government witness in the 1990s drug-trafficking prosecution of Falcon and Magluta.
Patton, 44, was the girlfriend of a convicted, big-time cocaine distributor who also was a cooperating witness in the marquee federal case.
And Black, 56, is married to the famed lawyer Roy Black, who was paid millions to represent Magluta.
On Friday, Roy Black chuckled when a reporter brought to his attention the connections between the reality TV show – the latest incarnation of Bravo’s Real Housewives series — and the Willy-and-Sal case: “It’s so Miami, that’s for sure,” he said.
Long before they made their debuts in The Real Housewives of Miami this week , they played bit parts in a drama with a lot more reality: the life and times of legendary cocaine cowboys Willy and Sal.
Three of the new Bravo show’s trophy wives – Alexia Echevarria, Marysol Patton and Lea Black — shared six degrees of separation with Willy Falcon and Sal Magluta, dubbed “The Boys” during the real Miami Vice era.
Echevarria, 43, was once married to a codefendant who pleaded guilty and cooperated as a government witness in the 1990s drug-trafficking prosecution of Falcon and Magluta.
Patton, 44, was the girlfriend of a convicted, big-time cocaine distributor who also was a cooperating witness in the marquee federal case.
And Black, 56, is married to the famed lawyer Roy Black, who was paid millions to represent Magluta.
On Friday, Roy Black chuckled when a reporter brought to his attention the connections between the reality TV show – the latest incarnation of Bravo’s Real Housewives series — and the Willy-and-Sal case: “It’s so Miami, that’s for sure,” he said.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Rogue snitches
It should come as no surprise that snitches sometimes go rogue. And today, John Pacenti has an article saying that Scott Rothstein may have gone on a frolic and detour:
Scott Rothstein started out in Plantation as an employment lawyer representing police officers in internal affairs investigations and disputes with the department.
Facing arrest in a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme, Rothstein again turned to his former Plantation police clients — only this time as potential targets for an FBI sting, according to court documents and defense lawyers in a $16 million mortgage fraud case.
"It was great speaking with you. I think I can help you with your problem," Rothstein said on accused ringleader Joseph Guaracino's voice mail. "Maybe we can hook up for a little Monday Night Football tonight for a little while. Catch a martini, smoke a cigar and catch up on shit."
Defense attorneys want to talk to Rothstein about his weeks spent as a confidential informant in November 2009 shortly before his arrest. They say federal prosecutors have told them the disgraced law firm chairman didn't have authority to contact his former clients or target seven current and former law enforcement officers charged in the mortgage fraud case last June.
But Miami criminal defense attorneys Michael D. Walsh and Jordan Lewin — who represent Guaracino and his brother, Dennis, respectively — say only Rothstein can confirm whether he went rogue while working as an FBI informant.
Scott Rothstein started out in Plantation as an employment lawyer representing police officers in internal affairs investigations and disputes with the department.
Facing arrest in a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme, Rothstein again turned to his former Plantation police clients — only this time as potential targets for an FBI sting, according to court documents and defense lawyers in a $16 million mortgage fraud case.
"It was great speaking with you. I think I can help you with your problem," Rothstein said on accused ringleader Joseph Guaracino's voice mail. "Maybe we can hook up for a little Monday Night Football tonight for a little while. Catch a martini, smoke a cigar and catch up on shit."
Defense attorneys want to talk to Rothstein about his weeks spent as a confidential informant in November 2009 shortly before his arrest. They say federal prosecutors have told them the disgraced law firm chairman didn't have authority to contact his former clients or target seven current and former law enforcement officers charged in the mortgage fraud case last June.
But Miami criminal defense attorneys Michael D. Walsh and Jordan Lewin — who represent Guaracino and his brother, Dennis, respectively — say only Rothstein can confirm whether he went rogue while working as an FBI informant.
Thursday news and notes
1. DOMA ban now invalid. Via ScotusBlog:
With the approval of President Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., notified Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will now argue in court that it is unconstitutional to withhold all federal benefits from same-sex couples who are legally married under their own state’s law. While the government will continue to enforce that part of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, Holder said a new evaluation has convinced officials that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality. The new position will be advanced first in two new cases pending in federal courts in New York and Connecticut, but also will be put forth in other DOMA cases elsewhere. (A Justice Department news release discussing the new development is here.)
2. Roberts Court says suits against Mazda for bad seatbelts can go forward. Via Jan Crawford:
One of the big raps on the Roberts Court is that it's too sympathetic to Big Business. Today, we got a decision that counters that storyline.
Ever since the Supreme Court made a conservative turn in 2006, critics have pointed to rulings that shut the courthouse door to the little guy--especially the little guy who's trying to sue a giant corporation, such as a manufacturer of medical devices or drugs. In those cases, the Court has said product liability lawsuits are barred under federal law. The rationale is that since federal regulators had approved the devices and the drugs in the first place, the companies aren't liable for defective designs.
What critics don't mention is that some of the liberal justices have been on board with some of those decisions favoring the corporations. And today, the Court showed once again that simplistic narratives aren't always accurate. In a unanimous decision, the justices paved the way for a lawsuit against Mazda Motor Corp., rejecting the company's argument that it should not be subjected to lawsuits over its failure to install shoulder belts in the back seats of its minivans.
3. Pill Mill Mania. Via the Miami Herald:
Narcotics agents across South Florida descended on more than a dozen pain clinics Wednesday, arresting at least 20 people — including five doctors — in the most dramatic effort yet to curb the region’s booming business of illegal prescription narcotics.
The raids from Miami to West Palm Beach were the culmination of a two-year investigation by a task force of federal, state and local investigators, an operation dubbed “Operation Pill Nation.” Undercover agents were dispatched to storefront pain clinics to buy potent painkillers such as oxycodone without any medical justification for the pills, investigators said.
Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti called Wednesday’s raids a new front in a “new kind of drug war”: A war on the massive trafficking of prescription drugs through pain clinics operating with the outward appearance of legitimacy — though inside the clinics, doctors hand out pills without taking medical exams, and armed guards patrol the lobbies.
“Nowadays, the drug dealers are operating out of strip malls,” Lamberti said at a press conference announcing the busts.
Here's the indictment. I have a lot to say about these cases and the new war on drugs. I will post more on this later.
With the approval of President Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., notified Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will now argue in court that it is unconstitutional to withhold all federal benefits from same-sex couples who are legally married under their own state’s law. While the government will continue to enforce that part of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, Holder said a new evaluation has convinced officials that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality. The new position will be advanced first in two new cases pending in federal courts in New York and Connecticut, but also will be put forth in other DOMA cases elsewhere. (A Justice Department news release discussing the new development is here.)
2. Roberts Court says suits against Mazda for bad seatbelts can go forward. Via Jan Crawford:
One of the big raps on the Roberts Court is that it's too sympathetic to Big Business. Today, we got a decision that counters that storyline.
Ever since the Supreme Court made a conservative turn in 2006, critics have pointed to rulings that shut the courthouse door to the little guy--especially the little guy who's trying to sue a giant corporation, such as a manufacturer of medical devices or drugs. In those cases, the Court has said product liability lawsuits are barred under federal law. The rationale is that since federal regulators had approved the devices and the drugs in the first place, the companies aren't liable for defective designs.
What critics don't mention is that some of the liberal justices have been on board with some of those decisions favoring the corporations. And today, the Court showed once again that simplistic narratives aren't always accurate. In a unanimous decision, the justices paved the way for a lawsuit against Mazda Motor Corp., rejecting the company's argument that it should not be subjected to lawsuits over its failure to install shoulder belts in the back seats of its minivans.
3. Pill Mill Mania. Via the Miami Herald:
Narcotics agents across South Florida descended on more than a dozen pain clinics Wednesday, arresting at least 20 people — including five doctors — in the most dramatic effort yet to curb the region’s booming business of illegal prescription narcotics.
The raids from Miami to West Palm Beach were the culmination of a two-year investigation by a task force of federal, state and local investigators, an operation dubbed “Operation Pill Nation.” Undercover agents were dispatched to storefront pain clinics to buy potent painkillers such as oxycodone without any medical justification for the pills, investigators said.
Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti called Wednesday’s raids a new front in a “new kind of drug war”: A war on the massive trafficking of prescription drugs through pain clinics operating with the outward appearance of legitimacy — though inside the clinics, doctors hand out pills without taking medical exams, and armed guards patrol the lobbies.
“Nowadays, the drug dealers are operating out of strip malls,” Lamberti said at a press conference announcing the busts.
Here's the indictment. I have a lot to say about these cases and the new war on drugs. I will post more on this later.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Bob Scola tapped to fill Judge Huck's seat
Although it's not official yet, a number of reliable tipsters have emailed me that Circuit Judge Robert Scola Jr. is being vetted to fill Judge Huck's seat. Remember that Scola, along with Jerald Bagley and John O'Sullivan made the JNC's cut to three. Now, the White House is apparently doing its background on Judge Scola. Congratulations!
Judge Scola should have no issues fitting in -- he's close friends with many of the federal judges, including Chief Judge Moreno and Judge Huck. From his bio page:
■Bachelor of Arts, Brown University, 1977
■JD, Boston College School of Law, 1980
■Honors - Cum Laude
■Admitted to Florida Bar, 1980
■Circuit Court Judge, 1995
■Previous Division - Circuit/Criminal
■Private Practice - Criminal Defense, 1986-1995
■Assistant State Attorney, Deputy Chief Assistant/Major Crimes, 1980-1986
Scola has an excellent reputation on the state bench, and he is a great addition to the federal bench. Now let's see if we can get Kathy Williams and Bob Scola confirmed before the end of the year. Plus, there is still one more seat to fill -- Judge Gold's seat. The JNC has not yet solicited applications for that slot.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)