"I bear no animosity toward the prosecutors, even though they pursued false charges based on fabricated evidence."

Ben Kuehne is the only person I know who could say such a thing and actually mean it.  Ben is quoted in Jay Weaver's article about John Sellers, who prosecuted Ben and who also prosecuted banker Sergio Masvidal. 

Masvidal was represented by Joe DeMaria, who was able to get his client's name cleared.  Although OPR concluded that his conduct was "reckless," the Justice Department let him keep his job:

Five years after unsuccessfully targeting two prominent Miami figures — one a banker, the other a lawyer — in separate cases, a Justice Department prosecutor faces a July disciplinary trial by Maryland Bar regulators.


John W. Sellers left the Justice Department in 2010 amid an internal probe concluding that he committed “reckless” misconduct in a money-laundering case against Miami-based American Express Bank International, which was headed by banker Sergio Masvidal.
***
Masvidal’s Miami lawyer, Joseph DeMaria, said the Justice Department should have fired Sellers after concluding that he had committed reckless misconduct, according to the agency’s internal probe in 2010.

Sellers now works as a Treasury Department attorney on the federal bailout program for the banking industry.

“The Justice Department let him sneak out the back door to the Treasury Department so he could keep his same salary, benefits and pension,” DeMaria said. “And now he’s working as an attorney on the federal bailout. How ridiculous is that?”

Indeed. 

The article ends with this quote from Ben:  “Lawyers reap what they sow. He will need to answer for his own conduct.”   But prosecutors who engage in misconduct rarely have to answer for their conduct.  That's part of the problem.  OPR rarely does anything, and the few times it does do something, it's a slap on the wrist.  See, e.g., Ted Stevens' prosecutors. 


In this case, the Maryland Bar has initiated a case against Sellers, so it will be interesting to see what happens. (Here's the Maryland complaint).  The problem is that even when the Bar tries to disclipline prosecutors, DOJ claims that they are immune even from Bar rules, and of course, civil remedies are not available.

Ben Kuehne thanks his supporters

It was a packed event tonight as judges, former prosecutors, defense lawyers, and many others in the community came to celebrate with Ben. To the left is a picture of Ben from the party. And here are his remarks:

“Let there be Justice, and then no one will ask for anything unjust.” So proclaimed the revered patriot, lawyer, and scholar Jose Marti.

I am here today as proof to all that Justice lives in America. That we live in a time in a Nation that honors the message of philosopher Alan-Rene Lesage: “Justice is such a fine thing that we cannot pay too dearly for it.”

We are all fortunate to say we have a Justice Department whose goal is to try to do the right thing. I am humbled that the Department of Justice made the honorable decision to do the right thing.
As Dr. Martin Luther King enunciated, “the time is always right to do the right thing.” The Department’s timing was impeccable.

And I do not mean the right decision just for me. Instead, the inevitable resolution of my own legal drama is a reaffirmation by the highest powers of our Government that lawyers, including criminal defense lawyers, serve an essential – a vital -- purpose in our society. Our professional endeavor of testing the government, checking the exercise of public power, and challenging our institutions in an ethical but adversarial manner – what we do every day – is an honorable cause.

One of the great trial lawyers of our time, Edward Bennett Williams, observed that “Law is but a means; justice is the end.” We lawyers serve that cause of justice, and this outpouring of community support is a welcome approval of that cause.

Seekers of justice see our system as one that actively embraces achieving the right result, with our independent judiciary willing to reach correct conclusions defined by the law and the facts.

I readily applaud the several brilliant jurists who were so willing to apply the law as it is, as it should be, without fear of criticism. I am the beneficiary of the attention and “eminently correct” rulings by several of the very finest federal judges to serve the public interest.

Although it is understandable in the crystal clear light of hindsight that my legal case is what we refer to as a “No Brainer”, that it became so is the direct result of my dedicated team of outstanding lawyers: led by John Nields, Jason Raofield, and Laura Shores from Howrey in Washington, D.C., and my good friend, Jane Moscowitz, from Miami. I publicly thank them for their skill, dedication, and commitment to me and the precedent-setting value of my case.

But the reason for this Appreciation Reception is because of you, your support and attention to my case and the underlying message of enabling lawyers to be lawyers, without fear of retribution or prosecution. This day would not have been possible without all of you serving as the constant, pervasive, and effective foundation for my demonstration of innocence.

A message repeated by our independent Fourth Estate, our media. I am gratefully indebted to the Miami Herald and its court’s reporter Jay Weaver, and the Daily Business Review, especially John Pacenti, as well as the other journalists both locally and nationally, who consistently reported the truth of my case. The message was heard loud and clear, and helped to bring about a fitting end to my case.

I work daily with a stellar group of lawyers and legal professionals who never abandoned me, content with the knowledge that I would prevail in this classic battle. Allow me the privilege of thanking Susan Dmitrovsky, Bob Ader, Beth Hitt, Robert Hertzberg, and Amanda Maxwell, as well as Mirta Rodriguez, Sandy Hart, Leeza Bodes, Serena Young, Luly Moreno, and especially Barney Brown, who after being exonerated after serving 38 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, works with me as my legal intern.

President Kennedy once observed that “Our nation is founded on the principle that observance of the law is the eternal safeguard of liberty, while defiance of the law is the surest road to tyranny.” As lawyers and community leaders, we must lead the way to ensure that observance of the law is ingrained in our society, so that no one, not even the government, can claim a right to ignore or countermand the rule of law.

Let us sharpen our pencils and write a clear message to those in our community who may not understand and appreciate the abiding passion for justice in our nation: Our diligence every day, as directed by our Constitution, to provide effective counsel to our clients, is the keystone to our democratic way of life.

Throughout this legal drama, my greatest strength has been the unsinkable spirit and love of my wife, Lynn, and our entire family. I want to thank them for knowing who I am, and of my sincere dedication to the law.

Allow me to close with a story about Rudyard Kipling, one of the great writers. In the prime of his career, it was said he was making the previously unheard of sum of one shilling per word. Learning of this, a group of Oxford students, on a lark, decided to wire the Great One a single shilling and ask, in return, for one - just one – of his very best words. Soon enough, Kipling wired back just one word: “THANKS.”

I thank you – all of you who work so diligently to bring justice to our community, our courts, our nation – most appreciatively for giving me the opportunity to work with so many great people in making our America and our community a better place.

Well said!

Here's our prior coverage of Ben's case.

Ben Kuehne

This email invitation is making the rounds. Should be quite an event:

PLEASE JOIN CO-CHAIRS The Honorable Gerald Kogan & Robert Josefsberg

AND HOST COMMITTEE MEMBERS

The Florida Association of Criminal Defense LawyersThe Miami Chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense LawyersRay Abadin, Robert Ader, Frank Angones, Jeffrey S. Bass, David Bogenschutz, Ron Book,Bennett Brummer, Richard Burton, Bob Butterworth, Jennifer Coberly, Kendall Coffey,Hank Coxe, Alan Dimond, Steven Eisenberg, Peggy Fisher, Rick Freedman, Tomas Gamba,Mayor Joseph Geller, Ervin Gonzalez, Jonathan Goodman, Fred Haddad, Larry Handfield, ArturoHernandez, Richard Hersch, Robert Hertzberg, Milton Hirsch, Elizabeth Hitt, Dennis Kainen,Hank Klein, Joe Klock, Thomas Korge, Albert Krieger, John Lazarus, Hector Lombana, BruceLyons, Wallace Magathan, David Markus, Amanda Maxwell, Jon May, Richard Milstein, MichaelMoskowitz, Jorge Mursuli, Pam Perry, Mark Raymond, Bill Richey, David Rothman, FrankRubino, Leonard Sands, Mark Schnapp, Joseph Serota, Richard Sharpstein, Angela Sherrill,John K. Shubin, Lisa Sloat, H.T. Smith, Russell Smith, Ed Strongin,Brian Tannebaum, Rod Vereen, Stanley Wakshlag, Mayor Otis Wallace, Jeffrey Watson

FOR A RECEPTION & FUNDRAISER TO BENEFIT
THE BENEDICT P. KUEHNE, LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
CHRISTABELLE’S QUARTER

3157 Commodore PlazaMiami, Florida 33133THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 20086:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.Suggested Contribution of $200.00 Payable to“Benedict P. Kuehne, Legal Defense Fund”If unable to attend, kindly send contribution toShubin & Bass46 S.W. 1st Street, 3rd FloorMiami, Florida 33130R.S.V.P. to Nydia Marrero at305.381.6060 or nmarrero@shubinbass.com Complimentary Valet Parking

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?

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).

Judge Cooke affirmed for dismissing count against Ben Kuehne

Great news! Here's the opinion by Judge Barkett.

She starts off discussing the plain language:

Section 1957(a) prohibits knowingly engaging or attempting to engage “in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). However, the statute exempts “any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957(f)(1). Thus, the plain meaning of the exemption set forth in § 1957(f)(1), when considered in its context, is that transactions involving criminally derived proceeds are exempt from the prohibitions of § 1957(a) when they are for the purpose of securing legal representation to which an accused is entitled under
the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the exemption is limited to attorneys’ fees paid for representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in a criminal proceeding and does not extend to attorneys’ fees paid for other purposes.

Barkett then makes short work of the government's argument:

The Government argues that the exemption in § 1957(f)(1) has been “nullified” or “vitiated” because, shortly after the provision was enacted, the Supreme Court held in Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 626 (1989) that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not protect the right of a criminal defendant to use criminally derived proceeds for legal fees. However, Caplin & Drysdale, which addresses a different statute governing the civil forfeiture of criminally derived proceeds, has no bearing on § 1957(f)(1) and indeed supports the conclusion that such proceeds have been statutorily exempted
from criminal penalties. The Government has pointed to no principle of statutory construction—nor indeed to any legal principle—that supports the conclusion that
a statutory provision may be “nullified” by a Supreme Court decision on a completely different issue, absent any indication that Congress intended such a result.

As Kuehne's legal team has been saying from the start, the government's interpretation yields an absurd result:

As the Government concedes, accepting its interpretation of § 1957(f)(1) would read all meaning out of the exemption. Section 1957 criminalizes only transactions involving criminally derived proceeds. It would therefore make little sense—and would be entirely superfluous—to read § 1957(f)(1) as an exemption from criminal penalties for non-tainted proceeds spent on legal representation, as those funds can always be used for any legal purpose. We do not believe Congress intended such an absurd result, which nullifies the provision and divorces it from its statutory context, thereby violating basic canons of statutory construction.

And congrats to Judge Cooke, who was "eminently correct":

The district court was eminently correct in holding that Defendants are not subject to criminal prosecution under § 1957(a), because the plain language of § 1957(f)(1) clearly exempts criminally derived proceeds used to secure legal representation to which an accused is entitled under the Sixth Amendment.

Now let's see if the government does the right thing and dismiss the rest of the indictment against Ben...

"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.

Friday

Finally, some good cool weather.

Justice Stevens gave this cool speech -- and he uses trilogies too:

Today I plan to say a few words about memorials, mosques, and monuments. Like Lieutenant Ichikawa, who is being honored today, I served in the Pacific theater during World War II. The Empire of Japan was our principle enemy in that theatre. Lieutenant Ichikawa, like literally thousands of other patriotic Japanese Americans including residents of Hawai'i as well as residents of the Mainland -made a magnificent contribution to our war effort there.

In other news:
Gary Kravitz, Murray Greenberg, and Nathaniel Persily of Columbia Law School, along with the St. Thomas Law Review have put together a symposium next weekend (November 12-13, 2010) entitled Bush v. Gore: A DecadeLater. Panelists inclue Greenberg, Persily, Ben Ginsberg, Kendall Coffey, Ben Kuehne, Joe Klock, Jim Bopp, Justice Fred Lewis, Judge Nikki Clark, Jeff Erlich, Paul Hancock, Kim Tucker and an academic panel including Jim Gibson, Nelson Lund and Edward Foley.

This event will be held at St. Thomas and admission is free. The symposium has been approved for a maximum of 7 CLE credits.

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:

Friday, November 12, 2010

Welcoming Remarks 4:00-4:15 p.m.

The View from the Litigants 4:15-5:45 p.m.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Continental Breakfast 8:30-9:00 a.m.

The View from the Administrators 9:00-10:30 a.m.

The View from the Bench 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

Luncheon Panel-
The View from Academia 12:15-2:00 p.m.

Closing Remarks 2:00-2:15 p.m.

Registration is required prior to November 10, 2010. Please contact the Law Review Office at lawrev@stu.edu or phone (305) 623-2380.

St. Thomas Law Review
St. Thomas University School of Law
16401 NW 37th Avenue
Miami Gardens, FL 33054

Ben Kuehne event and other weekend news

This should be something:

BENEDICT P. KUEHNE
In Grateful Appreciation of the
Overwhelming Community Support of his Innocence

Invites the Community to his
APPRECIATION RECEPTION
On the Occasion of his Vindication

Sky lobby
Bank of America tower
100 S.E. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33131
Thursday, December 10, 2009
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
RSVP to: RSVP@kuehnelaw.com

In other news, former AUSAs Mike Tein and Richard Scruggs sqaured off before their state court trial, which starts Monday morning. Tein filed a motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct and the judge allowed Tein to cross-examine Scruggs. Apparently, there were fireworks:

Fri., Dec. 4 2009 @ 9:11PM




Richard Scruggs is usually the guy asking people tough questions and getting witnesses to spill the beans. But today Miami-Dade's veteran public corruption prosecutor was on the receiving end of an intense grilling. And he was not enjoying himself.It went down inside the courtroom of Judge Beatrice Butchko in the Miami-Dade criminal justice building at 1351 NW 12th Street. The man putting the screws on Scruggs was Michael Tein, the criminal defense lawyer representing Rev. Gaston Smith, who is facing grand theft charge for allegedly stealing $17,000 in county grant money.Tein accuses Scruggs of prosecutorial misconduct in Smith's case.During several hours of testimony this afternoon, Scruggs's answers went from terse to angry. At one point he growled: "Mr. Tein will you calm the rhetoric please."He repeatedly denied he acted with malicious intent when he waited a month to inform Smith and Smith's other criminal defense attorney that a Miami-Dade police detective had secretly recorded two conversations they had with Scruggs and investigators before the clergyman was indicted. Tein zealously quizzed Scruggs if he ever informed Smith that he was a criminal target during the pastor's interviews before he was arrested. "No, no, no, no," Scruggs grumbled. "You got that!"
***
Scruggs disputed comments attributed to him by Miami New Times staff writer Gus Garcia-Roberts in this profile of Smith. He claims he never told Garcia-Roberts Smith had rejected a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against suspended Miami city commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones. (Scruggs is prosecuting her for allegedly stealing $50,000 in county funds.) Scruggs also denied telling Garcia-Roberts that he had reported Smith to the Internal Revenue Service for possible tax evasion. "Absolutely not," Scruggs said under oath. "I don't recall talking about taxes at all."Judge Butchko appeared skeptical. She asked: "So how would the reporter know that if he didn't get it from you? Is the reporter clairvoyant?"Scruggs' reply: "I don't know." He said that alot during his inquisition. And the assistant state attorney conceded that he did tell Garcia-Roberts that Smith "was caught with his hand in the cookie jar." But he claimed it was off the record.Then Scruggs revealed something that just made no sense. When Tein asked him why he didn't complain to New Times editor Chuck Strouse or demand a correction, Scruggs says he decided not to because "no one reads this stuff anyway." Tein: "No one reads the New Times?"Scruggs: "Yeah, Uh-huh."

Apparently, court went until 9:30 Friday night with Tein throwing punch after punch against Scruggs. This trial (preview here by the Miami Herald) should be a fun one to watch.

UPDATE -- here's another New Times article on the hearing, and here is a portion of the transcript including part of Tein's cross of Scruggs and the judge's ruling.

"I’m going to treat her like somebody who is what she is — a common criminal.

That was Judge Scola after "North Miami Mayor Lucie Tondreau was found guilty by a federal jury Tuesday of using her 'celebrity' as a Haitian-American community leader to lure 'straw buyers' into an $11 million mortgage fraud scheme during the past real estate boom." (Via the Miami Herald).  More:

The 12-person jury, which deliberated for only two hours, convicted Tondreau of conspiracy and wire-fraud charges after a two-week trial. Tondreau, who was elected as North Miami’s first Haitian-American female mayor in 2013, now faces up to 30 years in prison at her sentencing March 20.
U.S. District Judge Robert Scola refused to grant a request by her defense attorney, Ben Kuehne, to remain free on bond while she awaited sentencing. Scola said she used her “celebrity” and “hoodwinked” buyers into allowing their names to be placed on bogus loan applications in exchange for kickbacks in a “massive” fraud against various banks.
The judge, noting the fraud was committed before Tondreau was elected as mayor, said she was no different than any other convicted defendant and ordered her to surrender to U.S. Marshals in the courtroom while about 50 supporters watched in silence.
“I’m going to treat her like somebody who is what she is — a common criminal,” Scola said.
Kuehne, who represented Tondreau along with attorney Michael Davis, said the jury’s verdict “is as disappointing as it is unexpected.”
Tondreau, who was suspended from office after her arrest in May, stood trial in Miami federal court since early December on charges of conspiring to commit wire fraud with her ex-business partner and fiancé, Karl Oreste, and two other defendants, who are fugitives. She was accused of plotting with Oreste to bamboozle banks into loaning them a total of $11million between 2005 and 2008.
The prosecution decided not to call the trial’s potential star witness, Oreste, 57, who pleaded guilty in July and was expected to detail the 20 crooked real estate loan deals that he and Tondreau were accused of putting together.
Prosecutors Lois Foster-Steers and Gera Peoples did not say why. But they may have had concerns about Oreste’s potential vulnerability on cross-examination. Tondreau’s defense team had planned to portray him as the consummate con man who duped her into playing an unwitting supporting role to fleece the banks.

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.

South Florida Faces in Trump Fraud Trial

By John R. Byrne

If you haven't been living under a rock, you've probably seen the news about the Trump civil fraud trial in New York. The former president didn't need to personally appear but chose to do so, leading to frenetic press coverage. And, even in New York, South Florida is making its presence known. Trump's got quite a few South Florida lawyers representing him, including Chris Kise, Jesus M. Suarez, and Lazaro Fields (a former Judge Moreno law clerk) of Continental PLLC. I think I also saw Ben Kuehne (I'm going solely off the bow tie here)!

The trial is actually a bench trial and things have been tense at times between the Court and Trump/Trump's legal team. This could be a dry run of sorts for the trials to come. 

***Updated with Better Photograph***

Friday news and notes

1. Ellen Podger's wish list for Obama and the next AG on white collar criminal issues.

2. Julie Kay covers Ben Kuehne's fundraiser.

3. Vanessa Blum is all over the federal courts.

4. Jay Weaver is on top of medicare fraud.

5. Lanier Anderson is taking senior status in January. Who is going to take his slot?

6. Justice Scalia is sorry for being mean and wrong.

Tuesday notes

1. Big decision from the 11th Circuit yesterday in the sports agent case -- United States v. Gus Dominguez. Judge Cox wrote the decision invalidating some of the convictions and Judge Tjoflat dissented because he would have invalidated all counts. Nice win for Ben Kuehne. The blog's prior coverage of this Judge Moore case is here.

2. Brian Tannebaum has a new gig at Above the Law. Very exciting.

3. I hate mosquitoes too, but should we really be genetically engineering them? Doesn't this ultimately lead to the apocalypse?

4. Justice Stevens seems to be everywhere.

NY Times covers “Testilying”

The NY Times has a nice piece about testilying — police officers lying under oath — in New York courts.  It’s been a problem for a long time across the county.

Officer Nector Martinez took the witness stand in a Bronx courtroom on Oct. 10, 2017, and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

There had been a shooting, Officer Martinez testified, and he wanted to search a nearby apartment for evidence. A woman stood in the doorway, carrying a laundry bag. Officer Martinez said she set the bag down “in the middle of the doorway” — directly in his path. “I picked it up to move it out of the way so we could get in.”

The laundry bag felt heavy. When he put it down, he said, he heard a “clunk, a thud.”

What might be inside?

Officer Martinez tapped the bag with his foot and felt something hard, he testified. He opened the bag, leading to the discovery of a Ruger 9-millimeter handgun and the arrest of the woman.

But a hallway surveillance camera captured the true story: There’s no laundry bag or gun in sight as Officer Martinez and other investigators question the woman in the doorway and then stride into the apartment. Inside, they did find a gun, but little to link it to the woman, Kimberly Thomas. Still, had the camera not captured the hallway scene, Officer Martinez’s testimony might well have sent her to prison.

When Ms. Thomas’s lawyer sought to play the video in court, prosecutors in the Bronx dropped the case. Then the court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police.

Here’s an old post from this blog about the problem:

Professor Dershowitz has been writing about lying police officers for a long time, and here are some of his rules of the "justice game" from The Best Defense: 

IV. ALMOST ALL POLICE LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DFEENDANTS. 

V. ALL PROSECUTORS, JUDGES AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE OF RULE IV.  

Those are interesting concepts, but the following 4 statements will encourage more discussion: 

VI. MANY PROSECUTORS IMPLICITLY ENCOURAGE POLICE TO LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS. 

VII. ALL JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VI. 

VIII. MOST TRIAL JUDGES PRETEND TO BELIEVE POLICE OFFICERS WHO THEY KNOW ARE LYING 

IX. ALL APPELLATE JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VIII, YET MANY PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE TRIAL JUDGES WHO PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE POLICE OFFICERS.

So what is to be done about lying police officers?  We need to change rules 8 and 9.  Judges need to start calling them on it.  And of course, lying officers aren't the only problem with the criminal justice system that people have been writing about for years. 
There has been a lot said about prosecutors overcharging, the trial tax, and the Sentencing Guidelines just to name a few of the problems.
What can be done?  Article III judges, with life-time appointments, need to start speaking up and checking the executive branch with more vigor.  
--Dismiss more cases.  (See, e.g., Judge Scola in the "Pakistan terror" case by granting a judgment of acquittal; Judge Cooke in Ben Kuehne's case).    
--Grant more and longer variances. Judges are starting to grant more and more variances, but they are of the 6-12 month variety.  There are too many people in jail for too long because of the Sentencing Guidelines.  A federal conviction ruins people's lives.  Not every case necessitates lengthy sentences and many don't require jail at all.  The Guidelines are made up numbers without any real data to back them up.  I trust judges more than I do the grid.  
--Don't punish defendants for going to trial.  There are too few trials, mostly because the consequences of going to trial versus pleading are way too severe.  Going to trial doesn't mean that every enhancement applies or that variances are off the table.       
--Grant some pretrial motions and require prosecutors to turn over evidence.  I know that judges hate dealing with pretrial motions, especially those dealing with discovery.  But instead of denying them all, it's time to hold prosecutors' feet to the fire a little more.  The feeling out there right now is that each prosecutor decides for him or herself what to turn over and when and that judges aren't going to get involved.  It's also OK to throw out counts (yes, prosecutors overcharge) or to sever a case or to give teeth to any of the other Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Lawyer acquitted in federal court in Georgia

Friends of the blog, Tom Withers* and Craig Gillen, walked a lawyer (Mark Shelnutt) today in Columbus, Ga. Shelnutt was charged with money laundering and drug offenses. The judge read 36 not guilty verdicts:

At 2:45, Land began to read.
“Count One, conspiracy to launder money,” the judge said. “Not guilty.”
“Count Two, aiding and abetting a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Not guilty.”
“Count Five, money laundering. Not guilty.”
Then the judge’s words, cadence and diction took on a lyrical quality. The chorus, time and again, was “Not guilty.”
Thirty six times Land read a charge and followed it with not guilty.
By the time Land was finished, Shelnutt’s supporters, a combination of family and friends, many of them connected to St. Luke United Methodist Church, were cheering.

I'm sure Ben Kuehne and his legal team have been following the case...

*Tom runs his own blog here.

Let's hit it -- 2010

Okay, we're back -- Happy New Year!

Batteries charged and all that. Ready for twenty-ten. Not ready for the traffic after the holiday weekend...

Last year we had Ben Kuehne, Scott Rothstein, and of course, Paris Hilton. Who will we have in 2010?

Lots of end-of-year blogging:

The White Collar Blog has some fun end of year posts here and here. The bloggers are really looking forward to seeing what the Supreme Court will do with the honest services cases coming up. More on that from me later.
Even the Chief Justice got into the act with this end-of-year report. Here's the intro:

Chief Justice Warren Burger began the tradition of a yearly report on the federal judiciary in 1970, in remarks he presented to the American Bar Association. He instituted that practice to discuss the problems that federal courts face in administering justice. In the past few years, I have adhered to the tradition that Chief Justice Burger initiated and have provided my perspective on the most critical needs of the judiciary. Many of those needs remain to be addressed. This year, however, when the political branches are faced with so many difficult issues, and when so many of our fellow citizens have been touched by hardship, the public might welcome a year-end report limited to what is essential: The courts are operating soundly, and the nation’s dedicated federal judges are conscientiously discharging their duties. I am privileged and honored to be in a position to thank the judges and court staff throughout the land for their devoted service to the cause of justice. Best wishes in the New Year.

While we're on the Supremes, there's more on Scalia's obsession with the (non)word "choate" from the NYT magazine here.

Why does choate get under Scalia’s skin? Bryan A. Garner, who wrote “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges” with Scalia, told me the justice is “disgusted” by the term’s faulty etymological basis. As Garner himself puts it in his Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, choate is “a misbegotten word,” since the in- of inchoate is not in fact a negative prefix. Its root, the Latin verb incohare, meaning “to begin, start out,” originated in the metaphor of hitching up a plow, derived from in- (on) and cohum (strap fastened to a yoke).
Stripping the in- from inchoate is known as back-formation, the same process that has given us words like peeve (from peevish), surveil (from surveillance) and enthuse (from enthusiasm). There’s a long linguistic tradition of removing parts of words that look like prefixes and suffixes to come up with “roots” that weren’t there to begin with. Some back-formations work better than others. Unlike Scalia’s improbable analogy of changing insult into sult, back-forming choate is an understandable maneuver for anyone who isn’t a Latin scholar, given that inchoate is in the same semantic ballpark as words that really do have a negative in- prefix, like incoherent and incomplete.
By ruling from the bench on what is and isn’t a word, Scalia is following in the footsteps of his former colleague William Rehnquist, who once interrupted the argument of a lawyer who dared to use the nonstandard word irregardless. “I feel bound to inform you that there is no word in the English language irregardless,” Rehnquist said. “The word is regardless.”

Our previous coverage here.

What would a 2009 roundup be without another story of prosecutorial misconduct, which led to dismissal of the Blackwater case:

The judge, Ricardo M. Urbina of the District's federal court, found that prosecutors and agents had improperly used statements that the guards provided to the State Department in the hours and days after the shooting. The statements had been given with the understanding that they would not be used against the guards in court, the judge found, and federal prosecutors should not have used them to help guide their investigation. Urbina said other Justice Department lawyers had warned the prosecutors to tread carefully around the incriminating statements.
"In their zeal to bring charges," Urbina wrote in a 90-page opinion, "prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation. In so doing, the government's trial team repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors, assigned to the case specifically to advise the trial team" on such matters.

As for me, well, I came in second in the blog fantasy league, losing in the finals to RichRodisCuban (by a measly 5 points). Congrats on a good year. Here are the final results:

League Champion
RichRodisCuban
2nd
SDFLA Blog
3rd
de la Fins
4th
Steel City Crackers
5th
SouthFloridaLawyers
6th
Male Bondage


Over the break, I watched the great movie -- American President. Here's "the speech," which I could watch again and again:




Also saw Avatar, which was unbelievable. I gave it an A.

Breaking!

Judge Cooke granted Ben Kuehne's motion to dismiss Count 1. More to follow soon.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

DNC lawsuit

From the Miami Herald:

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.

The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates as punishment for violating party rules by holding its primary too early.

The civil-rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch ''from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system'' to avoid losing its delegates.

''This is not about the Hillary Clinton campaign; this is not about the Barack Obama campaign. This is not even about the Florida Democratic Party. This is about democracy and how we value our votes,'' said Barbara Effman, president of the West Broward Democratic Club and a Clinton delegate. Effman joined Geller, an uncommitted superdelegate, and Percy Johnson, an Obama delegate, in the lawsuit.

Here's the lawsuit, filed by Ben Kuehne and Richard Epstein, which was assigned to Judge Marra.

A few news and notes

1. Ben Kuehne's motions hearing is this afternoon at 1:30.

2. The Pine Crest swim coach didn't get bond.

3. A federal agent was indicted for taking kickbacks.

4. Drew Brees won me my fantasy football game last night and looks like he is going to break Dan Marino's record. He does have a pretty tough schedule the rest of the way though.

5. Dancing with the Stars has jumped the shark.