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.
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
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
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?
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?
Lyglenson Lemorin speaks...
...from his immigration prison in Georgia. This is the acquitted defendant from the Liberty City 7 case who remains detained on the same allegations for which he was acquitted. Apparently, the immigration judge told him that there is a difference between being innocent and being acquitted.
It's a brave new world; Why have jury trials at all? It's all over the press -- The Herald, the AP, The Sun-Sentinel.
Here's part from Mike Mayo's blog:
Lemorin had a preliminary hearing before U.S. Immigration Judge William A. Cassidy on Thursday. Cassidy was in Atlanta; Lemorin appeared by video from Lumpkin.According to Lemorin, Cassidy said, "There's a difference between being acquitted and being innocent.""That was very strange to me," Lemorin said. "I always heard that you were innocent until proven guilty, and I'd been found not guilty by a jury of my peers. I asked somebody if he could explain that, but he moved on to something else. It was weird.... There are a lot of things I don't understand."Immigration hearings have a lower burden of proof than criminal trials. Government documents filed last week claimed that Lemorin was a member of a terrorist group and he was likely to get involved in terrorism if he stayed in the country."I'm not a threat to the United States of America," Lemorin said. "I love this country. My son and daughter are here, so this will always be my country."Lemorin's immigration attorney, Charles Kuck, said the full immigration hearing is tentatively set for late May. He requested bond and a change of venue to Miami."You have the government getting a second bite of the apple because of the way immigration law is set up," Kuck said. He said the case should be a wake-up call for legal permanent residents to get their full citizenship. "Anybody who's not a citizen should be very, very concerned."Said Lemorin: "The same thing could happen to anybody."
Mayo concludes:
Lemorin and his family moved to Atlanta before the government made the highly publicized arrests. ... Because of a continuing gag order, Lemorin could not discuss specifics of his cases, including the concluded criminal trial.The whole thing seems astounding.An acquitted man might not truly be free until he gets shipped off to Haiti.
It's a brave new world; Why have jury trials at all? It's all over the press -- The Herald, the AP, The Sun-Sentinel.
Here's part from Mike Mayo's blog:
Lemorin had a preliminary hearing before U.S. Immigration Judge William A. Cassidy on Thursday. Cassidy was in Atlanta; Lemorin appeared by video from Lumpkin.According to Lemorin, Cassidy said, "There's a difference between being acquitted and being innocent.""That was very strange to me," Lemorin said. "I always heard that you were innocent until proven guilty, and I'd been found not guilty by a jury of my peers. I asked somebody if he could explain that, but he moved on to something else. It was weird.... There are a lot of things I don't understand."Immigration hearings have a lower burden of proof than criminal trials. Government documents filed last week claimed that Lemorin was a member of a terrorist group and he was likely to get involved in terrorism if he stayed in the country."I'm not a threat to the United States of America," Lemorin said. "I love this country. My son and daughter are here, so this will always be my country."Lemorin's immigration attorney, Charles Kuck, said the full immigration hearing is tentatively set for late May. He requested bond and a change of venue to Miami."You have the government getting a second bite of the apple because of the way immigration law is set up," Kuck said. He said the case should be a wake-up call for legal permanent residents to get their full citizenship. "Anybody who's not a citizen should be very, very concerned."Said Lemorin: "The same thing could happen to anybody."
Mayo concludes:
Lemorin and his family moved to Atlanta before the government made the highly publicized arrests. ... Because of a continuing gag order, Lemorin could not discuss specifics of his cases, including the concluded criminal trial.The whole thing seems astounding.An acquitted man might not truly be free until he gets shipped off to Haiti.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
AUSA allegedly assaulted by local lawyer
Saturday is usually a slow blog day, but loyal readers asked me to post this story from the Sun-Sentinel about a local attorney being arrested for assault on an AUSA in Ft. Lauderdale, so here it is:
A private attorney has been charged with physically assaulting a federal prosecutor in a Fort Lauderdale courtroom by shaking her hand up and down so hard that it injured her shoulder.Kathy Brewer Rentas spent Thursday night in solitary confinement at the Miami Federal Detention Center. She was released on a $100,000 bond on Friday morning and ordered to get a psychological evaluation to see if she needs counseling or anger management training."It all stems from a handshake," said Brewer Rentas' attorney, Gwendolyn Tuggle. "In her mind she never intended to cause any harm to any federal official."
Just a handshake, huh? Let's see....
Brewer Rentas, 49, of Pembroke Pines, went to court Thursday morning for a hearing involving her husband, Anthony Rentas, who is on federal probation for distributing cocaine in New York.
Rentas admitted violating the terms of his release.After U.S. District Judge William Zloch ordered that Rentas be put on house arrest for 90 days and complete his probation, court officials said Brewer Rentas insisted on shaking hands with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Keene.
"Keene did not shake Brewer's hand at first, but Brewer insisted that she do so and continued to follow Keene," wrote Deputy U.S. Marshall Robert Kremenik in a misdemeanor arrest report."Brewer forcefully grabbed onto Keene's right hand and squeezed it, pulling Keene toward her, forcing Keene off balance. With Keene in hand, Brewer made an upward, then a quick downward motion and pulled Keene toward the ground moving her forward, almost causing Keene to fall to the ground," the marshal wrote.
Keene's head and neck were snapped forward, then backward, as a result of the force applied by Brewer Rentas, causing Keene's shoulder and arm to be jerked forward, Kremenik wrote.
Gilberto Pay, a court security officer, told investigators that Brewer Rentas almost pulled Keene's arm out of its socket. He said he thought it was an intentional act to assault Keene. "He said that it was definitely more than a handshake," according to court records.
Yikes. That hurts!
Brewer Rentas, a commercial litigation attorney for a prominent Hollywood law firm, is charged with a federal misdemeanor. If found guilty, she faces a maximum penalty of up to one year in prison. She could also face disciplinary proceedings by the Florida Bar, the organization that polices attorney conduct.
That firm is Becker Poliakoff (I think). And here is her profile (I think). I say I think because I couldn't find a Kathy Brewer Rentas on the Florida Bar website. I could only find Kathy Rentas.
Keene was out of work on Friday because of the injury and declined to comment when reached by phone.Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Florida, said prosecutors are threatened on occasion but an allegation of assault by a licensed attorney in a courtroom is unusual."Assaulting a federal officer is something that we will take very seriously and prosecute vigorously," Valle said. "As a member of the bar, she should know better."
SDFLA blog readers -- assuming the facts as true, what should happed to Ms. Rentas? For the record, I know Jennifer Keene. She is professional and very fair. If someone had asked me to guess which AUSA was assaulted, she would be the last person I would think of.
A private attorney has been charged with physically assaulting a federal prosecutor in a Fort Lauderdale courtroom by shaking her hand up and down so hard that it injured her shoulder.Kathy Brewer Rentas spent Thursday night in solitary confinement at the Miami Federal Detention Center. She was released on a $100,000 bond on Friday morning and ordered to get a psychological evaluation to see if she needs counseling or anger management training."It all stems from a handshake," said Brewer Rentas' attorney, Gwendolyn Tuggle. "In her mind she never intended to cause any harm to any federal official."
Just a handshake, huh? Let's see....
Brewer Rentas, 49, of Pembroke Pines, went to court Thursday morning for a hearing involving her husband, Anthony Rentas, who is on federal probation for distributing cocaine in New York.
Rentas admitted violating the terms of his release.After U.S. District Judge William Zloch ordered that Rentas be put on house arrest for 90 days and complete his probation, court officials said Brewer Rentas insisted on shaking hands with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Keene.
"Keene did not shake Brewer's hand at first, but Brewer insisted that she do so and continued to follow Keene," wrote Deputy U.S. Marshall Robert Kremenik in a misdemeanor arrest report."Brewer forcefully grabbed onto Keene's right hand and squeezed it, pulling Keene toward her, forcing Keene off balance. With Keene in hand, Brewer made an upward, then a quick downward motion and pulled Keene toward the ground moving her forward, almost causing Keene to fall to the ground," the marshal wrote.
Keene's head and neck were snapped forward, then backward, as a result of the force applied by Brewer Rentas, causing Keene's shoulder and arm to be jerked forward, Kremenik wrote.
Gilberto Pay, a court security officer, told investigators that Brewer Rentas almost pulled Keene's arm out of its socket. He said he thought it was an intentional act to assault Keene. "He said that it was definitely more than a handshake," according to court records.
Yikes. That hurts!
Brewer Rentas, a commercial litigation attorney for a prominent Hollywood law firm, is charged with a federal misdemeanor. If found guilty, she faces a maximum penalty of up to one year in prison. She could also face disciplinary proceedings by the Florida Bar, the organization that polices attorney conduct.
That firm is Becker Poliakoff (I think). And here is her profile (I think). I say I think because I couldn't find a Kathy Brewer Rentas on the Florida Bar website. I could only find Kathy Rentas.
Keene was out of work on Friday because of the injury and declined to comment when reached by phone.Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Florida, said prosecutors are threatened on occasion but an allegation of assault by a licensed attorney in a courtroom is unusual."Assaulting a federal officer is something that we will take very seriously and prosecute vigorously," Valle said. "As a member of the bar, she should know better."
SDFLA blog readers -- assuming the facts as true, what should happed to Ms. Rentas? For the record, I know Jennifer Keene. She is professional and very fair. If someone had asked me to guess which AUSA was assaulted, she would be the last person I would think of.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Fed Bar Judicial reception last night
The reception last night was a huge success. I think just about every federal judge and magistrate attended. And there were about 500 other attendees. I will post pictures as soon as I have some. Good times...
Next events:
A small luncheon on February 21 for PDs and AUSAs to discuss jury selection with panel of Judge Altonaga, Judge Huck, Jeff Sloman, and Michael Caruso. It's free and lunch will be served.
and
Judge Marcia Cooke to speak at lunch on March 12 at the Banker's Club.
If you are interested in either of these events, please email Lourdes Fernandez: Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov
Thanks!
Next events:
A small luncheon on February 21 for PDs and AUSAs to discuss jury selection with panel of Judge Altonaga, Judge Huck, Jeff Sloman, and Michael Caruso. It's free and lunch will be served.
and
Judge Marcia Cooke to speak at lunch on March 12 at the Banker's Club.
If you are interested in either of these events, please email Lourdes Fernandez: Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov
Thanks!
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.
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.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
A good argument for cameras in the courtroom.
Check this out.
The real action occurs at 7:06 on the video counter, followed by moaning from the lawyer (off-camera).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)