An Austin video relay service business owner was charged with others in a federal conspiracy case, according to Federal Communications Commission criminal division Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer.
Austin-based Mascom LLC owner Kim Hawkins, 46, who also owns Phoenix-based KL Communications and Nevada-based Master Communications plead guilty last week. Her partner in KL and Master Communications employee Larry Berke, 62, was also named in the case, along with Alfia Iskandarova of Deaf and Hearing Interpreting Services Inc. and Robert Z. Rubeck.
The four are charged with engaging in conspiracies to defraud the Federal Communications Commission's Video Relay Service program, according to a press release March 5. Hawkins, Berke, Iskandarova and Rubeck along with 22 other people and one company were charged with organizing schemes to steal money from the commission.
The four defendants admitted to paying individuals to make fraudulent video relay calls, which were billed to the commission. But the parties are innocent until proven guilty in court. The federal department reimburses providers, such as the ones in this case, $6.50 per minute to provide call services to the hearing impaired.
Hawkins, Berke and Iskandarova admitted to fraudulently charging between $2.5 million and $7 million. Rubeck said he played a role in about $1 million to $2.5 million in false charges.
At sentencing, the defendants face a maximum 20 years in prison, $250,000 fine and mandatory restitution and forfeiture. Sentencing is scheduled on June 28.
Others involved in the case include: KL Communications employees Lisa Goetz and Dary Berke; Mascom LLC employee David Simmons; Deaf and Hearing Interpreting Services Inc. co-owners Joshua Finkle and Irma Azrelyant; DHIS bookkeeper and employees Oksana Strusa, Natan Zfati and Hennadii Holovkin; Maryland-based Viable Communications Inc. consultant Benjamin Pena; and Tamara Frankel, an employee of Pena.
Source
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Don't imitate Arizona immigration law
Proving that they know how to read polls, politicians in Florida have been lining up behind Arizona's controversial new law cracking down on illegal immigration.
Republican candidate for governor Rick Scott has made support for the law a major plank in his platform, and goaded the GOP front-runner in the race, Attorney General Bill McCollum, into endorsing the idea. The leading Republican for U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio, also is backing it. Last week, the chairman of a state House panel on crime, Republican William Snyder of Stuart, said he's interested in passing a law in Florida like Arizona's.
Polls show a majority in Florida and across the nation support Arizona's law. But many state and local police, who would enforce the law, oppose it. Their informed perspective would be a much better guide for Florida legislators on this issue than polls or pandering politicians.
Source
Republican candidate for governor Rick Scott has made support for the law a major plank in his platform, and goaded the GOP front-runner in the race, Attorney General Bill McCollum, into endorsing the idea. The leading Republican for U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio, also is backing it. Last week, the chairman of a state House panel on crime, Republican William Snyder of Stuart, said he's interested in passing a law in Florida like Arizona's.
Polls show a majority in Florida and across the nation support Arizona's law. But many state and local police, who would enforce the law, oppose it. Their informed perspective would be a much better guide for Florida legislators on this issue than polls or pandering politicians.
Source
Monday, June 28, 2010
Group Affiliated With Cheney And Kristol Attack Government Lawyers For Being Lawyers
Here's a shocking thing. In the United States of America, criminal defendants are entitled to a lawyer.
When criminal defendants are particularly high profile and the issues especially difficult, it often takes very good lawyers to take on the case and often they do so for free.
A group affiliated with Dick Cheney's daughter Elizabeth and former New York Times Op-ed columnist William Kristol apparently has some issues with this.
The group, Keep America Safe, is getting a lot of heat -- and a lot of press -- for releasing a video carrying the headline "DOJ: Department of Jihad" and asking of certain government officials, "Whose values do they share?"
Who are these evil doers? DOJ lawyers who, while in private practice, represented detainees at Guantanamo or signed amicus briefs on policy issues (sometimes, The Washington Post pointed out, for conservative legal organizations).
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) also wrote a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder saying that, "the decision to allow attorneys who advocated for terrorists held at Guantanamo to craft detainee policy during the war on terror would be akin to allowing attorneys for the Mafia to draft organized crime policy during the 1960s."
What exactly are these people saying? That people who are detained and accused of terrorism are guilty and that they deserve no representation at all, ever? That attorneys who are willing to take on work that the government desperately needs them to take on in order for terrorism cases to move forward should be forever banned from working for the government?
The "values" that these attorneys share are the values they raised their hands and promised to uphold when they became lawyers -- to uphold the law and represent those that need legal counsel.
And now that some of them have left their very high-paying firm jobs to take on their country as a client, they are getting criticized in a propaganda video created by a group affiliated with Krisol and Cheney, intelligent people who we frankly don't believe really believe this.
This is not a conservative issue or a liberal one -- as noted by the WSJ Law Blog, critics of the video have come swinging from both sides -- but a simple legal one.
The National Law Journal has a round-up of comments from BigLaw firms and attorneys -- including those from O'Melveny, Covington, Sidley Austin and Arnold & Porter -- who do the type of work being attacked in the video. The full article deserves a read, but the general consensus is unsurprising -- criticism of those who take on tough pro bono cases is likely to have little to no impact on those willing to do the work.
Source
When criminal defendants are particularly high profile and the issues especially difficult, it often takes very good lawyers to take on the case and often they do so for free.
A group affiliated with Dick Cheney's daughter Elizabeth and former New York Times Op-ed columnist William Kristol apparently has some issues with this.
The group, Keep America Safe, is getting a lot of heat -- and a lot of press -- for releasing a video carrying the headline "DOJ: Department of Jihad" and asking of certain government officials, "Whose values do they share?"
Who are these evil doers? DOJ lawyers who, while in private practice, represented detainees at Guantanamo or signed amicus briefs on policy issues (sometimes, The Washington Post pointed out, for conservative legal organizations).
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) also wrote a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder saying that, "the decision to allow attorneys who advocated for terrorists held at Guantanamo to craft detainee policy during the war on terror would be akin to allowing attorneys for the Mafia to draft organized crime policy during the 1960s."
What exactly are these people saying? That people who are detained and accused of terrorism are guilty and that they deserve no representation at all, ever? That attorneys who are willing to take on work that the government desperately needs them to take on in order for terrorism cases to move forward should be forever banned from working for the government?
The "values" that these attorneys share are the values they raised their hands and promised to uphold when they became lawyers -- to uphold the law and represent those that need legal counsel.
And now that some of them have left their very high-paying firm jobs to take on their country as a client, they are getting criticized in a propaganda video created by a group affiliated with Krisol and Cheney, intelligent people who we frankly don't believe really believe this.
This is not a conservative issue or a liberal one -- as noted by the WSJ Law Blog, critics of the video have come swinging from both sides -- but a simple legal one.
The National Law Journal has a round-up of comments from BigLaw firms and attorneys -- including those from O'Melveny, Covington, Sidley Austin and Arnold & Porter -- who do the type of work being attacked in the video. The full article deserves a read, but the general consensus is unsurprising -- criticism of those who take on tough pro bono cases is likely to have little to no impact on those willing to do the work.
Source
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Bismarck attorney joins judgeship race
The race to replace South Central District Judge Robert Wefald keeps getting more crowded.
Bismarck attorney Timothy Austin has announced he will enter the race for judgeship No. 5, joining Burleigh County Assistant State's Attorney Cynthia Feland, Assistant Attorney General Parrell Grossman and public defender Todd Schwarz.
The South Central Judicial District encompasses 12 counties, including Burleigh and Morton counties. Of the eight judgeships in the district, two are up for election this year - Wefald's seat, judgeship No. 5, and the seat of South Central District Judge Sonna Anderson, judgeship No. 2. So far, no attorneys have announced campaigns against Anderson.
January 9 was the first day candidates for judgeships could circulate petitions, for which they need 300 signatures. The filing deadline for the primary election is 4 p.m. April 9, and the deadline for declaring as a write-in candidate is 4 p.m. May 18. The top two candidates from the June 8 primary election will advance to the Nov. 2 general election. The deadline to file as a write-in candidate for the general election is 4 p.m. Oct. 12.
Austin, 56, graduated from Drake University Law School and was admitted to practice law in the state in 1979. He began in general practice with a Mandan law firm and was appointed a special assistant attorney general in 1981 to work on in-state hearings required for a proposed hydroelectric transmission line. Other cases he worked involved "everything from adoptions to zoning matters," he said in a statement.
In 1996, Austin opened a sole practice. Though he is still involved in the general practice of law, the majority of his work is as general counsel for Dakota Collectibles, a local software company that supplies embroidery designs. At Dakota Collectibles, he has done copyright work as well as contracts and licensing agreements.
Austin also was an adjunct professor at Minot State University, teaching criminal law, in 1979 and at the University of Mary from 1988 to 1990, teaching local government law.
"My broad legal and life experiences, coupled with my even temperament, will serve me well as a district judge," he said in his statement.
Austin said he had some courtroom experience early in his career, when he believes he took cases to trial about once a year. However, he doesn't think that would be a problem, since judges rule on objections and points of law rather than try cases.
"I don't think you have to be a really experienced trial lawyer to be a good judge, just like you don't have to be a really good NFL player to be a referee," he said.
Austin has served on the North Dakota Board of Counselor Examiners since 2000, serving as its chairman for the last six years. He has been on the board of directors for Heartland Child Nutrition Inc., a sponsoring program for the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program, since 2004. He also served from 2001 to 2002 on the board of directors for Beginning Experience of Western North Dakota, a faith-centered, non-denominational support group for those seeking a new beginning because of divorce, death or separation.
Austin said the legal profession has served him well over the years, and he would like to give something back.
"I view this judgeship as an opportunity to faithfully serve both my profession and the public at large," he said.
He believes his "intellectual honesty as far as application of law" and his professional integrity would serve him well as a judge.
"I'll apply the law with common sense, fairness and complete impartiality," he said.
Source
Bismarck attorney Timothy Austin has announced he will enter the race for judgeship No. 5, joining Burleigh County Assistant State's Attorney Cynthia Feland, Assistant Attorney General Parrell Grossman and public defender Todd Schwarz.
The South Central Judicial District encompasses 12 counties, including Burleigh and Morton counties. Of the eight judgeships in the district, two are up for election this year - Wefald's seat, judgeship No. 5, and the seat of South Central District Judge Sonna Anderson, judgeship No. 2. So far, no attorneys have announced campaigns against Anderson.
January 9 was the first day candidates for judgeships could circulate petitions, for which they need 300 signatures. The filing deadline for the primary election is 4 p.m. April 9, and the deadline for declaring as a write-in candidate is 4 p.m. May 18. The top two candidates from the June 8 primary election will advance to the Nov. 2 general election. The deadline to file as a write-in candidate for the general election is 4 p.m. Oct. 12.
Austin, 56, graduated from Drake University Law School and was admitted to practice law in the state in 1979. He began in general practice with a Mandan law firm and was appointed a special assistant attorney general in 1981 to work on in-state hearings required for a proposed hydroelectric transmission line. Other cases he worked involved "everything from adoptions to zoning matters," he said in a statement.
In 1996, Austin opened a sole practice. Though he is still involved in the general practice of law, the majority of his work is as general counsel for Dakota Collectibles, a local software company that supplies embroidery designs. At Dakota Collectibles, he has done copyright work as well as contracts and licensing agreements.
Austin also was an adjunct professor at Minot State University, teaching criminal law, in 1979 and at the University of Mary from 1988 to 1990, teaching local government law.
"My broad legal and life experiences, coupled with my even temperament, will serve me well as a district judge," he said in his statement.
Austin said he had some courtroom experience early in his career, when he believes he took cases to trial about once a year. However, he doesn't think that would be a problem, since judges rule on objections and points of law rather than try cases.
"I don't think you have to be a really experienced trial lawyer to be a good judge, just like you don't have to be a really good NFL player to be a referee," he said.
Austin has served on the North Dakota Board of Counselor Examiners since 2000, serving as its chairman for the last six years. He has been on the board of directors for Heartland Child Nutrition Inc., a sponsoring program for the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program, since 2004. He also served from 2001 to 2002 on the board of directors for Beginning Experience of Western North Dakota, a faith-centered, non-denominational support group for those seeking a new beginning because of divorce, death or separation.
Austin said the legal profession has served him well over the years, and he would like to give something back.
"I view this judgeship as an opportunity to faithfully serve both my profession and the public at large," he said.
He believes his "intellectual honesty as far as application of law" and his professional integrity would serve him well as a judge.
"I'll apply the law with common sense, fairness and complete impartiality," he said.
Source
Friday, May 28, 2010
Judge blames defense for executed inmate's botched appeal
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller shouldn’t lose her job or be punished “beyond the public humiliation she has surely suffered” for refusing to accept a last-minute appeal from a death row inmate, a special master presiding over her ethics trial concluded Wednesday.
In his report, State District Judge David Berchelmann also wrote that the Texas Defender Service, which represented death row inmate Michael Wayne Richard, “bears the bulk of fault for what occurred on September 25, 2007.”
The 16-page report was released five months after a high-profile hearing in which the State Commission on Judicial Conduct accused the state’s highest-ranking criminal judge of bringing “public discredit” to the judiciary. Despite the allegations, Keller has remained the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Seana Willing, the commission’s executive director, said Berchelmann’s report is a recommendation and that Keller still faces five judicial misconduct charges. She said the 13-member commission will decide whether to dismiss the charges, reprimand her or recommend that the Texas Supreme Court remove Keller from office. No date has been set for a hearing.
In a brief statement made through her attorney, Keller said she was gratified for Berchelmann’s report, which finds that she “did not violate any written or unwritten rules or laws.”
“In terms of the charges, that’s a 100 percent vindication,” said her attorney, Chip Babcock. “I don’t think the judge could have been any clearer.”
Andrea Keilen, executive director for Texas Defender Service, said shifting blame from Keller to her organization was “akin to blaming a paramedic for a car crash victim’s injuries.”
“It is clear that Mr. Richard would not have been executed but for the violation of the (Court of Criminal Appeals’) own execution day protocol and the decision to refuse to allow Mr. Richard to file his pleading after five o’clock,” Keilen wrote in an e-mailed statement.
Keller took a telephoned request just before 5 p.m., an hour before Richard’s scheduled execution, that the court clerk’s office stay open past normal business hours so his lawyers could file a final appeal. Richard’s attorneys alleged computer problems delayed their efforts to submit the paperwork.
Keller twice said no.
In making his decision, Berchelmann noted that Keller asserted she was referring only to closing the clerk’s office, not the court as a whole. He wrote that if Richard’s attorneys had called one of the other judges, the attorneys likely would have been able to present the claim.
Source
In his report, State District Judge David Berchelmann also wrote that the Texas Defender Service, which represented death row inmate Michael Wayne Richard, “bears the bulk of fault for what occurred on September 25, 2007.”
The 16-page report was released five months after a high-profile hearing in which the State Commission on Judicial Conduct accused the state’s highest-ranking criminal judge of bringing “public discredit” to the judiciary. Despite the allegations, Keller has remained the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Seana Willing, the commission’s executive director, said Berchelmann’s report is a recommendation and that Keller still faces five judicial misconduct charges. She said the 13-member commission will decide whether to dismiss the charges, reprimand her or recommend that the Texas Supreme Court remove Keller from office. No date has been set for a hearing.
In a brief statement made through her attorney, Keller said she was gratified for Berchelmann’s report, which finds that she “did not violate any written or unwritten rules or laws.”
“In terms of the charges, that’s a 100 percent vindication,” said her attorney, Chip Babcock. “I don’t think the judge could have been any clearer.”
Andrea Keilen, executive director for Texas Defender Service, said shifting blame from Keller to her organization was “akin to blaming a paramedic for a car crash victim’s injuries.”
“It is clear that Mr. Richard would not have been executed but for the violation of the (Court of Criminal Appeals’) own execution day protocol and the decision to refuse to allow Mr. Richard to file his pleading after five o’clock,” Keilen wrote in an e-mailed statement.
Keller took a telephoned request just before 5 p.m., an hour before Richard’s scheduled execution, that the court clerk’s office stay open past normal business hours so his lawyers could file a final appeal. Richard’s attorneys alleged computer problems delayed their efforts to submit the paperwork.
Keller twice said no.
In making his decision, Berchelmann noted that Keller asserted she was referring only to closing the clerk’s office, not the court as a whole. He wrote that if Richard’s attorneys had called one of the other judges, the attorneys likely would have been able to present the claim.
Source
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Punishing Lawyers in Corporate Frauds
Joseph P. Collins, a former partner at the international law firm Mayer Brown, received a seven-year prison sentence for his role as the lead attorney for the failed futures trading firm Refco Inc., whose collapse as a result of accounting fraud cost investors and lenders more than $2 billion. Mr. Collins was convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud and securities fraud in July 2009 for his role in the stunning demise of Refco only weeks after the firm’s initial public offering.
The company hid debts owed by its chief executive, Phillip R. Bennett, from a buyout firm in an leverage buyout in 2004 and then in the public offering in 2005. In addition to Mr. Collins’s conviction, Mr. Bennett received a 16-year sentence, and Refco’s former president, Tone N. Grant, was sentenced to 10 years for their role in the accounting fraud.
Mr. Collins was Refco’s long-time outside counsel and the firm was his largest client, generating $35 million in billings for Mayer Brown. It is rare that an outside lawyer is prosecuted for legal representation of a client, and the case can be understood as part of a growing trend in which federal prosecutors and regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, focus on those who enable corporate fraud along with the officers and directors who orchestrate it. The punishment of Mr. Collins is substantial, and The New York Times’s chief financial correspondent, Floyd Norris, asked on his blog last week, “What are the longest sentences given to partners (or former partners) of major law firms, for crimes committed on behalf of clients?”
Although uncommon, Mr. Collins is not the first outside lawyer to be prosecuted for work on behalf of a client, although his sentence is among the most severe. Other lawyers are included on the list of those who have been convicted for conduct related to their legal practice:
Terry Christensen, a well known entertainment lawyer, received a three-year prison sentence for his role in the wiretapping of the ex-wife of his client, the billionaire Kirk Kerkorian,the during a child-support case. Mr. Christensen worked with private investigator Anthony Pellicano, the so-called “private eye to the stars” who was convicted in other cases.
Raymond Ruble, a tax lawyer at Sidley Austin, received a 6½-year prison term for his role in the sale of tax shelters by KPMG that resulted in more than $100 million in avoided taxes.
Melvyn I. Weiss and William S. Lerach, name partners at the plaintiffs class-action firm Milberg Weiss (which later split into two firms), received sentences of 30 months and 24 months, respectively, for their role in paying kickbacks to lead plaintiffs and expert witnesses in the firm’s cases. Two other name partners from the firm, Steven G. Schulman and David J. Bershad, received six-month prison terms.
John G. Gellene, a leading bankruptcy lawyer at Milbank Tweed, received a 15-month prison term for filing false documents in a corporate bankruptcy proceeding in 1994 that did not disclose a conflict of interest he had through prior work on behalf of a major creditor of the company. An excellent book by Professor Milton C. Regan Jr., “Eat What You Kill: The Fall of a Wall Street Lawyer,” looks at how Mr. Gellene came to find himself in a criminal prosecution.
I have not included Marc Dreier on the list because he did not act on behalf of clients in enriching himself, although certainly his standing in the legal community contributed to the fraud he perpetrated.
In-house counsel have also been the subject of criminal prosecutions, most recently in the options backdating cases. For example, the former general counsel of Comverse Technology, William Sorin, received a year-and-a-day sentence for his role in the issuance of backdated options by the company.
Not every case involving the prosecution of lawyers is successful, however, as juries have acquitted inside lawyers from McAfee, Tyco International and McKesson.
What is striking about the sentence that Mr. Collins, the former Mayer Brown lawyer, received is its length. This is largely a product of a change in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines adopted in late 2001 that substantially increased the likely sentence in fraud cases. The United States Sentencing Commission amended the fraud-loss table used to calculate the sentences so that a loss of more than $400 million pushed the potential punishment to more than 20 years and could even result in a term of life in prison when other factors, such as the number of victims, were considered.
The timing of that change could not have been more propitious for prosecutors because shortly afterward financial meltdowns at companies like Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia Communications hit. While at one time prison sentences for white-collar offenders were uncommon, and anything over two years almost unheard of, the sentencing guidelines made substantial prison terms much more likely when a large corporation collapsed. Thus, defendants like WorldCom’s chief executive, Bernard Ebbers, got 25 years; Adelphia’s chief executive, John Rigas, 15 years; and Enron’s chief executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, more than 24 years, although that term will be reduced and he could even be back in court for a new trial if the Supreme Court reverses his conviction.
More recently, Mr. Dreier received a 20-year sentence for his fraud that cost victims at least $400 million. A Florida lawyer, Scott Rothstein, has been accused of a similar scheme that may exceed $1 billion in losses, and he is likely to receive at least as much prison time if he pleads guilty as expected on Jan. 27.
Given the sizable losses in the Refco case, Mr. Collins may be fortunate to have received only seven years, as the potential punishment under the sentencing guidelines called for a maximum of 85 years in prison. The Federal District Court rejected his request not to be sent to prison at all, an unlikely result given the amount of the loss. Mr. Collins is seeking a new trial based on recently revealed e-mails, and he is certain to appeal the conviction. Whether the district court permits him to remain free pending the appeal remains to be seen.
Source
The company hid debts owed by its chief executive, Phillip R. Bennett, from a buyout firm in an leverage buyout in 2004 and then in the public offering in 2005. In addition to Mr. Collins’s conviction, Mr. Bennett received a 16-year sentence, and Refco’s former president, Tone N. Grant, was sentenced to 10 years for their role in the accounting fraud.
Mr. Collins was Refco’s long-time outside counsel and the firm was his largest client, generating $35 million in billings for Mayer Brown. It is rare that an outside lawyer is prosecuted for legal representation of a client, and the case can be understood as part of a growing trend in which federal prosecutors and regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, focus on those who enable corporate fraud along with the officers and directors who orchestrate it. The punishment of Mr. Collins is substantial, and The New York Times’s chief financial correspondent, Floyd Norris, asked on his blog last week, “What are the longest sentences given to partners (or former partners) of major law firms, for crimes committed on behalf of clients?”
Although uncommon, Mr. Collins is not the first outside lawyer to be prosecuted for work on behalf of a client, although his sentence is among the most severe. Other lawyers are included on the list of those who have been convicted for conduct related to their legal practice:
Terry Christensen, a well known entertainment lawyer, received a three-year prison sentence for his role in the wiretapping of the ex-wife of his client, the billionaire Kirk Kerkorian,the during a child-support case. Mr. Christensen worked with private investigator Anthony Pellicano, the so-called “private eye to the stars” who was convicted in other cases.
Raymond Ruble, a tax lawyer at Sidley Austin, received a 6½-year prison term for his role in the sale of tax shelters by KPMG that resulted in more than $100 million in avoided taxes.
Melvyn I. Weiss and William S. Lerach, name partners at the plaintiffs class-action firm Milberg Weiss (which later split into two firms), received sentences of 30 months and 24 months, respectively, for their role in paying kickbacks to lead plaintiffs and expert witnesses in the firm’s cases. Two other name partners from the firm, Steven G. Schulman and David J. Bershad, received six-month prison terms.
John G. Gellene, a leading bankruptcy lawyer at Milbank Tweed, received a 15-month prison term for filing false documents in a corporate bankruptcy proceeding in 1994 that did not disclose a conflict of interest he had through prior work on behalf of a major creditor of the company. An excellent book by Professor Milton C. Regan Jr., “Eat What You Kill: The Fall of a Wall Street Lawyer,” looks at how Mr. Gellene came to find himself in a criminal prosecution.
I have not included Marc Dreier on the list because he did not act on behalf of clients in enriching himself, although certainly his standing in the legal community contributed to the fraud he perpetrated.
In-house counsel have also been the subject of criminal prosecutions, most recently in the options backdating cases. For example, the former general counsel of Comverse Technology, William Sorin, received a year-and-a-day sentence for his role in the issuance of backdated options by the company.
Not every case involving the prosecution of lawyers is successful, however, as juries have acquitted inside lawyers from McAfee, Tyco International and McKesson.
What is striking about the sentence that Mr. Collins, the former Mayer Brown lawyer, received is its length. This is largely a product of a change in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines adopted in late 2001 that substantially increased the likely sentence in fraud cases. The United States Sentencing Commission amended the fraud-loss table used to calculate the sentences so that a loss of more than $400 million pushed the potential punishment to more than 20 years and could even result in a term of life in prison when other factors, such as the number of victims, were considered.
The timing of that change could not have been more propitious for prosecutors because shortly afterward financial meltdowns at companies like Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia Communications hit. While at one time prison sentences for white-collar offenders were uncommon, and anything over two years almost unheard of, the sentencing guidelines made substantial prison terms much more likely when a large corporation collapsed. Thus, defendants like WorldCom’s chief executive, Bernard Ebbers, got 25 years; Adelphia’s chief executive, John Rigas, 15 years; and Enron’s chief executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, more than 24 years, although that term will be reduced and he could even be back in court for a new trial if the Supreme Court reverses his conviction.
More recently, Mr. Dreier received a 20-year sentence for his fraud that cost victims at least $400 million. A Florida lawyer, Scott Rothstein, has been accused of a similar scheme that may exceed $1 billion in losses, and he is likely to receive at least as much prison time if he pleads guilty as expected on Jan. 27.
Given the sizable losses in the Refco case, Mr. Collins may be fortunate to have received only seven years, as the potential punishment under the sentencing guidelines called for a maximum of 85 years in prison. The Federal District Court rejected his request not to be sent to prison at all, an unlikely result given the amount of the loss. Mr. Collins is seeking a new trial based on recently revealed e-mails, and he is certain to appeal the conviction. Whether the district court permits him to remain free pending the appeal remains to be seen.
Source
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Top criminal court denies Pitonyak's latest appeal
Texas' highest criminal court on Wednesday denied Colton Pitonyak's latest appeal in which the convicted killer's lawyers claimed it was Laura Ashley Hall and not Pitonyak who killed Jennifer Cave in 2005.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Pitonyak's application for writ of habeas corpus without explanation.
Pitonyak, 27, is serving 55 years in prison for murder in the death of Cave, 21, whose decapitated body was found in his West Campus bathtub.
Hall, 26, is Pitonyak's former lover who was convicted of evidence tampering and hindering apprehension in the case and sentenced to five years in prison. She was recently granted a new sentencing trial on appeal.
Prosecutors argued at Hall's trial that she helped dismember Cave's body.
Pitonyak's appeal relied on sworn statements from two former Travis County Jail inmates who say Hall confessed to the murder in a group therapy session shortly after her 2005 arrest — evidence that was not raised at the trials of Pitonyak or Hall. Prosecutors did not tell Pitonyak's lawyers about the women's statements before his trial, which his lawyers say violated his due process rights.
On Wednesday, his lawyer Joe Turner said he was dismayed that no hearing was conducted on the claims. The court's ruling said the decision was based on findings by the trial judge.
Turner said he would file a similar appeal in federal court.
Prosecutors have roundly rejected claims that Hall killed Cave, claims that are contradicted by Pitonyak's testimony at his January 2007 trial. Pitonyak testified that he could not remember much of the night that Cave died because he was intoxicated but that he most likely killed her.
Pitonyak said he went to Sixth Street with Cave on Aug. 16, 2005, and awoke in his apartment the next morning to find her body. Pitonyak testified that he then called Hall and that Hall was the one who mutilated Cave's body.
Another witness testified that Hall spent the night of Cave's death at the witness' South Austin apartment.
Source
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Pitonyak's application for writ of habeas corpus without explanation.
Pitonyak, 27, is serving 55 years in prison for murder in the death of Cave, 21, whose decapitated body was found in his West Campus bathtub.
Hall, 26, is Pitonyak's former lover who was convicted of evidence tampering and hindering apprehension in the case and sentenced to five years in prison. She was recently granted a new sentencing trial on appeal.
Prosecutors argued at Hall's trial that she helped dismember Cave's body.
Pitonyak's appeal relied on sworn statements from two former Travis County Jail inmates who say Hall confessed to the murder in a group therapy session shortly after her 2005 arrest — evidence that was not raised at the trials of Pitonyak or Hall. Prosecutors did not tell Pitonyak's lawyers about the women's statements before his trial, which his lawyers say violated his due process rights.
On Wednesday, his lawyer Joe Turner said he was dismayed that no hearing was conducted on the claims. The court's ruling said the decision was based on findings by the trial judge.
Turner said he would file a similar appeal in federal court.
Prosecutors have roundly rejected claims that Hall killed Cave, claims that are contradicted by Pitonyak's testimony at his January 2007 trial. Pitonyak testified that he could not remember much of the night that Cave died because he was intoxicated but that he most likely killed her.
Pitonyak said he went to Sixth Street with Cave on Aug. 16, 2005, and awoke in his apartment the next morning to find her body. Pitonyak testified that he then called Hall and that Hall was the one who mutilated Cave's body.
Another witness testified that Hall spent the night of Cave's death at the witness' South Austin apartment.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)