Sunday, December 27, 2015

Cleaning Up New York State Corruption: Who Is Preet Bharara?

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara
Preet Bharara: The man behind NY corruption busting
Joseph Spector, Journal Albany Bureau, December 26, 2015

LINK
ALBANY - When Andrew Cuomo was running for attorney general in 2006, he vowed to be the “Sheriff of State Street,” where the state Capitol is located.

A decade later, there’s a new sheriff in town: U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

In his six years in office, Bharara has won the guilty verdicts of 27 public officials, and none were larger than the convictions in the last month of the former legislative leaders, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Leader Dean Skelos.



THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Former N.Y. Assembly Speaker Silver guilty on all counts



THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Ex-NY Senate leader Skelos, son guilty of extortion


Already, Bharara has carved out a public-corruption record that rivals anyone who has held the distinguished post for the Southern District of New York, which covers parts of New York City and the Hudson Valley.

People close to him say Bharara has a calm confidence that, over decades in politics and the courtroom, has driven him toward a belief that New York is fertile ground for public corruption.

He has wiretapped lawmakers and their phones, turned their trusted political allies into informants and stepped in when state prosecutors and oversight agencies didn’t.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Why can't Albany clean itself up?


The goal, ultimately, is to change government for the better, he and those who’ve worked with him said.

“There’s a lot of cases that you do, but these two (Silver and Skelos) are ones that hopefully will actually change things in a broader way,” said Richard Zabel, Bharara’s former deputy until June when he left for the private sector. “That’s what Preet is trying to do.”

Bharara’s convictions of Silver and Skelos — two of the three most powerful figures in New York — has led to speculation about his own political future and whether he is targeting the state’s other most powerful leader in New York: Cuomo, the Democratic governor.

Bharara’s office is still believed to be investigating Cuomo and his staff’s role in the demise of — and the potential tampering with — a corruption-busting panel that Cuomo empaneled in 2013 but shuttered a year later.

Bharara earlier this month didn’t let Cuomo off the hook when asked directly whether Cuomo is next on his list. He has criticized Cuomo’s decision to disband the Moreland Commission, but Cuomo has defended the move, saying the commission's work has aided prosecutors' probes and led to new ethics reforms.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Who’s next? Bharara won’t disclose corruption probes


“I’m not going to talk about any investigations that we have open. We have lots of investigations open,” Bharara said on WNYC radio. “I think that people like to talk about what’s going to happen tomorrow.”

But he added: “You shouldn’t read into anything I’m saying one way or the other. And I know people like to do that.”

Capitol shadow

Bharara, 47, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in India, has loomed large over the Capitol since he starting digging into corruption soon after he took office in August 2009 — months after he was nominated by President Obama.

A former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District between 2000 and 2005, Bharara got his first true taste of politics as chief counsel to U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, over the subsequent four years.

Friends said that experience shaped Bharara’s understanding of the politics and levers of power in New York.

“His prosecutorial background is enhanced because he understands the political process, and he’s not afraid of it,” said Viet Dinh, a close friend and prominent Washington, D.C., lawyer.

With Schumer, Bharara also appears to have picked up his former boss’ skills at trying to gain maximum media impact.

Silver was arrested Jan. 22 — just hours after the Manhattan Democrat was on stage with Cuomo at the governor’s State of the State address near the Capitol.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Speaker Sheldon Silver's corruption arrest stuns Capitol


When Bharara arrested Silver and Skelos, the news conferences were filled with charts that showed their alleged wrongdoing. He ended the Silver briefing with, “Stay tuned” — and he’s used that ominous line repeatedly since.

“He has clearly put the fear of ‘you know what’ in the hearts of all Albany legislators,” said Siena College poll spokesman Steven Greenberg. “And his record is phenomenal.”

Bharara’s office has only lost one corruption case: former Assemblyman William Boyland, D-Brooklyn, was acquitted in 2011, but was ultimately convicted in a separate trial by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn.

After Silver’s arrest, Bharara railed against Albany in a series of interviews, calling it a “cauldron of corruption.” His actions raised eyebrows as to whether Bharara was on a publicity tour, and it soon drew a rebuke from the judge in the Silver case.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Bharara rips Albany's "cauldron of corruption"


“The U.S. Attorney, while castigating politicians in Albany for playing fast and loose with the ethical rules that govern their conduct, strayed so close to the edge of the rules governing his own conduct that Defendant Sheldon Silver has a non-frivolous argument that he fell over the edge to the defendant’s prejudice,” U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni wrote in April.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Judge upholds Sheldon Silver's indictment, but chides Preet Bharara


Since then, Bharara’s interviews have been limited. He spoke to The New York Timesafter the Skelos conviction and did the WNYC radio interview. Through a spokesman, he declined an interview request from Gannett’s Albany Bureau.

Building cases

While his lower Manhattan-based office has taken down terrorists and Wall Street executives, Bharara’s public corruption cases have gained the most statewide interest, fueling talk that he may one day run for elected office. His current office has launched the careers of other future politicians, such as Rudy Guiliani and Thomas Dewey.

But Bharara would have to become more widely known in New York: A Siena poll this month showed 73 percent of voters didn’t know him or have an opinion of him.

Dinh said the question over Bharara’s next career move may be simply between staying in the public sector versus the pull of a lucrative job in the private sector. Bharara has a wife and three children, and with a new president to be elected in 2016, his future as U.S. attorney could be in doubt.

“One of the things people keep asking is how long can he afford to do this, and the answer is how long can his family afford for him to do this?” Dinh said.

Soon after taking office, Bharara’s office began bringing corruption cases.

They started with the Jan. 6, 2010, indictment of Sandy Annabi, the former majority leader of the Yonkers City Council. Two years later, she was sentenced to six years in prison.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Court of Appeals: No new trial for Annabi


As the cases built — including convictions against former Hudson Valley Sens. Nick Spano and Vincent Leibell — his staff began to see common themes.

Top state lawmakers had discretion over millions of dollars of public funds that they could dole out with little public oversight, Zabel explained. So they started to follow the money.

The pots of taxpayer dollars allowed the leaders to wield unmatched power — and the grants that they doled out ultimately was at the heart of the corruption cases against Silver and Skelos.

“It kind of led us to think about what are these areas where politicians in New York seem to be preserving themselves the ability to distribute or get money and grants for their own purposes,” Zabel said.

The conviction of Sen. Thomas Libous, R-Binghamton, in July, centered around himlying to the FBI over getting his son a job at a Westchester County law firm — in part by allegedly promising the law firm work because of his power in Albany.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

Libous sentenced to house arrest, $50,000 fine


Wiretaps and more

Another key tactic has been the use of wiretaps and non-prosecutorial agreements with key witnesses, such as top campaign donors to Skelos and Silver.

One Bronx legislator wore a wire for four years as a federal informant. A Queens senator wore a wire while at home with an injury, then pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

In the Skelos case, a wiretap was used in part on the phone of Skelos’ son, Adam, who was also convicted in the case. Tapes were played in court that revealed remarkable exchanges between the father and son over how they planned to use the Long Island Republican’s office to benefit Adam’s private business dealings.


THE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL

NY FRACKING: Did state come close to saying OK?


“We knew these were hard cases to make and so we were always looking for ways we could either get a wiretap or wire people up, like informants and others, and get people on tape,” Zabel said. “That’s the best evidence for a jury.”

Bharara’s tactics have shaken Albany to its core: No longer can private conversations in the Capitol’s dark halls be considered sacred.

And when lawmakers return next month for a six-month session, Bharara’s shadow will hover over the place.

“Everybody in Albany that I talk to, Democrat and Republican, all the speculation is where does he go next? Is the governor on the target list?” said Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford.

Movie lines

For those who know Bharara, his ascension is not a surprise: He’s not boisterous, yet confident and attentive.

Zabel said he and Bharara would exchange messages at 1 a.m. and talk about cases late into the night. In both the Silver and Skelos cases, Bharara was often in court watching his prosecutors present their arguments.

“Some people call him fearless, but it’s not fearlessness born out of reckless abandon,” Dinh said. “It’s a fearlessness born out of confidence in the process and confidence in the work of his office.”

Schumer called Bharara one of the smartest people who ever worked for him.

“He’s cleaning up Albany and that’s a great thing, and I’m proud of him,” Schumer said during a recent visit to Rochester.

Bharara is a Bruce Springsteen superfan and likes to quote lines from movies. One of his favorites is from Mark Wahlberg, who played a police sergeant in The Departed,saying: “I’m the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy.”

Next steps

Bharara’s convictions have led to a new round of calls for ethics reform at the Capitol, and Bharara himself has joined the chorus of those clamoring for change.

In the WNYC interview Dec. 14, Bharara talked about the entrenchment of long-serving leaders, such as Silver who was the speaker for more than 20 years. He also mentioned the problem of lawmakers having outside income and the difficulty of trying to recoup their pensions after they are convicted; the pensions are protected by the state Constitution.

“He’s going to turn out to be a major historical figure in New York,” Blair Horner, the longtime legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group. “He may end up single-handedly changing Albany’s political climate.”

Whether Silver and Skelos, who are planning to appeal, are the capstone to Bharara’s corruption crusade or a precursor to more cases remains to be seen.

Bharara’s “stay tuned” line — which he also used in his first Twitter message Dec. 10 — seems to be both a way to toy with lawmakers and warn them.

As he said on the radio: “The first line of defense against bad conduct is the institution itself. And it seems they are doing a pretty poor job of self policing.”

Joseph Spector: jspector@gannett.com, Twitter: @gannettalbany

Preet Bharara

Age: 47

Family: Wife and three children

Education: Harvard College with an A.B. in Government in 1990; Columbia Law School with a J.D. in 1993.

Experience: Lawyer at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 1993-96; Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, 1996-2000; assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, 2000-05; appeared on Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” list in 2012; chief counsel to Sen. Charles Schumer, 2005-09; appointed U.S. Attorney, 2009-present.

Key corruption cases

Sandy Annabi: Former majority leader of Yonkers City Council; convicted of bribery, honest services fraud in 2010; sentenced to six years in prison in 2012.

Hiram Monserrate: Former Queens senator; pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 2012; sentenced to two years in prison.

Vincent Leibell: Former Hudson Valley senator; pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 2010; 21 months in prison.

Anthony Mangone: Former chief of staff to Sen. Nick Spano; pledged guilty to conspiracy, bribery; sentenced to 18 months in prison this month.

Carl Kruger: Former Brooklyn senator; pleaded guilty in 2011 to honest services fraud; seven years in prison.

Nick Spano: Former Hudson Valley senator; pleaded guilty to obstructing IRS laws in 2012; one year in prison.

Malcolm Smith: Former Senate majority leader from Queens; convicted on wire fraud, bribery in 2015; sentenced to seven years in prison.

Noramie Jasmin: Former Spring Valley mayor in Rockland County; convicted on mail fraud in 2015; sentenced to four years in prison.

Thomas Libous: Former Binghamton-area senator; convicted on false statements to FBI in July; six months house arrest, appeal pending.

Ernest Davis: Mount Vernon mayor; pleaded guilty to failure to file tax returns; one year probation.

Sheldon Silver: Former Assembly speaker; convicted on all seven counts in November; appeal, sentencing pending.

Dean Skelos: Former Senate majority leader; convicted on all eight counts in December; appeal, sentencing pending.

Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney, Sees Lessons in Albany Corruption Trials






Preet Bharara, the United States attorney whose office recently won the corruption convictions of two of New York’s most powerful legislators, says that Albany’s problems are deep and systemic but that potential solutions are not hard to find: They lie in the nitty-gritty evidence presented at the unprecedented trial.

In his first interview since the verdicts, the most recent of which was delivered on Friday, Mr. Bharara said that the two trials hammered home the fact that the ability of lawmakers to earn outside income, coupled with a lack of transparency, weak disclosure requirements and the concentration of power in the hands of a few, is hugely problematic.

“It would be, I think, irresponsible not to spend some time talking about what those things, what those trials, have taught us, and what those cases may mean for how everyone can get good government,” Mr. Bharara said.

Mr. Bharara declined, as he has previously, to suggest specific reforms or remedies or to say how any such measures would be carried out.

But he said the fact that both convicted lawmakers — Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly speaker, and Dean G. Skelos, the former Senate majority leader — chose to go to trial instead of pleading guilty in a quick hearing allowed for a much more detailed airing of how their crimes were committed.

“All I’m saying is that what we offer in terms of the debate is the facts that were exposed in the cases that we have brought,” Mr. Bharara said.

“I think that people should take a look at what that showed,” he added, referring to the public and others who are seeking meaningful reform of Albany’s dysfunction.

Mr. Bharara noted that the trial of Mr. Silver, in particular, underscored the longstanding nature of his ethical lapses and his crimes, which dated back at least 15 years, and how some lawmakers in Albany allowed them to continue.

“The corruption in the State Legislature in Albany has not been episodic,” Mr. Bharara said. “It’s been systemic, and if nothing else, the trials revealed that there’s a deep culture problem, and a matter-of-factness about how at least these two defendants, who’ve now been found guilty, went about their daily corrupt business with barely a thought about it.”

Mr. Bharara, whose office has won the convictions of about a dozen current and former state legislators in his six-year tenure, said his public corruption investigations were continuing, but he would not discuss them.

RELATED COVERAGE


New Yorkers Want New Ethics Laws to Clean Up Albany, Poll FindsDEC. 14, 2015



Dean Skelos, Ex-New York Senate Leader, and His Son Are Convicted of CorruptionDEC. 11, 2015



Sheldon Silver, Ex-New York Assembly Speaker, Is Found Guilty on All CountsNOV. 30, 2015


He also declined to discuss what kind of sentence his office would seek for the two former lawmakers, who forfeited their seats upon conviction.Photo

Sheldon Silver, a former speaker of the New York Assembly, leaving federal court in Manhattan last month after being found guilty on all counts in his corruption trial. CreditRobert Stolarik for The New York Times

Mr. Silver, 71, a Manhattan Democrat, was found guilty on Nov. 30 on honest services fraud, extortion and money laundering charges, for schemes through which he obtained nearly $4 million in exchange for using his office to help benefit a cancer researcher and two real estate developers.

Mr. Skelos, 67, a Long Island Republican, and his son, Adam B. Skelos, 33, were found guilty on Friday of bribery, extortion and conspiracy charges, for schemes that exploited the senator’s position to pressure a developer, an environmental technology company and a medical malpractice insurer to provide the son with hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and a no-show job.

Mr. Bharara took special interest in the two trials, spending many days observing from the rear of the courtrooms with several of his senior aides. In the interview, he recalled one piece of testimony that he had found particularly revelatory — “stunning,” as he put it.

Albany on Trial
In the past decade, the state capital has been rocked by a seemingly endless barrage of scandals and arrests involving officeholders.

Albany Trials Exposed the Power of a Real Estate FirmDEC 18


Corporate Victims Said to Be Shocked (Shocked!) at Dean Skelos’s Request for MoneyDEC 10


Adam Skelos's IncomeDEC 10


Jury Begins Deliberations in Trial of Dean Skelos and His SonDEC 10


Defense Lawyers Point Out ‘Holes’ in Case Against Dean Skelos and SonDEC 9


See More »

State Senator Tony Avella, a Democrat from Queens, testified that as chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, he had been barred from holding any committee hearings.

“The idea that the chair of the ethics committee has never had the opportunity to mark up a bill, has never had the opportunity to hold a hearing,” Mr. Bharara said, “tells you everything you need to know about the enabling nature of all the people in the State Legislature who may not have been convicted of crimes, but seem not to care that they’re going on. I think that’s indisputable.”

Mr. Bharara, while reiterating he was not advocating any specific reform, said the trial showed how a lack of transparency and no restriction on outside incomes made it easier for lawmakers involved in corrupt deals to carry out their crimes undetected.

“It makes it harder to prosecute the bad apples when every apple is able to be nontransparent about that outside income,” Mr. Bharara said. “I’m trying to suggest that these are things that are really, really worth talking about,” he added.

Mr. Bharara noted that investigators, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and career prosecutors “have been doing their job with abandon” for years.Photo

State Senator Dean G. Skelos and his son, Adam, left the federal courthouse in Manhattan after the verdict this month.CreditAndrew Renneisen for The New York Times

“But that doesn’t solve the problem any more than the curing of one patient solves a plague,” he added, asserting that any solution must also involve the public and politicians.

Mr. Silver and the elder Mr. Skelos, as the two Legislative leaders, worked closely with Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who successfully ran for governor in 2010 on a promise to clean up Albany. He has pursued ethics reform numerous times, and achieved only modest results.

And in July 2013 he established a high-powered commission, stacked with a number of state prosecutors, to root out public corruption. However, in a widely criticized decision the governor just nine months later shut down the panel, known as the Moreland Commission.

Earlier this year he said his administration had “proposed every ethics law imaginable” and “you can’t legislate morality and you can’t legislate intelligence.”

But in recent days, after the convictions, Mr. Cuomo has said more reform was, in fact, needed, telling reporters on Sunday that the changes need to be sweeping.

Mr. Bharara, in the interview, also recalled another moment in the trials, when Mr. Silver’s defense lawyer, Steven F. Molo, accused prosecutors of effectively criminalizing conduct that was legal, normal and that allowed “government to function consistent with the way that our founding fathers of the State of New York wanted it to function.”

Mr. Bharara cited the strong response made by one of his prosecutors, Andrew D. Goldstein, who told the jury that such an argument tainted the democratic process by calling corruption “politics as usual.”

The juries “rejected that sorry excuse twice,” Mr. Bharara said.

He also recalled the suggestion, made in court and elsewhere, that prosecutors did not really understand politics.

“One defense lawyer said the prosecutors look at everything through ‘dirty windows,’ ” Mr. Bharara said. “Well, you know what? It turns out it wasn’t the windows that are dirty.”


Sarah Maslin Nir contributed reporting.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Attorney Bernard A. Weintraub Resigns From Practicing Law

Matter of Weintraub
2014 NY Slip Op 06929
Decided on October 14, 2014
Appellate Division, First Department
Per Curiam

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to
Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 14, 2014 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First
Judicial Department
Rolando T. Acosta, Justice Presiding,
Rosalyn H. Richter
Sallie Manzanet-Daniels
Paul G. Feinman
Judith J. Gische, Justices.
M-3492

[*1]In the Matter of Bernard A. Weintraub (admitted as Bernard Adam
Weintraub), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary
Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Bernard A.
Weintraub, Respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the
First Judicial Department. Respondent, Bernard A. Weintraub, was admitted to the Bar of
the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the
First Judicial Department on May 2, 1994.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental
Disciplinary Committee, New York
(Kevin M. Doyle, of counsel), for petitioner.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
(Hal R. Lieberman, of counsel), for respondent.
Per Curiam

Respondent Bernard A. Weintraub was admitted to the practice of law in the State of
New York by the First Judicial Department on May 2, 1994, under the name Bernard
Adam Weintraub. At all times relevant herein, respondent maintained a registered
business address within the First Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves, pursuant to the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) 603.11, for an order accepting respondent's resignation from the practice of law and striking his name from the roll of attorneys.

Respondent's affidavit of resignation, sworn to on July 3, 2014, complies with section
603.11 in that he states, inter alia: (1) his resignation is submitted freely, voluntarily and
without coercion or duress; and (2) that he is fully aware of the implications of
submitting his resignation (see 22 NYCRR 603.11[a][1]).

Respondent is also aware that he has been the subject of an investigation by the
Disciplinary Committee into allegations he misappropriated client funds 22 NYCRR
603.11[a][2]. Specifically, it was alleged that respondent: (1) jointly represented two
clients at the closing of the sale of their home; (2) held a portion of the sale proceeds in
his escrow account, the disbursement of which was delayed because his clients were
involved in divorce proceedings; (3) during the period of time in which the funds were
held in escrow and without his clients consent, he borrowed' $600,000 "to meet certain
obligations in the face of the economic downturn and [his] consequent inability to borrow
the money from regular institutional sources"; and (4) he provided accountings to counsel for one of his clients which did not reflect his misappropriation of funds from the escrow account. Respondent advised that "he fully described" his misappropriation to his client's counsel subsequent to providing the inaccurate accounting, and promised to restore the funds to his escrow account. When counsel requested disbursement of the proceeds, respondent paid over the funds in full, after certain proper payments and distributions, along with interest for the entire escrow period.

Respondent further acknowledges he could not defend himself on the merits if
disciplinary charges were brought against him (922 NYCRR 603.11[a][3]; Matter of
Riley, 115 AD3d 112 [1st Dept 2014]).

Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted to the extent of accepting
respondent's resignation from the practice of law and striking his name from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to July 3, 2014.

All concur.
Order filed. [October 14, 2014]
Acosta, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, and Gische, JJ.
Respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to July 3, 2014. Opinion Per Curiam. All con

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Marcello Trebitsch, Sheldon Silver's Son-in-Law, Going To Jail For $6 Million Ponzi Scheme

Marcello Trebitsch, who is the son-in-law of Sheldon Silver, leaves Manhattan Federal Court on Wednesday, December 16, 2015. He was sentenced to two years in prison for stealing $6 million 

from investors.


Sheldon Silver’s son-in-law will spend 2 

years in prison for $6M Ponzi scheme

LINK 
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS,  
Updated: Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 5:50 PM

Sheldon Silver's Ponzi scheming son-in-law will spend two years in prison for pocketing some $6 million from unsuspecting investors, a Manhattan federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Marcello Trebitsch, who is hitched to disgraced ex-Assembly speaker Silver's daughter Michelle, pleaded guilty in July 2015 to one count of securities fraud related to the seven-year-long scam.

The fraudster's sentencing comes just two weeks after a federal jury convicted Silver of seven corruption counts. A source previously told the Daily News Silver and Trebitsch's arrests were not connected.

Trebitsch promised Allese Capital investors 14-to-16% returns with little risk. He fudged financial statements to make the investments look profitable. In reality, he was hoarding the money for himself and paying back other investors.

He admitted to the scheme when he pleaded guilty, telling the court: "I'm sorry for what I've done and I apologize to the court and my family."

"As Marcello Trebitsch admitted in court today, he ran a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, defrauding investors who put their faith in him," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said after Trebitsch's plea. "He returned their faith with deceit and self-dealing, lying about his trading losses and using investor money on himself."


Sheldon Silver's son-in-law pleads guilty in fraud case, admitting he received $7M in Ponzi scheme


NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Monday, July 13, 2015, 5:38 PM

LINK
Sheldon Silver's son-in-law copped a plea in Manhattan Federal Court Monday, admitting that for years he defrauded investors of millions of dollars in a Ponzi scheme.

Marcello Trebitsch, 37, pleaded guilty to securities fraud before Judge Vernon Broderick, saying that from 2007 to 2014, he received $7 million from investors, for which he promised high returns with low risk.

"I also gave them false account statements," leading investors to believe that was what they were getting, Trebitsch said in court.

Federal prosecutors said Trebitsch, who is married to the former Assembly Speaker's daughter Michelle, promised investors to Allese Capital a 16% return and then doctored financial statements to reflect profit, while in reality Trebitsch was using the remainder of the funds for his own personal benefit and to pay back other investors.

"I'm sorry for what I've done and I apologize to the court and my family," Trebitsch said.

Trebitsch faces up to 20 years behind bars if convicted at trial. The plea deal calls for Trebitsch to serve between 51 to 63 months, but Broderick reminded him that the final decision on his punishment would be his.

"Their prediction could be wrong," Broderick warned. By pleading guilty, Trebitsch waived his right to appeal Broderick's sentencing decision.

"At sentencing, we are hopeful the Court will treat him leniently once the full background of this case is explained in our sentencing memorandum," said Trebitsch's lawyer, Benjamin Brafman.

Under the terms of the deal, Trebitsch must also pay $5,905,949 in forfeiture and restitution. He’ll be sentenced Nov. 2.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

US Supreme Court Orders the Center For Medical Progress To Release Names of Supporters and Donors

re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

           
   David Daleiden   

Supreme Court Weighing In on Planned Parenthood Videos

December 5, 2015
Jack Martinez, Raw Story
Posted with permission from Newsweek

The Supreme Court just dealt a blow to the Center for Medical Progress, a California-based anti-abortion group that released a series of videos in which Planned Parenthood employees appear to discuss the sale of fetal tissue.

David Daleiden, the pro-life auteur behind the videos, asked Justice Anthony Kennedy to block an order from a district judge to hand over the names of his organization’s supporters and donors. Kennedy denied the request, and Daleiden will have to provide the information to a California district court.

The National Abortion Federation has sued the Center for Medical Progress on the grounds that Daleiden’s allies infiltrated its meetings by lying about their identities; in the videos, CMP members posed as Planned Parenthood employees. Although the content of the videos shocked and offended many politicians, prompting a national outcry, the countercharge that the whole thing was a sting operation to discredit Planned Parenthood has gained momentum among pro-abortion activists and politicians.

“It’s time to end this shell game.... The key issue here is the disclosure of the identities of CMP's supporters,” said California District Judge William Orrick, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Orrick wants Daleiden to release the names in order to find out who was given confidential information about the National Abortion Federation, and has dismissed the argument that First Amendment "freedom of association" rights protects the CMP supporters, who may have been privy to illegal dealings as Daleiden went undercover to expose the health care provider's practices.

Daleiden’s attorneys have argued that releasing the names would put supporters at risk of “retaliation.”

The action on the lawsuit comes in the wake of a mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs that left three dead on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Friday, December 4, 2015

Judicial Watch Wins a Lawsuit Halting Race-based "Native Hawaiian Only" Election in Hawaii

Tom Fitton

Judicial Watch Scores Supreme Court Win

How about a little good news? Your Judicial Watch, on behalf of a group of patriotic Americans, scored a major victory for the U.S. Constitution and national unity before the United States Supreme Court. This week, we convinced the Supreme Court to issue an injunction halting a race-based "Native Hawaiian-only" election in Hawaii. In August, Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the five Hawaiian residents and one Texas resident of Hawaiian descent who opposed the discriminatory election process (Keli'i Akina, et al. v. The State of Hawaii, et al. (No. 1:15-cv-00322)).

The Supreme Court victory is remarkable. The JW statement issued to the press puts it all together:
"The Supreme Court today issued an injunction that put a hard stop to the race-based, separatist election in Hawaii that violated the 'fundamental constitutional rights' of our American citizen clients. Today's ruling is a historic setback to the State of Hawaii and the Obama administration, which misused public monies to push a racially discriminatory election. President Obama and Hawaiian political leaders should be called to account for their cynical support of a race-based election that violated numerous civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. Our clients are brave patriots who took a public stand on behalf of the rule of law. The High Court agreed our clients had an indisputable right to this relief and it is wonderful to see their faith in our Constitution vindicated by today's Supreme Court ruling. In addition, Judicial Watch's hundreds of thousands of supporters deserve thanks for providing the voluntary support that allowed our team of hard-working attorneys to stop this corrupt and dangerous election. Kudos also to the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a Hawaii-based think tank, that gave invaluable assistance to our efforts."

After we filed our lawsuit over the issue in August, we quickly asked the court for apreliminary injunction
 to stop the vote that had been scheduled for November 2015. Our lawyers argued that our clients would be denied the right to vote either because of their race or their political views - in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Hawaii's Act 195 authorizes the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC) to create a list of "Native Hawaiians" who would be eligible to elect delegates to a planned constitutional convention, which would then prepare "governance documents" for a separate Native Hawaiian entity.

The lower court denied our injunction, so we took it upstairs to the appellate court. We filed an
 Urgent Motion for Injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We lost again. Undeterred and confident in our legal arguments, the JW team immediately thereafter filed an emergency application on November 23 to the Honorable Justice Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court who oversees the Ninth Circuit. Last Friday, shortly after Judicial Watch replied to Hawaii's opposition, Justice Kennedy issued anorder temporarily enjoining the election pending review by the entire Supreme Court. That was a sweet victory. But this week, the Supreme Court (voting 5-4) granted our request. The December 2, ruling reads:

The application for injunction pending appellate review presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is granted. Respondents are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election described in the application, pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.


Under federal law, the Supreme Court only issues emergency injunctions when the circumstances presented are "critical and exigent" and the legal rights at issue are "indisputably clear." Accordingly, this Supreme Court decision sends a strong message for the lower courts.

The aborted election, which was being conducted by mail-in ballots, was to have ended in November but the voting deadline was recently extended to
 midnight Monday, December 21. The election was made possible by a grant by the State of Hawaii of $2.6 million in public funds.

The war isn't over, but this is a significant success for the rule of law. Here, it's important to point out that the Obama administration
 supported the race-based election in this litigation despite the fact that the State of Hawaii limits eligible voters in the election to those who have at least one drop of Native Hawaiian blood. Go back in history, and you will find that this "one drop of blood" rule is like other laws last seen in the racist Jim Crow era: "It also has an unfortunate resonance in American history. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 5 n. 4 (1967) (discussing Virginia statute holding that '[e]very person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person')."

Imagine if this "one drop of blood" rule had resulted in a new "tribe" that had as its goal "independence" for Hawaii. The precedent could lead to Muslims asserting sovereignty, Hispanics, Scottish-Americans - you get the picture. This case was not only about the rights of our few clients, it was about the future of our nation.

That we were able to stop this potential calamity for our nation the day after Thanksgiving is providential.
 

And our legal team requires special recognition, especially as they had to work over Thanksgiving! Robert Popper, director of Judicial Watch's Election Integrity Project, is Judicial Watch's
 lead attorney on the lawsuit and lead counsel for all plaintiffs. Mr. Popper was formerly deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Michael Lilly of the Honolulu law firm Ning, Lilly & Jones, a former Attorney General for Hawaii, is serving as Judicial Watch's local counsel for the plaintiffs. H. Christopher Coates is also an attorney for the plaintiffs. Coates is an expert voting rights attorney who most recently served as Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Barack Obama. William S. Consovoy and J. Michael Connolly of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC just joined as counsel as the litigation went before the Supreme Court.

The fight isn't over, and the litigation will continue in the lower courts. But the corrupted election won't take place any time soon, and I wouldn't bet, based on this week's extraordinary Supreme Court action, that it will ever take place.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Former NY State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver Is Found Guilty of All Bribery and Extortion Charges

Just keep going, Preet. We need a cleanup in New York State!

Betsy Combier
Editor, Courtbeat
Sheldon Silver
Sheldon Silver Convicted in Federal Corruption Trial
By Andrew Siff and AP

Former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has been convicted of bribery and extortion charges in a federal corruption trial that increased scrutiny of politicians in Albany, where power has long been concentrated in the hands of the Assembly speaker, the Senate president and the governor.
The jury handed down its decision Monday, less than a month after the powerful 71-year-old Democrat's trial began. 
Silver said nothing as the verdict on each count was read in the Manhattan courtroom, his head bowed slightly and a somber expression on his face. The judge polled each juror to confirm their verdict.
Silver faces up to 20 years in prsion, although that sentence is unlikely. It's expected he will appeal the verdict immediately.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement "SheldonSilver got justice, and at long last, so did the people of New York." 
Silver, who served as the speaker of the assembly for more than 20 years, was arrested in late January and is accused of collecting around $4 million in bribes and kickbacks since 2002, using his law license and lax New York disclosure laws to disguise the profits as referral fees.
The lawmaker quit his speaker post after his arrest but retained his Assembly seat. Neither Silver nor his attorneys could immediately be reached for comment on the verdict.
There was some drama when jury deliberations began last Tuesday when a juror claimed that other jurors accused her of failing to use her common sense, leaving her feeling "very, very uncomfortable."
"I'm feeling pressured, stressed out," the juror wrote in a note to U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni in Manhattan as she asked to be excused from further deliberations.
In her note, the juror said she had a different opinion and view than other jurors "and it is making me feel very, very uncomfortable."
"My heart is pounding and my head feels weird," she said. "I am so stressed out right now that I can't even write normally. I don't feel like I can be myself right now! I need to leave!"
After a prosecutor recommended she be released as a juror, the judge said it was too early to do so, and said she would urge jurors to respectfully exchange views.
"Listen to and exchange views with your other jurors," Caproni said she would tell them.
The judge said she was further convinced that patience was the best remedy when another note emerged from jurors shortly afterward. In it, the jurors asked if there was a code of conduct or ethics code that clearly stated whether receiving funds for something in return is illegal.
"It seems there is some deliberation going on," the judge told lawyers. "It's too early to throw in the towel."
In all, 31 lawmakers have been convicted of crimes or have left public service amid allegations of ethical misconduct since 2000, according to a tally kept by the good-government group Citizens Union.



Malicious Prosecution and Title 18, Section 242

Judge Marcus D. Gordon
The New York Times has an interesting article on going after misconduct by
law enforcement officials. I hope this is the start of a new trend.

Betsy Combier
Editor, Courtbeat


How to Prosecute Abusive Prosecutors



WHEN it comes to poor people arrested for felonies in Scott County, Miss., Judge Marcus D. Gordon doesn’t bother with the Constitution. He refuses to appoint counsel until arrestees have been formally charged by an indictment, which means they must languish in jail without legal representation for as long 
as a year.

There are many words to describe the judge’s blunt disregard of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Callous. Appalling. Cruel. Here’s another possibility: criminal — liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, prison time.Judge Gordon has robbed countless individuals of their freedom, locking them away from their loved ones and livelihoods for months on end. (I am the lead lawyer in a class-action suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Scott County and Judge Gordon.) In a recent interview, the judge, who sits on the Mississippi State Circuit Court, was unapologetic about his regime of indefinite detention: “The criminal system is a system of criminals. Sure, their rights are violated.” But, he added, “That’s the hardship of the criminal system.”

There are many words to describe the judge’s blunt disregard of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Callous. Appalling. Cruel. Here’s another possibility: criminal — liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, prison time.

If this notion seems radical, it shouldn’t. Federal law already provides a mechanism to prosecute judges and district attorneys as criminals when they willfully deprive people of their civil rights: Title 18, Section 242, of the federal code.

This isn’t some dusty, rarely used legal tool. The Department of Justice typically wields Section 242 against police and correctional officers accused of physical or sexual violence. But Section 242 applies with equal force to those who prosecute and sentence, the state officials whose deliberate skirting of civil rights can be most devastating.

At least, that’s how it is on paper. The federal government has not in recent memory pursued a judge under Section 242, and it has only rarely enforced this law against prosecutors.

It is absolutely essential to bring rogue law enforcement officers to justice, particularly in a post-Ferguson world in which violations of constitutional rights have come under intense scrutiny. However, the government’s focus on abuses by law enforcement officials leaves the burden of curbing abuse by judges and prosecutors to private individuals.

This is a responsibility few lawyers are willing to accept, in large part because the United States Supreme Court has made pursuing a civil case against a prosecutor or judge practically impossible.

Consider the case of John Thompson, who spent 14 years on death row for a murder he didn’t commit because the New Orleans Parish district attorney’s office intentionally concealed forensic evidence establishing his innocence. After his exoneration, Mr. Thompson sued the office under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, landmark legislation intended to provide a federal forum to those deprived of their civil rights by state officials.

Though Mr. Thompson won a $14 million jury award, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict on appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that the New Orleans prosecutors had similarly withheld evidence in at least four other cases, or the fact that several prosecutors suppressed the evidence in Mr. Thompson’s own case, the court said that Mr. Thompson had failed to demonstrate a pattern of wrongdoing by the district attorney’s office, which it held was required by Section 1983. The court’s decision illustrates just one of a host of protections it has given to prosecutors and judges to shield them from liability.

Civil cases like Mr. Thompson’s reveal a frightening reality. In privileging the discretion of prosecutors and judges to enforce the law, we have come perilously close to placing these officials above the law. We do not know the extent to which judges and prosecutors cross the line into criminality. After all, cellphones rarely capture the moment when a judge or prosecutor illegally locks someone away.

Nonetheless, advocates across the country continue to expose judges who unlawfully deprive defendants of lawyers or throw people in jail simply because they are too poor to pay small amounts of money. We are constantly confronted with wrongful convictions rooted in a prosecutor’s belief that winning a case is more important than seeking justice. These experiences compel us to recognize that sometimes the criminals our justice system most needs to confront are actually running it.

There is a solution: federal criminal prosecutions of state judges and prosecutors who flout the law. The nearly insurmountable barriers to justice in civil court don’t apply in criminal prosecutions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has invoked the availability of Section 242 prosecutions to justify its sealing of federal courthouse doors against people seeking to vindicate their civil rights.

Last month, the Department of Justice provided a rare glimpse of the law’s untapped potential. A Missouri prosecutor pleaded guilty under Section 242 of concealing police officers’ brutal assault of an arrestee, then prosecuting the victim on charges the officers fabricated to cover up their crime.

Missouri marks a promising, yet incomplete mandate. Judges and prosecutors violate civil rights every day, in plain sight, and with seeming impunity. To make them answer for these crimes, the federal government must continue to extend its reach beyond the streets and into the courtroom.

Brandon Buskey is a staff attorney with the A.C.L.U.’s Criminal Law Reform Project.