The Taiwan-based EVA Airways Corp. is pleading guilty to being part of a price-fixing conspiracy and will pay a $13.2 million fine, the Department of Justice has announced, in a statement signaling that more charges are coming.
EVA is admitting its guilt to a single felony charges filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a DOJ statement said. The company is admitting being part of a conspiracy to fix cargo rates for international air shipments, including some to and from the United States, from 2003 to 2006.
The cargo that EVA transports includes sensitive equipment used to manufacture liquid crystal display panels and perishable commodities like cherries and pet food, the DOJ said, adding that EVA is cooperating with DOJ’s investigation.
The DOJ said its investigation into price-fixing in the air-transportation agency has led to charges against 22 airlines and 21 executives, resulting in more than $1.8 billion in fines and prison terms for four individuals. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division and the FBi are among the agencies taking part in the probe.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 0 on Tuesday that former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be sued by an American citizen who was held as a material witness for 16 days in what he asserts were poor conditions after the 9/11 attacks, but was never called as a witness after all.
The ruling, which went against Abdullah al-Kidd, held that Ashcroft, and by extension other federal officials, enjoy “qualified immunity” that gives them “breathing room” when they make honest mistakes. The justices overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had upheld a lower court ruling denying Ashcroft’s motion to throw out the suit.
The authorities seized al-Kidd as he was about to board a plane for Saudi Arabia in March 23. At the time, they said he might be needed to testify against Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a native of Saudi Arabia who was accused of running websites that supported terrorism. Al-Hussayen, a former computer science graduate student at the University of Idaho, was acquitted.
The controlling Supreme Court opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who cited precedent that qualified immunity, properly applied, protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Scalia said there was no need to address the more difficult issue of whether Ashcroft should enjoy “absolute immunity.”
Although the eight justices were united in their conclusion that Ashcroft enjoyed qualified immunity, there was sharp disagreement on other aspects of the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she was troubled by the “harsh custodial conditions” that al-Kidd endured.
Scalia, who delights in throwing verbal darts at his colleagues, scoffed at some other conclusions by Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayer, calling them “beside the point.”
Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the case, since she served as Solicitor General under President Barack Obama.
Can we or can’t we?
That seems to be the point of the lawsuit that Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has just filed suit against the Department of Justice, seeking a federal court judgment on whether state officials can implement the new Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, which voters approved last November. The law decriminalizes distribution, possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes in certain specific circumstances.
The trouble is, the Arizona law, like those passed in several other states recently, puts Arizona in a situation that is ambiguous at best, since marijuana remains illegal under federal law, as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, has reminded state officials.
Horne said the Arizona suit was intended get a court ruling “that makes it clear what direction we can safely go — either to implement the law or that we cannot,” The Associated Press reported.
In directing Horne to sue, Gov. Jan Brewer said: “For the state employees charged with administering the medical marijuana program or the Arizonans who intend to participate as consumers, it’s important that we receive court guidance as to whether they are at risk for federal prosecution,”according to a report in The Cypress Times. “Arizonans deserve clarity on an issue with such dire legal implications.”
Several U.S. Attorneys have warned people in their states that they will continue to prosecute those who run big pot operations, as Main Justice reported a few weeks ago. The prosecutors seemed to be making a distinction between those who use marijuana for medical reasons and those who grow and distribute marijuana for pleasure and profit.
A longtime federal prosecutor best known for handling cases against former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, and John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, retired last week, The Washington Post reported.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Zeno left the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office on Thursday, wrapping up a 29-year Justice Department career that included cases against Barry, now a D.C. councilman, who was sentenced in 2006 after he was convicted on tax evasion charges, and Hinckley, who is now a patient at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, a psychiatric institution in D.C. Zeno will join the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP.
“He was one of those guys that everyone goes to for advice,” D.C. U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen told The Post. “We are really going to miss him.”
Zeno served two stints in the office’s leadership as Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney for Operations from January 2010 to April 2010 and 1998 to 2001. But he spent most of his career handling cases involving economic crimes.
He successfully handled major health care fraud cases in D.C., including prosecutions against a well-known doctor and a mental health clinic founder. Martin McLaren was sentenced to three years in prison in 2008 for bilking at least $1.75 million from government health care programs. Ricardo Henry, the founder of Insight Therapeutic Services Inc., received a 20 month prison sentence in 2008 for filching about $500,000 through fake Medicaid claims.
Zeno also played a key role in helping develop sentencing guidelines, serving on various sentencing guidelines groups. He has won several DOJ awards for his work on sentencing guidelines issues.
The Justice Department has closed its investigation of the Austin, Texas police department, after finding no evidence of civil rights violations, marking the end of another high-profile DOJ probe into a city police force this year.
Jonathan M. Smith, chief of the DOJ Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section, wrote in a letter Friday to acting City Attorney Karen Kennard that the Department closed the four-year probe “because we do not find reasonable cause to believe that APD has engaged in a pattern, or practice that violated the Constitution or laws of the United States,” the Austin American-Statesman reported. Smith said the department addressed many of the suggestions the DOJ made in 2008 about community relations, complaint policies, use of force and training.
The findings stand in stark contrast to the Department’s conclusion in its investigation into the New Orleans Police Department, which wrapped up in March. The DOJ concluded that the police force engaged in systematic “unconstitutional conduct,” saying that officers discriminated against minorities, stopped and searched people for no reason and used excessive force.
But the Austin Police Department isn’t entirely off the hook.
Smith said the police force could improve on the way it conducts internal investigations, provide public and objective reports on its internal affairs division, find ways to reduce the use of force and employ a planned system to identify officers who have a propensity for using force and breaking policies.
The DOJ started probing the police force in 2007, following a 2004 federal complaint from the NAACP that said the department infringed on peoples’ civil rights.
Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, said he was content with the DOJ’s investigation.
“There is no doubt that [Police] Chief [Art] Acevedo and his team have made a lot of reforms,” Linder told the American-Statesman. “I think he should be congratulated.”
The DOJ has been in the headlines several times during the Obama administration for civil rights investigations into police departments.
In March, the DOJ announced it launched a probe into the Seattle Police Department to see whether if it has a history of “discriminatory policing” and using excessive force. Earlier this month, the DOJ said it opened an investigation to the police department of Newark, New Jersey, to determine whether officers retaliated against citizens, used excessive force and were involved with other wrongdoing.
“In case you haven’t heard, the Civil Rights Division is once again open for business,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of the Civil Rights Division told a police oversight association in September, according to Salon.
Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich cried on the witness stand this week during his second trial on corruption charges — and that was during the easy part of his testimony, when he was under friendly questioning from his own lawyer.
Blagojevich was on the stand Thursday and until mid-day Friday, when jurors were sent home for the holiday weekend, as The Associated Press reported. He’ll resume testifying on Tuesday, and before long he will face cross-examination.
“I used to be your governor, and I’m here today to tell you the truth,” Blagojevich told the Chicago jurors on Thursday. He is no longer governor because Illinois lawmakers removed him from office after his conviction last year on just one of 24 criminal charges against him — a verdict that was regarded as a defeat for federal prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois, who were criticized for offering too much evidence, calling too many witnesses and making a good story dull.
This time around, prosecutors cut the number of charges to 20, pared their witnesses list and presented their case in much less time than in the first trial. The most sensational charge is that Blagojevich tried to sell the Senate seat that was vacated when Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. (The seat eventually went to Roland Burris, who served under a cloud and did not seek election in 2010.)
Blagojevich, 54, who has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the Senate seat, did not testify at his first trial. The real drama this time will come when prosecutors cross-examine him and he tries to explain away some damaging tape-recorded conversations. If he is convicted, he could go to prison for two decades.
He was brought to tears as he recounted his childhood, shining shoes, playing baseball (but not very well) and later delivering pizzas. He also choked up when he recalled his difficulties with English (Serbian was his first language) and feeling unfashionable at Northwestern University in polyester clothes.
Next week, prosecutors will try to undress him, figuratively speaking.
Gary T. Fishman, a veteran assistant district attorney in Manhattan, has joined Investigative Group International, the Washington-based private investigation and corporate intelligence firm, as managing director, IGI Chairman Terry F. Lenzner has announced.
Fishman served for 15 years under District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau and his successor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. He was most recently principal deputy chief of the Major Economic Crimes Bureau. “Gary’s experience and expertise as a lawyer and investigator have positioned him well to manage the complex fact and financial investigations for which IGI is known,” Lenzner said in a statement issued by IGI.
As a member of IGI’s senior management team with Lenzner and IGI President Tom Wendel, Fishman will supervise IGI’s major investigations, the firm said. Fishman is also a partner in the firm Lenzner and Fishman P.C.
Lenzner, who founded IGI in 1984, was an attorney in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division in the 1960’s. He later joined the Organized Crime Division of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. He was assistant chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee that investigated the 1972 burglary at the Watergate Office Building and subsequent cover-up, a scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in 1974.
The Senate on Thursday confirmed Denise O’Donnell by unanimous consent to lead the Justice Department Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Denise O'Donnell (photo by Andrew Ramonas/Main Justice)
President Barack Obama nominated her twice for Bureau of Justice Assistance Director. He first nominated her on Dec. 13, and the Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t consider her before the Senate adjourned sine die on Dec. 22. The president renominated her on Jan. 5.
O’Donnell most recently served as the New York State Deputy Secretary for Public Safety. She resigned last year after it was reported that then-New York Gov. David Paterson (D) inappropriately interceded in harassment allegations concerning one of his staffers.
O’Donnell also was the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York from 1997 to 2001. She joined the office as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1985.
She will replace acting Director James H. Burch II, who has led the bureau since Domingo S. Herraiz resigned in 2009.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance provides local, state and tribal law enforcement with funds and support for their initiatives.
Senate Democrats on June 6 will seek to limit debate on the nomination of Donald Verrilli for Solicitor General.
Donald Verrilli (photo by Andrew Ramonas/Main Justice)
Approval of a cloture motion — which limits debate to 30 hours and allows the Senate to move to a final vote on a nomination or bill — needs the support of 60 senators. Verrilli, whom President Barack Obama nominated for Solicitor General Jan. 26, hasn’t received full support from Republicans.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-1 on May 12 to report him to the full Senate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was the only senator to vote against the nominee. But Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top panel Republican, said he offered only “lukewarm support” for Verrilli.
Republicans at Verrilli’s nomination hearing grilled him over the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
Verrilli said the decision was based on the law and not politics. The nominee also said that, as Solicitor General, he would defend all statutes in court unless the executive branch believes a law infringes on the power of the president or a rational defense of the law is impossible. But Verrilli said he would be willing to stand up to superiors — even going as far as tendering his resignation — if he was against an order.
Sessions also has expressed concern about the Verrilli’s work in terrorism cases, including his decision to advocate for Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen classified as an “enemy combatant” in 2002 by the George W. Bush administration. Because Padilla was an “enemy combatant,” the Bush administration argued, the government could bar him access to a lawyer and incarcerate him indefinitely without a trial.
The nominee joined three lawyers in signing a friend-of-the-court brief given to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit that said Padilla was “entitled to due process of law in the form of a fair hearing in front of a neutral and independent judge.”
If confirmed, Verrilli would succeed Elena Kagan, who became an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court in August. Neal Katyal has served as Acting Solicitor General since Kagan’s nomination to the court in May 2010.
Criminals beware: Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Brooker is after your toys.
Brooker, chief of the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, is on the hunt for the items criminals used in their crimes and for the proceeds of their misdeeds.
The U.S. Attorney’s office over the last few years seized cars, jet skis, computer equipment and a house that was used for drug dealing. In fiscal 2010, the office collected more money from criminal and civil asset forfeitures than any other U.S. Attorney’s office — $543 million.
And Brooker is looking to get more.
“Although we’ve done a lot of work over the last year, I think we’ve really set some groundwork for many more cases to come that are using forfeiture as an appropriate tool in our mission,” Brooker said in a recent interview with Main Justice at the U.S. Attorney’s office.
The assets seized by the office can come from a wide array of offenses, including fraud, drug crimes and child exploitation. The forfeited funds are used to support local law enforcement activities and provide restitution to crime victims.
The U.S. Attorney’s office has done asset forfeiture decades, but the asset-collecting efforts of the office received a boost under U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen, said Brooker, a six-year veteran of the office.
Machen, who became U.S. Attorney in February 2010, turned what had been the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Unit into a standalone section within the office’s Criminal Division.
DOJ headquarters told Machen after he became U.S. Attorney that his office’s asset forfeiture work could use improvement, he said.
“By putting it as a standalone unit, we’ve really put a focus on it,” Machen told Main Justice. “We’ve put more resources there.”
The U.S. Attorney said he saw the power of asset forfeiture when he was a white-collar criminal defense lawyer at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in D.C. He said a lot of his former clients were more concerned about holding on to their assets than staying out of prison.
“I’ve been on the side of the defense counsel where prosecutors have used it effectively and I’ve seen the power of asset forfeiture,” Machen said. “And I’ve been in other cases where it hasn’t been utilized. And I tell you, when it is utilized effectively and aggressively, it’s a tremendous tool for the government.”
Of the $543 million the U.S. Attorney’s office collected from criminal and civil asset forfeitures in fiscal 2010, $500 million came from a case against ABN AMRO Bank. The DOJ alleged the Dutch corporation defrauded the United States, had inadequate anti-money laundering practices and violated U.S. sanctions against Libya, Iran, Cuba, Sudan and other countries.
Of the remaining $43 million, $40 million came from a Ponzi scheme run by Isamu Kuroiwa, a Japanese citizen. Kuroiwa laundered the $40 million through U.S. and Japanese financial institutions to a U.S. broker for investment. The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section at DOJ headquarters handled the case, but the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office processed the payments in the case.
The U.S. Attorney’s office collected the other $3 million from several cases, including some involving fraud schemes in which the office collected assets that were returned to victims. In at least two cases, defendants had to forfeit vehicles to help satisfy restitution orders.
“I think anything we can do, whatever tool we can use, to try to bring compensation and healing to victims, needs to be used,” Brooker said. “And when you’ve had your money swindled from you, you’ve been betrayed, perhaps you’ve had your life savings taken and your elderly, although we can’t erase the fact that you’ve been the victim of criminal conduct, if we can achieve some return of your stolen funds to you, I think that’s a very powerful tool on behalf of victims.”
Brooker, who has led the section since its establishment last year, relies on three, full-time Assistant U.S. Attorneys, in addition to DOJ lawyers working in her section on a limited or temporary basis, to help collect assets. They are assisted by paralegal and non-attorney staff, including a Deputy U.S. Marshal, who aids with the maintenance and disposition of assets gathered.
The Assistant U.S. Attorney said she looks at every criminal case the office handles a week or two after it is opened to see if the U.S. Attorney’s office can collect assets in the case. About 70 percent of cases have forfeiture potential, according to Brooker.
“I think individuals realize if they engage in illegal activity and they think they’re going to buy homes, buy cars, launder the money, we’re on to that and we’re going to aggressively pursue asset forfeiture and seizures from the beginning of a case and try to take that money back as quickly as possible,” Machen said.
