Miami Judge Slams Federal Prosecutors
Imposing attorney’s fees and costs of $601,795.88, United States District Court Judge Alan Gold of Miami found in an order entered Thursday that the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami had engaged in a unlawful and frivolous attempt to keep witnesses from cooperating with the defense in a health care fraud prosecution. In a 50 page Order Judge Gold found as fact that AUSA Sean Cronin engaged in unethical conduct not befitting the role of a federal prosecutor. Once AUSA Cronin was advised that a key witness was “going south” he tuned up a witness tampering investigation that included a surreptitious recording of defense counsel and defense investigators.
The general background of the case can be found here. Judge Gold entered an order imposing attorney’s fees and costs that arose following a defense motion to suppress. AUSA Cronin threatened defense counsel with a “seismic shift” in the prosecution of the defendant Dr. Ali Shaygan, if the defense insisted in pressing a motion to suppress Dr. Shaygan’s statements. After the defense filed a motion to suppress, AUSA Cronin filed a superseding indictment alleging an additional 118 counts against Dr. Shaygan, despite not having interviewed a patient involved in a number of the additional counts.
In an exceptionally detailed order containing both findings of fact and comments on the solemn duties of federal prosecutors to do justice, Judge Gold found that AUSAs Cronin, his co-counsel, Andrea Hoffman, and his supervisor, Karen Gilbert, had failed to perform their duties and had engaged in a collateral witness tampering investigation motivated by Cronin’s personal animus against the defense team.
In addition to assessing attorney’s fees and costs Judge Gold entered a public reprimand against the three AUSAs and enjoined the United States Attorney’s Office from engaging in witness tampering investigations of defense counsel without first bringing such matters to his attention.
This Order has an excellent discussion of federal prosecutorial duties vis-a-vis Brady obligations, and other duties to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial and is recommended reading despite the length of the Order.
The prosecution team did make some serious mistakes. But Judge Gold's opinion is itself full of sloppy reasoning (never mind the odd grammar, such as the sudden changes in tense.)
Obviously, cooperation agreements need to be turned over. The failure to do so here (and the failure to disclose possible informal state court rewards for testimony) is a constitutional violation under Giglio. But is it really true that, as Judge Gold keeps saying, the government needs to have a cooperation agreement in order to have one witness tape her meetings with defense counsel? Where does that legal obligation come from? (Judge Gold cites internal agency policies -- but those management rules do not create legal obligations.)
On the matter of remedy, Judge Gold grants attorneys' fees for all hours expended after the superseding indictment. But that's obviously faulty. Even without a superseding indictment, the defense still would have had to expend substantial time to defend against the original indictment. A proper remedy would estimate those hours and subtract them from the Hyde Act reimbursement.
The Court jumps to the conclusion that the superseding indictment was illegitimate, but skips over necessary intermediate issues. First, the Court did not (on my quick read) ever say that the added charges -- in part or in whole -- were without probable cause. As a result, he'd need another theory to complain about them. If the problem was that they were added too late, then the Court should have dismissed those charges (without prejudice as to later refiling) as filed too soon before trial. If the complaint is that they were supported by probable cause, and added reasonably in advance added in revenge for the suppression motion, then the Court would first have to come up with legal authority (or at least reasoning) to say that that is impermissible. (It may well be -- but the Judge should support his rulings with reasoning rather than huffing and puffing.)
The Court also doesn't quite think through what the problem is with having the collateral investigation of the attorneys. (Obviously, there needs to be proper disclosure of Jencks material, Brady, and cooperation agreements. But the Judge seems to think the investigation itself was illegitimate.) If the problem is that such an investigation creates conflicts of interest requiring withdrawal, then the problem seems not to have materialized here (and hence fees are not appropriate for it.) The opinion indicates that defense counsel attempted to withdraw, but there was no indication that he did withdraw. In any case, conflicts certainly are possible results of obstruction investigations -- but that hardly means that the Government should not initiate such investigations.
(The Court's order, near the end, that it be informed ex parte and beforehand of any "investigation" of witness tampering by lawyers in cases before him is silly as well. How soon does it become an investigation? How much should the judge be allowed to micro-manage such investigations? And doesn't this *requirement* for ex parte contact create problems of its own in potentially biasing the Judge against defense members?)
Nor is it quite the giant red flag the Judge suggests that the two lawyers had had prior antagonistic interactions. (If that were a problem so disqualifying to the prosecutor, then perhaps the defense attorney would have had an obligation to withdraw at the case's very beginning as well!)
Finally, Judge Gold might want to remember his own past ethical issues. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2006-01-19/news/golden-conflict/ Don't federal ethical rules require judges to automatically recuse (or at least disclose) whenever they have a financial interest in one of the parties to the case? (And to the extent the rules don't *require* it, Judge Gold's ruling in this case seems to set a standard of "You Must Go Beyond the Rules"...)
Mira gorda la noticia que salio..justo ese es el juez de Sebastian, Alan Gold para que veas que es justo y le tiene bronca en el fondo a los fiscales y sobre todo del FBI Y SE LOS cago a todos y hizo el jueves pasado recien una multa al gobierno por 600 millones de dolares...asi que ojala salga mejor la cosa de lo que esperamos..
besitos
Greetings:
The FBI condones Financial Fraud in Child Support - Collection Cases.
Unbeknownst to the public, the Government pays bonuses to the States for collection and in more cases than not, incarceration for a debt as was recently discovered in several cases, through the investigative findings of Mr. Ray Horton, that in three different circuit districts within the State of Florida, evidence exists reflecting such, i.e. over-billing, double-billing, billings beyond emancipation events of the children, misinterpretation of a Judges order, usually in modifications cases, which always seem to go up); never down. In this one case before the Federal Courts, the Florida Department of Revenue (the agency responsible for said collections here in Florida) allowed the use of another's, (the ex’s (ex’s), falsified ongoing arrearage affidavit/payment history submitted for the illegal prosecution of Mr. Ricardo Rivero; See: Fed. CS. No. 09-20852-civ-Gold/McAiley, in a bi-state collection effort between Sarasota County (Florida's 12th Judicial Circuit) In the case of Sheila Leal v. Ricardo R. Rivero, where the received records used came from Miami-Dade's (11th Judicial Circuit) then, forwarded on to the State of Montana, and back again to Sarasota. (See: Docket).
Mr. Rivero is seeking 50M compensatory damages for being illegally incarcerated, (double-jeopardy) involving Florida's former Assistant Attorney General - David George Taylor, which is being stonewalled by Justice – Gold, who has not been able to force Southern District Attorney - Alex Acosta to prosecute the case against three former Judges, several Magistrates and the former Assistant Attorney General.
Governor - Charles Crist was informed of the nature and the basis for the suit, has been trying to get into the Senate to avoid the publicity surrounding the issue, when he was placed on Notice of the defects in another case back in 2005, (See: Elaina L. Hunt v. Rocky B. Hunt), CS No. 91-46419 FC-29, (3D08 2140); (3D09-1287); (SC08-170) thus, providing evidence of the fraud, when he was then Attorney General, but continues to move those employed or affected, somewhere within the agency's so that he won’t have to terminate them, until the heat dies down. i. e. The Florida Department of Children & Families - Secretary George Sheldon, in removing his (food stamp benefits) totally ignoring the provisions for a person’s right to self-preservation stated in 24A AmJur Section 1027: Resources of a parent (obligor) in providing support and The Human Rights Declaration signed in Geneva. The Florida Department of Driver's License (Illegal DL suspension); Homeland Security (Passports); Fla. Fish & Wildlife/Game Commission (Hunting & Fishing licenses); The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (removing up to 65% of an unemployed person’s benefits) contrary to law, and The Social Security Inspector General, fails to acknowledge any reference to these allegations.
The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (illegally removing unemployment compensation benefits) in Both CS No. 1995-14035 FC 46; Veronica Bowens-Cruse v. Carl J. Bowens Jr., and in the case of: Elaina L. Hunt v. Rocky B. Hunt, CS No. 1991 46419 FC 29, as well as others when the Central Depository/ Clerk of Court's Harvey-Ruvin - failed to verify / validate the false, fabricated, falsified, fraudulent, sham and perjured financial affidavit's then, Miami-Dade's State Attorney - Katherine Fernandez-Rundle used them to illegally invoke the Court's jurisdiction contrary to Public Law 73-10 and/or Chapter 15 USC section 1692(g) under the Fair Debt Credit Collections Practices Act (FDCCPA); some involving violations of Article 1 Section 10 of both the Florida & U.S. Constitutions (Interference in a contractual obligation).
The Obama Administration has placed a further burden upon paying citizen's who may have already paid their support obligation being enforced through Administrative offsets adding additional enforcement procedures under the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the "takings clause", lien/levy procedures and Public Law 105 - 34 (Taxpayer Relief Act) and misstatements by the Dept. of the Treasury Financial Management Service Division involving certification of falsified financial records.
One elderly father in CS No. NM68012A2, Stephania Cohen v. Richard K. Cohen, is due over $1M through the use of a fraudulent scheme to transmute his 50% portion of the equity of his former Marital Residence allowing the ex to steal the funds due Mr. Cohen, under a (promissory note) as in the case of: Elaina L. Hunt v. Rocky B. Hunt, but unfortunately died in early spring of this year, while awaiting news from the Florida Supreme Court to have his case re-opened. Ever wonder where the Administration is getting the money from, to pay these...stupid earmarks? Their 'case fixing' child support cases under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Yes prejudice is rampant with the ‘Deadbeat Dad’ stigma, attached to father's who have an obligation of support. Our friend and corporate accountant/forensic investigator has discovered that if any State wants more Federal funding, all that is needed is a Title IV-D reference on an application for services.
These corrupt Courts are now operating to control the outcome of every proceeding by forcing everyone to join their self-help programs. Auidt/Reviews are being thwarted here in Miami-Dade and Manatee counties under a special provision provided by the Florida Legislature entitled "demonstration projects."
The Office of Program Policy and Accountability fails to make any provisions, forcing any of these agency’s directors, commissioners, employees to validate these purported debt/obligations, to date. President Barack Obama, in 2009 placed a further penalty upon these purported debt/obligor’s by passing Title 26 USC Section 6331(h) aligning himself with Title 26 USC Section 6402 and Title 31 USC Section 3720A as an additional debt/obligation to the (Debt Collection Improvement Act) which allows a one-time fee of $250.00 to be added to the overall bill, which in effect, allows these agency’s to profit off the misdeeds of others all the while claiming relief under the guise of in the “best interest of the children.â€
Non-Title IV-D cases are suppose to be tracked by a no-bid contract with Lockheed-Martin, but there seems to be no evidence that these cases are even listed as such. (check this)
Validation is key, early on prior to any sanctions being imposed but with all of the, laws and regulations (inns and outs) being ignored by the Florida Courts, Involuntary Servitude being the end result, all will eventually succumb to the will of these in-Justices.
In His Service,
Rev. Rocky B. Hunt
Universal Life Church of the Renaissance