“Exclusive: IRS manual detailed DEA’s use of hidden intel evidence”

August 8, 2013

Reuters on August 7, 2013 released the following:

By John Shiffman and David Ingram

“(Reuters) – Details of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program that feeds tips to federal agents and then instructs them to alter the investigative trail were published in a manual used by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for two years.

The practice of recreating the investigative trail, highly criticized by former prosecutors and defense lawyers after Reuters reported it this week, is now under review by the Justice Department. Two high-profile Republicans have also raised questions about the procedure.

A 350-word entry in the Internal Revenue Manual instructed agents of the U.S. tax agency to omit any reference to tips supplied by the DEA’s Special Operations Division, especially from affidavits, court proceedings or investigative files. The entry was published and posted online in 2005 and 2006, and was removed in early 2007. The IRS is among two dozen arms of the government working with the Special Operations Division, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.

An IRS spokesman had no comment on the entry or on why it was removed from the manual. Reuters recovered the previous editions from the archives of the Westlaw legal database, which is owned by Thomson Reuters Corp, the parent of this news agency.

As Reuters reported Monday, the Special Operations Division of the DEA funnels information from overseas NSA intercepts, domestic wiretaps, informants and a large DEA database of telephone records to authorities nationwide to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans. The DEA phone database is distinct from a NSA database disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Monday’s Reuters report cited internal government documents that show that law enforcement agents have been trained to conceal how such investigations truly begin – to “recreate” the investigative trail to effectively cover up the original source of the information.

DEA officials said the practice is legal and has been in near-daily use since the 1990s. They have said that its purpose is to protect sources and methods, not to withhold evidence.

NEW DETAIL

Defense attorneys and some former judges and prosecutors say that systematically hiding potential evidence from defendants violates the U.S. Constitution. According to documents and interviews, agents use a procedure they call “parallel construction” to recreate the investigative trail, stating in affidavits or in court, for example, that an investigation began with a traffic infraction rather than an SOD tip.

The IRS document offers further detail on the parallel construction program.

“Special Operations Division has the ability to collect, collate, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate information and intelligence derived from worldwide multi-agency sources, including classified projects,” the IRS document says. “SOD converts extremely sensitive information into usable leads and tips which are then passed to the field offices for real-time enforcement activity against major international drug trafficking organizations.”

The 2005 IRS document focuses on SOD tips that are classified and notes that the Justice Department “closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight.” While the IRS document says that SOD information may only be used for drug investigations, DEA officials said the SOD role has recently expanded to organized crime and money laundering.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, “independent” evidence: “Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files).”

The IRS document makes no reference to SOD’s sources of information, which include a large DEA telephone and Internet database.

CONCERN IN CONGRESS

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, expressed concern with the concept of parallel construction as a method to hide the origin of an investigation. His comments came on the Mike Huckabee Show radio program.

“If they’re recreating a trail, that’s wrong and we’re going to have to do something about it,” said Rogers, a former FBI agent. “We’re working with the DEA and intelligence organizations to try to find out exactly what that story is.”

Spokespeople for the DEA and the Department of Justice declined to comment.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said he was troubled that DEA agents have been “trying to cover up a program that investigates Americans.”

“National security is one of government’s most important functions. So is protecting individual liberty,” Paul said. “If the Constitution still has any sway, a government that is constantly overreaching on security while completely neglecting liberty is in grave violation of our founding doctrine.”

Officials have stressed that the NSA and DEA telephone databases are distinct. The NSA database, disclosed by Snowden, includes data about every telephone call placed inside the United States. An NSA official said that database is not used for domestic criminal law enforcement.

The DEA database, called DICE, consists largely of phone log and Internet data gathered legally by the DEA through subpoenas, arrests and search warrants nationwide. DICE includes about 1 billion records, and they are kept for about a year and then purged, DEA officials said.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


“Fox News and James Rosen: How much notice did they give the government?”

June 6, 2013

The Washington Post on June 6, 2013 released the following:

By Erik Wemple

“Judging from federal court documents, June 11, 2009, was a busy day for Fox News reporter James Rosen. Phone records suggest that he was hounding Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department security adviser. The two appeared to have had a face-to-face meeting around noon, according to the documents. And a few hours later, Rosen published on FoxNews.com a story on North Korea, featuring confidential information to which Kim had access.

Rosen’s activities that day have come to light in a federal investigation focused on the alleged leak by Kim of top-secret information. News of the probe came right after revelations about the Justice Department’s secret subpoena of phone records for the Associated Press, raising questions about the appropriateness of the federal government’s snooping on the media, as well as the fitness of Attorney General Eric Holder to continue in his post.

The timeline detailed in the court documents, though, raises another question: Did Fox News apprise the government of its findings on a sensitive national-security matter before putting them on the Internet?

June 2009 was a heady time for news related to North Korea. Two journalists for Current TV were on trial for crossing into North Korean territory without a visa. North Korea had conducted a nuclear test in May, and the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on June 12 condemning the regime of Kim Jong Il and instituting sanctions against it.

Rosen was hustling to get ahead of the U.N.-North Korea developments. His story, which appears to have triggered the investigation of Kim, addressed how North Korea would react to the Security Council’s action. The scoop in Rosen’s story? That the regime would in all likelihood stage another nuclear test, along with taking other defiant steps to boost the country’s nuclear-weapons capabilities.

The revelations in Rosen’s story rested on intelligence that “the Central Intelligence Agency has learned, through sources inside North Korea.” It gives little information about how its information is sourced, indicating that “FOX News has learned” the information. Furthermore, the piece states that “FOX News is withholding some details about the sources and methods by which American intelligence agencies learned of the North’s plans so as to avoid compromising sensitive overseas operations in a country — North Korea — U.S. spymasters regard as one of the world’s most difficult to penetrate.”

An unnamed White House source consulted by Rosen declined to comment for the story.

The text of the piece, however, leaves unclear just how much detail Fox News disclosed to the White House or any other government agency prior to publishing its account. The passage about withholding information, for example, doesn’t specify whether Fox News took this step in deference to a government agency, one of its sources or its own sense of propriety. Nor does it reference any negotiations whatsoever with government officials, as sensitive national-security stories often do.

On this front, media organizations and their government counterparts have developed something of a protocol over the years. After a reporter secures confidential information that could possibly compromise national security or overseas intelligence assets, the protocol calls upon the media organization to present its findings.

Bill Keller, the former executive editor of the New York Times, cites a “basic rule” among news organizations: “Obviously we don’t tell the government how we know what we know, but we try to lay out in as much detail as we can about what we’re going to report,” says Keller. The practice aligns with the best traditions of journalism: “We could be wrong,” says Keller, “and we’re giving them the opportunity to correct possible misinformation. Second, if they want to argue that, unbeknownst to us, something we’re about to report could get somebody hurt, we want to hear that out.”

It’s possible that Fox News did just that. Neither the network’s public affairs office nor Rosen, however, responded to requests for comment. The CIA, likewise, declined to comment on the matter. P.J. Crowley, who served as the State Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs at the time, says, “I’ve been involved in a lot of conversations over the years where reporters in possession of intelligence information enabled us to comment or express concerns about compromising intelligence sources. I don’t remember any such conversation prior to James Rosen’s story.”

That the government launched an intrusive leak investigation following the Rosen story suggests that if it had had the opportunity, it may well have voiced objections to the contours of Rosen’s North Korea scoop. “What they’re freaked out about is that we’re tipping off the North Koreans to some valuable source,” says Keller, riffing on the possible unease over the story. “If it wasn’t important to Rosen’s story to say that this came from some high-level North Korean source, the government might well have asked them to leave that detail out.”

Fox News may have felt it didn’t have enough time to negotiate with the government over the story, which debuted on the eve of the U.N. resolution. If published on a later date, its revelations would have had less resonance.

Though the CIA declined to comment regarding the North Korea story, it wasn’t so tight-lipped last October, when Fox News published a bombshell story offering an insider’s account of the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks of Sept. 11, 2012. The agency doesn’t appear to have had a chance to comment on the story prior to its publication, and it issued a rare on-the-record refutation hours after it surfaced. Many of the allegations in the story have since been challenged by official reports and media accounts.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Ex-CIA man likely to plead guilty in leak case

October 23, 2012

The Associated Press on October 22, 2012 released the following:

“By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former CIA officer accused of leaking the names of covert operatives to journalists is expected to enter a guilty plea as part of a plea deal.

A change of plea hearing was scheduled for Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., for John Kiriakou. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges that he disclosed the names of two covert CIA operatives.

The apparent change comes shortly after Kiriakou lost a key pre-trial ruling that established a lower legal burden for prosecutors to prove their case. Kiriakou’s lawyers had argued unsuccessfully that prosecutors should have to prove that Kirkiakou intended to harm the United States through his alleged leaks. Such a strict legal standard had been imposed recently on a leaks prosecution against two pro-Israel lobbyists.

But U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled last week that such a high standard should not apply to Kiriakou, a government employee with top-secret security clearances who knew well the dangers of disclosing classified information.

Instead, prosecutors would only have to show that Kiriakou had “reason to believe” that the information could be used to injure the U.S.

Court records do not make clear exactly what charges Kiriakou would plead to. When he was indicted in April, he was charged with one count of disclosing classified information identifying a covert agent, three counts of illegally disclosing national defense information and one count of making false statements. He faced up to 45 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the indictment.

Kiriakou, who wrote a book detailing his CIA career, had tried to argue after the charges were filed that he was a victim of vindictive prosecution by government officials who believed he portrayed the CIA negatively, but the judge rejected those arguments as well.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil MacBride, whose office is prosecuting the case, declined comment Monday. Kiriakou’s attorney, Robert Trout, also declined comment.

Kiriakou was a CIA veteran who played a role in the agency’s capture of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded by government interrogators and eventually revealed information that led to the arrest of “dirty bomb” plotter Jose Padilla and exposed Khalid Sheikh Mohamed as the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Accounts conflict, though, over whether the waterboarding was helpful in gleaning intelligence from Zubaydah. Kiriakou, who did not participate in the waterboarding, expressed ambivalence in news media interviews about use of the tactic.

Court papers indicate that the investigation of Kiriakou began in 2009 when authorities became alarmed after discovering that detainees at Guantanamo Bay possessed photographs of CIA and FBI personnel. The investigation eventually led back to the alleged leaks by Kiriakou, according to a government affidavit.

The papers indicate prosecutors believe Kiriakou leaked the name of one covert operative to a journalist, who subsequently disclosed the name to an investigator working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.

Kiriakou had planned to subpoena three journalists connected to the case. Those journalists had filed motions to quash the subpoenas, but that issue will now be rendered moot by the apparent plea deal.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Petersburg Man Indicted for Allegedly Impersonating CIA Officer, Directing Attempted Robberies of Three Banks

October 1, 2012

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on September 28, 2012 released the following:

“ALEXANDRIA, VA— Joshua Brady, 28, of Petersburg, Virginia, was indicted by a federal grand jury yesterday, accused of masquerading as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and using that role to recruit others to rob banks.

Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Earl C. Cook, Chief of Alexandria Police; Colonel David Rohrer, Fairfax County Chief of Police; and James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, made the announcement after the indictment was publicly filed today.

Brady was indicted on September 27, 2012, on one count of false impersonation of a government official and three counts of attempted bank robbery. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each count, if convicted.

According to the indictment, Brady allegedly pretended to be an officer and employee of the CIA and solicited others to rob banks on behalf of the United States government. In June 2012, he is alleged to have directed the attempted robbery of a bank located in Fairfax County and two banks located in the city of Alexandria.

This case was investigated by Alexandria and Fairfax County Police Departments and the FBI’s Washington Field Office, with assistance from the FBI’s Richmond Field Office. Assistant United States Attorney Adam B. Schwartz is prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.

Criminal indictments are only charges and not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Taking Aim at the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

May 1, 2012

The New York Times on April 30, 2012 released the following:

“BY PETER J. HENNING

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been at the center of a tug of war between business interests and federal authorities.

The United States Chamber of Commerce has led efforts to change the law, in response to ramped up prosecutions by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the last few years. While the proposed changes are described as a means to “improve” the law, they would also make it more difficult to pursue cases.

But the revelations in The New York Times that Wal-Mart Stores squelched an investigation into bribery at its Mexican subsidiary may impel prosecutors to be even more forceful in applying the law and put legislative efforts to change it on the back burner.

Business leaders have long contended that the law is overly broad and too aggressively enforced, while federal authorities view it as a powerful means to police the overseas conduct of American companies.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was adopted in 1977 in the wake of revelations of bribery of foreign officials by more than 400 United States companies. This was a time when misconduct by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Watergate scandal were still fresh in the public consciousness, so efforts to clean up business and government were paramount.

The law contains two parts: it prohibits bribing a foreign official for the purpose of “obtaining or retaining business,” and it requires that public companies file proper financial statements and maintain a system of internal controls.

The books and records provision is enforced regularly, most recently in the conspiracy prosecution of a former managing director of Morgan Stanley for hiding deals with a Chinese official. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. share authority over enforcement, which means companies have to deal with two sets of investigators whenever a potential violation comes to light.

For the first 30 years or so after its enactment, the antibribery portion of law was used sporadically. Only a handful of cases were brought each year against companies, almost always ending in settlements involving a modest fine, and even fewer involved individuals.

Prosecutors have now made enforcement of the law a priority, and more industries have been caught up in investigations. The Justice Department has filed cases against pharmaceutical manufacturers, like Pfizer, for dealings with state-run health care programs, and is reported to be pursuing an investigation into the dealings of American movie studios in China.

The push for changes in the statute coincided with its expanded enforcement as companies now have to deal with the vagaries of the law once viewed as a mild nuisance at best.

At a hearing before a House subcommittee last year, a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, represented the United States Chamber of Commerce in supporting changes to restrain use of the law because “more expansive interpretations of the statute may ultimately punish corporations whose connection to improper acts is attenuated or, in some cases, nonexistent.”

The revelations about Wal-Mart’s conduct, however, shows the law’s importance as an anticorruption tool for policing large businesses.

Tinkering with the law could send the wrong signal to other countries about the importance of curbing bribery. Support among Congressional leaders for revisions that would make it harder to prosecute companies may dissolve if they could easily be portrayed as being soft on bribery — something that would become fodder for an opponent in an election campaign.

The Justice Department’s increased enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has also included more charges against individuals rather than just companies. But that shift has also led to problems. In one of its most prominent cases, prosecutors dismissed charges against 22 defendants from the “Africa Sting” case in which the government used an undercover informant to entice suppliers into agreeing to pay bribes to receive contracts with an African government, all of which was fictitious.

The charges foundered over issues regarding the conduct of the informant that raised questions about whether individuals were unfairly enticed into the deals. Federal juries could not reach a verdict after two trials of a group of the defendants, and the Justice Department decided to forgo further prosecutions.

As James B. Stewart wrote in a New York Times column last week, there has been a noticeable absence of corporate employees charged with violations even when it appears that the company condoned foreign bribery.

But while companies have been much more amenable to settling investigations rather than challenging charges in court, prosecuting individuals faces a number of hurdles. Corrupt payments are often made by foreign intermediaries acting on behalf of the company, many of whom have no ties to the United States. It does little good to charge someone when there is not a realistic prospect that the person can be brought to the United States.

Pursuing a case against senior executives for turning a blind eye to questionable payments can be quite difficult. The notion that management “had to be aware of what was going on” may well be true in some instances, but that perception alone is not enough to prove any individual corruptly and willfully violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is the required legal intent standard for a conviction.

Foreign bribery can takes years to come to the government’s attention, so the five-year statute of limitations can preclude prosecuting those involved in the payments. As I discussed in an earlier piece, the Wal-Mart payments to Mexican officials from 2003 to 2005 probably cannot be pursued against individuals at the company unless something more recent occurred.

Interestingly, in the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress extended the statute of limitations for securities fraud crimes to six years, apparently leaving out violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Even that small increase in the time available to pursue a case can help prosecutors in putting together charges. Congress can alter the limitations period for any offense, and the Justice Department may point to Wal-Mart to ask Congress to extend the time frame in which foreign bribery charges can be filed.

The investigation of Wal-Mart has brought the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to the attention of the public in a way not seen since the 1970s scandals that led to its adoption. Congress may find it politically impossible to adopt changes to the statute that would arguably make it more difficult to pursue cases as long as the allegations of foreign bribery by a leading American company remain in the headlines.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Prosecutor Who Ran Ethics Unit Leaves Justice Department

April 17, 2012

The New York Times on April 17, 2012 released the following:

“By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday announced the departure of a high-profile prosecutor who ran its ethics unit during the botched case against Senator Ted Stevens and has since played a prominent role in the Obama administration’s efforts to prosecute officials for leaking information to the press.

The departure of the prosecutor, William M. Welch II, was disclosed in a motion before a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. The department informed the court that he would no longer represent the government in the case against Jeffrey Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency official who is accused of leaking information to James Risen, an author and a reporter for The New York Times.

“Mr. Welch is leaving the Department of Justice for a job in the private sector,” the motion said, but it did not give details.

Another department official confirmed that Mr. Welch had retired, saying that his last day was Friday, and that he was taking a job in the Boston area. A law firm that represented him during the fallout from the Stevens case also confirmed that he had left the Justice Department. NPR first reported Mr. Welch’s departure on Monday.

A hard-charging prosecutor, Mr. Welch got his start in 1989 in the Justice Department’s tax division and later worked as an assistant United States attorney in Nevada and in Massachusetts. In August 2007, he was made acting deputy chief of the public integrity section at Justice Department headquarters, and the following March became its chief.

In that position, he oversaw the trial team that won a conviction against Mr. Stevens in October 2008 for failing to report gifts from an oil-services firm. But the conviction was withdrawn and the case collapsed after it emerged that prosecutors had failed to turn over information to the defense that could have helped Mr. Stevens, an Alaskan Republican who lost re-election in November 2008 and later died in a plane crash.

The federal judge overseeing the case held Mr. Welch and other prosecutors involved in the case in contempt of court, and the judge and the Justice Department opened investigations. Last month, however, the judge made public the results of his investigation, and the findings largely exonerated Mr. Welch.

Specifically, the report found that Mr. Welch had been cut out of direct supervision of the trial team because his superiors in the criminal division had taken a strong interest in the case and so he had focused on other cases. It also found that “to his credit, on each occasion” when disclosure issues were brought to Mr. Welch for a decision, he directed prosecutors to provide the information to the defense.

Back in 2009, Mr. Welch was replaced as head of the public integrity section. In October of that year, he returned to the United States attorney’s office in Massachusetts but continued to work for the criminal division, whose new head, Lanny A. Breuer, asked him to take up several largely dormant leak investigations left over from the Bush administration years.

One of those cases was against Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency official whom Mr. Welch eventually prosecuted in connection with leaks to The Baltimore Sun about enormous waste and mismanagement within the agency.

Mr. Welch initially sought conviction on charges that could have put Mr. Drake in prison for 35 years, winning an indictment in April 2010. But the case against Mr. Drake largely collapsed amid a dispute over what classified evidence prosecutors could use.

Mr. Drake pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge and received a year of probation, while all the major charges were dropped and he avoided prison time. When the judge overseeing the case accepted the deal in July, he called the government’s handling of the case — putting Mr. Drake through “four years of hell” and devastating him financially, only to drop the major charges on the eve of trial — “unconscionable.”

Mr. Welch also helped revive an investigation against Mr. Sterling, who is accused of providing information about what was portrayed in Mr. Risen’s 2006 book, “State of War,” as a botched effort to sabotage Iranian nuclear research in 2000. Mr. Sterling was indicted in December 2010.

That case, too, is in trouble. Mr. Welch had been seeking to compel Mr. Risen to testify against Mr. Sterling, but Mr. Risen’s lawyers invoked the First Amendment and said he would not testify about any confidential sources. A district court judge ruled in favor of Mr. Risen. In appealing that ruling, prosecutors told the appeals court that if the ruling stands, it “effectively terminated the prosecution” of Mr. Sterling.”

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


‘LulzSec Reborn’ claims attack on military dating site

March 28, 2012

The Washington Post on March 28, 2012 released the following:

“By Hayley Tsukayama

Last summer, the Anonymous offshoot known as LulzSec announced it was retiring after 50 days of hacktivist attacks on targets ranging from Sony to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Now, following the arrests of some of the group’s most prominent members, a group of hackers has taken up the LulzSec banner and vowed to begin attacking sites under the name “LulzSec Reborn.”

The group’s first target was a dating site called militarysingles.com, which caters to members of the armed forces. The hacking group claims to have stolen 170,000 records from the Web site Sunday, subsequently posting users’ personal information online.

A representative from the Web site did not respond to a request for comment. But the CEO of the parent company told the Los Angeles Times that the company has put measures in place to secure its data. The executive, Robert Goebel, said the Web site had been down over the weekend and that he does not believe the site was actually hacked.

“Regardless of whether it was a true claim or false claim, we’re treating it as though it’s true just to be safe,” Goebel told the paper.

The hack may not be confirmed, but in a tweet on what appears to be the group’s Twitter feed, the hackers posted a link to a defaced Web page under the militarysingles.com domain name that references the group by name.

Several members of LulzSec and Anonymous who made a splash with attacks last year have been arrested in the United States and in Europe, as investigators move to crack down on the loosely organized hacking collective.

Far from discouraging the hackers, the arrests have prompted a new surge of attacks with targets ranging from the Pope to a Spanish security firm that reportedly worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to arrest the leaders of LulzSec.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.