“Key witness in ‘Whitey’ Bulger gangster trial found dead”

July 18, 2013

USA Today on July 18, 2013 released the following:

By: Kevin Johnson and Doug Stanglin , USA TODAY

“A friend says Stephen Rakes was looking forward to testifying against the South Boston gangster.

A body found near Lincoln, Mass., has been identified as Stephen “Stippo” Rakes, who was to be a key key witness in the trial of notorious South Boston gangster James “Whitey” Bulger.

Rakes was scheduled to testify that he was forced at gunpoint to turn over his liquor store to Bulger 29 years ago.

A law enforcement official confirming Rakes death to USA TODAY says authorities are investigating that he may have died of natural causes. The body of Rakes, 59, was found Wednesday afternoon.

The official said there is “no obvious sign” that he was murdered. ABC News reported that police told Rakes’ family that the death appeared to be a suicide. No phone or wallet was found on the body.

A close friend of Rakes, Steve Davis, tells ABC News, however, that he would not have killed himself and “was looking forward to taking the stand.” Davis said Rakes had planned to deliver a “big bombshell” on the witness stand.

Rakes has been attending Bulger’s federal racketeering trial in South Boston regularly over the past six weeks.

ABC says that Rakes was a particularly angry and determined victim of Bulger’s gangland tactics.

He was apparently supposed to testify that Bulger, 83, a member of his Winter Hill gang, Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi, threatened his daughter at gunpoint and forced him to turn over his South Boston liquor store. The building later became Bulger’s headquarters.

Bulger, a much-feared South Boston gangster for decades, fled the city in 1994 ahead of his arrest. He was captured in California two years ago after 16 years on the run.

Bulger has pleaded not guilty to 48 charges, including 19 counts of murder, extortion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, perjury, narcotics distribution, and weapons violations.”

————————————————————–

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.


Counterfeit sneaker defendant acquitted

October 20, 2012

The Buffalo News on October 19, 2012 released the following:

“BY: PHIL FAIRBANKS

By the time the predawn raids were over, 24 people were rounded up and charged, each one accused of taking part in a multimillion-dollar counterfeit sneaker ring stretching from China to Buffalo.

Five years later, one of the 24 rolled the dice and went to trial, well aware that each of his co-defendants had been convicted.

A federal court jury helped Greg Smiley beat the odds Thursday by finding him not guilty.

“He’s very happy and glad to be heading home to see his family,” said David R. Addelman, Smiley’s defense lawyer.

In understanding why Smiley went to trial – and ultimately got off – while 23 others did not, Addelman believes it is important to understand the defendants’ varying degrees of involvement in the counterfeit sneaker case.

He says Smiley was a relatively small player in the conspiracy, a network that started with manufacturers in China and stretched all the way to two New York City warehouses and ultimately to distribution points in Buffalo and Niagara Falls.

“I don’t think we can read too much into it,” Addelman said of his client’s acquittal. “He was way out there in Atlanta all by himself.”

Prosecutors dismiss the notion that Smiley was anything but a major player in the conspiracy or that the case against him was weaker than against other defendants.

“We certainly felt the case was a strong one,” said U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul Jr. “We charged 24 men and women and 23 were convicted.”

As the owner of Top of the Line Fashions, a small neighborhood clothing store, Smiley stood accused of buying and selling counterfeit Nike sneakers.

From the start, he argued that, yes, he bought the sneakers but no, he had no idea they were fakes.

“The prosecution was, he must have known,” said Addelman. “And the defense was, that’s no way to convict someone.”

The jury seemed to agree even though the prosecution, eager to prove Smiley knew what he was buying, played taped recordings of his conversations with one of the alleged ring leaders, Malik Bazzi.

“He’ll tell you how the whole operation ran,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John E. Rogowski said of Bazzi early on in the trial. “He’ll tell you how he found suppliers. He’ll tell you how he found customers. And most important, he’ll tell you how he knew Greg Smiley.”

Federal agents also testified against Smiley, noting the taped conversations with Bazzi and the repeated delivery of counterfeit sneakers to Smiley’s store in Georgia.

Addelman countered by suggesting the recordings proved very little and that Smiley was nothing more than another victim of the conspiracy.”

————————————————————–

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.


Prosecutors also have stake in Edwards’ trial verdict

May 22, 2012

Myrtle Beach Online on May 21, 2012 released the following:

“By Anne Blythe

GREENSBORO — John Edwards might be the one with the most to win or lose with the jury deliberating his fate, but the U.S. Department of Justice has a lot riding on his case, too.

When the eight men and four women return to the federal courthouse in downtown Greensboro Tuesday morning, they will begin their third day of deliberations in a case that also has put the Justice Department’s small public-integrity section under scrutiny.

Edwards’ trial came almost four years after the unit’s federal prosecutors bungled a corruption case against Ted Stevens, the U.S. senator from Alaska accused of failing to properly report more than $250,000 in gifts.

Stevens was convicted, , but the verdict was appealed and later vacated after it was revealed prosecutors and FBI agents had conspired to conceal and withhold evidence from the defense.

An investigation was launched into the integrity and professional practices of prosecutors in the public-integrity division. A scathing report from that investigation was released earlier this year, showing that prosecutors had “repeatedly ignored the law” and the ethical standards of their profession.

The Public Integrity Section was set up to root out corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government.

The section has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of federal judges and also supervises the nationwide investigation and prosecution of election crimes.

New chief for federal unit

Since the Stevens case, the unit has a new chief, former New York-based federal prosecutor Jack Smith. The Justice Department also has ordered training to make sure prosecutors disclose key evidence to defense attorneys.

Attorneys who have attended Edwards’ trial have commented throughout that the prosecution as well as the defense has a lot at stake in the case.

Edwards, a former two-time Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. senator who branched into politics after achieving success as a trial lawyer, was indicted last June on six counts related to violations of campaign-finance laws. The violations allegedly occured during Edwards’ campaign for the 2008 nomination, when two wealthy Edwards’ supporters gave more then $900,000 used to help hide Edwards’ extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter and her pregnancy.

Each of the six counts Edwards faces carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. However, Kieran Shanahan, a former federal prosecutor from Raleigh who sat through the trial, said Edwards – if convicted and unable to successfully appeal – would likely recieve a concurrent sentence and serve no more than five years.

Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and co-author of “The Prosecution and Defense of Public Corruption,” said Monday that a not-guilty verdict would be “a black eye” for the justice department.

“It would call into question their decision even to pursue the case,” Henning added.

But he added that he had seen no surprises from the prosecution, and that ultimately the questions that arise from the trial might be those raised by rulings made outside the jury’s presence by Judge Catherine Eagles, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2010 by President Barack Obama.

Eagles prohibited a former Federal Election Commission chairman from offering his opinion to the jury on whether the money from billionaires Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and Fred Baron would typically be classified as a campaign contribution or gift. Scott Thomas, who had more than 30 years with the FEC, testified while the jury was out of the courtroom that he thought the money that went from Mellon and Baron to other people was used for personal expenses that did not need to be publicly reported or subject to campaign limits.

The jury, during its first two days of deliberations, has asked for many exhibits related to testimony about the $925,000 in checks issued by Mellon in 2007 and 2008.

Though only the 12 people on the jury know what is being discussed behind closed doors, the first two counts on the jury verdict sheet are related to the Mellon money.

Toward the end of the trial, the jurors sounded as if they were a collegial group, laughing and talking as they walked into and out of the jury box.

On Monday, the second day of deliberations, the jurors were quieter and somber-looking, barely looking at prosecutors or Edwards as they waited for the judge to answer questions or release them for lunch or the evening break.

As many await the verdict inside the federal courthouse in downtown Greensboro, national political organizations are seeking answers and raising questions outside the tense atmosphere.

Objections to judge’s instructions

On Monday, the Center for Competitive Politics, a conservative group that promotes the deregulation of U.S. elections, harshly criticized the final juror instructions issued last week in the trial, particularly sections about the definition of “influencing an election.”

“If Edwards goes to prison, we will have an Alice in Wonderland world where conduct that would not be punished by a civil fine can result in jail time,” Allison Hayward, vice president for policy of CCP, said in a prepared statement.

The organization’s spokeswoman pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1976, the landmark Buckley v. Valeo case, which states that under “due process” a person of ordinary intelligence must understand that his actions could be considered illegal.

“There is no legislative history to guide us in determining the scope of the critical phrase ‘for the purpose of … influencing,’ ” Hayward further stated.

“The Supreme Court said the phrase ‘for the purpose of influencing’ is so vague and broad that it cannot be constitutionally applied to define campaign spending.””

————————————————————–

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.


John Edwards’ defense team rests

May 16, 2012

CBS News on May 16, 2012 released the following:

“(AP) GREENSBORO, N.C. — John Edwards’ defense team rested Wednesday without calling the two-time Democratic presidential candidate or his one-time mistress to the witness stand, a sign of confidence after presenting little more than two days of testimony and evidence.

The defense had called a series of witnesses aimed at shifting the jury’s focus from the lurid details of a political sex scandal to the legal question of whether the Edwards’ actions violated federal campaign finance laws.

Prosecutors spent nearly three weeks trying to convince a jury that Edwards masterminded a conspiracy to use nearly $1 million secretly provided by two wealthy donors to help hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, as he sought the White House in 2008.

Many people watching the case believed Edwards would testify so the jury could hear directly from the former U.S. senator and trial lawyer, who had a reputation for his ability to sway jurors. But putting Edwards on the stand was also a gamble: It would have exposed him to withering cross-examination about his past lies and personal failings.

Most experts were convinced calling Hunter to testify would have dredged up more negatives and lies. The defense also elected not to question Edwards’ oldest daughter, Cate, who has sat behind Edwards nearly every day of the trial and could have helped humanize him.

At one point during the trial, she ran out of the courtroom in tears during testimony about her cancer-stricken mother confronting her father about his extramarital affair.

The judge told jurors that no more witnesses would be called. It’s unclear exactly when closing arguments would start, but most likely Thursday.

Edwards is charged with six criminal counts including conspiracy to violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, accepting contributions that exceeded campaign finance limits, and causing his campaign to file a false financial disclosure report.

He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines if convicted of all charges.

Edwards has sat quietly at the defense table throughout his trial, whispering with his lawyers and rarely showing reaction to the often emotional testimony from witnesses who were once among his strongest supporters and closest friends. He has made no public statements since October, following a pre-trial hearing where a judge refused to throw out the criminal case against him.

“After all these years, I finally get my day in court and people get to hear my side of this, and what actually happened,” Edwards said last year on the steps of the federal courthouse in Greensboro. “And what I know with complete and absolute certainty is I didn’t violate campaign laws and I never for a second believed I was violating campaign laws.”

At the trial, prosecutors have shown two members of Edwards’ inner circle, campaign finance chairman Fred Baron and once-close aide Andrew Young, engaged in a yearlong cover-up to hide the married presidential candidate’s mistress from the media. Young, who is married, falsely claimed paternity of his boss’ baby and received $725,000 in secret checks from an elderly heiress, using some of the money to care for Hunter.

Baron, a wealthy Texas lawyer, provided Young and Hunter with more than $400,000 in cash, luxury hotels, private jets and a $20,000-a-month rental mansion in Santa Barbara, Calif.

Prosecutors have introduced phone records, voicemails and other evidence showing Edwards was in frequent contact with Baron, Young and Hunter, all while his mistress was in hiding. Former members of Edwards’ campaign also testified that Baron spoke of “moving Hunter around” in the candidate’s presence and that Edwards told his speechwriter he knew “all along” what Baron was up to.

However, in 14 days of testimony, no witness ever said Edwards knew he was violating campaign finance laws, a key element of criminal intent the government must prove to win a conviction.

The defense also undercut the credibility of Young, whom bank records showed siphoned off most of the money from Mellon to build his expansive $1.6 million dream house. Baron wired another $325,000 to the company building Young’s house.

Jurors were also read a stipulation about a sex tape the Youngs had, purportedly showing Edwards and a pregnant Hunter. Jurors were told Andrew Young considered selling the tape, and during his last personal encounter with Edwards on a rural North Carolina road, he told Edwards he had the tape.

The tape had only briefly been mentioned during the trial until Wednesday.

Before his indictment, Edwards rejected a potential plea agreement with federal prosecutors that would have allowed him to serve as little as six months and keep his law license.

A graduate of the University of North Carolina law school, John Edwards made his fortune handling medical malpractice and corporate negligence cases before turning to politics following the death of his 16-year-old son Wade in a 1996 auto accident. Edwards was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998 and was John Kerry’s running mate in 2004.

Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, died of cancer in December 2010. He is now a single parent of two school-aged children, ages 13 and 11, who live with their father at the family’s gated estate outside Chapel Hill. Edwards’ 30-year-old daughter Cate is a lawyer who married last year.

After years of denials, Edwards admitted fathering his Hunter’s baby in January 2010, shortly after agreeing to pay child support. The girl, now 4, lives with her mother in Charlotte.”

————————————————————–

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.


Federal Judge refuses to dismiss John Edwards charges

May 11, 2012

USA Today on May 11, 2012 released the following:

“RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – A federal judge refused to throw out campaign corruption charges against John Edwards on Friday, meaning the former presidential hopeful will have to present his case to a jury.

Lawyers for Edwards argued before U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles that prosecutors failed to prove Edwards intentionally violated the law.

After two-and-a-half hours of arguments from prosecutors and the defense, the judge ruled immediately from the bench that there was enough evidence to let jurors decide.

Motions to dismiss are routine in criminal trials, but rarely granted. The decision means Edwards’ lawyers will begin calling witnesses Monday.

Edwards has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts related to campaign finance violations. He is accused of masterminding a scheme to use nearly $1 million in secret payments from two wealthy donors to help hide his pregnant mistress as he sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

After 14 days of testimony and evidence presented by prosecutors, legal observers in the North Carolina courtroom said the government’s case was weak.

“They have established their case enough to get to a jury, but it has holes in it,” said Kieran J. Shanahan, a Raleigh defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor. “He is not charged with being a liar and he is not charged with having a baby out of wedlock. He is charged with breaking campaign finance laws.”

To prove guilt, prosecutors must show that Edwards not only knew about the money used in the cover-up orchestrated by two members of his campaign, which he denies, but also that the former trial lawyer knew he was violating the law.

Prosecutors rested their case Thursday by playing a tape of a 2008 national television interview in which the Democrat repeatedly lied about his extramarital affair with the woman, Rielle Hunter, and denied fathering her baby. Earlier testimony from a parade of former aides and advisors also showed an unappealing side of Edwards, casting him as a liar and lousy husband.

“It is rare the jury gets to see the defendant talking about the main issues of a case in a televised videotape, especially with the defendant watching himself talking about the issues in the videotape,” said Steven Friedland, a former prosecutor and professor as Elon University School of Law. “The defense must somehow counteract that lasting impression.”

A key question is whether Edwards will take the stand in his own defense.

Before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1998, Edwards made a fortune as a personal injury lawyer renowned for his ability to sway jurors. However, in doing so Edwards would also expose himself to what would likely be a withering cross-examination about his many past lies and personal failings.

The defense could also call Hunter to the stand, which prosecutors declined to do. She could potentially echo Edwards’ position that he didn’t have direct knowledge of the secret effort to care for her and keep her out of the public eye.

However, Friedland said he’d be surprised to see the mistress take the stand.

“She will simply call more attention to the lies surrounding her affair and pregnancy,” he 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

————————————————————–

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.


Federal Prosecutors won’t call Rielle Hunter to testify at John Edwards’ Federal Criminal Trial

May 10, 2012

Boston Herald on May 10, 2012 released the following:

“Prosecutors won’t call Rielle Hunter to testify at John Edwards trial

By Anne Blythe and Martha Quillin / McClatchy Newspapers

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Prosecutors trying John Edwards have called a full cast of witnesses over the past three weeks to talk about $400 haircuts, fancy houses, posh estates, the whirlwind details in a presidential run, back-biting, betrayal and an extramarital affair that sent a one-time political star plummeting to the depths of a criminal trial.

On Wednesday, the day before prosecutors plan to wrap up their evidence, the one witness from the Federal Elections Commission, Patricia Young, an administrator in the Public Disclosure Division, was on the witness stand for not much more than 30 minutes. But prosecutors won’t be calling the woman who set the whole, sordid matter into motion — Edwards’ former mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Prosecutors told Judge Catherine Eagles late Wednesday that they still were on schedule to wrap up their side of the case on Thursday, and Hunter, the woman with whom Edwards had an extramarital affair and a child, was not one of the witnesses they intend to call.

Legal experts said prosecutors apparently will skip Hunter because she didn’t have direct knowledge of the money involved in hiding her and they can’t be certain of what she might say on the stand.

The Edwards case could test the sweep of campaign finance law.

When the government rests, the stage will be set for the first key ruling in the trial. Defense lawyers will likely ask Eagles, who will by then have heard the best evidence against Edwards, to dismiss the case in whole or in part. It is a standard maneuver in a criminal trial, but it may have a greater chance in this case in which the applicability of the law is also at issue.

Defense lawyers have argued that the campaign laws Edwards allegedly broke don’t apply to funds spent for personal reasons, such as the hiding of a mistress. Jurors will be asked to decide not only whether the expenses provided by two wealthy supporters should have been classified as campaign expenses, but whether there was any criminal intent by Edwards in not reporting that on public disclosure forms.

Prosecutors plan to call several federal agents on Thursday, but their case could go to a jury which will have to rule on the intent of key actors in a case that weighs heavily on intent without hearing from two, and possibly three, of the people at the center of the charges.

Prosecutors called the lawyer, librarian, farm manager and grandson of Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, the Virginia philanthropist who issued $725,000 in checks to help Edwards. But Mellon, just thee months shy of her 102nd birthday, was not called to testify.

Fred Baron, the wealthy Texas lawyer, who, prosecutors contend, provided several hundred thousand more dollars toward the effort to hide a pregnant Hunter from the media, died in October 2008. No one other than Edwards’ former aide and his wife, Andrew and Cheri Young, who deposited more than two-thirds of the money in their private bank account, have offered any testimony about Baron’s intent.

And Edwards, a trial lawyer who had much success with juries when he was in the courtroom, might or might not take the stand in his defense.

As prosecutors push toward the close of their case the defense team has offered themes of its own in their cross-examination of witnesses.

They contend that that most of the money prosecutors contend was coverup money say was used to hide Edwards’ pregnant mistress from the public to keep his campaign alive went to Andrew and Cheri the Youngs, key witnesses for the prosecution.

They continue to attack the character and motives of Andrew Young, making the trial as much Edwards versus Young as the government versus Edwards.

And Wednesday, they continued to push with their theory that Young was working closely with the FBI to ensure that an indictment was issued against Edwards. The defense contends he was in close contact with agent Charles Stuber, or “Chuck” as they’ve begun to call him.

The trial so far has offered political theater, psychological drama and wrought emotion from some of the witnesses.

Also on Wednesday, Jennifer Palmieri, a former Edwards’ campaign spokeswoman and friend of Elizabeth Edwards, became emotional while describing her relationship with the former Democratic presidential hopeful’s cancer-stricken wife and her last days.

“She was not able to speak at this stage,” said Palmieri, who now works for the Obama administration.

Shortly before she died, Elizabeth Edwards told Palmieri that she did not want to die alone, that when the time came, “there would not be a man around to love her.”

Palmieri said she would be there and was. So was John Edwards.

As Palmieri testified, Edwards, rubbed his eyes and pressed his forehead against his hand.

Palmieri was under cross-examination by defense lawyer Abbe Lowell after testifying for prosecutors about a rancorous October 2007 Iowa hotel meeting in which Elizabeth Edwards was angry at Baron and his wife Lisa Blue.

The Texas couple had taken Hunter on a shopping trip in California and Elizabeth Edwards was livid that they were continuing to stay in touch with Hunter. keep up with a woman with whom her husband had an extramarital affair. Edwards had told his wife a while back the affair was over and Elizabeth Edwards could not fathom why Baron and Blue were still in communication with her.

“Lisa kept saying, ’You’ve got to hold your friends close and your enemies even closer,’” Palmieri testified.

Palmieri, who has been involved with politics her entire career, offered testimony that played to contentions by prosecutors that Edwards built his campaign on a family-man image and that news of an affair could damage his chances. Therefore, the government argues, efforts to shield his family-man image were in fact campaign expenses.

Palmieri remembered the first National Enquirer story that mentioned the possibility of Edwards being involved in an extramarital affair.

It was months before the publication broke the news about Hunter being pregnant.

Palmieri talked about the efforts to keep the affair story from “jumping to the mainstream media.”

As she tried to help tamp down the story of the affair, Palmieri turned to Edwards and said: “If it’s true, don’t think you’re going to survive this.”

When pushed by prosecutor David Harbach about why she told Edwards that, Palmieri said: “A big part of his appeal was his family and his relationship with Elizabeth.”

Palmieri took the stand after speechwriter Wendy Button finished her testimony.

Button testified on Tuesday that Edwards told her in 2009 that he was aware all along that Baron had provided support to Hunter.

But on cross-examination, defense lawyer Abbe Lowell pointed out that Edwards had not specifically elaborated on what that meant.

Edwards and Button at the time were talking about Quinn, the daughter he had with Hunter. He was upset and very emotional, Button said, that he had lied on an ABC interview nearly 11 months earlier that he was not the father.

Button was helping him prepare a statement that would acknowledge his lie and perhaps clear up other lingering issues.

That statement went through at least 13 renditions, was vetted by lawyers and others, and eventually was not delivered.”

————————————————————–

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

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.


Gregory Lashon Thomas, Aja D. Crawford, and Ernest Ohenekitiwa McMillan Set for a Federal Criminal Trial Before Honorable Chief U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater

July 7, 2011

The U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas on July 6, 2011 released the following:

“TRIAL DATE SET IN MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MORTGAGE FRAUD CASE

Alleged Fraud Involved Approximately $6 Million in Fraudulently Obtained Loan Proceeds

DALLAS — An August 29, 2011, trial date, before Chief U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater, has been set for three defendants charged with running a multi-million dollar mortgage fraud scheme in the Dallas area, announced U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks of the Northern District of Texas. Gregory Lashon Thomas, Aja D. Crawford, aka Aja Abercrombie and Ernest Ohenekitiwa McMillan were arrested on conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud charges outlined in a four-count indictment returned last month. All three pleaded not guilty and have been released on bond.

According to the indictment, Gregory Thomas, 40, of Desoto, Texas, owned and operated Myriad Investments and Investors Source, two real-estate “investment” companies in the Dallas area. Gregory Thomas recruited individuals, including Ernest McMillan, 41, of Dallas, and others to buy residential real estate by telling them that they were purchasing “investment” properties. Thomas further worked with various loan officers, including Aja Crawford, 34, of Irving, Texas, to prepare false loan applications on behalf of the individual purchasers. The loan applications included misrepresentations about the individuals’ monthly income, intention to occupy the property, assets and liabilities. Some loans also included fake documents attempting to justify an individual’s credit-worthiness, such as fake bank records to show that the individual had sufficient money in the bank to qualify for the mortgage

For certain properties involved in the scheme, Thomas provided the down payment at closing. Shortly after closing, Thomas received payment from the seller that wasn’t disclosed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. Thomas would then pay the individual purchaser or another recruiter for purchasing the property.

The indictment alleges that from February 2006 through July 2008, Thomas recruited individuals to purchase real estate properties resulting in approximately $6 million in fraudulently obtained proceeds and $2 million in estimated losses.

This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information about the task force visit: http://www.stopfraud.gov

An indictment is an accusation by a federal grand jury, and a defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. If convicted, however, the conspiracy to commit mail fraud count and each of the substantive mail fraud counts carry a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Restitution could also be ordered.

The case is being investigated by the FBI. Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Nicholas Bunch is in charge of the prosecution.”

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

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

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

Bookmark and Share