TENNESSEE STATE SENATOR CHARGED WITH THEFT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS

According to various news reports, earlier this week, Tennessee State Senator Katrina Robinson was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly embezzling $600,000 in federal funds from a healthcare institute she operated.  According to a criminal complaint filed by a Memphis U.S. Attorney, Ms. Robinson improperly spent federal funds on numerous personal things, including a wedding, a divorce, and a vacation.

As a former federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia, I once handled many prosecutions like this one involving embezzlement of government funds.  One oddity I would note about this case is that, generally, when I prosecuted, I didn't first obtain a complaint and then indict.  I simply obtained an indictment.  In this case, it appears the prosecutor filed a complaint first, and then obtained an indictment.  Was this done in order to get juicy details about the facts of the case out into the public arena?  Maybe not.

Of course, every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

FORMER ABSCAM DEFENDANT FACES NEW CHARGES

[Photo from wikipedia]

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Michael Myers was charged this week with conspiring to violate election laws by allegedly bribing an election official to "stuff" the ballot box for candidates who had hired Myers to assist in their campaigns.

As a former federal prosecutor, I once prosecuted the largest vote buying case in American history.

Myers was previously convicted of bribery in 1981 in connection with the infamous Abscam scandal.  During that investigation, Myers was videotaped while accepting a bribe from an undercover agent.  At that time, Myers reportedly had said, on tape, "money talks in this business and bullshit walks."

Of course, Myers is presumed to be innocent, unless and until proven guilty in court.

OHIO STATE HOUSE SPEAKER ARRESTED

  The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio announced today that Larry Householder, the Speaker of the Ohio State House of Representatives, has been charged along with four others with helping to pass a nuclear bailout bill in exchange for nearly $61 million in bribes.  The bill added a surcharge for energy consumers to help raise $150 to bail out two unprofitable nuclear plants.  This is reportedly the largest bribery case in Ohio history.

As a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Georgia, I once prosecuted Georgia's former Senate Majority leader in a fraud and public corruption case.  So, I know how tough such complex criminal cases can be!

Of course, all defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence unless and until convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

MANAFORT FOUND GUILTY ON EIGHT COUNTS

[Photo from wikipedia]

     As you have probably heard by now, former Trump campaign chairman and businessman, Paul Manafort, was convicted by a jury in federal court yesterday on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. The jury was reportedly unable to reach a verdict on the ten remaining charges. Sentencing will be at a later time.  Manafort also still faces other federal charges in the D.C. district.

As a practical matter, being convicted on even one count, in federal court, which utilizes the federal sentencing guidelines, is sufficient for a federal judge to consider all relevant conduct in imposing sentence. And there is no parole federally.
    

OPENING STATEMENTS IN MANAFORT JURY TRIAL

[DOJ Seal from wikipedia]

A lot has been written about the ongoing federal criminal jury trial of Paul Manafort.  Today, I don't intend to discuss the merits of the Mueller team's case against the former campaign coordinator of President Trump.  Instead, I want to focus on the government prosecutor's manner of making his opening statement.  He read it!

In particular, according to news reports, the prosecutor read his entire opening statement to the jury.  Reading an opening statement or a closing argument is a pet peeve of mine!  In my opinion, no trial lawyer should ever READ an opening statement!  Instead, I believe a good trial lawyer will be so prepared that he or she will be able to speak, without reading, their statement or argument.  Nobody likes to be read to.  Also, by speaking, instead of reading, a trial lawyer is better able to both make eye contact with jurors and to display a greater degree of confidence and preparedness!

As a former federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia for over twenty years, I prosecuted and saw countless federal criminal trials.  In my opinion, the best lawyers never read their openings or closings!

I am sure the government's attorney in this case is a fine lawyer!  But in my opinion, opening statements should be spoken but NOT read!

What do you think?

PROFFERS IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES

[Photo from Wikipedia]

     A proffer is a method often employed by criminal defense attorneys and federal prosecutors to meet and discuss how a defendant could help the government in its investigation, without risking further incrimination.  In short, a proffer involves making an "off the record" offer of proof, in order to help the parties potentially progress further toward a negotiated settlement of some sort.  In some criminal cases, the defendant may simply get a better plea bargain.  In other cases, he or she may obtain immunity from prosecution.

     It is important that a defendant retain a defense lawyer who is knowledgeable about proffers and how cases are made in the federal criminal courts.  Experience counts!  It is also important that your defense attorney should obtain a written proffer letter agreement which clearly sets forth that any proffer is off the record.

     Richard H. Goolsby, Sr., of the Goolsby Law Firm LLC, is Augusta, Georgia's only former twenty year federal prosecutor.  Please call us at (706) 863-5281 for a free initial consultation.

DOJ TO ADD 300 NEW FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

[D.O.J seal depiction from wikipedia]

     According to various news reports, the United States Department of Justice has announced today that approximately 300 new assistant U.S. attorneys will be hired around the country to help meet the President's crime-fighting agenda.
     The DOJ said it will add 190 violent crime prosecutors, 86 civil enforcement prosecutors, and 35 immigration prosecutors.
     As a former A.U.S.A. for more than 20 years in Augusta, Georgia, I can attest to the good work generally done by the DOJ in the field.
     Here's hoping that the addition of these prosecutors will help combat crime on the federal level.

BLAGOJEVICH APPEAL DENIED AGAIN

[Blagojevich photo from wikipedia]

     According to news reports, the appeal to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been denied a second time.

     As you recall, Blagojevich was convicted for, among other things, trying to sell the former Senate seat of former President Obama.

     Blagojevich will reportedly be eligible for release in 2024.

My Take on the Atlanta Public School Cheating Scandal

I would imagine that most of you are aware that, in the past week, a total of 35 Atlanta area public school teachers and school officials have been arrested in connection with the law enforcement probe of alleged cheating by teachers on standardized tests, which led to inflated student test scores in various Atlanta public schools.

Look, I am quite sure that we can all agree that such cheating is wrong! There's no room for debate about that! But here is my take on this prosecution -- and you may or may not agree with me!

First of all, I acknowledge that, presently, I am a criminal defense lawyer  in Augusta, Georgia. I proudly defend folks accused of crimes. But even as a former career prosecutor, both state and federal, I would never have made this into a criminal case. In my opinion, such cheating by teachers should be a firing offense, but not a criminal offense!

My teacher friends tell me that our entire school system is a mess. No Child Left Behind has put tremendous pressure on teachers to focus their efforts on test-taking and test performance, rather than on teaching the little urchins how to read and write! It is no wonder that some teachers will feel pressured to fudge on scores.

Again, I am not saying we should reward cheaters! That is not my point! All I am saying is that we shouldn't be trying to put them in prison, either! In short, again, this cheating, in my opinion, should be a firing offense and not a criminal offense!

What do you think?

The Goolsby Law Firm, LLC: Meet the Lawyers!

As you may know, we are the Goolsby Law Firm, LLC, which is composed of father and son attorneys who enjoy practicing law together in Augusta, Georgia. But we also enjoy having fun together, as shown in the top photograph of me and my three sons on a recent hiking trip in the Georgia mountains! The second photo shows my second son, Blake, following his recent swearing in at the Augusta courthouse! I feel very blessed to get to practice law with my sons, and to share good, practical tips and information in this blog for you to discuss with your own criminal lawyer!

Churches, Copper Thefts, and Hot Places in Hades

We have discussed before in this blog about the problems of vandalism and thefts from churches, along with the exploding copper theft epidemic. This past week, both problems intersected. As reported by various news agencies, someone stole part of the copper roof and gutters from the Palisades Community Church in Washington, D.C., (not pictured above).

As a former federal prosecutor, (and currently, as an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense lawyer), here's hoping that D.C. police catch the crooks responsible for this theft. Here's also hoping that there is a "special" place in Hades for anyone who would steal from a church! 

What do you think?

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Accused of Mortgage Fraud

Lady Justice depiction from wikipedia]

I was a federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia for over 20 years. I thought I saw a little bit of everything! But I never saw a criminal charge brought against a judge. But that is exactly what happened on friday in the State of Michigan.

According to various news reports, a criminal information has been filed in federal court against Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway. Justice Hathaway is reportedly accused of mortgage fraud based upon alleged steps she took to conceal property she owned in Florida in connection with the sale of a Detroit home. 

In federal court, an "information" is simply the word which refers to the formal accusation, or the charging document, filed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney, in a criminal case. Generally, the government must obtain a grand jury indictment, in felony cases, unless the defendant is willing to waive it. If he or she waives the grand jury process, then the federal prosecutor is authorized to simply file the information, or accusation, to begin the criminal court process.

I thought that criminal charges being brought against a judge were unheard of. But then, I googled the keywords "criminal charge against judge" and got a long list of such cases.

So, maybe I didn't see "everything" after all, while working as a federal prosecutor!

A Rant About the U.S. Department of Justice, Prosecutorial Priorities, and Small Potatoes

[U.S. Department of Justice photo from wikipedia]

As a former federal prosecutor for over 20 years and, currently, as an Augusta, GA criminal defense lawyer who regularly handles federal criminal cases, I have seen a number of changes in federal court over the years. Most of them are good. By and large, I still maintain that most federal prosecutors do a good job and that DOJ generally does an effective job of handling the prosecution of federal crimes. In short, I am still proud of my career as an AUSA and the fine job they do!

But I have noticed one disappointing trend which I wanted to blog about today. This trend involves some U.S. Attorney's Offices focusing more and more on "adopting" relatively small state criminal cases and "taking them federal," i.e. prosecuting small cases in federal court that do not belong there. In other words, in my opinion, generally, in the past, the feds focused more on larger, more complex federal cases. Today, on the  other hand, I believe some U.S. Attorneys' Offices are handling more and more relatively smaller criminal cases. Why is this so?

In my opinion, there are a number of reasons for this troubling trend. For example, some federal prosecutors find it easier to adopt and indict relatively simple state cases, instead of handling more intense federal grand jury investigations and putting together more complex federal cases from the ground up. Having handled a number of "mega" federal fraud and public corruption investigations and cases, as a former career federal prosecutor, I know fully well how difficult and time-consuming they can be to put together. But that is no excuse for AUSAs not to focus on them!

Another reason for this change in focus, in my opinion, toward smaller federal cases, originates with DOJ in Washington, D.C. In short, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys generally grades each U.S. Attorney's Office performance based upon the number of criminal cases prosecuted, instead of the size of the cases prosecuted. As a result, in my opinion, the various U.S. Attorney Offices around the country are, in effect, encouraged to take on more smaller, quicker prosecutions than on the more labor-intensive "mega" cases. But, in my opinion, one "mega" fraud case, which can yield millions in fines and restitution for federal programs, is often worth more than fifty "small potato" prosecutions!

Shouldn't the feds focus more on the "mega" fraud cases and leave the smaller potatoes for the states to handle? What do you think?

A Sad Reality About Postal Employee Thefts and the Holidays

[Photo of Postal Delivery Truck from wikipedia]

As Christmas approaches, are you expecting to receive gift cards or money in the mail from family members? Well, frankly, we all must face the fact that, for various reasons, the mail does not always reach its destination, even at Christmas. 

As a former federal prosecutor, here, in Augusta, Georgia, I sometimes prosecuted mail thefts by U.S. Postal Service employees. Some cases involved simple thefts of newspapers or magazines. Other thefts included income tax refund checks and other valuables sent through the mail. But generally all such thefts involve a horrible abuse of a position of trust.

According to various news reports, during six months of 2012, 171 Postal employees around the country were charged with theft or destruction of U.S. mail. In one recent case, in an Atlanta federal court, Gerald Eason, a postal supervisor at an Atlanta mail distribution facility, was prosecuted, along with four co-workers, for reportedly stealing $3 million in U.S. Treasury checks, including folks' V.A. and Social Security checks.

So, while you may be expecting a gift in the mail this Christmas from grandma, please realize that, sadly, it simply might never reach your mailbox! Unfortunately, no one is immune from white collar crime, even during the holidays.

HSBC Banking Company Settles With DOJ

[Photo of HSBC's London Headquarters from wikipedia]

Although I am a former federal prosecutor, (and also, currently, an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense lawyer), I have also taught criminal justice courses part-time at a local university. One of the topics which we recently discussed in my course about White Collar Crime dealt with whether or not some white collar corporate defendants in some cases can unfairly avoid criminal liability -- for the corporation and/or its officers -- by simply paying a fine. In other words, do some white collar criminals get away with fraud and corruption with just a slap on the wrist in the form of a monetary penalty?

Have you read about the case involving HSBC, one of the world's largest banking companies, which is headquartered in Great Britain? According to various news reports, HSBC has been under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for allegedly laundering or transferring funds from Mexican drug cartels and for allegedly transferring funds to benefit Iran, in alleged violations of various sanctions. While everyone is entitled to their day in court, and while everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, these are some pretty serious allegations, don't you agree?

Today, according to various news reports, HSBC is reportedly entering into a "deferred prosecution agreement" with the U.S. Department of Justice, whereby prosecution of HSBC and its executives will apparently be deferred, or avoided, and HSBC will simply pay a whopping $1.9 billion penalty.

Look, let's be fair: no one here is saying that any particular individuals in that situation should be prosecuted. We do not know all the facts. And no one should be judged based upon some news reports. And no one can fairly claim that $1.9 billion is merely a slap on the corporate wrist.

But the question still remains, as we discussed in my college class: Generally, do you believe that, in some criminal cases, (without focusing on that one), some corporations and corporate executives can avoid jail time by simply paying their way out of problems? Are there different standards or considerations in white collar crime, as opposed to street crime? What is your opinion?

White Collar Crime, the Salvation Army, and the Holidays

[Salvation Army depiction from wikipedia]

The holidays are here, so, hopefully, that means that there is a lot of "peace and goodwill toward men." But unfortunately, it also generally means that crime is everywhere. too. Just pick up any newspaper or check any news website. It will quickly show you that -- in addition to "joy to the world" -- the holidays also bring a lot of crimes and crime victims to the world, too.

As a former federal prosecutor, I am particularly drawn to news stories about thefts from charities, particularly around Christmas. In other words, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, here, in Augusta, Georgia, I prosecuted a number of criminal cases, including one involving a former state senator, which dealt with thefts from charities.

One news report which caught my eye today occurred in Toronto, but it could have been anywhere. The reported case involves the alleged theft of approximately $2 million worth of toys from a Salvation Army warehouse by a Salvation Army Executive Director, David Rennie. Of course, all defendants are entitled to their day in court and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution.

But the facts of that single case aren't the point here. The point here is that, while we should all enjoy the holidays, we should also remember that there is a lot of crime "out there" and a lot of innocent crime victims who are suffering at this time of the year.

Maybe we should all put a little extra in the kettle. What do you think?

A Goolsby "War Story:" The Case of the Mysterious Purse

Have you ever been in a situation in which you sensed danger and realized you needed to think fast in order to escape it? Consider the following fact-based "war story" from my days as a federal prosecutor.

I will never forget how tired I felt that afternoon. I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Augusta, Georgia. Several months earlier, I had fought for the opportunity to handle the prosecution of a major healthcare fraud case. This was a major white collar criminal case --a career-making case -- which had made the news headlines nearly every day. Ever since my assignment, I had been working hard, seven days a week.

On this particular afternoon, I was sitting at my desk and reviewing some boring F.B.I. 302s, (investigative reports of witness interviews). The U.S. Attorney's Office receptionist buzzed and told me that a lady, a Ms. Johnson, was up front, waiting in the reception area. The receptionist didn't know exactly who this visitor was or why she was there to see me.

When I opened the door which divided the inner offices from the reception area, I immediately saw a middle aged woman who was neatly dressed. I still had no idea who she was. I also quickly noticed that she seemed emotionally distraught and that, oddly, she had one of her hands inside her purse.

I introduced myself to her and asked if I could help her. She proceeded to tell me that her name was Irene Johnson. She added that she was the wife of Jim Johnson. I also noticed that she continued to fumble with her purse -- nervously opening and closing it as she talked.

Immediately, I realized who she was. I had learned from my case agent that her husband had just been fired by the big healthcare company which was the target of my federal grand jury investigation. According to the local newspaper, Mr. Johnson, her husband, had confronted his boss about alleged wrongdoing at the company. As a result, the boss had just given her husband the ax. 

Even though I was not the guilty party who had fired her husband, I soon realized that this lady, as she continued to ramble and vent her anger, somehow blamed me, and our federal investigation, for their predicament.

And again, I watched as she kept fumbling with her purse, and kept putting one hand in it, as she continued to ramble on and on about how I didn't realize the damage I had caused her family.

Then, I started getting a little nervous. I was unsure what to do. Now, this woman was getting all worked up and chewing me out! And I had an errie feeling, and a sense of danger, but, still, I couldn't be sure about what I faced. Naturally, I couldn't see what was in her purse, but, just as naturally, I feared she had a pistol in it. To this day, I truly believe that she had a gun and that she was undecided about whether or not to use it. Maybe, I believe, she simply wanted to speak her peace before she took her revenge against me.

I quickly considered my options. I calculated that it would be difficult for me to attempt to tackle her, from across the room, before she snatched out her gun and shot me. But still, that seemed like one good option. However, on the other hand, I still just couldn't be sure she even had a weapon. I certainly didn't want to face the embarrassing prospect of taking down an innocent person who was simply reaching in her purse for a tissue! How would that look in the local newspaper? Nevertheless, I knew I needed to do something quick. I was in a situation in which I sensed that I needed to think and act fast, or possibly face dire consequences!

So, rather than tackling her, I decided to try a different approach. I chose to put on my best preacher's son's hat. In short, I elected to try to talk with her and show her some compassion. I proceeded to let her know how sorry I was about her predicament and, then, I told her that I would pray for her and her family.

That's what did it. That's what worked! I believe that when she saw that I was not a cold government prosecutor, but simply a nice young man doing his job, it melted her resolve to do what, (if anything), she might have been contemplating. But I don't want to overstate things. I didn't completely disarm her with my charm! Ms. Johnson did not smile at me, nor did she offer any apology. She seemed confused. Without a parting word, but after hearing I would pray for her, the flummoxed Ms. Johnson simply closed her purse, turned, and left.

Did she really have a gun? Did she really intend me harm? I will never know for sure. But I do know that, sometimes, when you sense danger, you had better think and act fast in order to escape!

And yes, I did pray for her. But you'd better believe that I never again entered the reception area of the U.S. Attorney's Office without first knowing who was waiting there and exactly what they were toting!  

Drones v. Right to Privacy

Drone depiction from telegraph.co.uk]

We have all seen how the U.S. military has spied upon terrorists and "brought to justice" many of them in hot spots around the world. But this post does not involve such uses of drones to nail terrorists overseas.

Instead, I want to talk to you about the trend toward widespread usage of drones by law enforcement in the United States. According to various news reports, there will be about 30,000 drones in use in this country by the year 2020. Also, according to a recent survey by the Associated Press and The National Constitution Center, 44% of Americans actually support the idea of police using drones to track and catch criminals. Only 36% reportedly opposed it, according to the survey.

I don't know about you, but as a free citizen in a democratic society, I am alarmed about this trend involving unregulated usage of drones to watch us and about popular opinion in support of it. While I am very supportive of law enforcement using all legitimate tools to catch the "bad guys," (after all, while I presently may be an Augusta, GA criminal defense lawyer, I was a federal prosecutor for over 20 years), I am worried about "Big Brother" abusing this tool to stifle dissent and otherwise to step on our Constitution!

What do you think?

A Goolsby "War Story:" More Examples of Kickbacks in Fraud Cases

[Stacks of Cash Depiction from wikipedia]

Recently, I started a series of posts in which I describe examples of kickbacks which were paid in major fraud cases I saw as a former federal prosecutor. Currently, I am a criminal defense lawyer in Augusta, Georgia, where I practice law with my sons, but I handled a number of significant white collar criminal cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for over 20 years.

In one major "honest services" mail fraud case, the defendant construction company paid a total of $2.7 million in kickback payments to an employee of another company, in exchange for being awarded profitable construction contracts by the other company's employee. One of the many kickbacks, or rewards, paid in this case included a total of $13,945.00 paid to two dating services, (for the employee's benefit and enjoyment), including one dating service located in Atlanta and another one located in San Diego. In addition, the defendant construction company actually paid for the (other company's) employee's travel costs to fly around the country to date all the women he met through the dating services!

Now, you must admit, while fraud is wrong, those are nice kickbacks!

Search Warrants v. Subpoenas: Practical Considerations on Which Method the Feds Will Use

[Photo from southeastsun.com]

According to various news reports, earlier today, state and federal law enforcement officials executed a search warrant at a social services (DFACS) office in Columbus, Georgia. According to the reports, the agents were looking for evidence pertaining to an investigation of DFACS employees for allegedly falsifying records to obtain federal funding. It struck me as a little bit odd that government agents were doing a raid on a government office.

But the facts of that investigation really are not the point I wanted to make here. Instead, I want to discuss in this post some of the practical reasons why the feds sometimes select search warrants, as opposed to utilizing grand jury subpoenas, or some other method, to obtain evidence of a crime.

As a former federal prosecutor for over 20 years, (currently, I am an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense lawyer), I often had to advise or plan with federal agents about which evidence-gathering method to use. A common reason to utilize a search warrant, (instead of a subpoena), is if you are afraid that the "bad guys," or targets of the investigation, will engage in a "shredding party," if you tip them off, or that you may give them time otherwise to remove or destroy incriminating records.

But, trust me, there are also some practical reasons NOT to use a search warrant! For instance, if you go in with a search warrant, you may be required to seize everything!  This can amount to millions of pages of documents that you are then going to have to inventory, store, and actually read! On the other hand, if you use a subpoena, you can make a rifle shot request for a relatively few, selected documents and avoid all the trouble and mess of a search warrant!

Another problem with utilizing a search warrant involves the serious disruption it causes to what may be otherwise be a legitimate office or business.

Every white collar crime investigation is different! And that is what made it exciting to be a federal prosecutor! These are just a few of the practical reasons why one evidence-gathering method may be chosen over another. What do you think?