Connect with us

Federal Judges

LIF Editorial: Drug Smugglin’ Coast Guard and Attorney Sentenced to Probation

James Heyward Silcox III was a Commander in the US Coast Guard and part-time wholesale drug smuggler. His claims to the Fl. Bar he’s an addict LIF found to be unavailing.

Published

on

When the Coast is Clear, Let All the Criminal Lawyers Go Free

JUL 1, 2021
Silcox’s last known address on his February 2021 Fl. Bar Affidavit. The property was sold the following month.

LIF was alerted to Heyward Silcox when the Florida Bar  issued their July 2021 list of misconduct. After reading the Bar’s paperwork, one would think that Heyward went wayward on a drug addiction.

The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court decided to revoke his license for five years but allow him to reapply as Heyward Silcox was very remorseful and grateful for a second chance.

As part of his rehabilitation, he would complete addiction counseling etc.

However, after LIF’s investigation,  Silcox has clearly committed perjury. He is a lyin’ lawyer. The charge itself is clear on the it’s face, he was a king pin distributing the large quantities of Tramadol, a narcotic, to others for distribution and sale based on the quantities in question.

What you will read in the following article is how Silcox imported wholesale quantities of Tramadol from 2017 until his arrest in 2019, a narcotic. What’s fantastical but true is at the same time he’s assistant trial counsel for the Coast Guard, prosecuting a case where appellant was convicted of four specifications of wrongful use of a controlled substance (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and oxycodone).

See United States v. Kenneth MOLINARY, No. 1440 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2017).

Nowhere did LIF find any disclosure of these facts, including the government. (We’ll correct this article if we are mistaken, just holla’). It’s also unclear if he was slapped, prosecuted or disbarred by the Coast Guard internally before his resignation or it was deemed ‘moot’ upon his resignation.

It gets more incredulous after his arrest. Silcox is provided with a Public Defender and the prosecution have to arrange a conference with the judge to submit him into retaining his own criminal attorney.

His wife is Lieutenant Commander Emma Silcox who serves as the Base Miami Beach Comptroller. Here’s the job description, the budget she oversees is in the Billions.

Yet her husband’s greed and combined $300,000 annual salaries would not prevent him from trafficking, apparently to fund a new retirement home and related investments and not a falsely claimed addiction.

The icing on the cake is this trusted attorney, JAG and Commander was surfin’ the dark web to purchase his illegal narcs and paying for it with crypto.

In obtaining relief from the Fl. Bar complaint, Silcox’s affidavit in his Petition to the Fl. Bar included;

I, Petitioner, would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the Florida Bar for its compassion, patience, guidance, and resources, in facilitating my recovery through the exhausting and unpleasant last ~18 months, as I retired from the military, resolved my case, and relocated to Florida. Regardless of whether this Petition is approved, and regardless of whether I earn readmission in five years, I and my family are forever grateful for – and humbled by – the Bar’s support. As we say in recovery, “I cannot start my new future until I give up all hope of a better past.” I own my criminal conduct, and that dark time serves as a constant reminder in keeping my recovery strong and permanent. The Bar has been a tremendous advocate in starting this new, healthy, humble, chapter in my life.

Signed on 22 February, 2021.

Apparently, Silcox claims the same skills as Judge Kenneth “Magic” Marra of S.D. Fl., in that he can predict the future… However, the entry of judgment and sentencing did not happen in the California criminal case until June 2, 2021.

We now know that Mr Silcox  ‘retired’ 18 months before his Feb 2021 affidavit which would be around the time of his indictment in August 2019. It is unclear why he joined the Florida Bar in March of 2018.

Whether Mrs Silcox is still employed by the Department of Homeland Security  is  unknown as we publish this alarming true story.

Judge Jon S. Tigar

Alameda Resident Pleads Guilty To Illegally Importing Narcotics (Yep, this DOJ Headline is Very Understated)

According to the government, Silcox used end-to-end encrypted communication applications and email services to communicate with his overseas suppliers and his downstream domestic customers and used crytpocurrency to make payments.

JUN 29, 2020 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 1, 2021

United States v. Silcox

(4:19-cr-00491)

District Court, N.D. California

OAKLAND –James Heyward Silcox III, pleaded guilty to all three counts in an indictment charging him with illegally importing controlled substances, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson, Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Tatum King, Coast Guard Investigative Service Special Agent in Charge Kelly Hoyle, and Customs and Border Protection Director of Field Operations Brian J. Humphrey.

Silcox entered the guilty plea without a plea agreement.  The plea was accepted by the Hon. Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge.

Silcox, 42, of Alameda, Calif., was originally charged by complaint on September 18, 2019.  The complaint alleged that he illegally imported Tramadol from Singapore and Germany to post office boxes he held.  Tramadol is a Schedule IV controlled substance and narcotic.

Silcox, a U.S. Coast Guard Commander, was arrested on the complaint on September 17, 2019, at Coast Guard Island, in Alameda.

During the change of plea hearing, the government advised the court of evidence that Silcox began purchasing tramadol in 2017 online from an unknown person he believed was in Singapore.

The government offered further evidence that Silcox had received shipments of tramadol from three separate overseas suppliers from 2017 to 2019, and sent shipments to downstream buyers of 500-1000 pills per month, which Silcox received from his overseas suppliers at his P.O. boxes.

LIF Comment: So he’s not a drug addict, he’s a drug dealer.

According to the government, Silcox used end-to-end encrypted communication applications and email services to communicate with his overseas suppliers and his downstream domestic customers, and used crytpocurrency to make payments.

LIF Comment: In 2018 he was admitted to the Florida Bar as an Attorney.

On September 26, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Silcox charging him with three counts of importation of a Schedule IV narcotic drug, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(6).  Pursuant to the guilty plea, Silcox pleaded guilty to all three counts.

Silcox faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, and a fine of $250,000, for each count in the indictment.

However, any sentence would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

His next court appearance has been set for September 25, 2020, which is a status hearing concerning the sentencing.

LIF Update: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Sentencing held on 5/28/2021 for James Heyward Silcox, III (1). Committed to a term of 3 years probation, to be served concurrently with terms imposed on Count(s): 1, 2 and 3; $300.00 special assessment; $5,000.00 fine

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah E. Griswold is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Mimi Lam.

The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Homeland Security Investigations; the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area-Transnational Narcotics Team (HIDTA-TNT); the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General; and the Coast Guard Investigation Service.  The prosecution is part of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force National Heroin Initiative to combat the opioid crisis.

U.S. District Court
California Northern District (Oakland)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cr-00491-JST All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Silcox

Magistrate judge case number: 4:19-mj-71534-MAG
Date Filed: 09/26/2019
Date Terminated: 05/28/2021

Plaintiff
USA represented by Sarah Elizabeth Griswold
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California
150 Almaden Blvd.
Suite 900
San Jose, CA 95113
408-535-5061
Fax: 408-535-5081
Email: Sarah.Griswold@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant US AttorneyKaren D. Beausey
U.S. Attorney’s Office
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36055
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 436-6598
Fax: (415) 436-7234
Email: karen.beausey@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
01/14/2021 41 ORDER granting 40 Stipulation to Continue Sentencing as to James Heyward Silcox III (1) Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 14, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/2021)
04/16/2021 43 CLERK’S NOTICE SETTING IN-COURTROOM ZOOM HEARING. Sentencing set for 4/23/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. All counsel shall appear in person. All persons attending the hearing must take the pre-screening questionnaire here: http://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CAND-COVID-19-Pre-Screening-Questionnaire.pdf This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts .gov/jst

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Sentencing set for 4/23/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, Courtro om 1, 4th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

04/16/2021 44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING as to James Heyward Silcox, III, filed by USA, James Heyward Silcox, III. (Griswold, Sarah) (Filed on 4/16/2021) Modified on 4/19/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2021)
04/19/2021 45 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 44 Stipulation To Continue Sentencing as to James Heyward Silcox III (1).(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2021) (Entered: 04/19/2021)
04/19/2021 46 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Sentencing set for 5/28/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, – Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Sentencing set for 5/28/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, – Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is n o document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2021) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

04/19/2021 47 MOTION for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture by USA as to James Heyward Silcox, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Preliminary Order of Forfeiture)(Beausey, Karen) (Filed on 4/19/2021) Modified on 4/20/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/19/2021)
05/21/2021 48 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by USA as to James Heyward Silcox, III (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Griswold, Sarah) (Filed on 5/21/2021) (Entered: 05/21/2021)
05/21/2021 49 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by James Heyward Silcox, III (Levinsohn, Michael) (Filed on 5/21/2021) (Entered: 05/21/2021)
05/28/2021 50 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 47 Motion for Forfeiture of Property as to James Heyward Silcox III (1).(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2021) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
05/28/2021 51 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Sentencing held on 5/28/2021 for James Heyward Silcox, III (1). Committed to a term of 3 years probation, to be served concurrently with terms imposed on Count(s): 1, 2 and 3; $300.00 special assessment; $5,000.00 fine (Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado). (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2021) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
06/02/2021 52 JUDGMENT in a Criminal Case as to James Heyward Silcox, III. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 2, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2021) (Entered: 06/02/2021)

Heyward Silcox III, 22 Tulip Lane, Apt. 307, Cocoa Beach, disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years, effective 30 days following a May 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2018)

On or about June 26, 2020, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Silcox pleaded guilty to three counts of illegal importation of a controlled substance, specifically the Schedule IV narcotic Tramadol.

Prior to his plea, Silcox successfully completed a chemical dependency treatment program on March 6, 2020.

Silcox has also signed a two-year contract with Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.

(Case No: SC21-290)

OAKLAND — Federal prosecutors have secured a grand jury indictment against a U.S. Coast Guard commander who was arrested and charged in an alleged scheme to smuggle drugs in from Singapore.

James Silcox III, 41, was indicted Sept. 26 on three charges of importation of a Schedule IV narcotic, court records show. The criminal complaint against him alleges he received three shipments of Tramadol, a controlled substance and narcotic, to post office boxes over the summer.

Schedule IV drugs are defined by the federal government as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence.

According to the criminal complaint, on July 11, an 865-gram package from Singapore headed for an Alameda post office box was flagged by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at the U.S. Postal Service’s international mail facility at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. Officers at the postal service’s San Francisco airmail facility intercepted another 650 200-milligram tablet Tramadol package from Singapore on Aug. 28, before receiving another package Sept. 13 that held 458 grams of Tramadol.

Silcox has requested the services of the federal public defender’s office, but prosecutors are fighting the move, saying that

James Silcox and his wife — who is also a commander in the U.S. Coast Guard — make a combined $300,000 in “annual take-home pay” and are building a retirement home in Florida.

“That a defendant would rather not spend his money on an attorney does not mean he is ‘financially unable’ to obtain counsel,”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Griswold wrote in a memorandum opposing Silcox’s retention of a public defender.

Silcox pleaded not guilty to the charges at a Sept. 30 arraignment hearing, court records show. He was released from jail the same day the charges were filed, according to the docket.

Public Defender Removed from Case

Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Winn Levinsohn

Emma Silcox, Lieutenant Commander, United States Coast Guard

Board of Director at the National Women’s Council. The Council is dedicated to developing and empowering women of all background, classes, and ages.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Eleventh Circuit

Southern Florida Judge Orders Retrial for Fraud by Prosecutors. It Wasn’t Lyin’ Judge Marra

Judge Darrin P. Gayles claims during a court hearing the original prosecutors “deliberately misled this court.” He orders a new AUSA team.

Published

on

July 16, 2021: S.D. Fl. Judge Orders New Trial After AUSAs ‘Deliberately Misled’ Him

A Florida federal judge said Friday he would be ordering a new trial — with a new prosecution team — for a trio of men found guilty of swiping millions of dollars from elderly people in a sweepstakes scheme, saying during a hearing that the original prosecutors “deliberately misled this court.”

A federal judge in Miami has ordered a new trial for three men found guilty in a fraudulent sweepstakes scheme after concluding that federal prosecutors had “knowingly invaded the defense camp” while lying to the court about it.

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles of the Southern District of Florida said two initial prosecutors in the case “deliberately misled this court.”

Law360 and the Miami Herald have coverage of Gayles’ remarks, made during a hearing Friday.

Gayles said he had allowed the three Florida men to be tried without knowing the extent of prosecutors’ alleged wrongdoing, according to the coverage.

Prosecutors had received handwritten notes from a fourth defendant who attended defense meetings without disclosing that he had obtained a plea deal with prosecutors, Gayles said during the hearing. The other defendants were working together under a joint defense agreement.

The fourth defendant, 53-year-old John Leon of Wilton Manors, Florida, had received government authorization to attend strategy meetings. Yet prosecutors lied about whether Leon had attended more than one meeting and whether they approved his participation, Gayles said.

One of the federal prosecutors had countered in a court filing that Leon’s cooperation was “kept covert” because he was cooperating with the government against a noncharged defendant, according to the Miami Herald. The prosecutor also said Leon had been instructed not to share privileged information.

The Florida defendants—46-year-old Matthew Pisoni of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; 42-year-old Marcus Pradel of Boca Raton, Florida; and 39-year-old Victor Ramirez of Aventura, Florida—had been convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud in 2017. They were accused of telling their scam victims that they had won a sweepstakes prize, and they had to pay $20 to $50 to redeem it.

The defendants sought a new trial after receiving new evidence obtained during an investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office and the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

The government countered that much of the “newly discovered” evidence cited by the defendants wasn’t material and had no exculpatory value.

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Southern District of Florida

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Four South Florida Residents Sentenced to Prison for Conspiring to Commit Sweepstakes Mail Fraud

Wednesday, November 29, 2017 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 19, 2021

Four Florida residents were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 42 months imprisonment to 84 months imprisonment for participating in a sweepstakes mail fraud scheme.

Benjamin G. Greenberg, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and Antonio J. Gomez, Inspector in Charge, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), Miami Division, made the announcement.

Matthew Pisoni, 44, of Fort Lauderdale, Marcus Pradel, 41, of Boca Raton, and Victor Ramirez, 38, of Aventura, were found guilty of conspiring to commit mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, after a five-week trial that ended on July 26, 2017. John Leon, 50, of Fort Lauderdale, previously pled guilty to conspiring to commit mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

Today, United States District Court Judge Gayles sentenced Pisoni and Ramirez to 84 months imprisonment; Pradel to 78 months imprisonment; and Leon to 42 months imprisonment.

The trial evidence established that the four defendants, Pisoni, Pradel, Ramirez and Leon, falsely notified individuals by mail that they had won a substantial prize. The letters the defendants sent fraudulently represented that the recipients needed to pay a fee ranging from $20 to $50 to the defendants in order to redeem their purported winnings. During the course of the mail fraud conspiracy, more than 100,000 victims in the United States and abroad were fraudulently induced to pay the fees by the defendants’ misleading claims that they had won a prize. The fraudulent letters directed victims to pay the fees in cash or by check or money order payable to fictitious companies. The defendants then either processed the victims’ payments through independent payment processors or deposited them into shell bank accounts controlled directly and indirectly by the defendants and their co-conspirators. In total, over $25 million in victim payments went into the defendants’ and co-conspirators’ bank accounts.

Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the IRS-CI, USPIS, Federal Trade Commission, Aventura Police Department, and other local and international law enforcement agencies. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Elijah Levitt, and H. Ron Davidson.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

‘Breathtaking’ revelation delays start of prison term for men in $25M sweepstakes fraud

JAN 12, 2018 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 19, 2021

Three South Florida men convicted of operating a $25 million sweepstakes fraud were supposed to turn themselves in to start serving their punishments on Friday afternoon.

But a judge has agreed to delay their prison surrenders after what the defense calls outrageous last-minute revelations from federal prosecutors.

It’s the latest twist in a controversial case in which victims, mostly seniors, were tricked into sending money to claim a fictitious cash prize.

“The government has disclosed breathtaking new evidence … demonstrating that its witnesses testified falsely … and that the prosecutors made misleading arguments to the court,”

appeals attorney David Oscar Markus wrote in a court filing.

Matthew Pisoni, 45, of Fort Lauderdale, Marcus Pradel, 41, of Boca Raton, and Victor Ramirez, 38, of Aventura, were found guilty of mail fraud conspiracy after a jury trial last year. John Leon, 50, of Wilton Manors, pleaded guilty to the same charge in 2016 and cooperated with investigators.

Leon was going to testify against the other three men but U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles barred him from doing so in late 2016.

At the time, the judge also blasted the U.S. Attorney’s Office for allowing Leon to spy on his co-defendants — and their attorneys — after Leon had secretly made a plea deal with the prosecution.

The judge called the prosecution’s handling of the case “extraordinary.”

Judge blasts federal prosecutors over secret deal that led to spying on defense

“I don’t know what’s happening at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. This is the latest of a series of incidents that is affecting the credibility of this office,”

the judge said during the 2016 hearing.

“Someone has got to look at this thing … There’s a problem here that needs to be rectified in some way.”

Defense attorneys for the three men said they were blindsided by prosecutors and Leon’s defense attorney, Omar Johansson.

The problem was different from regular snitching by informants, they said, because all four men had pleaded not guilty in 2015 and, at the time, they and their attorneys had a formal agreement to work together and come up with defense strategies.

Anyone who wanted out was supposed to give 48 hours’ notice to the others.

The judge rejected their request to throw out the charges before trial because of what the defense called an illegal “invasion of the defense camp” by the prosecution.

During the 2016 hearing, prosecutors H. Ron Davidson and Elijah Levitt told the judge they had thought it was essential to keep Leon’s cooperation secret because he was working undercover for them on another related investigation.

They said they later regretted not running their decision up the chain of command at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami.

The judge said that, at a minimum, they should have told their bosses and asked for the judge’s explicit approval.

The prosecutors also told the judge at the hearing they had never received any documents from Leon.

The three men went to trial and were convicted, without Leon’s testimony.

Pisoni and Ramirez were sentenced to seven years in federal prison, Pradel to 6 ½ years and Leon to 3 ½ years. Leon is still expected to begin serving his sentence on Tuesday.

Judge Gayles agreed Thursday to let the other three men remain free until at least March 16. Their attorneys have requested a court hearing to find out more about the newly released information.

They may seek a new trial or use it on appeal.

Earlier this week — three days before the men were due to go to prison — prosecutors filed a court document saying they wanted to “correct” the record. They revealed that Leon gave prosecutor Levitt a document that they now believe may have been a chart or timeline — compiled for the defense by Pradel — which they had claimed they never received.

They now can’t find the document, they wrote.

“The government believes that this document may have been the timeline discussed during the hearings, but the government cannot be certain because the document was placed in a sealed file folder without being examined and no federal agent or Assistant United States Attorney has ever opened the sealed file folder and read the document contained therein,”

they wrote.

“Moreover, Assistant United States Attorney Levitt has exhaustively searched his office’s records but has been unable to locate the sealed file folder with the document.”

Prosecutors, who previously said in court they had rejected Leon’s offer of the chart, also revealed that Leon gave handwritten notes to an IRS agent.

Pisoni, the son-in-law of the late self-help guru Wayne Dyer, was the ringleader of the fraud, according to prosecutors.

Markus, the attorney handling Pisoni’s appeal, declined to comment on the legal aspects of the case.

Pisoni returned home when he learned of the two-month reprieve on Thursday after he had already taken a flight to New Orleans on his way to surrender at his designated prison, Markus said.

The new filing raises more questions than it answers and calls “into question the credibility of the government’s presentation, witnesses, and evidence,” Markus wrote.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the pending case, citing Department of Justice policy.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office has had similar issues in the past, Judge Gayles noted in the 2016 hearing.

He mentioned a reprimand issued in 2009 by a judge who ordered prosecutors to pay a defendant more than $600,000.

That judge ruled prosecutors and a Drug Enforcement Administration agent acted “vexatiously and in bad faith” when they secretly recorded a Miami defense lawyer, Markus, and his investigator in a questionable witness-tampering investigation.

An appeals court later ruled Dr. Ali Shaygan, who was found not guilty of prescription drug charges, was not entitled to the money because of how Judge Alan Gold handled the reprimands of the prosecutors.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Eleventh Circuit

Florida Bar: Y’all Are In Contempt for Not Answering Complaints

The Florida Bar do not suspend the unresponsive lawyers, they give them a public slap. Forget about the Complainants – it’s Vacation time.

Published

on

Summer Vacation Already Started at the Fl. Bar, a Very Quiet Month of Discipline

JUN 24, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 2, 2021

The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined five attorneys, disbarring one, suspending one, revoking the licenses of one, and reprimanding two.

Ben Ira Farbstein, 4018 Sheridan St., Hollywood, public reprimand effective immediately following an April 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1982)

Farbstein was held in contempt for failing to timely respond to inquiries of the Bar.

(Case No. SC21-92)

Colleen E. Huott, 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 100, Boca Raton, disbarred, effective immediately following a May 20 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2005)

Huott failed to respond to 10 grievances, two Orders to Show Cause from the Florida Supreme Court and a subpoena duces tecum.

Additionally, Huott received 10 trust account overdraft notices, which the Bar could not investigate due to Huott ignoring all inquiries by the Bar.

(Case No: SC21-383)

Erica Helene Kobloth, 5613 Pacific Blvd., Apt. 3307, Boca Raton, suspended for three years effective immediately following a May 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2012)

Kobloth was held in contempt of the Court’s order dated Nov. 2, 2020, for failing to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel and tribunals of her suspension.

(Case No: SC21-432)

Beverly T. Shaw, 6865 19th St. South, St. Petersburg, public reprimand effective immediately following a May 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1998)

Shaw was held in contempt and publicly reprimanded for failing to timely respond to official Bar inquiries.

(Case No: SC21-157)

Heyward Silcox III, 22 Tulip Lane, Apt. 307, Cocoa Beach, disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years, effective 30 days following a May 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2018)

On or about June 26, 2020, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Silcox pleaded guilty to three counts of illegal importation of a controlled substance, specifically the Schedule IV narcotic Tramadol.

Prior to his plea, Silcox successfully completed a chemical dependency treatment program on March 6, 2020.

Silcox has also signed a two-year contract with Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.

(Case No: SC21-290)

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Editors Choice

The Senate Judiciary Committee Has a Responsibility to Forcefully Reject this Judicial Overreach

LIF and LIT has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there are many rogue judges on our Federal Benches. This request is in direct violation of the US Constitution.

Published

on

Principles for Federal Judicial Privacy Legislation
Protection of Judges’ Personally Identifiable Information

Further to our article on Judges wanting God Status and Protection from Scrutiny by Tax Payers and Citizens, the following article transcribes the letter circulating congress and the Judicial Senate Committee…

September 4, 2020
Honorable Lindsey Graham Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In my August 19, 2020 letter to House and Senate leadership, I outlined six recommendations approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States to improve judicial security.

That letter was prompted by the July 2020 attack on the family of United States District Court Judge Esther Salas that resulted in the murder of her 20-year-old son, Daniel, and the critical wounding of her husband, Mark.

Unfortunately, too many others in our judicial family have experienced similar tragedy and grief. The murders of United States District Judge John Wood (1979), United States District Judge Richard Daronco (1988), United States Circuit Judge Robert Vance (1989), United States District Judge John Roll (2011), family members of United States District Judge Joan Lefkow (2005), and now the son of United States District Judge Esther Salas were tragic targeted attacks against federal judges and their families.

Unfortunately, threats have greatly multiplied over the past five years and require immediate legislative action to enhance security protections.

Among the recommendations approved by the Judicial Conference is to seek legislation to enhance the protection of judges’ personally identifiable information (PII), particularly on the internet.

Another recommendation is to seek legislation to eliminate the sunset provision in 5 U.S.C. app. § 105(b)(3)(E), which grants the Judicial Conference authority to redact financial disclosure reports.

Other recommendations are for additional appropriations – for the upgrade, installation, and continued sustainment of the Home Intrusion Detection Systems program; for additional deputy U.S. Marshals; and for the Federal Protective Service (FPS) to fund the required upgrades for courthouse security camera systems.

A final recommendation is to support the development of a resource to monitor the public availability of judges’ PII, inform judges of security vulnerabilities created by this information, and where necessary, advise the appropriate law enforcement of an inappropriate communication.

James C. Duff
Secretary

Enclosures

cc:
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Honorable Cory Booker
Honorable Bob Menendez

The judiciary supports the protection of and prevention of unauthorized release of personally identifiable information of federal judicial officers and their immediate families (“Judges’ Personally Identifiable Information” or “JPII”), particularly such information that is available and distributed through the internet. “Immediate family” includes a judicial officer’s spouse, child, parent, or any blood relative of the judicial officer or the judicial officer’s spouse who lives in the same residence as the judicial officer.

The goal of this legislation is to ensure that federal judicial officers are able to administer justice fairly without fear of personal reprisal from individuals affected by decisions made in the course of carrying out their professional duties. The purposes of the legislation are to remove and/or limit access to JPII from publicly displayed records, as well as to prohibit any person, business, association, or agency from posting, displaying, selling, sharing, transferring, or trading JPII with others. Federal privacy legislation shall not be construed to impair free access to decisions and opinions expressed by judicial officers in the course of carrying out their public duties.
The judiciary recommends enactment of federal legislation that incorporates the following:

1. PROTECTION OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL OFFICERS including the Chief Justice of the United States; the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States; judges of the United States courts of appeals; district judges and magistrate judges of the United States district courts, including the district courts in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court of International Trade, United States Bankruptcy courts, United States Court of Federal Claims, and any court created by Act of Congress, the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior. The legislation shall extend to any individual identified above, whether in active, senior, recalled, or retired status, as well as any individual whose nomination to a position listed above has been transmitted by the President of the United States to the United States Senate and whose nomination remains pending before the United States Senate.

2. PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION of judicial officers and their immediate family members, to include but not be limited to the primary home address; date of birth; social security number; driver’s license number; voter registration information that includes a home address; bank account and credit or debit card information; property tax records and any property ownership records, including a secondary residence and any investment property; birth and marriage records; marital status; personal email addresses; home or mobile phone number; vehicle registration information; family member’s employer, daycare, or school; personal photographs or photographs of a judicial officer’s home; religious, organization, club, or association memberships; identification of children under the age of 18; and any other unique biometric data or piece of information that can be used to identify an individual.

3. PROHIBITION OF PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OF JPII BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Federal government agencies shall have an affirmative duty to prevent the public disclosure of JPII, and upon written request shall remove restricted JPII from internet sites or publicly accessible federal government databases within 48-72 hours of the request.

4. MANDATORY REMOVAL OR REDACTION OF JPII UPON WRITTEN REQUEST SERVED ON ANY PERSON, BUSINESS, ASSOCIATION, OR AGENCY. Upon written request, a person, business, association or agency must, within 48-72 hours of receipt of the request, redact from the public record any existing JPII and may not thereafter knowingly post, display, sell, share, trade or transfer JPII, including publicly accessible and displayed content. No person, business or association shall solicit JPII with intent to do harm to a judicial officer or immediate family member. The written request by a judicial officer, or his or her representative, to remove and/or to redact from the public record JPII of the judicial officer or an immediate family member shall not require a showing of fear of harm or immediate threat and shall remain effective until revocation of the request by the judicial officer or a surviving immediate family member.

5. ENFORCEMENT/REMEDIES shall include a private right of action (including injunctive or declaratory relief), civil enforcement authority by an appropriate federal department or regulatory agency, and limited criminal enforcement authority.

6. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS. Federal legislation must mandate and/or provide incentives for the protection of JPII held at the state/county/local level – at a minimum including motor vehicle registration and driver’s license information; real estate transaction and property tax records; and voter registration information that includes a home address. Restricted JPII of federal judicial officers and immediate family members must be exempt from state public information laws. Federal legislation might include grant programs to assist states in complying with these provisions.

Permanent Authority to Redact Sensitive Security Information from Judicial Financial Disclosure Reports

PROPOSED LEGISLATION:

SECTION 1. REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION.

Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).

BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION:

• The Judicial Conference of the United States seeks legislation to eliminate the sunset provision in 5 U.S.C. app. § 105(b)(3)(E), which grants the Judicial Conference authority to redact financial disclosure reports.

• The need to provide permanent redaction authority is a sensitive security matter. A lapse in redaction authority, which has occurred in the past, creates significant security risks to judges and judiciary employees. Federal judges and judiciary employees, like probation officers, routinely interact with disgruntled litigants and convicted criminals who may bear grudges against them. Without redaction authority, these individuals will be able to learn sensitive information such as the unsecured locations of judges, employees, and their families. Redaction of this sensitive information protects these public servants and their families from harm.

• Judges and certain judicial employees are required to file financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended. Congress has recognized judges and judicial employees have been the subject of assault, threats and harassment. Accordingly, Congress enacted legislation that grants the Judiciary the authority to redact certain statutorily required information in a financial disclosure report in limited instances when the release of the information could endanger a judicial officer or employee or his or her family (The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, Section 7, P.L. 105-318, October 30, 1998.) We thank the Congress for their past support of this critical safeguard.

• Congress has extended the authority to redact six times since 1998. In 2012, Congress passed an extension of the sunset provision through December 31, 2017. Unfortunately, the redaction authority expired on January 1, 2018 because Congress did not take final action on eliminating the sunset provision or renewing the authority. It wasn’t until March 23, 2018, upon enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 that redaction authority was again extended to December 31, 2027.

• Congress previously has indicated support for legislation to make this authority permanent. As noted in House Report 115-332, the House has consistently supported permanent reauthorization of redaction authority. The House passed permanent redaction authority in 2011 by a vote of 384-0. In October 2017, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs favorably reported to the Senate S. 1584 which provided for permanent redaction authority (see Senate Report 115-172.)

• The Judicial Conference uses its redaction authority carefully and reasonably. Each year a very small percentage of the financial disclosure reports filed contain an approved redaction of some information in the report. In 2019, 4,379 individuals employed in the judicial branch were required to file a financial report and 155 filers, or just 3.5 per cent, requested redaction. Of those, 150 requests were granted in full or in part. Of the 34,612 reports released to the public, only 1,970 contained partial redactions. Although only a small percentage of reports released to the public are approved for any redactions, the written application to examine a financial disclosure report and the ability to withhold sensitive information remain important protections for the judicial officers and employees who are most at risk for facing serious threats and inappropriate communications.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Most Read

Copyright © 2021 LawsInFlorida.com is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware | Caricatures by DonkeyHotey