Feds indict Utah County residents in online pharmacy sting, Posted by Robert Paisola

EXCLUSIVE! WATCH THE VIDEO LIVE!


Thursday, 09 October 2008

Feds indict Utah County residents in online pharmacy sting

Joe Pyrah - Daily Herald

Eight Utah County residents are under indictment for illegally selling millions of prescription drugs online, federal investigators announced Wednesday. Beginning in 2003, Dr. James A. Brinton and Gregory J. Crosby, both of Provo, along with others, are alleged to have illegally imported prescription drugs from Mexico, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Utah. One count of the nine-count indictment alleges that six of the 18 defendants agreed to sell subpotent pills to customers. Buyers who did not have a valid prescription were given one by the online business without a medical evaluation or were simply given the drugs without a prescription. "Those running illicit pharmacies are no different than your typical drug trafficker," said Frank Smith, of the Drug Enforcement Administration. "We are going after these criminals with the same tenacity that we are after heroin or meth dealers." Authorities believe that more than 11 million pills were sold for millions of dollars over the past five years. The case is being investigated by the DEA, the FBI, the IRS, the U.S. Secret Service and the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. Court records state that the group used the Web sites lighthousemeds.com and federalmeds.com. During undercover purchases, DEA agents say the pills they purchased were unmarked and far below the purity levels reported on the label. "The risk is that while those running these illegal businesses are making millions of dollars, those using the business to order prescription medication may very well be putting their health at risk," said U.S. Attorney for Utah Brett Tolman. Other charges in the indictment include money laundering and making false statements to DEA investigators. Prosecutors also announced their intention to seize the property allegedly used to commit the crimes. The list includes hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank accounts, real estate, a 2005 Ford Mustang GT and a 2006 Mercedes-Benz SLK280. Charged in the indictment are James A. Brinton, age 61, of Provo; Gregory J. Crosby, age 52, of Provo; Noah Sifuentes, age 56, of Orem; Christina K. Haramija, age 30, of Lehi; Laura B. Harding, age 32, of Lehi; Edgar U. Flores-Cuevas, age 35, of Mexico; Martha Forrest, age 65, of Salt Lake City; Kenneth E. Forrest, age 42, of Provo; Treila Shumway, age 38, of Manti; Timothy A. Shields, age 44, of Provo; Deborah E. McCoard, age 41, of Spring City; Kimberly Lobdell, age 38, of South Jordan; Charles J. Stuart III, age 51, of Mapleton; Rex E. Southwick, age 33, of Orange, Calif.; Thomas Myers, age 47, of Sandy; Enrique Hipolito-Ruiz, age 58, and Victor Francisco Hipolito-Martinez, age 35, both of Tijuana, Mexico; and Jorge Hipolito-Martinez, age 30, of Soler, Mexico. Flores-Cuevas was arrested on a federal complaint in May and is in custody. Federal arrest warrants have been issued for the three other defendants from Mexico. Summons will be issued to the other defendants to appear in federal court for an initial appearance.

Accused fake lawyer won't represent himself Posted by Robert Paisola

BISMARCK, North Dakota (AP) -- A man accused of impersonating a lawyer in federal courts in at least 10 states has pleaded not guilty to two felony charges -- and won't be representing himself at trial.

Howard O. Kieffer, 53, is director of Federal Defense Associates, of Santa Ana, California, which promises clients "specialized, creative and tenacious criminal defense, post-conviction representation and zealous Bureau of Prisons advocacy."

But Kieffer doesn't plan to exercise his right to defend himself. He pleaded not guilty to mail fraud and making false statements charges during his arraignment Monday.

Bismarck attorney Tim Purdon represented Kieffer at the arraignment, but said Kieffer intends to hire Joshua S. Lowther, of Savannah, Georgia, as his defense attorney.

Court records say Kieffer represented a number of clients, including a former St. Louis Blues hockey player who pleaded guilty to plotting to kill his agent, and a Colorado woman who was convicted of soliciting the murder of her former husband.

Kieffer, of Duluth, Minnesota, remains free on bond.

He was granted permission in March 2007 to practice law in North Dakota's federal courts. He did not handle any North Dakota cases, but is accused of using his "good standing" in the state to get permission to practice in other federal jurisdictions. U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland ordered Kieffer disbarred last month.

The mail fraud charge carries a possible penalty of 20 years in prison, while the charge of making false statements is punishable by five years in prison. Both carry a possible $250,000 fine. The actual sentence would probably be much lighter if Kieffer is convicted, said U.S. Magistrate Charles Miller, who handled Kieffer's arraignment in Bismarck.

Kieffer defended former St. Louis Blues player Michael Danton, who was charged four years ago with plotting to kill his agent, David Frost. Danton pleaded guilty in July 2004. He is serving a 7½-year sentence at a minimum-security federal prison in Sandstone, Minnesota.

Kieffer also defended Gwen Bergman, of Aspen, Colorado, against charges that she used $30,000 from her mother's retirement fund to hire someone to kill her former husband.

U.S. District Judge Walker Miller, who heard Bergman's case in Colorado without a jury, found her guilty in May of two murder-for-hire felonies. Kieffer withdrew as her lawyer July 9, after The Denver Post reported that he never graduated from law school and was not licensed to practice law.

Miller has been considering whether to grant Bergman a new trial. Federal prosecutors have resisted the request, saying Bergman's defense team included a licensed attorney.

Kieffer runs an Internet discussion group on federal prison issues and has been quoted in The Washington Post, Slate.com and other publications as an expert. The Association of Federal Defense Attorneys once offered an audio question-and-answer session with Kieffer as an opportunity for attorneys to earn required credits in legal education.

Robin Washington, the editorial page editor of the Duluth News Tribune, wrote in a column Monday that Kieffer had asked to be named as a citizen representative on the paper's editorial board.

"His name was put into consideration. We could do worse than have a nationally recognized federal criminal defense lawyer on our team," Washington wrote. "Except, by all indications, it looks like he wasn't one."

Free Lessons On The Secret Today! Posted By Robert Paisola

Sex offender names become public At Brigham Young University, Posted By Robert Paisola

Starting Oct. 28 at the administration building, BYU students can have legal access to the names of sex offenders in their classes, housing complexes and wards.

BYU officials are complying with a new law, The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, requiring colleges to provide students with a list of registered sex offenders who are enrolled or working at their schools.

"I think it's a really good idea," said Tiffany Palmer, 19, a sophomore from Blanding, San Juan, majoring in communications. "If there is a sex offender living anywhere near me, I would want to know, especially if they were going to be in my ward or in my classes."

Patricia Mills, program coordinator for the Utah County Rape and Crisis Center, said sexual offenses are addictions like alcoholism. She said years later the desires can still exist, and sex offenders are likely to strike again.

"Sex offenders don't suddenly become non-sex offenders," Mills said. "They will rape up to 30-40 times before they get caught. They don't get cured of it; they have to learn to control it. Most don't, unless they are forced to by court ruling."

The requirement for public sex offender registries is nothing new. The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act is an extension of Megan's Law, a law designed to notify people of sex offenders living in their area. Megan's Law was created after Megan Kanka of New Jersey was murdered by her neighbor, who no one knew was a convicted sex offender.

The Official State of Utah Sex Offender Registry Web site (www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/sexoffenders/) offers a searchable database of about 5,800 registered sex offenders living in Utah with information including the person's name, aliases, age, description, picture, address, make of vehicle, crime convicted of and potential target victims. There are 20 registered sex offenders under the zip code 84606.

"The state has had this database accessible for years. The difference is now it tells us that the individual is not only on the list, he's a student or employee at BYU," said Lt. Greg Barber, manager of administrative services.

There is a concern for protecting the sex offender's right to privacy and opportunity to change.

"While I think it's important to make the names of sex offenders available to potential victims, I think it's a shame the law isn't allowed to be more Atonement-like and forgiving of the incident," said Harley King, 23, a senior from Greeley, Colo., majoring in biochemistry.

Scott McGregor, 23, a junior from Apple Valley, Minn., majoring in linguistics said while he's very opposed to sexual criminals, he thinks everyone deserves a second chance.

"I think it's a massive invasion of privacy and denies the culminations of individual repentance," McGregor said.

Other students disagree.

"I don't think it's an invasion of their privacy at all because it was their wrong," Palmer said. "They invaded someone else's privacy in the first place."

Megan's Law requires sex offenders to register within 10 days of moving into a new state or community every year for 10 years after the end of their sentence. Part of registering includes stating intentions of employment or enrollment at an institution of higher education.

The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act dictates that as soon as information about a sex offender enrolling at an institution is received by the state, the information must be given to the institution's law enforcement agency. The institution must then make that information available to the student body.

According to Machelle Rodriguez, program manager for Utah Sex Offender Registration Program, the state will provide institutions of higher education's police departments with a notice stating the sex offender's name, date of birth, affiliation with institution, approximate start date at the institution and how to obtain more information through the state Web site.

"I think it brings awareness to the institutions and agencies that this is a population you need to watch for," Rodriguez said. "The information is available if you want to check somebody."

There are no requirements of the institutions as to how the information should be provided, only that it be accessible to students who request it. BYU will make the list available in the campus police office in the administration building. Any member of the public can view the list upon request. Beyond that, Barber said he's unsure what measures of notification the police department will take.

"If there are people on the list such that it would be in the best interest of the university to make notification of them, then we will deal with that," Barber said. "We'll just have to wait and see what's on the list."

Possibilities for notification could include contacting the sex offenders' neighbors through mail or door-to-door visits. If necessary, the list might be made accessible online from the BYU Web site.

The definition of sex offenders covers everything from streaking to child molestation. Barber said the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act deals with the more serious sex crimes, specifically those dealing with children. He said he doesn't predict BYU's list to be very long compared to other universities because of BYU's standards.

"Obviously any sex crime would be a violation of honor code and the student could be kicked out," Barber said.

Barber said he thinks the BYU application process, including the ecclesiastical endorsement, would naturally screen out individuals who might be on the registry.

Jenny Evanson, 22, a senior from Seattle, Wash., majoring in psychology said she has the right to know and would be interested in looking at the list.

"I think it's an unfortunate means to a just end," Evanson said. "I would like to know who the people are, not to be vindictive, not to be vengeful, but to be informed - to be safe."

Mills said the registry is not an invasion of privacy but a consequence of a choice.

"They (sex offenders) gave up their rights when they made a conscious decision to victimize another person," Mills said. "The victim did not get a choice, and yet she has to live with that for the rest of her life. The sex offender has to live with those consequences too."

Mills said maybe 10 to 15 percent of the rape survivors they deal with are BYU students.

"BYU does not have a lot of the same problems as other schools because there aren't alcohol and fraternities," she said. "But it still happens at BYU, and it's usually an acquaintance rape and unfortunately we don't always know about it."

Mills said she thinks many students don't report sex crimes because they are afraid the details of the situation could get them kicked out of BYU.

"A lot of cases we see have involved alcohol or happen in the bedroom - both being against the honor code," Mills said. "But you need to report them. The police need to know so they can help."

Mills worries about the naivety of women at BYU. She said most sex offenders represent themselves as really nice guys as part of the grooming process used to set up victims.

"Girls at BYU take these guys at face value," Mills said. "They think because he's LDS and he served a mission and he can quote a few scriptures that he's the one. You still have to use common sense and risk reduction to keep yourself safe."

Lawsuit: Sex offenders singled out - Inmates say they're targets in jail

05/29/2007

Two inmates are suing prison officials for housing them in a cell block known inside the walls as the "Gladiator Pod," where they claim sex offenders are singled out for harsh treatment.One of the men admits he's a sex offender; the other says he's been misclassified as one.

But both claim in separate lawsuits that they've been targeted for abuse by inmates and officers.Tony Ellison, 44, of Exeter and Harvey Pratt, 40, of Massachusetts were assaulted shortly after being moved to the cell block, according to lawsuits pending in federal court.

Ellison said he suffered a 3-inch cut to his forehead in September 2006 from another inmate. Pratt said his beating by two inmates in March 2002 left him with a broken nose, broken ribs and a cut above his eye.In their lawsuits, both men describe the "Gladiator Pod," known officially as the C-pod in the Hancock Building, as home to younger, more combative inmates who are especially intolerant of sex offenders.

Ellison said sex offenders who stay in C-pod because they don't ask for protective custody are beaten or have their belongings stolen. In an interview at the prison last week, Ellison said after he was beaten, he buzzed prison staff for help for seven minutes before someone delivering mail noticed he was bleeding from the head and assisted him."It's a young kid pod," Ellison said. "They all want to be gangsters, and they have no respect.

Each pod has its own mentality, and C-pod is among the worst."Prison spokesman Jeff Lyons said he could not comment on the pending lawsuits or the men's characterization of C-pod. He said only that all inmates are given housing assignments based on their behavior, custody level and program requirements and that the prison takes seriously its obligation to keep inmates safe.Ellison landed in the C-pod after declining to participate in a classification hearing where prison officials assess an inmate's behavior to determine housing and programming requirements.

Ellison says he thought the hearing was optional and opted not to go. Before being relocated to C-pod, Ellison had spent more than four years in another housing unit without trouble, he said. He liked where he was living, had had the same cellmate for three years and had a job that allowed him to work double shifts. He wanted to stay, he said.There was no doubt that Ellison was a sex offender when he came to prison in August 2001.

He had pleaded guilty to nine counts of sexually assaulting three relatives, ages 10 and younger, in Rockingham County Superior Court and received a 30-to 60-year prison sentence. He said he will take the sexual offender treatment program when he nears his parole date and becomes eligible.His lawsuit, which was filed this month and includes many other grievances, accuses prison officials of failing to provide security and retaliating against him by housing him in the C-pod, knowing his offense would put him at risk there.

He said he has been labeled something worse than only a sexual offender: a sexual predator.He claims prison officials have also discriminated against him because he molested children. Ellison claims that when he complained to a unit manager about his beating, the manager told Ellison the assault was his own fault "because of what he came to prison for."A federal judge has given Ellison, who is seeking $1 million, until next month to pay a $12.50 filing fee to avoid having his claims dismissed.

Prison officials have not yet responded to Ellison's lawsuit ,because it was filed recently.Classification disputePratt went to C-pod, he claims, after a prison official unfairly classified him as a sex offender when he arrived at the prison in 2001. His case is more complicated because he was not convicted of being a sex offender.

Pratt is serving a 2- to 6-year prison sentence for a charge of "interfering with custody."

According to court records, he met a 14-year-old girl on the internet and invited her to come to his Quincy, Mass., apartment. He was 33 at the time and denied any sexual or inappropriate interest in the girl. He said he was trying to help her escape a difficult home situation, according to prison records.The victim, however, told the police that Pratt had kissed her and discussed the possibility of sex, according to prison records.

At Pratt's sentencing, Judge Harold Perkins required Pratt to undergo sexual offender treatment program in prison before becoming eligible for parole. And in 2003, parole officials denied Pratt parole because he had not done sex offender treatment.Pratt fought that treatment requirement, and, for reasons that were not explained in available court records, Perkins agreed in 2004 to drop the treatment requirement.

But Pratt said he unfairly remains labeled a sex offender by prison officials and is being required to undergo sex offender treatment before he can be released.Pratt filed his lawsuit in October 2005 and is seeking about $300,000 for numerous claims, including sleep deprivation, denial of due process, unfair disciplinary process and labeling him a sex offender.

A federal judge dismissed some of the claims as beyond the statute of limitations but allowed others, including Pratt's complaints about the sexual offender label.Judge James Muirhead wrote in a court order that other courts have found that inmates must be afforded the appropriate means to challenge a sex offender label in certain circumstances. That was particularly true in one case involving an inmate who, like Pratt, had not been convicted of a sex offense but was labeled a sex offender and required to take sex offender treatment."The court reasoned that 'the stigmatizing effect of being classified as a sex offender constitutes a deprivation of liberty under the Due Process Clause,' " Muirhead quoted in his order.

He concluded that if Pratt can show he was not provided adequate chance to challenge that label and treatment requirement, he may have a claim against prison staff.In their court response, prison officials have denied treating Pratt unfairly and argued that they are allowed to require Pratt to undergo sex offender treatment because while the judge dropped that program as a specific obligation, he did still required Pratt to participate in any counseling and treatment recommended by correction officials.

Prison staff have decided Pratt still remains a candidate for sexual offender treatment.Word spreads fastIn the interview, Ellison confirmed the disfavor a sex offender label brings an inmate inside prison - from inmates and staff. That's especially true for inmates whose crimes have received media attention, he said."It's the most discriminating witch hunt there is," he said. "(Prison staff) tell everybody. I was told within three or four minutes of getting to prison that people knew (of my offense)."Ellison said until he was sent to C-pod, he managed to stay out of harm's way by minding his own business and accepting responsibility for his crime. "I know I have a debt to repay to society.

I have great remorse," he said.But he doesn't believe his debt should include the beatings and discrimination he described in his lawsuit. Ellison is required to share his medical expenses with the inmate who assaulted him. And both were disciplined for the fight, not only Ellison. He doesn't think that is fair.Ellison said he fears more inmates will be assaulted because the prison staff have been shifting more inmates recently and have begun integrating more sex offenders into C-pod."It's a time bomb waiting to explode," he said.

USSG 1B1.13 ,Posted by Robert Paisola

From BOPWatcher Margy Love:
I am delighted to report that this afternoon the Sentencing Commission announced a proposed amendment to its guideline on sentence reduction for extraordinary and compelling reasons, USSG 1B1.13, which substantially expands the grounds for reduction of sentence under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In announcing the proposed amendment, the Commission credited the ABA for its longtime advocacy for a broad interpretation of the courts' authority under this statute.

The proposed new policy states in pertinent part that:

(A) Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons: Provided that the defendant meets the requirements of subdivision (2) [the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or to the community]
such reasons "exist under any of the following circumstances:

(i) the defendant is suffering from a terminal illness;

(ii) the defendant is suffering from a permanent physical or medical condition, or is experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process, that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional faciity for which conventional treatment promises no substantial improvement;

(iii) the death or incapacitation of the defendant's only family member capable of caring for the defendant's minor child or minor children; or

(iv) as determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (i), (ii) and (iii).

(B) Rehabilitation of the Defendant - Pursuant to 28 USC § 994(t), rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reasons for purposes of subdivision (1)(A).

This major expansion of the existing guideline policy goes a long way toward the position advocated by the ABA, most recently in testimony by Steve Saltzburg on March 20, 2007. The ABA position was endorsed by the Practitioners Advisory Group, the Federal Defenders, NACDL, and FAMM. As soon as we have the transcript of the Commission's meeting, we will send it around.


Law Office of Margaret Love
15 Seventh Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
202-547-0453
202-236-0484 (cell)