"Bruno and Iacono were indicted along with 86 others for a conspiracy to import, sell and possess narcotics; some were acquitted; others, besides these two, were convicted, but they alone appealed. ... The evidence allowed the jury to find that there had existed over a substantial period of time a conspiracy embracing a great number of persons, whose object was to smuggle narcotics into the Port of New York and distribute them to addicts both in this city and in Texas and Louisiana. This required the cooperation of four groups of persons; the smugglers who imported the drugs; the middlemen who paid the smugglers and distributed to the retailers; and two groups of retailers--one in New York and one in Texas and Louisiana--who supplied the addicts. ... The evidence did not disclose any cooperation or communication between the smugglers and either group of retailers, or between the two groups of retailers, or between the two groups of retailers themselves; however, the smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to the retailers, and the retailers knew that the middlemen must buy of importers of one sort or another. Thus the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers; and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their sellers. That being true, a jury might have found that all the accused were embarked on a venture, in all parts of which each was a participant, and an abettor in the sense that the success of that part with which he was immediately concerned, was dependent upon the success of the whole", my emphasis, US v. Bruno, 105 F2d 921, 922 (2 Cir., 1939) reversed on other grounds at Bruno v. US, 84 L ed 257 (1939).
"John Nathanson, one of the federal prosecutors handling the securities-fraud case against two former Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers, is being promoted to a supervisory position in the U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn, N.Y. ... Before joining the government, he spent seven years at Manhattan law firm Rogers & Wells, which is now part of Clifford Chance LLP, where in the late 1990s he helped defend Merrill Lynch & Co. in civil and regulatory matters for the bank's role in a copper-market manipulation scandal", WSJ, 18 July 2008.
"Federal prosecutors Friday said they may seek additional charges against former managers of two Bear Stearns Cos. funds who were indicted in June ocver the collapse of the funds last year. At a hearing in Brooklyn Friday, [AUSA] Patrick Sinclair said the government was anticipating the possibility of additional charges against Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, the former managers of two high-profile bond portfolios in Bear Stearns's asset-management unit. Superceeding indictments are often filed to add new charges, additional counts, expanded allegations or even new defendants", Chad Bray at the WSJ, 19 July 2008.
Why cite a 69-year old narcotics conspiracy case? Because, giving Benton Campbell (BC), the benefit of the doubt, our EDNY US Attorney, did not use this type of "thinking" in the Bear Stearns Two (BST) case, my 3 July 2008 post. I see them at worst as being two "button men". Who didn't the DOJ indict? Why? Stupidity, or worse? Who originated the "product" C&T sold? BC seems to be trying to portray C&T as big time swindlers. I say of who? BC, are you familiar with West's criminal law key 772(5), the "wilful blindness" or "ostrich" instruction? Well? I can see it now, co-conspirators showing up in court as crime victims. What a country.
Good boy Nathanson. Now roll over and play dead. Beg. Good boy. I await the BST case second superceeding indictment to see who and what will not be named co-conspirators.
I await new defendants in the BST indictment. This may be a DOJ charge "pile on" in the hope of forcing the BST to plead guilty to something. The article was titled, "Bear Stearns-Case Charges May Grow". This reminded me of Pinocchio's nose. How strange Uncle Sam is. We will spend billions, possibly hundreds of billions to bail out Fannie and Freddie and Franklin Raines was not indicted for anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment