The title of this post is the title of this provocative new paper by Sonja Starr now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract: This paper critiques, on legal and empirical grounds, the growing trend of basing criminal sentences on...
"Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination"
↧
↧
Massechusetts teen pleaded not guilty to a rape accusation
↧
2 Vehicle Crash near Rockford
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Police
District 5 5205 South 5th Ave.
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-2299
(208) 236-6466 FAX: (208) 236-6068
For Immediate Release: 9/3/2013 7:20 p.m.
Please direct questions to the District Office
The Idaho State Police are currently investigating a two-vehicle injury crash on State Highway 39 at milepost 43, near Rockford. The crash occurred at approximately 5:55 p.m., when a 2013 Chevrolet Cruze, failed to stop at the intersection of State Highway 39 and 100 South, and collided with a 2010 Ford F350, headed southbound on State Highway 39. The occupants of the Chevrolet Cruze were transported to Portneuf Medical Center for their injuries.
The crash is still being investigated and more information will be released when officers clear the crash scene.
-------------
↧
Highlands County Criminal Defense Lawyer :: Lake Placid Man Accused of Selling Drugs for a Mexican Cartel
According to an affidavit released by the U.S. Attorney's Office last month, an illegal immigrant who returned to Highlands County after being deported has now been charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine.
The Lake Placid man has been accused of helping a man and a woman sell thousands of pounds of methamphetamine that came from Mexican cartel drug dealers based in Atlanta.
The other man and woman allegedly involved also face charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine.
The trio was arrested after members of a federal drug task force apparently received information from the Hardee County Sheriff's Office that the Lake Placid man was involved in trafficking methamphetamine.
Agents visited the man's Lake Placid home where the man apparently admitted he had previously been deported from the United States.
The man allegedly told agents that he was deported in 2010, but paid $2,000 to be smuggled back into the U.S. According to the arrest affidavit, the man started selling methamphetamine in 2002, but stopped after eight months.
The man allegedly told agents he recently started selling methamphetamine again and bought three ounces of methamphetamine from the other man arrested. He then sold the methamphetamine for $1,200, the affidavit said.
Agents had the Lake Placid man order 5 pounds of methamphetamine for $50,000 from the other man while they were present.
Once the man showed up to meet the Lake Placid man, both were arrested.
Police searched the man's home and apparently found more methamphetamine.
According to the affidavit, the man said Mexican cartel members in Atlanta paid him $2,500 per week to traffic drugs.
The two men allegedly worked together to traffic the methamphetamine that was delivered. During the past two months, the two men claimed they received more than 11 kilos of methamphetamine from Atlanta.
Being convicted of drug possession with the intent to sell or distribute in Highlands County can result in serious penalties, including heavy fines, prison time and even the suspension or revocation of your driver's license. The punishments that accompany a possession for sale charge are normally much tougher than a simple drug possession offense. Law enforcement officers will usually look for large quantities of the drug in question to increase the charges against the offender.
↧
Senate Syria Compromise: Foreign Relations Comm. to Vote
The leaders of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee have agreed on a compromise Syria resolution. (Full text here.) It's not quite what Obama wanted, but it is expected to go to a committee vote tomorrow.
The bill limits the...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
↧
↧
GA - Officers Kristopher Travitz & Alvin Sutherland charged / accused of sexual crimes against inmates
Kristopher Travitz
Original Article
09/04/2013
By Lindsay Field
MARIETTA - One of two Sheriff’s Office sergeants accused in separate cases related to sexually assaulting jail inmates has decided to plead guilty to all but one of the charges.
Kristopher David Travitz, 37, was arrested in February on charges of two counts each of distributing obscene materials and sexual assault against an inmate and one count of aggravated sexual battery.
The case of another Cobb sergeant, Alvin...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
"Adversarial Bias Among Forensic Psychologists"
David Bernstein has this post at The Volokh Conspiracy, excerpting a recent study: In this experiment, we paid 108 forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to review the same offender case files, but deceived some to believe that they were consulting for...
↧
Want to Make Your Burbank DUI Charges Worse? Bite a Police Officer, Like This 27-Year-Old Woman Did.
Hopefully, we can safely assume that you did NOT bite the police officer who arrested you for driving under the influence in Burbank.
But not every driver has that level of restraint!
Believe it or not, two major recent news stories involved drivers who bit people while getting busted for DUI.
For starters, let’s take a second look at the DUI arrest of former USF football star, Terrence Mitchell, who bit an EMT, after officers found him passed out in front of his car. The Tampa Bay Times summarizes the blow by blow: “while being evaluated by Tampa Fire Rescue personnel, Mitchell 'became agitated'… and “twice attempted to bite an EMT [against the will of the EMT]…. Mitchell [later] admitted to police that he had consumed alcoholic beverages, was feeling its effects and 'that he should not have been on the road.'"
But Mitchell’s spectacular story pales in comparison to the charges against 27-year-old Allison Richards of Connecticut.
Richards was arrested on August 13th for a variety of charges, including DUI, failure to signal, breach of peace, interfering an arrest, and – most vividly – assault on a police officer.
Here's how it all went down.
Richard’s 2005 Subaru Legacy hit a lawn on Hollow Tree Road. Police found Richards standing by the vehicle, exhibiting signs that could indicate DUI in Burbank (or elsewhere), such as slurring her words. Inside the Subaru, officers found a six pack of beer with a bottle missing. Richards said that she was shopping at Lord & Taylor. She then took her son home and began to consume alcohol. She could not remember how she wound up on Hollow Tree Ridge Road.
Once the police moved to arrest her for DUI, things got heated - fast.
First, allegedly Richards stripped off her shirt and started cursing at the police. When the officers tried to subdue her, she lashed back by punching and kicking. Once they got her into the car, she continued with her tantrum, bashing at the partition with her feet. When they got to the police station, she wouldn’t get out. Eventually, they yanked her free and took her inside to be processed. Richards continued to try to strip off her clothing, and she bit one of the officers on the elbow. Eventually, police had to carry her to her cell, where she was held on $2,500 bond.
Something about Burbank DUI arrests bring out the “inner animal” in some people. Not everyone reacts to being arrested the same way. Some people are calm and cooperative. Others activate the "flight" part of the “fight or flight” response and try to leave the scene of the crime. (a big no-no, particularly if you hurt someone or caused property damage.)
The reality is that being arrested is a foreign, terrifying, and uncertain experience. Very few people leave their homes thinking "today is the day I am going to be arrested!" It certainly doesn’t help matters that many people stopped for crimes like DUI are on controlled substances, like alcohol, drugs, or prescription medications.
The silver lining is that, no matter what charges you face, you may have major legal defenses available to you. Connect with the Kraut Law Group to explore your defense options now. Mr. Kraut is a former Harvard Law School educated ex-prosecutor; he and his team have the wherewithal and knowledge to build you a very effective Burbank defense to DUI.
↧
NJ - Parole Board's Sex Offender Management Unit
Original Article
09/03/2013
By Jack Chavdarian
Ankle bracelets, counseling programs and house visits are a few ways the New Jersey State Parole Board's SOMU lowers recidivism.
The New Jersey State Parole Board's Sex Offender Management Unit (SOMU) supervises about 6,000 sex offenders with the twin mission of preventing repeat offenses and helping offenders re-enter society after prison. The unit's sworn officers accomplish their mission with active supervision, the use of GPS ankle...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
↧
The charges were dismissed and the minutes sealed
Defendant is charged with Robbery in the First Degree, Robbery in the Second Degree (two counts) and Grand larceny in the Third Degree. Thereafter, he testified under a waiver of immunity before another grand jury concerning unrelated crime. The charges...
↧
Are roadblocks allowed in Washington?
No. The Washington Supreme Court outlawed roadblocks in the State of Washington. DUI patrols are allowed - as you will often see signs posted above the expressway. I saw many of these this past labor day weekend. That said, just...
↧
Fatal Crash on SH52 East of Payette
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE
District 3 Patrol 700 S. Stratford Dr., Meridian 83642
(208) 846-7550
Fax (208) 846-7520
For Immediate Release: 09/04/13 6:00 pm
Please direct questions to the District Office
On September 4, 2013, at approximately 12:24 p.m., the Idaho State Police investigated a fatal crash on State Highway 52 (SH52) at milepost 13, east of Payette. Tina Helmick, 51, of Emmett, was driving westbound on SH52 in a 1990 Geo Prizm when she came to the intersection of SH52 and South East 1st, and attempted to turn left. Manuel Oritz-Monoz, 59, of Payette was traveling westbound on SH52 in a 1993 Ford farm truck hauling corn. Helmick turned in front of Oritz- Monoz who was unable to stop stuck Helmick's vehicle on the driver side. Helmick succumbed to her injuries at the scene. Helmick's passengers Shawn Herrman, 36, of Emmett was transported by ground ambulance to Saint Alphonsus in Ontario. Helmick's other passenger Michael Garza, 22, of Emmett, was transported by air ambulance to Saint Alphonsus in Boise. Oritz-Monoz and another of Helmick's passengers, Michael Spicer, 20, of Emmett, was not injured in the crash.
Notifications have been made to the next of kin. This crash is still under invistation by the Idaho State Police.
-------------
↧
How could and should folks view (or "spin") latest results from national survey on drug use and health?
Released today were the findings from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Helpfully, thanks to our modern digital world, everyone can look at the full reported results from...
↧
↧
Minimal descriptions were provided of two persons
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in the early morning hours of December 1, 1990, two police officers received a radio report, based on anonymously provided information, that there had been a fight at 1411 Grand Concourse and that one of those present at the site of the altercation had a knife. Minimal descriptions were provided of two persons: one of them reportedly wore a red jacket and the other a dark jacket with a white stripe.
A New York Criminal Possession of a Weapon Lawyer said that, shortly after arriving at 1411 Grand Concourse, the responding officers were called to the aid of another officer at a different location. Upon their return a few minutes later to the scene of the incident described in the radio run, the officers observed three men none of whom wore items of clothing remotely resembling those mentioned over the radio. No one was seen with a knife and there was no sign of any disturbance. Nevertheless, the officers approached the men and, as they did so, one of the men, the defendant, ran away. The officers pursued him on foot and were assisted by several police cars. Less than a minute after the initiation of the chase, the defendant discarded a gun. Seconds later he was apprehended and eventually charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
A New York Gun Crime Lawyer said that, ruling upon the defendant's ensuing motion to suppress the gun, the motion court held that the police action had not been justified since the officers had, at most, a predicate for inquiry, one insufficient to sustain the significantly greater intrusion constituted by the officers' pursuit of the defendant. The court also found that the defendant's discard of the gun some thirty seconds into the chase had been a spontaneous reaction to the illegal police conduct. The suppression motion was accordingly granted.
The issue in this case is whether the court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence against him.
There can be no doubt that the motion court's determination to suppress was compelled by clear and well-established law governing police-citizen encounters. It is undisputed that upon arriving at the scene of the anonymously reported incident, the police observed nothing indicative of criminal activity, much less of the particular activity or persons described to them over the radio. As they approached the defendant, then, the police had absolutely no reason to believe that he or the other men with whom he was standing had been involved in the commission of any gun crime. Under the circumstances, the officers' decision to pursue the defendant can have been based upon nothing more than the fact that he apparently chose to avoid them. The defendant, however, like any other citizen, "had a right to refuse to respond to police inquiry and his flight when the officers approached could not, in and of it, create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity". This being the case, it is clear beyond peradventure that there existed no predicate for the pursuit of the defendant.
Police pursuit, of course, constitutes a significant interference with the pursued person's freedom of movement akin to that occurring in the case of a detentive stop and, accordingly, is only permitted upon such grounds as would render a detentive stop legal. Those grounds should, at least in theory, hardly be a matter for judicial debate, for it has long been established both as a matter of constitutional and statutory law that no one may be subjected to a detentive stop unless there exist at a minimum circumstances which would in an ordinarily cautious person justify a reasonable suspicion that the person to be detained had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a, circumstances which in the present case were simply not present. As noted, apart from the defendant's flight, the police had not the slightest indication that he had committed any illegal act, and as the Court of Appeals has so recently reaffirmed, flight alone cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a sufficient basis for a detentive stop or for the functionally equivalent intrusion constituted by pursuit.
Contrary to what the court understands to be the relevant contention of the dissent, the very lately reiterated law governing this case is not at all unclear, and when that law is applied to the facts as found by the motion court, the result we now affirm could not be more obviously required. It is a result which, it may be noted, would follow even under the "broader principles" articulated to which the dissent urges that we "return." For those broad principles require both that police action be justified at its inception and that the action be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible". Regardless of whether the police action here at issue was justified at its inception, it is plain that the subsequent pursuit of the defendant was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances upon which it was premised. The police had, at most, some basis to approach the defendant for information; they had no reason to suspect him of criminal involvement and, accordingly, no basis to pursue or detain him.
Obviously, the broad principles of De Bour do not stand for the proposition apparently embraced by the dissent that whenever police officers may approach a person they may pursue him or her simply because their inquiry is avoided. Rather, what De Bour stands for in its general and, indeed, specific, sense is that police action must be justified from its inception, and at any subsequent juncture, by a sufficient factual predicate, even when the police conduct involved does not amount to a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, as should have been evident from the decision itself and, in any case, has since been made explicit, the principle concern in De Bour was to assure that all phases of police-citizen encounters would be subject to judicial scrutiny, not just those involving the extreme limitation of personal freedom occurring in the case of a formal seizure. It has not yet been a year since the Court of Appeals unanimously reaffirmed De Bour, observing in the course of doing so that the decision "reflected our judgment that encounters that fall short of Fourth Amendment seizures still implicate the privacy interests of all citizens and that the spirit underlying those words required the adoption of a State common-law method to protect the individual from arbitrary or intimidating police conduct". Unfortunately, De Bour's central and recently reiterated concern that individual privacy not be unduly compromised by official overreaching at any point in police-civilian encounters, even at the most preliminary informational stage, simply cannot be reconciled with the approach advocated by the dissenter. The dissenter states that "where an officer has a justifiable, and thereby I mean articulable and credible, reason for approaching a civilian, to request information, investigate the report of a crime or investigate suspicious behavior, the civilian's flight in the face of a nonthreatening approach by a police officer is the escalating factor which justifies the officer's pursuit." This is not at all different from saying that when an officer may for whatever reason approach a person he may also pursue and detain that person. This does not represent a "return" to the "general principles" of De Bour but a completely new and conflicting rule, the proposal of which must from a jurisprudential perspective be regarded as remarkable, coming as it does within months of the Court of Appeals re-affirmance of De Bour and virtually on the heels of the Court of Appeals restatement in the clearest possible terms that nothing less than a founded suspicion of a person's involvement in criminal activity will justify police pursuit.
The suggestion that longstanding and recently unanimously reaffirmed law be rejected is not simply extraordinary from a precedential standpoint, but profoundly troublesome from a legal one, since the proposed new rule is, to say the least, of doubtful constitutional validity. The dissenter's notion that the police may pursue and seize whomever they may approach, would necessarily validate seizures in situations such as the one at bar in which although there is perhaps some basis for inquiry, there exists no reason to suspect a particular person of crime, indeed, in which it has not even been reliably ascertained that any crime has been committed. To permit the seizure of a person, simply because that person asserts his or her undoubted right to be left alone is not merely violative of this state's common law, but its statutes, its constitution, and, indeed, the Federal Constitution. Under all of these authorities the absolute minimum predicate required to support the seizure of a civilian is a reasonable suspicion that the person to be seized has committed or is about to commit a crime; it is not, as the dissenter would hold, invariably sufficient that police inquiry however legitimate has been avoided.
In light of the most recent explication of these precedents, there can no longer be any doubt as to their continued vitality or precise significance; nor there be any excuse for failing at least to attempt to apply them in a consistent and evenhanded way, especially where, as here, the result they require is unmistakably clear. Far from promoting consistency, the result and consequent holding urged by the dissent would only give new life to precisely the sort of vagaries responsible for the inconsistency it finds so troubling. Contrary to the impression the dissent would convey, it is not because courts have been too assiduous in their analysis of police-civilian encounters that cases in the subject area of the law have grown difficult to reconcile, but rather because the analysis which the law has required has been occasionally eschewed in favor of the sort of appeal made by the dissent to amorphous and ultimately highly subjective notions of what would be reasonable police conduct under given circumstances. Doubtless, from the standpoint of effective law enforcement, the frustration of legitimate police inquiry will always seem unreasonable and, to use the dissent's adjective, impractical. From the standpoint of the interests lying at the heart of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, however, limitations upon the power of the state through its police to pursue even appropriate inquiry are not only reasonable but necessary. The very basic right of an individual to remain free of governmental intrusion and coercion would amount to very little if the police were permitted to stop, detain and question someone simply because they had some justifiable desire for additional information. What the dissent quite evidently fails to appreciate is that there is a fundamental difference between the right of an officer to inquire and the right of an officer to pursue and seize. The former may be premised on what the officer under the circumstances may legitimately seek to know, while the latter must be premised upon what the officer does know, namely that there are reasons to suspect a particular individual of criminal involvement. Although an officer is entitled to inquire, he is not in our system of justice entitled to a response and may not pursue or seize a person simply because a response to his inquiry has not been forthcoming.
Accordingly the order of the Supreme Court, Bronx Count, granting the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence, should be affirmed.
↧
Marcos Mendoza of Little Havana, Florida Arrested for Sexual Battery
Marcos Mendoza of Little Havana, Florida was arrested Saturday after he was accused of breaking into a home and forcing himself on a man inside, news sources report. Mendoza, 24, was booked into the Miami-Dade County Jail on charges of burglary with assault or battery and sexual battery with no serious personal injury. A county judge ordered that he be held without bail bond; he is also on an immigration hold. Reports did not say whether Mendoza hired legal representation .
According to reports, the incident occurred in the 1100 block of Southwest 7th Street in Little Havana. Residents purportedly say crime appears to be on the rise in the area. "You have to be careful because delinquency is at a level police can't even handle," Edwin Martinez, who lives near the scene of the alleged crime, reportedly told the press following the incident. It is not clear what other crimes have recently occurred in the vicinity.
This latest incident took place at around 2:30 Saturday morning, sources say. Though the details of the offense are still unavailable, sources say Mendoza entered an apartment without permission and sexually assaulted a man he found inside. Police arrived to the scene shortly after and allegedly found Mendoza in the nude. "[Mendoza] was naked and they put him in the car," David Ferrer, a witness, reportedly said. "He tried to fight back and they just resisted him and they did their job." Witnesses reportedly stated that Mendoza was singing and wrapped in a blanket as he was being hauled away.
Unfortunately, sexual assaults occur on a regular basis in South Florida. Earlier this year, Miami resident Andrew Seabrooks was apprehended after he sexually threatened a 16-year-old girl with a gun and forced her to perform oral sex on him, sources report. Seabrooks, 23, was taken to the county jail on charges of sexual assault with a weapon. An update on his case is not currently available.
↧
Marijuana possession laws
A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was issued three summonses on December 18, 2005. When Defendant failed to appear for arraignment, the People requested the court to issue an arrest warrant for her appearance pursuant to section 120.30 of...
↧
Craig Paul Neiner of Boca Raton, Florida Arrested for Indecent Exposure
Craig Paul Neiner of Boca Raton, Florida was arrested Friday after he allegedly sat in a minivan on a college campus, calling women over and showing them his privates, news sources report. Neiner, 18, was booked into the Palm Beach County Jail on charges of indecent exposure. He was later released on unspecified terms. The press did not specify an defense attorney for Neiner.
According to reports, the incidents all occurred within the proximity of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. The school has 31,758 students and 1,621 employees, making it one of South Florida's largest colleges. Since its founding in 1964, FAU has handed out approximately 110,000 degrees, source say. Reports did not specify whether Neiner is a student at the school.
The first alleged incident occurred in Lot 23 at FAU's campus, sources say. A student reportedly claimed that Neiner called out to her and that she walked over to the van where he was sitting. When the student approached, Neiner allegedly revealed his privates and started touching himself, reports say. The victim apparently fled the scene, but not before taking down Neiner's license plate number.
Sometime later, Neiner allegedly convinced another female student to walk over to the van. This time, he allegedly asked the girl to fondle his privates. The victim fled the scene screaming, sources say. During a third incident, Neiner asked another female student to touch his sexual organs, sources say. That student fled the scene as well and later informed authorities.
FAU Police began investigating shortly after the reported incidents. According to reports, and FAU officer pulled Neiner's van over near the university at around 1:30 early Friday morning. Following his arrest, the three victims positively identified Neiner as the man who had shown them his privates, reports indicate. Police are still likely investigating the alleged exposures and it is unclear whether they will locate any additional victims.
↧
↧
LaMar Odom Charged With Driving Under The Influence Of Alcohol
News sources report that LaMar Odom, husband to reality star Khloe Kardashian, was recently charged with driving under the influence of alcohol [DUI] in California. According to one report, the police pulled the car driven by Odom over because he was driving it was driving too slowly. Apparently, field sobriety tests were administered which the unlucky basketball star failed, in the officer's opinion of course, and he was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.
In Massachusetts a "DUI" if also often referred to as an "OUI" or "operating under the influence of alcohol. Although all of the specific facts are not known in this case, a good place to start for a defense here would be to attack the initial stop and exit order from the car. The paper indicates that the car was pulled over because it was traveling too slowly. It would be important to determine exactly how slowly the car was going-after all driving slowly is usually a good thing--not a bad thing. If the only problem that the police officer had with the driving was that he was driving i too slowly and there was no other indications of impairment i.e., crossing over the lines or swerving, there may be limited evidence to prove impairment or to justify the pulling over of the car.
In Massachusetts, in order to attack the stop of the car a motion to suppress the stop, exit order and evidence should be filed. The grounds for the stop would be that the police had no reason to pull the car over. If the stop, exit order and/or search is found to be unconstitutional then the evidence, i.e., the field sobriety tests and the officer's observations, will be ordered suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree." When this happens the case is usually dismissed unless the Commonwealth can prove its case by other evidence that was not suppressed.
If the case does proceed to trial then the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant was driving the car, that the defendant was on a public way and that he or she was under the influence of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. The most contested area is usually the “under the influence” element of the crime. Often, the police officer testifies that a defendant has “slurred speech,” was “unsteady on his or her feet” and/or was swaying. Relative to the speech, it is important to keep in mind that in most cases the arresting officer has never spoken to the defendant before therefore, would not know what his or her usual speech pattern was like. Similarly, describing someone as “unsteady on his feet” is very vague and if the police officer had not seen the person’s gait before that evening, how can this be used as a factor to determine sobriety? Another piece of evidence that officer’s often say at trial is that there was a “strong odor of alcohol” coming from the interior of the car and/or from the defendant. However, keep in mind that alcohol is actually odorless. Furthermore, it is impossible to tell how much alcohol a person consumed based on order and it is also impossible to determine at what time a person consumed alcohol based on an odor.
Whether the defendant was “operating” the vehicle is also an element that is often contested at trial. It is important to realize that simply having the keys in the ignition is enough to establish operation in Massachusetts. Finally, a public way is a “way” that is operated and maintained by the city and the public has a right to access it. Thus, if a defendant is driving in a parking lot that is a public lot accessible from a highway, the area is public way.
↧
Zeek Victims Face Sept 5th Deadline To File Claims
Victims of the $600 million ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme have approximately 24 hours to timely submit a claim to ensure they are afforded a chance to participate in the funds recovered by the court-appointed receiver. According to receiver Kenneth D. Bell, victims of the largest Ponzi scheme in North Carolina's history face a midnight deadline on September 5th in order for their submission of a proof of claim to be considered timely. While Bell recently indicated that over 100,000 claims had been submitted thus far, previous estimates pegged the total number of victims as at least 800,000 - meaning hundreds of thousands of potential claims could be at risk of being permanently lost.
The Court approved the Receiver's proposed claims process on May 8, 2013, giving investors until September 5, 2013 to submit claims for review and approval by the Receiver. According to the Update, significant effort was required just to provide the required notice to potentially interested parties. Due to the sheer amount of potential claimants (the Receiver estimated there were approximately 2.2 million unique User IDs), the Receiver attempted to send 1.7 million emails notifying individuals of their rights under the claims process. Of these 1.7 million emails, approximately 1.3 million were successfully delivered. Of the approximately 420,000 emails that were not delivered, the Receiver ended up sending more than 330,000 postcards to physical mailing addresses, as well as over 7,000 postcards to financial institutions that could feasibly hold claims.
The Receiver opened an online claims portal on May 15, 2013, which was to serve as the central mechanism by which investors could submit claims. In a recent update, the Receiver indicated he had received nearly 54,000 claims to date. Including claims marked as "in progress" on the Claims Portal, the aggregate amount of potential claims submitted thus far is approximately $355 million. This amount slightly exceeds the total amount of funds recovered to date by the Receiver, which is currently approximately $325.1 million.
After the claims portal closes, the Receiver plans to seek court approval of the next phase of the claims process, including the proper method to determine claims and how to deal with claimants who object to the Receiver's claim determination. It is expected that once the Receiver issues his claim determinations to the respective claimants, he will then seek approval for an interim distribution of a to-be-determined amount.
The Receiver has posted a list of frequently asked questions on his website here.
The ZeekRewards Claims Portal is here.
↧
"A window on the world of homicidal poisoners"
From an op-ed in the L.A. Times: So, what do we know about poisoners? Most of them believe that careful planning will allow them to escape detection. We also know — or think we do — that "poison is a...
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
