On November 7, 2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that it is seeking information on a fugitive name Francisco Molina-Neave.  He is wanted for assault and using a weapon after the assault.

On July 5, 1997, the fugitive and his girlfriend went to a holiday party in the Denver Metro area.  On their way home, Molina-Neave began to hit his girlfriend as she was driving and she stopped the car.  She got out of the car, but Molina-Neave got out of the car and continued to beat her.  

A witness eventually saw the beating and Molina-Neave fled.  Molina-Neave was spotted a short distance away, but he fled down an alley after the police arrived.  As a perimeter was forming, police heard two different gunshots.  Witnesses later told police that Molina-Neave and another Hispanic man shot at their car before they ran away.  

Molina-Neave was arrested on May 17, 2006 and faced extradition, which he refused.  A Texas court let him post bond, but he never appeared in court and was arrested again in May of 2007.  His bond was then set to $1 million.  He posted bond again, but after his appeal was denied in October of 2007, he fled a second time.  He is still considered a fugitive.  

Francisco Molina-Neave used the following aliases: Francisco Juvera Molina-Neave, Francisco Molina, Francisco Javier Molina, Christian Morales-Santibanes, Francisco Neave, Christian Santibanez, and Francisco Morales.  He was born in 1973 in Mexico, and he is Hispanic.  He is about 5’7” and 160 to 170 pounds.  He has brown hair and brown eyes.  

Molina-Neave has three freckles or moles that appear in a crescent shape on his right cheek just below his right eye.  If you have any information about the fugitive, you need to contact your local FBI office of the closest American Embassy or Consulate.  

Francisco Molina-Neave is considered armed and dangerous.  

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation
 

On November 2, 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arrested Marco Antonio Delgado for helping a drug cartel with money laundering.  ICE reports that Delgado was arrested at an El Paso restaurant on charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering.  

According to the indictment, Delgado conspired with drug cartel members and others between July 2007 and December 2008 to launder money from drugs proceeds, and the proceeds are enormous.  

ICE reports that Delgado may have helped the drug cartel launder over $600 million from drug proceeds.  The drug cartel is located in Guadalajara.  

Delgado made his initial appearance in court on November 5, and he is scheduled for his detention hearing today, on November 8.  He faces up to 20 years in prison for the conspiracy charge.  

Dennis A. Ulrich, special agent in charge at HSI El Paso, stated: “Drug cartels operate solely on the basis of greed.  However, when they can also corrupt trusted authorities, the integrity and stability of both countries’ financial infrastructure may be at risk.”

El Paso’s HSI financial group, the HSI Southwest Border Financial Operations, and the Currency United Strike Force (FOCUS) led the investigation.  FOCUS was formed to discover financial crimes occurring in New Mexico and Texas.  

FOCUS is made up of HSI, IRS, DEA, and Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission members who work alongside the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, and the Secret Service.  Select members of these agencies target the following crimes:

•    money laundering
•    bank fraud and mortgage fraud
•    illegal money transactions
•    cash smuggling

Source: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

On November 2, 2012, the Department of Justice announced that Derek Lucas of Memphis, Tennessee was sentenced to life in prison for conspiring to rob drug dealers.  He had a massive violent crime history, and he was sentenced by District Judge S. Thomas Anderson.  

Lucas was convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 846 for intention to distribute about five kilograms of a cocaine mixture.  He was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing firearms for the furtherance of drug trafficking activity.  The violation of § 846 carries a penalty of 10 years to life in prison and a fine up to $10,000,000.  A violation of § 924(c) carries a penalty of five years to life in prison and a fine up to $250,000.  

During the investigation, Lucas was approached by an undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) who claimed they wanted to retaliate against certain drug dealers.  Lucas and other co-conspirators agreed to help steal five kilograms of cocaine along with money.  Lucas was arrested on the day the crime was supposed to occur, and officers obtained the following weapons from Lucas and the co-defendants:

•    fully loaded Bryco Arms .380 caliber 9 mm pistol
•    Romarm/Cugir, Model SAR-1 rifle equipped with a magazine capable of holding 57 rounds

Lucas received the life sentence because of past criminal convictions.  Co-defendant Derrick Dowdy received 180 months in prison, and the other co-defendants (Neal, Wallace, and Scott) received 120 months in prison.  

U.S. Attorney Edward L. Stanton stated, “The life sentence imposed by the court should send a clear message to individuals who seek to terrorize our community through brazen and violent acts, that such wanton conduct will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”  

Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
 

On November 8, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York reported that Daniel Sheehan was charged for attempted extortion on a Home Depot store and using a destructive device for the extortion scheme.  Sheehan faces a mandatory 30 years in prison and up to life in prison.  Sheehan was an employee at Home Depot.  

According to court documents, Sheehan sent a ransom note to the Home Depot store in Huntington, New York in the middle of October.  He told the store manager that he planted a bomb in the lighting department in order to prove his ability to plant a bomb in secrecy.  Sure enough, authorities found a pipe bomb in the lighting department on October 15, 2012.  The bomb was safely removed.  

Sheehan requested $2 million and told the store manager he would detonate bombs in Long Island stores on Black Friday if he didn’t receive the money.  Sheehan sent other letters that informed the store where and when to drop off the ransom, and he sent another letter that lowered the ransom to $1 million.  He scheduled the pickup on October 26, 2012 and said he would show up wearing an explosive device.

Federal, state, and local authorities were able to arrest Sheehan before he could set off any devices.  The cell phone used to request the ransom was found on his possession when he was arrested.  The FBI has not released a date for sentencing at this time.  

FBI Acting Assistant Director in Charge Mary Galligan announced, “Whatever his motivation, the defendant made extortionate demands of Home Depot.  His threats were accorded the seriousness assigned to someone with a demonstrated ability to build bombs.  The scheme caused economic loss, was a huge drain on law enforcement resources, and threatened the safety of untold numbers of innocent people, any one of which is unacceptable.”

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Alexandria, VA—Recognized by Washingtonian magazine as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the Washington DC metro, Joseph King knows trials.

“I feel mitigation plays a big part in this job,” King told laws.com in a recent interview. “Therefore, it is very important to be prepared and get to know your client.”

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

After graduating from law school in 2003, criminal law piqued King’s interest most. “When I interned as a public defender, I gained a great deal of experience and knew that I wanted to practice criminal law,” he says.

King worked nearly five years in a public defender's office before going into private practice, honing his skills by attending the Trial Practice Institute at the National Criminal Defense College in Macon, Georgia and handling hundreds of cases. His skills have won him many accolades, and for the last four years he's been lauded as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Virginia by The National Trial Lawyers.

With his experience in public defense, King knows better than most attorneys that poorer defendants face an uphill battle in court. “The biggest challenge criminal defendants face today is when they lack resources to pay for an attorney but do not qualify for court-appointed appointed counsel.  If the defendant does qualify for court-appointed counsel, the quality of representation can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sometimes public defenders are among the best criminal defense attorneys in their jurisdictions, if not the best—but some offices are underfunded and overworked—leading to defendants being underrepresented.”

Even when a client is able to spend some money on an attorney, the most inexpensive lawyers may overpromise and underdeliver, according to King. “Many of these criminal defense attorneys do not take their cases seriously enough, or do not put in the time to file motions.”

While many criminal defense attorneys advise that young attorneys cut their teeth at the prosecutor's office before moving on to private defense practice, King believes that new lawyers are better served by learning how indigent defendants are represented and working to defend clients who can't afford private lawyers.

“If someone is serious about becoming a criminal defense attorney, they should definitely take courses in criminal law and criminal procedure,” King says. “I also recommend that law students should, if they have the opportunity, take the chance to intern at the public defender's office. Keep in mind that criminal defense is not for everyone.”

More cases than ever are resolved by plea bargains rather than trials in the United States, and King says that deciding what path to take depends completely on the circumstances of the case. “Every case is different. Many things have to be taken into consideration, such as the jury, sentencing guidelines, and the theory of the case. Also, if I feel the outcome of going to trial is going to be worse than the plea deal, I feel it's best to take the plea deal.”

King believes that new defense attorneys should take time to continue educating themselves—and know their limits. “Some of the biggest challenges criminal defense attorneys face today have to do with keeping up with the law and being able to say 'no' to cases they can't reasonably represent.”
To learn more about Joseph King and King, Campbell & Poretz PLLC click here.

Types of Criminal Background Checks Used

J. Robert Verdun

J. Robert Verdun is a Canadian former newspaper publisher best known for his involvement in a defamation lawsuit that resulted in one of the largest awards of damages given in such cases. The case in question was Astley v. Verdun, which entered the Canadian court system in 2006 and achieved a resolution in 2011.

The origins of this case lie with a 1999 dispute between J. Robert Verdun and Robert Astley. In 1999, Astley was the president and CEO of the company Mutual Life of Canada, in which J. Robert Verdun was a shareholder. A policy holders' meeting was held that year to discuss and approve making the company a publicly traded entity named Clarica. J. Robert Verdun voiced his disagreement to this plan loudly, allegedly attempting to gain control of the chairman's microphone when his was turned off. Despite his opposition, the conversion of Mutual Life into Clarica began.

In 2004, J. Robert Verdun renewed his dispute with Astley, who was being considered for induction to the board of the Bank of Montreal. In a letter he sent to the bank's chairman, he described Astley in derogatory terms as greedy and pledged that, in light of his opposition to Astley being appointed, he would make his opposition public. This email constituted the first of eight statements later found to be defamatory.

In February 2005, J. Robert Verdun attended the bank's annual general meeting and denounced Astley for 35 minutes as unethical. In November of that year, he reiterated his claims in the form of shareholder proposals submitted to several banks. Under Canadian law, banks are required to reprint and share these statements with all shareholders, giving the charges J. Robert Verdun made a larger audience.

At this point, both the Bank of Montreal as well as Astley's lawyer notified J. Robert Verdun that he should stop his remarks. Rather than complying, J. Robert Verdun filed another complaint regarding Astley's position with the bank with the Ontario Securities Commission. As a result of this action, in May 2006 Astley filed a lawsuit against J. Robert Verdun seeking one million Canadian dollars in damages regarding eight separate defamatory statements made maliciously. J. Robert Verdun filed a counterclaim which was dismissed .

In May of 2011, a jury ruled that all eight of the statements J. Robert Verdun had made qualified as defamatory and made with malicious intent. In addition to being ordered to pay $650,000 the presiding judge issued a permanent injunction prohibiting J. Robert Verdun from making any statements about Astley in any medium and in any form. The decision was notable not only for the size of the damages awarded but because of the decision to restrict the freedom of speech of J. Robert Verdun. The judge made this ruling in light of Verdun's continued pattern of behavior, which included publishing a book reiterating and expanding his statements about Astley even after the jury's verdict had been returned. 

Lotfi Raissi

Lotfi Raissi is an Algerian born airline pilot who was living in England following the attacks of September 11, 2001. He was wrongfully arrested on suspicion of training the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which was steered into the Pentagon.

Ten days after the events of September 11, Lotfi Raissi was arrested. Released four days later, he was arrested again by the British authorities and ordered held without bail at the request of American authorities, who wished to extradite and prosecute him for his alleged role in the attacks. Lotfi Raissi was then held in custody for four and a half months in a maximum security facility.

When Lotfi Raissi was finally brought to trial, the evidence which had allegedly been assembled against him turned out to not be present. The case had begun from the discovery that Lotfi Raissi had attended the same flight school as some of the hijackers. The authorities alleged that he had not only attended the flight school but trained the terrorists, a claim that proved to be unsubstantiated. As a result, the case against him was dismissed. In 2003, Lotfi Raissi successfully sued Associated Newspapers, owners of the British tabloid "The Daily Mail," for libel in reprinting the allegations of his involvement in the attack. He received an out-of-court settlement, whose financial terms were not made public.

 That same year, Lotfi Raissi announced his intention of suing both the American Department of Justice and the FBI for their unjust arrest and prosecution, which they claimed had made it impossible for him to find gainful employment. The case took a number of years to make its way through the British court system, by which point the British Ministry of Justice was the target of the lawsuit. In 2007, the High Court rejected his claim for compensation on the grounds that his wrongful arrest and confinement was part of the extradition process, for which the Ministry of Justice could not be held responsible.

 In 2008, Britain's Court of Appeal heard the case and rejected the ruling of the High Court. In its verdict, the Court of Appeal said that Lotfi Raissi had been totally cleared of any suspicion of wrongdoing. The verdict went on to censure British legal authorities for abusing the court system, concealing evidence and making false allegations. Furthermore, the ruling said that Lotfi Raissi was eligible for compensation from the Ministry of Justice.

 In 2010, the case of Lotfi Raissi was formally reviewed by Jack Straw, the secretary of the Ministry of Justice, who reversed that agency's previous position that Raissi was eligible for compensation. The language used by Straw said that Lotfi Raissi was "completely exonerated" rather than using the term "serious default," which would have compelled an investigation of the wrongful arrest process. While Lotfi Raissi's attorney was disappointed with this result, they proceeded to move forward with the compensation process. As of October 2012, no public announcement has been made of any settlement.