30 October 2009
Here are some more documents from the court files in the new attempted espionage case against Stewart Nozette and in the older, pending case against him for conspiracy to commit fraud and tax evasion.
I. The attempted espionage case.
There was a detention hearing yesterday, 29 October 2009, before a magistrate, and Nozette was ordered held before trial without bail. I doubt he will appeal the detention order to the district judge in the trial court.
1. Motion to reassign the case as a related case.
Since the earlier case was in a different court than that of Judge Reggie Walton, the government asked that the new case be transferred to the other court, Judge James Robertson presiding. Filed 28 October 2009.
2. Government's memorandum in support of detention pending trial. Filed 10-28-2009.
This lays out some proposed facts and legal argument in support of detaining Nozette without bail pending trial.
The memo notes that he was given $10,000 by the undercover informant during the last meeting, and then went into the bathroom and put it in the toilet tank. Also, it asserts that Nozette has numerous residential properties including a home in Chevy Chase, Maryland which was given a tax assessment value of $1,959,999.00, and a vacation home on Merritt Island, Florida with a claimed value of $550,000.00.
Those are some pretty nice cribs.
3. Exhibit "A" in support of the request for pretrial detention.
This is a bad copy of what appears to be his release order in the pending fraud and tax evasion case, in which he was released on his own signature ("personal recognizance"), and did not have to post bail.
Exhibit "B" is not included because it is the complaint and supporting affidavit in the espionage case and they have been posted previously.
Exhibit "C" is not included because it is described as an early transcript of some more taped conversations. It is noted as being "restricted" and does not appear to be a public document at this time.
4. Defendant's opposition to motion for pretrial detention.
Filed 10-28-2009.
II. The earlier pending case for fraud and tax evasion.
This case is one of those in which the defendant knows a charge is coming, and he and his lawyers go in early and make a deal before an arrest takes place. He waived his right to be formally charged by a grand jury indictment, and pled guilty on 30 January 2009. Sentencing was postponed.
On 23 April 2009 attorney Bradford Berenson entered an appearance for Nozette, and then the lawyers who had been representing him withdrew. Berenson had a White House job during the first term of Bush jr.
Nozette's sentencing in the earlier case was reset to
18 November 2009, but will probably be postponed again.
His new lawyer, Berenson, filed today a motion to continue his sentencing in light of the new case.
The government did not agree to reset the sentencing.
Since he picked up a new case, there is an issue of whether the government will try to cancel the plea agreement, but since it wants to proceed with sentencing, the plea agreement may stay in place.
5. Plea agreement in the fraud and tax evasion case.
6. Statement of the offense.
This is the "factual basis" to support the plea of guilty in the earlier case.
7. Motion to continue sentencing. Filed 30 October 2009.
Robert Willmann, Jr.
Download Nozette_def_reply_govt_reqdetain.pdf
Download Nozette_govt_memosupport_exhA.pdf
Download Nozette_govt_memosupport_reqdetain.pdf
Download Nozette_govt_reqtrans_newjudge.pdf
Download Nozette_othercase_plea_agreement.pdf
Col.
The more appropriate action after gaining all the intelligence & information possible from this traitor, is to knee it down in front of the Israeli embassy and blow its brains out.
I have no faith in the ability DoJ under Holder to prosecute anything. Too many hacks held over from the Bush regime.
the world is passing me by. that’s the way i felt when i saw the certificate of service on the US Attorney by electronic mail (email).
His attorney is Bradford Berenson. I clearly remember Berenson on CSPAN one Sunday morning in the spring of 2003 explaining the new administration torture policies. A retired Navy JAG Admiral,who was then a GWU law professor, was also on camera. He was outraged and kept referring to the Geneva Convention. The callers heavily supported Berenson. One called the admiral a traitor. It was sick.
My recommendation is that other than displaying outrage and rightous indignation over another traitor at this point attempts to analyze judicial/legal strategy are perilous! From my own personal experience, the Career Proscutors at DOJ and in the US attorney’s offices are rarely seasoned criminal prosecutors, but some are. It would be most helpful and might be difficult to find out who exactly has been assiged to the Prosecution team? It might be highly compentent and it might be a joke. The problem with DOJ is that of over 100,000 FTE’s many carry law degrees, perhaps even 20-30,000 but there is a cultural ranking of those with those degrees that is quite odd and hoping someone somewhere takes the time to write a history of the DOJ since its formation in 1933! One example, Elaine Kagan who I think by the time she leaves will be one of the best Solicitor Generals ever (this appointee either represents personally or a member of his/her staff the position of the US before SCOTUS) as I understand it had never argued a case before SCOTUS before her appointment as SG! Argument before what I view is a dysfunctional SCOTUS is a definite skill only acquired over a long time. I had hopes that Chief Justice Roberts would help reach fewer 5-4 opinions but apparently not. It interesting that the newest Justice was not asked a single question about National Security law, nor federalism, both of which I believe will dominate the next two decades of SCOTUS decision making so clearly the slate is clean to establish some basic basic principles on subjects like treason, torture, and terror.
Am I the only regular reader here who noticed Larry Frankiln’s puff piece on Foreign Affairs.com? Money quote (heavily paraphrased, by yours truly):
“Feith wouldn’t go along with my idea to attack Iran, so I tried to go over his head by getting AIPAC to convince Abrams”.
Amazing (terrifying) view into the bureaucracy under Bush, and what Franklin – a goy neocon – thought of as a natural way to communicate his ideas uphill.
Don’t want to come across as too pushy but I took the time to look at CIPA more closely (why? I do not know, as these forays into nonpaying legal analysis make my fiancée a little anxious and understandably so).
But after doing so, I am far from convinced that the DOJ, or analysts within the intelligence community for that matter, have taken advantage of certain legal aspects of CIPA that appear apparent and apparently available.
I’d recommend that someone with the USG give CIPA a fresh look.
Maybe I am missing something — the inquiry was limited to “open source” research. And I am not going to do the DOJ’s work. But I am comfortable that my inquiry has raised legitimate questions — ones that suggest changes significant, immediate and government wide.
My fiancée is an attorney and she reluctantly agreed to discuss CIPA. She sees my reasoning and conceded I have a point, but she has done no work in the area nor, to her great credit, does she want to, for reasons suggested above. But at some point, I may try to mention this aspect of CIPA to a law professor I was suppose to meet awhile back.
And if I am right, then the DOJ and others in the USG have neglected to take a step that should have been taken — one that unquestionably would help protect the American people. And the changes could have taken place years ago, long before 9-11 and Pollard.
Elkern
Thanks for the reference, and yes, our neocon Catholic friend Larry Franklin now portrays himself as a Zionist martyr. A cause célebre. I am surprised Michael Novak at AEI hasn’t come to Franklin’s defense. Maybe he has.
Franklin apparently fails to realize that espionage is not only an act of betrayal against the American people but also, stripped to its essence, is an act of war against the same. The potential damage that a Pollard, a Franklin, and potentially a Nozette, have inflicted against the people of the US (and others) arguably is greater than the murderous acts of the 9-11 hijackers.
When looked at in that light — the magnitude of damage — espionage constitutes an act of terrorism, and it would be comforting if someone at the DOJ at least tried to make that argument.
Another aspect now overlooked is Rosen’s civil lawsuit vs. AIPAC. It strongly suggests how Rosen and Weissman would have presented a defense if the DOJ had elected to try the criminal case.
Due to Judge Ellis III evidentiary rulings, the two were going to turn on AIPAC in a big way. And AIPAC was not represented in that case since it was not a named defendant, so no one was in a position to defend AIPAC, if the case had gone to trial. In other words, AIPAC was completely exposed. (the DOJ decided not to emphasize that aspect in its motion to dismiss the indictment).
Grant Smith in a recent article at awc discusses Rosen’s civil case against AIPAC and suggests the evidence against AIPAC clearly demonstrates it should fall under FARA.
http://tinyurl.com/ycgamk3
G. Smith’s article also proves that the FBI nailed AIPAC and did so a long time ago. Of particular interest is a recently declassified (4.09) FBI report to which G. Smith refers. (I have no idea if it was the FBI report referenced in the appellate decision in the Rosen criminal case). Worth a gander.
http://www.irmep.org/ILA/economy/08131984_WFO_DFBI_REPORT.pdf
I cannot help but believe at some point, those at the FBI and other law enforcment agencies are going to get tired of putting it all on the line time and time again, only to see the DOJ back off. So my hope is that the DOJ is getting ready to come on strong. Many of DOJ prosecutors are the real deal, the best of the best, and they see their work as a vocation. So odds are good that more than a few of them are more interested in justifying the work of the FBI rather than validating the lobbying efforts of AIPAC on behalf of Israel and against US national security interests. The problem at DOJ, I assume, is political pressure applied at the top. Historically, this explains how AIPAC dodged FARA from the get go in the 1960’s.