One of the more interesting aspects of the Spitzer prostitution scandal is the possibly of a charge under the Mann Act. It is quite a difference for the governor. Under the Mann Act, he could be looking at 20 years while under the D.C. law it would be only 90 days.
The Mann Act makes it illegal to persuade or induce an individual to cross state lines for the purpose of prostitution. It is rarely used against “johns”, but it can technically be used against Spitzer. It has been used in past celebrity cases, click here.
The district law allows for only 90 days for a first offender.
District of Columbia District of Columbia Code DIVISION IV CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE AND PRISONERS TITLE 22 CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
§ 22-2701. Engaging in prostitution or soliciting for prostitution.
It is unlawful for any person to engage in prostitution or to solicit for prostitution. The penalties for violation of this section shall be a fine of $500 or not more than 90 days imprisonment, or both, for the first offense, a fine of $750 or not more than 135 days imprisonment, or both, for the second offense, and a fine of $1,000 or not more than 180 days imprisonment, or both, for the third and each subsequent offense.
Given the reports that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was heard on a wiretap arranging for a prostitute to travel from New York to Washington to meet in his hotel room, it appears that he has violated the Mann Act. This federal law carries a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for knowingly persuading or inducing any individual to cross state lines for the purposes of prostitution. Governor Spitzer also appears to have violated District of Columbia law, making it unlawful for any person to engage in prostitution or to solicit for prostitution. This is punishable by up to 90 days in jail, or a fine of up to $500, or both, for the first offense.
It appears, however, that there are allegations of money laundering, but it is not clear that Spitzer was allegedly involved in such activities. There is also the danger that he may have given false statements to investigators or acted in a way that could result in obstruction charges. Finally, this conduct could be the based for an impeachment proceeding unless, as expected, he resigns.
JT, I posted an article from WaPo under the ‘Bush Loses Ruling on Cheney Records’ thread, which then mysteriously disappeared re Spitzer’s early mortgage consumer work with the 50 AG’s involving the OCC etc – yesterday? Was that intentional?
——-
Patty C 1, March 11, 2008 at 4:46 pm
No s***, Sherlock… 😉
He pissed off a LOT of people on Wall Steet, like AIG’s Hank Greenberg, and notable others, elsewhere…
********
Interesting timing – on both counts
Money talks… from NY (CT) to CA
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?status=301&id=2528
$50 Million Gift to Advance Yale’s China Collaborations
Published: September 28, 2006
“New Haven, Conn. — Maurice R. (“Hank”) Greenberg, through his family foundation, and The Starr Foundation are each donating $25 million to Yale to create the Maurice R. Greenberg Yale-China Initiative, advancing the University’s collaborations with China in critical areas, President Richard C. Levin announced today…”
Note: 8 Million to UC Berkley Library
________
From:law.com – jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424481239
Hank Greenberg and Former AIG Execs to Pay $115 Million to Settle Chancery Court Suit
Brian Baxter
The American Lawyer
September 12, 2008
Former AIG Chairman and CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and three other former AIG executives have agreed to pay shareholders $115 million to settle claims that they overpaid a company controlled by the one-time insurance kingpin.
The settlement, which plaintiffs lawyers call the largest ever in a derivative suit in Delaware Chancery Court, comes on the eve of a trial that would have taken place before Vice Chancellor Leo Strine Jr.
“We started having [settlement] negotiations about six months ago, but they fell apart,” says Stuart Grant, founding and managing partner of noted Delaware’s plaintiffs firm Grant & Eisenhofer. “Then I got a call on Tuesday night, literally on the eve of trial, and by 3 p.m. on Thursday we had a [memorandum of understanding]. So you can say this case settled on the proverbial courthouse steps.”
The settlement is somewhat surprising considering the Chancery Court is generally considered a safe haven for corporate defendants, Grant says. Chancery Court trials are jury-free; Grant says that Greenberg himself was on the list of witnesses who could be called to testify once proceedings began on September 15. (A spokesperson for AIG did not respond to a request for comment.)
The case began when the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana — represented by Grant & Eisenhofer — filed suit against Greenberg, and the former executives in the Chancery Court on Dec. 31, 2002.
“The suit stems from the relationship between Hank Greenberg and the umbrella of companies under C.V. Starr & Co.,” Grant says. “Hank was managing these companies on the side that were mirror companies of certain AIG companies,” he adds. “And he was diverting AIG business to these companies, which made about a $1 billion over five years that AIG should have made themselves.”
Grant says that money was used to compensate high-level executives at C.V. Starr and AIG. The case is unrelated to the well-publicized troubles that AIG and Greenberg still face in connection with an investigation initiated several years ago by former New York State AG Eliot Spitzer. (Spitzer’s office ended up filing civil charges, and the 83-year-old Greenberg still faces several civil suits from AIG shareholders, some of which have been filed by clients of Grant & Eisenhofer.)
Representing Greenberg and C.V. Starr were litigator-to-the-stars David Boies and fellow Boies, Schiller & Flexner litigation partner Lee Wolosky. Greenberg was represented locally by J. Travis Laster of Delaware’s Abrams & Laster with Andre Bouchard of Bouchard Margules & Friedlander serving as C.V. Starr’s local counsel.
Besides Greenberg, the AIG settling executives included the company’s former CFO Howard Smith, former Vice Chairman of investments Edward Matthews, and former Vice Chairman of insurance Thomas Tizzio.
John Gardiner, the co-head of the international litigation and arbitration group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, represented Matthews along with litigation partners Jonathan Frank, Edward Welch and associate Michelle Davis.
Smith was represented by Vincent Sama, a litigation partner in Winston & Strawn’s New York office. Kurt Heyman, a founding partner of Delaware’s Proctor Heyman, served as Smith’s local counsel.
Tizzio turned to Steven Pearlstein, a partner at New York litigation boutique Kobre & Kim, with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor’s Christian Wright providing local counsel.
Daniel Kramer, cochair of the securities litigation and enforcement group at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, represented AIG. David Eagle of Delaware’s Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers served as the insurance giant’s local counsel.
Grant says that $29.5 million from the settlement sum will come from Greenberg and the three former AIG executives, with the remaining $85.5 million picked up by AIG’s directors and officers insurance. Being a derivative suit, all of the money will go back to AIG.
Greenberg’s deposition transcripts will likely not be released to the public, Grant says. In addition to Grant, partner Cynthia Calder, senior counsel Jennifer Heisinger, and associates Catherine Pratsinakis and David Straite rounded out the Grant & Eisenhofer trial team.
The case was mediated by former U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Politan Jr.
JT, I posted an article from WaPo under the ‘Bush Loses Ruling on Cheney Records’ thread, which then mysteriously disappeared re Spitzer’s early consumer work with the 50 AG’s involving the OCC etc – yesterday? Was that intentional?
——-
Patty C 1, March 11, 2008 at 4:46 pm
No s***, Sherlock… 😉
He pissed off a LOT of people on Wall Steet, like AIG’s Hank Greenberg, and notable others, elsewhere…
********
Interesting timing – on both counts
Money talks… from NY (CT) to CA
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?status=301&id=2528
$50 Million Gift to Advance Yale’s China Collaborations
Published: September 28, 2006
“New Haven, Conn. — Maurice R. (“Hank”) Greenberg, through his family foundation, and The Starr Foundation are each donating $25 million to Yale to create the Maurice R. Greenberg Yale-China Initiative, advancing the University’s collaborations with China in critical areas, President Richard C. Levin announced today…”
Note: 8 Million to UC Berkley Library
________
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424481239
Hank Greenberg and Former AIG Execs to Pay $115 Million to Settle Chancery Court Suit
Brian Baxter
The American Lawyer
September 12, 2008
Former AIG Chairman and CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and three other former AIG executives have agreed to pay shareholders $115 million to settle claims that they overpaid a company controlled by the one-time insurance kingpin.
The settlement, which plaintiffs lawyers call the largest ever in a derivative suit in Delaware Chancery Court, comes on the eve of a trial that would have taken place before Vice Chancellor Leo Strine Jr.
“We started having [settlement] negotiations about six months ago, but they fell apart,” says Stuart Grant, founding and managing partner of noted Delaware’s plaintiffs firm Grant & Eisenhofer. “Then I got a call on Tuesday night, literally on the eve of trial, and by 3 p.m. on Thursday we had a [memorandum of understanding]. So you can say this case settled on the proverbial courthouse steps.”
The settlement is somewhat surprising considering the Chancery Court is generally considered a safe haven for corporate defendants, Grant says. Chancery Court trials are jury-free; Grant says that Greenberg himself was on the list of witnesses who could be called to testify once proceedings began on September 15. (A spokesperson for AIG did not respond to a request for comment.)
The case began when the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana — represented by Grant & Eisenhofer — filed suit against Greenberg, and the former executives in the Chancery Court on Dec. 31, 2002.
“The suit stems from the relationship between Hank Greenberg and the umbrella of companies under C.V. Starr & Co.,” Grant says. “Hank was managing these companies on the side that were mirror companies of certain AIG companies,” he adds. “And he was diverting AIG business to these companies, which made about a $1 billion over five years that AIG should have made themselves.”
Grant says that money was used to compensate high-level executives at C.V. Starr and AIG. The case is unrelated to the well-publicized troubles that AIG and Greenberg still face in connection with an investigation initiated several years ago by former New York State AG Eliot Spitzer. (Spitzer’s office ended up filing civil charges, and the 83-year-old Greenberg still faces several civil suits from AIG shareholders, some of which have been filed by clients of Grant & Eisenhofer.)
Representing Greenberg and C.V. Starr were litigator-to-the-stars David Boies and fellow Boies, Schiller & Flexner litigation partner Lee Wolosky. Greenberg was represented locally by J. Travis Laster of Delaware’s Abrams & Laster with Andre Bouchard of Bouchard Margules & Friedlander serving as C.V. Starr’s local counsel.
Besides Greenberg, the AIG settling executives included the company’s former CFO Howard Smith, former Vice Chairman of investments Edward Matthews, and former Vice Chairman of insurance Thomas Tizzio.
John Gardiner, the co-head of the international litigation and arbitration group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, represented Matthews along with litigation partners Jonathan Frank, Edward Welch and associate Michelle Davis.
Smith was represented by Vincent Sama, a litigation partner in Winston & Strawn’s New York office. Kurt Heyman, a founding partner of Delaware’s Proctor Heyman, served as Smith’s local counsel.
Tizzio turned to Steven Pearlstein, a partner at New York litigation boutique Kobre & Kim, with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor’s Christian Wright providing local counsel.
Daniel Kramer, cochair of the securities litigation and enforcement group at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, represented AIG. David Eagle of Delaware’s Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers served as the insurance giant’s local counsel.
Grant says that $29.5 million from the settlement sum will come from Greenberg and the three former AIG executives, with the remaining $85.5 million picked up by AIG’s directors and officers insurance. Being a derivative suit, all of the money will go back to AIG.
Greenberg’s deposition transcripts will likely not be released to the public, Grant says. In addition to Grant, partner Cynthia Calder, senior counsel Jennifer Heisinger, and associates Catherine Pratsinakis and David Straite rounded out the Grant & Eisenhofer trial team.
The case was mediated by former U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Politan Jr.
fields solutions proactiv solutions proactiv proactive
Hi,
I’m currently researching various weight loss programs and courses.
So, if you don’t mind please answer in this topic: What’s your single most important question about weight loss?
Cheers, JD
album downloadable hip hop mp3 music
audio download song
artist download mp3 music soundtrack
album downloadable hip hop mp3 music
audio download song
artist download mp3 music soundtrack
Patty C,
🙂
Mespo,
I hope you’re right! But the pro-Constitution forces have been obstructed so many times, a certain pessimism, not to mention paranoia has set in!
DW
Not to worry-I got your back 😉
I am anxious to see what he decides.
FYI-you can google almost any topic
under JT + keywords + DW etc
DW:
There are few things less predictable that the predilections of a federal judge– I hope.
Patty C,
Thank you. I never know where to look. I’ve gotten so bad I just post anywhere!
And I hate to ask you since I do all the time and I’m feeling a little guilty about that! 🙂
DW
BTW: this judge assignment and its implications is almost completely under the radar for the MSM and the blogosphere so far as I can tell…
Now, this is the link you should have asked me for, DW! 😉
I read it as her contempt was in not showing up-at all, too.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/01/mukasey-blocks-any-prosecution-of-bush-officials-for-contempt-of-congress/
I just can’t get my mind off the fact that Judge Bates got the case.
A little history: The biggest dust-up between the two branches in recent times was Walker (he, the Comptroller General) v. Cheney. As issue was a request to GAO from two committee heads to procure the information around Cheney’s energy taskforce. GAO said “Okay”, but got the privilege stonewall, and it wound up in federal court where Judge Bates was assigned the case. Judge Bates found in favor of the Executive.
Here is what the GAO had to say about the decision in a press release they issued after the ruling:
“For a number of reasons, GAO strongly believes the district court’s decision is incorrect. In GAO’s view, the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines v. Byrd to GAO. Unlike the legislator-plaintiffs in Raines, who sought to invalidate a statute which had been enacted by the Congress, GAO sought to carry out – not invalidate – the information-gathering responsibilities which Congress assigned to it in GAO’s access statute. The district court’s decision thus has prevented GAO from discharging its statutory responsibilities in this case. Furthermore, the opinion was based, in part, on a material factual error relating to the role various Senate chairs played as noted above. The opinion also leads to the highly questionable result that private citizens have more authority to enforce their rights to obtain information from the Executive Branch than the Comptroller General of the United States,acting in his official capacity as head of GAO.
———————
Page 2
According to Comptroller General Walker, “In the final analysis, transparency and accountability in government are essential elements for a healthy democracy. In America, all public servants, including constitutional officers, work for the people. While reasonable people can disagree on the proper amount of transparency and the appropriate degree of accountability, in the world’s greatest democracy, we should lead by example and base public disclosure on what is the right thing to do rather than on what one believes one is compelled to do. Based on my extensive congressional outreach efforts, there is a broad-based and bi-partisan consensus that GAO should have received the limited and non-deliberative NEPDG-related information that we were seeking without having to resort to litigation. While we have decided not to pursue this matter further in the courts, we hope that the Administration will do the right thing and fulfill its obligations when it comes to disclosures to GAO, the Congress, and the public, not only in connection with this matter but all matters in the future. We hope that GAO is never again put in the position of having to resort to the courts to obtain information that Congress needs to perform its constitutional duties, but we will be prepared to do so in the future if necessary.”
Now then.
In the Meirs/Bolton contempt action, the biggest constitutional confrontation since Walker v Cheney, Congress gets the very same judge that decided against them before????
JT often talks about the “fix being in”. But this is so doggone blatant, I can’t believe the docket wasn’t manipulated.
A short analysis of the case before Judge Bates.
Count I is the strongest. Count II and Count III I feel are weaker. Count IV is good. Overall, I think they threw the kitchen sink and could have shortened this considerably. They also raise some interesting questions that perhaps they won’t like the answer to and might have been better off not raising.
“78. Wherefore, the Judiciary Committee prays that this Court (a) declare that Ms. Miers’s refusal to appear before the Committee in response to the subpoena issued to her was without legal justification and violated her legal obligations; (b)declare that Ms Miers may assert executive privilege in response to Committee questions only in the presence of the Committee and only in response to particular questions; (c) declare that Ms. Miers must testify before the Committee about all subjects not covered by executive privilege; and (d) enjoin Ms. Miers to appear and testify forthwith before the Committee in compliance….”
(b) is their strongest point. Bates should agree here.
I was arguing this point on this board some weeks back. There is a lot of grey/contested area but it is incontrovertable that employees are not privileged, only specific testimony. The Executive cannot foreclose the asking of questions by failing to produce anyone to be asked. It must allow the appearance of officials, only then can it invoke privilege to particular questions.
So my read is that Congress will indeed get Ms Meirs (but not Mr Bolton), as a sop to Congressional dignity, but the appearance will be an excruciating ordeal of privilege claims.
Kevin,
Thank you for intelligent and perceptive post, but you may be wrong on several counts.
Among them, most tragically, is your comment on forum shopping by Congress for a sympathetic judge. It just doesn’t work that way.
This action got referred to Judge John D. Bates who has protected the Executive before (see Walker v Cheney where the GAO’s suit was blocked for lack of standing).
In many ways, a more unsympathetic Judge could hardly have been found and it is all by random assignment on the dockets.
Kevin:
You really have a strange take on the concept of equality of the branches of government and the separation of powers doctrine. If an unscrupulous President decided to appoint only attorneys disbarred for various ethical lapses, or maybe mob lawyers to key roles at the DOJ, would Congress have no right to inquire about it? What if another hypothetical and unscrupulous President decided to install only Christian ideologues bent on subverting established law by writing legally suspect memos authorizing,say something as despicable as torture, should Congress sit idly by waiting for the next election? Would you support Congress’ inaction if another President installed leftwing zealots at DOJ who ruled that it is legally permissible to ignore the Constitution’s prohibition against intereference in religion and actually taxed the charlatans masquarading as mega-church leaders and gave the money to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster through “faith based intiatives”? I wonder how your abject prostration before the powers of our Chief Executive would suit you then.
Oh sorry, example number two really happened and you are still down there. My mistake!