In the latest rebuke of U.S. District Judge Manuel Real, the Ninth Circuit has again reversed a sentence by the judge viewed as too lenient and too little justified — in this case, the sentencing of ex-producer Jospeh Medawar.
The unanimous decision noted that the Real’s sentence of only a year and a day was less than not only the request of the prosecutors but less than the recommendation of the defense. The main problem was the failure to justify the lower sentence. The panel noted the absence of any “significant justification” for imposing a sentence far below the range of 57 to 71 months set under the federal guidelines. In 2007, Real was the subject of a rare reprimand for his “pattern and practice of not providing reasons for his decisions when required to do so.”
Medawar falsely claimed that he had the endorsement of President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security for a movie on the DHS. He raised much of the money from local churches.
The money was used to support Medawar and his longtime associate, Alison Heruth-Waterbury in their renting of a $40,000 per month ($6.6 million) mansion in Beverly Hills and the purchase of a fleet of luxury cars and other high-life items. Click here.
For the full story, click here.
4 thoughts on “The Real Deal: Ninth Circuit Reverses Sentencing of Hollywood Producer Medawar”
Financial crime is no different than robbing someone with a gin, maybe even worse because of the amounts of money often involved. Fuc you Real ass lickers who defend his lenient sentence. And dont give me your bullsheot that letting him out early will allow him to pay resittution sooner. This jackarse will never come close to earning 5 million in restitution unless he first robs someone else.
PS – It is rather objectionable put up a Latin phrase and then translate it for the reader. If you’re going to insult the reader by assuming they don’t have the ability to translate, you’re better off to keep the phrase to yourself. Second, if you’re going to put up the translation, what is the purpose of the Latin phrase? Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui
A year is one year too much. These people committed a financial crime. They should be made to pay restitution. Putting them in prison keeps them from making money to pay restitution. Putting them in prison serves no purpose whatever. It will not deter anyone from committing another financial crime. Good for Judge Real for using better sense than most judges. And to those who simply want to put everyone in prison for every offense, enjoy your higher taxes to pay for the private companies, like CCA, who are making billions from housing the prisoners. Putting non-violent people in prison for long periods is insane.
Too bad his movie wasn’t about how rotten America is, then the 9th court, nodding their heads in agreement, would have let him out after a day.
Comments are closed.