5 ms·

Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office, FBI accused of spying on defense in fraud case

151 points by ALee 10y ago

keithpeter 10y ago
"Specifically, the court papers allege that Fort Lauderdale-based copying service Imaging Universe and president Ignacio E. Montero provided the government with CDs containing duplicates of documents Schapiro’s defense team culled from 220 boxes of evidentiary records in preparation for trial. Federal agents had seized those records from the mental-health clinic Biscayne Milieu, where Schapiro worked." So in future the defence must request copies of all 'evidentary records' by default so that the authorities can obtain no advantage?
- Phlarp 10y ago
  IANAL: Wouldn't any evidence gained from 'mental-health clinical records' be inadmissible anyway? Something about doctor-patient confidentiality? Come to think of it, shouldn't these records as a whole also be inadmissible because of the whole attorney client privilege thing? Or is this just a "sneak and peak" tactic to get insights into the opposition's strategy?
  - dmix 10y ago
    Not if they are financial records rather than health records... I dont know why any court would care about mental health records for a fraud court case like this...
  - mandevil 10y ago
    In a trial over medical fraud (as the case in question is), patient records are the key evidence! Depending on the type of fraud alleged (haven't looked into this case in particular) either the argument is that the treatments were unnecessary, or they were never delivered, etc. But when investigating if the doctor committed crimes, normal rules of doctor-patient confidentiality don't apply.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > IANAL: Wouldn't any evidence gained from 'mental-health clinical records' be inadmissible anyway? No. > Something about doctor-patient confidentiality? Where it exists as a legal privilege at all, physician-patient privilege prevents certain information in medical records from being used against the patient in court. (And, in any case, it apparently doesn't exist in the Federal Rules of Evidence; there are federal laws on medical confidentiality, e.g., HIPAA, but they are not a general privilege against the use of medical records as evidence, and again they protect the patient, not the physician.)
- The_Magistrate 10y ago
  "Since the indictment, Imaging Universe has charged Schapiro $8,200 to produce nine sets of discovery documents to his defense team. The motion identifies those records to include a dozen CDs containing approximately 1,140 PDF files, many with multiple pages." It appears that the defense was required to be on-premise to review the documents and was charged a fee by Imaging Universe to take copies with them. Requesting copies of all records shouldn't be necessary to obfuscate the defense's real documentation needs.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Montero needs to lawyer up fast. The FBI is about to toss a buss on him.
- kabdib 10y ago
  Wonder what they had on him?
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    Yeah, no doubt.
bayofpigs 10y ago
We shouldn't be surprised when the US government motto is "The end justify the means." This is that policy trickling down to the lower branches.
will_brown 10y ago
Notwithstanding Counsel for the Defense claiming it was both a US Attorney and FBI practice, the facts suggest the prosecutors actually did the right thing and immediately upon learning about the FBI Agent's copying of documentation, they disclosed the information to the Defense and called for an outside investigation. >“What remedies, if any, are available to the court were the court to find that the described conduct in defendant Schapiro’s motion is a systemic, consistent and/or pervasive practice of or on behalf of the United States Attorney’s Office?” Even though, based on the limited facts, it suggests the Defense doesn't have proof anyone at the US Attorney Office was involved, the Judge is taking the allegations so serious (which they are, even if just as to a rouge FBI Agent), that she is saying lets assume everything is true...lets get it out on the record now what powers the Court has, then we can get into the evidentiary hearing...that is awesome.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > the facts suggest We don't know the facts, only what one side or the other claims.
  - xviia 10y ago
    Often there are things that "are not in dispute", i.e. both sides agree. That's pretty close to a definition of a fact. In this case, there is no disagreement that the FBI had CD's containing documents from the defense.
  - rosser 10y ago
    When both sides of a case "stipulate" to something, as appears to be the case here, for legal purposes, that's about as factual as you're going to get.
- zaroth 10y ago
  It wasn't limited to just a single agent, Imaging Universe (the government contracted mandated provider of copying services for discovered documents) admits to doing this since 2006 at the request of the FBI. The US Attorney disclosed, at least in this case, the defense-selected documents were used to help prepare government expert witnesses. Woah...
mwcampbell 10y ago
The first two letters of the title are capitalized. That's almost certainly a typo.
- dang 10y ago
  Fixed above.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Totally unsurprising. When someone in government wants to get something shady like this done all they have to do is verbally gripe about it "too bad we can't legally obtain copies of everything the defense copies" whoever hears the gripe knows that it's a suggestion to go get it done without telling the boss. Doing it this way the responsibility chain gets fuzzy preventing anyone from getting seriously punished in the future. The people that heard the gripe go tell someone below them to ask the copy service if it's "technically possible" (or some intentionally ambiguous language) to get copies. Those people go coerce the copy center into cooperating and then tell their boss that the answer is "they can't do that but they sent this stack of CDs instead." The person they give the CDs to then turns to whoever was complaining in the first place and says "the copy service just sent us these out of the blue." Granted that's a specific example and probably not how it unfolded in real life but it highlights the "don't ask don't tell" culture that perpetuates corruption and skirting of rules/regulation. Everyone has skin in the game so everyone keeps their mouth shut. It's the same culture that results in something unethical but profitable at low levels and higher ups claiming ignorance. They're ignorant to specifics but they know that it's the job of those in the middle to keep the specifics away from them. the copy service owner is about to get screwed when the FBI tries to blame him for all of it regardless of his level of involvement.
bediger4000 10y ago
Taken in context with a lot of other... misbehavior by the FBI (like the various near-entrapment "terrorism" cases, for example) this makes me think that the FBI consistently treats the Federal Judiciary as some kind of CYA checklist item, to officially justify punishing people that the FBI has decided should be punished. As long as nothing the FBI does is... illegal, (or exposed) they seem to feel that they have a right or mandate to do it, rules, laws or ethics be damned.

151 points by ALee 10y ago

"Specifically, the court papers allege that Fort Lauderdale-based copying service Imaging Universe and president Ignacio E. Montero provided the government with CDs containing duplicates of documents Schapiro’s defense team culled from 220 boxes of evidentiary records in preparation for trial. Federal agents had seized those records from the mental-health clinic Biscayne Milieu, where Schapiro worked." So in future the defence must request copies of all 'evidentary records' by default so that the authorities can obtain no advantage?

Phlarp 10y ago
IANAL: Wouldn't any evidence gained from 'mental-health clinical records' be inadmissible anyway? Something about doctor-patient confidentiality? Come to think of it, shouldn't these records as a whole also be inadmissible because of the whole attorney client privilege thing? Or is this just a "sneak and peak" tactic to get insights into the opposition's strategy?
- dmix 10y ago
  Not if they are financial records rather than health records... I dont know why any court would care about mental health records for a fraud court case like this...
- mandevil 10y ago
  In a trial over medical fraud (as the case in question is), patient records are the key evidence! Depending on the type of fraud alleged (haven't looked into this case in particular) either the argument is that the treatments were unnecessary, or they were never delivered, etc. But when investigating if the doctor committed crimes, normal rules of doctor-patient confidentiality don't apply.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > IANAL: Wouldn't any evidence gained from 'mental-health clinical records' be inadmissible anyway? No. > Something about doctor-patient confidentiality? Where it exists as a legal privilege at all, physician-patient privilege prevents certain information in medical records from being used against the patient in court. (And, in any case, it apparently doesn't exist in the Federal Rules of Evidence; there are federal laws on medical confidentiality, e.g., HIPAA, but they are not a general privilege against the use of medical records as evidence, and again they protect the patient, not the physician.)
The_Magistrate 10y ago
"Since the indictment, Imaging Universe has charged Schapiro $8,200 to produce nine sets of discovery documents to his defense team. The motion identifies those records to include a dozen CDs containing approximately 1,140 PDF files, many with multiple pages." It appears that the defense was required to be on-premise to review the documents and was charged a fee by Imaging Universe to take copies with them. Requesting copies of all records shouldn't be necessary to obfuscate the defense's real documentation needs.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Montero needs to lawyer up fast. The FBI is about to toss a buss on him.

kabdib 10y ago
Wonder what they had on him?
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  Yeah, no doubt.

bayofpigs 10y ago

We shouldn't be surprised when the US government motto is "The end justify the means." This is that policy trickling down to the lower branches.

will_brown 10y ago

Notwithstanding Counsel for the Defense claiming it was both a US Attorney and FBI practice, the facts suggest the prosecutors actually did the right thing and immediately upon learning about the FBI Agent's copying of documentation, they disclosed the information to the Defense and called for an outside investigation. >“What remedies, if any, are available to the court were the court to find that the described conduct in defendant Schapiro’s motion is a systemic, consistent and/or pervasive practice of or on behalf of the United States Attorney’s Office?” Even though, based on the limited facts, it suggests the Defense doesn't have proof anyone at the US Attorney Office was involved, the Judge is taking the allegations so serious (which they are, even if just as to a rouge FBI Agent), that she is saying lets assume everything is true...lets get it out on the record now what powers the Court has, then we can get into the evidentiary hearing...that is awesome.

hackuser 10y ago
> the facts suggest We don't know the facts, only what one side or the other claims.
- xviia 10y ago
  Often there are things that "are not in dispute", i.e. both sides agree. That's pretty close to a definition of a fact. In this case, there is no disagreement that the FBI had CD's containing documents from the defense.
- rosser 10y ago
  When both sides of a case "stipulate" to something, as appears to be the case here, for legal purposes, that's about as factual as you're going to get.
zaroth 10y ago
It wasn't limited to just a single agent, Imaging Universe (the government contracted mandated provider of copying services for discovered documents) admits to doing this since 2006 at the request of the FBI. The US Attorney disclosed, at least in this case, the defense-selected documents were used to help prepare government expert witnesses. Woah...

mwcampbell 10y ago

The first two letters of the title are capitalized. That's almost certainly a typo.

dang 10y ago
Fixed above.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

Totally unsurprising. When someone in government wants to get something shady like this done all they have to do is verbally gripe about it "too bad we can't legally obtain copies of everything the defense copies" whoever hears the gripe knows that it's a suggestion to go get it done without telling the boss. Doing it this way the responsibility chain gets fuzzy preventing anyone from getting seriously punished in the future. The people that heard the gripe go tell someone below them to ask the copy service if it's "technically possible" (or some intentionally ambiguous language) to get copies. Those people go coerce the copy center into cooperating and then tell their boss that the answer is "they can't do that but they sent this stack of CDs instead." The person they give the CDs to then turns to whoever was complaining in the first place and says "the copy service just sent us these out of the blue." Granted that's a specific example and probably not how it unfolded in real life but it highlights the "don't ask don't tell" culture that perpetuates corruption and skirting of rules/regulation. Everyone has skin in the game so everyone keeps their mouth shut. It's the same culture that results in something unethical but profitable at low levels and higher ups claiming ignorance. They're ignorant to specifics but they know that it's the job of those in the middle to keep the specifics away from them. the copy service owner is about to get screwed when the FBI tries to blame him for all of it regardless of his level of involvement.

bediger4000 10y ago

Taken in context with a lot of other... misbehavior by the FBI (like the various near-entrapment "terrorism" cases, for example) this makes me think that the FBI consistently treats the Federal Judiciary as some kind of CYA checklist item, to officially justify punishing people that the FBI has decided should be punished. As long as nothing the FBI does is... illegal, (or exposed) they seem to feel that they have a right or mandate to do it, rules, laws or ethics be damned.