Opinion
NO. 1:06-CR-00111(2).
April 23, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
The Court met with parties for a status conference, on the record, in Chambers, on April 23, 2009, concerning the Amended Affidavit of Harriet Warshak (doc. 768), the government's Response (doc. 769), and Defendant's Reply (doc. 774).
Two basic issues are before the Court: whether Defendant is entitled to have her counsel paid to represent her on appeal based on in forma pauperis status, and whether Defendant has in good faith complied with the conditions of her bond and sentencing, that she make a full and complete disclosure of all of her assets. The Court finds highly disturbing the discrepancies between Defendant's Amended Affidavit and her previous financial disclosures to the U.S. Probation Department as reflected in the Presentence Report. As an example, most alarming is the fact that Defendant "forgot" about a $100,000.00 certificate of deposit she held that she used in July 2008, after her conviction, to prepay bills and make a $10,000.00 prepayment on a credit card (doc. 774).
Counsel for Defendant indicates that he sought I.F.P. status for his client to ensure he could get paid for his services on her appeal. Counsel indicates that absent such status, in light of the government's money judgment forfeiture order, his client was in effect indigent. The government does not question the veracity of Defendant's counsel, but insists that Defendant's disclosures have been incomplete. Defendant's counsel indicated he did not want to turn over the account numbers by filing them publicly, but that he has had them in his possession and would turn them over to the government today.
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds it appropriate to REVOKE its previous finding that Defendant qualifies for I.F.P. status and a C.J. A. appointment. The Court is disappointed with both Defendant's counsel and Defendant. The Court stayed the incarceration of Defendant following sentencing in light of the host of her medical conditions. This was an extraordinary action on behalf of the Defendant. In response, Defendant has accessed funds continually and thus far has provided inadequate reporting to the government. Defendant's counsel, as he has conceded, should have ensured better reporting.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to CONTINUE this matter for a hearing in 60 days, on June 23, 2009, at 10:00 A.M., with all parties. At such hearing the Court will review with the parties the outcome of the following conditions which it imposes as modifications to post-trial supervision: 1) Defendant is to make a full disclosure of all financial information requested by the U.S. Attorney, including account numbers, to the U.S. Attorney and to the U.S. Pretrial Services Department and/or U.S. Probation Department depending on which has jurisdiction over this matter; and 2) Defendant is to make no disbursements, that is, write no checks and make no financial transactions, without the approval of the U.S. Pretrial Services Department and/or U.S. Probation Department, as aforesaid. Should the Court be dissatisfied with the outcome of such conditions, the Court will consider revoking Defendant's bond pending appeal.
SO ORDERED.