Opinion
No. 03 CR 36.
August 20, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Albert Rossini ("Rossini") has filed what he labels as "Motion To Strike Restitution," by which he seeks to prevent the Bureau of Prisons from deducting $25 quarterly from his current earnings in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (Rossini is now serving a 48-month term of imprisonment, imposed by this Court earlier this year). But as the United States' response to Rossini's motion states:
1. Rossini is a recidivist swindler, having been convicted and sentenced seven years ago by this Court's colleague Honorable Blanche Manning to a prison term, with Judge Manning's judgment and commitment order also including a required $200,000 in restitution and a $40,000 fine.
2. Although this Court imposed no restitution obligation in this case, because the victim of the offense of conviction here had previously settled with Rossini and his codefendant in a civil case, over $230,000 of the original $240,000 remains unpaid on Judge Manning's earlierimposed restitution and fine.
Those things are dispositive of Rossini's motion, for the Bureau of Prisons is not enforcing restitution in this case, so that no relief can or should be granted by this Court. Quite apart from the element of high irony pointed out in the government's response, if Rossini is to gain any relief from the government's minimal efforts to enforce his long-overdue obligations (which would seem doubtful at best), it would have to come from the Bureau or perhaps from Judge Manning. Rossini's motion is denied summarily.
In part the United States' filing contrasts Rossini's claim that the annual $100 deduction "places an undue financial strain imposed on Rossini's family that it should not have to bear" with the strain on the victims of Rossini's depredations and their families by his original swindles, a strain scarcely lessened by the quite modest repayments he has made over the ensuing years.