Opinion
Civil Docket No. CV-03-3309 (Irizarry, J.) (M. Orenstein, M.J.).
January 26, 2006
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
JAMES H. KNAPP (JK-5517) Assistant United States Attorney (631) 715-7879.
Dear Judge Irizarry:
This Office represents plaintiff United States of America in the above civil forfeiture action. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.6 and Rule 50.3 of the Guidelines for the Division of Business Among District Judges, the United States respectfully submits this letter to advise the Court that the above-captioned civil forfeiture action is related to the pending criminal action,United States v. Nebel, Zeilberger, et al., CR-05-0886 (LDW) (the "criminal action"). In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of judicial effort, this civil forfeiture action should be heard by the Honorable Leonard D. Wexler, the District Judge presiding over the aforementioned criminal case.
This civil forfeiture action seeks forfeiture of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) in United States currency (the "defendantsin rem") pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), as moneys furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, et seq., or proceeds traceable to such an exchange and all moneys intended to be used to facilitate any violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, et seq. On December 1, 2005, a Grand Jury sitting in the Eastern District of New York returned a two-count indictment against, inter alia, the claimant in the instant action, Jay Zeilberger ("Zeilberger"). The indictment charged Zeilberger with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C), and with conspiracy to launder narcotics proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. The indictment also alleges criminal forfeiture and names the defendants in rem as specific property subject to forfeiture should the defendant be convicted of either count.
Both cases involve forfeiture of the same currency which the government alleges is derived from the narcotics conspiracy with which Zeilberger is charged in the criminal action. In these circumstances, the civil forfeiture action should be heard by Judge Wexler, the District Judge presiding over Zeilberger's criminal case in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of judicial effort. Accordingly, because the this civil forfeiture action is related to the aforementioned criminal case, the United States respectfully requests that it be heard by Judge Wexler in accordance with Local Civil Rule 1.6 and Rule 50.3 of the Guidelines for the Division of Business Among District Judges, to avoid duplication of judicial effort and to conserve judicial resources.
Thank your for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: s/ James H. Knapp JAMES H. KNAPP (JK-5517) Assistant United States Attorney (631) 715-7879