republic of texas

Junk Science My A$$ Working With Asbestos & Silicon Appear Harmless Until 30 Or So Yrs Have Passed

2008-05-23T02:11:00.000-07:00

"3M, who never made or sold asbestos but is accused of failing to warn users that its masks would not filter out asbestos dust if they were not used properly"

October 25, 2007, 5:46 pm

Indicted Houston Lawyer’s Novel Defense

Posted by Nathan Koppel

In June, we wrote about a Houston plaintiffs attorney and two former Hartford insurance company employees who were indicted in connection with an alleged kickback scheme that involved millions of dollars in settlement proceeds from silicosis cases.

Now, in this detail-laden cross-claim filed last week, plaintiffs attorney Warren Todd Hoeffner tells his side of the story. He paints himself as the victim of numerous alleged extortion threats by Rachel Rossow, one of the indicted former Hartford employees.

Here’s the background: According to the DOJ, in 2002, Hoeffner settled silicosis lawsuits with The Hartford for $34 million, but as part of the deal, the attorney paid more than $3 million in kickbacks to two then-Hartford claims managers. Hoeffner, who collected $5.3 million in legal fees, also allegedly bought a new BMW for each of the Hartford employees.

Following the indictment, some of Hoeffner’s former silicosis clients brought a civil suit against the attorney and the Hartford, claiming negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the alleged kickback scheme.

Hoeffner cross-claimed, saying that he was the victim of extortion.

In August 2002, according to his filing, Rossow allegedly told Hoeffner that she was the “lover” of a then senior claims executive at the Hartford and that the executive had the power to “kill” any settlements. Hoeffner claims he later met with Rossow in Florida and Colorado, where she allegedly made further extortion demands.

Out of fear that the proposed settlements would fall apart, Hoeffner alleges, he bought Rossow a car and sent her a series of payments, one totaling $1.675 million.

Hoeffner’s attorney Chris Flood acknowledges that it’s “extremely unusual,” for a criminal defendant to lay out what is, in effect, his defense in a civil filing. “Because we were sued,” he says, “we were forced to defend ourselves and we stand by all the allegations in the cross claim.”

Rossow’s attorney, Dan Cogdell, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. According to a Hartford Courant report on the case, a spokeswoman for the company said “The company took quick and decisive action upon learning of the conduct alleged in the government’s indictment. We contacted federal authorities and have been providing them with assistance every step of the way.”

Comments

Report offensive comments to lawblog@wsj.com

Your abridged blip left out all the details of the claim. You should just post the cross claim on your website. It is salacious and very factual. For instance, you left out the following for your readers:
1. Torrid love affair between Senior VP and claim adjuster dealing with lawyer;
2. Hartford discovers love affair in early 2002 and does nothing;
3. Hartford again busts VP and instead of firing him promotes him;
4. Claims adjuster pulls off extortion scheme weilding VP’s power;
5. Claims adjuster gets checks and holds for several months until her divorce is final;
6. Right after divorce, claims adjuster puts all her money extorted from lawyer in VP’s financial advisor ’s account;
7. VP and claims adjuster open joint account while he is still senior VP at Hartford and married to another women;
8. Claims adjuster goes livid b/c VP doesn’t leave wife as promised. Thus, claims adjuster barges in VP’s house and announces she is the lover(on Easter weekend);
9. This finally gets VP out of house and moving in with claims adjuster, confirming he wanted his half of the extortion proceeds.

This is the way I read the story. It appears to be supported by bank account #s, police reports and many internal Hartford documents. Hopefully, the WSJ will give us a fullprinted story and do alot more investigation b/c this looks like a thriller!

Comment by GET IT RIGHT - October 25, 2007 at 10:13 pm

It is unfortunate to read stories like this because it serves to undermine the judicial system. On my website,joelbieber.com, I try to point out stories of corporate corruption. When a few in the legal profession appear to put greed ahead of justice, it undermines attention to corporate wrondoers.

Comment by Joel Bieber - October 26, 2007 at 8:49 am

When light is shed on such actions, there is a lot to be sorry for. There is no excuse for a lawyer to cave in to extortions by a Hartford employee. Their is no excuse for Hartford to allow employees to extort. From what I’ve seen in the past these people will be teaching Ethics classes next.

Comment by KH - October 26, 2007 at 11:03 am

Here’s a better defense:
I have nor moral and I have no conscience because I am an American lawyer.
I am therefore incapable of complying with the law, and it is unfair of anyone to expect me to do so.
I rest my case.

Comment by Criminals don't understand law, that's why they are criminals. - October 27, 2007 at 12:39 am

Get to sleep with employee; make a couple mil. on the side through exortion scheme; then get a promotion because your scheme saves Hartford 40 million. Any more VP openings at the Hartford?

Comment by Vince - October 27, 2007 at 9:39 am

And, it looks like the inurance company got reimbursed by reinsurers after it saved the 49M!

Comment by KH2 - October 27, 2007 at 11:08 am

Texas State Representative House District 33: Solomon P. Ortiz Jr. Defeats Mikal Watts at his Own Game. Or Perhaps GOD intervened.

2007-10-02T23:53:00.000-07:00

A BurkaBlog: A Kenedeno Responds to Paul Burka Article with a knockout in the Article Entitled, "Solomon P. Ortiz Jr. Defeats Mikal Watts at his Own Game. Or Perhaps GOD intervened.: "August 22, 2006"

Solly's opponent claimed he had endorsements in writing and he in fact had them but that is the key, ....... he "had them". We are dealing with human beings who will change their mind if and when they see a better deal. Now whether that means more honest, more for the voter, or getting their eyes poked with the Silver Tongue talking like a multi ventriloquist that is for us to find out. Endorsements dont mean anything unless it is on the day they vote. Ask the NY Mets about that phenomenon as they will sit at home this October after leading the whole season.

BurkaBlog:Some Insight Into WATT Endorsements Mean in South Texas?

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: Is Fil Vela going into the fraud abuse prosecution racket & the manufacturing of fraud abuse prosecutions? Inroads (fo

2007-09-19T00:05:00.000-07:00

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: Is Fil Vela going into the fraud abuse prosecution racket & the manufacturing of fraud abuse prosecutions? Inroads (for GOP) into South Texas?Word on the streets of Kleberg, Jim Wells and Nueces Counties:

Is Fil Vela going into the fraud abuse prosecution racket and the manufacturing of fraud abuse prosecutions? I understand from certain entities that Vela has been hiring young attorneys out of the small South Texas Towns for his new specialization. It is also whispered that Mr Vela met with a Federal Prosecutor last week to discuss Federal Judgeship Appointments.

Junior John has got to figure in this mix and Fil is the inroads (for Cornyn) into South Texas. We need to put a Big Stop Sign up in Robstown and inform them about Connie Scott as I understand Fil Vela is her campaign manager or treasurer (will check) and Mike Scott is a TLR guy with a title.

>Why hasn't anyone gone after Filemon personally as a way to derail Rose?
>If you go to www.fec.gov and follow the instructions on finding out who
>gave to whom, how much, and when, then load up Filemon Vela as an
>Individual Search you'll see he's made significant contributions to two
>notorious politicians. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Senator Robert
>Menendez (D-NJ). Hunter is an undicted coconspirator in the very same mess
>that sent ex-rep "Duke" Cunningham's ass to prison recently, and Menendez
>is currently under federal investigation for shady real estate dealings by
>renting a building he owns to a non-profit and pocketing $300, 000.00 in
>taxpayer subsidies.

The Velas are strictly personal with me for reasons of
>>>>>extreme hubris on their parts. There's a rather simple story
>>>>>associated with all of this and it's one of an extremely cruel act on
>>>>>their part that I witnessed and in no way involved me beyond being a
>>>>>spectator. And it was at that time that they got on my shit list.
>>>>>That he's a spoiled brat millionaire and she's a jurist and both with
>>>>>political agendas is purely coincidental. I only want to teach them a
>>>>>lesson. Be nice to everybody...because some people won't give a damn
>>>>>who or what you are and will come after you. That's what guerillas do
>>>>>kingal...go after the bigger bullies of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>Another coincidence is that I would appear to be an unpaid, unknown and
>>>>>coincidental campaign worker for Hinojosa. I'm not. I'm about as
>>>>>apolitical as they come. My own personal view is that we've long (if
>>>>>ever it was the case) passed the time when getting the right person in
>>>>>office is a viable solution. To me, it's not so much of getting the
>>>>>best person in...but keeping the worst asshole OUT. I'm just that
>>>>>simple man.

Texas Public Education Watchdog Authority: Why would Texas re elect a loser who ALWAYS votes against education and Texas children?

2007-09-11T20:30:00.000-07:00

Texas Public Education Watchdog Authority: Why would Texas re elect a loser who ALWAYS votes against education and Texas children?

Why would Texas re elect a loser who ALWAYS votes against education and Texas children?

Cornyn poised in re-election fight to stick by Bush on taxes, Iraq
Republican seeking second U.S. Senate term next year is banking that voters will back him on stands he's taken.
Listen to this article or download audio file.Click-2-Listen

By W. Gardner Selby
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

For someone who proclaims his independence from the White House, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas can still sound like a cheerleader for President Bush.

Speaking to fellow Republicans in Fort Worth at a presidential straw poll recently, Cornyn staked a claim to re-election next year as a pro-war, anti-tax candidate who expects to match up with voter sentiments in his home state.

Ralph Barrera
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
(enlarge photo)

John Cornyn says he has differed with Bush some.

MORE W. GARDNER SELBY
W. GARDNER SELBY

He stressed his support for the course Bush has set in Iraq and suggested that voters can rely only on Republicans to extend the tax cuts Bush made in his first term.

Two Democratic Senate hopefuls, San Antonio lawyer Mikal Watts and state Rep. Rick Noriega of Houston, are counting on voters to hold Cornyn accountable for Republican stewardship of Congress in the first four years of his six-year term.

"People will not rehire someone who has had bad plans replaced by more bad plans," Noriega said.

Watts called Cornyn a senator "who parrots exactly what he's told to say by this administration and Karl Rove," the former White House counselor.

Cornyn, who ran in 2002 as part of "Team Bush," said in an August interview that he has been a Bush ally on judicial appointments and the war on terrorism but that he has also parted with his friend on a few issues.

A Cornyn proposal to allow greater access to federal records has cleared the Senate without White House backing. Cornyn also is among senators at odds with the president by proposing to give states alternative ways of complying with the federal education accountability system that Bush started.

Also, he and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., are seeking to grant the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco and ingredients including nicotine, a step yet to be endorsed by Bush.

This summer, Cornyn opposed the Bush-favored compromise on changes to immigration policy. The senator unsuccessfully offered an amendment barring felons and other offenders from legal residency.

He later called Bush tone-deaf on the issue. "I don't think he had any real concept of the public engagement on that issue," he said.

In Fort Worth, though, Cornyn said Bush was absolutely right to raise the specter of Vietnam when discussing Democrats' calls for a timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

If American forces leave prematurely, Cornyn said, the region will plunge into a humanitarian crisis, and unwatched terrorists will plot attacks. "Unless we get the job done, they will follow us here," he said. "And we've got to make sure that never ever happens again. Not another 9/11, not ever."

His Democratic opponents each noted that as young men, Cornyn and Bush didn't serve in Vietnam.

Noriega, a lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard, said, "Comparing Vietnam to the Middle East is like comparing apples to wheat; they are not in the same food group. Differences include geography, terrain, cultures, religion, technology, history of region, just to name a few. This is just another example of the unfortunate circumstance we face when we have leaders who have not walked the walk."

Watts said, "I don't think there is a plan for victory in Iraq. ... We have to stay in the region, but I don't think we should be standing around on street corners getting shot at while we observe someone else's civil war."

On the domestic front, Cornyn charged Democrats with planning not to extend tax cuts enacted at Bush's request starting in 2001. Barring congressional action, cuts of income, capital gains, dividends and other taxes will expire in 2011.

On Capitol Hill, the cuts are rated either Bush's keystone domestic achievement or a gift to the nation's wealthiest residents.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending the tax cuts would cost the government more than $1.8 trillion through 2017.

Tax-cut advocates say such money rightly belongs to taxpayers.

Cornyn's take: Democrats will let into law the biggest tax increase in history.

"They're going to do it without a single vote unless we get the majority back," he said. "They're going to do it because the tax relief that we passed under President Bush back in 2003 will expire unless we make it permanent. And we have to get the majority back and keep taxes low and keep America growing."

Watts said he would review each tax cut one by one but opposes extending cuts for the wealthy as long as government runs a deficit.

Noriega called it "blatantly false" to forecast all the cuts vanishing.

Nationally, 52 percent of voters favored making the tax cuts permanent in a poll conducted this year by Moore Information, an Oregon-based research firm. Thirty-eight percent preferred to let the cuts expire, and 10 percent had no opinion.

Republicans and a plurality of independents supported making the cuts permanent. A majority of Democrats wished to see them expire.

About half of respondents agreed that the cuts should be extended only for households with annual incomes of less than $150,000. About a third of voters favored making the cuts permanent for everyone.

Jason Furman, an economist and senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, an independent research outfit, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee last week that extending the cuts would widen after-tax income gaps between Americans.

Furman said a best-case U.S. Treasury projection suggests an extremely slight impact on the economy, with extended cuts more likely increasing the national debt and reducing government savings.

An eventual need to repay the cuts, he said, would drive down disposable income as taxpayers see cuts in government programs or bumps in taxes to bankroll the cuts, leaving at least three in four households with lower after-tax incomes.

"There is no free lunch because, ultimately, the government faces a budget constraint," Furman said.

wgselby@statesman.com, 445-3644

"Title VII settlement with Bell and Hoeffner,"- $262,500.00, $312,500.00, $265,500.00, $312,500.00

2007-08-18T03:26:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLRT souUthn ~ite:dn DSi tsattreicst CoOf UT*B MBS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
- HOUSTON DIVISION JllN 2 5 2007
Michael N. M~lby,C lerk of
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8
8 07Cc 2- 2-3 8 Count 1 : 18 USC 37 1-Conspiracy
8 Count 2: 18 USC 1956(h)-Conspiracy
8 to Money Launder
8 Count 3 & 4: 18 USC 1343-Wire Fraud
v. 8 Counts 5 - 8: 18 USC 1341 ail Fraud
8 Counts 9 - 14: 18 USC 1957- Monetary
,WARREN TODD HOEFFNER 8 Transactions with Criminally Derived
RACHEL ROSSOW 5 Property
JOHN PRESTAGE 8 Notice of Criminal Forfeiture
INDICTMENT
TKE'GRAND JURY CHARGES:
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy, 1 8 U.S.C. 3 7 1)
A. INTRODUCTION
At all times material to this indictment:
The Hartford Insurance Companv
1. The Hartford Insurance Company ("The Hartford") located in Hartford,
Connecticut, is one of the largest investment and insurance companies in the
United States, and offers business insurance among other products. The Hartford
insured a number of companies which were manufacturers, sellers, andlor
distributors of silica containing products or related protective equipment and
safety products. These companies included Pulmosan, Pauli and Griffin, Gifford
Hill, Humble Sand, Ideal - Basic, Mine Safety Appliances ("MSA"), Oglebay
Norton, Empire Abrasives and Specialty Sand (the "Insureds").
2. The department of The Hartford known as Claim and Legal
Management Services ("CaLMS") handled general liability lawsuits and claims
against The Hartford's Insureds that involved latent injuries related to exposure to
asbestos and silica, and other latent injuries that spanned multiple policy periods.
3. Within The Hartford's CaLMS department was a Functional Claim
Team section. The Functional Claim Team section consisted of several teams of
"claim handlers," each supervised by a team leader, all working toward the
management and settlement of claims against The Hartford's Insureds. The
Functional Claim Team section referred to the Insureds that had claims brought
against them as their "Accounts."
The Defendants
4. Warren Todd Hoefher ("Hoefher"), defendant herein, was the general
partner of Hoefher & Bilek, LLP ("Hoeffner & Bilek"), a law firm in Houston,
Texas. Hoefher represented individuals who brought silica-related claims against
The Hartford's Insureds.
5. Rachel Rossow ("Rossow"), defendant herein, was an employee of The
Hartford occupying a position of trust and responsibility from April 10,2000, until
on or about Septerrlber 17, 2003. During Rossow's employment with The Hartford
she earned a salary ranging from approximately $75,000 to $85,000 per year. From
November 2000 until the time of her dismissal, Rossow was a team leader in the
CaLMS department. As a team leader, Rossow supervised several claim handlers,
including John Prestage. Rossow was responsible for settling claims and for
recommending to The Hartford appropriate and cost effective amounts to settle
claims against The Hartford's Insureds whose accounts were under her
supervision.
6. John Prestage ("Prestage"), defendant herein, was an employee of The
Hartford occupying a position of trust and responsibility fiom December 18,2000
through on or about January 17,2004, as a CaLMS claims consultant assigned to
various Accounts by Rossow. During his employment at The Hartford, Prestage
earned a salary ranging from approximately $45,000 to $69,000 per year. Prestage
was responsible for settling claims and for recommending to The Hartford
appropriate and cost effective amounts to settle claims against The Hartford's
Insureds whose accounts were assigned to him.
The Claims and The Hartford
7. Hoeffner & Bilek, along with other law f m s , represented hundreds of
individuals who claimed that they had silicosis and/or other silica-related diseases.
Hoefher & Bilek combined their various silicosis clients with like clients of other
attorneys or firms and filed joint claims andor civil lawsuits against
manufacturers, sellers and/or distributors of silica containing products or related
protective equipment and safety products.
8. Hoefher & Bilek represented hundreds of claimants, who ostensibly
suffered fiom silica-related diseases, and who brought claims against the
following eight businesses which were insured by The Hartford and other
insurance companies: Pulmosan, Pauli & Griffin, Gifford Hill, Humble Sand, Ideal
Basic, Mine Safety Appliances ("MSA"), Oglebay Norton and Empire Abrasives
(the "Insureds" or Accounts").
9. As team leader and first line supervisor, Rossow supe~sedan d
managed seven of eight Accounts. Rossow assigned Prestage to the following five
Accounts: Pulmosan, Pauli & Griffin, Gifford Hill, Humble Sand and Ideal Basic.
10. On or about February 26,2002, Hoefher called a meeting in New
Hampshire for all major insurance carriers involved in silica litigation against The
Hartford and other insurance companies. Prestage attended this meeting on behalf
of The Hartford. At this meeting, Hoeffier proposed to settle all of his clients'
silica-related claims.
1 1. Defendant Hoeffher would and did represent Specialty Sand, a
policyholder of The Hartf-o rd, in connection with threatened legal action against
The Hartford regarding its insurance coverage provided to Specialty Sand relating
to silica lawsuits pending against Specialty Sand. Hoeffher also represented
individuals who filed claims against Specialty Sand.
B. THE CONSPIRACY
12. From in or about February 2002 and continuing through in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants,
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW, and
JQ$$+J pDOQTAGg - _- _ -- -- - __ -- -
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other and
others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit the following offenses
against the United States:
a. To knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises and knowingly to use and
cause to be used the United States mail and private and commercial
interstate carriers for the purpose of executing the scheme &d artifice
to defkaud, in- violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341;
b. To knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defkaud and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises and knowingly to transmit
and cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television
communication, writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the
purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343.
C. THE MANNER AND MEANS
It was a part of the conspiracythat:
13. Defendants Hoeffner, Rossow and Prestage would and did meet
together in various places including Laguna Beach, California, New York City,
Palm Beach, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee, and communicate by cell phones,
during the negotiation of the settlement of claims of Hoeffner's clients, the
majority of which were managed andlor supervised by Rossow and Prestage.
14. Defendant Hoeffner would and did make payments to defendants
Rossow and Prestage, through bribes and kickbacks, for recommending to The
Hartford that The Hartford pay certain amounts to settle the claims of his clients
6,
against The Hartford's Insureds and The Hartford.
15. Defendants Hoeffher, Rossow and Prestage would and did falsely
promise, pretend and represent to The Hartford, directly and through their agents,
in interstate and intrastate telephone conversations, by electronic mail ("email"), in
documents sent by and through the United States mail and interstate and
international carriers, and by authorizing checks in certain amounts for settlement
payments, that the settlement amounts of the claims against The Hartford's
Insureds and The Hartford were appropriate amounts to settle the claims in the
best interests of The Hartford and its Insureds, well knowing that the defendants
intended that some of that money (the "Settlement Funds") would instead be
funneled by and through Hoeffner to Rossow and Prestage, employees of The
Hartford.
16. Defendants would and did induce The Hartford to pay more than
$34,000,000.00 in Settlement Funds, knowing that more than $3,000,000.00 of
those funds would be used to pay bribes and kickbacks to Rossow and Prestage.
Rossow received approximately $2,68 1,873.79 in bribes and kickbacks. Prestage
received approximately $764,476.21 in bribes and kickbacks. Additionally,
Hoeffher received approximately $5,366,839.20 in attorney's fees paid out of the
Settlement Funds.
D. OVERTACTS
In furtherance of th-e conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, the
defendants committed the following overt acts, among others:
(1) On or about August 29,2002, defendant Hoefher charged and caused
to be charged to an American Express account in his name two round trip airline
tickets on Delta Airlines from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Palm Beach, Florida,
one for defendant Rossow and one for defendant Prestage.
(2) On or about September 6,2002, defendant Hoefher caused $97,000.00
to be transferred by wire from his personal money market investment account at
Secured Trust Bank in Tyler, Texas, to Fleet Bank in Hartford, Connecticut, for
the benefit of New Country Motors, Inc. to purchase two BMW automobiles, one
each for defendants Rossow and Prestage.
(3) On or about September 9,2002, defendant Prestage signed a delivery
agreement at New Country Motors in Hartford, Connecticut, for a new 2002 BMW
530ia automobile with a total sales price of approximately $46,876.00.
(4) On or about October 30,2002, defendant Rossow signed a delivery
agreement with New Country Motors in Hartford, Connecticut, for a 2003 BMW
530ia automobile with a total sales price of approximately $50,124.00.
(5) On or about November 22,2002, defendant Hoeffher caused The
8
Hartford's check #077568595, payable to Hoefher & Bilek Trust Account, dated
November 20,2002, in th-e amount of $2,000,000.00 (memo: "Humble First
Payment") to be deposited into Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(6) On or about November 26,2002, defendant Hoeffher signed check
# 1 35 1 payable to John Prestage in the amount of $262,500.00, with the memo
"Title VII settlement with Bell and Hoeffner," drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(7) On or about November 26, 2002, defendant Prestage deposited and
caused to be deposited check #I35 1 payable to John Prestage in the amount of
$262,500.00, drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account into
his personal account at American Savings Bank in Connecticut.
(8) On or about November 26,2002, defendant Hoeffher signed check
#I352 payable to "Rachael Rossowy' in the amount of $3 12,500.00, with the memo
"Title VII settlement with Bell and Hoefher," drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(9) On or about February 4,2003, defendant Hoefher signed check #I360
payable to John Prestage in the amount of $265,500.00, with the memo "Final
Title VII Settlement re: Bell and Hoefher," drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA
9
Foundation Trust Account at American Bark in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(1 0) On or about F- ebruary 4,2003, defendant Hoeffner signed check
#I361 payable to "Rachael Rossow" in the amount of $3 12,500.00, with the memo
"Final Title VII Settlement re: Bell and Hoeffner," drawn on Hoeffner & Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(1 1) On or about February 5,2003, defendant Hoefher caused The
Hartford's check #077926564, payable to Hoefher & Bilek Trust Account, dated
February 3,2003, in the amount of $2,000,000.00 (memo: "Final Pymt Humble
Global Settlement") to be deposited into Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation
Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(12) On or about February 6,2003, defendant Prestage deposited and
caused to be deposited into his personal account at American Savings Bank in
Connecticut check #I360 payable to John Prestage, in the amount of $265,500.00,
drawn on Hoeffner & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American
Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(13) On or about February 6,2003, defendant Hoefher caused to be
deposited into Hoeffner and Bilek's IOLTA Trust account at Southwest Bank of
I ~ Texas in Houston, Texas, The Hartford's checks #077926483 and #077926472,
both payable to Hoeffner & Bilek Trust Account, and both in the amount pf
$295,3 12.50; The Hartford check #077926 18 1, payable to Hoeffner & Bilek LLP,
in the amount of $1 17,000.00; and Horizon, a subsidiary of The 'Hartford, check
#96755383, payable to Hoeffner & Bilek in the amount of $1,987,720.28.
(14) On or about February 20,2003, defendant Hoeffner caused The
Hartford's check #077926494, payable to Hoefher & Bilek, LLP Trust Account,
dated January 30, 2003, in the amount of $1 45,000.00 (memo: "Gifford Hill East
Texas") to be deposited into Hoeffner and Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at
Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas.
(15) On or about February 20,2003, defendant Hoeffner signed check
#2883 payable to Rachel Rossow in the amount of $25,000.00, drawn on Hoeffner
& Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas.
(16) On or about February 25,2003, defendant Rossow deposited and
caused to deposited check #I352 payable to "Rachael Rossow," dated November
26,2002, in the amount of $3 12,500.00, signed by defendant Hoeffner, drawn on
Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account into her personal checking
account at Windsor Federal Savings & Loan in Connecticut.
(1 7) On or about February 26,2003, defendant Hoeffner signed check
#2884 payable to Rachel Rossow in the amount of $148,750.00, drawn on
Hoefher& Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest Bank of Texas in
Houston, Texas.
(1 8) On or about M- arch 3,2003, defendant Rossow deposited and caused
to be deposited into her new Jumbo Money Market account at Windsor Federal
Savings & Loan in Connecticut, the following checks, all made payable to her, and
signed by defendant Hoefher, check #I36 1, dated February 4,2003, in the
amount of $3 12,500.00, drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
Account at American Bank; check #2883, dated February 20,2003, in the amount
of $25,000.00, drawn on Hoeffner & Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest
Bank of Texas; and check #2884, dated February 26,2003, in the amount of
$148,750.00, drawn on Hoeffher & Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest
Bank of Texas.
(1 9) On or about June 16,2003, defendant Hoeffher charged and caused
to be charged to an American Express account in his name two round trip airline
tickets on US Airways fi-om Hartford, Connecticut, to Santa Ana, California, one
for defendant Rossow and one for defendant Prestage.
(20) On or about July 17,2003, defendant Hoefher caused two checks
from Horizon, a subsidiary of The Hartford, check #9675 6206, payable to
Hoefher & Bilek Trust Account, in the amount of $58,000.00, and check
#96756207, payable to Hoeffher and Bilek Trust Account, in the amount of
12
-
$46,000.00, to be deposited into Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
account at American Bank in Corpus Chnsti, Texas.
(21) On or about July 28,2003, defendant Prestage deposited and caused
to be deposited into his personal account at Banknorth in Connecticut, check
#I086 payable to John Prestage, dated July 20,2003, in the amount of $8,000.00,
signed by defendant Hoeffner, drawn on Hoeffner's personal bank account at
Sterling Bank in Houston, Texas, with the memo "loan."
(22) On or about September 3,2003, defendant Rossow deposited and
caused to be deposited into her new Jumbo Money Market account at Windsor
Federal Savings & Loan in Connecticut, check #I091 payable to "Rachael
Rossow," dated July 20,2003, in the amount of $8,000.00, signed by defendant
Hoefher, drawn on Hoeffner's personal bank account at Sterling Bank in
Houston, Texas, with "loan" written in the memo section.
(23) On or about November 20,2003, defendant Hoefher caused The
Hartford to wire transfer $10,000,000.00 from Fleet National Bank in Haftford,
Connecticut, to the bank account of Specialty Sand Qualified Settlement Fund
Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas.
(24) On or about November 25,2003, defendant Hoefher caused
$583,887.42 to be wire transferred from the bank account of Specialty Sand at
Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas, to Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(25) On or about December 5,2003, defendant Hoefher caused
$3,000,000.00 to be wire transferred from the bank account of Specialty Sand
Qualified Settlement Fund Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas, to Hoefher
and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus
Christi, Texas. ,
(26) On or about December 5,2003, defendant Hoefher wrote and caused
to be written check #I369 made payable to "Rachael Rossow" in the amount of
$1,675,000.00 drawn on the account of Hoeffner and Bilek IOLTA Foundation
Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas, with the notation in the
memo section of the check, "Final title VII settlement - Part I."
(27) On or about December 5,2003, defendant Rachel Rossow deposited
and caused to be deposited into a personal investment account at SmithBarney in '
Connecticut check #I369 made payable to "Rachael Rossow" in the amount of
$1,675,000.00 drawn on the account of Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation
Trust Account at American Bank.
(28) On or about January 6,2004, defendant Hoeffner caused to be issued
check # 10756 payable to "John Prestige" in the amount of $6,600.00 drawn on the
14
account of Hoefher & Bilek at Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas.
(29) On or about J-anuary 8, 2004, defendant Prestage deposited and caused
to be deposited check #lo756 payable to him in the amount of $6,600.00 drawn on
the account of Hoefher & Bilek at Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas,
into a checking account at Banknorth in Connecticut.
(30) On or about March 15,2004, defendant Hoeffher caused The Hartford
to wire transfer $10,000,000.00 from Fleet National Bank in Hartford,
Connecticut, to the bank account of Specialty Sand Qualified Settlement Fund
Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas.
(3 1) On or about April 6,2004, defendant Hoeffner caused $4,000,000.00
to be wire transferred from the bank account of the Specialty Sand Qualified
Settlement Fund Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas, to Hoefher and Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(32) On or about April 7,2004, defendant Hoeffher wire transferred and
caused to be wire transferred $1 50,000.00 from the Hoeffner & Bilek IOLTA
Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas, to
defendant Rossow's checking account at Windsor Federal Savings and Loan in
Windsor, Connecticut.
(33) On or about April 12,2004, defendant Hoeffner purchased and
caused to be purchased a Sterling Bank cashier's check in the amount of
$125,000.00 payable to the United States Treasury with the remitter listed as John
Prestage and Warren T. Hoefher.
(34) On or about November 6,2004, defendant Prestage wrote check
#I91 9 in the amount of $66,000.00 payable to the United States Treasury on his
account at Banknorth in Connecticut.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 37 1.
COUNT TWO
(Conspiracy to Money Launder, 18 U.S.C. 5 1956(h))
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set out
at length herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 and paragraphs 13 through 16 of Count
One of the Indictment.
B. CONSPIRACY TO MONEY LAUNDER
2. From in or about February 2002 and continuing through in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere,
WARREN TODD HOEFPNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
defendants herein, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury,
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree among themselves and
with one another to commit the following offenses against the United States:
a. To knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions,
knowing that the property involved in the financial transactions
represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, that is
wire fi-aud and mail fi-aud, knowing that the transactions were
designed in whole or in part to conceal, or disguise the nature, the
location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of
specified'unlawful activity, in violation ofTitle 18, United States
Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(B)(i);
b. To knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions
which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, with
the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity,
that is wire fraud and mail fraud, and knowing that the property
involved in the financial transactions represented the proceeds of
some fonn of unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sectio-n 1956(a)(l)(A)(i); and
c. To knowingly engage in and attempt to engage in monetary
transactions within the United States in criminally derived
. , property that iS of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from
specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud and mail fraud, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).
COUNT THREE
(Wire Fraud - 18 USC 5 1343)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference as though set out
at length herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 of Count One of the Indictment.
2. On or about September 26,2002, defendant Hoeffher arranged to
purchase from New Country Motors in Hartford, Connecticut two BMW '
automobiles, one to be delivered to defendant Rossow and one to be delivered to
defendant Prestage, during defendant Hoefher's negotiations with The Hartford
I on the settlement of claims of his clients against The Hartford and its Insureds,
~ 18
whose Accounts were managed or supervised by defendants Rossow and Prestage
on behalf of The'Hartford-.
3. On or about September.9,2002, defendant Prestage accepted delivery of
the BMW automobile purchased for him by defendant Hoeffier.
4. On or about October 22,2002, defendant Rossow accepted delivery of
the BMW automobile purchased for her by defendant Hoefher.
B. THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD
5. Beginning in or about February 2002 and continuing to in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud The Hartford and to deprive The Hartford of its right to the honest
services of Prestage and Rossow, and to obtain money and property from The
Hartford by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and attempting to do so, including the concealment of material facts. .
C. MANNER AND M-E ANS
It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that:
6. Defendants Hoefher, Rossow andprestage would and didmeet together
in various places including Laguna Beach, California, New York City, Palm
Beach, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee, and communicate by cell phones,
during the negotiation of the settlement of claims of Hoefker's clients which were
managed andlor supe~sedby Rossow and Prestage.
7. Defendant Hoefher would and did make payments to defendants
Rossow and Prestage, through bribes and luckbacks, for recommending to The
Hartford that The Hartford pay certain amounts to settle the claims of his clients
against The Hartford's Insureds and The Hartford.
8. Defendants Hoefher, Rossow and Prestage would and did falsely
promise, pretend and represent to The Hartford, directly and through their agents,
in interstate and intrastate telephone conversations, by electronic mail ("email"), in
documents sent by and through the United States mail and interstate and
international carriers, and by authorizing checks in certain amounts for settlement
payments, that the settlement amounts of the claims against The Hartford's
Insureds were appropriate amounts to settle the claims in the best interests of The
Hartford and its Insureds, well knowing that the defendants intended that some of
that money (the "Settleme-n t Funds") would instead be funneled by and through
Hoeffner to Rossow and Prestage, employees of The Hartford.
9. Defendants would and did induce The Hartford to pay more than
$34,000,000.00 in Settlement Funds, knowing that more than $3,000,000.00 of
those funds would be used to pay bribes and kickbacks to Rossow and Prestage.
Rossow received approximately $2,68 1,873.79 in bribes and kickbacks. Prestage
received approximately $764,476.2 1 in bribes and kickbacks. Additionally,
Hoeffner received approximately $5,366,839.20 in attorney's fees paid out of the
Settlement Funds.
D. EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
10. On or about September 6, 2002, in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, for purposes of executing and attempting to do so, knowingly transmitted
and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television
communication, writings,- signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that is $97,000.00
transferred by wire from defendant Hoefher's personal money market investment
account at Secured Trust Bank (now Texas State Bank) in Tyler, Texas, to Fleet
Bank in Hartford, Connecticut for the benefit'of New Country Motors, Inc. in
Hartford, Connecticut.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346 and 2.
COUNT FOUR
(1 8 U.S.C. 1343 - Wire Fraud)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set out
at length herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 of Count One and paragraphs 2 through
4 of Count Three of the Indictment.
B. THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD
2. Beginning in or about February 2002 and continuing to in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
- and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud The Hartford and to deprive The Hartford of its right to the honest
services of Prestage and Rossow, and to obtain money and property from The
Hartford by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and attempting to do so, including the concealment of material facts.
C. MANNER AND MEANS
3. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
out at length herein, paragraphs 6 through 9 of Count Three.
D. EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
4. On or about April 7,2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, for the purpose o-f executing the aforesaid described scheme and artifice
to defraud, and attempting to do so, knowingly transmitted and caused to be
transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication, writings,
signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that is $150,000.00 transferred by wire from
the Hoeffner & Bilek IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Barik in
Corpus Christi, Texas to the account of defendant Rossow at Windsor Federal
Savings and Loan in Connecticut.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346 and 2. .
COUNTS FIVE through EIGHT
(18 U.S.C. 1341 - Mail Fraud)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in full herein, paragraphs 1 through 1 1 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD
2. Beginning in or about February 2002 and continuing to in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants-
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
I
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud The Hartford and to deprive The Hartford of its right to the honest
services of Prestage and Rossow, and to obtain money and property fi.om,The
Hartford by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and attempting to do so, including the concealment of material facts.
C. THE MANNER AND MEANS
3. The Grand jury realleges and incorporates by reference as though set
forth in full herein,~ara~ra6~ hthsro ugh 9 of Count Three. ' .
D. EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
4. On or about the dates set out in the Counts below, in the Houston
Division of the Southern District of Texas, and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others hown and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, for the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud
and attempting to do so, did knowingly cause to be sent and delivered by the
United States Postal Service, and private or commercial interstate carriers, as
described below according to the directions thereon, and did howingly take and
receive and cause' to be taken and received therefrom the following matters and
things set out in the counts below:
COUNT DATE MAILICARRIER MATTER
Count Five Check number
077568595 from
The Hartford i/a/o
$2,000,000
payable to
Hoefher & Bilek
Trust Account
November 20,
2002
Airborne Express
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341, 1346 and 2.
Check numbers
077926472 and
077926483 from
The Hartford both
i/a/o $295,3 12.50
and both payable
to Hoeffner &
Bilek Trust
Account
Check number
077926494 from
The Hartford i/do
$145,000.00
payable to
Hoeffner & Bilek,
LLP Trust
Account
Check number
077926564 from
The Hartford i/do
$2,000,000
payable to
Hoeffner & Bilek
Trust Account
Count Six
Count Seven
Count Eight
January 29,2003
-
January 30,2003
February 3,2003
United States
Postal Service
Federal Express
Federal Express
COUNTS NINE through TWELVE
(1 8 U.S.C. 1957(a) - Monetary Transactions Involving
Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in full herein, paragraphs 1 through 1 1 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS
2. On or about each of the dates set out in the counts below, in the Houston
Division of the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly engage in, and attempt to engage in, a monetary
transaction affecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000, that is, the transfer by check drawn on the Hoefher & Bilek
Trust Account, styled "IOLTA Foundation Trust Account," at American Bank in
Corpus Christi, Texas, a financial institution engaged in interstate commerce, in
2 8
the amounts to the payees indicated below, such finds having been derived fiom
specified unlawfhl activity, that is mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 134 1 :
COUNT DATE Check No. Payee Amount
Nine November 26,2002 1351 John Prestage $262,500.00
Ten Novernber26,2002 1352 Rachel Rossow $3 12,500.00
Eleven February 4,2003 1360 John Prestage $265,500.00
Twelve February 4,2003 1361 Rachel Rossow $3 12,500.00
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.
COUNT THIRTEEN
(1 8 U.S.C. 1 957(a) - Monetary Transactions Involving
Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in full herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS
2. On or about December 5,2003, in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
-W ARREN TODD HOEFFNER, '
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly engage in, and attempt to engage in, a monetary
transaction a.ffecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000, that is, the transfer by check #I369 in the amount of
$1,675,000.00 payable to defendant Rossow and drawn on the Hoeffher & Bilek
Trust Account, styled "IOLTA Foundation Trust Account," at American Bank in
Corpus ~hrishT, exas, a financial institution engaged in interstate commerce,
such h d s having been derived from specified unlawful activity, that is wire
fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.
COUNT FOURTEEN
(1 8 U.S .C. 1957(a) - Monetary Transactions Involving
Property D- erived from Specified Unlawful Activity)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in fill herein, paragraphs 1 through 1 1 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS
2. On or about April 7,2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly engage in, and attempt to engage in, a monetary
transaction affecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000, that is, the transfer by wire of $1 50,000 from the Hoefher &
Bilek Trust Account, styled "IOLTA Foundation Trust Account," at American
Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas, a financial institution engaged in interstate
commerce, to the checking account of defendant Rossow at Windsor Federal
Savings and Loan in Win-d sor, Connecticut, such funds having been derived from
specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1343.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.
NOTICE OF CRIMINAL FORFEITURE
(1 8 U.S.C. 5 98 1 (a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. 5 2461)
Counts 1, 3-8
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 18,
United States Code, Section 98 l(a)(l)(C), as a result of the commission of
violations charged in Counts One, and Three through Eight of this Indictment, the
defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFRWR
RACHEL ROSSOW
JOHN PRESTAGE
are provided notice that upon conviction, all property which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1341, 1343, or a conspiracy to commit such offenses, shall be forfeited to
the United States. Such property includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Approximately$8,8 13,189.20 in U.S. Currency, which represents the
proceeds obtained from the conspiracy as alleged in Count One of this
indictment;
(2) Approximately $8,8 13,189.20 in U.S. Currency, which represents the
proceeds obtained from the overall scheme as alleged in Counts Three
through Eight of this Indictment;
(3) All h d s in Citi Smith Barney, Account #xxx-xxx64- 16, in the name of
Rachel M. Rossow, including any interest, dividends or other monies
representing appreciated value of the initial investment;
(4) 2003 BMW 530ia Automobile, registered to Rachael M. Rossow; and
(5) 2003 Volvo XC90 Automobile, registered to John F. Prestage.
NOTICE OF CRIMINAL FORFEITURE
(18 U.S.C. 5 982(a)(1))
- Counts 2, 9- 14
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), as a result of
the commission of the violations charged in Counts Two and Counts Nine through
Fourteen of this Indictment, the defendants
WARREN TODD HOEPPNER
RACHEL ROSSOW
JOHN PRESTAGE
are provided notice that upon conviction, all property, real and personal, involved
in a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) or 1957(a), and all
property traceable to such property, shall be forfeited to the United States. Such
property includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Count 2: (1) Approximately $8,813,189.20 in U.S. Currency, which
represents the money involved in, or traceable to, the money
laundering conspiracy;
(2) All funds in the Citi Smith Barney account,, previously
identified in this notice, including any interest, dividends or other
monies representing appreciated value of the initial investment;
(3) 2003 BMW 530ia Automobile, registered to Rachael M.
Rossow; and
(4) 2003 V- olvo XC90 Automobile, registered to John F. Prestage.
Counts 9, 1 1 : Approximately $52 8,000.00 in U.S. Currency; and
the 2003 Volvo XC90, previously identified in this notice, which
is traceable to property involved in money laundering violations
as alleged in Counts Nine and Eleven.
Counts 10,
12- 14: (1) Approximately $2,450,000.00 in U.S. Currency; and
(2) Approximately $2,300,000.00 in the Citi Smith Barney
account, previously identified in this notice, which is traceable to
property involved in money laundering violations as alleged in
Counts Ten and Twelve through Thirteen, with appreciated
value.
All defendants may be jointly and severally liable for all money judgments
imposed in this case.
SUBSTITUTE ASSETS
In the event that the property subject to forfeiture as a result of any act or
omission of the defendant:
a. cannot be located upon exercise of due diligence;
b. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Cow;
c. has been tran-s ferred or sold to, or deposited with a third party;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States to seek forfeiture of any other property of the
defendant up to the value of such property pursuant to Title 2 1, United States
Code, Section 853(p), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(l)
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p).
1
Original Signature on File
DONALD J. DeGABRIELLE, JR.
United States Attorney
Braddock
United States Attornev

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: setexasrec: If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah & one spare just in

2007-08-05T01:28:00.000-07:00

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: setexasrec: If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah & one spare just in case you survive the blow out.

So WATT does this mean for Texas?

Who is the author?

After reading this article i got to believe the author is not familiar with the adversarial process or the article is pure prevarication. Who wants to buy a vehicle without laminated windows. I don't, but in Mikal's argument it was just mental re-enforcement for the jury and he is representing his client with zeal. .In layman terms Laminated glass, which is two layers of plate glass with plastic laminate in between, is used on automotive windshields. It has been used for decades to keep objects from easily getting through the windshield and entering the vehicle. The negative is it prevent easy exit should one need to break the glass in order to escape in a submerged situation or something of that nature.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

KENEDENO: "I say hot damn we got ourselves a fighter, and advocate. Now there's an attribute money cant buy, a game mentality moving unencumbered through legal birds nests and over hurdles to accomplish results.

"Like a Pitbull in the Middle of a Bunch of Poodles upon Capitol Hill.

The bottom line is the tire is faulty but it is cheaper to pay the injured and dead than it is to replace all of the tires on all of the brand new vehicles. Well, at least that was the word according bean counters (Actuarial Analysts). I bet they dont work there anymore, eh? When an automaker knows there is a faulty product that will "cause a death or two" and they acquiesce, or continue to produce the vehicle with the defective product and they dont recall the defective product for WATT ever reason they need to pay.

Watt if you or your family member purchased a brand new Explorer or Expedition or Excursion. You plan a vacation and plot out your trip planning to stop for the young ones at the rest areas and to stretch the legs and maybe even swap drivers. Everybody has their pillow and their reading material or headphones and music, for the kids you had the video screen and dvd systenm installed and you even went the extra mile and installed a Playstation III for the kids and the kids at heart.

So we are cruising and everyone is commenting on the comfort, the neat features, the enhanced entertainment, and the overall "On The Road" experience the new vehicle provides.

The last thing on their mind is breaking down, needing to check the fluids every few miles, or rolling down the window because the air conditioning dont work. The passengers and the driver feel secure and safe; maybe they dont even buckle up.

The next thing we know the vehicle has become impaired and unstable. The resulting tumbling, sliding, shattering of glass, screaming, and bending of metal that happens in less than a minute (but feels like a lifetime) comes to a rest and there is a eerie silence for a moment. Then the lucky ones can moan in their pain and the silent ones Vaya Con DIOS. How long before the Halo FLight? How long before rescue?

And you come to find out you have lost 1 or 2 or 5 of your loved ones because of something that makes no sense at all.

I am not talking about the Blowout people, I am talking about the decision made by the automaker that your loved ones were just another number, a casualty in the name of profits.

Would you want an advocate fighting for your interests like Mikal Watts fights the giant automakers?

If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah and one spare just in case you survive the blow out.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Mikal Watts' arguments
http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/198814-mikal-watts-arguments

8/4/2007 10:58 AM

Three college girls are driving cross-country pulling a U-Haul trailer while simultaneously sharing a bag of marijuana. About 20 hours into the voyage, the driver brakes hard on a hill and loses control, sending the car off the side of the road.

They weren't wearing seat belts.

Was she high? Fatigued? Did she forget that breaking hard on a downslope while pulling a fully-stuffed U-Haul is a big no-no?

Whatever. Represented by Corpus Christi plaintiff's lawyer Mikal Watts in a suburban Houston courtroom, she demanded millions in damages over the accident-- from a tire maker.

No matter that Texas state investigators blamed the wreck on driver error and speeding, concluding the tires remained intact after the crash and worked just fine. Still, Watts argued they were wrong, that it wasn't her fault. He even demanded the judge declare a mistrial when the defense had the nerve to raise the girl's driving-while-pot smoking in court.

Is this the kind of guy-- one who would make such a specious, if self-serving, argument with a straight face-- that we want representing Texas in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. Watts, a 39-year-old mega-millionaire and judge's son who flies private, is traveling the state this summer, raising money and straining to re-define himself as a populist "everyman" in preparation for the Spring 2008 Democrat primary election.

He made his bones making arguments like the aforementioned, suing automakers and other businesses. But suffice to say, he won't be bragging on the campaign trail about the "marijuana mistrial" or his lawsuit blaming Ford for an accident in which the driver was speeding, had been drinking and wasn't wearing a seat belt.

The automaker was at fault because, according to Watts, it didn't laminate its side windows.

Watts will also remain mum about the embarrassing hiccup in that Ford case-- when it was revealed mid-trial that one of his associate lawyers was dating one of the jurors. She had even helped him "recruit" two of the plaintiffs for Watts, evidence showed.

Apparently under no ethical obligation to tell the court about this, Watts remained quiet and steadfast. It paid off-- he won a $31 million verdict.

"Mikal Watts has spent his entire career fighting on behalf of average, working Texans," promised his spokesman in a recent interview.

Don't believe it just because he says so.

Telemundo South Texas: Is this Man fit to be caged?

2007-07-17T02:05:00.000-07:00

Telemundo South Texas: Is this Man fit to be caged?

Look in their EYES. What do you feel?

South Texas Verdad: Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity, Culture and Public Policy: Junior John voted against a plan for legalizing mill

2007-07-15T19:20:00.000-07:00

South Texas Verdad: Sonias makes PRO CHOICE Statement to Censor instead of Apologizing

This sub thread was deleted at the Democratic Underground because SONIAS found herself in checkmate. In poor taste she chose to flip the board over in the interest of Censoring her defeat.

23. I would normally say welcome to DU dannoynted1

But seeing that you have disabled your profile, i.e. hiding like a coward, combined with your support of republicans on a Democratic board makes you stick out like the troll you probably are. Go back to freeperville dannoynted1!

Sonia

36. How is it.......

you call my Lioness names from behind a keyboard and of all things; because her profile is disabled?

We are here with our real identities acknowledged, our good name precedes us. Support of republicans? Maybe you mistake us for our elected Democrats who support the Delay Brothers and are frequently absent when it is time to vote on bartered legislation trade outs. Now back to the ad hominem attack, your reasoning is fallacial as it implies we are hiding our identities as if we have something to fear. Ridicule and attempts to discredit are only last resort attempts of futility. Sonia, you are wrong and you should apologize.
"For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it."

Telemundo South Texas: BOYCOTT TELEMUNDO Advertisers & Corporate Conglomerates who claim lip service to "COMMUNITY AFFAIRS".

2007-07-13T02:37:00.000-07:00

Telemundo South Texas: BOYCOTT TELEMUNDO Advertisers & Corporate Conglomerates who claim lip service to "COMMUNITY AFFAIRS".

Beware of the Progressive Bandwagon & at least you guys had a good template to follow. No need to say anything else right guys? This cause needs a target for a concentrated effect moving the steadfast who remain unrebuffed. We need the corporations and the companies that hire the raw labor to be able to benefit from the labor and process the worker class of mejicano as Corporate America strives and works in the lobby and underneath whispers to process the Asian Technology Class ala PING. I will direct you to center stage with Johnny Canales. "Take It Away",........ "Esso". Is that how you spell it.

Johnny,

Here is some energy for your BOYCOTT TELEMUNDO & Breach of Contract Litmus Test.

Press Release: National Call For Action Spreading Thru Internet Rapidly Inbox

					Reply to all Forward Print Add Goodson to Contacts list Report phishing Show original Message text garbled?
	from	"H. Goodson"	hide details	2:54 am (5 minutes ago)
to		Jaime Kenedeno , jmaccormack@express-news.net, lharter@newsguy.com, news@kiiitv.com, news@kztv10.com, news@recordstar.com, newsroom@kristv.com, g , acovarrubias@entravision.com, averytl@caller.com, garzaa@caller.com, kent.harrell@kztv10.com, ksullivan@kiiitv.com, metrodesk@caller.com, mramirez@entravision.com, noticias28@entravision.com, rgonzales@kristv.com
date		Jul 13, 2007 2:54 AM
subject		Press Release: National Call For Action Spreading Thru Internet Rapidly
signed-by		yahoo.com
mailed-by		yahoo.com

National Call For Action Spreading Thru Internet
Rapidly

E-mail has also crossed U.S. borders into other
countries around the world!

By H. Nelson Goodson
El Conquistador Newspaper
3206 W. National Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53215
U.S.A.
414-383-1000
conquistador@bizwi.rr.com
July 13, 2007

Milwaukee- An e-mail calling for national action and
the financial management of our economic purchasing
power by Latinos and immigrants to influence
immigration reform is circulating and spreading like
wild fire on the Internet. Even, conservative and
anti-immigrant groups have posted the e-mail on their
web sites. The LibertyPost.org posted on their web
page, “We won round 1. NEW Immigration fights are
gearing up. WATCH where you spend your money $$$ !!
DON'T relax. The fight is not over YET. Supporters of
Amnesty are already gearing up for the next round. We
cannot rest on our laurels until we pass legislation
that prevents any future Amnesty bill from ever
passing.”
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=192851

The e-mail has also crossed the United States border
into other countries. The circulating e-mail reads,
last month’s decision by the U.S. Senate to block an
immigration bill has left Immigration reformist around
the country debating about what alternatives are left
and how to bring an immigration bill back to the
floor. The Senate’s decision to block any action in
approving a bill has for now sealed its fate. Will the
House now have enough support to revive the issue?
Probably not, and advocates for a just immigration
bill will now have to wait until after the 2008
Presidential elections.
Will the current Presidential candidates take up the
debate and promise to support and sign a comprehensive
immigration bill into law as President George W. Bush
has agreed to do so? We might have to wait for an
answer from the candidates.
Undocumented immigrants contribute more than 890
billion of dollars into our U.S. economy per year.
Millions of americans who support immigration reform,
including immigration advocacy groups, educators,
community based organizations, unions and members of
the entertainment industry as well as major Latino
owned businesses, food processors, financial
institutions, mortgage firms, corporations,
manufacturers, and the list continues, have and will
continue to contribute just as much into our economy.
Last year and including May 1, 2007, the immigrant
population, their families, friends and supporters for
immigration reform have marched in huge numbers
totaling millions throughout cities around the
country. Their ability to organize and vote resulted
in the unexpected control of both houses by Democrats.
Even President Bush surrounded by his cabinet with
frowning looks conceded defeat live on national news
networks.
Immigrants, advocacy groups and supporters have united
for a common cause throughout the nation. Their
efforts have yet to be taken seriously by those
opposing the legalization of the 12 million
undocumented immigrants already in the country.
What alternatives do immigrants have for now to get
the immigration issue resolve in the near future?
Immigration advocates could argue by looking at the
current situation that undocumented immigrants are
left with few options. But today, there is one
rewarding option which has not been fully utilized by
immigrants.
Immigrants need an effective strategy for financial
management of their economic purchasing power which
totals in the billions of dollars to influence
immigration reform. People from across the country
have suggested for financial management of our
expenditures and are waiting for the inevitable. The
national call for action is the inevitable.
Our success to bring about a just immigration reform
depends on every individual and persons willing to
adjust their spending practices. Today, we spend our
money just about anywhere and on anything without
realizing who actually ends up with our money. The
Senate’s decision to block immigration reform sends
the wrong message that undocumented immigrants from
Russia, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Mexico
and all over the world are not welcome in America,
especially when they help contribute to their state
and cities' economy and cultural wealth.
On September 17, we should begin to invest, shop and
spend our money in businesses and entities that
support immigration reform. We have a grace period
from now until September to begin adjusting our
expenditures by shopping in places that are willing to
post a sign in the window saying “We Support
Immigration Reform Now” and display a copy of a
certified letter sent to their Congress and U.S.
Senate Representative requesting support. If they
don’t know about it, feel free to advise them to post
one up as soon as they can.
Once we are able to manage our purchasing power as a
united effort throughout the nation, then we can
accomplish our quest to influence the passage of a
just immigration reform. Why has September 17 been
chosen as the target date to actually begin our full
strategic action throughout the nation. It’s the day
after the well celebrated 16 de septiembre la
Independencia de Mexico. On September 16, numerous
communities with largely Hispanic populations
throughout our nation recognize and celebrate the
Independence of Mexico, which has been commercialized
by this country. It’s a celebration where non
Hispanics also take time to go out and consume Mexican
products, eat tacos and enjoy Mariachi music.
Opponents of immigration reform claim that a large
portion of Hispanics in the country are undocumented.
In conjunction with September, Hispanic Heritage month
begins and will no doubt provide awareness of how
truly Hispanics and immigrants have contributed to our
nation. As a nation, we recognize the achievements and
contributions Latinos and non Latinos have done while
working along side each other for the welfare,
freedom, liberty, economic success, and especially for
those brave women and men who have given their lives
as the ultimate sacrifice to protect our country and
uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The Kenedy Pasture Company: A Civil Action in the Making?

2007-07-02T02:46:00.000-07:00

The Kenedy Pasture Company: A Civil Action in the Making?

2007-07-02

A Civil Action in the Making?

Why must we flex our muscles?
Nueces County, CCISD, 105th Judicial District Attorney; how many kids were locked up without an attorney?

There is no excuse for violating the basic human rights afforded under the United States Constitution.
How many kids were locked up by a court of nonrecord?
Not even with a parent's consent unless the parent has been given the opportunity to consult with counsel.
How many children taken into custody were advised of their Miranda Rights?
Oh yeah, Plaisted and every CCISD kid for whom, he provided service

.

What do we want?

Go do some homework, we want responsive representation with transparent operation.

We want to not be railroaded for tardies or for absences when the District does not practice due diligence in interdicting but is very diligent in recording the events and adamantly prosecutes and collects half of the fine. When the people cant pay the kids are picked up from class and taken in handcuffs to the court of nonrecord. The Parent is contacted and ordered to appear immediately. When the Parent arrives he or she is told to pay or your kid goes to jail and sometimes the parent is threatened and / or locked up as well. I have never seen a kid who has been provided counsel but I have witnessed many a kid go to jail.

And this from non responsive legislators who have enabled the School Administration to blame the parent when they allow children in their custody to roam at large unaccounted for and the District in coordination with the Courts of non record get paid (profit) from it.

2007-07-01

"Court Appointed Rolodex's". Nanotechnology and "Confessing Error" in a dog and pony show who operate like they are in a Kangaroo Court.

Nanotechnology at work right before our eyes finally an acknowledgment of what has been going on for quite a while now. The information in those "Court Appointed Rolodex's", there is gold in them hills. And this is going to start becoming available when? and for who? We have came to a narrowing of the road here in this alligning of energy fields. I can see it now we got Mikal who who is the adversary of my adversary John Cornyn. We also have the Honorable Judge Manuel Banales who needs to align with Mr Watts and vice versa. Does he want run for mayor unopposed? I would rather see him correct the errors and run for Governor or Ascend to the Texas Supreme Court. Now, John Cornyn has "Confessed Error" and I assure you it wasn't out of fairness but in the essence of knocking the checkers off of the Table because he was going to lose. And Carlos Valdez & John Hubert "Confess Error" on appeal from the 105th. Hubert & Valdez "confess error" so they can conceal Mary Cano. And that is as painless as it gets.
Anton

CCCT Political Pulse
Mikal Watts seeks to round up list of Democrats for self, others
By Jaime Powell
A Monday noontime fundraiser at Vietnam restaurant for U.S. Senate hopeful Mikal Watts was a who's who of the local bar association and judiciary, including five district judges. Watts, who is living in San Antonio, told the crowd that "nobody knows Mikal Watts better than Corpus Christi."

Watts, a Democrat, who is seeking the seat held by Republican Sen. John Cornyn, asked the gathering to dig through their Rolodexes and e-mail address lists because he hopes to compile a statewide database to reach Democratic voters that can be used by all Texas Democrats.

"That way, when Judge (J. Manuel) Bañales runs for mayor he can use it," Watts joked, to uproarious laughter from the crowd and a big grin from Bañales, who was sitting on the front row.

2007-06-30

If you need an attorney.....if he is any good he will tell you watt an "Ander's Appeal" is? If he tells you not to worry about it.........FIRE HIM !!!

Dear TWhttC Executive Staff, Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am sorry we could not reach any other resolution than the bureaucratic one

2007-06-25T17:16:00.000-07:00

Dear TWC Executive Staff

Attn: John Moore

I have read the response that you have provided and it is appreciated, your timely response; thank you. It appears you have read the 13th Court of Appeals Opinion however this opinion is ignoring current administrative law as per TPU 105. Either the law is wrong or Mary Cano and the Texas Workforce advised us in an unbonafied manor. The 13th Court of Appeals is in no position to deem the tesatimony of a key material witness uneffectual. The essence of Mary Cano is not Mary Cano testifying in open court as a material witness. I am requesting a full investigation and deposition of Mary Cano. The appearance of Mary Cano, well just let me say, if the prosecution would have wanted her there she would have been there, if the state would have wanted her there she would have been there, if the TWC would have wanted her there it would have been there. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am sorry we could not reach any other resolution than the bureaucratic one. I will continue with this appeal for justice.

On 6/25/07, Moore, John <john.moore@twc.state.tx.us> wrote:

Mr. and Mrs. Haley,

I have reviewed the information that you provided, as well as the relevant Court of Appeals opinion on the criminal case against LeeAnn Haley that is on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals from the 13^th Court of Appeals. As the Court of Appeals opinion clearly noted, the substance of what the appellant (LeeAnn Haley) argues is that it was error that Ms. Cano (a TWC employee at the time of the offense in question) was not called to testify in the trial. However, the Court of Appeals opinion indicates that what would have testified to at trial if LeeAnn Haley's attorney had called Ms. Cano was received into testimony at trial through LeeAnn Haley's husband (Anton Haley). Therefore, the substantive issue about TWC's policy in regards to substitute teaching not counting as employment was before the jury and the jury still decided against Ms. Haley and convicted her. The Court of Appeals examined the entire trial record and affirmed the trial court conviction.

You have requested that TWC take the following actions in response to your requests:

It is requested this entity support Petitioner's motion requesting appointment of counsel and ask the court to abate all proceedings until counsel has been provided. This is in the best interest of all parties.

TWC does not have the statutory authority or legal standing to request appointment of counsel nor to ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to abate all proceedings until Counsel has been provided. This is only within the jurisdiction of the Court.

It is requested this entity initiate communications with the Texas Judiciary and inform the court of the peculiar circumstances regarding Mary Cano and her incompellability.

TWC does not have the statutory authority or legal standing to communications with the Court of Criminal Appeals. TWC will respond to the Court of Criminal Appeals if that Court requests a response.

TWC does not have the statutory authority or legal standing support your request for appointment of counsel nor to ask the Court of Criminal Appeal to abate all proceedings until Counsel has been provided. This is only within the jurisdiction of the Court.

It is requested a full investigation be conducted into The Texas Workforce operations under Oscar Martinez with in depth depositions of Mary Cano, Chandra Lewis, Cecelio Trevino and others involved in the Malicious Prosecution, Manipulation of JOB Opportunities, official oppression and abuse of power / position surrounding this case.

I will forward this request to LaSha Lenzy, who is the Director of the Unemployment Insurance Division. Ms. Lenzy is the person who would review your request to determine if action should be taken.

It is requested a friend of the court letter be addressed to the Texas Judiciary regarding the controlling administrative law under the WIA umbrella, specifically the TWC, the now defunct TDHS, the TWIST system and the APPEALS POLICY AND PRECEDENT MANUAL TOTAL AND PARTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT that governs employment status. For this agency to acknowledge the intricacies and the inconsistencies due to power struggles between the TWC & TDHS despite the controlling WIA legislation. Both the TWC & the TDHS are governed by the same employment guidelines and definitions. The TWC & the TDHS are governed by the Appeals and Precedent Manual and the determination of unemployment status per TPU (Total Partial Unemployment). It is requested these issues be addressed in particular to the disposition of the employment status of Anton S Haley and Substitute Teaching as exclaimed by Mary Cano.

A s the Court of Appeals opinion clearly noted, the substance of what the appellant (LeeAnn Haley) argues is that it was error that Ms. Cano (a TWC employee at the time of the offense in question) was not called to testify in the trial. However, the Court of Appeals opinion indicates that what would have testified to at trial if LeeAnn Haley's attorney had called Ms. Cano was received into testimony at trial through LeeAnn Haley's husband (Anton Haley). Therefore, the substantive issue about TWC's policy in regards to substitute teaching not counting as employment was before the jury and the jury still decided against Ms. Haley and convicted her. The Court of Appeals examined the entire trial record and affirmed the trial court conviction.

- Hide quoted text -

It is requested all original documents be made available for inspection and comparison to the document entered per 909.