Why They Should Worry

I was chatting with my friend (and GA's Legal Department), Not-Stempler about my last post- the one with the damning video of Beth Mason and Mike Russo refusing to answer Roman Brice's 'yes-or-no' question: have you seen the emails?

Of course, it looks bad. But that's to me, a layperson. The Feds speak another language, one criminal lawyers understand.

So what did Not-Stempler say?   A lot of legal mumbo-jumbo... about conspiracies.  Not-Stempler says that's what the F.B.I's probably after.

Building a criminal conspiracy case.

Which is what Not-Stempler sees in the systematic leakage of email and other sensitive documents from Hoboken City Hall along with the parties involved either directly with the source of the leaks, or indirectly having received the leaked emails or having knowledge of or somehow benefiting from the operation and/or using leaked documents/emails (or intending) to execute political strategy.  Which would include publication on Hoboken411.com.

Of course he said it in as confusing a way as possible, citing statutes, yada-yada and blah-bla-blah,  talking about conspiracy law and the concept of willful blindness or deliberate ignorance.

Here's the Federal Criminal Conspiracy Law:

The Federal Criminal Conspiracy Law is found at Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 371, and it states, “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner of for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.  If however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.”[2]  The very broad conspiracy law includes “any manner of for any purpose” definition.

And the concept of willful blindness:

The legal logic for the willful blindness instruction is to prevent a person from claiming innocence when they themselves did not act in a responsible manner to avoid a criminal conduct, and thereby the law will not reward a defendant who is not a totally innocent person (or deliberately blinded themselves) and deprive them of a defense, lack of knowledge or intent. 

Here is how the government uses these to thwart the "I didn't know" defense (like we can expect from those who've seen Roman Brice's and GA's emails although THEY didn't procure them personally):

The two laws, the conspiracy law and the willful blindness jury charge, used together make for a powerful government – prosecution tool.  Due to the success of the laws, the government has expanded their employment beyond narcotics offenses, and now it is used widely in other types of federal prosecution.  It is foreseeable due to the complementing laws how a defendant will attempt to thwart a government accusation, “I did not know” or “I could not have known” are typically the defenses.  The government and its agents anticipate this and counter the defendant claims in advance by interviewing co-workers and supervisors who will know what information a defendant possessed that would be an indicator, in their opinion, for the defendant to question what was occurring around them and morphed into  a criminal act.  As a result of the aforementioned discussion, it then becomes a more important to know and question before acting, especially in the business world in normal routines involving finance, securities and banking.

All of the folks up on that City Council dais who've seen the emails they're calling for in their resolution are subject to charges in a federal criminal conspiracy case.

Saying, "Someone sent me the email" or "Someone let me read the email" or "I read it but I didn't leak it" ain't gonna cut it.  That's willful blindness.

Just received this brief note from Not-Stempler:

I am following up on my conversation with you.  I realize that the intricacies of federal criminal prosecutions can be somewhat daunting for the average person. Many may not appreciate that their actions may have ensnared them in a criminal conspiracy that could result in the imposition of a sentence of incarceration.  

Statements and conduct that would on their surface appear to be innocuous to laymen, are often traps and quicksand for unwitting targets of federal investigators.

Federal investigators actually anticipate and hope that targets of their investigation will receive bad advice from well-intentioned friends and family.  It goes without saying that no one should rely upon anything that is told to them by another member of the potential conspiracy ring. 

This is the sentence that jumped out at me:

Many may not appreciate that their actions may have ensnared them in a criminal conspiracy that could result in the imposition of a sentence of incarceration.

Too bad.

Hate makes people stupid.  But it shouldn't make them blind.  Willfully.