Federal Judge Rebukes Prosecutors for Criminal Case Against In-House Counsel

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    I would like to add to my earlier comments that Titus was a partner at Venable, LLP, one of the largest lobbying and law firms in the nation's capital. Among the clients of Venable are numerous pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical related companies. These pharma companyies are making TENS OF BILLION yearly off the sale of off-lable drugs. The health and welfare of millions of innocent victioms is being affected by the dispensing of drugs unapproved for the illnesses they are prescribed. This is a big money scam, so big that it may exceed in value one trillion dollars over a ten year period. Because of Titus's ruling the FDA is powerless to stop this scam which aside from the health risks is costing Medicare and the insurance company incredible amounts of money. "Follow the money, stupid." If the government does have the guts to go after Titus and I doubt they do, they will find the trail right to his door. In my own esperience, I have discovered that Titus shared an office building for yearrs with our opposing attorney. They were buddies and he ruled every time in their favor. Titus is a world class crook, an embarassment to the legal profession and needs to be exposed, impeached and sent to the jail cell Ms. Stevens escaped.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I would like to add to my earlier comments that Titus was a partner at Venable, LLP, one of the largest lobbying and law firms in the nation's capital. Among the clients of Venable are numerous pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical related companies. These pharma companyies are making TENS OF BILLION yearly off the sale of off-lable drugs. The health and welfare of millions of innocent victioms is being affected by the dispensing of drugs unapproved for the illnesses they are prescribed. This is a big money scam, so big that it may exceed in value one trillion dollars over a ten year period. Because of Titus's ruling the FDA is powerless to stop this scam which aside from the health risks is costing Medicare and the insurance company incredible amounts of money. "Follow the money, stupid." If the government does have the guts to go after Titus and I doubt they do, they will find the trail right to his door. In my own esperience, I have discovered that Titus shared an office building for yearrs with our opposing attorney. They were buddies and he ruled every time in their favor. Titus is a world class crook, an embarassment to the legal profession and needs to be exposed, impeached and sent to the jail cell Ms. Stevens escaped.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I would like to add to my earlier comments that Titus was a partner at Venable, LLP, one of the largest lobbying and law firms in the nation's capital. Among the clients of Venable are numerous pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical related companies. These pharma companyies are making TENS OF BILLION yearly off the sale of off-lable drugs. The health and welfare of millions of innocent victioms is being affected by the dispensing of drugs unapproved for the illnesses they are prescribed. This is a big money scam, so big that it may exceed in value one trillion dollars over a ten year period. Because of Titus's ruling the FDA is powerless to stop this scam which aside from the health risks is costing Medicare and the insurance company incredible amounts of money. "Follow the money, stupid." If the government does have the guts to go after Titus and I doubt they do, they will find the trail right to his door. In my own esperience, I have discovered that Titus shared an office building for yearrs with our opposing attorney. They were buddies and he ruled every time in their favor. Titus is a world class crook, an embarassment to the legal profession and needs to be exposed, impeached and sent to the jail cell Ms. Stevens escaped.

  4. KK says:

    Once the government targets attorneys (whether in-house or outside counsel) for obstruction-related charges, where the attorney has no involvement or interest in the alleged underlying misconduct, we need to ask serious questions. Client representation is, by its nature, rife with nuances and attorney client privileged communication. It is ill-advised for a government regulatory agency (in this case the FDA), to examine, after the fact, attorney client privileged communications in an effort to build a federal obstruction case against an attorney who did not benefit from the alleged underlying misconduct. That would make the attorney’s job impossible, as a good faith judgment decision made by the attorney during the course of the representation, which ultimately is found to be less than optimal from the government’s point of view (or, with hindsight, even proves to be incorrect) could result in criminal liability for the attorney. Attorneys are retained to represent their clients. They are not pseudo government investigators, and they cannot be expected to be prescient, or to possess divine intuition.
    Ms. Stevens rightfully won this case, but I’m sure the judge’s statement that “this case should never have been brought” will provide her little solace at this point. She has been dragged through many years of painful federal criminal prosecution, having her reputation and career irreperably harmed in the process. Her personal life has likely been permanently affected. Taking on the DOJ is not a decision to be taken lightly – 95% of federal convictions result from pleas. Federal obstruction statutes carry maximum penalties of 20 years in prison, and the government has unlimited resources. To say that “this case should never have been brought” seems to belittle the courage that Ms. Stevens displayed in fighting for what’s right. I think we need to take a closer look at “prosecutorial discretion.” There apparently was reluctance by several US attorneys to sign off on this indictment. I wonder who ultimately signed it, and what he’s doing now? This type of prosection, particularly in an environment of trillion dollar deficits and devastating budget gridlock, is simply disgraceful.

  5. KK says:

    Once the government targets attorneys (whether in-house or outside counsel) for obstruction-related charges, where the attorney has no involvement or interest in the alleged underlying misconduct, we need to ask serious questions. Client representation is, by its nature, rife with nuances and attorney client privileged communication. It is ill-advised for a government regulatory agency (in this case the FDA), to examine, after the fact, attorney client privileged communications in an effort to build a federal obstruction case against an attorney who did not benefit from the alleged underlying misconduct. That would make the attorney’s job impossible, as a good faith judgment decision made by the attorney during the course of the representation, which ultimately is found to be less than optimal from the government’s point of view (or, with hindsight, even proves to be incorrect) could result in criminal liability for the attorney. Attorneys are retained to represent their clients. They are not pseudo government investigators, and they cannot be expected to be prescient, or to possess divine intuition.
    Ms. Stevens rightfully won this case, but I’m sure the judge’s statement that “this case should never have been brought” will provide her little solace at this point. She has been dragged through many years of painful federal criminal prosecution, having her reputation and career irreperably harmed in the process. Her personal life has likely been permanently affected. Taking on the DOJ is not a decision to be taken lightly – 95% of federal convictions result from pleas. Federal obstruction statutes carry maximum penalties of 20 years in prison, and the government has unlimited resources. To say that “this case should never have been brought” seems to belittle the courage that Ms. Stevens displayed in fighting for what’s right. I think we need to take a closer look at “prosecutorial discretion.” There apparently was reluctance by several US attorneys to sign off on this indictment. I wonder who ultimately signed it, and what he’s doing now? This type of prosection, particularly in an environment of trillion dollar deficits and devastating budget gridlock, is simply disgraceful.

  6. KK says:

    Once the government targets attorneys (whether in-house or outside counsel) for obstruction-related charges, where the attorney has no involvement or interest in the alleged underlying misconduct, we need to ask serious questions. Client representation is, by its nature, rife with nuances and attorney client privileged communication. It is ill-advised for a government regulatory agency (in this case the FDA), to examine, after the fact, attorney client privileged communications in an effort to build a federal obstruction case against an attorney who did not benefit from the alleged underlying misconduct. That would make the attorney’s job impossible, as a good faith judgment decision made by the attorney during the course of the representation, which ultimately is found to be less than optimal from the government’s point of view (or, with hindsight, even proves to be incorrect) could result in criminal liability for the attorney. Attorneys are retained to represent their clients. They are not pseudo government investigators, and they cannot be expected to be prescient, or to possess divine intuition.
    Ms. Stevens rightfully won this case, but I’m sure the judge’s statement that “this case should never have been brought” will provide her little solace at this point. She has been dragged through many years of painful federal criminal prosecution, having her reputation and career irreperably harmed in the process. Her personal life has likely been permanently affected. Taking on the DOJ is not a decision to be taken lightly – 95% of federal convictions result from pleas. Federal obstruction statutes carry maximum penalties of 20 years in prison, and the government has unlimited resources. To say that “this case should never have been brought” seems to belittle the courage that Ms. Stevens displayed in fighting for what’s right. I think we need to take a closer look at “prosecutorial discretion.” There apparently was reluctance by several US attorneys to sign off on this indictment. I wonder who ultimately signed it, and what he’s doing now? This type of prosection, particularly in an environment of trillion dollar deficits and devastating budget gridlock, is simply disgraceful.