 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Based on NAAUSA's discussions with members of Congress and their staff, the number of threats and assaults against AUSAs is one of the important factors supporting Law Enforcement Officer retirement for AUSAs. NAAUSA has been developing a sample of some of the threats and assaults and they are published below. AUSAs who have experienced threats or assaults are encouraged to submit them to NAAUSA by emailing them to threats and assaults. 1. In 1993, a defendant was on pre-trial release in a drug case. Evidence indicates he was involved in the disappearance and apparent murder of 5 individuals who were witnesses or family members of witnesses. The case was then dismissed because of a lack of witnesses. The defendant was later charged in another drug case. While defendant was on pretrial release, including electronic monitoring, a codefendant disclosed defendant's plans to kill a CI, a state Narcotics Agent, a DEA agent and the AUSA handling the case. The defendant had generally described to his codefendant the area around the AUSA's house and children in the AUSA's neighborhood. The defendant was also making plans to acquire a firearm and electronic equipment to be used to defeat his electronic monitoring equipment so he could have an alibi when he killed the agents and the AUSA. The government was able to get the defendant detained prior to him taking further action on his plans. While incarcerated, the defendant continued his plans to harm informants, agents and the AUSA. He attempted to escape from custody and bonded an individual out of jail in an attempt to kill an informant.
2. Two other AUSAs in our office were involved in prosecuting members of the Sons of Silence outlaw motorcycle gang. Because of threats to the AUSAs' safety, they were provided with remote starters for their cars and home security systems. 3. Threats to AUSA’s are not strictly a recent phenomenon. In 1985, the wife of an AUSA was at home caring for their eight-month-old child. She received a phone threat against the AUSA and immediately left with the child and went to the home of a neighbor while the FBI and the Marshals investigated the threat. 4. During the
motions of the case one of the defendants filed a motion that included
a copy of a newspaper article related to the case. The obituaries
were listed on the same page. Next to the one obituary someone had
written "AUSA (name)." Considering that our victim, (the
elected Stanisluas County Recorder) was brutally assaulted, and
that the assault was also preceded by veiled threats, we took it
rather seriously and brought it to the court’s, USMS and FBI’s
attention. This stems from the above example. The convicted defendant’s have now filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against me, CMF, the judge, the victim and others. Somehow the suit was allowed to be filed, so now we have to defend against convicting the defendants. Also, the defendants continue to bombard us with "claims" and "notices" saying they are going to collect against us. After a while this stuff gets pretty tiresome. 5. I am assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Unit (OCDETF) and was involved in the prosecution of three major cocaine traffickers. After the trial, two of the three defendants were convicted, with the third defendant being acquitted. One of the convicted defendants received a sentence of 240 months imprisonment. After the trial, I began to receive numerous telephone calls in which the person either hung up without leaving a message or asked for me by name. I have an unlisted telephone number and did not recognize the male caller’s voice. One morning, at about 12:45 a.m. the telephone rang and I answered the call. An unidentified male on the other end of the line said "I am in your house and I am going to kill you!" I immediately hung up the telephone. (I am a female AUSA and was alone at the time.)
6. I appeared in court on a case in which I was a prosecuting a career criminal for armed robbery. This was a regular calendar where a number of defendants were waiting to appear, and the courtroom was filled with the families and friends of all the defendants. I did not see it, but my defendant caught the attention of a couple of his friends who were in the audience, then pointed to me, then used his hand to make a slashing motion on his throat. The bailiff saw this, told me not to leave the court by the regular exit, then shuttled me out through the back of the courtroom. He then informed me of what he had seen so that I could take the proper precautions. 7. I have had
two death threats in the last six years-one left on my home telephone
(which was an unlisted number) resulting in the Marhsal’s transporting
me to and from Court; the other threat to kill me was mailed to
another district and involved the investigating agency asking me
to relocate until it was solved-which cause great fear to me and
my child. Also we get harassment letters from defendants-that talk about finding us when they get out. And finally recently, we had to have the Marshals virtually pull a defendant off of an AUSA when he lunged at her in court and we have had several instances of family members of defendants waiting in the halls for the AUSA and saying things to the AUSA-resulting in AUSA’s having to wait to leave court until the family leaves of having to be escorted by agents out of Court. 8. I had a bank fraud investigation going with FBI Akron. The subject, Kenneth S. Onapolis, fled to Canada with his family, apparently to dodge both our inevitable indictment as well as a Portage County warrant on a bed check charge. In February 1997 he was arrested at the Detroit airport while en route to the Cayman Islands. We filed a complaint to make certain he would be detained and, ironically, he was held in the Portage County jail by the Marshal’s office. While there he made a statement to another inmate that he wondered how the prosecutor would like it if he never saw his family again. The inmate considered it a threat to the prosecutor (i.e. me) and reported it, ultimately, to the Akron Marshal’s office. It became part of a subsequent hearing but he has remained in custody and was sentenced to 37 months incarceration. After that (which should be very soon) he goes off to Wisconsin to serve several more years. He fled from there, too, while on a 3-year home detention sentence after doing a 3-year prison sentence. In conclusion, if Onapolis intended it as a real threat, he has not yet had the opportunity to act upon it. 9. In March 1996 I was threatened by an individual whose property was the subject of a land condemnation action that I was bringing o behalf of the National Park Service. Myself and several Park Rangers were on his property with his permission staking out the boundaries. From the beginning, he was not happy that the government was taking his property. As we surveyed the property that day, he became more and more agitated and eventually threatened to "blow my head off". I left the property at once. 10. In 1993 I was advised that the FBI believed there was merit to a $35,000 hit on me as a result of prosecuting a major drug dealer. My family and I were protected by the US Marshals for several days and then hidden in Virginia, Washington D.C., and Annapolis, Maryland for a couple weeks. During this time my wife and two and a half- year old son were also protected. Eventually we returned to the District of Columbia after the FBI determined that the threat was instigated by inmates I had prosecuted with no intent to actually carry it out. To this day I remember vividly trying to keep all this from our son. He thought it was great we had all these people at our house. He thought one of the US Marshals was Michael Jordan! While in Washington one night as I put my son to bed he looked at me and said, "don’t worry daddy, I won’t let the bad guys get you." 11. In fall 1996, I received a voicemail threat from a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who’d sued 10 judges and 15 other public officials in a pro per Bivens action, spinning a wild conspiracy theory about how they’d all conspired to torment him. (After I reported and recorded the threat, the FBI counseled with him.)
12. In or about 1987, When I was an AUSA in San Jose, California, DEA and US Marshals confirmed that tone of the two major cocaine dealers in a case that I was prosecuting, contracted a hitman from Detroit, Michigan to kill the DEA agent assigned to the case. The DEA agent was relocated out of the area. When the threat spread to others involved in the prosecution, including myself, DEA provided me with body armor for several months until the resolution of the case. The threat was investigated by the FBI. Support was provided by Marshals deputies, who made it clear that if anyone connected with the case was harmed, the defendants would be in a worse situation. The message from the Marshals got through to the defendants, who apparently called off the hitman.
13. I was one of two AUSA’s assigned to a racketeering prosecution brought against a street gang, whose members sold crack cocaine, committed at least seven murders and terrorized an Albuquerque neighborhood. Twenty-three gang members were indicted and incarcerated. Several of the members, including the gang’s leadership, threatened to kill the prosecutors. These threats where passed on to the United States Marshals Service. There were numerous unindicted gang members remaining on the street who were available to carry out the threat. Most of the hearings in the case occurred in Santa Fe, approximately sixty miles from Albuquerque. My spouse felt extremely threatened and unnecessarily exposed to danger. 14. At 5 a.m. on Friday, the FBI requested that Norman send an AUSA to the scene to assist in any legal issues which may arise. I agreed to go and was informed by the FBI that the defendant was still at large. I traveled in my own vehicle (FBI told me to drive a four-wheeled vehicle, but AUSA’s have no access to the keys outside of business hours) and passed the road block. I went to crime scenes with the evidence response team, wearing a bullet-proof vest. When we returned to the chapter house, used as the command post, the defendant was spotted pacing along a mesa overlooking our location – rifle in hand.
I believe my presence was useful to the FBI and was glad to help. However, I feel I was at risk to the same degree as the FBI agents. Worthy of mention in light of fact that pretrial services officers have law enforcement designation, entitling them to the twenty-year retirement plan. 15. A current AUSA and a former AUSA have learned that an incarcerated organized crime figure has made threats against them. The threats are currently under investigation. In this instance, the organized crime figure has threatened to "get" the current AUSA if it takes him the rest of his life. But, this figure noted that he would not attempt reprisal while the AUSA remained an AUSA. 16. A civil AUSA, had a civil forfeiture case initiated in June of 1998 against assets in the possession of individuals and an organization in the south suburbs on the basis of their connection to the HAMAS terrorist organization. The case is United States v. One 1997 E35 Ford Van et al., 98 C 3548 (ND IL) (Judge Andersen). One of the individuals whose assets were seized, Muhammad Salah, although an American citizen living in Bridgeview, Illinois, spent five years in prison in Israel for providing material support to the military operations of HAMAS. The President by Executive Order, at the request of the State Department, designated Salah as a terrorist. Shortly after the case was filed, the AUSA learned that his neighbor is related by marriage to one of the principals of the organization whose assets were seized for forfeiture-the Quranic Literacy Institute. The AUSA’s neighbor offered to look at the complaint for her brother-in-law, and upon seeing the AUSA’s name and signature, duly informed her brother-in-law where the AUSA lived. Although there were no threats communicated, this shows that (1) civil assistants, particularly those prosecuting forfeiture cases, for example, may face many of the same issues as their criminal counterparts; and (2) the notion of risks faced by assistants is more often subtle, that overt. The AUSA’s wife is very concerned that where they live is known to individuals deeply involved with HAMAS. 17. A civil AUSA was threatened by the brother of a deceased plaintiff several years ago. Briefly, the facts were that a veteran committed suicide and his family sued the VA Hospital for releasing him while he was still a suicide threat. The government won that trial. The brother called and threatened the AUSA, the FBI was contacted, and the guards at the entrance to the federal building were notified to keep a look out for the man. Nothing more ever became of the threat. 18. In approximately 1980 or 1981, while she was married to another AUSA, her husband was the subject of a death threat made by a Chicago Police Officer who he indicted, along with 9 other officers, in what was known as the Marquette 10. (They took bribes from dope dealers, and were convicted of aiding and abetting a narcotics conspiracy.) As a result of the threat, the FBI assigned agents to the family home 24 hours a day. The AUSA was home with a baby at the time. One agent would be inside (with a shotgun) and one outside. They had an alarm put on their car, and a tape recorder on their phone. This level of protection lasted for several weeks.
19. A current
criminal AUSA, from 1989 through 1994 received a number of death
threats as a result of the El Rukn investigation and prosecution.
The office security manager dealt with several of them that were
mostly reported by various Federal and Illinois inmates. However,
in April 1991, one week before the first El Rukn trial began, the
AUSA came home one night and found all the windows on the first
floor of his house smashed in (about 20 of them); all the windows
of his car smashed in; and several bullet holes through his upstairs
windows. The Marshals and ATF investigated it, and he was authorized
by his office and Main Justice to carry a gun. No one was ever arrested
as a result of the investigation that was conducted. 21. In 1991, a current criminal AUSA, was the lead prosecutor in United States v. Edward Mauerman, et al., a case charging 29 defendants, including David Buffington, with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Buffington has been released pending trial. Buffington later pleaded guilty and was placed at MCC awaiting sentencing. In 1992, the office heard rumblings from cooperating defendants that Buffington had discussed having [AUSA] and the FBI case agent killed. Some Latin Kings at the MCC reported that Buffington had discussed the killings with them. The FBI case agent contemporaneously observed Buffington’s father circling around the FBI parking lot after hours in what appeared to be surveillance. [AUSA] was instructed by the U.S. Attorney to get away from his house for the weekend to allow for more investigation. During the next week or so, the FBI provided [AUSA] with escort service to and from work and would check out his house. He then declined further FBI escort protection and nothing else happened. 22. A current AUSA and a former AUSA, after prosecuting tax protestor guru William Benson, were placed on a death list of the White Christian Aryan Nation. The list was turned up in a cell search in a federal prison. It was considered genuine because the no. 1 target on the list, an ATF agent, had in fact been the target of some intimidating overt acts by that group – being followed, threats to family etc., and because the investigation had determined that those who had the list had details about the prosecution of Benson and the aftermath. The Marshal directed the AUSA’s to vary their travel patterns, provided them quick access numbers to the police, and provided cellular phones.
23. A criminal AUSA prosecuted Mario Claiborne, a major narcotics dealer. Claiborne told a cooperating witness that he was going to have the AUSA killed. Another major narcotics dealer, Nate Hill, sent a very veiled threat to the AUSA via the mail. 24. A criminal AUSA was assigned to handle the prosecution of Tyler Mills for sending numerous threats through the mails to several state and federal officers. Mills is an extremely disturbed 19 year-old male who had been incarcerated since the age of 14 in state custody. As a result of his threatening letters, a federal detainer was placed on him and he was transferred to federal custody in August 1998. Mental health professionals have consistently concluded that Mills is capable of carrying out his threats and regard his threats as serious. On April 18, 1999, Mills sent the following letter to the AUSA – "(Name of AUSA) – You are going to die and I am going to kill you Bitch. Sincerely, Tyler Mills." Obviously this letter concerned her greatly. 25. A criminal AUSA was involved with a case with a defendant Elmi Fejowski who was a drug dealer and had a history of leaving car bombs. While the AUSA was prosecuting Fejowski, cooperating witnesses and Fejowski’s own attorney advised that Fejowski was talking about killing the AUSA and a cooperating witness. The AUSA was provided a remote starter for her car, an alarm system in her home, was trained in the use of a firearm and was authorized to carry a firearm. She also took steps to remove the record of her home address as much as possible and gets all of her mail at a Post Office Box or at work. Fejowski is currently still incarcerated and she is to be advised upon his release. 26. A former AUSA, who is know a U.S. District Court Judge, was the prosecutor who had obtained the grand jury indictment charging a defendant by the name of Chaverra and others with narcotics violations involving over thirty pounds of cocaine. During the course of the narcotics investigation, the AUSA obtained the cooperation of a maid who had worked for Chaverra and who was willing to testify against him at trial. The information provided also enabled the AUSA to obtain a superseding indictment adding Chaverra’s wife and his brother as defendants. While incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) awaiting trial, Chaverra received a message from his wife saying that the maid had "snitched" on them. After received the message, Chaverra arranged a meeting with another inmate who, unknown to Chaverra, was a government informant. The two met on the rood of the MCC where Chaverra asked the informant to assist him in killing both the AUSA and the maid. Chaverra told the informant that he hated the AUSA for having his wife arrested and for inducing the maid to cooperate. Chaverra asked the informant to enlist professionals from Florida to do the kilings and offered to pay $50,000 for the murder of the AUSA, $25,000 for the murder of the maid, and $30,000 to the informant for his help. Chaverra additionally wanted the maid’s two children killed because he thought it would look funny if the mother disappeared leaving the children behind. The men discussed the weapons, automobiles, and personnel from Chicago and Miami that would be needed to carry out the murders, and they talked about alternative methods of killing the AUSA, including stabbing him to death in the elevator of the federal building and shooting him in the head with a machine gun. Agents witnessed or participated in numerous conversations in which details of the plan were discussed, such as the timing of the kills, whether the maid should be poisoned with Colombian candy, and whether the price of the hits included the cost of machine guns or whether the hitmen would use their own guns. As the result of this activity, the AUSA and his family were placed under protection for a period of time. 27. In April 1988, two current AUSA’s caused a search to be conducted of the Chicago On Leong’s gambling casino and the subsequent June 1988 civil forfeiture seizure of the On Leong building, which the building was worth 1.8 million dollars. The On Leong is the largest Chinese tong in the United States and informants reported that a $100,000 contract was put out by the On Leong to kill whichever prosecutor, agent or informant was the main person causing the search and forfeiture. Nothing ever developed from the threat. However, a New York witness that was subpoenaed to the criminal trial two years later was gunned down just outside his office upon orders of the leader of the On Leong. 28. A criminal AUSA in the mid 1990’s investigated and prosecuted a defendant for mail fraud. The defendant received a 51month sentence. Later, the defendant, while an inmate, made specific threats against the judge and also discussed driving a truck loaded with explosives into the federal building. The US Marshals provided door-to-door security for the judge for a while. FBI agents assigned to the case also learned of threats against them. The AUSA began receiving letters from the inmate that were inappropriate and appeared to be somewhat threatening. The inappropriate nature of the letters and the history of threats to the judge and agents resulted in her superiors taking the AUSA off the case and assuming personal responsibility for the cast themselves. 29. Two criminal AUSA’s in the early 1990’s had investigated William Mauldin for various crimes. In January 1994, he sent a letter to the office, addressed "U.S. Attorney," with the following "Rather than commit suicide I’m going to stab you in the shoulder in one month." 30. A criminal AUSA received a threat to kill on his office voice mail in 1992 and appeared to be surveilled for a short time thereafter. 31. Three female criminal AUSA’s received voice mail calls in early 1995 that were of a threatening nature. In one, the caller said ‘Bitch, I’m going to come after you." In another, the caller stated he was going "to fuck her up." In the third, it was an obscene phone call. 32. A former AUSA, who is now on the court of appeals for Minnesota, was threatened. As a result of which, U.S. Marshals were ordered to attend her wedding. 33. A current AUSA, who at one time directed the Organized Crime/Drug Enforcement Task Force between the years 1984 to 1987 and led the investigation into the Pagan Motorcycle Club in his district which eventually led to lengthy prison terms for many of the club’s leaders. During 1987, after an initial round of prosecutions led to prison sentences for certain Pagans members, several of those members secretly began to cooperate and provide information to our investigators. One piece of information learned was that plans were then being developed by Pagans leaders in Pittsburgh to kill me and the FBI agent in charge of the Pittsburgh FBI Organized Crime Squad. The misguided motive for this plan was to disrupt the investigation sufficiently to cause the statute of limitations on certain offenses to expire before the highest ranking Pagans leaders were indicted.
I believed that I was unduly endangering my wife, and I requested to be re-assigned within the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which did occur. The murder plan could never be proven because the highest ranking Pagans leaders chose to go to jail rather than cooperate. These individuals are now gradually being released from prison, having served their sentence, and now concerns about retaliation by those persons are in the minds of the witnesses and investigators most responsible for their incarceration, including me. 34. As an AUSA in the District of Alaska, I tried a case against a local dentist named Bobby D. Layman for violating the CSA by prescribing large amounts of highly addictive and abused medicine such as dilaudid, percocet and percodan to admitted addicts. In the usual fashion the jury trial was followed by a contentious sentencing hearing which resulted in incarceration for a period of five years. After the hearing the defendant’s son, who was also a dentist, followed me out of the courtroom and down the hall. In an attempt to hit me lunged at me with a raised arm which would have made contact but for the quick action of a DEA Special Agent who stepped behind me to protect my back and stop the attack. 35. In March of 1997, an inmate at the Metropolitan Corrections Center in San Diego, California reported a threat against the life of an AUSA. The threat originated with a mid level member of the Arellano Felix Organization. The AUSA had been responsible for the extradition of the AFO member and overseeing the investigation of the AFO. During the course of overseeing the investigation, the AUSA had interviewed the threatening AFO member and his associates which was reported back to the AFO. As a result of the threat a wiretap order was obtained for the AFO member’s cell which confirmed the threat. The threat developed during the course of a month where five murders or abductions of witnesses against the AFO occurred.
36. I was threatened in 1991 during an 8 ½ week trial. The Toledo Police received information that one of the Texas defendants, who was at the County Jail, attempted to hire someone to kill me and a few of the witnesses. As a result, I was followed home every evening by the U.S. Marshals to make certain that I was not being followed, my license plate was registered as "not in file," and the Lucas County Sheriff did regular drive-bys and stationary surveillances at my residence. If I recall, I even rode into work for about a week with one of the deputies. Fortunately, our home address/phone number had always been unlisted. Nothing came of it, but it was a scary time particularly as it involved my children who were very young at the time. We even considered temporarily sending them to my mom’s in Pittsburgh. 37. I received a threat about a year ago. A defendant of mine allegedly looking through the MCC window, pointed a woman out as "his prosecutor" and told a fellow inmate he had figured out how to kill her. He said he knew where she parked, what her car looked like and what her pattern of activity was (when she arrived and left work). Unfortunately for some poor County Probation Officer, the woman he was pointing out was not me, but another blond who happened to work for County Probation. FBI investigated and eventually closed the case. I was given a photograph of the defendant and told to watch out for him. I think the County Probation Officer received some temporary relocation. The defendant’s photo is still posted in the reception areas. 38. I received a threat several years go and received 24-hour protection from the U.S. Marshals Office. FBI arrested the guy making the threat, and another AUSA prosecuted him. He was convicted and immediately deported back to Australia. 39. Years ago, I handled a case in which the agents arrested someone and searched his house and business in Newport Beach. From what I remember, I made the decision either not to charge him or to dismiss the case. In any event, the search, etc. was a big deal and for a long time afterward I received correspondence that was implicitly threatening, for example, how would you like to have your life ruined; perhaps this should happen to you, etc. I never reported it, and I have basically forgotten most of the details. I do know at the time, however, that I had some concern and viewed it as an implicit threat. 40. On March 28, 2001, I appeared in a courtroom for a sentencing. There was some issue as to whether the defendant would be found to be a career offender, an armed career criminal or whether the Court would entertain the Government’s motion for an upward departure. After nearly a two hour hearing, the Court determined the defendant was a career offender and sentenced him to 188 months incarceration.
|
|
(T)
1-800-455-5661
|
|