Topic: BurtW arrested (update: charges dropped!) - page 12. (Read 74713 times)

i doubt the government will return assets they seized .. they are probably holding the bitcoins 'in rem'

Oh snap, isn't that the Oppenheimer tower across from the federal building? Good to know there's someone who knows their shit when it comes to Bitcoin. It's good to see you back again, and I'm sorry that you had to go through that whole mess.

Brian Klein
Baker Marquart LLP
10990 Wilshire Boulevard, 4th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024
Phone: (424) 652-7814
Email: [email protected]

How about the original firm, that (presumably) took your money to help get you prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit? Who are they? They should be avoided for all litigation purposes.

However the first and foremost, number one reason is that I had the best attorney for the job.  He worked tirelessly on my behalf for almost nine months.  I suggest him highly to anyone who every runs into legal troubles with their Bitcoin activities, keep his contact information handy:

Contact:

Brian Klein
Baker Marquart LLP
10990 Wilshire Boulevard, 4th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024
Phone: (424) 652-7814
Email: [email protected]

Glad you are out of that mess Burt.  I was following it fairly closely.  I would like to know exactly why they dropped the case, though.

STATEMENT


Federal Criminal Case Against Burt Wagner Dismissed

at the Request of the Department of Justice


July13, 2015


I am very excited to announce that the criminal case against my client Burt Wagner was dismissed today. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado filed a motion earlier today requesting that the U.S. District Court Judge handling the case, the Honorable William J. Martinez, dismiss the case against Mr. Wagner. Judge Martinez subsequently issued an order dismissing it.

On October 7, 2014, Mr. Wagner was charged in a single-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (operation of unlicensed money transmitting business) in connection with his purchases and sales of bitcoins. Mr. Wagner entered a plea of not guilty. Although Mr. Wagner and I both wish he had never been charged, we appreciate the U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately doing the right thing and dismissing the criminal case against him.

With this dismissal, Mr. Wagner can begin the process of resuming his regular life. It has been a true privilege to represent Mr. Wagner. I could not be happier for him and his family.

Contact:

Brian Klein
Baker Marquart LLP
10990 Wilshire Boulevard, 4th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024
Phone: (424) 652-7814
Email: [email protected]

And violating the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure, without probable cause).

TheButterZone:  thanks for looking up and posting all that.  While you are at it could you post the current disposition of the other cases found by jbreher earlier in this thread?  I am just curious.

The defendant, Michael Seiler, by appointed counsel Robert S. Berger, moves to withdraw the guilty plea entered on May 11, 2015. [40] Mr. Seiler informed counsel in a telephone conversation on May 14, 2015 that he wanted to withdraw the plea and proceed to a jury trial. Undersigned counsel discussed this motion with AUSA Michele Korver on May 14, 2015 and informs the court that the government opposes withdrawal of the guilty plea.
Rule 11(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
(d) Withdrawing a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere:
(1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or
(2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:
(A) the court rejects a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(5); or
(B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.
1

Case 1:14-cr-00400-CMA Document 43 Filed 05/15/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Mr. Seiler’s fair and just reason for withdrawing the guilty plea is stated in his own words as follows:
When I was young, I visited my grand parents in what was then East Germany. I saw how a overbearing government can oppress a people.
I could have been notified by FEDEX (Cost - about $24) that I was operating a unlicensed money transmittal service. It is a open question if the regulations applied to Bitcoin.
Instead, Michelle Korver sent about 16 vehicles, and a group of snipers (Cost $10,000s) - and I've never been in any legal trouble. This is overbearing. Perhaps it takes a bit of an outsider to see what is happening to America. I need to explain these dangers to America to a jury, and to the American people. .
Please void my plea deal so I get my chance.
The court should consider the following factors:
(1) whether the defendant has asserted his innocence;
(2) whether withdrawal would prejudice the government;
(3) whether the defendant delayed in filing his motion, and if so, the reason for the
delay;
(4) whether withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court;
(5) whether close assistance of counsel was available to the defendant;
(6) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; and
(7) whether the withdrawal would waste judicial resources.
United States v. Yazzie, 407 F.3d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, Mr. Seiler moves to withdraw the guilty plea entered on May 11, 2015 and to set this matter for a jury trial on the indictment and for such further orders as are necessary to prepare for trial.

JUDGMENT as to defendant Katherine Noland (1). Count 1, Dismissed. Count 2, 5 years probation, $100 special assessment, $20,000 restitution.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, DECREED, AND ADJUDGED:
THAT judgment of forfeiture of the following property shall enter in favor of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), free from the claims of any other party:
a. $12,410.00 in United States currency;
b. 64.99255187 Bitcoins;
c. Microsoft Surface computer, serial number 017420742153;
d. Samsung Galaxy Note 3, serial number 256691512400004648;
e. Mac Book Air computer, serial number C02G9BV8DJYC; and
f. Apple IPhone 4S, serial number BCG-E2430A;
THAT the United States shall have full and legal title to the forfeited property and may dispose of it in accordance with law.

Sue the government for malicious prosecution and civil rights violations.

it seems that the government can refile charges without violating double jeopardy. WTF happened?

BurtW's indictment was filed on 2014 oct 07 in the US District Court for Colorado. On the same day, at least three other cryptocurrency related cases were filed in that same court, with the same special agent Arran McWhirter, with the same prosecuting attorney of Michele Korver, all offenses listed as occurring in Boulder County:

14-cr-00398 USA v Burton Wagner
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

14-cr-00399 USA v Sean Swanson
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

14-cr-00400 USA v Michael Seiler
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Money Laundering
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

14-cr-00401 USA v Katherine Noland and Thomas Noland
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
18 USC 2
Count 1: Money Laundering (Katherine)
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business (Katherine and Thomas)

In all four of these indictments, the text of the Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business count is essentially identical, differing only in the opening sentence naming the time period of the offenses, and in where the offenses occurred.

The Money Laundering counts for the latter two cases (Seiler and Noland) specifically mention 'distribution of controlled substances'.

Source: US Courts' PACER documentation system https://www.pacer.gov

At least for the case I was sworn on*, both prosecutor and public defender seemed to just want alert, impartial jurors who wanted to be there and weren't stressed from loss of wages (juror stipend is a joke) or unhealthy.

I was ~19 but had graduated from high school at 16, been a intern journalist and copy editor for the local paper, and adults told me I seemed like an old man since I was ~10. I took more notes during the trial than anyone, and when both attorneys talked to us afterward, the jury's consensus was 1) that the defendant was the victim and acted in self-defense, and the "victim" should have been prosecuted instead for drawing blood 2) I would have been the foreman.

*that went to mistrial because of "unavailable witness"