Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
1008626---Doc 42 Gov Oppo Re Listening to Speech(1)

1008626---Doc 42 Gov Oppo Re Listening to Speech(1)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Thomas Horne

More info:

Published by: Thomas Horne on Jul 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





LAWRENCE G. BROWNActing United States AttorneyMARK E. CULLERSJAMES R. TERZIANAssistant U.S. Attorney2500 Tulare St., Suite 4401Telephone: (559) 497-4000Facsimile: (559) 497-4099IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.MICHAEL S. IOANE,Defendant. ______________________________)))))))))))))Case No. 1:09-CR-0142 LJOGOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TODEFENDANT’S APPEAL OFMAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JULY 28,2009 PRETRIAL RELEASECONDITIONSDate: TBATime: TBACourtroom: FourHon. Lawrence J. O’NeillBackgroundOn April 9, 2009, the defendant was indicted for Conspiracyto Defraud the Internal Revenue Service and four counts ofPresenting False and Fictitious Instruments or DocumentsPurporting to be Actual Financial Instruments of the UnitedStates. It is the government’s contention that the defendantactively conspired, instructed, encouraged, and informed otherindividuals on how to submit false tax returns and otherfinancial instruments to the United States in order to avoid thepayment of taxes. This was primarily done by the defendant
Case 1:09-cr-00142-LJO Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 1 of 7
-2-through his advocation of the formation of abusive trusts, whichwas marketed to others as being a way to avoid tax liability. Itis also the government’s contention that the defendant conductedthese illegal activities, in part, through the use of theinternet and computers.On the day of his arraignment on the Indictment, April 10,2009, and in light of the allegations in the indictment, thegovernment’s allegations, and upon the recommendations ofPretrial Services Officer Jacob Scott, various pretrialconditions were imposed on the defendant restricting his access,and use, of the internet and a computer. Specifically, thedefendant was prohibited from accessing the internet orpossessing a computer at his residence unless approved by thePretrial Services Officer. The defendant was also ordered onhome detention, and restricted to his residence unless otherwiseapproved by the Pretrial Services Officer.On May 14, 2009, the duty Magistrate, upon motion of thedefendant, amended the defendant’s conditions of pretrialrelease. The court permitted the defendant limited access to acomputer and the internet for business purposes, with the provisothat computer monitoring software was to be installed to monitordefendant’s use of the computer. The court acceded to thedefendant’s request, in part, due to defendant’s representationsthat he needed access to the computer for: (1) his other legal-related work (in order to stay updated on his other cases and torespond to e-filings); (2) to communicate effectively with hispresent counsel; (3) to work on the instant case, and (4) for his
Case 1:09-cr-00142-LJO Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 2 of 7
-3-wife’s business. The defendant was specifically instructed thataccessing the computer for tax-related purposes, or to give taxand/or trust advice, was prohibited and would be considered aviolation. The court informed the defendant that a violationcould result in detention. The court also terminated defendant’shome detention and imposed a curfew.Despite the court’s concessions, and despite the cleardirective of the court, the defendant chose to push the limits ofhis pretrial release.On June 29, 2009, Pretrial Services Officer Scott submitteda Violation Petition to the court which alleged that thedefendant improperly operated and accessed a computer and theinternet for purposes other than his business, his legal defenseor his pending cases. Mr. Scott therefore recommended thatdefendant’s pretrial release conditions be revoked and that he bedetained.On June 30, 2009, Magistrate Judge Snyder modifieddefendant’s pretrial conditions of release to include nocomputers or access to the internet in the home, and homeincarceration, pending an evidentiary hearing on the ViolationPetition.On July 28, 2009, an evidentiary hearing was held beforeMagistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. At this hearing, PretrialServices Officer Scott testified that the computer monitoringsoftware installed by pretrial services on the defendant’scomputer revealed that the defendant had accessed the internetfor non-business purposes.
Case 1:09-cr-00142-LJO Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 3 of 7

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->