So who can engage in structuring and get by with it? Well, it might have a bit to do with who you are:

* On the one hand, as Courtney Mabeus reports in today’s edition of the Frederick News-Post, federal prosecutors yesterday filed a six-page complaint against dairy farmers Randy and Karen Sowers, who own the successful South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Md. On February 29 Treasury officials showed up at their farm to question them about bank deposits; 45 minutes into that interview, according to the Sowerses, they learned that the federal government had just seized their bank account and the $70,000 in it. The family does a lot of business at farmer’s markets and its cash receipts over a ten-month period exceeded $320,000, the feds say. The News-Post account includes no mention of the family being under suspicion of any offenses other than what U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein describes as follows: “The holding back of cash receipts in excess of $10,000 indicates a knowledge of the Currency Transaction Reporting requirement and an attempt to evade it.” The couple is now speaking out about their plight to a wider public; they have hired attorney David Watt, though how they intend to pay him given the seizure of their bank account is not clear from the article. (Update Apr. 21: see also Apr. 18 coverage in Baltimore City Paper; & welcome Radley Balko readers)

* On the other hand, if you are former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, you might not find the federal structuring laws so intimidating. Spitzer had good reason to be intimately familiar with the bank reports system since he had relied on its output in conducting white-collar investigations, and he was “smurfing” deposits in furtherance of conduct that was itself illegal, as he knew well, having crusaded in favor of longer sentences for “johns” as part of his appeal to New York City feminist and legal-services groups. But as Harvey Silverglate points out, “Spitzer, with the help of a high-powered legal team, was able to convince the Justice Department’s lawyers to drop the charges.” Now he goes on TV to denounce the federal government’s failure to prosecute persons in high places.

Maybe they’re too busy going after the dairy farmers.

P.S. The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Ruth Ginsburg [Ratslaf v. U.S., 1994], admirably “interpreted the ‘willfully’ element for a currency structuring violation under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5324 to require proof that the defendant knew the structuring was illegal. Congress responded rather promptly to the Court’s holding by dropping willfulness from the statute.” [White Collar Crime Prof, h/t Sam Bagenstos] (& welcome Prof. Bainbridge, Amy Alkon, Hans Bader readers; & see update.)

“Structuring”: who can get away with it, and who can’t is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

September 17 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Judge/insurance fraudster sentenced in Pa. is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“Do you know who I am? A prosecutor!” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Waiting in emergency rooms is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

You may recall the previous post where I discussed criticism of Sanai from Judges Zilly (W.D. Wash.) and Grimes (L.A. Superior Court).

On Patterico, Cyrus Sanai has made available his brief arguing why Zilly’s sanctions order was incorrect. We highly recommend everyone read it, as the brief gives experienced attorneys a strong sense of the merits of Sanai’s arguments.

As for Judge Grimes, Sanai correctly points out that the decision was reversed, thanks to a couple of procedural technicalities caused by California Supreme Court confusion over the difference between “void” and “voidable” jurisdiction. Sanai protested that Judge Grimes (like Judge Zilly, and like Judge Thibodeau (Snohomish County, Wash.)) was biased, and the appellate court agreed to reassign the case on remand. (The appellate court did not make a finding of bias, and says they reassigned based on § 170.1(c), which does not require a finding of bias, but Sanai insists that the reassignment was due to bias.)

Sanai v. Saltz was reassigned to Judge Thomas Green (L.A. Superior Court). Unfortunately for Sanai, the results were worse than they were under the allegedly biased Judge Grimes. Judge Green found that Sanai engaged in litigation in bad faith and for purposes of harassment, and, on September 6, 2007, awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,003,426.25:

It is Defendants’ position that [Sanai's] entire action had no legitimate purpose, and was filed merely for purposes of harassment, and in bad faith. That much is apparent. Keep in mind, this entire case started because Plaintiff’s landlord sent a letter purporting to (lawfully) raise his rent. It contained an obvious typographical error inasmuch as it proposed a rent lower than the amount Plaintiff had been paying, even while apologizing for raising the rent. …

Plaintiff has been litigating this case for about seven years, all because he attempted to seize on this obvious typographical error.This court specifically finds that this entire action has been prosecuted and maintained in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.

[Sanai] knew at the outset that there was no merit to any of his claims. He has admitted to such in deposition. No reasonable person would have thought he had a valid lease agreement under the circumstances. Plaintiff knew he had no reasonable belief that his rent had been lowered. Thus, he has always known that he owed a legitimate debt, because he knowingly and deliberately underpaid his rent. The debt that was reported to the credit agencies was indisputably valid. Therefore, Plaintiff’s action was frivolous and without merit.

Further, Plaintiff’s prosecution of this matter has been malicious, as evidenced by, among other things, the altering of documents presented to the Clerk’s office and the recording of illegal judgment liens with malice, and then refusing to remove them despite being ordered by the Court to do so. …

In the 35 years this Court has been actively engaged in litigation, 20 as an attorney and 15 as a Judge, this Court has never seen such an abuse of process as the prosecution by Plaintiff of this lawsuit.

In the comments, Sanai says that Judge Green is also biased against him, and that he will prevail on appeal.

One has much sympathy for Cyrus Sanai, who has suffered the extraordinary misfortune of four trial judges in three different jurisdictions who are biased against him, and that does not include the appellate judges like the Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court, Gerry Alexander; Washington State Court of Appeals judges Marlin Applewick, Anne Ellington and William Baker; or Judge Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit, all of whom Sanai has accused of bias. We wish that a just result is reached in Sanai’s various appeals, and pray that a just result is reached if a California legal disciplinary body ever decides to investigate what biased judges have been saying about Sanai.

Earlier.

Update: We have posted Mr. Sanai’s brief to the California Court of Appeals appealing, inter alia, the sanctions order.

Cyrus Sanai: Kozinski investigation “is part of a litigation strategy”; second Sanai v. Saltz sanctions order is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Mollins appeared on CNN in July 2007 after filing a suit on behalf of a woman, Francine Dorf, who sued Con Ed over the steam pipe eruption in Manhattan that month.  Dorf wasn’t injured: she just complained that the loud sound reminded her of September 11, entitling her to damages, in part because she could not “focus enough to read the romance novels that she checked out from the library.”  (See also Improved Clinch blog.)  My Google-fu was not acute enough to find the docket in New York state court; does anyone know what the status of that lawsuit is?

What I did find was another lawsuit brought by Kenneth Mollins, plaintiff.  Mollins leased an Infiniti, but was dissatisfied with the quality of the Bluetooth system and the GPS.  After five months of haggling and attempts to fix the supposed problems, Mollins still wasn’t satisfied, the dealer took the car back and refunded Mollins’s money, including the deposit and all the monthly payments made to date.  In other words, Mollins got five months’ use of an Infiniti for free.  Not good enough for Mollins: he sued, seeking additional damages for the damage the alleged inability to use a cell phone did to his business.  The court denied his attempt to turn it into a class action and dismissed; the lawyers were Herzfeld & Rubin.

We obviously should start keeping track of Mr. Mollins.

Kenneth Mollins, attorney for peanut-suer Tehmina Haque is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“Do you know who I am?” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system