Patterico's Pontifications

12/4/2008

Pellicano Lawyer: “Do I Know Where I Got That Document? The One the FBI Agent Just Got Charged with Obtaining Illegally? The Answer Is a Firm No. What? I Said Yes Last Year?”

Filed under: Crime,General — Patterico @ 9:08 pm



At the L.A. Times, Scott Glover has a good story advancing our knowledge of the case of Anthony Pellicano’s Man at the FBI.

As I told you yesterday, an FBI agent dating actress Linda Fiorentino has been charged with illegally accessing FBI computers to provide Pellicano with an FBI report helpful to Pellicano’s case. Pellicano’s lawyers produced the report in court last year and complained that they should have received it from the prosecution as part of pretrial discovery. If the charges are true, the FBI agent, Mark Rossini, obtained the report that was later sent to Pellicano’s defense team.

So reporter Glover asked Pellicano’s attorney whether he knew who had provided the report. And he had a little Perry Mason “gotcha” moment with the attorney when the attorney denied any knowledge of where the report had come from:

Artan, the lawyer who represented Pellicano, said that he was questioned by prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., about how he had obtained the report and that he told them that he didn’t know where it came from.

He said he now assumes that questioning was part of the probe into Rossini.

But according to a transcript of a hearing in March 2007 when U.S. District Court Judge Dale Fischer asked Artan if the document had been sent anonymously, he replied, “No.”

He added, “I would be happy to tell you in camera.”

Asked about the inconsistency, Artan said he was surprised by his response in the transcript.

He said he recalled having some inkling at the time as to who may have sent it but that he did not know then and does not know now who the source was.

The lawyer declined to say who he suspected may have provided the document.

If a document is sent anonymously, and a judge asks if it was sent anonymously, would you answer “no” to the judge? Because you had some inkling who had anonymously sent it?

Sorry, Mr. Artan. You’ll have to do better than that.

Well played, Scott Glover.

Artan may just now be realizing that federal prosecutors know about that transcript too. And they are presumably also familiar with the statute that criminalizes knowing lies “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.” You’ve heard of that law; it’s the one that was used in the Martha Stewart case.

This is bound to get more interesting as time passes.

UPDATE 12-23-08: This is not an accusation leveled against Mr. Artan; it’s an observation that reportedly inconsistent statements sometimes trigger the interest of federal law enforcement authorities. More here.

12/3/2008

Allegation: Pellicano Had Someone Inside the FBI

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 11:38 pm



In a trial involving allegations that Anthony Pellicano and others illegally accessed law enforcement computers, Pellicano’s defense was allegedly aided . . . by a guy illegally accessing law enforcement computers. Because he wanted to please his girlfriend, the star of the movie “The Last Seduction.”

The Washington Post reports:

A longtime FBI agent has been accused of accessing bureau computers to help high-profile Los Angeles private investigator Anthony Pellicano in his recent federal trial on wiretapping and racketeering charges, according to charging documents and law enforcement officials familiar with the case.

Mark T. Rossini, 47, who lives in New York, was charged Monday in U.S. District Court here with five misdemeanor counts of illegally accessing computers at the bureau’s headquarters between January and July 2007. Officials say he was searching for reports dealing with Pellicano.

If that isn’t weird enough, enter the star of the movie “The Last Seduction”:

Rossini’s girlfriend, the actress Linda Fiorentino, known for her role in “The Last Seduction,” has personal ties to Pellicano, according to law enforcement officials.


Linda Fiorentino
Source: RadarOnline.com

A July 2007 RadarOnline post fleshes this out a bit:

The star of The Last Seduction and Jade [Fiorentino] is dating an FBI agent and, say sources, taking more than a passing interest in his work. The agent, counterterrorism specialist Mark Rossini, recently transferred from Washington, D.C., to New York, partly, according to one source, to be closer to Fiorentino, with whom he’s often seen dining at Elaine’s, the uptown restaurant favored by the literary crowd.

Here’s where it gets weird: Rossini has apparently been accepting—or soliciting—Fiorentino’s help with criminal investigations, including the one against jailed private investigator Anthony Pellicano. “He’s a big gossip,” says one source. “He talks about all the help she’s been giving him on cases.” On another unrelated case, a different source recalls being surprised when he showed up for a meeting with FBI agents to find they had brought Fiorentino along with them. He says the actress seemed “really unstable.”

There’s something comforting about knowing that an FBI counterterror expert was described by friends describe as a “big gossip.” Don’t you think? And I sleep easier thinking of guys like that getting criminally charged with misusing government computers on behalf of a guy like Pellicano.

But putting that aside, let’s get back to the connections between Fiorentino and Pellicano. The July 2007 post, naively (it seems in retrospect) reported:

Sources say Fiorentino has been exchanging letters with Anthony Pellicano for the past two years—letters whose content they suspect she’s been relaying to her boyfriend. “She’s playing both sides,” insists one source.

Not so much! Because if the charges against Rossini are true, then “both sides” were really the same side — because Fiorentino’s boyfriend was (allegedly) in league with Pellicano to aid the defense of his criminal case.

A May 2006 Hollywood Interrupted post provides some truly eye-opening details about the actress. The post explains that Fiorentino was enraged at an attorney, Marty Singer, whom she believed had double-crossed her in her legal efforts to be paid for a movie she had agreed to do with a child rapist who doubled as a director. I’m not making this up. The post says that, according to a source,

the actress became obsessed with the idea that Singer might get indicted in the legal scandal erupting around hack PI Anthony Pellicano’s notorious wiretapping escapades. In her effort to dig up dirt on Singer, Fiorentino reportedly befriended the Pelican’s ex-wife, Kat Pellicano.

But, the post says, Kat Pellicano got freaked out when Fiorentino started taping Pellicano’s children. Then “Kat reportedly caught Fiorentino attempting to hack into her personal computer.”

Spying on the spy’s ex-wife.

Also revealed in the Washington Post article:

In court filings in March 2007, Pellicano’s lawyers reference obtaining an FBI report that they said prosecutors should have turned over to them during pretrial discovery. The report raised questions about an FBI agent’s credibility, the lawyers wrote. A law enforcement official said Rossini was the source of that document.

So this accused FBI agent provides information to Pellicano to question the credibility of an FBI agent. I believe it is Stan Ornellas. The March 2007 court filings referred to in the Post report appear to include this document, which contains the following passage:

And the document as a whole attacks the credibility of (now retired) FBI Special Agent Stanley Ornellas . . . the man who wrote the search warrant to get into Pellicano’s office. The man whose credibility was repeatedly attacked in a series of articles written by a former L.A. Times reporter named Chuck Philips.

Well, you knew this would all circle around back to him, didn’t you?

So Chuck Philips’s series of articles questioning the credibility of FBI Agent Ornellas was based in part on information that Pellicano’s team allegedly received from a rogue FBI agent working on behalf of Pellicano, at the behest of his reportedly unbalanced girlfriend, Linda Fiorentino, the sultry actress of old.

Is this town great or what?

UPDATE: More on all of this here, including details about how Rossini was caught, and competing theories of the intrigue behind it all.

11/23/2008

A Short History of Chuck Philips’ Slanted Stories on the Pellicano Case

Filed under: — Patterico @ 10:18 pm



As noted in the main post, Philips repeatedly wrote stories supporting Pellicano’s defense theories, and questioning the honesty of federal law enforcement agents. This page details some of the history of that slanted coverage.

In early 2007, Philips repeatedly touted claims by Pellicano’s defense team that federal law enforcement, including Assistant U.S. Attorney Dan Saunders and FBI Special Agent Stanley Ornellas, had leaked information about the case to Philips’s competitors at the New York Times. Philips even wrote an article ironically juxtaposing the defense allegations of prosecutorial improprieties with AUSA Saunders’s appearance as a speaker on ethics at a “posh retreat” for defense attorneys in Aspen.


Above: The federal courthouse on Spring St. in downtown Los Angeles

In April 2007, Pellicano’s defense team renewed its formerly unsuccessful legal attack on the validity of the search warrant used to search Pellicano’s office. If the search warrant were ruled invalid, the case against Pellicano would collapse.

As Philips reported on April 13, 2007, Pellicano’s defense team argued that the FBI had lied in its affidavit in support of the search warrant. According to the defense, the FBI manufactured probable cause to search Pellicano’s office, because Pellicano allegedly had evidence damaging to the FBI — namely, a recording of an attempted bribe of an FBI agent. (The FBI had found the bribery allegation to be “baseless.”)

Philips wrote numerous stories attacking the credibility of Ornellas and the FBI search warrant in the Pellicano case. In June 2007, Philips wrote that the defense team was accusing Special Agent Ornellas of deliberately withholding information about the credibility of the government’s informant. Philips followed up on August 17, 2007 with a story in which Steven Seagal complained of “[f]alse FBI accusations” that had hurt his career. On October 9, 2007, Philips wrote another article suggesting that Special Agent Ornellas had misled the court in the affidavit supporting the search warrant.

On December 17, 2007, Philips published an article titled “Pellicano defense focusing on FBI agent.” The article laid out a comprehensive set of defense attacks on the search warrant, including several that disparaged the honesty and integrity of Special Agent Ornellas. The article purported to “balance” the attacks on Ornellas with quotes from people who had worked with Ornellas for years, who said he was an honorable man with a solid reputation for candor.

But as he was writing those supposedly objective stories, Philips was telling Alexander Proctor that he believed the government had deceived Pellicano, violated his rights, and illegally spied on him.

Go back to the main post by clicking here.

8/29/2008

Pellicano Convicted — Again

Filed under: Crime,General — Patterico @ 3:33 pm



The A.P. reports:

A federal jury convicted former Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano and entertainment lawyer Terry Christensen on Friday of charges linked to the wiretapping of billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian’s former wife in a child support battle.

No word yet on whether Chuck Philips attended the verdict without a pen or notebook — as he did the last time Pellicano was convicted of federal felonies.

8/18/2008

Pellicano: Sometimes Bloggers Just Need a Good Beating

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 1:12 pm



Private eye Paul Barresi, who worked with Anthony Pellicano, is interviewed by Fishbowl L.A. (FBLA). One of the topics: their shared, uh, disdain for bloggers:

FBLA: Did you [and Pellicano] share any of the same common beliefs or opinions?

BARRESI: Oh, yes, several.

FBLA: What’s the first that comes to mind?

BARRESI: Well, we both loath cyber stalkers. You know who I’m talking about. Those malicious psychopaths who take pleasure in harming others. They harass and attack people with mean spirited blog postings. They hide behind various screen names, being the cowards that they are. It gives them a false sense of safety, hiding in the shadows, like a frightened rat.

FBLA: Did you ever take action against any of them?

BARRESI: I remember one guy in particular. Tony [Pellicano] and me had a long conversation about him. Tony said he deserved a good beating. But in the end, he was dealt with the legal way — in the courts.

No wonder they were so fond of Pellicano over at the L.A. Times . . .

6/14/2008

Pellicano Victims Object to L.A. Times’s Reference to the “Cool Efficiency” of Pellicano’s Operations

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:14 am



When Rachel Abramowitz of the L.A. Times wrote of the “cool efficiency” of Anthony Pellicano’s operations, I said: “I have a feeling we haven’t heard the last of this.”

Today, the L.A. Times prints this letter from certain of Anthony Pellicano’s victims:

WE WERE among those targeted by Anthony Pellicano. We have read numerous stories during the coverage of this case in the Los Angeles Times that were slanted against the U.S. prosecutors and the FBI trying to put this man in prison, written by a reporter who admitted to having a long relationship to Pellicano as a news source.

Now, a story regarding Rob Lowe’s nanny accusations [“The Price of Celebrity Privacy,” by Rachel Abramowitz, June 4], asking, “Where is Anthony Pellicano when you need him?” A story that notes the private investigator’s “cool efficiency” in making problems go away.

That “cool efficiency” entailed bribes, illegally wiretapping phones, harassing family members — including an elderly mother who was blind and confined to a wheelchair — breaking into homes, slashing tires, leveling death threats, trying to run people off the road, using the press to smear victims and other “efficient” forms of domestic terrorism. Pellicano didn’t care if someone was right or wrong, he was paid to ruin lives . . . and that he did. And if it involved breaking the law, then so be it.

To those of us who were victimized by the “cool efficiency” of Mr. Pellicano and to our families who were likewise terrorized, the comments in your story were offensive and insensitive and represents a complete lack of understanding of what Pellicano did and why he was found guilty on 76 counts.

The FBI and U.S. attorney’s office spent six years going after Pellicano and his criminal enterprise. He and others were convicted, and Pellicano is now in prison where he belongs.

By publishing the line “Where is Anthony Pelicano when you need him?” the L.A. Times has sent a message that what Pellicano did was not only OK but preferable to fighting through the court system.

Anita M. Busch
Jude Green
Pamela Miller
Bernie Weinraub

Well said.

6/4/2008

L.A. Times Staff Writer on Pellicano: “There Could Be a Cool Efficiency to How He Operated”

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:03 pm



Rachel Abramowitz, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer:

[W]here’s Anthony Pellicano when you need him?

I’m not advocating for a return of the gumshoe, now convicted of 76 counts of racketeering and wiretapping, but he definitely had a well-defined spot in the Hollywood food chain — fixer, interlocutor between celebrities and the populace, the man to call when your one-night stand, your nanny, your personal assistant, your housekeeper, yoga instructor, chakra cleanser, what-have-you decides to sue for slights real and imagined. Or decides to sell your intimate secrets to Us magazine and the tabloids.

Obviously Pellicano was a bully, ready to smear the less powerful with impunity. But there could be a cool efficiency to how he operated. During his recent trial, out came testimony about a college student who was impregnated by a rich financial type. Pellicano arranged for her abortion, drove her to the clinic and handed her a $120,000 check when it was over.

Unpleasant, yes, but more unpleasant than a protracted lawsuit, where all the combatants end up covered in slime?

I’m not so sure.

“[T]here could be a cool efficiency to how he operated.”

Oh, my.

That certainly is a cavalier way to describe the actions of a man who wiretapped people, threatened them, and turned their lives upside down.

Lawsuits are no fun. But if Rachel Abramowitz isn’t sure about which is worse — resolving disputes in a courtroom according to the law, or being one of Anthony Pellicano’s victims — maybe Abramowitz should talk to Anita Busch, or Bo Zenga, or Garry Shandling, or any of Pellicano’s numerous other victims.

I have a feeling we haven’t heard the last of this.

5/17/2008

New Statement from Anita Busch on the Need for an Investigation of the L.A. Times’s Reporting on Pellicano

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 4:30 pm



Anita Busch has issued another statement regarding her call for an investigation of Chuck Philips’s reporting:

Everyone:

I wanted to thank you all sincerely for standing by and understanding my constraints in not being able to talk freely during the past six years as the Pellicano case was being investigated and then prosecuted. Following the guilty verdicts which were handed up this week, I have called for an independent investigation into the L.A. Times’ relationship to Anthony Pellicano and, more specifically, into Chuck Philips’ reporting of the Pellicano case.

I was a victim of crime, but I was also a longtime journalist. And there are basic journalistic questions that need to be examined:

1) What is the ethical question for any newspaper when a longtime news source turns out to be a criminal?

2) What is the best course of action when a source who is found to be a criminal has relationships with key people at the newspaper?

3) Specifically, why wouldn’t the L.A. Times lawyer Karlene Goller — who wanted Mr. Pellicano aboard to help investigate the threat against me — not immediately recuse herself or likewise be removed by the paper from anything having to do with Mr. Pellicano once he was arrested?

Chuck Philips said that this same lawyer urged him to call Pellicano after I was threatened. About a year later, she was directly involved with legal issues prior to my grand jury appearance — a grand jury investigating the very man she sought help from, Anthony Pellicano.

4) Why was reporter Chuck Philips — who had spoken openly about how friendly he was with Pellicano and admitted that Pellicano was his longtime news source — allowed to report story after story on the Pellicano case? In nearly every instance, his stories went against the FBI and the U.S. Attorney trying to prosecute his longtime news source.

5) What did Mr. Pellicano specifically do for the newspaper in the past?

These are just a few of the questions that should be answered about the paper’s relationship to Mr. Pellicano, and it appears the only way to proceed objectively would be for the Times to agree to an independent investigation. Pellicano had relationships inside the L.A. Times long before I got there in 2002; the relationships also pre-dated editor John Carroll’s and Dean Baquet’s time there.

In the same way that the L.A. Times needed to clear the air after the Staples Center controversy, I suggest that the paper hire a panel of outside ethicists, journalists and experts to investigate.

Pellicano and his clients used and abused the media to destroy their targets. Other victims know well of what I speak. Other journalists know, too. And journalists are the ones who must shine a light on this.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “Our lives begin to end the day we remain silent on things that matter.”

I was a journalist. And I know that journalism — and how it was used and abused by a bunch of criminals — very much matters.

Anita

As I said, there will be more to come on this site on this issue. Stay tuned.

And the paper doesn’t need to hire anyone to investigate. Some of us are willing to do it for free!

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. I have several other posts on this issue. Start here for more.

5/16/2008

Anita Busch Calls for Investigation of Chuck Philips’s Pellicano Reporting

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:11 am



Anita Busch, a former L.A. Times reporter who was allegedly threatened by Anthony Pellicano — has released the following statement regarding Pellicano’s conviction:

I’d like to thank the judge and jury for their patience and wisdom on this case as well as the honest people in law enforcement who stopped others from being relentlessly attacked and terrorized. For that, I am eternally grateful.

The full story of Pellicano’s reach has yet to be told. To Pellicano and his wealthy clients, ‘winning’ meant completely obliterating someone’s life and livelihood. They saw the media as just another weapon in their arsenal and used and abused it to go after anyone in their crosshairs. For example, they used their PR connection to plant items in the New York Post’s Page Six to slam victims like Bo Zenga and Garry Shandling. And when their targets became FBI agent Stan Ornellas and U.S. attorney Dan Saunders, they tried to smear and discredit these decent men in the pages of the L.A. Times. The Pellicano case coverage in the L.A. Times as reported by Chuck Philips (who told the NY Times that Pellicano was his longtime news source) should be examined. It’s a case study of how Pellicano worked his media relationships to try to destroy his adversaries.

I called Ms. Busch this evening and she elaborated on the Chuck Philips angle. She told me that when she received a dead fish, a rose, and a note that said “Stop” on her windshield — a threat for which Pellicano was later indicted — a lawyer at the L.A. Times suggested that the paper investigate the matter internally, with the help of . . . Anthony Pellicano. It turned out that the lawyer is married to an L.A. Times editor who, in June 2003, had a Christmas gift from Pellicano on his desk — according to an L.A. Times reporter who told Busch about it.

What’s more, she said, Chuck Philips, who has written articles attacking the government’s case against Pellicano (and who attended Pellicano’s wedding in an apparently friendly capacity) was present for the verdict today . . . seemingly without a pen or notebook.

Part of this story has been reported previously in the New York Times:

A day after [Busch] found the package, records show, a man with a criminal record called her out of the blue with information about the threat. A private investigator had hired someone else to blow up her car, he told her. As Ms. Busch and her colleagues met with F.B.I. and police officials to consider their next moves, the newspaper’s lawyer, Karlene Goller, spoke up with a suggestion.

Maybe Anthony Pellicano would know something about this, Ms. Goller said, according to two Times employees.

Ms. Busch insists that Ms. Goller talked of “bringing aboard” Mr. Pellicano.

Ms. Goller declined to comment, citing lawyer-client confidentiality. But Paul Lieberman, a reporter who heard the suggestion, said he saw nothing untoward in it. “He was someone that knew” the criminal element,” Mr. Lieberman said.

A reporter who had long experience with Mr. Pellicano as a news source, Chuck Philips, said he had tried to reach him at Ms. Goller’s urging and did not get through. But, he added, it was “preposterous” to think Ms. Goller would have proposed hiring him.

At this time, Mr. Pellicano was not suspected in the threat against Ms. Busch. But wrongly or rightly, the discussions left her convinced that the paper was too cozy with him.

Busch told me that when Goller made the suggestion to bring Pellicano aboard, Busch flinched. She was disturbed by the idea that the paper was considering “bringing aboard” a private investigator to help investigate the threat, when Busch had been told that a private investigator had hired someone to blow up Busch’s car. According to Busch, Goller said, in an apparent attempt to reassure Busch, “He [Pellicano] has worked with us in the past and he’s done really well by us.” Busch said then-editor John Carroll decided that the paper was not going to call in a private investigator and instructed Goller to call the LAPD and FBI. “He made the right decision,” said Busch.

When evidence later emerged connecting Pellicano to the threat, Busch told me, she became convinced that Pellicano had relationships inside the newspaper that were at odds with her position. “I came to realize that there was something amiss inside the L.A. Times with Anthony Pellicano, and it became prudent for me to find out what the hell was going on inside my newspaper.” So Busch decided to search L.A. Times archives to see who had written about Pellicano before, to learn who had the prior relationship with Pellicano. She noticed two names: Jim Newton and Chuck Philips. (Take a look at a similar search I did here.)

L.A. Times editor Jim Newton is married to Karlene Goller, the lawyer who had initially suggested bringing Pellicano on board to investigate the threat against Busch. Busch added a fascinating detail. In June 2003, Busch said, a metro reporter who is still working at the paper came to her and said that he thought there was a conflict in the room regarding Jim Newton and Pellicano stories. (Busch told me who the reporter is, but asked me not to name him because he still works at The Times.) Jim Newton had toured Pellicano’s office years ago, the reporter told Busch. “It’s getting really strange around here,” he told Busch. “There’s a feeling that [Newton] will do anything to protect his wife. Go look at [Newton’s] desk. There’s an old Christmas gift from Pellicano on his desk.” When Busch asked what kind of gift, the metro reporter told her it was a baseball from Pellicano. (A New Yorker story from July 2006 reported that Pellicano had once sent out baseball paperweights as Christmas gifts.)

“What’s happening?” Busch remembers thinking when the evidence emerged of Pellicano’s alleged ties to the threat against her. She recounted her distress at the feeling that “the man who threatened [me] has relationships at this newspaper.” She said that if anybody goes back and looks at the L.A. Times reporting on Pellicano’s case, they will notice a pro-Pellicano theme cropping up in story after story. “No other newspaper in the country questioned the veracity of the FBI or the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this case,” she said, but the L.A. Times did in several articles, often by Chuck Philips.

Regular readers of this blog will remember that Chuck Philips apparently has had a personal relationship of sorts with Anthony Pellicano. In June 2007 I wrote a post about a Chuck Philips article touting claims by the Pellicano defense team that “an FBI agent concealed information and then lied about it to convince a judge to let him search the Hollywood private eye’s office.” I cited to a Nikki Finke post from March of that year which noted that Philips had attended Pellicano’s wedding and was (according to Finke) “the ONLY journalist there not taking notes.” Finke also said: “Pellicano said hello only to two journalists there, Frank Swertlow and Chuck Phillips. In fact, Phillips and Pellicano saluted and smiled to each other.” Yet here was Philips, who seemed to have a personal relationship with Pellicano, reporting on his case and his arguments that the FBI had lied to the court. (Shades of Philips’s articles about Suge Knight.)

Busch told me an interesting fact that reminded me of the wedding story. Today, she said, Chuck Philips was present for Pellicano’s verdict. “I didn’t see him with a notebook or a pen,” Busch told me. She noted that Carla Hall was there to cover the verdict for the newspaper, and indeed, the story on the L.A. Times site right now about the verdicts is by Carla Hall and Tami Abdollah.

“The newspaper needs to look at every story that Chuck Philips has written about the Pellicano case,” Busch told me. “FBI agent Stan Ornellas, who had investigated Pellicano, was targeted in the pages of the L.A. Times, courtesy of Chuck Philips. And [Philips] also wrote a story directly questioning the ethics of [Assistant] U.S. Attorney Dan Saunders, who was responsible for prosecuting Pellicano.

“The L.A. Times needs to agree to an independent investigation of the newspaper’s coverage of any story involving Pellicano, and they should begin with the Pellicano case coverage. For the sake of journalism, I would openly cooperate with any independent investigation. I really hope they do the right thing.”

So do I.

UPDATE: I have forwarded the post to Jim Newton and Chuck Philips and invited them to respond. I think fairness dictates that they should have the chance to do so. I will gladly publish any response I receive (within reason).

UPDATE x2: Newton responds here.

UPDATE x3 12-15-08: Pellicano was sentenced today to 15 years in prison. Busch’s sentencing statement is set forth in its entirety here.

5/15/2008

Pellicano Convicted

Filed under: Crime — Patterico @ 5:44 pm



He was found guilty of 76 of 77 counts.

I received an interesting statement purporting to be from someone close to the case. I am working on confirming its authenticity.

UPDATE: Yup, it’s authentic. Read the statement — and much more — here.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2014 secs.