FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: The Prosecutor, the Feds, the Mob and Aladdin Casino
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

A Federal District Judge Harry Claiborne got caught up in corruption allegations and the pro casino folks in Vegas began the battle against what they called "federal encroachment".

However, when the Aladdin case went down and the casino was closed, I was immediately suspicious that a sitting federal judge would call demanding it be reopened within three hours all the while spouting about his special powers as a federal judge.

I personally think the FBI agent in charge, Joseph (King of the Sting) Yoblanski, was right in his case against the judge. But the case involved a Nevada brothel owner of he Mustang Ranch, Joseph Comforte, who was proven to have perjured himself in the dates he allegedly bribed the Judge. Comforte had his own tax evasion case when he fled the country for nearly three years. In December of 1980, before he fled, he had contacted the federal prosecutor to be a federal witness against those he allegedly bribed.


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:53 am; edited 2 times in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:27 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Among the Judge's biggest defenders was the 74 year old publisher of the Las vegas Sun newspaper who used the paper to attack Yablansky. Acording to Greenspun, Yoblansky and the FBI fabricated the case against the Judge because they resented Judge Claiborne's criticism of the entrance of the federal agents into Nevada to investigate organized crime. The news rang with characterization of Yoblansky as "paranoic" and the investigation as criminally wrong.

Yablonsky, who got his nickname for developing FBI investigative and sting tactics used by the agency, had been in charge of Las Vegas since January 1980. He turned the mandatory retirement age and retired in December of 1983, but not before he made his share of both friends and foes.

An editorial in the Valley Times covering NW Las Vegas asked if the "Lynch Mob" would get joe Yablonsky. Another editorial, the Las vegas Review on October 9th was also pro Yablonsky:
"Its one more chapter in the las vegas Sun's relentless effort to try and humiliate Yablonsky, Nevada FBI and other federal operations in Nevada, particularly the IRS. Whatever his mistakes, the FBI Chief has produced an impressive, some say outstanding record of rooting out crime and getting indictments against the perpetrators."


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:36 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Greenspun used his influence to convince his sources to help him obtain some IRS files of negotiations by Comforte to be used against Claiborne . Greenspun then took these files to Washington where he was informed his allegations could not be substantiated.

The New York Times wrote stories about the so called "rift" in Las Vegas caused by the investigation into the Judge's actions. In question was just what was the proper role of federal agents when it came to controlling crime in Las vegas. The detractors viewed the federal involvement as a concerted effort by the Justice Department to destroy Las vegas. The Judge was viewed as a roadblock by the feds in their ongoing investigations of organized crime.
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:07 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

An October 27, 1982 "special" to the New York Times by Wallace Turner, raised the issues and discussed what might have been the subject of the Grand Jury looking into the actions of the Judge.

Wallace cited three of the Judge's rulings that had raised the suspicions of the lawyers from the Washington Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department:

1) The Judge directed the acquittal of Ben Schmontey, the Secretary-Treasury of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Las Vegas. The accusations were that Schmontey used union funds to pay for the firebombing of Nevada restaurants.

2) The Judge directed the acquittal of Hilton Hotel executive Henry Lewan and a San Francisco Teamster official from San Francisco , Rudy Tham.

They allegedly violated the federal statute that forbid rom employees to the union officials that represent the employees. Tham received numerous comps for rooms, drinks and food.

The Judge reasoned that Tham was comped everywhere he went because he gambled with a lot of money and not because he was a union official.

Note: Tham was later convicted in a San Francisco Federal COurt for embezzling union funds to entertain Jimmy Fralianno, a "self described mafia killer".

3) the Judge acquited Richard Hanna, a change counter at the Fremont Hotel Casino who was accused of evadng $1,100 in taxes as part of the sting "Operation Yobo".
" There is something wrong with a system that creates criminal offenses", reasoned Claiborne. 'I don't approve of any law agency going out to test your breaking point as to your honesty".


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:59 am; edited 2 times in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:35 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Yablonsky was controversial. In a 1996 interview by the Electric Nevada, Yablonsky leveed strong criticism against Greenspun.

"Greenspun used his paper as an extortion device." said Yablonsky. Yablonsky went on to say that if anyone crossed Greenspun they were dead and he would get you "un-elected". "He thought he was the feudal lord of Las Vegas", vented Yablonsky.

Operation Yobo ran for 18 months. There were payoffs to five and all were convicted:
1) the powerful State senator Frank Lamb*
2) State Senator Eugene V. Echols
3) Clark County Commissioner Woodrow Wilson
4) Clark County Commissioner Jack Petitti
5) Reno Councilman McClellan

* Lamb was the head of the State's Senate Finance Control over the State Employee Pension Fund. The undercover agents posed as investors wanting money to buy a casino. Lamb asked for 1% as a finder's fee.

Before becoming a judge Claiorne represented mobster "Buggsy"Siegel, Frank (Lefty) Rosenthal, Giuseppe (Joe) Comforte (Mustang Ranch), and Benny Binion (Horseshoe casino.


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:50 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

When discussing Greenspun, Yablonsky commented that his pursuing the Claiborne case brought the "wrath of God on me as Greenspun and others tried to kill the case. He noted the Judge was best friends with convicted murderer Benny Binion.

The US Senate had balked at President Carter's appointment of Claiborne because of his.questionable ties. A successful defense lawyer, Claiborne had represented organized rime figures.

Claiborne was tried twice and convicted the second time on income tax evasion. He was the second federal judge to be sent to prison. He refused to resign, collected his pay, and planned to return to the bench when his sentence was completed. The only way to remove him was to have the Senate impeach him and they did. He continued to work as a defense attorney.


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:01 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Prosecutor Leonard could have come under suspicion prior to supporting James Tamer in his bid to expunge his robbery conviction. Leonard bragged that he did not support cases against black gamblers because the authorities did not go after places like the Warwick Hill Golf Club and other prestigious clubs where wealthier whites gambled.

He also openly admitted quashing some cases, passing them on to other neighboring prosecutors . According to Leonard the prosecutors would often do "favors" for one another on cases that were political hot button issues.
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:18 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

print - The Flint Voice
mivoice.flightpathcreative.com/pdfs/issue-53-3.pdf
By Michael Moore. Bob Leonard is on his ... Leonard, Genesee County prosecutor from 1964 to 1979 ... The ſo!owing interview is the only one Leonard agreed to ...
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:21 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Michael Moore conducted the only interview of Robert Leonard prior to his incarceration in the federal prison in Marion, Illinois. Prosecutor between 1964 until his conviction on November 1979 for the embezzlement of $39,000 in federal funds and transporting it across state line for personal use. The case was appealed up to the Supreme Court.

Leonard was adamant in the interview that he did not steal the $100,000 to $600,000 that may have been unaccounted for as there were poor records. According to Leonard, he was only guilty of poor bookkeeping . He alleged he was encouraged by the County Board to protect the identities of the informants he used in prosecuting cases.

He discussed his mother and how he felt the feds were overanxious. he insisted she had saved the money for her small Florida condo over years and the money did not come from him.

In terms of the missing money he stated he gave his sister $30,000 and she gave him a note to pay back at 9% interest. She paid the money back early and did so prior to the federal investigation, he said. Leonard stated he never said the money was federal funds. He said he had received $50,000 from the County Board of Commissioners for a specific investigation. He had inquired twice from the county auditor if he could invest the money, but after 4 months he had no response. That could have been the money he lent or it could have been from his campaign fund.

(It seems odd that he is unaware of the money source)


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:04 am; edited 2 times in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:50 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Michael Moore- "It doesn't make sense that an elected official could take any government funds, even for the purpose of a loan."

Leonard alleged he never tried to hide the loan. The bank knew the returned money went to the criminal investigation fund and his investigators knew about the $50,000.
The federal government couldn't prove the money was stolen and the IRS was trying to charge income tax on the money from the fund. Leonard claimed he couldn't take the stand because he could have been forced to name informants and that might have gotten them killed.

He believed the Journal was out to get him, especially a writer from the Journal named Elizabeth Cummins. "she is married to Max Dean, said leonard, and he is a leading force with Nancy Gadola to bring a civil action against me. She writes about me and tries to influence the reader and her husband is Gadola'a lawyer.

Leonard insisted the Journal and the Detroit News felt he ws a threat to people in the organizations they were concerned with. They like to be with the establishment people , he said, and they want to please them..


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:23 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Leonard said he missed being prosecutor because when you're there you don't realize what power is, but when you don't have power you realize what power is. He said he didn't miss Democratic Party politics. "On the whole there are so many prostitutes in politics. They are all looking out for their own interests and how it's going to help them or hurt them, not whether the issue is good or bad . "
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:39 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
This was a lengthy discussion by the Court.

70

Abraham and Monazym assign error because the trial court held certain in camera proceedings to which they were not admitted. Abraham and Tamer assign error in the admission of evidence of tape recorded conversations and documents tending to prove that Goldfarb and Tamer used their influence with Leonard, the Prosecuting Attorney of Genesee County in local court proceedings which Tamer believed would assist him in securing a license in Nevada.
71

A special Grand Jury sought to return an indictment against Mr. Leonard which was not signed by the United States Attorney. Chief Judge Kennedy who conducted the in camera proceeding, wrote an opinion ordering the files sealed. The trial judge ordered that the defendants who had not participated in the in camera proceedings be given access to them.
72

The government had issued a subpoena for the testimony of Mr. Leonard but obtained a stipulation from all defense counsel which obviated the necessity for its production.
73

We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge nor any prejudice to Abraham and Monazym (See Opinion Denying Post Trial Motions, (App. 456)), nor was there any abuse of discretion in denying the motions for a severance or Tamer's motion to suppress evidence.

VIII


How is it the case on Leonard went to the Grand jury and they wanted to indict, but the US Attorney didn't sign. Isn't that why the feds go to the Grand Jury? Was there a proffer?

The Judge who allowed Leonard to do an in camera proceedings was Chief Judge of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Cornelia Graefsema Kennedy. Her initial appointment was by Nixon, but her Supreme Court appointment was by Carter.

How long are these proceedings sealed?
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:24 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

PEOPLE v. FLINT MUNICIPAL JUDGE | 41 Mich. App. 766 (1972 ...
www.leagle.com/decision/.../PEOPLE%20v.%20FLINT%20MUNICIPAL%20JUDGE
After a lengthy preliminary examination before defendant Judge Thomas C. Yeotis, the prosecuting attorney asked that Joseph Giacalone, Caesar Montevecchio ...
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:41 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

PEOPLE v. FLINT MUNICIPAL JUDGE


Docket No. 10538.
41 Mich. App. 766 (1972)

201 N.W.2d 111

PEOPLE v. FLINT MUNICIPAL JUDGE.

Michigan Court of Appeals.

Decided July 24, 1972.

View Case Cited Cases Citing Case
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Paul G. Miller, Jr., Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Ivan E. Barris, for intervenor defendant.

Before: LESINSKI, C.J., and BRONSON and TARGONSKI, JJ.

LESINSKI, C.J.

The intervenor defendant, Joseph Cusenza, was charged on November 6, 1967, with having conspired in Flint, Michigan from August 28 through November 6, 1967, with Loren Jolly,
[41 Mich. App. 768]
Joseph Giacalone, Neil Breckenridge, Charles Kinsman, John Juarez, a/k/a Chino, and Caesar Montevecchio, a/k/a Chuck, to kill and murder Charles Thomas. MCLA 750.316; 750.505; MSA 28.548, 28.773.

After a lengthy preliminary examination before defendant Judge Thomas C. Yeotis, the prosecuting attorney asked that Joseph Giacalone, Caesar Montevecchio, Joseph Cusenza, and Loren Jolly be bound over to circuit court for trial. The people moved that the case against Neil Breckenridge, Charles Kinsman and John Juarez be dismissed but asked that Charles Kinsman be bound over as a coconspirator although not a codefendant. The motion to dismiss the charge against Neil Breckenridge and Charles Kinsman was based in part on their cooperation with the police and the prosecuting attorney.

On March 7, 1968, Judge Yeotis rendered his opinion in which he bound over for trial Jolly, Giacalone, and Montevecchio as codefendants and Kinsman as a coconspirator. The court held that Cusenza, Breckenridge, and Juarez would not be bound over because they could not be connected with the conspiracy.

The people unsuccessfully sought an original writ of superintending control in this Court directing Judge Yeotis to find probable cause as to Cusenza and to bind him over for trial in circuit court. It was held that the complaint should have been directed initially to the circuit court. People v Flint Municipal Judge, 383 Mich. 429 (1970).

The people then started over again with their writ for superintending control in the Circuit Court for Genesee County. On August 10, 1970, Judge Papp held that Judge Yeotis had failed to perform his legal duty in not weighing all the
[41 Mich. App. 769]
evidence presented, and thus clearly abused his discretion in not binding over Cusenza for trial. She remanded the case back to the magistrate with instructions that he perform his legal duty and bind over Cusenza for trial.

On September 14, 1970, a hearing on Cusenza's motion for rehearing was held. It was defense counsel's position that the recent case People v Paille #2, 383 Mich. 621, 627 (1970), required a reversal of Judge Papp's decision of August 10, 1970. In that case the Court wrote:

"In determining whether the crime of conspiracy had been committed, the magistrate had not only the right but, also, the duty to pass judgment not only on the weight and competency of the evidence, but also the credibility of the witnesses."

The motion for rehearing was denied, and Cusenza appealed to this Court which on December 18, 1970, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing 1968 PA 116 and GCR 1963, 806.2(4).

On March 10, 1971, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and by order remanded to this Court as upon leave granted. 384 Mich. 815.

The sole issue is did the circuit court err in holding that the examining magistrate had abused his discretion in finding no probable cause that the intervenor defendant was guilty of conspiracy to murder?

Under the statute, MCLA 766.13; MSA 28.931, the magistrate at the preliminary examination must determine that the offense charged has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is guilty. The matter of "probable cause" has reference to the connection of the defendant with the alleged offense rather
[41 Mich. App. 770]
than to the corpus delicti. Something more than a finding of probable cause is required insofar as the commission of the crime charged is concerned. People v Asta, 337 Mich. 590 (1953).

In the present case, Judge Yeotis determined that there was a conspiracy to murder Charles Thomas, but that there was not probable cause to believe that Joseph Cusenza was a coconspirator. Judge Papp disagreed.

The Michigan Supreme Court said in People v Dellabonda, 265 Mich. 486, 490-491 (1933):

"1. To authorize the examining magistrate to bind appellant over for trial there must have been good reason to believe appellant guilty of the crime charged. Some cases hold a prima facie case against the accused must be made out. This court has not defined what constitutes probable cause, leaving each case to be determined upon its facts. Bouvier defines probable cause as, `A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that a person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.' 3 Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Rawle's 3d Rev.), p. 2728.

* * *

"Primarily the question of probable cause is for the consideration of and determination by the examining magistrate. This court may not agree with the findings of such magistrate but it has no right to substitute its judgment for his except in case of a clear abuse of discretion."

A circuit court is no more at liberty than is this Court or the Supreme Court to substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate. We do not weigh the evidence to determine the facts, but we do examine it to determine whether it justifies the action of the circuit court in holding that the magistrate was guilty of an abuse of discretion.
[41 Mich. App. 771]
People v Karcher, 322 Mich. 158 (1948). The circuit judge's conclusion that the magistrate did not weigh all the evidence and that this was a clear abuse of discretion is not supported by the record.

Examination of the transcript shows a conspiracy to murder Charles Thomas, a paid police informer. The conspiracy apparently developed when Joseph Giacalone learned that Thomas was informing, and he made plans with Charles Kinsman to kill Thomas. Giacalone arranged to sell Thomas some counterfeit money at the Avalon Motel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Giacalone and Kinsman then flew to Pennsylvania where they met Caesar Montevecchio and Loren Jolly. The four went to the Sheridan Hotel in Pittsburgh and the details of the conspiracy to kill Thomas were discussed. Kinsman who had been selected to do the shooting decided to withdraw from the conspiracy and to return to Michigan. Jolly was then substituted as the triggerman. Thomas survived the attempt on his life and identified Jolly as his would-be assassin.

Judge Yeotis in his opinion placed major reliance on the lack of motive for Cusenza to conspire to murder Thomas. The Judge also took special note of the fact that Charles Kinsman, an admitted coconspirator, testified that although he was deeply involved in the conspiracy he had no personal knowledge of Cusenza's being a part of it. The transcript does show that Joseph Cusenza's bar and restaurant called Nino's was a hangout of the alleged coconspirators, and that Cusenza was a trusted confidant of them. However, the fact that Cusenza appears to have been aware of some of the nefarious activities of the alleged coconspirators does not mandate a finding of probable cause that he conspired with them to do murder.

[41 Mich. App. 772]
It was Judge Yeotis' right and duty to pass judgment on the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight and competency of the evidence. Consideration of the testimony presented at the preliminary examination has not revealed a clear abuse of discretion. Therefore, his findings must stand. People v Paille #2, supra.

The order of superintending control issued by the circuit court shall be set aside and the order of dismissal by the magistrate shall be reinstated.

All concurred.
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:45 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

This story of this robbery and burglary ring captured Flint headlines for months, especially when Thomas was able to testify after being shot in the head twice.

This case raised questions of why Leonard was allowed to take an undercover operation out of the state and asked whether this group was part of an organized crime group.

It also resulted in attempts to murder the prosecutor and witnesses.
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:52 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >