The intentional misapplication of VWPA instead of MVRA essentially deprived Citgo’s crime victims of the “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law” under the CVRA.
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A
U.S. v. Visinaiz, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1314 (D. Utah 2004):
This case focused on the issue of lost income awards in homicide cases under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and the possible effect of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), on the MVRA. The court also noted that the passage of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) reinforced its decision to award lost income, and that legislative history endorsed an “expansive definition of restitution.” Furthermore, the intention of the “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law” under the CVRA “means that existing restitution laws will be more effective.”
In re W.R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC, 409 F.3d 555, 558–64 (2d Cir. 2005)
This case seems to have been the first appellate decision involving an action brought under the CVRA. A group of victims filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, and demanded that a settlement agreement in a forfeiture action involving a large, complex securities fraud be vacated. The government entered into a proposed settlement agreement and set up a $715 million victim compensation fund. To participate in the fund, victims had to give up separate civil actions. Two groups of victims were against the proposed settlement in that the compensation fund would be inadequate and that their right to “full and timely restitution” under § 3771(a)(6) would be breached. Victims also argued that the government did not adequately consult with them before entering into the settlement agreement pursuant to § 3771(a)(5), and that they were not “treated with fairness,” under § 3771(a)(8).
Finding that in view of the complexity of the case and thousands of potential victims, the settlement was considered a reasonable compromise envisioned by § 3771(d)(2) to avoid “unduly complicat[ing] or prolong[ing] the proceedings,” the district court ruled for the settlement agreement.
The Appellate Court held that “a district court’s determination under the CVRA should be reviewed for abuse of discretion,” that the relevant law was the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, which specifically allows for less than full restitution in a case with so many victims as to “make restitution impracticable” and complex issues that could “complicate or prolong the sentencing process.”
The court also held that the CVRA requires the district court to provide victims with an opportunity to be heard concerning a proposed settlement agreement, and that it provided the victims with a full opportunity to do so in this case.
The court further held that “the district court in no way treated the victims unfairly or without ‘respect for [their] dignity and privacy,’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), but rather considered the factors of numerosity of victims, the uncertainty of recovery, and the prospect of unduly prolonging the sentencing proceedings, which Congress has required the court to consider when adopting the settlement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2), which provides in pertinent part: In a case where the court finds that the number of crime victims makes it impracticable to accord all of the crime victims the rights described in subsection (a), the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings.
The court finally denied the petition for mandamus.
Comparing the above two cases with Rainey’s $0 restitution in USA v. CITGO makes it clear that Rainey abused discretion, misused his judicial power, and deprived the 800+ crime victims of their “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law” under the CVRA. They could have been allowed for less than full restitution but not to the total denial of any restitution. Rainey misinterpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2); “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings” means he must fashion or think of a reasonable procedure to give the victims full and timely restitution that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings.” It does not give him the authority to strip the 800+ victims of the full restitution owed them by the criminal entity, i.e., CITGO.
* fashion = contrive = form or make (something) in a skillful or clever way = form or think of (a plan, method, etc.) See www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fashion.
In response to Section 3771(d)(2) of the CVRA, which provides that in cases involving a large number of victims, “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings,” the court noted “victims’ rights under the CVRA begin well before a conviction; thus, the status of ‘victim’ may be based on allegations rather than proof.” See U.S. v. Saltsman, No. 07-CR-641 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2007). This is a sensible, well-reasoned, well-thought-out answer to Section 3771(d)(2)’s requirement that “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure” in light of the lapse of time.
Restitution in the criminal arena refers to an affirmative performance by the defendant that benefits either the victim of the crime or the general public. If a victim can be identified, a judge will order the defendant to make restitution to the victim. See TheFreeDictionary. It would be tolerable if the restitution were less than full, but $0 restitution made to the crime victims is irrational, preposterous, off-the-wall!
In reviewing Rainey’s MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER of 4/30/2014, relevant case law, and statutes, I have found numerous flaws in his so-called OPINION, which was a cover your ass design to avoid taking real responsibility for his undue seven-year delay and unprecedented $0 restitution. Both are undoubtedly record-breaking in the history of litigation, be it western or eastern! He deserves to be listed in Guinness World Records for his ultimate record-breaking facts & achievements, albeit disgraceful, reprehensible, and impeachable.
“Much like restitution for medical expenses, the Court would be required to determine issues of fact related to exposure, proximate cause, potential alternative causes, and accurate computation of loss for each item described above, effectively turning each request for restitution into a separate tort case. Moreover, despite the Court’s request to at least identify the type of evidence upon which they would rely to show causation and proof of loss, neither the Government nor the victims making these restitution requests have identified what evidence they would offer to support these requests. The Court finds that the “complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution” for the miscellaneous restitution requests set forth above “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims,” and that the “magnitude of expected future harm can[not] be reasonably estimated.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(B)(ii); U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(b). Accordingly, the Government’s request for a trust fund to cover restitution requests made by victims other than the Community Members is DENIED.
“On February 5, 2014, the Court sentenced CITGO to a fine of $2,045,000.00—the maximum fine allowed by law—and further stated that because of the complex issues involved with restitution, the Court would issue a written decision on the issue of restitution within 90 days. That decision is set forth herein.” See 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al.
Rainey unreasonably demanded causation and proof of loss and ignored the mandatory duty that “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings,” that “the CITGO crime victims’ rights under the CVRA begin well before the June 27, 2007 conviction, i.e., between 1994 and 2003, that victims’ memories may have faded, evidence lost, people died, etc., and that “the status of ‘victim’ may be based on allegations rather than proof,” a reasonable procedure fashioned in U.S. v. Saltsman. Furthermore, postponing the issue of restitution for 90 days by issuing a written decision without reasonably hearing the victims in person violated CVRA. “The CVRA gives victims the right to speak directly to the judge at sentencing.” The phrase “to be reasonably heard” is ambiguous, but the legislative history “makes it clear that the CVRA created a right to be heard in person.” “The court concluded that a victim’s right to speak is mandatory, and is not subject to the discretion of the court unless such a large number of victims are involved that the court’s ability to function effectively would be threatened.” U.S. v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1343–45 (D. Utah 2005). When a large number of victims are involved, isn’t it reasonable to have some representatives exercise the right to be heard in person by attending the 4/30/2014 rendition of restitution order? Why shut them out completely to hide in the chambers? Shame, cowardice, guilt?
He acted in ways considered unethical and violated his obligations of impartial conduct as a judicial officer. His judicial misconduct includes “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts; using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for his favorite defendants, e.g., Citgo, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, among others. In 2008 some friends of mine, seeing Rainey’s undue delay and no service of process under 28 U.S.C. §1915(d), insisted on my subscribing to ancestry.com to investigate the relationship between the couple of fraud and the corrupt John Delay Rainey. I will certainly do so when I am ready to file a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS to request that the 5th Circuit compel him to vacate all the VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS rendered in my civil actions.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Paul Chen
* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them, wait awhile, and it will take you to 70+ images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?
MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments 