Talk:Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Magluta and Falcon

I'm not sure the Magluta and Falcon case is appropriate for this "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" article, since the two defendants were acquitted in their 1996 trial on the CCE charges. Both defendants were later convicted in other cases. The sentences of imprisonment referenced in this article were imposed for their convictions in a case that charged a number of non-CCE offenses, including obstruction-of-justice charges relating to alleged jury tampering in their CCE acquittal. Ken Kukec

Yes, I am aware of this. I stay in contact with Magluta via letters. His sentence is actually for money laundering; and it is the most ridiculous sentence I've ever seen. Unfortunately in the federal courts he got the worst judge in the Southern District of Florida. She determined he WAS responsible for having witnesses killed and drug trafficking, despite his acquittal. So, she not only sentenced him for his conviction of money laundering, but what he WOULD have gotten for the other charges. It's a total miscarriage of justice. It's also worth mentioning though, and this is my argument for keeping both of them up, that Magluta bribed numerous jurors. In fact, it holds the record I believe for most prosecutions of jurors for corruption in a single trial. Now, I'm not saying I believe this is evidence of guilt, but I think there is ample evidence to show they WERE involved in the trade. However, I think maybe I/we should add something to the article stating some of this (his acquittal, etc).jlcoving (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually represented Willy in this case, which may make me a little too close to the case to do the actual editing. (I was also part of the legal team for Willy on the CCE case, since I was an associate with Albert Krieger's office back then.) In the last case we were able to get Willy's trial severed from Sal's, which is one of the main reasons why we were able to resolve his case on much more favorable terms. I certainly think the "Willy and Sal" case merits discussion on Wikipedia; I added the comment above only because their mention here, in the CCE article, didn't make it clear that they were never convicted on the CCE charge. I agree that it would be a good idea to add that information.--Ken Kukec (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, really? Yeah I would definitely like to talk to you then in regards to their case(s). As I said, I write to Sal in Florence High (thank God he atleast isn't having to do the 200+ years in Florence ADX), but he never has really seemed willing to want to talk about his case and the circumstances that brought him there, which is understandable. I last wrote to him months ago and at that time he was waiting for word on a 2255 motion that was due sometime in April I believe. He seems more willing to talk about powerboat racing than anything else. Anyways, getting off track here -- if you have any relevant documentation from their CCE case I'd love to have it. I'd pay you if need be for copying or whatever. I called the court reporter for the case a while back to see about getting the trial transcript, but if I recall correctly, even with him willing to reduce his copying fee to something way less than normal, it was around $4,000+ to get the trial transcript. Obviously I'm not asking for that, but if you got any relevant docs, as I said feel free to email them to me jlcoving (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Cases

A case that might merit discussion in this section of the article is United States v. Kramer and Lanier, see995 F.2d 479 (7th Cir. 1992), involving former Indianapolis 500 rookie-of-the-year Randy Lanier and former United States and World power-boat racing champion Ben Kramer (who was later charged in the gang-land style murder of Cigarette-boat founder, world-racing champion, and George H.W. Bush crony, Don Aronow). The Kramer and Lanier case involved the largest marijuana-smuggling venture on record, and appears to be the only case where marijuana alone served as the basis for the (at the time newly-enacted) "super kingpin" section of the CCE statute, which requires a mandatory term of life imprisonment, no parole. That is to say, once the defendants were found guilty of the marijuana charge against them, they had to be sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of release; the law allowed no consideration of a lesser sentence.Ken Kukec (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another powerboat racer (Magluta and Falcon were top powerboat racers also), gee I wonder why smugglers are drawn to the sport (rhetorical). Anyways, I agree with this addition, I've heard of the case and am vaguely familiar with it. If you want to add them feel free. I'll start doing some research for documents when I have time if you haven't done it before then.jlcoving (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I represent Ben Kramer, too. (Ben is also a former client of Albert Krieger's from when I worked in his office.) Since I've represented Ben for 22 years -- from his CCE case, through his money-laundering and attempted-escape case, up through the Aronow murder case, including a currently-pending motion to set aside that conviction -- I may too close to the matter to write that part of the article, though I'd be glad to discuss it and help provide the needed links and references, if you or another editor want to take a crack at writing it.--Ken Kukec (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Continuing Criminal Enterprise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121071905/http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/handbook/cases/US_v_Edmond.pdf to http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/handbook/cases/US_v_Edmond.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]