Jean E. Allan Sovik
(fka Jean E. Vorisek-Quinn)
March 20, 2013
Denis J. McInerney, Chief, Fraud Section (Open Letter)
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE:August 2009 Referal by United States Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General; and complaint JL300216673
Dear Chief McInerney:
We have now almost reached the four year mark for the above referenced August referral, and my family has had no relief, and by all accounts there is no relief in sight due to the fact that those whom we have complained about fall into the Too Big to Prosecute Category.
A quick reading of your web site tells US Citizens that:
"The Fraud Section (of which you are Chief) plays a unique and essential role in the Department's fight against sophisticated economic crime. The Section is a front-line litigating unit that acts as a rapid response team, investigating and prosecuting complex white collar crime cases throughout the country. The Section is uniquely qualified to act in that capacity based on its vast experience with sophisticated fraud schemes; its expertise in managing complex and multi-district litigation; and its ability to deploy resources effectively to address law enforcement priorities and respond to geographically shifting crime problems. These capabilities are an essential complement to the efforts of the United States Attorneys' Offices to combat white-collar crime. The Fraud Section also plays a critical role in the development of Department policy. The Section implements enforcement initiatives and advises the Department leadership on such matters as legislation, crime prevention, and public education. The Section frequently coordinates interagency and multi-district investigations and international enforcement efforts. The Section assists prosecutors, regulators, law enforcement and the private sector by providing training, advice and other assistance. The Section, often in a leadership capacity, participates in numerous national, regional and international working groups. To fulfill its mission, the Fraud Section seeks to build and enhance its most valuable resources by maximizing opportunities for its dedicated professionals. By providing direct supervision, training and mentoring for its attorneys and other professionals, the Section seeks effectively to develop the knowledge, skills and judgment required to fulfill its unique and important mission."
All the above rhetoric makes for a good policy statement that the rule of law exists on paper, but as my family and other citizens have found: not in practice.
Recently your boss Attorney General Holder has been quoted to say:
"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to the Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."
And, The Justice Department has come under fire in recent months for its light touch with banking giants. Matt Taibbi’s recent Rolling Stone feature, "Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail", lays it out in eviscerating detail — HSBC for years laundered money for drug traffickers and terrorist groups, only to receive a slight slap on the wrist from the Justice Department. Then one reads that even the Cayman Islands have begun to take action against HSBC and just today the Huffington Post is reporting that Argentina has begun its own investigation against HSBC. (SOURCE)
The issue of Big Banks and their relationship with the US Government is now the topic of much discussion. One example can be found in this SOURCE; "Big banks, big government and a great big mess".
The "Too Big to Prosecute" large financial institutions to include some well known corporations smacks of the US Government’s decision not to prosecute other well known organized crime mobsters such as Whitey Bulger who is making headline news today in "The Trial of Whitey Bulger" (SOURCE) among others.
Mr. Bulger’s claim is that he has been "To Big To Prosecute". He claims to have had effective immunity granted by the US Government. I fail to see the difference between Mr. Bulger’s claims and those above statements of US Attorney Holder. Clearly, the enforcement actions are contrary to the Statement Policy of the Fraud Division of which you are Chief.
However, there may be a glimmer of hope for my family and others who are similarly situated. Recently in the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 12-2488 IN RE JAMES J. BULGER, Petitioner [PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS to remove Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge], Justice Souter opined in the Decision based upon its review of the facts and the law of the matter that:
"These disclosures of record do not, of course, add up to showing that any federal officers promised the immunity the defendant claims (let alone that anyone had authority to do so). But they do tend to indicate that the Government and the defendant were not at arm’s length during all of the period in question, and that any evidence about the terms on which they dealt with each other could reflect on the United States Attorney’s Office as it was constituted in those days." ( NOTE: Associate Justice Souter implies in the ORDER that the ‘cozy’ relationship was in the past, not current.)
"The record likewise includes enough to justify a reasonable belief that the defense’s claim probably portends an enquiry into just those dealings. Given the institutional ties described here, the reasonable person might well question whether a judge who bore supervisory responsibility for prosecutorial activities during some of the time at issue could suppress his inevitable feelings and remain impartial when asked to determine how far to delve into the relationship between defendant and Government, and to preside over whatever enquiry may ultimately be conducted. On this record, that question could not reasonably be avoided."
"to act promptly to preclude any reasonable question whether untoward Government action in the past may affect the fairness of the judicial branch in the present." One could exchange the term ‘judicial branch’ and for ‘executive branch’ in my family’s complaints. Clearly, the named parties include both the "Too Big to Prosecute" mobsters and very important financial institutions and persons. As I have analyzed in NO WITNESS = NO CASE that is currently posted on nhjustice.net, USC Title 18, otherwise known as the RICO ACT, would appear to apply to all of those whom we have complained.
Please know that my sanity is ‘rock solid’. I am not a ‘nutter’, if anything my family’s experiences of managed misfortunes were just the tip of the spear. We clearly pray that the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division implement its public policy ‘promptly’ with respect to my family’s complaints (for example my 10/30/2006 LETTER to OIG IG Fine). As always I will be available at your convenience to be debriefed. I can be contacted via email to set up an appointment where I currently am staying.
Jean E. Allan Sovik, fka Jean E. Vorisek-Quinn