Ronald Ottaviano

[Parvati]

Jury began deliberations on Friday afternoon and are still at it today (Monday, 20 June).

[Famspear]

This comment is a bit "peripheral" at this point, but I recall that one of Peter Hendrickson's followers, airline pilot Lochland Jeffries (who used to post as "Fly2eat" at losthorizons dot com), had once enlisted the "help" of Ottaviano in Jeffries' litigation with his employer, Continental Airlines, over Continental's nasty habit of (shudder...) withholding federal income taxes from Jeffries' paychecks (gasp!).

Here is an excerpt from the U.S. District Court opinion in Jeffries v. Continental Airlines:

......Despite that he [Jeffries] had known for over a year that the IRS specifically directed Continental to continue to withhold taxes from his paychecks, and despite Phillips' [Margaret Phillips, a senior attorney for Continental Airlines] letter and her forwarding of the IRS publication, plaintiff persisted, and his efforts crossed over into harassment. Plaintiff enlisted the "Mid-Atlantic Trustees and Administrators" and its president, Ronald Ottaviano, to continue his protests. (Id. at 2-3.) Mr. Ottaviano's letter lectured Phillips on his beliefs about tax law and "supported" his arguments with dubious legal authority. Mr. Ottaviano also threatened Phillips with a malpractice lawsuit and threatened Continental with a civil claim. (Id. at 3.) Mr. Ottaviano, plaintiff's agent, continued to harass defendants with another insulting letter a month later, which varied its insults but repeated the same frivolous legal positions. (Id.)

Mr. Ottaviano's letters did not dignify a reply from defendants [Continental Airlines]....

... as reproduced from this thread (see the post by LPC), from nearly three years ago:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2891&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0

Sounds like Mr. Ottaviano is another dime-a-dozen variety, arrogant, know-nothing blowhard.

[Prof]

Great story; tell us more, particularly about the trial. And, your honesty, willingness to quit, willingness to go to the authorities, to testify, all at the least some significant inconvenience is to by applauded.

[Parvati]

Just heard the news myself, as my "sainted relation" just called to tell me the verdict. The sentencing is set for October 12th. Ron O. was (to the best of my knowledge) taken into custody because he threw such a raging fit after the verdict was read that the judge had him removed.

Unsurprisingly, his testimony in his own defense was what screwed him. (Well, that, and the prosecutors introduction of some taped conversations between Ron O. and his wife (Harriet). One such conversation was apparently the clincher.)

More later.

[Parvati]

I've remained silent so long{...}

@Pangea:

Join the club. I didn't reply to you before for essentially the same reasons you're holding back now. Also, it wouldn't have been good if it looked like you and my relative had (even possibly) been "in cohoots," or whatnot.

I'll pop you a PM now that the trial is over and we'll see if you've met the family.

[Parvati]

Despite the jury's Guilty verdict, Ottaviano has filed a "letter in lieu of a more formal submission in Motion for Mistrial on the grounds of Obstruction of justice by the government." Read it here.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Despite the jury's Guilty verdict, Ottaviano has filed a "letter in lieu of a more formal submission in Motion for Mistrial on the grounds of Obstruction of justice by the government." Read it here.

IMHO he's a little late, but I have to say that any behavior on the part of prosecutors to pressure defense witnesses is a minefield even a rookie prosecutor should not go dashing into.

Remember the Broadcom fiasco, where the case against three executives in an options back-dating trial were tossed because of prosecutorial misconduct in intimidating defense witnesses? (US v. WILLIAM J. RUEHLE - CA Central district, Southern Division, 2009).

Of course, in that situation, the defendants were well represented as opposed to watching a nut-ball defend the defenseless in the Ottaviano matter, but one has to wonder what these alleged witnesses were actually prepared to testify to and what, if anything, they were told.

[wserra]

one has to wonder what these alleged witnesses were actually prepared to testify to and what, if anything, they were told.

One also has to question the context in which Ottaviano et al found out about this. Anybody think it might resemble the following?

Ottaviano: Hey, asshole, why didn't'cha testify like we agreed?

Not completely brain-dead witness: Ah, Ronnie, man, I really wanted to. You know I'd do anything for you. But I used your shit too --- I mean, these government goons threatened me, man. (Yeah, that's it.) Fuhgeddaboudit. I gotta think of my family.

[notorial dissent]

And gee, I'll bet that somewhere along the way, mention of perjury charges and what they could mean for those "defense" witnesses might just have come up, and I will equally be willing to bet Ronny baby would certainly take that as "threatening" his witnesses, which I would think is a more likely scenario considering everything else we have seen from Ronny over the last few months.

Somehow, with all they had on these guys, I just can't see them needing to "threaten" anyone other than to remind them that just because they hadn't been charged didn't mean they didn't know what they had been up to and that straying even the teensieest bit from the truth might just not be in their best interests, despite what Ron had promised them or they felt they owed him. That I can see happening, and I can certainly see Ronny taking that as a threat against "his" witnesses, particularly since Ronny's take on the truth, is shall we say a bit skewed, if not downright tenuous at the best of times.

What surprises me is that he hasn't gotten around to filing a complaint that the prosecution prejudiced the jury against him by telling the truth about him, now that I really expected.

[Parvati]

What surprises me is that he hasn't gotten around to filing a complaint that the prosecution prejudiced the jury against him by telling the truth about him, now that I really expected.

Well, he does plan to sue everyone who testified against him. (Can he even *do* that? Hell, nobody in their right mind would ever testify against *anyone* if that person could then turn around and sue them.)

[Parvati]

FWIW, Frank Marcone (one of the witnesses Ottaviano mentions in his filing) is an attorney from Philly, and he has been mentioned here in connection with Ottaviano before (around the third-from-last comment mark): viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5409&p=86540&hilit=marcone#p86540

Marcone is, arguably, not a particularly stand-up guy. One has to wonder about the other individuals that the gov't supposedly approached.

[Pangea]

Well, he does plan to sue everyone who testified against him. (Can he even *do* that? Hell, nobody in their right mind would ever testify against *anyone* if that person could then turn around and sue them.)

Uhhh, what?

[Parvati]

Well, he does plan to sue everyone who testified against him. (Can he even *do* that? Hell, nobody in their right mind would ever testify against *anyone* if that person could then turn around and sue them.)

Uhhh, what?

Could have just been blowing smoke, I suppose--and god knows he's good at it--but he is a litigious little SOB. As I said, I don't even know if it's possible. I suppose, if he can get the mistrial thing pushed through, he *might* be able to sue the people who testified against him if he tries to prove that they lied under oath, or something, but I really have NO idea how that would work.

[LPC]

Well, he does plan to sue everyone who testified against him. (Can he even *do* that? Hell, nobody in their right mind would ever testify against *anyone* if that person could then turn around and sue them.)

There is a qualified immunity that applies to court proceedings, and I believe it would apply to testimony by a witness.

In other words, my understanding of the law is that you can't sue a witness unless you can prove that, not only did the witness deliberately and intentionally commit perjury, but the witness had a specific reason to commit perjury.

(I'm probably wrong about my description of the legal standard, but probably right in my belief that it is very, very, very difficult to sue a witness who has testified against you in a criminal trial. The remedy for false testimony is effective cross-examination, not a later civil suit.)

[notorial dissent]

I'll have to go with LPC on this one, legally I don't think he can actually sue any of the witnesses unless he could prove they lied, and even then I'm not sure. It has always been my understanding that what was said in a court was pretty much beyond action fact or not, with the exception of perjury, and that is left to the state to deal with.

I would have to defer to Wes' expertise on this one.

That Ronny would attempt or threaten to sue, that I wouldn't doubt for a second, and that would have been my next comment after the bit about the prosecution prejudicing the jury. From what I have seen, there is very little that he might do that would really surprise me, with the possible, although very improbable, exception of actually telling the truth.

[Thule]

I quit on the spot and called law enforcement the next day. A week later, I sat with Special Agents with the Dept. of Treasury and watched as they looked at each other in amazement while they listened to me for hours (particularly during the "server in the attic" story). I gave them everything, stories, details, names, dates, meetings, documents, emails.

Outstanding! You should be proud. So many scams could have been stopped if more people refused to play along with the scammers.

[wserra]

It's not that a witness has any sort of immunity from suit (a prosecutor does, but that's a different story). It's just that lying alone isn't enough, even were there proof of lying.

The closest tort is called "malicious prosecution". Essentially, the cause of action is for causing a prosecution to be brought without probable cause, and in doing so acting with personal ill will (malice). There are all sorts of reasons why it would be all but impossible for Ronnie et al to win such a suit. First of all, it is likely that somewhere along the line there was a judicial finding of probable cause, usually at a pretrial hearing; such a finding is res judicata, end of story. Even in the absence of a judicial finding, the fact that a grand jury returned an indictment raises a presumption that probable cause existed, one that is very difficult to overcome (pretty much must show that the indictment was based on knowingly false testimony). And then there is the fact that he was convicted . . .

DMVP would have a better chance of collecting his $20M.

[Nikki]

WSERRA makes an excellent, although subtle, distinction.

... There are all sorts of reasons why it would be all but impossible for Ronnie et al to win such a suit. ...

In general (as evidenced by MANY of the total wackerdoodle cases which have been reported here) anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything. All it takes is filling out some papers, paying a filing fee, and effecting service on the proper people.

That's not to say such suits are often dismissed out of hand for any number of legitimate reasons --- BUT some form of answer must be filed and an appropriate defense must be mounted.

These actions often cost the defendant non-trivial amounts of both time and money. Although counter-suits for damages due to {insert appropriate reason} can be initiated, probably the best result would be dismissal with prejudice and barring the litigant from any additional actions absent leave of the Court.

As to compensation for time, legal fees, etc -- blood from turnips ???

[Parvati]

Ottaviano's latest filing is some kind of objection to the Tax Evasion charge, and a request that the judge re-instruct the jury regarding the requirements for that particular charge. Or something like that. (You've seen his previous motions and other written communications.)

While it seems like too-little-too-late, that doesn't seem to stop Ottaviano.

[Judge Roy Bean]

What Ottaviano seems unable to understand is the trial is over; the course is now through the appeals process, not ex parte letters to the Judge.