 |
| Dan M. Russell Jr. United States Courthouse in Gulfport, Mississippi My courtroom was on the 7th floor |
I have
and a few feet below sea level in scuba gear
Nigerian men and women ran an operation based in South Africa which was first noticed and reported by a Mississippi woman who was the victim of one of their a romance scams. As Special Agents dug deeper, they uncovered hundreds of victims associated with a wide network of numerous complex financial internet fraud schemes.
These schemes included: the aformentioned romance scams; re-shipping scams; fraudulent check and work-at-home scams; and bank, financial, and credit card account take-overs. There were advance check schemes where a victim receives a check and was asked to deposit it, then send money by Western Union, MoneyGram, or prepaid credit cards to another person, only to find out that the check the victim received was not valid.
In my case, and unknown to me, my name, birthdate, address, email address, and social security number were taken without my knowledge and used to open accounts that helped the criminals move money around. Fortunately, none of my money was touched.
(As an aside, before my appearance in court, I mentioned a couple of different times where my identify had been stolen in the last few years, and I had to re-do all my credit cards. And I mentioned the famous OPM (the U.S. Office of Personnel Management) case that resulted in me getting an identify theft service paid for by the US government. The prosecuting attorney said in both credit card cases: “Oh! That’s interesting. But that’s not this case.” And. “Oh, yeah. I got caught up in that OPM thing too. But that’s not this case.”)
 |
| At any minute, the cross-examination can turn into a charge of murder! |
Let’s skip right to my part in the trial.
“You’re up, sir” said the Homeland Security Special Agent as he poked his head into the anteroom where I was waiting. I rose and followed him around the corner to the courtroom doors.
(Those Homeland Security Special Agents were exceptionally competent and nice people. I really enjoyed hanging out with them. So I avoided the stupid joke that constantly cropped up in my head: “What makes you so special?” At the end of the day, I did feel they were pretty special.)
 |
| Juries, scarier than clowns! |
I had studiously avoided looking at anyone in the jury. I think I got that from some TV crime show where they told the defendant not to do that. It is hard not to feel like the defendant when all eyes are on you. And, as humans, don’t we all harbor private feelings of guilt? Peripheral glances that involved no eye contact told me that there were 12 different attitudes and emotions awaiting me if I got engaged. One lady looked angry, a man looked bored, another looked like he had made up his mind a long time ago that he thought the defendants were guilty.
I had been kept out of the courtroom up to this point. Apparently this had something to do with making sure my testimony wasn’t tainted? As you will see, what I had to say was pretty straightforward. Anyway, there wasn’t any rule against me hearing about things that were unfolding in the trial second hand. Thus, the occasional insight I mention in this tale.
“Please answer all questions out loud because the court recorder here (he gestured at a nice lady below and in front of him) can’t hear a nod.”
“Please talk into the microphone, but don’t get too close.”
“Please just answer questions you are asked.”
He had a very practiced but friendly manner that really put me at ease. He spoke with the kind politeness of a man who knows deep in his bones that he will always be obeyed without question.
 |
| In my case, the prosecutors sat in the center of the room, the defendants and their lawyers formed an “L” to their right. They were still pretty close together. |
I wasn’t worried at all about the prosecutor embarrassing me. As you will see, the questions were pretty easy. But each of the three defendants had their own lawyer who had the option to cross-examine. And, as I mentioned, one or two of them had already played a few theatrics up to this point. For instance, an older lady who had appeared in levi’s and a sweat shirt (I had opted to wear a suit and tie) seemed a very nice person–probably a housewife and grandma. But the defense attorney had googled her name as she was queried by the prosecutor. When his turn came, he started asking her irrelevant personal questions associated with his google search. This, of course, startled her. But the prosecutor objected and the judge sustained…just like on Perry Mason.
“Is this your home address?” yes, that’s it, oh, except they spelled “Ogden” wrong (Odgen)
It went on pretty much like this for about 5 or 10 minutes. One spreadsheet entry after another. Not very gripping TV drama, frankly.
Finally, the questions were done and the defendant’s lawyers had their turn. The first one declined. “Just two more need to decline,” I thought. “And I will avoid the Perry Mason interrogation.
Lawyer number two, the one who had famously checked his google on the nice lady, decided that he had questions for me.
“Well, colonel…” He started out.
Well, the reality was he thought he was Perry Mason, but he wasn’t. He thanked me for my service and I said something like “you’re welcome.” I tried not to change my body language, gestures, tone, or any other non-verbal communication throughout my court appearance. Which probably meant I continued to look intimidating.
He said some more nice things about me and asked some questions about how I wrote a lot and spoke a lot and otherwise hinted that I had a large internet presence. I agreed with all that.
He petered out and sat down.
I never was very good at following choreography.
================
postscript
The most asked question has been: “Did you have to pay for your plane ticket and hotel?” My answer is always: “No, YOU did… as a taxpayer. But don’t worry, they weren’t extravagant!”
================
post-postscript
On February 7, 2017, a jury returned the following verdict(s) involving the defendant, Oladimeji Seun Ayelotan:
| Number of Charges |
Description of Charge(s) | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Attempt and conspiracy fraud | Guilty |
| 1 | Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US | Guilty |
| 2 | Mail Fraud – Frauds and swindles | Guilty |
| 1 | Laundering of monetary instruments | Guilty |
| 4 | Mail Fraud – Frauds and swindles | Dismissed without Prejudice |
On February 7, 2017, a jury returned the following verdict(s) involving the defendant, Rasaq Aderoju Raheem:
| Number of Charges |
Description of Charge(s) | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Attempt and conspiracy fraud | Guilty |
| 1 | Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US | Guilty |
| 3 | Mail Fraud – Frauds and swindles | Guilty |
| 1 | Laundering of monetary instruments | Guilty |
| 3 | Mail Fraud – Frauds and swindles | Dismissed without Prejudice |
On February 7, 2017, a jury returned the following verdict(s) involving the defendant, Femi Alexander Mewase:
| Number of Charges |
Description of Charge(s) | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Attempt and conspiracy fraud | Guilty |
| 1 | Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US | Guilty |
| 1 | Laundering of monetary instruments | Not Guilty |
Leave a Reply