Skip to main content

St. Bernard Judge and Lawyers Plead Guilty to Bribery Scheme

NEW ORLEANS, LA—WAYNE G. CRESAP, age 62, NUNZIO SALVADORE CUSIMANO, JR., a/k/a Sal Cusimano, age 58, both residents of St. Bernard Parish, and VICTOR J. DAUTERIVE, a/k/a V. J. Dauterive, age 57, a resident of Prairieville, Louisiana, pled guilty in federal court tody before U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon to conspiracy to deprive the citizens of St. Bernard Parish of their right to receive the honest services of Judge WAYNE G. CRESAP, announced U.S. Attorney Jim Letten.

According to court documents, CRESAP, an elected judge of the 34th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Bernard, entered into an illegal agreement with lawyers CUSIMANO and DAUTERIVE, in which CRESAP converted secured bond obligations to unsecured personal surety bonds, thereby allowing the releases of charged individuals on signatures, and without collateral security. The scheme would begin when clients of CUSIMANO or DAUTERIVE would retain them to facilitate the release of an inmate being held on a secured bond which they could not afford. CUSIMANO or DAUTERIVE would then place a telephone call to CRESAP and request that the secured bond be converted to an unsecured surety bond which allowed the inmate’s release on a mere signature. After CRESAP converted the bond, thereby allowing inmate’s release, either CUSIMANO or DAUTERIVE would make a cash payment to CRESAP. Court documents further reveal that CRESAP received over $80,000 in illegal payments, that DAUTERIVE paid over $70,000 to CRESAP and that CUSIMANO paid over $10,000 to CRESAP in furtherance of and during the course of the scheme to defraud.

The defendants face a maximum prison term of five (5) years and a $250,000 fine, as well as possible restitution and supervised release. Sentencing is set for January 14, 2010.

U.S. Attorney Letten and FBI Special Agent in Charge David Welker, as well as the investigative and prosecution team, offer their thanks to Rafael Goyeneche and the Metropolitan Crime Commission for providing valuable assistance in this successful case.

The investigation was conducted by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Brian Marcelle and Richard Pickens.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more