Skip to main content

Former California Congressional Candidate Sentenced to Federal Prison for Lying During Investigation

Convicted for Campaign Letters that Misled Latino Voters

WASHINGTON – Tan Nguyen, 35, from Oceanside, Calif., was sentenced this morning by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter to one year and one day in federal prison for his conviction last year on a federal obstruction of justice charge stemming from lies he told California investigators about his involvement in a letter sent to Latino voters during his 2006 campaign for U.S. House of Representatives. In addition to the prison term, Judge Carter ordered Nguyen to serve six months at a halfway house.

A federal jury in December 2010 found Nguyen guilty of obstruction of justice for lying to the California Department of Justice, which was investigating numerous complaints from Latino voters in the 47th Congressional District in Orange County. The complaints came after approximately 14,000 voters in the district received a letter in Spanish that made claims about who was eligible to vote and what would happen to immigrant voters if they cast ballots. The mailer went out on letterhead that was similar to that of an anti-illegal immigration group, the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, which had nothing to do with the letter.

During an interview with investigators in October 2006, Nguyen falsely stated that campaign volunteers created the letter without his knowledge.

“The Civil Rights Division is committed to protecting the voting rights of all individuals. We simply will not tolerate those who attempt to interfere with efforts to enforce civil rights laws in our nation,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

“Mr. Nguyen’s conduct undermined the public’s expectation of honesty from public officials and those who desire to serve,” said U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California André Birotte Jr.

Judge Carter ordered Nguyen to surrender to begin serving his sentence by March 28, 2011.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI. This case was prosecuted by Civil Rights Division trial attorney D.W. Tunnage and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Staples of the Central District of California.
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