Skip to main content

Former Senior U.S. District Judge Sentenced to One Month in Prison for Misuse of Government Property and Drug Offenses

WASHINGTON – Former Senior U.S. District Court Judge Jack T. Camp Jr., was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Atlanta to one month in prison for unlawful possession of controlled substances charges and unlawful conversion of government property, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division, Special Agent in Charge Brian D. Lamkin of the FBI’s Atlanta Office and Director Vernon Keenan of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

Camp, 67, a former Senior U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of Georgia, pleaded guilty in November 2010 to an information charging him with one count of unlawful possession of controlled substances, one count of aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of controlled substances by a previously convicted drug felon and one count of conversion of government property. Camp was sentenced today in the Northern District of Georgia by Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan for the District of Columbia. Judge Hogan was sitting by designation in the Northern District of Georgia.

As part of his plea, Camp admitted that between May 2010 and Oct. 1, 2010, he unlawfully used and possessed cocaine, marijuana and Roxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance. Camp also admitted to giving an individual, whom he knew had a prior felony drug conviction, money to purchase cocaine, Roxycodone and marijuana for their joint use. Camp admitted that he unlawfully gave the individual a U.S. District Court laptop computer for her personal use. Camp was arrested on Oct. 1, 2010, after attempting to purchase drugs from an undercover FBI agent posing as a drug dealer. Camp further resigned his commission as Senior U.S. District Judge. On Feb. 28, 2011, Camp voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in the state of Georgia.

Camp was also sentenced to pay a $1,000 fine and $825 in restitution. He was sentenced to one year of supervised release.

The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Deborah Sue Mayer and Tracee Joy Plowell of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. The case was investigated by the FBI Atlanta’s Public Corruption Squad. The Georgia Bureau of Investigaiton provided substantial assistance in this case.
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