More McHenry County Blog

In the Matter of:  ROBERT BLESS, Attorney-Respondent,  No.  6281646.

Commission No.  2010PR00133 FILED -  AUGUST 30, 2010

1. breach of fiduciary duty;
2. overreaching the attorney-client relationship;
3. representing a client where the representation of that client is materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
4. conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and
5. conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770.

DATE	AMOUNT	PURPOSE OF LOAN	COLLATERAL SPECIFIED IN PROMISSORY NOTE	INTEREST
July 18, 2007	$25,000	Purchase of BMW convertible car for Respondent	Respondent's BMW Convertible	5% per annum
January 13, 2008	$50,000	Personal Loan for Respondent	10% interest in property owned by Bless & partners at 640 E. Northwest Hwy.	5% per annum
February 20, 2008	$2,000	Personal Loan for Respondent	Guaranteed by Bless & Associates	0%
April 9, 2008	$12,268.23	Taxes of commercial property owned by Respondent and his business partners	Loan not documented by promissory note
April 22, 2008	$2,500	Mortgage Loan for commercial property owned by Respondent and his business partners	Guaranteed by Bless & Associates	0%
September 9, 2008	$574.30	Repairs to Respondent's BMW	Guaranteed by Bless & Associates	0%
October 7, 2008	$3,843.45	Payment for Respondent's Florida BarBri Course	Guaranteed by Bless & Associates	0%
October 28, 2008	$2,774.73	Postage for Respondent's campaign for McHenry County Board Member	Guaranteed by Bless & Associates	0%
December 3, 2008	$10,000	Personal Loan for Respondent	Guaranteed by Bless & Associates	0%

DATE	AMOUNT	CLIENT	PURPOSE	REPAYMENT AMOUNT DUE AT CONCLUSION OF CASE
December 21, 2007	$3,500	Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039	Expert Witness	$5,000
July 16, 2008	$1,500	Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039	Expert Witness	$2,000
August 6, 2008	$1,000	Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039	Expert Witness	$1,500
August 27, 2008	$1,066.65	Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039	Deposition Transcript	$1,500
February 16, 2009	$7,000	Marion D. Feeley 13-A381-078	Expenses and Airline Tickets	$8,300
February 16, 2009	$1,700	Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039	Expert Witness	$2,100

1. breach of fiduciary duty;
2. entering into a business transaction with a client, in violation of Rule 1.7(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
3. representing a client where the representation of that client is materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
4. conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
5. conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770.

U [sic] need 2 [sic] deny anything other than we r [sic] good friends nothing more I could lose my license

1. counseling a witness to testify falsely, in violation of Rule 3.4(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
2. conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4 (a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and
3. conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770.

I would like to first make absolutely clear to the Commission that I never represented Ms. Scott in any legal capacity whatsoever. Our relationship was based purely on friendship. We never formed an attorney-client bond.

Q. Okay, but other than seeing her, did you have any involvement in her case?

A. No, I didn't have any involvement, personally, in her case.

Q. Did you have any discussions with her regarding her case?

A. No. no. I mean, she was - she was happy, and she thought I was wonderful for finding her Scott Barber to take her case.

Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Barber about her case?

A. Other than - as to the case itself?

Q. Other than the initial call that you said you made wherein you, you know, told - asked him to handle the case, did you have any discussions with him regarding the case?

A. No, I just would ask him how things were going.

Q. Did you have any discussions with any witnesses regarding her case?

A. Besides the gutter people?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't - I don't know. I don't think so.

Q. Did you have any discussions with opposing counsel in relation to her case?

A. I never spoke to opposing counsel.

Q. Did you prepare any pleadings or any other documents --

A. No.

Q. -- in relation to her case?

1. making a statement of material fact known by the lawyer to be false in connection with a lawyer disciplinary matter, in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
2. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
3. conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4 (a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and
4. conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770.

   

Dear McHenry County Board:

I am expressing my opposition to the extension of the McHenry County Bond for the proposed Sportsplex to be located on Pleasant Valley Rd., Lakewood (formerly Woodstock).

It is my understanding that there are several other waiting applicants that could use this bond money and generate a more secure employment avenue, and NEEDED instead of wanted venue. 

One that would secure more jobs, one that is not seasonal, one that would better benefit the residents of McHenry County.  We DO NOT need another underutilized sports venue. 

Lippold Park, Emricson Park, and other local parks are not at capacity.  In fact, per telephone conversations with staff (at these locations), their attendance is down.

Even local healthclubs report a lull in new memberships.

Please vote NO to extend the McHenry County Bond for the Sportsplex.

Sincerely,

Allan and Deborah Stenstrom
13119 Pleasant Valley Rd.
Woodstock, IL

Plot allegedly avoided nearly $80 million in U.S. antidumping duties;

some honey allegedly tainted with antibiotics

CHICAGO — Eleven individuals and six corporations were indicted on federal charges for allegedly participating in an international conspiracy to illegally import honey from China that was mislabeled as coming from other countries to avoid antidumping duties and included honey that was adulterated with antibiotics not approved for use in honey production, federal law enforcement officials announced today.

Ten of the individuals were top executives of corporate defendant Alfred L. Wolff GmbH, or four affiliated defendant companies, a German food conglomerate whose United States honey-importing business was based in Chicago. Between 2002 and 2009, the defendants allegedly conspired to illegally import more than $40 million of Chinese-origin honey to avoid antidumping duties totaling nearly $80 million.

The 44-count indictment returned yesterday by a federal grand jury does not allege any instances of illness or other public health consequences attributed to consumption of the honey.

The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to illegally import Chinese-origin honey, including honey tainted with antibiotics, into the United States by mislabeling it as originating in other countries to avoid paying antidumping duties and to conceal and expand the illegal smuggling scheme by submitting false documents to obstruct the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Two of the defendants, Stefanie Giesselbach and Magnus von Buddenbrock, both former executives of Alfred L. Wolff , Inc., the Chicago-based U.S. affiliate of the German corporation, were arrested in Chicago before leaving the country in May 2008 and are cooperating in the ongoing investigation. Since then, four Chinese or Republic of China nationals, three of whom are also cooperating, have pleaded guilty to related federal charges — two of them in Federal Court in Chicago and two others in Seattle. Today’s indictment brings the total number of individual defendants charged in the investigation to 15, in addition to the six corporate defendants.

The indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $78 million representing allegedly unpaid antidumping duties. It further seeks forfeiture of more than $39 .5 million, representing the declared value of 606 total entries, or shipments, of Chinese-origin honey that entered the United States between March 2002 and April 2008 and was allegedly falsely declared as having originated in Russia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. It also seeks forfeiture of 2,441 drums of honey seized by the United States in 2008 from storage facilities in Tacoma, Washington; Minneapolis and Eagan, Minnesota; and the Chicago suburbs of Bensenville, Glenview and Itasca.

Between 2001 and July 2007, the Commerce Department imposed antidumping duties on Chinese-origin honey as high as 221 percent and, later, $2.06 per net kilogram of honey through the end of 2008. In October 2002, the Food and Drug Administration issued an import alert for honey containing the antibiotic Chloramphenicol, a broad spectrum antibiotic that is used to treat serious infections in humans, but which is not approved for use in honey production. Honey containing the antibiotics Ciprofloxacin, Norfloxacin, Chloramphenicol, and Furazolidone is deemed “adulterated” within the meaning of federal food and drug safety laws.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains a toll-free number for consumer inquiries: 1-888-INFO-FDA (463-6332).

“The charges allege that these defendants aggressively sought and obtained an illegal competitive advantage in the U.S. honey market by avoiding payment of more than $78 million in antidumping duties, and while doing so deliberately violated U.S. laws designed to protect the integrity of our food supply,” said Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. “Not only was the Government defrauded from collecting substantial antidumping duties, but domestic honey producers and other importers were denied a fair market, according to the indictment, and the defendants distributed adulterated honey that never should have reached the U.S. marketplace,” he added.

“This alleged international fraud conspiracy engaged in illegal and predatory trade practices that threatened our nation’s domestic honey industry,” said Gary J. Hartwig, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Chicago. “The crime of importing mislabeled and adulterated goods restricts U.S. competitiveness in domestic and world markets and creates an uneven playing field for American businesses and honey importers and packers who play by the rules. We aggressively investigate those who violate the laws and regulations that are put in place to protect U.S. businesses and the American public.”

Also announcing the charges were Daniel Henson, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations, and David Murphy, Director of Field Operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Chicago. All 11 individuals and six corporate defendants were charged with one count of conspiracy, and all but Giesselbach and von Buddenbrock were charged with multiple additional counts of smuggling honey, falsifying federal Customs and Commerce Department records and violating the federal food and drug safety laws. Ten German national defendants held various executive positions at the Alfred L. Wolff Food Group’s honey businesses between approximately 1999 and 2008. They are: Alexander Wolff, 37, of Hamburg, Germany, who functioned as the chief executive officer of Alfred L. Wolff GmbH from about 2003 through 2009, and controlled the operations of its affiliated food companies and managed the other executives; Jürgen Becker; Tom Weickert; Marcel Belten; Yi Liu, 45, of Beijing; Sven Gehricke, 44; Thomas Marten, 32; Thomas Gerkmann, 37; Stephanie Giesselbach, 32, of Chicago; and Magnus von Buddenbrock, 35, of Chicago.

Also indicted was a Chinese national, Gong Jie Chen, also known as “George Gao” and “George Chen,” 44, who acted as sales manager for defendant QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd., a producer, seller and exporter of Chinese-origin honey in Qinhuangdao, Hebei Province, China. In 2006, Chen allegedly conspired with other defendants to establish QHD as a new front company to fraudulently obtain a reduced individualized antidumping duty-exempt rate from the Commerce Department through a process known as a “new shipper” review. As a result of submitting allegedly false records and documents, the Commerce Department issued QHD a preliminary individualized antidumping duty deposit rate of zero percent.

Arrest warrants will be issued in the U.S. for the nine defendants living outside the country, while Giesselbach and von Buddenbrock, both free on cash bonds, will be arraigned at a later date in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

In addition to QHD, the other corporate defendants are: Alfred L. Wolff GmbH, which was wholly-owned by Wolff & Olsen GmbH & Co. KG, until most of its assets were acquired in February 2010 by Norevo GmbH; Alfred L. Wolff Honey GmbH; Alfred L. Wolff, Inc., the U.S. subsidiary; Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Trade Co., Ltd., China; and Alfred L. Wolff Company Ltd., Hong Kong, China.

As part of the conspiracy, the indictment alleges that defendants caused honey en route to the United States to be tested by a German laboratory and, after learning that it contained antibiotics, caused it to be sold to U.S. customers and even re-sold to some after it was rejected by others due to the presence of antibiotics. The indictment does not identify any ultimate food processors, products or brands, stores, or domestic supply chain.

According to the indictment, the defendants engaged in various acts to conceal their conduct and to alter and destroy records and other evidence, including internal emails and documents relating to the new shipper review process, and to obstruct the Commerce Department review.

In May 2006, Marten, who was then general manager of Wolff’s U.S. subsidiary, allegedly emailed Becker and Giesselbach, with a copy to Alexander Wolff, Weickert, Belten and Gerkmann, stating in German, that American Customs had just seized six full container loads of Korean White Honey in Chicago. It ended by stating: “I request that all recipients not to write email about this topic. Please OVER THE TELEPHONE and in German! Thank you!”

In April 2007, in preparation for von Buddenbrock taking over Marten’s duties in Chicago, Marten advised von Buddenbrock that the Alfred L. Wolff companies were fraudulently importing Chinese-origin honey into the country and instructed him to treat the conversation as confidential and not to take notes, the indictment alleges. In October 2007, Liu, then general manager of Wolff’s Beijing affiliate, emailed Belten and Giesselbach, with a copy to Alexander Wolff and von Buddenbrock and attaching a purported sales contract between Wolff Beijing and QHD (the alleged sham new shipper) that stated: “This is a fake sales confirmation from George Gao,” according to the indictment.

The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew S. Boutros and William Hogan.

The conspiracy count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, while other charges carry the following maximum penalties on each count: illegally importing (or smuggling) honey and obstructing the Commerce Department — 20 years, and entering honey adulterated with antibiotics — 3 years and a $250,000 fine on each count. If convicted, however, the Court would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.