Your partner for magnetic solution & high quality magnet

magnetic products

transcript: barbara mcquade

by:Newland     2019-10-25
Oath and Collet Rosenberg8.
Barbara McQuaid: Welcome to the oath of office.
This is Chuck Rosenberg.
I\'m glad you were able to join us in another wonderful conversation in the public service area.
This week, I sat down with Barbara McQuaid, a former US lawyer in eastern Michigan.
The hook is the native language of Detroit.
She grew up here, and before becoming an American lawyer, she served as a straight-line federal prosecutor in that wonderful office for 12 years.
At the swearing-in ceremony today, Barb and I talked about some of her cases of supervision as a US citizenS. attorney—
From one of the most outrageous medical frauds committed by American doctors to public corruption cases involving former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.
Barb McQuade welcomes your oath.
Barbara McQuaid: Thank you so much, Chuck.
Rosenberg: I should let people know that we are actually sitting in a beautiful office on the campus of the University of Michigan Law School where you teach.
Yes, it\'s a beautiful place. I think I\'m lucky to be here.
Rosenberg: Thank you for inviting us.
So I\'m interested in a lot of your things, including things that attract you to public service, but you didn\'t start public service.
You actually started with a newspaper reporter. McQuade: Yeah.
I think my first memory of the current event in the world is the water gate event, and I may be a little young and unable to understand what is happening in real time.
I think I was nine or ten years old when the water gate incident happened, but I remember seeing this on the headlines every day and I was wondering what that was, I remember I asked my mother that she told me that the water gate incident was a complicated office, which made me more confused, but I was really curious over time, want to know more about it.
Your mother is right.
This is how she is.
She\'s really right, but of course you know, it\'s a lot more than that.
This is the short name for the scandal, and I know the president has done something bad, but I don\'t know much about it.
But I studied it over time.
So it has aroused people\'s interest. This is indeed the case.
You know, the first interest it raised was woodwald and Bernstein, the journalist involved in the case, and I really appreciate the supervisory role they played in holding public officials accountable.
I feel very betrayed by what President Nixon has done and recognize the work that woodwald and Bernstein have done to expose this misconduct.
So this has aroused my interest in journalism.
I think Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein bring a lot of people to journalism, including you.
I bet this is the case.
You know, people ask me about my major, and while my diploma says economics, I feel like I\'m a major at the Michigan Daily.
When I came to the University of Michigan, I spent a lot of time there --
There may be too much time there, but most of my classmates and I were inspired by the water gate incident.
Of course, we are all at the same age and we all think we are the next Woodward or Bernstein.
Rosenberg: So you joined a paper when you graduated.
Let us know.
After graduation, I went to a newspaper in Rochester, New York.
I may have applied for every newspaper in the country, that\'s my newspaper, and it\'s a great place to have great people.
Do you have any contact with Rochester?
I don\'t.
I just went there for this job and enjoyed it very much.
Working with some great people
Just a year later, I went back to law school.
I really want to go back to journalism, but when I am single and have the time and freedom, it is a good time in my life to study the law and fully hope to go back to journalism, but find that I love the law, this is another way to hold criminals accountable as social gatekeepers.
Rosenberg: There are a lot of laws in your career before we go to law.
What did you report in Rochester?
What did you do?
McQuade: I started with the news, but as it often happens in my life, I was attracted to sports and it was a strong interest, so being a low person there
Swimming and hockey in high school.
I played 5k and 10 k, fishing derby, beach volleyball.
All kinds of things are very interesting.
Rosenberg: Like you, I\'m a super fan who played league baseball in Rochester before Carl Ripken came to oriole.
Were you there? He did it.
No, he\'s gone.
It\'s already in the big league by this time.
It was in the late 1980 s, but the Rochester Red Wing was indeed one of the Beats reported by our newspaper.
Rosenberg: Great.
So you decided to go to law school, and then you went back to the University of Michigan, where you finished your undergraduate work at law school here.
I did it. It was a great experience.
I know you said it before Chuck.
I really like law school.
So do I.
McQuade: some people would say that doing a good thing and think it is a necessary evil.
You know, I need a root canal so I can do a healthy dental job. I enjoyed it.
I think the experience at the University of Michigan Law School is a very supportive and negotiable experience in addition to being intellectually exciting.
So I really enjoyed the law and my experience in law school.
Now you say you\'re attracted to journalism.
Did you go to law school with the expectation of returning to journalism? McQuade: I did.
I thought I \'d do that, but you know as soon as I get here.
Rosenberg: things have changed.
Yes, I know something about the law and see what opportunities are there.
In my first job away from law school, things changed and I was a legal clerk for a judge, Bernard Friedman, and an excellent mentor.
Rosenberg: So you know that you are the second guest on this podcast to serve as a clergy for Judge Friedman, which leads me to believe that he is the world record holder for the sworn-in lawyer. McQuade: Yes.
In fact, Jim Baker is also a member of Judge Friedman\'s family, and right in front of me, he is a lawyer for Judge Friedman.
However, Judge Friedman inspired many of his judges to enter the public service: public defense counsel, prosecutors, judges, etc. However, during my tenure as a legal clerk, I saw the full content of legal practice.
Every practice there, I saw the work of the United States. S.
I think it\'s interesting, law firm.
When I was a clerk, the trial that took place in Judge Friedman\'s court was a public corruption case involving Jet, a pilot in Detroit city.
A city with financial difficulties, with a pilot taking city officials to Las Vegas and other places, and then lying by forging records, saying that they are actually going to a legitimate city business place, I was impressed by the way American assistantsS.
The lawyer raised a very complicated question.
Case hacking evidence and FAA flight records
It\'s interesting and easy for the jury to understand.
I saw this and took responsibility for the people who made the mistake, I think wow, this is what I really want to do.
I want to do the same.
Yes, that\'s right, so I applied for the United States. S.
The attorney\'s office tracks my clergy, but at least in Detroit, in many places it\'s hard to find a job from law school or clergy, because the competition is very fierce, so I went to a law firm that I like very much to do private practice, a law firm called Boozer long in Detroit.
Worked there for five years.
You know, about every six months I will renew my application in the USS.
The law firm and about five years later, I think they finally got tired of my letter and agreed to hire me.
I\'m glad they did Barb.
You know I did the same thing.
I didn\'t go to a law firm, but I went to law school with the idea of becoming a federal prosecutor, and then desperately wanted to enter the United States. S.
Law firm
As you pointed out, this is not easy to do.
I know, you started with the Justice Department Honors Program, right?
I know.
McQuaid: Can you dig a hole in eastern Virginia?
Burrow is the correct verb.
I have worked hard for several years to become an American assistant. S.
Lawyer, but I still want to talk about you.
So you\'re a prosecutor.
From drugs to guns to immigrants, you deal with all kinds of crimes.
What do you start doing and tell us a little bit?
McQuade: the first time I joined the general crime unit in the office, this is the entry level position for the new AUSAs.
We have received a lot of training, went to the national propaganda center and received a lot of guidance, but for example dealing with cases involving criminals holding guns;
Bank robbery cases, some relatively low-level drug cases, counterfeiting, this surprising crime still exists, but in many ways, according to modern technology, it has become very complicated.
Some immigration cases, and then some unusual cases.
I have a wildlife case involving a person selling the illegally obtained tiger skin.
We imported several boxes of Cuban cigars at the border.
Our cross-border human smuggling work is very interesting.
Rosenberg: I think, you work with a variety of federal agents, from DEA to FBI, from ATF to Secret Service?
McQuade: Yes, all the different agencies, so this is a great opportunity to get to know the whole government from the administration, all the agencies you know, even some of the more vague agencies, they are very good.
People are very professional.
It was the first time I had a chance to file a lawsuit with a grand jury, and it was an incredible experience, and one thing that impressed me was that at the end of their service, grand juries often comment on \"You know I don\'t know what agents these fish and wildlife are doing\" or \"I don\'t know that agents of the Secret Service have also investigated financial fraud \", I was deeply impressed by the quality of these agents, who were so smart, diligent and glorious.
Being able to work with them is really an incredible experience.
Rosenberg: I remember seeing a whole new grand jury at the beginning of a semester, and they seem more willing to stay anywhere on Earth than in a grand jury.
Then 12 to 18 months later, their views will change.
They\'ll see exactly what\'s going on in their community, they\'ll meet men and women who are trying to do something about it, and they\'re usually impressed.
McQuade: although I think they understood from the beginning that it was their duty to serve the grand jury, no one was very happy about it, but in the end, they were very satisfied, thank you very much for their experience and access to the window of operation within the administration.
Rosenberg: So before you were an American assistantS.
Lawyer, you have to take the oath, you told me a complete story about how you took the oath and how your view of it changed over time.
Will you share it? McQuade: Yes.
So I was told on the first day of work to report back at the time, and the practice in my office was that you and your supervisor went to the chief judge\'s office to take an oath.
I really think it\'s a form of the first thing I have to do before I start working.
I showed up in the Chief Justice room with my supervisor and I was surprised to see my husband show up with our newly born child who was staying at home with him at the time, but he is already an AUSA in the office civil service and he knows how important the oath is.
He took it.
He\'s already sworn in.
He\'s already there.
He understood how incredible it was to be an AUSA and what I was responsible for, so he wanted to go there.
He wants to support me and show me how important he is to him to swear and I will share that with him.
Rosenberg: So your point is, at least initially, perfunctory;
What you have to do, don\'t get in the way so you can start working, when you become an AmericanS.
Lawyers in Detroit, do you have a different approach?
Very good.
So this experience really helped me see how important it is and also made me hear words to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
This is a powerful moment when you take the oath and act as an American assistantS.
Lawyers are a strong responsibility, so now Steve Murphy, judge of the District Court --
I know Steve. Fine fellow.
He is, I don\'t know where he got the idea.
Maybe you did it, but he started doing something different, and when we had the new AUSA in the office, he was going to have the chief justice hearing in the open court, invite the family of the AUSA and invite the whole office to come as he recognizes how important the oath is that it is my tradition to continue as it is equally important for those who come in, we want that person to know how serious this oath is;
We are serious.
This is something we want to remind, and I think it\'s just as important for the people who hear it again, the colleagues who surround that person, and the new AUSA.
Therefore, in the eastern part of Michigan, it has become a tradition to continue in this way until today.
Barb: Barb, you mentioned many different types of cases that you dealt with as AUSA.
One of the cases you dealt with involved Iraqi spies, which I think deserves further description from our audience.
A fascinating case.
McQuaid: Yes, so after 9/11, our office set up a national security department, and I became a member of that department, dealing with many different types of cases.
The series of cases we deal with are very interesting:S.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003, one of which happened was the United States. S.
The army went to the Iraqi Intelligence Agency, which is their CIA version, and grabbed all the documents in the building, and then the word they used was \"use them \".
They asked translators and experts to browse through those documents they wrote in Arabic, but to determine what they were, what they said, a few years later --
Rosenberg: When you say the explosion, you mean the United States. S.
Purpose of intelligence
Correct.
So there are many reasons to use these files.
But one of them was transferred to criminal prosecution.
Some documents have been found that are the source files of people living in the United States.
The documents were sent to the FBI offices all over the country where those people live, three of them in Detroit.
There are three people living in the Detroit subway.
They did not work together.
I don\'t know if they know or work together.
But there are documents showing them entering and leaving Iraq.
They met with the manager.
They shared information about Iraqi dissidents living in the United States against Saddam;
They will attend their speech and bring back recordings and newspaper articles when traveling to Iraq and bringing goods into Iraq illegally.
Rosenberg: So if these dissidents have families in Iraq, they could be in serious danger based on the work of these Iraqi spies.
I think that\'s why their work is so important.
Not only do they share information with foreign opponents, but they also share information about Iraqi residents who are certainly in danger.
Rosenberg: What happened?
The defendants were convicted in all these cases.
One of them was tried.
Two of them pleaded guilty.
But the case is serious. We had a (sic)
Translate to explain the contents of the documents, so these documents are indeed some of the most powerful evidence.
But we also have a witness who came to testify, a former Iraqi intelligence officer who was captured and is cooperating, who testified that he remembers the source.
He is the head of the American service desk of the Iraqi Intelligence Agency, who knows the source\'s report and, in fact, they have taken action against the information provided by the source.
So I think that makes it clear that these are real documents that are used by Iraqi intelligence and that they see the information as valuable.
Rosenberg: this is an amazing witness.
This is really the case.
Now, one of the most interesting things, besides giving evidence, is that he testified in a slight disguise, something I taught in national security classes.
This is not without controversy.
Rosenberg: So you say you teach \"light disguise\" in criminal proceedings class \".
What is the problem?
McQuade: of course, under the terms of the confrontation, the defendant has the right to confront the witness.
Part of the reason is to allow him and the jury to see facial expressions and to hear a person\'s tone and body language is important to assess credibility, so the jury is entitled to see these things.
Thus, the tribunal allowed disguise.
But, you know, independent arbitrators, they\'re in court, making sure everything is fair, and the judge wants to make sure the jury sees these things --
As a result, it may involve facial hair or a replacement of a wig.
Maybe even some artificial facial feature.
But the eyes are clear, the mouth is clear, and the facial expression is clear, which is subtle.
Rosenberg: thus, it strikes a balance between protecting witnesses and the rights granted to defendants under the Constitution to fight against witnesses.
Of course.
So the identity of the witness is confidential.
His name and his looks, since the court is certainly open to the public, anyone can come in and see what he looks like.
But the defendant also has the right to confront him and to ensure that he exposes the jury to any potential bias so that the jury can read any body language that may indicate credibility.
Rosenberg: how many years have you spent as an American assistant? S. attorney.
I am an American assistant. S.
Lawyers worked for 12 years, for about 5 years in the general criminal sector, and then handled seven more national security cases.
Rosenberg: then you became an American lawyer in that area where you grew up as a prosecutor.
How did this happen?
So in 2009, I was nominated as President of the United States. S.
Lawyers in Eastern Michigan
Working with good colleagues is an incredible honor.
You know, the honor of a lifetime.
I have enjoyed these two jobs in East Michigan for a total of 19 years.
Rosenberg: when you were in AmericaS.
Lawyer, Barb, you have some interesting cases in your area.
I am reading one of them and I hope you can talk about it.
You have a doctor named Farid Fata who is a self
It is claimed that cancer experts have committed huge fraud against his patients.
Can you talk about him, what did he do, what did you find? McQuade: Yes.
So Farid Fata is a very successful oncologist cancer doctor on the Detroit Metro.
He has seven offices and his business is booming.
He was convicted of lying to patients and telling them that they had cancer when they did not lie.
Rosenberg: Why would someone in the world do this?
McQuade: He did this for the implementation of expensive chemotherapy treatments and he could charge for medical insurance and get reimbursed, and we believe he made a profit of about $17 million by doing so.
Do you know how many patients he lied?
McQuade: we can record 550 of that.
We believe there may be more, but these are clean cases where we can bring up and bring up demonstrable cases in court.
Rosenberg: surprisingly, a doctor
The doctor also vowed, yes, to take care of their patients, no harm --
In fact, I would lie to them about cancer and then treat them with a disease they don\'t have.
McQuade: It\'s really amazing, in fact, at first it\'s hard for the patient to believe he\'s done that already.
I think they will defend him early on before the evidence comes out because they are so scared that anyone can do that.
You know, even if these patients, when they learned that they actually had no cancer, they were relieved --
This is good news.
Many of them have been receiving chemotherapy for many years, or many of their spouses have been receiving it for many years and have now passed away, some of whom have suffered permanent damage to their organs and nerves.
Some people lost their teeth.
So they were very angry.
But one thing is very interesting.
Because that\'s what I \'ve been struggling.
Who can be so terrible to do so to someone.
Greed is an answer, but when he pleaded guilty, when the judge asked him why he did it, he told the judge that he did it out of greed and power.
He seems to like to control people\'s lives.
I mean, for many of them, he was finally able to tell them that they had relieved or that he had cured them.
Maybe that\'s some of the power he likes.
This is an amazing answer.
Barb, this is also a fascinating story.
One of the patients who had received cancer treatment and had no cancer was a woman named Connie Flagg.
Tell us what happened to Connie Flagg and how this case happened.
How men and women in your office noticed this crime.
Yes, Connie Flagg is a 51-year-old woman in good health.
Her blood test showed a high level, which made her primary care doctor worried that she might have to go to an oncologist.
So she saw it. Fata.
We later heard that most doctors will do additional tests or monitor your situation;
He mistakenly told her that she had cancer and that she needed to start chemotherapy right away.
So after her first chemo, she came home and thought of her diagnosis, she was upset and she had an unpacked suitcase --
The suitcase she was unpacking-
She got home and it started to rain on the floor so she ran upstairs and closed a window and when she turned she tripped over her suitcase and she was out of the box and broke her leg thinking: \"Oh boy, I just went from bad to bad\" and broke my leg and went to the hospital.
It was the weekend of July 4. And so Dr.
Fata is out of town and can\'t take care of her.
Rosenberg: what year? McQuade: 2013.
Different doctors. part of Dr.
The practice of Fata-
Instead, I was patrolling her. Rosenberg: Dr.
Soe Maunglay who works for the doctorFata.
McQuade: Yes, he has some doubts about his abnormal practices, in fact, he has informed to leave the practice for the next month, but he is still completing him
Fatah and he checked her during rounds.
By coincidence.
McQuade: coincidentally, when she was in the hospital, she looked at her file, looked at her injury and asked her, \"Who told you that you have cancer?
She told him about the doctor. Farid Fata.
Rosenberg: This confirms some doctors.
Maunglay\'s concern about Dr.
Medical practice of FataMcQuade: Yes.
So he found out in her file that she didn\'t have cancer.
He looked at her patient records and told her that he urged her to get a second opinion.
Did she?
She did it.
She was found to have no cancer.
Rosenberg: So, what did the doctor do?
What do you do with this?
It must be very disturbing to see his colleagues start treating MS.
In fact, she was the cancer sign when she was cancer. free.
He said he was upset about it.
He went back and he talked to the doctor\'s office manager.
Fatah was his way of doing it, and a man named George kalasei told him what he had found.
George caradash also had doubts about the doctor.
Fata, former office manager
He is not a doctor, nor is he a medical expert, but he heard from nurses and other people who left there to work in a short period of time --
Because what\'s wrong with the doubt?
He had previously served as a \"relationship\" in qui tam \".
This is a fraud case against the government-
Litigants, private litigants, can come to the government to share information about fraud against the government so that the government can bring a lawsuit to recover the loss of fraudRosenberg: —
The person who stands out will be the relationship.
McQuade: the technical term is relator, which we sometimes call \"whistleblower \".
\"It\'s usually an insider.
Their motivation is that they get a share of the recovery that the government can get from this lawsuit.
You used another term, qui tam.
What does this mean?
This is a Latin phrase, you know.
I think that means \"the person who is suing on behalf of the King\", who has come in and can bring his own suit, or can join in, and the result of this suit is that the government has received it.
Otherwise you won\'t know about it, but now the government is able to sue for the losses suffered as a result of the misconduct of this lawmaker.
Rosenborg: So, the office manager, karrush, thinks the government is being cheated by Dr. karrush.
Fata and Karadsheh filed a qui tam lawsuit in which he was relator-
These are technical terms.
But, as you say so eloquently and succinctly, he is essentially a whistleblower.
What happens next?
Rosenberg: George CarRush used to be a whistleblower, so he knows how to file a qui tam lawsuit.
He submitted (sic)
A lawyer, a very good lawyer, came to the United States. S.
The office of the prosecutor and met with our chief civil affirmative action unit and agents of the FBI and HHS
Health and Human Services.
He shared the story with them.
It was Friday afternoon.
I remember receiving a call from this AUSA, Peter Kaplan-
Great lawyer.
Who recognized it immediately-Rosenberg: —you’re the U. S. attorney now—
You are, you are the boss. McQuade: Yes.
Peter immediately realized that if what he said was true, then people were hurt every day.
Fata in practice.
In fact, what he said and I believe is that you know, these cases are really hard to prove because the scope of reasonable medical care is quite large.
Therefore, even if the doctor is very radical, it may not be beyond the reasonable range of medicine.
But in case this is the case, we should treat it as true, and I agree with him.
So FBI agents, HHS agents and AUSAs work around the clock over the next few days of the weekend trying to confirm if this is true.
They were able to access the records through the Medicare system and hired an expert to look at them, and in a representative sample I think she looked at 12 patient records. They went 12-for-
12 of those diagnosed with cancer have no cancer.
Rosenberg: it may take months for these types of cases to prove, if not years, that you have a 72-
I believe Dr in 96 hours.
Fattah committed a crime.
I don\'t know how fast and effective people will appreciate their work.
I agree, very fast.
Part of the reason is that they are immersed in it all weekend and work hard.
They did get confirmation from the experts, knowing what they had, and they spent a whole day on Monday sorting out the warrant affidavit, the warrant, the arrest complaint, and executing the plan for all of these warrants.
They searched every spot of him.
Seven, plus his home, in the warrant.
So all the material is done, but another impressive thing they do is to think through patient care.
Because, if they cancel his surgery on Tuesday morning as they expected, it means that patients who plan to receive chemotherapy on that day will be rejected.
So one more thing-
We have a great victim.
Witness Coordinator Sandy Palazzolo works with her team to list alternative cancer providers in the region, as well as patient access to patient agreement files, when agents, prosecutors and civil lawyers are working on a plan to arrest and search a doctor, they need to take the doctor to the care
Home and place for Fata. The victim-
Witnesses are working on a plan to take care of patients.
I\'m glad you mentioned the victim.
Because when I was an American assistantS.
There are a few lawyers in our office. They are magicians.
They can do anything immediately to take care of people.
Their commitment, enthusiasm and dedication, I think, are unmatched.
It is part of the United States. S.
I don\'t think many people know the lawyer\'s office.
Yes, I don\'t think we see it, but it\'s so important.
When we have victims who testify in court, involving murdered loved ones, or when we have children who testify in cases of exploitation of children or sexual trafficking, victims-
The witness coordinator did all the arrangements there, but sometimes sat in court too, holding someone\'s hand, or escorting them around the court.
So they did a great job.
Rosenberg: Barb, I would like to share with you a very short story about a case I have dealt with as a junior prosecutor.
We have a doctor in eastern Virginia, Cecil Jacobson, who is a fertility specialist who has committed two different types of fraud against his patients.
One is that he uses his own sperm and the woman he is treating, the family he is trying to help have children to fertilize the patient, and he does not know that.
Second, it is also insidious that he injected a lot of HCG into his patient, human HCG, and if a woman is really pregnant, then her body produces a hormone, so that their bodies imitate pregnancy.
Then after 18, 20 or 22 weeks, he will mistakenly tell them that their fetus has died and that they have lost their children.
All these are scams.
Again, like a doctor.
Fata, a medical professional will do this to patients, which is unfathomable.
I think maybe for the same reason: money and power.
This is so shocking.
Chuck, when you are dealing with this case, how did you deal with the victims of this case?
Rosenberg: I\'m a junior prosecutor.
Led by a very talented AUSA named Randy Bellows, who is now a state judge in Virginia.
So I basically did a lot of research, no matter what Randy needed me to do.
But when you mention the victim
Witness experts, again, here\'s a place where we use them, because we even have to figure out how to approach people and let them know what\'s going on with them, and some people care, some people don\'t want to know.
So we need the expertise of ethicians and victims.
Witness experts and other doctors help us understand how to get in touch with the doctor\'s victims
Jacobson\'s scammer: What did you end up doing?
I\'m not sure I know if it\'s better to tell people about it or not --
Rosenberg: As I recall, we sent a letter to those who became victims of artificial insemination fraud telling them that we might have information that might be important to them, if they wanted, they can use this information.
Many have done so, and some have not.
We were advised to choose as many victims as possible instead of suddenly dropping bombs on their front door.
McQuade: Yes, I think it\'s probably one of the things that the public can\'t see, is the concern of the victims --
The witness coordinator spent a lot of time thinking about how best to treat victims of crime.
Barb: You know, I was lucky too, Barb because I learned from Randy Bellows and his colleagues
Lawyer Dave Barger, a professional, tells not only how to deal with a complex case, but also an emotional case.
Whatever happens to the doctor
Is there a Fata in your case?
McQuaid: Finally guilty.
The evidence was indeed overwhelming for him.
It was an irrefutable medical record that proved him guilty, so he finally pleaded guilty.
He was sentenced to 45 years\' imprisonment.
And, you know, for a person who is about 50 years old at the time of sentencing, it\'s basically life imprisonment.
You know, some of his victims want more, more time, even the death penalty, which is not qualified in this case.
But you know, I think this is a substantive sentence that is appropriate in this case.
Rosenberg: and there\'s no parole in the federal system.
Yes, that\'s right.
So he will serve nearly 45 years.
If you do well in prison, you do get some modest praise for this time.
But he\'s going to be sentenced to heavy sentences, and I think when you think about all the reasons for our sentence --
Deter and protect the public, promote respect for the law, and all these things --
Even the punishment that should be received.
This sentence is appropriate in this case.
Rosenberg: it\'s worth noting that people\'s interest in money and love for power can hurt so many people.
McQuade: there are other doctors who are very shocked by this behavior because we know that most doctors are attracted to drugs because they want to help people.
Rosenberg: That\'s the vast majority.
McQuade: of course, so I think that\'s why Dr.
You know, Fata doesn\'t see patients as people they want to heal, it\'s a profitable prospect.
Rosenberg: I remember talking to some of the other doctors during the Cecil Jacobson survey, and I think it\'s the right word to freak out.
They cannot begin to understand how their professional members can do this to people. McQuade: Yeah.
In many ways, I think it gives patients the advice they might suspect.
So, you know, the suggestion to get a second opinion is that it might be good for everyone.
Rosenberg: when you were American, in your office. S.
Lawyer, you also bring a series of fascinating public corruption cases centered on former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.
I hope you can talk about this, too. McQuade: Yeah.
Kwame Kilpatrick is the very talented and charismatic mayor of Detroit.
He was young when he became mayor.
I think he brought a lot of promises to lead Detroit, which had some financial difficulties as it entered a new era.
His mother is a local lawmaker, right?
She\'s Caroline Kilpatrick.
He comes from a political royal family and his father is also a county magistrate, so his name is well known.
But you know, he\'s a kid who grew up in Detroit and did all the right things, stayed at school, worked hard and was promoted to mayor.
I think people are very hopeful about his leadership.
But, as the evidence in the trial showed, he soon saw himself as an opportunity to profit as mayor\'s role, and the conviction in the case focused on something different. Bribery plan
To do business with Detroit, you have to pay a consultation fee to him or his father to enter the door.
Contracting for public works is a major source of disease
To gain benefits for Kwame Kilpatrick;
If you want to do business with Detroit city in a public works contract, you have to hire his good friend Bobby Ferguson to do your contract and you have to pay him 25%.
The contractor said, at least once, \"I don\'t need an excavator, I already have one.
He was told, \"it\'s good because he won\'t do the job anyway.
This is an important part of the plan.
Bobby Ferguson defrauded $83 million for the dig.
And part of it is that the mayor has something called the Kilpatrick Civic Fund, which aims to raise money for the people of Detroit, the elderly and children.
He spent his money on himself.
Spend more than $200 on projects such as yoga classes, leather jackets and golf clubs, and travel to resorts and children\'s camps.
Rosenberg: In the end, I think I read that about 30 people were found guilty as part of Kwame Kilpatrick\'s fraud network.
McQuade: Yes, I think this is one of the very interesting and important things in this case.
You know, people think of Kwame Kilpatrick as a central figure, he is.
But I think that\'s a really great lesson, starting at the top, because he really created a culture of corruption within the city government.
As you said, 30 city employees or contractors doing business with Detroit city were convicted of federal crimes.
This is just a way to do business in Detroit, and if you have the right to award a contract, you will ask for a little money and give yourself something.
Evidence of email at trial
An email from a colleague at Kwame Kilpatrick said, \"Why does Bobby always get rich?
When is it my turn to make a little money from the deal?
So I think this is really an example, Chuck, you know, the tone that we often hear starts at the top and you need to create a culture of integrity and compliance.
I think sometimes people wave it, like, you know --
Of course, it will be a culture.
This must exist where you and I work at the Justice Department.
But it doesn\'t exist anywhere, when the boss makes it clear that accepting bribes is OK, it\'s just the way to do business and people start doing it without even hitting their eyes.
Corruption is very common and has been going on for a long time.
What happened to Kwame Kilpatrick, Babu?
McQuade: he was convicted at trial and sentenced to 28 years in prison on 2013, so he continued to serve his sentence today.
But, you know, it\'s a very good job, made up of a prosecution team and a team of US agentsS.
FBI and prosecutor\'s office
We also have an environmental agent involved in the case, who talks about the sewer contract, which is a very interesting part of the case.
So, very big work, in this case, a major breakthrough actually happened when the text message content between Kwame Kilpatrick and his chief of staff was printed by Detroit Free Press.
While they are interested in this aspect of the case, our team is aware that if there is a text message about this, then, it may also be a text message about corruption and public contracts on the subject of the case.
Therefore, they obtained a search warrant to obtain the content of these texts, which ultimately became very important evidence in this case.
Rosenberg: have they found evidence of corruption and text messages?
They did, and they used it extensively at trial to confirm the witness\'s testimony.
So if there is a contractor who is fired for bribery, he is not only able to testify, but we are able to show a text message between Bobby Ferguson and Kwame Kilpatrick about what he is talking about.
Rosenberg: This certificate is very important in the work you do in court.
Yes, it\'s really powerful.
I think you know that you sometimes think that the witness testimony is biased, forgetful, or misunderstood what actually happened.
But it is very powerful when you can confirm what they are saying with text messages in your own words.
Rosenberg: during your tenure as president of the United States, there was another case. S.
I want the lawyer you said, Barb.
Really interesting.
Volkswagen cheated on the EPA\'s emissions test.
Not a typical case you might find in the United States. S.
But this is an important office. McQuade: Yeah.
This is an interesting case where it appears in the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
There is an EPA test lab here that tests the emissions of cars to make sure they comply with EPA regulations and the emissions into the air are within the law.
One day in 2015, I received a phone call from the EPA and the Justice Department\'s Criminal Department in Washington, and they realized that the public cheated on the exam --
Not just a little bit.
They have designed software that is installed on the vehicle, which may cheat the test so that the car knows when it is on the metering machine, that is, the test machine, it switches to a mode that burns clean.
So, you know, this car may not be very powerful, it may be less fuel.
Very efficient but it was clean and passed the test.
But when the car is on the road, it switches to the driving mode and it spews something that is more than 40 times the legal limit.
Rosenberg: The software is coded purposefully, and that\'s how it was designed. This is the case.
This is how it was created, so, you know, sometimes you run into situations where there is a problem with the vehicle and then people lie to cover it up.
This is a deliberate creation from the beginning to cheat the test.
Rosenberg: who was charged and why?
In the end, the public company was sued, and seven executives were also prosecuted.
We started an investigation that included talking to many witnesses, employees, and reviewing emails
Mail and memo and find some very highlevel folks—
You know, department heads, department heads.
I was involved in the creation of this project.
One of Volkswagen\'s goals is to create what they call \"clean diesel\", so it\'s cost to have diesel engines that can be sold in the US --
It\'s fuel.
Very efficient and clean
They cannot achieve their goals.
We talked about some of the organizational culture that you know, and I think one of the reasons why the masses are in trouble is that they are determined to achieve their goals.
So when they can\'t do it legally, they find a way to cheat to achieve it.
Rosenberg: You know, sometimes in the case of white-collar workers, we end up charging companies instead of individuals.
This is a bit controversial.
Can you talk about the theory of charging the company instead of the individual?
I know he did both in this case.
But this is not always the case. McQuade: Yes.
So you will see some factors that the Justice Department should take into account when considering whether to charge anyone and then to the company or individual
So when the benefit is the company, like the company, and then in the control group, the leaders and managers of the organization are involved in the illegal decision, then the company is a suitable defendant.
But this does not rule out the possibility of charging individuals, so, as I said, there are seven employees who are senior managers of the company who are involved in these decisions.
They are within their remit.
They do it for the benefit of the company, and you know, they are fully aware of it and do it on purpose.
Now, I should say these allegations because some of them still exist in Germany.
Germany does not extradite its citizens, but two of them have been convicted in the United States.
Rosenberg: coincidentally, in this case, your professional life is intertwined with Bob Miller\'s professional life.
Yes, that\'s right.
At the time of criminal prosecution, Robert Mueller was appointed special head of the civil case.
So the owner filed a lawsuit.
Regional lawsuits are underway in Northern California.
Rosenberg: what does it mean to be a special master?
McQuade: A judge may appoint a person to assist him in the performance of his duties.
You know, judges lack expertise and sometimes have no time to manage all aspects of a particular case.
In the case of the general public, the task to be completed is to take the settlement and then come up with a fair way to distribute it to the victims.
It requires a process to develop a process, calculate and proceed in a fair way.
So Bob Miller was hired to do the work on behalf of the judge.
Rosenberg: The judge was very confident about Bob Miller and asked him to serve as a special master. McQuade: Yes.
Therefore, when the judge chooses a master of special character, it is because he respects the professional knowledge of the person and the impartiality of his ability to do so.
He really replaced the judge, almost the judge\'s contractor.
And Bob is no longer the director of the FBI.
He is in a private clinic.
This was the period from when he was director to when he became a special adviser.
McQuaid: That\'s right.
So the judge should
Justice Breyer, brother of the Supreme Court.
In Northern California, Robert Miller was appointed a special master to help settle civil cases.
So we work together on different projects, but we have a common goal to solve this problem.
So he called me and came out to meet me in Detroit.
And, you know, every time we meet the information he gives me, the importance of an emergency is important in this case.
He said, you know, \"it\'s really hard to deal with a case like this.
\"There is a lot of evidence to collect, and most importantly, you have to act quickly and urgently, because the longer the investigation is, the older the evidence is.
You will lose your record and your memory will fade.
So you really need to urge your people to act urgently, I did, I did.
So I think we have very good results for the government that has been cheated and for the individual clients who have been cheated.
Volkswagen finally paid 4.
Settlement of $3 billion in criminal and civil violations.
Rosenberg: I really admire Bob Miller.
Yes, so is it.
He\'s a typical professional, you know. He’s soft-spoken.
He\'s low-key.
He is very humble.
You know, I called him when I started talking.
Mueller, because I have only seen him before, and when we overlap in these jobs, he, as director of the FBI, insisted that I call him \"Bob \".
\"He always wears his shirt sleeves, roll up, and get ready, you know.
So I admire him very much.
There is no doubt that it is a white shirt.
Of course, there is nothing but a white shirt.
Rosenberg: in early 2017, President Trump issued an executive order called the travel ban. ” 1.
0, the first version.
Talk about how this affects the work of your office and how it causes you to realize that you need to leave the work you like.
McQuaid: When President Trump was elected in 2016, I realized that I might be replaced.
This is typical.
But it\'s a job I love, and you know, I\'m determined to stick to it as much as I can.
I think we have a lot of cases that are not over yet.
For example, the public case is scheduled to be pronounced on the 3 Th.
Rosenberg: You have been in the office for almost 20 years.
I know a lot of friends.
I love work, mission and people.
I don\'t want to go.
And, you know, I\'m really struggling, you know, I can stay as long as I can.
Who knows, maybe I can even stay during Trump\'s presidency.
I \'ve never really seen myself as a political appointee, you\'re in a Democratic or Republican government --
I have always been AUSA through multiple administrative management on both sides and I attach great importance to this work.
Rosenberg: The same is true here, and the same is true for work and work. McQuade: Yeah.
You know, it\'s not driven by politics, it\'s driven by facts, evidence, and law.
So, you know, just work together and then the travel ban goes into effect on Friday.
I think, you know, it was really confusing that weekend around five o\'clock P. M.
No prior warning was given to airport personnel working at Customs and Border Protection;
We have received a lot of calls from government officials, many from citizens who have loved ones who are not allowed to come back.
Part of this applies to legal permanent residents --
Green card holders
They traveled overseas and were told they could not enter the country after returning home and were detained.
So it\'s confusing.
That Monday, like many other regions, the Michigan East Side filed a lawsuit, and I was sitting with our lawyers dealing with immigration cases, really struggling with how we were going to defend the seemingly undefensible order, that naive did not reach any solution --
Trying to figure out how we\'re going to defend the matter through the language of the regulations, it kind of ripped our hair.
Rosenberg: you have an obligation, if you can, to try and defend this executive order. Is that fair?
Yes, you will if you know you can defend it.
That\'s what you do as a government lawyer.
That doesn\'t mean you agree with the policy behind it.
There are a lot of laws that I personally don\'t necessarily agree with, and it doesn\'t matter if there are reasonable reasons.
I\'m a government lawyer. You\'re here to debate.
Rosenberg: But I want people to understand that it is your responsibility to see if you can make reasonable arguments for the defense of the executive order.
McQuaid: That\'s right.
I mean, you can\'t make boring arguments in court.
You have to find some reasonable reason.
It is difficult for us to find any reasonable reason to defend at least the first edition of the travel ban.
Rosenberg: So what happens that night?
McQuaid: Well, I got home and when I got home I checked my info on my phone and I saw a message from Sally Yates to all AmericansS.
The lawyer said that because she did not believe that the travel ban was constitutional, she instructed us not to defend the travel ban.
Rosenberg: She was the acting attorney general.
This is how she is.
So she called.
She had already given instructions to all of us, so I said out loud, \"Thank you, Sally Yates!
\"My family looked at me curiously, you know.
You know, \"What\'s mom talking about?
I said, \"Oh, you know,\" I told them in some shorthand what was going on, which means my day, she just solved my problem, because now we don\'t have to defend this order, which I think is illegal.
So, you know, I spent one night with my child, and later that night I was sitting with her on my daughter\'s bed and talking about homework or something, I looked down at my phone and saw news alerts from some news agencies, you know, a news report said, \"President Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates.
Now that I start to cry, my daughter asks me what\'s wrong.
\"Why are you crying?
I said, \"I just realized that I can\'t be you. S.
Lawyer.
\"You know, if I have to defend the law that I think is illegal.
I got an answer to my question.
You know, maybe I can stay, maybe I can be in this government.
I realized I couldn\'t.
So this is a sad moment.
So we have to continue this case.
Fortunately, a nationwide ban has been issued in another region.
Our case is therefore on hold and we do not have to accept to defend it.
You know, it was later modified and now continues in the modified form.
Rosenberg: But you quit your job in the United States. S.
Still, the lawyer in the office you love. McQuade: I did.
Oh, I was lucky enough to be able to land at the University of Michigan, so after that experience, I started seriously exploring other opportunities and signing agreements with law school here.
I\'m honored to be back here to teach, you know, with the Department of Justice, this is the institution I like.
But another great institution is the University of Michigan.
So I\'m honored to be here.
Rosenberg: I mentioned at the beginning of this podcast that we are sitting in your office, the beautiful campus of the University of Michigan, almost as good as the University of Virginia.
It\'s really a pleasure to be able to spend some time with you, Barb McQuade.
Thank you, Chuck, and thank you for coming to Ann Arbor to see me.
Oh, it\'s our pleasure.
Thank you for your oath.
My pleasure. Thank you.
Rosenberg: Thanks to Barbara McQuaid for taking the oath with me today.
I really enjoyed our conversation.
Barb is a very good friend and she also helped promote earth on Twitter.
If you like Barb on Twitter-
You have reason to do that because she did a great job on MSNBC as a legal analyst --
You can find her on Barb McQuade\'s Twitter. Thanks Barb.
My sworn guest next week is Pat fitzgerrard, a former US attorney in Chicago.
Pat has a great career in federal law enforcement, starting with the federal prosecutor, who is an Assistant American lawyer in the Southern District of New York.
Where he sued al-
Al-Qaida and anti-mafia
We will talk about these two issues next week as we take the oath.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...