EZ Jet boss changes plea

Dec 04, 2013 News

---

 

…successfully petitions US Court for new lawyer

Having pleaded guilty to several counts of fraud in the US two months ago, embattled businessman, Sonny Austin Ramdeo has successfully petitioned the US District Court in Florida, to change his plea and requested that a new lawyer be appointed by the State, since his defence lawyer had neglected his obligations.

Ramdeo, the founder of EZ Jet airlines, told the court that he was threatened, coerced and forced to sign the Plea Bargaining arrangement and entered a guilty plea at the beginning of October last.
Ramdeo is accused of fleecing a hospital chain for which he was an accountant, of millions of US dollars which he then plugged into the failed low cost carrier, EZ Jet.
Ramdeo in his petition said when he initially appeared in court and an attorney was rejected, his family hired the firm of Funk, Szachacz & Diamond, LLC to represent him.
It was attorney-at-law from this firm, Alan Diamond, who Ramdeo accused of conspiring with the US Prosecutor, Ellen Cohen, to force him to enter into a guilty plea through threats and coercion.
According to the petition, “Defence counsel informed the defendant that he will withdraw from the case if he did not plea and after informing the prosecutor, the prosecutor responded by informing defence counsel that government will withdraw the 3 level reduction which is included in the plea agreement.”
According to Ramdeo, “due to stress and coercion, the defendant was forced to enter a guilty plea as he was unaware that he can still get counsel, if defence counsel withdraws and his family is without funds to hire another and the defendant himself does not have any funds to hire an attorney.”
In presenting his petition to Judge Kenneth A. Marra, Ramdeo argued that when he was arrested and taken into custody in December last, he was not advised of the probable cause for the arrest nor was he read his Miranda rights.
“In fact the FBI agents refused to allow him (defendant) to contact an attorney,” said Ramdeo.
He said that it was when he appeared in the District Court for Eastern District of New York that it was revealed that the defendant had a sealed warrant.
Ramdeo was arrested in New York and subsequently transferred to the Southern District of Florida.
According to Ramdeo, at the initial appearance he was deemed indigent in which it was asserted that Vanessa Chen had offered to represent him, given her familiarity with the case over other attorneys in this district.
The judge refused to allow Chen to represent Ramdeo, after which the defendant’s family hired the firm of Funk, Szachacz & Diamond, LLC.
According to Ramdeo he has been waiting for defence counsel to prepare his case for trial since being appointed, including filing motions, reviewing the applicable evidence, investigating the matter or gathering any additional evidence.
Ramdeo argues that the Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel ‘’does not simply start with the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings and then require counsel’s assistance at every step in the criminal prosecution thereafter.”
He said the right, demands that the assistance of counsel be available only at the ‘’critical stages’’ in the criminal prosecution, those steps at which substantial rights of the accused may be affected by counsel’s absence.
“In this present case, the defendant asserts that defence counsel was unavailable at the ‘critical stages’ in preparing the case for trial.”
Ramdeo said that the attorney did not review his indictment until 45 days after being appointed, when the case was set for possible trial in mid-July or mid-August. He said too that the lawyer did not begin evidence review until there was less than 30 days to prepare for trial.
“Defence counsel refused to file motions to extend the deadline in order to file pre-trial motions
(whether necessary or not), failed to file motion to suppress…Defence counsel did not issue any
subpoenas for records and information relevant to the case…Defence counsel failed to compel the government to turn over all evidence under the standing discovery order.”
Ramdeo argued further that “Indeed defence counsel lost a listing of pertinent evidence provided to him to demand from the Government and only mentioned it towards the end of September, 2013…In fact defence counsel took advantage of the fact that the court had failed to setup any pretrial conferences after the defendant was arraigned on a superseding indictment.”
Ramdeo said that the Pretrial conferences would have assured compliance with the standing discovery order as well as preparation for trial.
He further stated that his defence counsel has on multiple occasions refused to meet with him, answer emails, or return phone calls.
“For example, the defendant left an urgent message with defence counsel’s office to come see him regarding the situation that occurred on October 1, 2013 regarding the plea deal, 30 days elapsed and counsel did not come see the defendant. “
Ramdeo said that the lawyer’s excuse was that he did not receive the messages.
In his petition, Ramdeo pointed out that the importance of the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions was expressed by Justice Sutherland in a previous case, Powell v. Alabama.
Justice Sutherland in that case had ruled that, ‘’The right to be heard by counsel would be in many cases of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with a crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether an indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge and convicted upon incompetent evidence or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge to adequately prepare his defence even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.”
Ramdeo as such pleaded with the Court to grant this motion to appoint counsel, since he is indigent and is not being fairly represented by the lawyer that had been appearing on his behalf.

 

---

---