Archive for the ‘Felons in Freemasonry’ Category

h1

Dormant, not dead; like 31 years dormant.

September 14, 2014

Dear Freemasons and friends,

Word has it that certain circles are supposedly seeking support for thrice convicted violent felon James Anderson “Jimmy” Foster’s attempts to restore his civil rights and regain Masonic good graces.  However, one wonders, are the alleged supporters aware that Foster isn’t eligible for restoration of civil rights?

As repeatedly addressed within this blog, Felon James Anderson “Jimmy” Foster’s convictions for aggravated battery and aggravated assault, counts 12 and 18 on the violent crimes list and both of which he was convicted of on February 3, 1983,  preclude restoration of civil rights.

http://www.restorerights.org/restore_rights/

Further, by entering the below information in the accompanying link (provided by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement), you will see that Foster-after 31 years-still lacks civil rights:

Name:  James Anderson Foster

Date of Birth:  12/17/1960

Florida Department of Corrections Identification Number:  0144204

https://fpcweb.fpc.state.fl.us/default.aspx

Many have heard of an alleged movement, supposedly spearheaded by Foster, to flood the Clemency Board with letters and signatures supporting his pursuit of civil rights.  This, by design, is merely an attempt to feather the Masonic nest in anticipation of his potential return.

Now, just as he allegedly encourages the misguided to follow the below instructions to contact the Clemency Board, opponents may follow suit.   Those who endured Foster’s fraudulent foray into Masonry and subsequent abuses can contact the Clemency Board, spelling out his failure to disclose his criminal history when petitioning for membership and denying it when confronted with its lengthy documentation a decade later (because, of course, nothing says “I’m a changed person” like perpetuating decades of deceit).

Per http://www.restorerights.org/restore_rights/ :

In addition to sending the letter to the Clemency Board Coordinator, you should also send the letter to the members of the Board of Executive Clemency and to their Clemency Aides.

Step 7: Where should I send my application and supporting documents?

Mail all documents to: Coordinator
                                   Office of Executive Clemency
                                   2601 Blair Stone Road , Building C
Room 244
Tallahassee , Florida 32399-2450

If you are in Level I, you only need to submit your updated contact information.

If you are in Level II or Level III, your complete package should include:

  • Cover letter to Clemency Board Coordinator
  • Personal Letter, including a Statement of the relief you are requesting (restoration of civil rights)
  • Letters of Support in the order of importance
  • You can always send in additional materials while your application is pending.

BE SURE TO KEEP A COPY OF EVERY DOCUMENT THAT YOU SEND TO THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.

h1

No rest(oration of civil rights) for the weary

August 5, 2013

Dear James Anderson “Jimmy” felon Foster,

Word has it that certain circles have circulated a petition allegedly seeking clemency for you and/or restoration of your civil rights, ostensibly to facilitate re-entry into Masonic good graces.  However, should such a document with actual signatures exist, are said signees aware that you are ineligble for restoration of civil rights?

Please, allow Felon-free Masonry to clarify.

As previously addressed, Felon Foster’s convictions for aggravated battery and aggravated assault, counts 12 and 18 on the violent crimes list and both of which he was convicted of on February 3, 1983,  preclude restoration of civil rights.

http://www.restorerights.org/restore_rights/

Eligibility

  • No violent offenses (see Level I list; please click on the above link to view Levels I and II, Rule 9- Rules of Executive Clemency)
  • Not declared a habitual violent felony offender, a 3-time violent felony offender, violent career criminal, prison releasee reoffender, sexual predator

Enter the following information (provided by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement) into the below link for proof that Foster lacks restoration of civil rights:

Name:  James Anderson Foster

Date of Birth:  12/17/1960

Florida Department of Corrections Identification Number:  0144204

https://fpcweb.fpc.state.fl.us/default.aspx

Always happy to help,

Felon-free Masonry

h1

Fan Mail

March 30, 2013

On March 6, 2013 at 9:51 pm, Will Rogers Lodge No. 53 (@ClaremoreMasons) said:

I think the author of this site needs to reevaluate the 4 cardinal virtues, the landmarks, tenets and his obligation as this site is unmasonic in it’s purest form.  Consider this “good council”.

Felon-free Masonry replied:

Thank you for good counsel and for visiting Felonfreemasonry.wordpress.com.  Should you desire more information on the unmasonic, kindly refer to A) Walter Schoepf’s federal criminal record coupled with the fact that his actions, specifically post conviction, directly violate the rules and regulations set forth in the Masonic digest of Florida; and B) the nonmasonic history of thrice convicted felon James Anderson “Jimmy” Foster’s fraudulent foray into Freemasonry.

Regarding the four cardinal virtues, perhaps all should remember the ten commandments which, among other things, frown upon stealing (are monies earned from the sale of mislabeled shrimp ill-gotten gains?), lying (including Schoepf’s purposeful mislabeling, to which he pleaded guilty, and felon Foster’s failure to disclose a lengthy criminal history when petitioning for membership coupled with his denial of it a decade later), and adultery (Felon-free Masonry is bustin’ at the seams on this one). 

Again, thanks for visiting Felon-free Masonry and please register for instant email notifications.

Sincerely,

Felon-free Masonry

 

h1

The name game (or are more than shrimp mislabeled?)

February 20, 2013

Dear Walter Schoepf Schopf and now Schoetf,

http://www.manta.com/c/mmnnq1n/culinary-specialties

Walter Schoetf Owner

Walter Schoepf President

Could it be:

  • Misspelling?
  • Distance between yourself and your criminal history?
  • Mistaken Identity?
  • More mislabeling (including but not limited to purposely altering a name)?

Feel free to clarify (before you allegedly log in to change it, of course).

Sincerely,

Felon-free Masonry

SONY DSC

h1

Be Here Now

February 19, 2013

SONY DSC

 

Felon-free Masonry is as proud as a peacock to present search terms recently used to find this blog:

can a convicted felon be a freemason 4
felon freemasonry 4
walter schoepf arrest 3
felonmason 2
florida prince hall grand lodge 1
pha masonic lodges orlando florida 1
masonic regulations for convicted felons 1
walter schoepf 1
can a convicted felon become a freemason 1
steak and shake 1
constitution and bylaws of the most worshipful union grand lodge 1
meredith kercher occult 1
sos freemasonry 1
if someone is a felon can he become freemasons 1
barry shaffer/florida mason 1
felons in masonry 1
felones and black masonry 1
gabriella carlizzi death 1
prince hall lodge orlando fl
h1

Un vs. Non

February 19, 2013

An answer is needed to an age old question; not why did the chicken cross the road but rather:  Why does a currently suspended thrice convicted violent felon with a lengthy criminal history (including but not limited to 2 separate incarcerations with one in a Department of Corrections mental health facility, a fifteen year term of probation, and a probation violation https://felonfreemasonry.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/it-aint-no-copy-and-paste-and-it-wasnt-one-small-youthful-indiscretion/ ) continually attend Masonic functions (including but not limited to an officer installation and a multi-lodge President’s Day picnic)?

James Anderson “Jimmy” Foster is in the middle of a five year definite suspension.  Re-entry into the fraternity is contingent upon restoration of civil rights which, as demonstrated by the United States government, will not happen without divine or federal intervention ( https://felonfreemasonry.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/no-restoration-of-civil-rights-for-the-weary/ ).

Further, in consideration of Foster’s failure to disclose his criminal history when petitioning for membership coupled with his denial of it nearly a decade later, Felon-free Masonry does not recognize him as a Mason or brother in any respect.

Simply, he is nonmasonic.

There’s been plenty of talk regarding unmasonic conduct though little addresses nonmasonic behavior.  To delineate:  Unmasonic conduct is traditionally interpreted as a bad thing done by an otherwise decent mason in good standing; Walter Schoepf’s crimes and actions reasonably represent this.  Accordingly, Felon-free Masonry accepts him as a Mason and brother (albeit unmasonic) mainly because he has not defrauded the fraternity.

However, nonmasonic conduct is exemplified by Jimmy Foster’s initial fraud and subsequent decade of deceit.

Simply, he has no place or standing in the world of Freemasonry.

Sadly, some may overlook the actions of these men and thereby fail to appreciate the need for Masonic rules, regulations, and punishment.  Felon-free Masonry  understands this as such things are often selectively overlooked and/or unenforced by officers on local and/or Grand Lodge levels.  Still, to those good standing brothers allegedly meeting with Foster and Schoepf for weekly Hillsborough Lodge Past Masters dinners:  Really?  Gentlemen, are you aware that your actions could be considered unmasonic conduct in its purest form?

Again, Felon-free Masonry understands because of the oft employed Masonic way:  Subjectivity at its finest followed by heaping doses of do as I say, not as I do.

But back to non vs. unmasonic, shall we consider what constitutes poor judgment, outright stupidity, or clearly unsuitable behavior?

1.     Some might say a thrice convicted violent’s felon’s fraudulent entry into Freemasonry is NONMASONIC.

       Felon-free Masonry agrees.

2.     Some might say Shrimp Meister Schoepf’s actions are unmasonic and worthy of masonic punishment.

        Felon-free Masonry agrees.

3.     Some might say that having Table Lodge prepared by a brand new federal convict is extremely poor judgment.

        Felon-free Masonry agrees.

4.     Some might say that fence sitting and duplicity are unsuitable behaviors.

        Felon-free Masonry agrees.

5.  Some might say that caring more about the author of Felon-free Masonry than the actual written content is outright stupidity.

      Again, Felon-free Masonry agrees.

And by the way, why are some seemingly more concerned with this blog’s author rather than the actual written content?  Do people really want to know who’s written what?  Well, here you go:  Foster’s felonious history was written by his actions and documented by The Hillsborough County Clerk of Court’s office and the Florida Department of Corrections.  Schoepf dictated his own criminal history which has been generously outlined by the United States federal government.

Further, despite multiple claims of masonic and legal actions against Felon-free Masonry, no such are pending.  Should  any Masonic, non, un, or other individuals feel slighted by Felon-free Masonry’s inclusion of public records and legal documentation, perhaps they should focus more on paying their bills, obeying the law, not refusing BAC testing (hey, that almost spells joke), avoiding foreclosure, and upholding Masonic obligations.

SONY DSC

h1

Sometimes, even federally convicted Shrimp Meisters catch a break.

November 24, 2012

Dear Walter,

It’s okay; stop googling “Walter Schoepf mugshot.”   As much as Felon-free Masonry would like to publish it, there’s this:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=94644&rss=14

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), Luis Giro is a person of interest to law enforcement, which certainly made him an interesting person to South Florida journalists. However, these interests were not enough to warrant release of his booking photos under a federal judge’s ruling.

Giro, a former Miami-based investment manager, fled the United States in 2003 after he was indicted for misappropriating client funds. Federal officials circulated his driver’s license photograph through INTERPOL, and Venezuelan authorities arrested him in 2009. The U.S. Marshals Service, following its standard procedure, took “booking photos” of Giro when placing him in custody. Giro ultimately pled guilty to securities fraud and now faces up to 10 years in prison.

An Internet journalist brought a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after the U.S. government denied a request for Giro’s booking photos. In its decision denying access, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Karantsalis v. U.S. Department of Justice, ruled that Giro retains a privacy interest in his mug shots that trumps any public interest in their dissemination.

This result seems counterintuitive given the public interest in Giro’s crimes, but it is not altogether unusual when FOIA cases involve law enforcement records. Under FOIA, federal agencies must make their records available to the public unless an exemption applies. FOIA Exemption 7, cited by the court in this case, applies to law enforcement records where disclosure “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).

In applying FOIA’s balancing test of the public and private interest, the district court in Karantsalis describes the privacy interest in strong terms:

A booking photograph is a vivid symbol of criminal accusation, which, when released to the public, intimates, and is often equated with guilty. Further, a booking photograph captures the subject in the vulnerable and embarrassing moments immediately after being accused, taken into custody, and deprived of most liberties … it raises a unique privacy interest because it captures an embarrassing moment that is not exposed to the public eye.

The privacy interest described in Karantsalis seems disconnected from the facts: Giro’s criminal activities, his flight from law enforcement, the worldwide circulation of his driver’s license photograph tied to an indictment, more than five years as a fugitive, his admission of guilt, a looming prison sentence, and a DOJ press release describing all of these events. Whatever additional embarrassment Mr. Giro may sustain by the release of his mug shots, it surely pales in comparison to what he has already experienced.

The Florida court’s ruling also conflicts with a federal appeal court’s on-point ruling in a 1996 case granting the Detroit Free Press access to mug shots. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that there is no privacy interest in a mug shot that triggers an exemption under FOIA:

We have previously determined, however, that the personal privacy of an individual is not necessarily invaded simply because that person suffers ridicule or embarrassment from the disclosure of information in the possession of government agencies….Furthermore, the need or desire to suppress the fact that the individual depicted in a mug shot has been booked on criminal charges is drastically lessened in an ongoing criminal proceeding such as the one precipitating the dispute presently before us.

The difference in these courts’ approaches shows that the issue of access to photos in law enforcement’s hands is far from settled under FOIA.

However, feel free to provide the shot should you so desire.  Oh, what a glorious Christmas card photo that would be; you and felon Foster could be the Sigfried and Roy of mugshots.

Sincerely,

Felon-free Masonry

h1

Shrimp Meister Sentencing

November 22, 2012

Dear Shrimp Meister Schoepf,

The court clerks (Miami, Florida US Southern District, Federal Court; phone number 305-523-5100) say you are a felon despite your allegations of misdemeanor convictions.  Accordingly, Felon-free Masonry extends an invitation for clarification:  Who/which is correct, you or the federal court clerks?  

Further, per allegations that Culinary Specialties-not you-received a felony conviction, please note that cars do not receive speeding tickets; drivers do.  

Again, feel free to untangle these webs at your convenience.

Still, you’ve much to be grateful for this Thanksgiving season, specifically number 9 of the Standard Conditions of Supervision which effectively precludes attendance at the Citrus Park Longhorn luncheons and the occasional “Hillsborough Lodge Past Masters Dinner” at Hank’s; both of which are graced by the presence of thrice convicted violent felon James Anderson “Jimmy” Foster. 

Lucky you.

Now, what to do Masonically; hmmm?

Sinshrimpcerely,

Felon-free Masonry

As noted below, Schoepf’s sentencing guidelines and probationary terms seemingly indicate felony convictions:

  • The defendant shall not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon.
  • The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION

1. The defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;

2. The defendant shall report to the probation officer in a manner and frequency directed by the court or probation officer;

3. The defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer;

4. The defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities;

5. The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons;

6. The defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten (10) days prior to any change in residence or employment;

7. The defendant shall refrain from the excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any

paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed by a physician;

8. The defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered;

9. The defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer;

10. The defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any contraband observed

in plain view by the probation officer;

11. The defendant shall notify the probation officer within forty-eight (48) hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer;

12. The defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the court; and

13. As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant’s criminal record or personal

history or characteristics and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant’s compliance with such notification

requirement.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TITLE/SECTION, NUMBER, NATURE OF OFFENSE OFFENSE ENDED COUNT

16 U.S.C. § 3372(d)(1),

3372(d)(2),

3373(d)(3)(A)(ii)

False Labeling of Seafood June 29, 2009 2

The defendant is sentenced as provided in the following pages of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

Count(s) remaining are dismissed on the motion of the United States.  It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district

within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully

paid.  If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of any material changes in economic circumstances.

Date of Imposition of Sentence:  November 19, 2012

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JUDGE JOAN A. LENARD

DEFENDANT

CULINARY SPECIALTIES, INC.

CASE NO. 12-20117-CR

Deputy Clerk P.Mitchell DATE November 19, 2012

Court Reporter Lisa Edwards USPO Tom Felasco

AUSA Norman Hemming Deft’s Counsel Brian Gonzalez

Interpreter: none Time 3:00pm- 3:15pm

COUNTS DISMISSED Remaining

Assessment $400

Fine $ 5,000 to be paid w/in 7 days to the Department of Commerce

h1

Glamourpuss

October 11, 2012

Though Felon-free Masonry does not have thrice convicted violent felon James Anderson “Jimmy” Foster’s mugshot, it does have his glamour shot.  That a grown man would willfully pose for such a picture is indeed intriguing but then again, perhaps two stints in prison alter one’s, ahem, mindset.

But anyway.

Brothers:  Don’t just stand there, let’s get to it, strike a pose, there’s nothing to it, tree trim.

h1

Culinary Specialties, Inc., Walter Schoepf, and Karl Degiacomi Plead Guilty to Falsely Labeling Shrimp

September 24, 2012

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/news/2012/08/23_dojculinaryspecialties.htm

Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Otha Easley, Acting Special Agent in Charge, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), Southeast Division, announced that Walter Schoepf, 60, and Karl Degiacomi, 69, pled guilty yesterday to the offense of Lacey Act-False Labeling, in violation of Title 16, United States Code, Sections 3372(d)(2) and 3373(d)(3)(B). Also, Culinary Specialties, Inc., of Tampa, Florida, pled guilty yesterday to conspiracy to commit violations of the Lacey Act and Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

According to the allegations of the charging instrument, Schoepf and Degiacomi, who are principals, and owners of Culinary, in concert with Florida residents, Richard Stowell, United Seafood, Inc., Adrian Vela, and Sea Food Center, conspired to violate the Lacey Act by mislabeling and selling approximately five hundred thousand pounds of shrimp. The shrimp, valued in excess of $400,000, was ultimately sold to supermarkets in the northeastern United States. Stowell and United pled guilty and were sentenced for their role in the conspiracy on April 27, 2011, before U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro. Vela and Sea Food Center pled guilty and were sentenced for their role in the conspiracy on November 21, 2011, by U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard.

The mislabeling of foods such as fish and shrimp is prohibited by the federal Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(d)(1) and 3372(d)(2), and the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. § 331. The Lacey Act, in pertinent part, makes it unlawful for a person to falsely identify any fish that has been, or is intended to be, imported, sold, purchased, or received from any foreign country or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. The FDCA, in pertinent part, prohibits the alteration or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of food, if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce. Sentencing for Schoepf, Degiacomi, and Culinary is scheduled for November 19, 2012 before U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard.

Mr. Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of NOAA-OLE. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Norman O. Hemming, III.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and
information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern
District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov or onhttp://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

h1

August 31, 2012
h1

An Open Invitation to Clarification

August 28, 2012

The dilemma is this:  Shrimp Meister Schoepf allegedly claims misdemeanor convictions.  However, two calls to the federal court in Miami (ph. 305-523-5100, ask for a docketing clerk) report felony convictions.  Shrimpy, kindly clarify, who is correct:  You or the United States federal court?  As much as Felon-free Masonry has enjoyed your recent legal foibles, it does not wish to call you a felon if indeed, you are not.  However, calling Jimmy Foster a felon; that’ll happen all day, every day.

h1

Memorandum to the Meister

August 26, 2012

Dear Shrimp Meister Schoepf,

Felon-free Masonry hopes you enjoyed those years spent twisting the screws because look who’s screwed now.  It’s not quite as much fun when your life and livelihood are called into question, agree?  And all those concerns about social standing, white hats, and Grand Lodge appointments; how’s that working out for you these days?

Oh, and Bustin:  Still laughing? Good, so are we.

So, will you resign and accept relegation to the fringe (sorry Willie, pun not intended) with felon Foster to pithily plot the demise of those who’ve no discernable concern for you?  Will you start a new leper lodge with a Past Masters and Present Felons Association?  Perhaps you could meet at Hank’s for food, fun, and felonious fellowship.

Yes, you’re now a joke (hey, that almost spells Joe K.) who must reap what he’s mislabeled sown.

Congratulations, Schoepf, you’ve done what many thought was impossible:  You out-f’d felon Foster.  Though his crimes were violent and preclude restoration of civil rights, YOU. WENT. FEDERAL.  Yep, the big time.

Wow.

Gee, when you screw up, you screw up big.

And just so you know:  It’d be easier to care had you not burned virtually every bridge you’ve built.  Instead, enjoy your hard knock life; you’ve earned it.

Sincerely,

Felon-free Masonry

h1

Schoepf plea agreement (mislabeling charge)

August 26, 2012

PLEA AGREEMENT

The United States of America and W ALTER SCHOEPF (hereinaûer referred to as the defendant) enter into the following agreement:

The defendant agrees to plead guilty to the lesser included offense contained in Count 2 of the Indictment, which cotmt charges the defendant with Lacey Act-

False Labeling, in violation of Title 16, United States Code, Sections 3372(d)(2) and 3373(d)(3)(B).

2. The United States will seek dismissal of Counts 1 and 3 the lndictment, as to this defendant, at sentencing.

3. The defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed by the court after considedng the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (hereinafter

sentencing Guidelines).  Defendant acknowledges and understands that the court will compute an advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and that

the applicable guidelines will be dètermined by the court relying in part on the results of a Pre-sentence Investigation by the court’s probation office, which

investigation will commence after the gtlilty plea has been entered. Defendant is also aware that, under certain circumstances, the court may depart from the

advisory sentencing guideline range that it has computed, and m ay raise or lower that advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines.  Defendant is further

aware and understands that the court is required to consider the advisory guideline range detennined under the Sentencing Guidelines, but is not bound to

impose that sentence; the court is permitted to tailor the ultimate sentence in light of other statm ory concerns, and such sentence maybe eithermore severe or

less severe than the Sentencing Guidelines’ advisory sentence. Knowing these facts, defendant understands and acknowledges that the court has the authority to

impose any sentence within and up to the statutory maximum authorized by law for the offenses identified in paragraph 1 and that defendant may not withdraw

his plea solely as a result of the sentence imposed.

4. Defendant also understands and acknowledges that the court may impose a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of up to one (1) year, followed by a term

of supervised release of up to one (1) year on Cotmt 2. ln addition to a term of imprisonment and supezvised release, the court mayimpose a fine of up to $10,000,

or based onthe pecuniary loss or gain, twice the gross gain or twice the poss loss, pttrsuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3571(d), and may order

restitution pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. j 3663A.

5. Defendant further understands and acknowledges that, in addition to any sentence imposed in paragraph three (3) of this agreement a special assessment in

the amount of $25, per count of conviction, will be imposed on defendant for a total of $25.00. Defendant agrees that the special assessment imposed shall be

paid at the time of sentencing.

6. The Office of the United States Attorney for the Southem Distlict of Florida (hereinafter the office) reserves the right to inform the court and the probation

office of all facts pertinent to the sentencing process, including al1 relevant information concerning the offenses committed, whether charged or not, as well as

conceming the defendant’s background. Subject only to the express terms of any agreed-upon sentencing recommendations contained in this agreement, this

Office further reserves the right to make any recommendation as to the quality and quantity of punishment.

7. The United States further agrees to recommend that defendant be sentenced at the low end of the guideline range, as that range is detennined by the court. The

United States, however, will not be required to make this motion and this recommendation if the defendant: (1) fails or refuses to make a 111, accurate and

complete disclosure to the probation office of the circumstances surrounding the relevant offense conduct; (2) is found to have misrepresented facts to the

government prior to entering into this plea agreement; or (3) commits any misconduct after entering into this plea agreement, including but not limited to

committing a state or federal offense, violating any term of release, or making false statements or m isrepresentations to any governmental entity or official.

8. Defendant agrees that he shall cooperate fully with this Office by:

(a) providing truthful and complete information and testimony, and producing documents, records and other evidence, when called upon by this Office, whether

in interviews, before a grand jury, or at any trial or other court proceeding;

(b) appearing at such grandjuryproceedings, hearings, trials, and otherjudicial proceedings, and at meetings, as may be required by this Office; and

(c) if requested by this Office, worldng in an undercover role to identify, contact, and negotiate with unindicted co-conspirators, known and unknown to the

United States Attorney, who are suspected and believed to be involved in criminal misconduct under the supervision of and in compliance with, 1aw enforcement

officers and agents.

9. This Office reserves the right to evaluate the nature and extent of the defendant’s cooperation and to make defendant’s cooperation, or lack thereof, known to

the court at the time of sentencing. lf in the sole and unreviewable judgment of this Office defendant’s cooperation is of such quality and significance to the

investigation or prosecution of other criminal matters as to warrant the court’s downward departure from the advisory sentence calculated under the Sentencing

Guidelines, this Office may at or before sentencing make a motion consistent with the intent of Section 5K1. 1 of the Sentencing Guidelines prior to sentencing, or

Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure subsequent to sentencing, reflecting that defendant has provided substantial assistance and recomm ending

that defendant’s sentence be reduced from the advisory sentence suggestedbythe SentencingGuidelines. Defendant acknowledges and agrees,however,

and nothing in this Agreement may be construed to require this Office to file any such motions) and that this Office’s assessment ofthe nature, value, truthfulness,

completeness, andaccuracyof his cooperation shall be binding insofar as the appropriateness of this Office’s sling of any such motion is concerned.

10. Defendant is aware that Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 normally affords the defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case.

Acknowledging this, in exchange for the undertakings made by the United States in this plea agreement, defendant hereby waives all rights conferred by Section

3742 to appeal any sentence imposed, including any restitution order, or to appeal the manner in which the sentence was imposed, unless the sentence exceeds

the maximum permitted by statute or is the result of an upward departure and/or a variance from the guideline range that the court establishes at sentencing.

Defendant further understands that nothing in this agreement shall affect the government’s tight and/or duty to appeal as set forth in Title 18, United States

Code, Section 3742(b). However, if the United States appeals the defendant’s sentence pursuant to Section 3742(b), defendant shall be released from the above

waiver of appellate rights.  By signing this agreement, defendant acknowledges he has discussed the appeal waiver set forth in this agreement with his attorney.

Defendant further agrees, together with the United States, to request that the district court enter a specific finding that the defendant’s waiver of his right to

appeal the sentence to be imposed in this case was knowing and voluntary.  Defendant is aware that the sentence has not yet been detennined by the court.

Defendant also is aware that any estim ate of the probable sentencing range or sentence that defendant may receive, whether that estimate comes from the

defendant’s attorney, the govemment, or the probation office, is a prediction, not a promise, and is not binding on the government, the probation office, or the

court. Defendant lmderstands further that any recommendation that the government makes to the court as to sentencing, whether pursuant to this agreement or

otherwise, is not binding on the court and the court may disregard the recommendation in its entirety.  Defendant understands and acknowledges, as previously

acknowledged in paragraph 3 above, that the defendant may not withdraw his plea based upon the court’s decision not to accept a sentencing recommendation

made by the defendant, the government, or a recommendation made jointly by both the defendant and the government.

12. This is the entire agreement and tmderstanding between the United States and the defendant. There are no other av eem ents, promises, representations, or

understandings.

Respectfully submitted,

WIFREDO A . FERRER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

h1

A salute to Schoepfenomics

August 24, 2012

Don’t sweat it, Wally Ball, others are having a bad week as well.  Shoot, Lance Armstrong is being stripped of seven titles.  But then again, that’s apples and oranges:  He doped; you are a dope.

h1

Walter Schoepf/Culinary Specialties Plea Agreement (conspiracy charge)

August 23, 2012

UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 12-20117-CR-LENARD

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA

VS.

CULINARY SPECIALTIES, INC.,

Defendant.

PLEA AGREEMENT

The United States of America and CULINARY SPECIALTIES, lNC., (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) enter into the following agreement:

The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count lof the lndictment, which charges the defendant with Conspiracy To Falsely Label and M isbrand Seafood, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371,.

The United States will seek dismissal of Counts 2 and 3 of the lndictment, as to this defendant, at sentencing.

3. The defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed by the court after considering the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (hereinafter

“sentencing Guidelines”). The defendant acknowledges and understands that the court will compute an advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and

that the applicable guidelines will be determined by the courtrelying in part on the results of a Pre-sentence lnvestigation by the court’s probation office,

which investigation will commence after the guilty plea has been entered. The defendant is also aware that, under certain circumstances, the court may depart

from the advisory sentencing guideline range that it has computed, and may raise or lower that advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The

defendant is further aware and understands that while the court is required to consider the advisory guideline range determined under the Sentencing

Guidelines, it is not bound to impose that sentence; the court is pennitted to tailor the ultimate sentence in light of other statutory concerns, and such sentence

may be either more severe or less severe than the Sentencing Guidelines’ advisory range. Knowing these facts, the defendant understands and acknowledges that

the court has the authority to impose any sentence within and up to the statutory maximum authorized by law for the offense identified in paragraph 1 and that

the defendant ma ynot withdraw the plea solely as a result of the sentence imposed.

4. The defendant also understands and acknowledges that the court may impose a term of probation of not less than one year nor more than five years and may

impose a fine of up to the greater of $500,000 for each count of conviction or twice the amount of either the pecuniary gain from the offense or the poss

pecuniary loss from the offense to persons and organizations other than the defendant. The court may also order restitution to any ascertainable victim of the

offense conduct. The defendant furthe runderstands and acknowledges that, in addition, a special assessment in the amount of four hundred dollars ($400.00)

per Count for a total of $400.00 will be imposed on the defendant. This assessment amount must be paid at or before the date of sentencing.

The Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida  reserves the right to inform the court and the probation office of all facts

pertinent to the sentencing process, including all relevant information concerning the offense committed, as well as concerning the defendant and the

defendant’s background. Subject only to the express terms of any agreed-upon sentencing recommendations contained in this agreement, this

Office further reserves the right to make any recommendation as to the quantity of punishment.  The United States and the defendant agree that, although not

binding on the probation office or the court, they will jointly recommend to the court that under the advise of Sentencing Guidelines the following findings and

conclusions would correctly represent the calculation of a reasonable and appropriate sentence:

The parties recommend that the defendant be placed on organizational probation for a period of one year, pursuant to Section 8D 1.2.

The United States and the defendant agree that a criminal fine in the amount of $5,000.00 as to each Count for a total of $5,000 is appropriate and

should be imposed pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 357 1(c). This amount is to be made payable to the Clerk, United States

Courts and must be paid pursuant to schedule set by probation.  The defendant shall allow local, state, and federal officials or representatives,

including any officer of the Probation Office, to conduct unannounced examinations of the defendant’s premises, books, and records to verify

compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations and with the terms of probation.

The defendant agrees that it will provide to the United States written evidence in the form of a certified resolution by the Board of Directors, certifying that the

defendant is authorized to plead guilty to the charges as set forth in the Information, and to enter into and comply with a1l provisions of this agreement. The

resolution shall further certify that the designated corporate representative, SCHOEPF, WALTER, Presidentof CULINARY SPECIALTIES, is authorized

to take these actions and that all corporate formalities required for such authorization have been observed. The defendant agrees to have the designated

representative act on its behalf in these criminal proceedings, appear on the defendant’s behalf to enter the guilty plea, and to appear for the imposition of

sentence.

8. The defendant is aware that Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, affords the defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case.

Acknowledging this, in exchange for the undertakings made by the United States in this plea agreement, the defendant hereby waives  all rights conferred by

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 to appeal any sentence imposed, including any restitution or community service order, or to appeal the manner in

which the sentence was imposed, unless the sentence exceeds the maximum permitted by statute or is the result of an upward departure from the advisory

guideline range that the court establishes at sentencing. Subject to the preceding provision, this appeal waiver includes a waiver of the right to appeal the

sentence on the ground that under the advisory sentencing guidelines range determined by the court, the sentence imposed in this case is not a reasonable

sentence. The defendant further understands that nothing in this agreement shall affect the government’s right and/or duty to appeal as set forth in Title 18,

United States Code, Section 3742(b). However, if the United States appeals the defendant’s sentence pursuant to Section 3742(19, the defendant shall be released

from the above waiver of appellate rights. By signing this agreement, the defendant acknowledges that the Board of Directors and a11 appropriate corporate

representatives have discussed the appeal waiver set forth in this apeement with defendant’s attorney. The defendant further agrees, together with the United

States, to request that the district court enter a specific finding that the defendant’s waiver of its right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case was knowing

and voluntary.

9. The defendant is aware that the sentence has not yet been determined by the court.  The defendant recognizes that any estimate of the probable advisory

sentencing range or sentence that the defendant may receive, whether that estimate comes from the defendant’s attorney, the government, or the probation

office is a prediction, not a promise, and is not binding on the govem ment, the probation office, or the court. The defendant understands further that any

recommendation that the government makes to the court as to sentencing, whether pursuant to this agreement or otherwise, is not binding on the cout, and the

court may disregard the recommendation in its entirety. The defendant understands and acknowledges, as previously acknowledged in paragraph 3 above, that

the defendant may not withdraw its plea based upon the court’s decision not to accept a sentencing recommendation made by the defendant, the government, or

a recommendation made jointly by both the defendant and the government.

10. This is the entire agreement and understanding between the United States and the defendant. There are no other agreements, promises, representations, or

understandings.

h1

JOINT FACTUAL PROFFER STATEMENT as to Karl Degiacomi, Walter Schoepf

August 23, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA

W ALTER SCHOEPF

and

KARLO DEGIACOMI,

Defendants.

/

JOINT FACTUAL STATEM ENT

The undersigned parties agree that the information with reference to the fram ework of

federal laws and regulations applicable to this matter, and the personal information recited with

respect to the defendants and other pertinent parties, contained in paragraphs l through 13 of the

instant lndictm ent are correct and accurate statements of the applicable federal laws and factual

matters.

If this case were to proceed to trial, the United States and the defendants, Walter Schoepf

and Carlo Degiacomi, agree that by docum entary evidence and the testimony of witnesses, the

United States would establish the following:

1. Begirming in as early as June 30, 2008 and continuing through approximately

July 31, 2009, at M iami-Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the

defendants herein failed to exzrcise due care in overseeing the activities of the lessors, UNITED

SEAFOOD IMPORTS, INC. (ççUNlTED”), and SEA FOOD CENTER, who were engaged in

making of false labels for, and false identification of any fish and wildlife, that is shrimp, having

a market value greater than $350, which fish and wildlife had been, and was intended to be

transported in interstate and foreign commerce to their snancial gain.

2. On about June 29, 2009, KARL DEGIACOM I, a/k/a CARLO

DEGIACOM I, accepted delivery of and signed a Bill of lading for 1250 cases of shrimp labeled

tiproduct of Thailand,” said shrimp having originated in Thailand and imported into the United

States of America for the benetk of UNITED SEAFOOD IMPORTS, INC. (UNlTED”).

On about June 29, 2009, KARL DEGIACOM I, a/k/a CARLO

DEGIACOM I, accepted delivery and signed a Bill of Lading for 15 cases of plastic bags used

for packaging shrimp, each plastic bag labeled ddproduct of Panama.”

4. On or about June 29, 2009, employees of CULINARY SPECIALTIES, INC.

acting on instructions from UNITED, repackaged and relabeled, at the

business address and facilities of CULINARY, 1,250 cases of shrimp labeled Ssproduct of

Thailand” into bags labeled “product of Panama”

On or about August 5, 2009, W ALTER SCHOEPF endorsed and received

proceeds from a check issued by UNITED, and made payable to CULINARY, for the

repackaging and re-labeling of 1,250 cases of shrimp labeled ”Product of Thailand” into bags

labeled ”Product of Panama,” by employees of CULINARY .

6. On or about August 5, 2009, W ALTER SCHOEPF, using the proceeds from the

aforesaid check issued by UNITED, in part, paid employees of CULINARY, for repackaging

and re-labeling of shrimp labeled tçproduct of Thailand” into bags labeled “product of Panama.”

7. The intended loss, pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, was the

proceeds of said check in the amount of Five Thousand Tllree Hundred and Eightydollars ($5,380.00).

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, the United States respectfully submits that a reasonable jury

would find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants W alter Schoepf and Carlo Degiacomi are

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge of Lacey Act-False Labeling, in violation of Title

16, United States Code, Sections 3372(d)(2) and 3373(d)(3)(B), as the lesser included

misdemeanor offense charged in Cotmt 2 of the lndictment pending against them .

h1

Schoepf/Culinary Specialties guilty of federal conspiracy charges

August 22, 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 12-20117-CR-LENARD

CHANGE OF PLEA MINUTES

vs.

CULINARY SPECIALTIES, INC.,

/

On August 22, 2012 the above named defendant appeared in person before the

Honorable

Joan A. Lenard, United States District Judge, with Brian Gonzalez counsel appointed

by the Court/retained by the defendant, and said defendant stated in open court that he/she desired

to withdraw the plea of not guilty heretofore entered and desired to enter a plea of guilty as to Count

1 of the Indictment.

After the defendant was duly sworn, the Court made inquiry as to guilt. The Court, being

satisfied there was a factual basis for the plea, accepted the plea of guilty and found the defendant

guilty as charged. Whereupon:

( ) The Court Arraigned the defendant on the Superseding Information.

( ) The Court proceeded to pronounce sentence. (See J&C)

(X) The Court postponed sentencing

November 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm.

() The defendant being allowed to remain on bond until sentencing.

() Modifications of Conditions of Release:.

() The defendant being remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal until a

______________ bond in the amount of $____________ is approved and posted.

() The defendant being surrendered/remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal

awaiting sentencing.

h1

Congratulations, it’s a boy…and he’s a federally convicted Shrimp Meister

August 22, 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 12-20117-CR-LENARD

CHANGE OF PLEA MINUTES

vs.

WALTER SCHOEPF,

/

On August 22, 2012 the above named defendant appeared in person before the

Honorable

Joan A. Lenard, United States District Judge, with Brian Gonzalez counsel appointed

by the Court/retained by the defendant, and said defendant stated in open court that he/she desired

to withdraw the plea of not guilty heretofore entered and desired to enter a plea of guilty as to Count

2 of the Indictment.

After the defendant was duly sworn, the Court made inquiry as to guilt. The Court, being

satisfied there was a factual basis for the plea, accepted the plea of guilty and found the defendant

guilty as charged. Whereupon:

( ) The Court Arraigned the defendant on the Superseding Information.

( ) The Court proceeded to pronounce sentence. (See J&C)

(X) The Court postponed sentencing

November 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm.

(X) The defendant being allowed to remain on bond until sentencing.

() Modifications of Conditions of Release:.

() The defendant being remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal until a

______________ bond in the amount of $____________ is approved and posted.

() The defendant being surrendered/remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal

awaiting sentencing.

h1

The catch of the day, forevermore

August 22, 2012

Alas, Felon-free Masonry awaits the word with baited breath:

  • Will this day signal the fall of the house of Shrimp Meister?
  • Does the change of plea, which one could assume is from innocent to guilty, include felony convictions?
  • Will the Shrimp Meister’s photo fall from the Past Master wall?
  • Does this mean Long John Silver’s secures Table Lodge catering rights?
  • Moreover, is the Shrimp Meister elligible for hire at Captain Hook’s Fish and Chips?

Ah yes, Shrimp Meister Schoepf, suit up in the cruising vessel indeed. 

(Note:   Felon-free Masonry humbly reserves the right to serve just desserts as needed.  Quothe A. Anderson, nevermore)