US court gives Mrs. Lapid more time to prepare for case

CHICAGO – The United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada granted on Tuesday the motion of Sen. Lito Lapid’s wife Marissa for “additional time to conduct legal research and factual investigation” of the $50,000 bulk smuggling charge filed against her by the US government.

Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen reset the preliminary hearing scheduled last Feb. 7 to April 9 at Courtroom 3B in the US District Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas.

Natalie Collins, spokesperson for the US Attorney’s office in Las Vegas, provided this reporter a two-page order issued by Judge Leen, saying, “denial of this request would result in a miscarriage of justice, and would deny the parties reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

“The Court grants this request for continuance on the basis of finding that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial and indictment.”

Eliot Krieger of Jarvis, Krieger & Sullivan based in Long Beach, California and its affiliated law firm in Las Vegas Back Law Firm, represented by Michael Mascarello that were retained by Lapid, agreed to a joint stipulation with US Attorney Daniel Bogden, represented by Assistant US Attorney Michael Chu, that the preliminary hearing last Tuesday be continued on a date and time convenient to the Court, but not less than 60 days from the date currently set for the preliminary hearing.

The postponement of the preliminary hearing that will determine probable cause would enable the defendant to seek additional time to conduct legal research and factual investigation of the allegations set forth in the complaint.

In addition, the parties might seek to conduct negotiations that may resolve this case.

Krieger said that although Lapid is out on a $500,000 property bond, she could not leave the perimeter of Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas, without court permission.

Lapid was questioned when she arrived at the Las Vegas airport last Nov. 27, 2010 when she failed to disclare that she was bringing into the US more than $50,000 in US currency and more than P10,000 ($356) in violation of US anti-smuggling law that could be penalized with a maximum five years in jail and a fine of $250,000 and forfeiture of the seized money.

There is really nothing wrong with bringing in or out of the US more than $10,000 for as long as the bearer will declare the actual amount and could prove the legitimacy of the source of the money.

The pending case against Lapid would likely clear up her US immigration status. When Lapid waived her Miranda rights by cooperating with the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), she told Albert Giangregorio, Special Agent for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that she was applying “as a Lawful Permanent Resident” upon her entry.

Krieger said that when Lapid entered the US last Nov. 27, she was a holder of a Green Card.

Lapid was released by CBP authorities shortly after her arrival without any charges.

When Lapid returned to the Philippines, the US Department of Homeland Security invited her to return to Las Vegas, Krieger said.

“She was free to come and go until Jan. 5th (2012) when she returned to Las Vegas when charges were filed against Mrs. Lapid. We will vigorously and aggressively defend her rights.”

A complaint of “probable cause affidavit” unsealed by the US District Court of Nevada in Las Vegas showed that on Nov. 27, 2010 after Lapid “presented a completed and a signed CBP Form 6059B, she stated she was not carrying currency or monetary instruments over $10,000 in US currency or a foreign currency equivalent.”

When pressed again by a CPB officer Johnson, Lapid admitted she had additional P10,000 ($356).

The affidavit said that when Johnson “unzipped the baggage,” it led to the discovery of two socks containing $10,000 each, totaling $20,000, and one cloth bag containing an additional $20,000 “concealed beneath the bag lining.”

The discovery “represented an additional $40,000 over Lapid’s written and verbal declarations.” When asked what the additional money was for, Lapid reportedly responded, “I’m sorry, It’s for my house.”

CPB officers seized the $50,000 from Lapid in violation of bulk smuggling regulations and returned the remaining $439 back to her for humanitarian reasons.

No Valentine’s Day dinner

Senator Lapid and his wife Marissa would not be able to celebrate Valentine’s Day together.

Lawyer Filmer Abrajano, chief of staff of the senator, said that in past Valentines’ days, the couple never failed to have dinner with their children.

“He has always really been a family man when it comes to Valentine’s day,” Abrajano said.

He said that Lapid has no plans to fly to Las Vegas to be with his wife in Clark County, since the senator will be busy acting as one of the senator-judges in the Senate impeachment court hearing the case filed against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“On Valentine’s Day, the senator would be attending the session in the Senate in the morning, and then will be in the impeachment trial in the afternoon,” he said.

“But I can suppose they will greet each other Happy Valentine’s on the phone,” he added.

Marissa will remain in her house in Las Vegas with an electronic monitoring device on her ankle, pending the resolution of the dollar smuggling case filed against her.

Her lawyer Krieger said Lapid has not asked the Nevada district court to give her a permit to travel to the Philippines or elsewhere.

He said Lapid could petition the court to allow her temporary freedom to go elsewhere, even to the Philippines, but she has not manifested any such plan.

Krieger cited past clients whose movements were also limited by the court, but were allowed temporary liberty even outside the United States. This is because of guarantees, such as the $500,000 lien imposed by the Nevada court on Marissa’s property in Las Vegas, he noted.

Krieger also said that he was not sure whether a grand jury would be constituted to determine whether there was probable cause in her case.

He explained that the other scenario would be a preliminary hearing, which includes the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer, to engage in proceedings that allow the introduction of evidence, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and limited forms of disclosure of information. – With Ding Cervantes