0% found this document useful (0 votes)
79 views3 pages

Farkasmotion

This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to amend a court ruling continuing the trial dates in a criminal case against Lee Bentley Farkas. It argues that one of the defense attorneys, Bruce Rogow, has a scheduling conflict with the new April 4th trial date due to teaching obligations and is unavailable until April 18th. It notes that the prosecution does not oppose moving the trial date to April 18th to accommodate the defense attorney's schedule.

Uploaded by

melaniel_co
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
79 views3 pages

Farkasmotion

This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to amend a court ruling continuing the trial dates in a criminal case against Lee Bentley Farkas. It argues that one of the defense attorneys, Bruce Rogow, has a scheduling conflict with the new April 4th trial date due to teaching obligations and is unavailable until April 18th. It notes that the prosecution does not oppose moving the trial date to April 18th to accommodate the defense attorney's schedule.

Uploaded by

melaniel_co
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Case 1:10-cr-00200-LMB Document 102 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :


:
v. : Case No. 1:10cr200 (LMB)
:
LEE BENTLEY FARKAS, :
:
Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S


MOTION TO AMEND DECEMBER 10, 2010 RULING
CONTINUING MOTION AND TRIAL DATES

COMES NOW the defendant, LEE BENTLEY FARKAS (hereinafter Mr.

Farkas), by counsel, and submits this, his memorandum in support of his motion to

amend the December 10, 2010 ruling made by this Court, in which this Court continued

motion and trials dates, specifically including an April 4, 2011 trial date, to reflect dates

two (2) weeks later, including a trial date in this matter of April 18, 2011.

ARGUMENT

Bruce Rogow, Esquire is a member of Mr. Farkas’s defense team, even though he

has not yet entered his appearance in this case. The undersigned counsel consulted with

Mr. Rogow to determine his good trial dates on and after May 23, 2011. In the motion

giving rise to the December 10, 2010 order, Mr. Farkas’s counsel sought a continuance of

the trial date in this matter to a date no earlier than May 23, 2011, and the Government

agreed with that position. As a result, Mr. Rogow, who was not present at the hearing on

December 10, 2010, did not provide his good dates in April 2011. After this Court
Case 1:10-cr-00200-LMB Document 102 Filed 12/10/10 Page 2 of 3

entered its December 10, 2010 order continuing this case only to April 4, 2011, the

undersigned counsel returned to his office and advised Mr. Rogow of the new trial date.

Mr. Rogow immediately responded that he was unavailable as early as April 4, 2011, but

could be available to start trial on April 18, 2011 (two (2) weeks later).

The conflict with Mr. Rogow’s schedule arises because Mr. Rogow is a professor

at Nova Southeastern University Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. His short

resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A. During this winter semester he is teaching Civil

Procedure and Federal Jurisdiction, on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3:00 p.m. to 7:45

p.m. His last day of class is April 21, 2011, but he has indicated that he can rearrange

that schedule to be available to start trial on April 18, 2011.

Counsel for Mr. Farkas has consulted with counsel for the Government, and

counsel for the Government represented that the Government did not oppose the

defendant’s motion to amend, and that the Government believes this matter should be

decided on the pleadings, without any oral appearance.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Farkas’s motion, unopposed by the

Government, should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

LEE BENTLEY FARKAS

By: /s/
WILLIAM B. CUMMINGS, ESQUIRE
VA Bar No. 6469
Counsel for LEE BENTLEY FARKAS
WILLIAM B. CUMMINGS, P.C.
Post Office Box 1177

2
Case 1:10-cr-00200-LMB Document 102 Filed 12/10/10 Page 3 of 3

Alexandria, Virginia 22313


(703) 836-7997
Fax (703) 836-0238
wbcpclaw@aol.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 10th day of December, 2010, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a

notification of such filing (NEF) to at least the following registered ECF users:

Paul J. Nathanson, Esquire


paul.nathanson@usdoj.gov
Charles Connolly, Esquire
charles.connolly@usdoj.gov
United States Attorney’s Office for
the Eastern District of Virginia
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

/s/
WILLIAM B. CUMMINGS, ESQUIRE
VA Bar No. 6469
Attorney for LEE BENTLEY FARKAS
WILLIAM B. CUMMINGS, P.C.
Post Office Box 1177
Alexandria, Virginia 22313
(703) 836-7997
Fax (703) 836-0238
wbcpclaw@aol.com

You might also like