FBI Top 10 Most Wanted Fugitive Arrested In Montreal

[EagerBeaver]

Fugitive on FBI Top 10 Held in Canada
By Associated Press
29 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - Canadian authorities have arrested a California man who was on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list for alleged sex crimes against children, the FBI said.

Richard Steve Goldberg, 61, of Long Beach, was arrested Saturday in Montreal at an address provided by a tipster who recognized the fugitive from the FBI's Web site, said Laura Eimiller of the FBI in Los Angeles. He had been on the run for about six years, she said.

Long Beach authorities claim Goldberg engaged in sexual acts with girls under the age of 10 in 2001. He also produced images of the sex acts, which were later found on his computer, according to the FBI.

Goldberg was being held by Canadian authorities for violating Canadian immigration laws and was scheduled to be in court on Monday, Eimiller said.

Goldberg was expected to be extradited to the United States. He will face state and federal charges, including sexual exploitation of children, unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, six counts of lewd acts upon a child and two counts of possession of child pornography, Eimiller said.

 

[Big Daddy Cool]

In some nations he would be exicuted for such a hanis act. Instead he'll go to Club Fed.

 

[daydreamer41]

In some nations he would be exicuted for such a hanis act. Instead he'll go to Club Fed.

California prisons are notoriously very bad places to be in, e.g. San Quentin. This guy will go to the highest of all high security prisons since he was on the FBI's top ten most wanted list. He will die there, since he is 61 and he will probably be given at least 50 years. If he is convicted and ends up in a Fed pen, they will send him to one in Colorado, where they have the unibomber and other notorious criminals.

 

[bond_james_bond]

Canada is a poor choice to flee, especially when the offenses may be even more serious in Canada. While some things, such as weed, are treated much less seriously in Canada, other things, such as kiddie pooners, may have even more dire consequences in Canada than the US.

Countries with no extradition treaty with the US:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Union of the Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Countries with neither diplomatic relations or extradition treaties:

Bhutan, Iran, North Korea, and the Republic of China (Taiwan) (which the United States does not consider a country under the One-China Policy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States

 

[EagerBeaver]

A very good criminal lawyer friend of mine told me that if I ever committed a murder and need to flee the US, Portugal is the best country to go to. I believe they also have no extradition treaty with the US.

 

[daydreamer41]

A very good criminal lawyer friend of mine told me that if I ever committed a murder and need to flee the US, Portugal is the best country to go to. I believe they also have no extradition treaty with the US.

Your criminal lawyer friend is wrong. There has been an extradition treaty with Portugal since 1908.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00....0.CO;2-#&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

The law found in the above link stated that under certain circumstances. I do not know what certain circumstances means. I suppose Portugal has the right to refuse or dictate certain circumstances.

I believe that all of Europe or most of Europe request in the case of Capital murder extradition that the US sign a wavier of the death penalty before they extradite an individual. The infamous Ira Einhorn, who was convicted in absentee in Philadelphia, was caught in France. France refused extradition of Einhorn until Pennsylvania agreed to waive the pursuit of the death penalty, which they did and Einhorn was convicted after being extradicted. He was on the loose for more than 30 years. If he did not get bold and go to the local store, he probably still would have been free, because he lived with a wealthy French woman on a secluded estate in France. Einhorn is serving a life sentence in PA, which means to the day you die, no parole.

Israel also has an extradition treaty with the US, but a law passed by the Knesset in 1979 to exclude Israeli citizens because of what Israel feared was anti-semetic treatment by some countries to allow safe haven for its citizens in those cases. The most infamous case was the Samuel Sheinbein case, a teen from MD, accused of murdering and dismembering his friend. Sheinbein fled to Israel. He was not an Israeli citizen, but his father was. He was jailed in Israel. There have been US citizens who were Jews but never obtained Israeli citzenship. They were extradited to the US. Crazy Eddie is the most famous. Robert and Rachel Manning are another example. They were wanted for a letter bomb that killed one person. They tried to claim citizenship under the law of return but were denied. He serving a life sentence in California. She died after a fatal heart attack in an Israeli prison while waiting for an extradition hearing in 1994.

 

[Esco!]

Countries with no extradition treaty with the US:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Union of the Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

But who the hell wants to live in those places

 

[EagerBeaver]

Goldberg Turned in By Canadian Counselor

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/13/fugitive.arrest/index.html

 

[EagerBeaver]

Your criminal lawyer friend is wrong.

I don't think so. He is a very good technician, does white collar criminal defense exclusively and he gave me a long and highly technical answer to this question. I don't know what the interpretation of that treaty is by Portugal (that was part of his answer now that I think of it), but I was advised that specifically for one fleeing charges for the crime of murder Portugal is the place to be for various reasons beyond the scope of this thread. I don't think it is totally all about the law as written as you seem to think. And it isn't all about whether there is an extradition treaty or not. As someone else pointed out nobody would want to live in many of those countries without an extradition treaty.

 

[Esco!]

As someone else pointed out nobody would want to live in many of those countries without an extradition treaty.

The only places worthwhile IMO are:

Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina (unless you're American), Maldives, Marshall Islands, Russian Federation, and Serbia & Montenegro (unless you're American).

The rest are giant shitholes.

 

[EagerBeaver]

US-Portugal Treaty

By the ways, I did a little research and learned that the 1908 extradition treaty with Portugal has essentially been replaced/supplemented by the Agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance signed by the US and Portugal on July 14, 2005. My friend's legal advice with respect to Portugal predated that treaty, so my thinking is that the 1908 treaty must have been supplemented or amended for a reason.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

If a country doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US, does that mean that it definitely won't extradite a criminal back to the US or that it might not if it's not in the mood?

 

[EagerBeaver]

If a country doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US, does that mean that it definitely won't extradite a criminal back to the US or that it might not if it's not in the mood?

FHB,

A very good question and the answer can be found here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm

Basically if a country has no extradition treaty with the US, they will nevertheless grant an extradition request based on the principle of reciprocity, meaning the US must also honor that country's extradition requests. If the US does not, then they can say "so sorry." And this buttresses the post I made above in response to Daydreamer that the absence of an extradition treaty does not necessarily mean you have smooth sailing in one of those non treaty countries, assuming you actually did want to live in one of them.

As a practical matter, even if there is no reciprocity and no treaty, there could be situations in which an extradition request will be granted, either because the fugitive has become persona non gratis in the host country, or because of immigration violations (such as lying to the host country's immigration authorities), or perhaps for political reasons (being a troublemaker/part of political movement opposed to those in power). Basically a sovereign nation can do whatever it wants to a foreign fugitive if there is no treaty. It can also unilaterally deport him before an extradition request is made.

 

[Esco!]

But most of the countries that were listed are corrupt as hell, even if the U.S. were to ask for voluntary extradition it'd be very easy to bribe your way out of it.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Esco,

If the fugitive had the money to do so, perhaps. But let's not forget the FBI offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Goldberg, a reward that can now be claimed by the Canadian counselor who turned Goldberg in. Let's assume Goldberg had fled to one of the "shithole" non treaty countries you have described. You really think he has $100,000 laying around to defeat the reward money offered by the FBI? If he did then he would have to pay them off at least $100,000. They would probably demand $150,000-

 

[Esco!]

Esco,

If the fugitive had the money to do so, perhaps. But let's not forget the FBI offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Goldberg, a reward that can now be claimed by the Canadian counselor who turned Goldberg in. Let's assume Goldberg had fled to one of the "shithole" non treaty countries you have described. You really think he has $100,000 laying around to defeat the reward money offered by the FBI? If he did then he would have to pay them off at least $100,000. They would probably demand $150,000-

R U kidding, they'd probably rat him out for a goat and a chicken.

I didnt know he had a one ton bounty on his head, and yeah that was obviously the deciding factor for turning him in.
He probably wouldve been safe in Russia or Andorra, no AMW there on TV.

I'm glad he got caught though, I wonder how many children in Montreal he "befriended"

 

[daydreamer41]

I don't think so. He is a very good technician, does white collar criminal defense exclusively and he gave me a long and highly technical answer to this question. I don't know what the interpretation of that treaty is by Portugal (that was part of his answer now that I think of it), but I was advised that specifically for one fleeing charges for the crime of murder Portugal is the place to be for various reasons beyond the scope of this thread. I don't think it is totally all about the law as written as you seem to think. And it isn't all about whether there is an extradition treaty or not. As someone else pointed out nobody would want to live in many of those countries without an extradition treaty.

Well, I hope your friend was not advising his clients where to go if they committed murder. That would be an accessory to flight from prosecution, a felony. I am sure he was speaking in general terms.

A very good criminal lawyer friend of mine told me that if I ever committed a murder and need to flee the US, Portugal is the best country to go to. I believe they also have no extradition treaty with the US.

Anyhow, your original post said that you thought that Portugal had no extradition treaty, but I pointed out that they did. I have no idea how they implemented it and the history of it. I do know that Portugal has a good immigtations relationship with the US, having known immigrants from Portugal. I would be curious why Portugal would not want to extradite a person accused of murder back to the US? Would they want to allow a person accused of a heinous crime to roam around free in their country? It would not make sense.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Daydreamer,

This conversation with my criminal attorney friend happened a few years ago (before the 2005 treaty) and since he did have more than a few murder trials under his belt and gave me a long explanation, I assumed he knew what he was talking about. I have since forgotten the details, but the fact that there were amendments to the treaty in 2005 suggests to me that problems were identified that warranted amending the treaty.

By the ways an attorney is free to talk to his client about the law in the abstract. It is not a felony to do that. And even if you know your client is going to flee, there is something called the attorney client privilege which is overriden only when the client tells you he is going to kill someone or cause serious bodily injury to someone. If the client informs the attorney he is going to jump bail, unless the client also says he is going to hurt someone, the lawyer's duty is one of confidentiality to the client. See Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs the conduct of attorneys in the State of Connecticut (and many other jurisdictions):

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/PB1.pdf

Click on "Rules of Professional Conduct" and go to Rule 1.6

 

[daydreamer41]

Daydreamer,

This conversation with my criminal attorney friend happened a few years ago (before the 2005 treaty) and since he did have more than a few murder trials under his belt and gave me a long explanation, I assumed he knew what he was talking about. I have since forgotten the details, but the fact that there were amendments to the treaty in 2005 suggests to me that problems were identified that warranted amending the treaty.

By the ways an attorney is free to talk to his client about the law in the abstract. It is not a felony to do that. And even if you know your client is going to flee, there is something called the attorney client privilege which is overriden only when the client tells you he is going to kill someone or cause serious bodily injury to someone. If the client informs the attorney he is going to jump bail, unless the client also says he is going to hurt someone, the lawyer's duty is one of confidentiality to the client. See Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs the conduct of attorneys in the State of Connecticut (and many other jurisdictions):

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/PB1.pdf

Click on "Rules of Professional Conduct" and go to Rule 1.6

Oh come off it. Lawyer client privelige does not include the lawyer advising where a client may flee to in order to avoid extradition. Go ahead and be the first lawyer to do that Eager and I would love to see you avoid prosecution. If your client tells you that he will jump bail, then you probably won't have to say anything to the police until he does not show up at his hearing. However, when your client gets caught and tells the police that you advised him that Portugal was a great place for Americans charged with murder to avoid extradition, I would think it would be a good time for THE LAWYER to hire a good lawyer.

There is nothing in Rules of Professional Conduct that says a Lawyer is allowed to advise a client how to avoid capture for fleeing prosecution.

Lawyer client confidentiality stops where the lawyer begins advising his client how to break the law and get away with it.

 

[daydreamer41]

I wonder if the guy got a haircut while in Montreal? His hair was outrageous.