- 28 -
Petitioner has made this argument before. In upholding the
jeopardy assessments, the District Court for the Southern
District of Florida stated:
This Court finds no merit in * * * [petitioner's]
contentions that the jeopardy assessments should be
barred because the Internal Revenue Service relied on
grand jury information purportedly disclosed in
violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
provide for disclosure of grand jury information to a
Government attorney conducting criminal matters.
Fed.R.Crim.P. (6)(e)(3)(A)(i), 54(c). It is axiomatic
that this "grand jury information" is properly revealed
during a criminal proceeding.
Furthermore, Rule 6(e) does not restrict the use
of grand jury information which has been publicly
disclosed in open court. * * * The "grand jury
information" relied upon in making the jeopardy
assessment in this case was disclosed in the bond
detention hearing, at the pre-Kastigar hearing and in
various other aspects of criminal proceedings. There
is no evidence that these disclosures were improper.
Furthermore, the majority of the information relied
upon in making the assessments has been incorporated in
a published decision. * * * [Harvey v. United States,
730 F. Supp. at 1107-1108.]
We agree with the conclusions of the District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. Kibort's primary source of
information for the determinations was the proffer and testimony
from the bond detention hearing in St. Louis, as well as a brief
filed in petitioner's criminal case in Florida. All of this
information was part of the public record. The fact that
petitioner failed to object to the disclosure of this information
at the bond detention hearing, or various other proceedings
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011