Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case Nos. 95-56-GA; 95-88-FA Edmond S. Mazur, P-38641, Kalamazoo, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #2.

1) Suspension - two (2) years; 2) Effective November 7, 1995. In February 1991, two people were interdicted by the Denver Police Department while at Stapleton Airport in Denver, Colorado. With the aid of drug sniffing dogs, the police seized $53,870 in currency from them. This money was processed for forfeiture pursuant to Sec. 16-13-301 49 136 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (as amended). In March 1991, respondent met the two people, plus a third person, while travelling in California. The panel found that respondent counseled and/or assisted the people in devising a scheme whereby the third person would claim that the $53,870 represented legitimate proceeds from his recent insurance settlement, with knowledge that the money represented profits gained from narcotic trafficking.

In May 1991, respondent contacted an assistant district attorney to negotiate a deal, whereby the third person would recover a portion of the $53,870 seized in February 1991. A Consent Judgment and Order of Abatement and Forfeiture was entered. The panel found that respondent signed a statement as a notary public that the funds, at all times, belonged to the third person, which statement he knew to be false at the time it was made; in notarizing the false statement concerning ownership of the funds, respondent assisted in fraudulently obtaining the return of $21,870 of the seized funds; and, he failed to disclose to the tribunal his knowledge that the $53,870 represented profits gained from drug trafficking to which the third person had no legal claim.

Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.104(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a)and(c); 3.3(a)(2); 3.4(b); and 8.4(a)-(c). Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,024.59.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.