Ex-New York judge and music lawyer Stacey Haber-Hofberg of Hampshire, that’s the real Hampshire, UK not New, was jailed for 6 years for being part of a crew that shafted HM Customs & Excise for £40million in VAT. The scam was the classic missing trader script: you know; buy your phones/chips VAT free, sell them to legitimate customers and then evaporate without coughing up the tax to Her Majesty.
Haber-Hofberg was a music lawyer, a breed generally more street smart than most others, including some criminal lawyers, in Geeklawyer’s view.
He can now also call himself a highly experienced criminal lawyer.
Geeklawyer wishes him well in developing his new niche practice inside HMP Winchester. His fees may not be up to music industry rates however: insiders tell me that the going rate for a legal opinion is an ounce of rolling tobacco.
The burning question is why? NY judges aren’t that badly off, what with all the Soprano bribes - surely?
He is a she actually.
oh. It’s not in the news reports I read at least. is there a source for that? (Stacey is also a man’s name: I seem to recall - by a funny coincidence - actor Stacey Keatch (sp?) being sent to Reading jail for coke possession)
Stacey is a female and mother and 3 young children. What these people did in England was clone the companies that Stacey set up in Hong Kong. She did not profit from this crime like the other people on trial, as a matter of fact, she was convicted by a new law in the EU that specifically states that even if you are not a willing participant to the crime, due to her capacity, she should have known better. Stacey testified to everything she knew about these people, but the jury in the Uk does not have to be unanimous for conviction-and it wasn’t.
Get your facts straght. She will serve 3 years minus double time already served, but that is expected to be reduced by 1/3 next spring.
In addition, the prosecuter thought there were no charges to answer, and the judge was sure she would be acquitted. They were all shocked. It is expected that the new law that convicted Stacey will be overturned by the EU in a few years.
Just echoing the previous comment really.
The entire case is a tragedy. The jury sat unable to reach a verdict for nearly two weeks and were only forced to do so on direction from the judge [locally know as the hanging judge of Maidstone] who would not allow a re-trial.
Everyone seemed to know that she had done nothing, except the judge of course who was a beast from start to finish, even the jury were in floods of tears – which cannot be held as normal wherever you come from!! The prosecuting QC had previously expressed doubt over any guilt on her part (out of court of course).
She had veritable queues of people from her locality willing to stand up and testify her character and innocence, including the local priest, school governors, lawyers and law lecturer. This was a woman who would be sure to pay you back 5 bucks and go out of her way to do it. The sole support to 3 children and honest to the core.
She had been taken for a ride, by complete bastards with no thought for the consequences of their actions, this cannot be denied, but gullibility does not equal guilt.
It is a shambolic system that lets the perpetrators go free, and the guilty ones have time taken off their sentences in mitigation – whilst the innocents are slaughtered.
The whole thing stinks, and quite frankly Mr Green, so do your comments made in ignorance of the true facts.
Gosh, it sounded like a positively Dickensian scene. Was Tiny Tim in court? coughing up sputum? no?
Once in a blue moon Mr Green, there are circumstances within a case that tell you that a person is innocent. Take Sally Clark for example; solicitor (same UK law firm) sentenced for the manslaughter of her children.
All the evidence which displayed the truth had be ‘accidentally shredded’ by the hospital and the way they got a conviction by continually casting aspersions and slurs on her character, to make the jury believe that she was a bad mother, all untrue. The jury was told time and again by an eminent professional that the statistics of two children dying of ‘cot death’ were 84 million to one – this in the full knowledge that both boys had had the killer staphylococcus virus.
Her innocence was obvious to all around her, and when the contemptible behaviour of those who covered up the evidence was unearthed she was let out of prison. She has still lost 4 years with her husband and child however and nothing can make amends for that.
This is also one of those situations. Every thing points to her innocence, and there are many many pointers to the opposite regarding the operations of the customs and excise. This is an organisation who is troubled with ‘top-down’ corruption and has been for decades.
She is not guilty, not only do I believe this in my heart, so did the prosecution team. You are right, the law that she was convicted under is positively Dickensian. Since when is it not important to establish guilt before convicting? She was convicted on the possibility that she ‘might’ have know – or ‘should’ have known information that no amount of due diligence would have uncovered.
I was there, I saw it, she is innocent.
Mrs Blogs
Mrs. Blog
I am an old friend of Stacy’s. I would like to write to her in prison. Can you tell me what her mailing address is.
It is actually Stacy Keach. Do you always make so many stupid mistakes, especially ones that could easily be checked on the internet?
Using the extra “e” almost always makes it a woman’s name, lack of the second “e” usually points to a man. Idiot.
Dr J:
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps your guide dog wasn’t helping you but the clue is in the “(sp?)” which was inserted after ‘Stacey Keatch’ . A slightly brighter and/or more educated person than you would understand the abbreviation “(sp?)” to mean, in accordance with linguistic conventions, “I am uncertain as to the correct spelling of …”
Nonetheless, having failed to engage fully with the English language, you felt no qualms about make a fool of yourself in public. As you say, “idiot”; but I feel that that is too harsh: Geeklawyer would merely call you “embarrassing & slightly dim”.
So, if I understand this, you are saying you knew you may have spelled Stacy Keach’s name wrong, but preferred to type “sp?” rather than check it on the internet, you got the gender of Stacey Hofberg wrong, relying on the name Stacey to inform you that it was a male, despite feeling that the name is ambiguous as to gender.
I fail to see how I made a fool of myself when it is not I that has a useless blog containing wrong information. At least we know for sure that you are a British laywer.
rather than check it on the internet,
Shocking isn’t? Fancy not checking the Internet first.
At least we know for sure that you are a British laywer.
It could be worse I could be an American laywer (”sp?” (pehaps you should ’search the Internet’ for sarcasm at this point ))
the thread about Stacey Haber-Hofberg got cut off. I know I’m late to the game, but I’ve been overseas and just found out about her.
having or not having personal experience I can or can’t comment on,
my opinion, backed by a jury, is she’s a criminal. Just because the victims aren’t on the news, crying her name, doesn’t mean someone isn’t getting public benefit they need– like an ambulance, because state-run clinics can only pay for 3 drivers instead of 4.
but barring that everyone in her defense seems to be either related or taking care of her kids; 3 questions:
1. if father is so bad why is she directing his movie in 2008 while he produces it? they refering to as a “major switch since the play went up in theatre”(sic) maybe that’s because as producer, some people might see that as the director of a corporation, which she’s not allowed to be for many years.
2. if Judge KNEW she’d get off as one mate/relative stated, then how could Mean, Mean, meanie-mean-mean Judgy force the “stupid, stupid” jury to convict by ordering them to. Wouldn’t Judge not order jury to convict because she would be “surprized” if they convicted– ordering a surprize takes the fun out of it– that’s why i never throw my own surprize party.
3. Ignoring that a Law-abiding father should absolutely lose custudy of his kids because the MOTHER JailBird resents their Divorce (someone on a blog told SAINT FRIEND who WAS CARING for the children until she Lost them to EVIl DAD despite Jailbird’s wish Saint Friend raise them for the 6 years she’d in jail– someone suggested that since EVIL DAD’s “own daughter didn’t even Want to live with him” to suggested Child Services be called so his daughter “hmmm” what do Child Services investigate fathers for when 11-year-old girls don’t want to “live with them?”
But we’re ignoring that! She’s held to a high level because of her job– yes we all are. If you cut your child’s hair and nick his ear with the clippers, it cost you ice-cream. If you cut hair for a living and have an ex-husband, it costs you your licence.
She set up phone companies all over the world, saw the client’s accounting books, saw her client get extrememly rich when she knew “being an insider” to the music business, he wasn’t making it there. Then SHE took enough money to buy expensive cars, so whether it was her cut for committing the crime or payment for acting as his lawyer and “setting up phony companies,” SHE KNEW it was ILLIGAL GAINS and kept the expensive cars. She took a oath not to particpate in illegal activity. It doesn’t matter if she can claim he work was legal and was used illigally because she has knowledge how the work was going to be used.
a phrink can’t break client privilege for past crimes. but if the doctor knows they are talking about a crime that has not happened and it not fantasy, the shrink must report the client to the cops to prevent being a co-rapist.
so what’s Stacey Haber-Hofberg learned from all this:
making up dummy companies for her own profit. Now she’s using those skills again, but for her and her “evil” ex-husband.
She also, with her Husband does websites for a living, has set up a company to produce his play. they made a 2nd company called 2-Ply Press to publish both his play & his new book about ex-wife’s courage to be a crook, then ther’s a 3rd company to sell clothes with a design partner who suddenly isn’t part of the company anymore but they kept her designs, but more to the point, a Film Company to produce hubby’s books into films.
So he writes play, they make a theatre company to produce it, he re-writes playbook & book on personal trama, they make a company to publish. they make sub-siderary to review those books– good reviews of course, they list books on 14 perosnal websites designed to look like other people are talking about them when ANYONE can list a Product on these Websites; While also making perosnal websites thanking people for all the attention. Where did she learn to make so many dummy companies if it wasn’t with this scam. most people just write a book, self-publish if they need, but they don’t try to cover it up. They don’t make it seem like a 3rd party wanted to turn that book into a film– if I invested because I thought a 3rd party wanted to do their film, but found out the 3rd company was them– is that fraud?
you can’t say we have to Hire Lawyers or Doctors or Plumbers for their skills to make things up to Code and then have the Plumber claim, he didn’t know we put in the wrong material, when he was paid the same amount of money to install the cheaper, not-up to-code crap. it they want they’re basement leaking, they know the risks. But the townshouse connected to them doesn’t and they don’t want a leaky basement. And the townshouse on the other side has old electric– it wouldn’t be up to code NOW, but since it was done 30 years ago and there’s no law to upgrade, neither of the 2 ajoining townhouses asked the plumber if he was going to flood one and set all 3 of them on fire.
Why is it he’s fault– because he’s got skill and a licence that I legally HAVE to EMPLOY him for. If these special interested jobs are going to get in the way of free market and MAKE us have to hire them, they have to follow a higher standard. because, free market has a very HIGH standard. Free Market doesn’t give away jobs. If you’re a laywer, you don’t automatically give you a job. It take the goverment saying two concenting adult who agress on ascpect of their divorse (alimony, child support, dividing property, the Government say a Lawyer must look over out legal paperwork. Why? They have the same form we do. they’re just ask us questions to fill it out — billing a huge amouont got every 25 minutes. Why do I have to not only pay them to fill out a form I can, but I have to pay for their questions. I thought I paid them to answer MY questions!