Saathoff
United States v. Saathoff
Opinion
Opinion
Benitez, J.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE SU-PERCEDING INDICTMENT
Now before the Court are several motions to dismiss the superceding indictment and motions for joinder. [Dkt. nos. 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 475, 481, 484, 486, and 487.] For the reasons that follow, the motions are GRANTED and the case dismissed against each of the five defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
“[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.” Connolly v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926) (citation omitted).
The genesis of this case is a bad financial plan devised by the San Diego City Council, reviewed by the City Attorney, approved by the City Manager and pro posed to the board of trustees of the San Diego City Employees Retirement System (“SDCERS”).
The federal crime charged against these defendants is a model of vagueness. It says, “[flor the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to…