First, my lawyer and I spent several hours in the law library at the Florida Supreme Court, researching all possible favourable authorities that could be used to buttress the legal objections I had interposed to decline to testify (bogus as they were under then-current case law). It was curious that the only time I was ever in the highest court in the state was to find federal court decisions in my own criminal proceeding, and that this fact didn't bother me in the least. Perhaps this shows how I had strayed so far from the straight and narrow line that lawyers, as officers of the court, must walk.   

 I was sworn in, not a particularly pleasant thing for a person involved in criminal conduct, and who knows the penalty for perjury. First off, the prosecutor asked me whether I was a money launderer for my clients. This resulted in my instant denial, my lawyer's objection, and  the usual ensuing argument between counsel over procedure.  

The bottom line; I advised the court that I was not in possession of any corporate documents (they were kept offshore for this exact reason). The case presented the US Attorney with two options;

• He could grant me immunity (meaning I could never be charged with the crimes that I freely testified to), and then I would therefore be compelled by law to testify against my clients ( something I did not want to do), or risk a prison sentence of several months for contempt of court.
• He could excuse me from further testimony before the Grand Jury, hoping to indict me later, of course provided that he assembled sufficient evidence against me to prevail at trial. He chose the latter, meaning he was gambling that later he could present sufficient proof before the Grand Jury to charge me, based upon evidence obtained in the ongoing investigation. Usually, higher-ranking targets are not immunised, only lower level members of an organisation, because the US Attorney's office wants to roll over the smaller fish on the kingpins. I was no kingpin, but they thought my involvement was sufficiently prominent that they weren't going to give me a pass on prison, just to get at other major targets. I was not going to walk away from this unscathed.

Although I went into that proceeding knowing that it might very well result in my spending time locked up for non-cooperation after receiving immunity, it ended well for me, with my being excused from participation at that time in the Grand Jury sessions. I was never called back, which I accurately interpreted as a sign that it was going to get ugly later on.

Returning home, I wondered how anxious my clients were about the sum and substance of my Grand Jury appearance. They had sent an emissary to see me just prior to my trip north, the old friend and former roommate who had introduced me to this life years prior. I was a pretty stubborn advocate in those days, and did not ever consider testifying against clients, and told him so in no uncertain terms. He was to be one of the few who were neither indicted, nor cooperated in exchange for immunity, which was the luck of the draw, as casualties in the war on drugs were many.

The gloves were off now; the government had clearly targeted me and my clients, and it was clear that they had collected  some important and damaging evidence against both myself and my narco-clients. Things would now start of heat up.

Next week: Notwithstanding government heat, the beat goes on; how does one launder money when one is under the microscope.