New York woman pleads guilty to selling drug-soaked papers online, mailing them to prisons
A New York woman has pleaded guilty after being charged with manufacturing synthetic cannabinoids and sending drug-soaked documents to inmates in multiple correctional facilities, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
Maya McIntosh, 33, manufactured, distributed and possessed with intent to distribute a synthetic cannabinoid called MDMB-4en-PINACA, officials from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York
said in a news release
. McIntosh ordered the chemicals to make the synthetic drug and had them shipped to her home, according to court documents, which said she then made a liquid form of MDMB-4en-PINACA.
That liquid was then sprayed and soaked into copy paper and business envelopes, according to prosecutors and court documents. McIntosh allegedly sold the sheets and envelopes on social media, and was paid by customers to send them to inmates at various New York State correctional facilities. Prosecutors say McIntosh labeled the envelopes as if they had come from attorneys.
The recipients of the drug-soaked papers and envelopes would not have been able to feel the drug's effects through the paper, said Dr. Andrew Stolbach, a toxicologist and emergency medicine physician at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. MDMB-4en-PINACA does not pass through skin, he said, and synthetic cannabinoids in general tend to be made of large molecules, making them unable to easily pass through the skin or spontaneously enter the air.
"This is why people who use these drugs smoke them, the literal heat from a flame is used to bring the drug into an absorbable state," Stolbach told CBS News. "If the drugs worked by skin absorption or spontaneous volatilization, people would just touch the drug or open the package to experience them."
McIntosh pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including conspiracies to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and unlawful possession and use of a means of identification, the Department of Justice said.
McIntosh faces a maximum term of up to 20 years' imprisonment on each count, and a maximum fine of $1 million on the drug counts, as well as a fine of $250,000 on the other counts. She faces a supervised release of at least three years and up to life, the Justice Department said.
Multiple similar cases of drug-soaked papers being delivered to prisons have been reported. In August 2024, a
Chicago corrections officer was accused
of trying to bring such materials into the Cook County Jail. In 2022, a South African woman was charged with
orchestrating a scheme to smuggle
dozens of packages containing drug-soaked papers into Ohio prisons and
sentenced to one year
in prison.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ex-CPA admits to bank fraud conspiracy that cost lenders millions
SPRINGFIELD — A former accountant pleaded guilty in federal court to participating in a conspiracy that prosecutors say obtained commercial mortgages for area properties using false information. Christine Gendron, 61, pleaded guilty before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni on Friday to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, according to U.S. Attorney's Office spokesperson Caroline Ferguson. Gendron's sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 30. Gendron — whose certified public accountant status expired in June 2023 — described herself as 'resident CPA' of JLL Realty Developers, according to a statement of facts attached to her plea agreement signed April 16. She was sister to one of the partners of the company, Jeannette Norman. Norman's federal case is still pending. Norman, court documents note, was a vice president at Goldman Sachs between 1998 and 2007. The other partner of JLL Realty Developers was Louis Masaschi, Gendron's brother in law. In April, he pleaded guilty to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. His sentencing is set for July. Gendron, the statement of facts reads, helped submit false documents, such as rent rolls, and profit and loss statements, starting in May 2016, to obtain commercial loans for properties in Connecticut and Western Massachusetts. The documents 'contained inflated monthly rental payments and lease expiration dates ... that bore the signatures of Masaschi or Norman, as well as the forged signatures of the tenants,' says the statement of facts. Prosecutors wrote in court documents that JLL Realty tried to obtain $60 million in commercial loans, although some financial institutions did not issue the money. 'After receiving these loans, Masachi, Norman, and their companies made some or no payments and ultimately defaulted on the loans, causing substantial loses to the commercial Lenders,' documents state. Altogether, the financial institutions lost $19.3 million. Among the affected financial institutions, Workers Credit Union loaned JLL Realty $11.5 million in 2018 after the group put up an East Longmeadow property as collateral. Ultimately, the Littleton-based financial institution lost $2 million, according to the statement of facts. In 2017, Springfield-based Freedom Credit Union lent the group $6.25 million based on the collateral of three properties in Springfield and ended up losing $5.37 million, according to court documents. A year later, JLL Realty tried to obtain a $400,000 loan from the credit union, but was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Berkshire Bank denied JLL Realty's two applications for commercial loans in 2018, one for $11 million and another for $3 million, according to court records. The financial institutions did not immediately return requests for comments. Gendron, court documents state, did not personally guarantee the loan nor receive the proceeds of the loans. She only collected a salary at JLL Realty, which totaled about $393,000 between 2015 and 2022, court records say. Prosecutors in April sought the forfeiture of Gendron's full salary. Special agents with the FBI visited Gendron at her Feeding Hills home in May 2021, according to information filed with the court in April. 'Gendron falsely stated that she was unaware of any fraudulently obtained loans, and that it would surprise her that (her co-conspirators) would submit fraudulent documents to the bank,' prosecutors wrote. Gendron's attorney did not immediately return a request for comment. 'Clash of the Cans' mural contest transforms empty lot in Holyoke WMass shelter determined to make a difference — 14,000 cats and counting This WMass college is offering free course in AI essentials Westfield apartment fire claims life Read the original article on MassLive.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
President Trump is on a pardon spree
President Trump is on a pardon spree | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on June 12, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Trump's spate of controversial pardons hint at a two-tiered system of justice where only allies get clemency. Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer shares her insights on her former role and why recent clemency grants are so unprecedented. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Dana Taylor: Hello, I'm Dana Taylor, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. It's been a busy few months in the world of federal pardons. It started on day one of the Trump administration with more than 1,500 people pardoned for their role in the January 6th Capitol Riot, and the pardons just keep coming. The past few weeks, we've seen a spate of controversial clemency grants, including a couple of reality TV stars who were found guilty of defrauding community banks out of tens of millions of dollars, a gang leader serving multiple life sentences, and a Virginia sheriff convicted of bribery in what prosecutors called a cash for badges scheme. The pardons are legal, but what are the ethical concerns here as President Donald Trump's list of pardons continues to grow? Here to dig into some of the details of the president's current pardon spree is former U.S. pardon attorney Liz Oyer. Thanks for joining me, Liz. Liz Oyer: Thanks for having me. Dana Taylor: Let's start off with full transparency here. You're suing the DOJ for your dismissal earlier this year. What's the background here, and can you please explain what the job of a U.S. pardon attorney is? Liz Oyer: I was fired in March from my position as pardon attorney, which is non-political position within the Department of Justice that is entrusted with reviewing applications for clemency from individuals around the country who are seeking that relief from the president and making recommendations to the President about who presents a worthy case for clemency. The position of pardon attorney is one that historically has been filled by a career employee of the Department of Justice, not a political appointee, to ensure that that position is one that is neutral and objective and that the clemency process is not fully politicized. Nevertheless, I was fired very abruptly in March, and my firing violated a whole host of civil service protections that apply to career employees. So I am appealing my termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which is the agency that's entrusted with adjudicating those types of issues. President Trump is on a pardon spree Trump's spate of controversial pardons hint at a two-tiered system of justice where only allies get clemency. Dana Taylor: There were some surprising pardons recently. We can't address them all, but I do want to discuss a handful. Let's start with Larry Hoover, a Chicago gang leader serving multiple life sentences for charges including murder, extortion, and money laundering. Trump can pardon whoever he wants. Do you worry he's not getting the best research for each case to determine if clemency is warranted? Liz Oyer: Well, the case of Larry Hoover is actually a very complex one. He has state convictions for an offense involving murder, and then he went on while in state prison to run a continuing criminal enterprise from the state prison, and he incurred additional federal convictions. So the federal convictions are the ones that were pardoned, not the state convictions. His sentence was commuted, and now he still has to deal with those state charges. But it is extremely unusual to grant a commutation of sentence to someone who goes on to commit a massive criminal offense while they're in prison. One of the things that's especially notable about Hoover's case is that he was serving his sentence at the federal super max prison. It's called ADX, it's a notorious prison where people who present challenging conduct in prison and need ultra restrictive conditions of confinement are housed. So the fact that he was granted a commutation by President Trump is very unusual and suggests that not a lot of weight is being placed on conduct in prison in considering who is worthy of a commutation of sentence. Dana Taylor: Many of these pardons are for people who owed significant sums of money and restitution for their crimes, Todd and Julie Chrisley, the reality TV stars, for example. What recourse do the people or entities who are due that money have, if any, and do you worry that Trump is granting clemency to people who don't show remorse? Liz Oyer: What the president has done in terms of using the pardon power to wipe out financial obligations that are owed to victims of crimes is unprecedented. The Chrisleys are one example among many of individuals who were required under federal law to pay what's called restitution, that means essentially paying back victims of crimes, but the pardons have the effect of wiping out that obligation to repay the victims, and those include people who are out of pocket very substantial sums. So that's an extremely unusual use of the pardon power, and it's one that really does prejudice the interests of people who have been victimized by crimes. Dana Taylor: And Liz, I mentioned former Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins at the top. He was convicted of receiving at least $75,000 in exchange for appointing North Virginia business executives as auxiliary deputies. He was scheduled to start a 10-year prison sentence the following day when the pardon came in. President Trump wrote on Proof social that he and his family were, "Dragged through hell by a corrupt and weaponized Biden DOJ." Do you worry that Trump is responding to personal emotional appeals rather than legal research? Liz Oyer: Trump does appear to be granting pardons to people in whom he sees something of his own story, something that he can relate to. But the case of Sheriff Jenkins was actually one that was a very straightforward case. He was caught on video accepting envelopes full of cash in exchange for bestowing badges upon people, so it's not a case where there was any doubt about his guilt. It is a case where the president decided to reward someone who was a political loyalist, and it's very unusual to see pardons of corrupt public officials in the way that Trump has been granting them. Sheriff Jenkins is actually one of, I believe, about eight public officials, elected officials, who have committed crimes involving an abuse of their official office who have received pardons from President Trump just in his second term alone. Dana Taylor: Why do you think it's important to have an independent set of eyes researching cases? Liz Oyer: What's so essential about the function that the Office of the Pardon Attorney has played historically is the vetting of candidates that they provide. The Department of Justice has a set of criteria that are very detailed and very rigorous that apply in every case before a recommendation is made to grant clemency. And in the interests of public safety, that vetting is taken very seriously so individuals who are not vetted won't get through this process. The vetting is an important component of it. And the other really important role that the Office of the Pardon Attorney has historically played is accessibility, making sure that the clemency process is accessible to all, not just those who have political connections, which unfortunately appear to be the only types of people who are getting clemency under the current administration. Dana Taylor: Paul Walczak, a former nursing home executive, also received a pardon. His mother recently attended a $1 million plate Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for Trump's Super PAC. Do you worry the president will grant clemency in exchange for gifts or even bribes? Liz Oyer: It appears that we're getting very close to that line. Individuals who are making large donations to the President or his causes are seeing those donations rewarded in the form of pardons. Walczak is one example of that, but not the only example. There's an individual named Trevor Milton, who committed a massive fraud, defrauded his investors of over $600 million, and he made a campaign donation of $1.8 million to Trump and then got a pardon early in the administration. So it's becoming almost sort of a business transaction for people who are involved in white collar crime. They're making a calculation that, "I can pay X and that I can profit X times 100 on committing white collar crimes," which is not something that we should be encouraging in this manner, and it's not how the pardon process is supposed to work. Dana Taylor: The president was asked a couple of weeks ago if he would consider pardoning P Diddy, who's currently on trial for sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. In witness testimony, he's been described as violent and abusive. If this pardon were to happen, it would of course put an end to an emotional and taxing trial for his alleged victims. Is there any legal precedent for this? Liz Oyer: It's very unusual to grant pardons to people who are the subject of ongoing cases, but that has not deterred this president. This president has undercut his own justice department multiple times by pulling the rug out from under prosecutions that they're actively pursuing. It would be very unusual to grant a pardon to somebody in this circumstance who's currently on trial, but the president does have the authority to do that if that's what he chooses. I will note that one of the things that the Department of Justice ordinarily does is solicit input from victims of crimes about how they would feel about a pardon. That step is being skipped by this current administration. The people who are victims of these crimes that are being pardoned are not being consulted for their input, which again, is not how the process is supposed to work. Dana Taylor: These recent clemencies came on the heels of the biggest blanket clemency of all time, and that was for the January 6th rioters, including those who assaulted police officers. As a former pardon attorney, what's the takeaway here for the American public when it comes to pardons for Trump loyalists, and what message does it send to the law officer community? Liz Oyer: Well, that action, along with the other things this president has done have sent a very strong message that the pardon power is going to be used to reward political loyalists. He appointed a pardon attorney who essentially has said as much. After the pardon of that corrupt sheriff that you mentioned, Sheriff Jenkins, the new pardon attorney, Ed Martin, announced, "No MAGA left behind," which seemed to convey a view that MAGA supporters would be broadly considered for pardons if they have committed crimes. And certainly that's what the January 6th pardons reflect on an absolutely massive scale, that the president's supporters don't have to worry about committing crimes because they will be protected by pardons. Dana Taylor: Liz, does the Constitution say anything about the appearance of a two-tiered system of justice? Liz Oyer: The Constitution grants the President this unchecked power to grant pardons and commutations of sentence, and there really are no limits to it. But the framers who wrote this broad power into the Constitution intended that it would be used for mercy, that it would be used to correct excesses of the criminal justice system, not that it would be used to do special favors for people who have political connections or wealth, but that's exactly how it's being used now. The judge in the case of Paul Walczak that you mentioned actually said in sentencing Walczak to prison, "I'm sending the message that wealth is not a get out of jail free card in this country." And literally days later, Trump granted Walczak a pardon, which just illustrates that in fact, under Trump's system of justice, wealth can be and often is a get out of jail free card. Dana Taylor: As you've said, the power of the pardon has been used for centuries to grant clemency to those the President feels are deserving of it. In your opinion, has the legitimacy of the pardon power been called into question? Liz Oyer: Absolutely the legitimacy of the pardon power has been called into question. I think that there are a lot of people in this country now who are watching what's happening and asking why does this power even exist? It is a power that has a great deal of potential to be used for good. We saw it at its height under President Obama who used it in a very principled and disciplined way to reduce sentences of people who were over-incarcerated due to outdated mandatory minimums, and he did that in a way that was very fair and consistent across the board and did a lot of good. But the way it's been used more recently and what Trump is doing with it now is really raising legitimate questions about whether this power is a good thing. Dana Taylor: Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for being on The Excerpt, Liz. Liz Oyer: Thank you very much for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Federal judge recuses himself days before sentencing Memphis officers accused in Tyre Nichols' death
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — The federal judge presiding over the case against five former Memphis officers convicted in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols recused himself Friday, just days before he was supposed to hand down sentences for the men. U.S. District Judge Mark S. Norris issued a one-sentence order saying he was recusing himself and returning "the matter to the Clerk for reassignment to another United States District Judge for all further proceedings.' Four of the five officers had been scheduled to be sentenced next week, the fifth on June 23. It was not immediately clear how Norris' decision would affect the case. Several motions had been filed under seal in recent days. It was not clear if any of those asked for Norris to step away from the case. It is unusual for a judge to recuse themself from a case between the trial and sentencing. The officers yanked Nichols from his car, then pepper-sprayed and hit the 29-year-old Black man with a Taser. Nichols fled, and when the five officers, who are also Black, caught up with him, they punched, kicked and hit him with a police baton. Nichols called out for his mother during the beating, which took place just steps from his home. Nichols died Jan. 10, 2023, three days later. Footage of the beating captured by a police pole camera also showed the officers milling about, talking and laughing as Nichols struggled with his injuries — video that prompted intense scrutiny of police in Memphis. The beating also sparked nationwide protests and prompted renewed calls for police reform. The five officers — Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin, Desmond Mills Jr., and Justin Smith — were fired from the police force and indicted in state and federal court. Bean, Haley and Smith were found guilty in federal court in October of obstruction of justice through witness tampering related to an attempt to cover up the beating. The officers failed to say that they or their colleagues punched and kicked Nichols and broke Memphis Police Department rules when they did not include complete and accurate statements about what type of force they used. Bean and Smith were acquitted of more serious civil rights charges by the federal jury. Haley was found guilty of violating Nichols' civil rights by causing bodily injury and showing deliberate indifference to medical needs. He was also convicted of conspiracy to witness tamper. Bean and Smith were scheduled to be sentenced on Monday. Haley's sentencing was scheduled for Tuesday, and Martin was scheduled to be sentenced on Wednesday. Mills' sentencing was set for June 23. Martin Zummach, Smith's lawyer, referred questions on Norris' recusal to the district court and the U.S. Attorney's Office on Friday. Bean, Haley and Smith were acquitted in May of all state charges, including second-degree murder. The jury for the state trial was chosen in majority-white Hamilton County, which includes Chattanooga, after Judge James Jones Jr. ordered the case be heard from people outside of Shelby County, which includes the majority-Black Memphis. The officers' lawyers had argued that intense publicity made seating a fair jury difficult. Martin and Mills pleaded guilty in federal court last year to violating Nichols' civil rights by causing death and conspiracy to witness tamper. They did not stand trial in federal court with their former colleagues. Martin and Mills also avoided the trial in state court after reaching agreements to plead guilty there. Both Martin and Mills testified in the federal trial, and Mills also took the stand in the state trial. The officers were part of a crime suppression team called the Scorpion Unit that was disbanded weeks after Nichols died. The team targeted illegal drugs and guns, and violent offenders, and sometimes used force against unarmed people. In December, the U.S. Justice Department said a 17-month investigation showed the Memphis Police Department uses excessive force and discriminates against Black people. The investigation also found that the Memphis Police Department conducts unlawful stops, searches, and arrests. In May, the Trump administration announced it was retracting the findings of Justice Department civil rights investigations of police departments, including Memphis, that were issued under the Biden administration. The city has hired a former federal judge and created a task force to address police department reforms. The task force has not announced any recommendations. Nichols' family is suing the five officers, the city of Memphis and the police chief for $550 million. A trial has been scheduled in that case next year. Norris is the judge presiding over that case too. Court records in the lawsuit did not show any order of recusal Friday.
