Disgraced sheriff's wife shocked at judge's ruling as she appears in court on racketeering charges
The estranged wife of a Florida sheriff allegedly at the center of an illegal gambling empire has been arrested and accused of helping to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars in dirty money.
Osceola County Sheriff Marcos Lopez, 55, was hauled away in handcuffs earlier this month, accused of orchestrating an illegal gambling ring that prosecutors say raked in over $21.6 million in illicit profits.
He is facing two first-degree felony charges - racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering - and has been held without bond at the Lake County Jail since his arrest.
On Monday, four weeks after the initial arrest, the sheriff's estranged wife, 50-year-old Robin Lynn Severance Lopez, was swept up in the growing scandal.
She was booked into jail on a $400,000 bond and charged with conspiracy to invest proceeds from racketeering, according to Fox 35 Orlando.
Robin made her first court appearance on Tuesday, where she appeared stunned that a judge denied her defense attorney's request she be released on $50,000 bond.
Her defense attorney argued there's no evidence she benefited from her estranged husband's actions or received any illegal funds from him.
But the judge denied the request after the state argued they would need to verify that any bail funds come from legitimate sources.
Prosecutors alleged she played a direct role in aiding her husband in the illegal gambling operation - an enterprise they both allegedly profited from, despite reportedly being separated since 2019.
They claimed 'she helped to facilitate the movement of illicit money and receipt of illicit payments from other coconspirators to Lopez, which is believed to have reached to be at least $600 to $700,000.'
Although Robin claimed to earn just $1,300 a month from a part-time job, investigators found $123,000 in her bank account, as reported by Fox Orlando.
'She has meaningful financial resources, which interestingly, cannot be explained by a legitimate employment or a business source based on law enforcement's review of her bank records and other filings,' state prosecutor Colleen Monroe said, as reported by Spectrum News 13.
The state also highlighted bank slips found during her arrest, showing nearly $180,000 in deposits made shortly after Marcos June 5 arrest.
'Since the beginning of this conspiracy - through even today's date - the defendant has had access to large amounts of cash, including deposits, withdrawals and acquisitions that far exceed her legitimate employment, business, or retirement income,' Monroe added.
Robin's defense argued that she's only being charged because of a W-2 form sent to one of the co-defendants six years ago, the publication stated.
'If anything, it shows an isolated event. It was a one-time email that was sent per Marcos Lopez that indicated in the text of the email. There is also no indication here that she joined this criminal enterprise,' defense attorney Michelle Yard said.
She argued Robin had 'zero agreement' to be involved in the alleged gambling ring, which included her estranged husband and four other defendants.
'Of course, conspiracy requires that the government be able to show that there is a specific intent to engage in two or more predicate acts,' Yard argued.
'Here, they've only even alleged a single act. Whether that act is an act of racketeering or simply sending a W-2 is not a crime,' she added.
Despite being separated, prosecutors alleged that Robin had previously attempted to help Marcos pay his $1 million bail.
However, the defense argued that Robin's willingness to provide collateral for his bond doesn't make her a co-conspirator, emphasizing that although their divorce has been pending since 2023, they remain in contact due to their shared 15-year-old daughter.
'The reality of that is that they have a child together and they are co-parents. Ms. Severance Lopez is not a co-conspirator. She is a co-parent,' Yard said.
'Of course, she doesn't want the father of her child to remain in jail if he doesn't need to, she added.
It still remains unclear how much Robin actually knew, as prosecutors haven't said whether she was fully aware of the operation or acting under pressure, as reported by Fox Orlando.
The nature and extent of her communication with the other alleged co-conspirators also remains unclear.
If released on bond, she will be fitted with a GPS monitor and must surrender her passport and any firearms within 24 hours. She has also been barred from any further contact with her estranged husband.
Robin was booked into Lake County Jail on charges of conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to use or invest proceeds from racketeering. She is expected back in court on July 21.
Once celebrated as the county's first Hispanic sheriff, Marcos's fall from grace is all the more striking given his historic rise and respected background.
Born in Chicago and raised in Central Florida, he joined the Osceola County Sheriff's Office in 2003 while serving in the Navy Reserve.
He later earned an associate's degree in criminal justice and rose through the ranks to become sheriff in 2021, making history in the process.
Marcos was re-elected in 2024, but his second term barely got underway before the investigation got underway.
But the gambling allegations aren't his only scandal.
Earlier this year, Marcos and four deputies were named in a civil lawsuit over a 2022 incident in which deputies tackled a man at a gas station, resulting in burns covering more than 75 percent of his body.
The investigation into Marcos's alleged criminal empire began in 2023. The illegal enterprise, according to investigators, operated lotteries and slot machines throughout Lake and Osceola Counties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Terrifying video shows cheaply-built deck collapse as toddler prepared to blow out candles at 3rd birthday party
Shocking footage captured the moment a cheaply built deck collapsed as a toddler celebrated his Spider-Man-themed third birthday party. The young son of Hilary and Tony Loffredo was seen preparing to blow out his candles when the deck outside their home in West Des Moines, Iowa suddenly crumbled underneath them. 'The kids were crying and we all were screaming, 'Oh my gosh, what do we do?'' Hilary told KCCL. She said around 20 people had gathered for her son's birthday and were eagerly awaiting his Spider-Man themed cake when the deck caved in seconds before they could tuck in. 'There were some people down trapped between the deck and the house and the grill was on top of them,' Hilary continued. 'We were passing the kids from person to person up to the house to get them safe because we weren't sure when the other part of the deck was going to fall and collapse.' Emergency services raced to the home, and due to the number of people involved the West Des Fire Department upgraded their response to a mass casualty incident to bring more fire trucks and ambulances to the home. Thankfully no children or parents were seriously injured in the collapse, with Tony suffering the worst of the impact as he required stitches on his knee. The young son of Hilary and Tony Loffredo was seen preparing to blow out his candles when the deck outside their home in West Des Moines, Iowa suddenly fell apart Tony said: 'I looked down just under my knee and it's just blood running down my knee and I'm like, 'Oh great.' 'Obviously, it could have been way worse. Very fortunate that was the only thing that really had blood or stitched up.' West Des Fire Marshal Mike Whitsell told KCCI that although the party attendees were okay, when they first arrived on the scene it was a 'very scary situation.' The Loffredos said they bought the home in 2019 after the previous owners put up the wooden deck, and recently had an inspection that found it was not up to scratch. 'The previous homeowners hired a local contractor to put this deck up with the roof that is over it and apparently some corners were cut, some things were forgot,' Hilary said. Whitsell said that while a deck suddenly collapsing is rare, there are some things that homeowners can question to find out if they are at risk. 'How old is your deck? Do you have rotted boards that are on there? Have you had your deck inspected?' he said. 'If you've moved into a newer home or a home that maybe somebody had previously, you might just want to have somebody take a look at that.' For the Loffredos, they said they didn't let the incident ruin their son's birthday, and they went on to celebrate with another cake at a bowling alley later in the day (pictured) For the Loffredos, they said they didn't let the incident ruin their son's birthday. 'We rushed out to the store and just bought a cake. We sang happy birthday to him not here. We went to Spare Time and did it and sang happy birthday to him. He was so excited. All he cared about was the cake,' Hilary said. In a Facebook post, She added that a total of two firetrucks, an ambulance, and five police cars showed up, but said thankfully, 'It could have been much worse!' 'I don't think the Birthday Boy, or any of us, are going to forget this Birthday Party for a long time!' she said.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The alarming rise of US officers hiding behind masks: ‘A police state'
Some wear balaclavas. Some wear neck gators, sunglasses and hats. Some wear masks and casual clothes. Across the country, armed federal immigration officers have increasingly hidden their identities while carrying out immigration raids, arresting protesters and roughing up prominent Democratic critics. It's a trend that has sparked alarm among civil rights and law enforcement experts alike. Mike German, a former FBI agent, said officers' widespread use of masks was unprecedented in US law enforcement and a sign of a rapidly eroding democracy. 'Masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls,' he said. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has insisted masks are necessary to protect officers' privacy, arguing, without providing evidence, that there has been an uptick in violence against agents. But, German argued, the longterm consequences could be severe. The practice could erode trust in the US law enforcement agencies: 'When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority,' he noted. And, he said, when real agents masks more frequently, it becomes easier for imposters to operate. German – who previously worked undercover in white supremacist and militia groups and is now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-profit – spoke to the Guardian about the dangers of officer masking, why he thinks officers are concealing themselves and how far the US has deviated from democratic norms. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Were you surprised by the frequent reports of federal officers covering their faces and refusing to identify themselves, especially during the recent immigration raids and protests in Los Angeles? It is absolutely shocking and frightening to see masked agents, who are also poorly identified in the way they are dressed, using force in public without clearly identifying themselves. Our country is known for having democratic control over law enforcement. When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority. It's particularly important for officers to identify themselves when they are making arrests. It's important for the person being arrested, and for community members who might be watching, that they understand this is a law enforcement activity. Is there any precedent in the US for this kind of widespread law enforcement masking? I'm not aware of any period where US law enforcement officials wore masks, other than the lone ranger, of course. Masking has always been associated with police states. I think the masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls. We see this during protests. We see this in Ice raids. And we see this in the excessive secrecy in which law enforcement has increasingly operated since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How does masking fit into the post-9/11 trends in American policing? After 9/11, there were significant changes to the law – the Patriot Act, expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, changes to FBI guidelines – that allowed mass warrantless surveillance. Those changes rolled back reforms that had been put in place to address law enforcement abuses, including the targeting of disfavored political activists. As the federal government greatly expanded its authority, state and local law enforcement adopted a similar approach they called 'intelligence-led policing'. That included the creation of 'fusion centers', in which state, local and federal law enforcement share information with each other and private sector entities. Roughly 80 fusion centers exist today, and there is very little oversight and regulation, and they operate under a thick cloak of secrecy, often targeting disfavored protest groups. Once police think of themselves as domestic intelligence agents rather than law enforcement sworn to protect the public, it creates this attitude that the public doesn't have a right to know what they're doing. And now that includes even hiding their identities in public. Why do you think some officers are masking? I have not had conversations with current officers, but I imagine some are masking because they don't normally work for Ice or do immigration enforcement, but are now being sent to do these jobs. [The Trump administration has diverted some federal officers from agencies like the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to support Ice, reportedly pushing agents who would be tackling violent crimes to instead handle civil immigration violations]. When these officers go home at night, they may not want people in their communities to know it was them. Maybe they have upstanding reputations because of the work they do for the FBI or ATF, and they don't necessarily want to be identified with this kind of indiscriminate targeting of immigrants. And that reluctance to be identified as engaging in those activities really highlights the illegitimacy of those actions. Are there concerns about having masked officers from other agencies working for Ice? Officers from other federal law enforcement agencies are used to operating within specific authorities, and they may not recognize that Ice enforcement actions don't necessarily allow for those same actions. When an FBI or ATF agent is seeking to arrest someone, they typically have a warrant signed by a judge and can go after that person even on private property. Ice's civil enforcement powers don't give them that authority. If Ice doesn't have a judicial warrant, they can't go into someone's home. So if the FBI is doing Ice enforcement, they have to understand their authority is limited in important ways in order to not violate the law. That's also why it's critical for agents to identify what agency they are with. Otherwise, it's hard to understand under what authority an action is being taken. Who is this person shoving a member of the public who is just asking questions? Historically, what are the basic standards and training for law enforcement showing their faces? I'm not aware of any general authority authorizing an agent not to identify themselves during public law enforcement activity. As a former FBI undercover agent, I tried to avoid getting my picture taken as much as possible. But it is a small number of individuals who engage in undercover operations who would require any kind of masking, and they have the option of not participating in arrests where they are going to be in public. A lot of training is about police safety. And part of that safety is having a clear indication that you are a law enforcement official when you're engaging in some type of activity that could involve use of force or arrest, including protest management. The badge was intended to protect the officer, to make it clear you're acting under the authority of the law and not just shoving somebody you don't like. As an FBI agent, if I was going to talk to a member of the public, I'd identify myself and display my credentials. It was routine. And anytime I would write up the interview for evidentiary purposes, the first thing I'd write was, I identified myself and let them know the purpose of the interview. Do you think lawmakers can address this issue with legislation? Some Democratic US senators have pushed Ice to require that agents identify themselves, and California lawmakers have introduced state legislation to ban law enforcement from masking on duty, arguing public servants have an obligation to show their faces – and not operate like Star Wars stormtroopers. Having clear laws, regulations and policies that require law enforcement to operate in an accountable fashion is critical. But a lot of this is about leadership. Law enforcement leaders are justifying masking as some dubious security measure instead of ensuring officers act in a professional manner at all times and holding them accountable when they don't. That has been a significant problem over time when police engage in illegal or unconstitutional activity. It's great when federal, state or local legislators pass laws requiring accountability, but those measures cannot be successful if police aren't expected by their own leaders to abide by those rules. What are the ongoing consequences of officers hiding their faces? The recent shootings of two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, by a suspect who allegedly impersonated an officer, highlights the danger of police not looking like police. Federal agents wearing masks and casual clothing significantly increases this risk of any citizen dressing up in a way that fools the public into believing they are law enforcement so they can engage in illegal activity. It is a public safety threat, and it's also a threat to the agents and officers themselves, because people will not immediately be able to distinguish between who is engaged in legitimate activity or illegitimate activity when violence is occurring in public. What are people supposed to do when they're not sure if an officer is legitimate? That question highlights the box that these tactics put Americans into. When they are not sure, the inclination is to resist, and that resistance is used to justify a greater use of force by the officers, and it creates this cycle that is harmful to people just trying to mind their business. And that can mean that these individuals are not just subject to use of force and very aggressive arrests on civil charges, but they could also face more serious criminal charges. The more illegitimate police act, the more resistance to their activities will result. And if the public doesn't trust officers, it becomes very difficult for them to do their jobs.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Purdue Pharma plan moves forward despite challenge from opioid victim
A New York bankruptcy judge approved a disclosure statement last week laying out Purdue Pharma's proposed reorganization plan – despite an objection alleging the disclosure omits information about the US government's plan to seize Purdue money that could be used to compensate prescription opioid victims under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act instead. It's been five years since Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy in a New Jersey federal court, including for unlawfully dispensing opioid products without a legitimate medical purpose. In a press release at the time, the Department of Justice emphasized that the convictions were part of a strategy to defeat the opioid crisis. But the plea agreement did not include restitution for opioid victims, reasoning that it would not be 'administratively feasible' to distribute the funds. Since then, opioid victims have been unable to seek settlements from Purdue, as the company's 2019 bankruptcy filing stayed civil lawsuits against the company, and will likely instead be settled in bankruptcy court as part of the reorganization plan. Creighton Bloyd – a plaintiff in a class-action suit against Purdue demanding the company pay for prescription opioid victims' recovery treatment – objected to the disclosure statement in the bankruptcy court this month. In his objection, he alleged that the disclosure statement omitted relevant information about US government plans to seize $225m that could instead go to prescription opioid victims under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), which requires prosecutors to financially compensate victims of criminal cases. Purdue agreed to forfeit $2bn for the value of 'misbranded' drugs that may have led patients to become addicted. Bloyd argued that $225m of that should go to opioid victims under the MVRA, because a federal attorney acknowledged these misbranded drugs harmed individuals. Instead, the New Jersey plea deal gives that money to the Department of Justice, citing administrative hurdles to distributing the funds as restitution. Information about the MVRA and the possibility of using the $225m as restitution is not included in the bankruptcy disclosure statement. Val Early III, an attorney representing personal injury claimants in the bankruptcy case, said the disclosure statement was a 'frustrating' read, because 'a lot of it was in brackets in the body of the document. Brackets, meaning 'to be determined', right?' Despite the omission in the disclosure statement, a New York bankruptcy judge approved it on Friday, and set a September deadline for creditors, including personal injury claimants, to vote to approve or reject the plan. 'If you're asking me to vote on something, and you don't even know what you're asking me to vote on, then how can I possibly vote on it?' Early said. Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said it was unlikely that a judge would find the MVRA applies in this case, because there are 'a variety of exceptions' to the law, including for cases that are large or complex. 'We might call [Purdue's case] a 'mega mass tort', because of the size and scope of the problem it's trying to address here,' Zimmerman explained, adding: 'We're not dealing with a product that just affected a small group of people … We have not just private parties suing, but we have cities suing, Native American tribes suing. We have counties suing. We have states suing. We even have foreign countries that are suing.' Zimmerman added that 'bankruptcy is a really powerful tool for defendants [such as Purdue]' because it allows them to reach what's called a global settlement with all the parties all at once, rather than litigating every claim separately in court. This also means that plaintiffs have fewer opportunities to negotiate individual settlements. Frank Ozment, another lawyer representing personal injury claimants, disagrees that the case is too complex for the MVRA to apply. He says that, since all personal injury claimants had to file claims in the bankruptcy court by a specific deadline along with their names and addresses, it should be relatively simple to identify victims and compensate them. Ozment also rejects the argument that it would be too administratively difficult to ensure prescription opioid victims use payouts for treatment and nothing else. He says the money could be distributed via reloadable payment cards, which allow victims and no one else to purchase medication and nothing else from a pharmacy located in the victim's zip code, similar to how people receive certain Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) payouts. Purdue Pharma and the Department of Justice did not respond to the Guardian's request for comment.
