Thursday, August 28, 2008

Case of Stanley D. Schwartz

Case of Stanley D. Schwartz
(AKA: Stanley Schwartz, Stanley David Schwartz)


Basketball Coach - Thomas S. Wootton High School, Rockville, MD
Guardian - Foreign Exchange Student, Rockville, MD
Patent Lawyer - Rockville, MD
Chaperoned on Ski Trips 


Stanley Schwartz is a convicted sex offender and has a very long history of molesting teenaged boys.  

He was convicted on molestation charges, after 15-year-old exchange student from Kuwait told detectives that Schwartz fondled him Aug. 27, 2008.  

At the time, Schwartz was acting as a surrogate guardian because the teenager's host parents couldn't take care of him that night.

Schwartz was originally sentenced to 18 years will instead be released in 18 months, after Montgomery County Circuit Judge Eric M. Johnson said Schwartz had gotten the "jolt to his system" he needed by having been sent to the state penitentiary.

Back in 1992 attorney, Stanley Schwartz,  was accused of sexually touching at least nine Thomas S. Wootton High School male basketball players, whom he coached.  Some of the teenagers said inappropriate sexual touching occurred after Schwartz had given them alcohol, the detective said.


Schwartz has been estranged from most of his close relatives for more than a decade. He was married for nearly 30 years before his wife filed for divorce in 1997.

There are several people who go by the name of Stanley Schwartz. The individual discussed on this page was born on April 20, 1942.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.

Table of Contents:

1992  
  • Accused of sexually touching at least nine Thomas S. Wootton High School male basketball players, whom he coached. 
2006
  1. Sex Allegations Swirled Around Md. Man Before (11/27/2006)

2008
  1. Untied States Patent and Trademark Office 
  2. Judge Slashes Molester's Sentence From 18 Years to 18 More Months  (07/26/2008)

2013
  1. Maryland State Sex Offender Registry (12/31/2013)


_________________________________________________________________________________


Sex Allegations Swirled Around Md. Man Before
By Ernesto LondoƱo
Washington Post - November 27, 2006


Before he was charged in recent weeks with abusing three minors, Stanley D. Schwartz had a clean record.

But allegations of sexual misconduct with underage boys by the 64-year-old patent lawyer were first made more than a decade ago, a Montgomery County detective said.

Jordan Satinsky said fellow detectives opened an investigation in 1992 after the Rockville man was accused of sexually touching at least nine Thomas S. Wootton High School male basketball players, whom he coached.

Schwartz also has been accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with boys between the ages of 13 and 16, whom he chaperoned on ski trips and hosted at his home as foreign exchange students, the detective said.

Satinsky said none of the previous allegations brought to the attention of police led to charges because they couldn't be corroborated and no alleged victims wanted to come forward.

Schwartz's attorney, Sanford Berman, would not comment on the allegations or the supervisory roles that have placed Schwartz in close contact with male teenagers. He said his client should be presumed innocent unless proved guilty in court. He also said his client would not be available for an interview.

"We have no response to police allegations in the press," Berman said. "We respond to them in the courtroom."

Satinsky said he chose to disclose information about the earlier investigations because he believes others might be willing to come forward now that some have formally accused Schwartz of molesting them.

"I think he has been doing this for a very long time," Satinsky said.

Satinsky said Schwartz, a longtime Montgomery resident who has a law practice in Arlington County, has been estranged from most of his close relatives for more than a decade. He was married for nearly 30 years before his wife filed for divorce in 1997, according to court records.

Some of the teenagers said inappropriate sexual touching occurred after Schwartz had given them alcohol, the detective said.

Schwartz was apparently a volunteer coach at Wootton; a school system spokesman said he had never been on the system's payroll. Some of the allegations involving Wootton students were made to police after Schwartz took teenagers on out-of-state trips to help him do legal research, the detective said.

The ski trips Schwartz chaperoned also took place in the early 1990s, Satinsky said. They were apparently sponsored by a Fairfax-based program, the detective said. Its name could not be immediately determined.

Satinsky said it is not clear how far the past investigations got because they were conducted by detectives who no longer work at the department. He said he found notes in the investigation folder indicating that some teenagers came forward but were later asked by their parents not to pursue the matter.

Schwartz was arrested in October after a 15-year-old exchange student from Kuwait told detectives that Schwartz fondled him Aug. 27, according to a charging document. The document provides the following account:

Schwartz, who was acting as a surrogate guardian because the teenager's host parents couldn't take care of him that night, told the teenager he could sleep in Schwartz's bed. Later that night, Schwartz got in bed with him while he was sleeping.

Schwartz fondled him and told him that "American boys sleep in their underwear, not T-shirt and shorts."

The teenager left the bedroom, knelt to pray and later called his host parents, who picked him up and called police.

Satinsky said Schwartz has hosted about 30 foreign-exchange students at his home in recent years. All have been white or light-skinned male teenagers -- most are from Europe -- and were ages 13 to 16.

Satinsky said officials of San Francisco-based AYUSA International, the company that used Schwartz as a host parent for foreign-exchange students, have cooperated with investigators. A phone message left Wednesday for an AYUSA employee who handles media inquiries was not returned.

Schwartz was charged with sexual abuse of a minor, sex offense and assault in the exchange-student case.

Schwartz was arrested again Nov. 15 and charged with child abuse and sex offense after a woman and a man separately told police that he molested them in the 1980s when they were 13 and 15, respectively. He posted $100,000 bond in the first case, two $50,000 bonds in the second and third and was released awaiting the resolution of the cases.

_________________________________________________________________________________



Untied States Patent and Trademark Office
http://www1.uspto.gov/go/foia/oed/disc/D2008-01.pdf

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
TRADEMARK OFFICE
In the Matter of Standley D. Schwartz
Proceeding No. D2008-01

FINAL ORDER
The Director of Enrollment and Discipline (OED Director) of the United States Patent and Trademark Ofi'ice (USPTO) and Stanley D. Schwartz (Respondent) have submitted a settlement agreement in the above-identified proceeding that meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 5 10.133(g).

In order to resolve the case without the necessity of a hearing, the OED Director and Respondent have agreed to certain facts, legal conclusions and sanctions, all of which are set forth below. It was further agreed between the OED Director and Respondent that this agreement resolves any and all disciplinary action by the USPTO arising from the allegations set forth herein.

Pursuant to that agreement, this Final Order sets forth the following jurisdictional statement, understandings, stipulated facts, agreed-upon legal conclusions and sanction.

JUFUSDICTION
At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, of Gaithersburg, Maryland, has been registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO), Registration No. 25,374, authorized to engage in the prosecution of patent applications and subject to the USPTO Disciplinary Rules.

UNDERSTANDINGS
Respondent freely and voluntarily seeks settlement of this matter and acknowledges that he is not acting under duress or coercion.    See 37 C.F.R.  3  10.133(c)(l) and (2).

Respondent acknowledges that he is fully aware of the implications of the USPTO Director, or persons acting upon his behalf, accepting this proposed settlement. Respondent further acknowledges that he is entitled to have a hearing in this proceeding.  See 37 C.F.R. $5  10.132(a), 10.132(b), 10.135, 10.136, and 10.144. Respondent hereby waives his right to a hearing in this matter if the USPTO Director, or persons acting upon his behalf, agrees to the terms and conditions of this proposed settlement.

Respondent agrees and understands that unless the USPTO Director, or persons acting upon his behalf, enters an order in accord with the terms of this agreement, this matter has not been settled, and this agreement is without effect. The OED Director and Respondent also agree and understand that if the USPTO Director, or persons acting upon his behalf, rejects this settlement agreement, no reference to the offer of settlement, contingent acceptance, or stipulated facts in support of this agreement shall be admissible in evidence in a disciplinary proceeding unless the OED Director and Respondent agree to such admissibility in writing.  See 37 C.F.R.  5  10.133(g).

Respondent acknowledges that, if and when he applies for reinstatement under 37 C.F.R.  3  10.160, the OED Director will conclusively presume, for the limited purpose of determiring the application for reinststement, that the facts set forth below zre trde arrd Respondent could not have successfully defended himself against charges predicated on the violations under investigation by the OED Director.

STIPULATED FACTS
1. In an Indictment, Cr. # 106341, dated October 27, 2006, Respondent was charged in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, with Count One-

Sexual Abuse of a Minor, in violation of Section 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article; Count Two-Sexual Offense in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Section 3-308 of the Criminal Law Article; Count Three-Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 3-203 of the Criminal Law Article of the State of Maryland.

2. In an Indictment, Cr. # 106914, dated January 19, 2007, Respondent was charged in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, with Count One- Sexual Abuse of a Minor, in violation of Article 27, Section 464B of the Annotated Code of Maryland; Count Two-Child Abuse, in violation of Article 27, Section 35A of the Annotated Code of Maryland.

3.  In an Indictment, Cr. # 106913, dated January 19, 2007, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Respondent was charged in Count One-Sexual Offense in the Third Degree in violation of Article 27, Section 464B, of the Annotated Code of Maryland; Count Two-Child Abuse; Custodian, in violation of Article 27, Section 35A of the Annotated Code of Maryland

4. In the matter of Indictment and Case No. 106341C, on April 13, 2007, the Respondent and Criminal Defendant, Stanley D. Schwartz, with the advice and assistance of counsel, pled guilty to Count One - Sexual Abuse of a Minor and was found guilty by the Court thereof.

5. In the matter of Indictment and Case No. 106914C, on April 13, 2007, the Respondent and Criminal Defendant, Stanley D. Schwartz, with the advice and assistance of counsel, pled guilty to Count One - Sexual Offense in the Fourth Degree and was found guilty by the Court thereof.

6. In the matter of Indictment and Case No. 106913C, on April 13, 2007, the Respondent and Criminal Defeiidznt, S'mley  E.  Schvm-tz, with the advice and assistance of counsel, pled guilty to Count One - Sexual Offense in the Third Degree and was found guilty by the Court thereof.

7. The respondent came before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, for sentencing on September 27, 2007, at which time he was sentenced to a total of 18 years incarceration in the Division of Correction. Upon his release he is to be placed on supervised probation for a period of five years.

8. The Respondent is also a member of the Bars of the state of Virginia and the District of Columbia.


LEGAL. CONCLUSIONS
9. Based upon the foregoing stipulated facts, Respondent acknowledges that his conduct violated the following Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct as outlined in Section 10 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations:

a. Rule 10.23@)(3) by engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude; 
b. Rule 10.23(b)(5) by engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 
c. Rule 10.23@)(6) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the practitioner's fitness to practice before the Office

EXCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is:

ORDERED that Respondent be excluded from practice of patent, trademark and other non-patent law before the USPTO, the period of exclusion beginning on September 27, 2007, and further

ORDERED that the OED Director publish the Final Order, and further

ORDERED that the OED Director will publish the following Notice in the Official Gazette:

Notice of Exclusion
Stanley D. Schwartz, of Gaithersburg, Maryland, is a registered patent attorney, registration number 25,374. In settlement of a disciplinary proceeding, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has ordered Mr. Schwartz be excluded from practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in patent, trademark and other non-patent law cases. The exclusion imposed by the Director began on September 27, 2007. This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 5 32 and 37 C.F.R. §10.133(g).

And it is further,

ORDERED that the OED Director will give notice of the final decision to the appropriate employees of the Office and to interested departments, agencies, and courts of the United States and will also give notice to appropriate authorities of any State in which a practitioner is known to be a member of the bar, and it is further ORDERED that while excluded, Respondent shall not engage in the unauthorized practice of patent, trademark and other non-patent law before the USPTO. 37 C.F.R.  5  10.158(a) and further it is ORDERED that within 30 days of this Final Order, Respondent shall notify all bars of which he is a member and all clients having immediate or prospective business before the Office in separate written communications of the exclusion, and that Respondent shall file a copy of each written communication with the OED Director within the same 9 7 Tr T-  P  i n r r o  L \ l , \  ? , : r ; - c . . +  30- day period.  3  1  L..R.  y  IIJ.IJO(LJ,,  ajlu i r  1s  laher

ORDERED that within 30 days of this Final Order, Respondent shall surrender each client's active USPTO case file(s) to (1) each client or (2) another practitioner designated by each client. 37 C.F.R.  5  10.158@)(2). It is hereby further

ORDERED that during the period Respondent is excluded any communication relating to a client matter that is addressed to Respondent andor received by him shall be immediately forwarded to the client or the practitioner designated by the client, and that Respondent will take no other legal action in the matter, enter any appearance, or provide any legal advice concerning the matter that is the subject of the communication. 37 C.F.R.  55  10.158(a),(b)(2), (b)(6), and further

ORDERED that within 30 days of this Final Order, Respondent shall return to any client having immediate or prospective business before the Office any uneamed legal  funds, including any uneamed retainer fee, and any securities and property of the client.  37 C.F.R.  55  10.158(b)(8), 10.160(d), and further

ORDERED that Respondent shall promptly take steps to comply with the provisions of  37 C.F.R.  5  10.158@)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7). Respondent shall submit proof of compliance with  55  10.158(b)(3), (b)(5) and (b)(6) with the OED Director upon filing a petition for reinstatement under 37 C.F.R.  5 10.160, and further

ORDERED that Respondent shall promptly take steps to comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R.  5  10.158(c) and it is further

REINSTATEMENT
ORDERED that following the exclusion in compliance with the foregoing provisions,  Respondent may petition for reinstatement, and

ORDERED that Respondent rhd! not be entitled to reinstatement iunti! he satisfies the provisions 37 C.F.R.  $5  10.158 and 10.160.

On behalf of Jon W. Dudas
Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the Unitedstates Patent and Trademark Ofice
Date es A. Toupin / United States Patent and Trademark Office
cc Harry I. Moatz, OED Director

Robert A. Cohen
12609 Blue Mountain Court
Gaithersburg, MD 20878

_________________________________________________________________________________


Judge Slashes Molester's Sentence From 18 Years to 18 More Months
By Dan Morse
Washington Post - July 26, 2008

A child molester who had been sentenced to 18 years will instead be released in 18 months, after Montgomery County Circuit Judge Eric M. Johnson said onetime patent lawyer Stanley D. Schwartz had gotten the "jolt to his system" he needed by having been sent to the state penitentiary.

Johnson also said he had "somewhat blindsided" Schwartz with the original sentence, which was handed down after Schwartz agreed to plead guilty last year.

The new sentence will allow Schwartz, 66, to move to the Montgomery County jail, generally considered an easier place to serve time than the state prison system. He gave up credit for the time he has served.

Schwartz was charged in three cases. Prosecutors said that in 2006, he climbed into the bed of a foreign exchange student from Kuwait who was staying with him and fondled the 15-year-old. Before that, authorities said, he fondled a 13-year-old female relative and a 15-year-old male friend of his son's. And at Schwartz's original sentencing hearing last year, his own children testified against him, asking Johnson to impose the longest term possible.

"We are extremely disappointed" with the sentence reduction, Amy J. Bills, an assistant state's attorney who handled the case, said yesterday. Prosecutors have no right to appeal the change.

David C. Driscoll, Schwartz's attorney, said the new sentence was more in line with what his client should have received under state sentencing guidelines. The judge "thoughtfully looked at the entire situation," Driscoll said, adding that his client is "very pleased" with the sentence, which probably will make it easier for him to participate in counseling. After his release, Schwartz faces five years of supervised probation.

In court papers asking the judge to reduce the sentence, Driscoll argued that his client was paying a steep price in the state prison system.

"Stanley Schwartz suffers daily from the harsh and unintended effects of the sentences imposed in his cases," Driscoll wrote. "He endured persistent threats from inmates." Schwartz felt "fearful and isolated" in prison, Driscoll said.

Prosecutors countered that Schwartz was to blame for his long sentence in the state system.

"The defendant placed himself in this situation," Bills wrote. "His choices and actions are why his family turned away from him, why he lost his license, and why he is serving a sentence in the [Maryland] Department of Corrections."

From his bench yesterday, Johnson said Schwartz had undergone such a harsh change that he had gotten the message.

"He needed to have an appropriate sign of his being held accountable for these acts," Johnson said. "For an upper-class lawyer, [with a] successful practice in a firm, living that type of lifestyle to go to jail, to go to jail for any time at all, is a shock to his system, and that's what he's gotten."

_________________________________________________________________________________

Maryland State Sex Offender Registry
December 31, 2013


_________________________________________________________________________________

FAIR USE NOTICE
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

_________________________________________________________________________________



"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ––Margaret Mead
_________________________________________________________________________________


No comments: