In today's NY Times, Joe Nocera lambastes Bill Lerach's lack of remorse and notes that his crimes weren't victimless. To which I would add: given that Lerach's Portfolio defense of his crimes demonstrates that he lied in his sentencing letter to the court and the allocution he made, and given that Lerach got a reduced sentence under the Guidelines for "acceptance of responsibility" because of those false representations, why isn't the government looking to make a criminal contempt or perjury charge? (We'll give John Keker the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know what was in Lerach's heart when he falsely told the court "Mr. Lerach has stepped up and accepted responsibility.") Surely Judge John Walter doesn't condone this sort of thing.
Walter then cited several recent newspaper articles in which Lerach appeared to indicate that he wouldn't have done anything differently, despite having served a prison sentence, and that the case was simply a "political prosecution."
Lerach "still denies that he did anything wrong," Walter said. "He misled and fooled the court into believing he had remorse at the time of his sentencing." Walter said that he now believes the sentence was "way too lenient" and regretted having accepted Lerach's plea deal.
That answers one of my questions; I'm still wondering where the perjury charge is.
Judge Walter went on to deny Lerach's request to have his corporation-bashing class at University of California-Irvine count towards the "community service" aspect of his plea bargain. Coverage elsewhere before the ruling: Olson; Politico; Main Justice.