Case Information
*1 Case 2:20-cr-00163-ER Document 82 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
: CRIMINAL ACTION v. : NO. 20-163
: LEE D. WEISS :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2022, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as Untimely (ECF No. 62), Motion to Dismiss for Duplicity (ECF No. 63), Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue (ECF No. 64), Motion for Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 65), and Motion to Strike Surplusage (ECF No. 66), and all responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue (ECF No. 64)
is GRANTED . Counts Six and Eight of the Second Superseding Indictment are DISMISSED without prejudice .
2. The Motion to Dismiss as Untimely (ECF No. 62), Motion
to Dismiss for Duplicity (ECF No. 63), and Motion for a Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 65) are DENIED .
3. The Motion to Strike Surplusage (ECF No. 66) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Pursuant to that motion, paragraph 30 of the Second Superseding Indictment is STRICKEN . The following language from *2 Case 2:20-cr-00163-ER Document 82 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 2
paragraph 31 of the Second Superseding Indictment is also STRICKEN:
a. “in favor of J. & J.S.”
b. “That award found that defendant WEISS had
breached his fiduciary duty, had made investments with minimal or non-existent due diligence, had issued portfolio statements that were misleading, and had recommended investments that were entirely inappropriate for J. & J.S.”
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________ EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
