Who is Laura Quattlebaum?

Laura Quattlebaum Gower is currently a staffer for Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) according to her Linked-in profile. During the active period of Team Abramoff, though, she was known simply as Laura Quattlebaum and worked as a legislative aide to Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.).


Laura Quattlebaum Gower

On February 4, 2002, the government alleges that Kevin Ring was baiting public officials with tickets to the Dave Matthews Band (DMB). Among the persons interested in the tickets was Ms. Quattlebaum. Mr. Ring asked Jack Abramoff to authorize DMB tickets for Ms. Quattlebaum, describing her as "a helper on the Saginaw Cost Share School Program" (GX1020). After Mr. Ring received approval and promised delivery of the DMB tickets, Ms. Quattlebaum emailed:

Kevin- you are the best. I really appreciate it. Please let me know if and when anything comes up and ya'll [sic] need Jack's help. Thanks so much, [redacted]

When Ms. Quattlebaum offered "Jack's help", she was referring to her boss, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.).

The prosecution quizzed witness Todd Boulanger about this email chain. Prosecutors wanted to offer this incident as an example of Team Abramoff's strategy of "grooming" Congressional staffers. Defense attorney Andrew Wise objected. Mr. Wise thought that it was inappropriate to have Mr. Boulanger testify about Ms. Quattlebaum's email when the government didn't even plan to call Ms. Quattlebaum to testify. Both attorneys approached the bench. During the bench conference, prosecutor Michael Ferrara seemed to suggest that Ms. Quattlebaum had broken the law:

THE COURT: You are not arguing that she did anything wrong, Quattlebaum?

MR. FERRARA: No, I don't think it is appropriate what she has done here. I think she is linking a ticket with an official act. No, this is not proper.

MR. WISE: But there is no (official) act.

MR. FERRARA: There doesn't need to be, Your Honor ... One of the instructions we proposed is that in exchange for official action on an as-needed basis. Ms. Quattlebaum is offering her Congressman's help on an as-needed basis. It's exactly what we need to prove right here. All I want to ask Mr. Boulanger is how it worked when he did it.

THE COURT: ... I get the point of how they did it. Basically they cast a net to see who's going to take the bait. When they took the bait, then they gave them more bait.

MR. FERRARA: I just want to give the jury examples.

THE COURT: This is in evidence. You can argue all you want. He has given his examples regarding -- You've got it in evidence. Now you can ask him whatever you want to ask him about what he does, if that's what you're interested in. Go ahead. Move on ... Sustained.

[The ACR Blog did edit the transcript for brevity. Click here to see the relevant pages of the actual transcript.]

Mr. Ferrara seems to have described the "retainer theory" of Honest Services Fraud (HSF) as he described Ms. Quattlebaum's actions during this bench conference. It isn't clear to us whether Ms. Quattlebaum actually needed to perform an official act. Mr. Ferrara clearly suggests that no official act is necessary. Regarding the "retainer theory" of HSF, US v. Kincaid-Chauncey says:

It is sufficient, for example, if the evidence establishes that the government official has been put on "retainer" - that is, that the government official has received payments or other items of value with the understanding that when the payor comes calling, the government official will do whatever is asked. Only individuals who can be shown to have had the specific intent to trade official actions for items of value are subject to criminal punishment on this theory of honest services fraud. The retainer theory of quid pro quo eliminates the possibility that an innocent lobbyist or politician will be convicted for depriving the public of honest services.

The Third and First Circuits have both explicitly approved such "retainer" theories of honest services fraud, although they called them by different names.

The Justice Department has not charged Ms. Quattlebaum with any crime.

Doolittle Staffers in Deep Doo-Doo

The first witness in U.S. v. Kevin Ring was Henry Schuelke. Mr. Schuelke had been hired by Greenberg Traurig to perform an external investigation into the activities of Team Abramoff. Prosecutor Michael Leotta questioned Mr. Schuelke about an April 20, 2002 dinner for which Mr. Ring submitted a $2,000 expense report. Mr. Leotta questioning Mr. Schuelke:

Q: And directing your attention to the second page of this expense report, do you see a receipt from Signatures restaurant for April 20th, 2002?

A: I do.

Q: A credit card receipt of Mr. Kevin Ring, in the amount of $2,000?

A: I see it, yes.

Q: Did you ask Mr. Ring about this receipt and these expenses?

A: I did.

Q: What did he say about them?

A: I invited his attention to the expense report, as I recall, which indicates that six of the line items on the report under the date April 20th, add up to $2,000 in the aggregate.

The expense reports attributes various amounts making up the total $2,000, to six different firm client accounts. And with respect to each of those entries, the description of purpose reads, "Signatures with Rep. Doolittle staff."

I asked him, first of all, as I recall, inviting his attention to the fact that his credit card receipts indicates that the party was served at table 60, if he could tell me how many places or how many people could be accommodated at a single table at the restaurant Signatures. And he told me typically four.

$2,000 for four people. Nice dinner. The fine wine must have been flowing freely! The life of a Congressional staffer sure has its perks, doesn't it? Maybe those aren't legitimate perks, though. The direct examination of Mr. Schuelke continues:

Q: And did you ask him anything about the impact on Congressman Doolittle's staff as a result of that dinner?

A: One of us, that is to say, myself, my colleague, Bill Shields or another colleague, Dick Champion, who all participated in this interview, one of us, and it might well have been I, said, wouldn't they be in deep shit?

Q: What did Mr. Ring say in response?

A: They would.

The transcripts don't make it clear just which Doolittle staffers attended the $2,000 dinner. Regular readers can probably make an informed guess ... I know I can. The point here is that Mr. Ring knew that his entertaining violated some sort of standard. Mr. Ring and his defense team have steadfastly maintained that Mr. Ring did not violate the Honest Services Fraud statute. So perhaps when Mr. Ring says that the Doolittle staffers would be in "deep s---", Mr. Ring was referring to the ethics rules of the House of Representatives.

Update

We're sure that many people have noticed that the ACR Blog has been a bit quiet lately. Trust us, there is a flurry of activity behind the scenes. A regular reader suggested that we acquire the trial transcripts for U.S. v. Kevin Ring which recently became available. (Hat tip to that reader!) We are overwhelmed with information to the point that we've reached a sort of bloggers' paralysis. We don't know where to start, and we're not even half way through the transcripts.

Some interesting tidbits that may or may not appear in future blog posts:

1. Testimony about a witness's brother in South Carolina.

2. Ryan Thomas.

3. A person the ACR Blog has connected to Horace Cooper.

Should Kevin Ring's Retrial be in the Fall of 2010?

Today, defense attorneys filed a Motion to Continue in the case of U.S. v. Kevin Ring:

Kevin A. Ring, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court to vacate the June 21, 2010 trial date in the above-captioned matter and to continue the trial to a date certain in October 2010. The government opposes a continuance of the trial date but does not oppose the calendaring of a status date to discuss scheduling.

Mr. Ring's attorneys say that delaying the trial until October 2010 will allow the Supreme Court to issues opinions on three pending honest services fraud (HSF) cases before it. The HSF opinions may significantly shape the HSF statute or rule that it is unconstitutionally vague. According to the defense, because seven¹ of the eight² charges to be tried in the June 2010 retrial involve HSF, it makes sense to wait for the SCOTUS to issue its opinions. Then, all sides will be fully aware of the extent of the HSF law prior to the retrial. Mr. Ring's attorneys raise a second point, suggesting that postponing the retrial to October will make it more likely for potential witnesses to testify.

The ACR Blog is on record making a similar argument regarding witnesses:

It might even make sense to push back Mr. Ring's retrial date to the fall of 2010 in order to sentence all the defendants who may be potential witnesses in the retrial.

The defense tells us that the government opposes delaying the retrial. It will be interesting to see their reasoning. After all, the DoJ did not object to postponing sentencing for Michael Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon's attorneys cited the pending HSF cases before the Supreme Court as the primary reason to delay sentencing. If the SCOTUS finds HSF unconstitutional, it will reduce Mr. Scanlon's sentence. It seems to us that if it makes sense to defer Mr. Scanlon's sentencing over the pending HSF cases, it certainly makes sense to delay Mr. Ring's retrial.

We'll just have to wait and see why the DoJ thinks it is necessary to retry Mr. Ring before the ink is dry on the Supreme Court HSF rulings. At this point, we believe that delaying the retrial until October 2010 is perfectly reasonable.

===

¹ The eighth count is an Illegal Gratuities charge related to alleged things of value given to admitted felon Robert Coughlin. This charge is not vulnerable to any decision coming from the Supreme Court.

² Two Obstruction of Justice counts were severed from Mr. Ring's indictment last summer. Those charges remain outstanding.

Team Abramoff: Hiring DC's Best Lawyers

Imagine that you were an ambitious House staffer in 2002 who scored some hot concert tickets from a Team Abramoff lobbyist in exchange for access to your boss. Or a high-ranking DOJ official who, after your timely intervention in an immigration matter, were rewarded with coveted tickets to the NCAA basketball tournament. Or maybe you were a highly-paid lobbyist yourself, and after checking your ethics at the door, traded anything you had for anything you could get.

But now some federal prosecutor has started poking around, asking questions of your friends and business associates. Word is out on the street that Todd Boulanger is singing like a canary and his lyrics include you. Who you gonna call? You need the best criminal defense lawyer in DC that you can afford. (Of course if you can't afford a lawyer, despite the high salary you earned, you ask for a public defender).

Washingtonian Magazine named the top 100 criminal defense attorneys in the Washington DC area in its December 2009 issue. Here's how the article starts out:

Would you pay $1,000 an hour for this man’s time? The best legal talent doesn’t come cheap—here’s why lawyers make what they do, how they make partner (or don’t), plus the top 1 percent of the area’s 80,000 attorneys.

No, it's not the $1,000 an hour rate that we find shocking - the article reveals that very few lawyers actually command this top rate. It's the fact that there are over 80,000 lawyers in the Washington DC area. The ACR Blog refuses to take the obvious cheap shot, and correlate the dire situation our country is in to the extremely large number of lawyers in the area.

Back to the subject at hand. As we scanned the list, name after name rang a bell for us. Let's start with Kevin Ring's attorney Andrew Wise. Yes, Mr. Wise made the top 100 list, as did his Miller Chevalier colleague Richard Hibey (who is also defending Mr. Ring). We have learned a lot from the filings of Mr. Ring's defense team. Not only have we discovered a lot of facts from the court documents, we've learned quite a bit of law from these attorneys along the way, too.

Here are some more of the top 100 criminal defense attorneys culled from the list, along with the name of the Abramoff scandal figure they either did (or currently do) represent:

Abbe Lowell Lawrence Robbins Richard Sauber Barbara Van Gelder Philip Inglima Carole Elder Bruce Laura Ariane Miller Plato Cacheris John Nassikas Stanley Brand Bernie Grimm Mark Tuohey Ralph Caccia Bradfrod Berenson W. Neil Eggleston George Terwilliger F. Joseph Warin Kevin Downey Henry Schuelke Barry Pollack

(Jack Abramoff) (David Safavian) (David Safavian) (David Safavian) (Shawn Vassell) (Trevor Blackann) (Tony Rudy) (Michael Scanlon) (William Heaton) (J. Steven Griles) (Shane Tessimond1) (Fmr Rep. Robert Ney) (Fmr Sen. Conrad Burns) (Susan Ralston) (Ralph Reed) (Tyco, Inc.) (Michael Mihalke) (Greenberg Traurig LLC2) (Greenberg Traurig LLC2) (Brian Mann, Aaron Stetter & Jeremy Diehl)

Apologies if we missed anyone. When you add in the names of Mr. Wise and Mr. Hibey, no fewer than twenty-two of these top 100 criminal defense attorneys have found some level of employment thanks to Jack Abramoff. It certainly appears that when it comes time to defend themselves, most of those involved in the Abramoff scandal have chosen to hire the very best that money can buy.

In the case of David Safavian, all three of his attorneys made the list. Yet despite this stellar representation, Mr. Safavian was found guilty - twice. Apparently, some scandal figures are in so far over their heads, even three top-notch attorneys can't get him off. As we think about it, this is very comforting to know as the Abramoff scandal continues to unfold.

===
¹ Although most people would not consider Mr. Tessimond to be an Abramoff scandal figure, long-time readers know that I have had a special interest in him. Click here and here for more information and follow the links to go as deeply as you wish.

² Greenberg Traurig hired these two attorneys in early 2004 to conduct an external investigation into the Abramoff corruption.

DoJ Wanted Fraser Verrusio to be "Confidential Source"

Star DoJ attorney M. Kendall Day filed a Motion in Limine today (a federal holiday¹) in the case of U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio. The DoJ is asking U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts to prohibit Mr. Verrusio from making certain arguments in Verrusio's upcoming corruption trial. First, the DoJ would like to preclude Mr. Verrusio from arguing that his prosecution is a vindictive one. Secondly, the DoJ wants to prohibit Mr. Verrusio from using summaries of witness interviews and other documents prepared by law enforcement to impeach government witnesses.

===

Vindictive Prosecution

From the Motion in Limine:

The government anticipates that Defendant Verrusio may attempt at trial to argue or introduce evidence that the government vindictively selected him for prosecution because he declined to become a confidential source for the FBI in an unrelated investigation. To be clear, Verrusio’s decision - in an unrelated investigation involving different prosecutors and FBI agents - had nothing to do with the charging decisions in this case...

By way of background, on September 14, 2008, Verrusio was interviewed by law enforcement agents (“interviewing agents”) about the facts that ultimately led to the charges in this indictment. At the conclusion of that interview, Verrusio asked whether the interview stemmed from his decision not to become an FBI confidential source in an investigation conducted by another agent (“source agent”). The interviewing agents advised Verrusio that the two matters - his interview about the World Series Trip and his decision not to become a confidential source - were separate and completely unrelated. Nevertheless, on September 18, 2008, Verrusio contacted the source agent and asked whether questions regarding the World Series trip in 2003 had anything to do with Verrusio’s decision not to become a source for the source agent. The source agent, too, advised Verrusio that the two matters were entirely unrelated, and that Verrusio’s decision was not being held against him in any way. Later, prior defense counsel for Verrusio asked the same question of government counsel, namely whether the two issues were in some way related; government counsel likewise responded that the two matters were not related in any way.

Whoa! What's that? The FBI wanted Mr. Verrusio to become a "confidential source" in an unrelated matter? Against whom would the DoJ want Mr. Verrusio provide information? We're guessing that the DoJ wanted Mr. Verrusio to provide information against his former boss, Rep. Don Young (R-Ak.). Remember that Rep. Young has been designated as United States Representative A in an unrelated criminal investigation. Often, when individuals are given cutesy names like that, we later learn that they were subjects of a federal investigation. Since this case is an unrelated matter (presumably unrelated to the Abramoff scandal), it is outside the scope of the ACR Blog.

With respect to Mr. Verrusio's argument that his prosecution is related to his refusal to help the Justice Department root out corruption in an unrelated case, we don't find his claims persuasive. In the summer of 2008, it was apparent to the DoJ that Team Abramoff lobbyist Kevin Ring would not cooperate. In early September 2008, Mr. Ring was indicted and the preparation for his trial was well underway. Prosecutors knew that fellow Team Abramoff lobbyist Todd Boulanger would provide effective testimony against Mr. Ring (and Mr. Boulanger's testimony was indeed effective). In September 2008, the DoJ set out to secure Mr. Boulanger's plea deal and assure his cooperation. The ACR Blog believes that the September 18, 2008 interview of Mr. Verrusio was part of a string of events to build a case against Mr. Ring. Consequently, we do not believe that Mr. Verrusio's indictment is vindictive.

Let's look at this in timeline form:

AUGUST 29, 2008
Trevor Blackann signs a Factual Basis for Plea indicating that he would cooperate with the government. Mr. Blackann went on the same World Series trip as Mr. Verrusio. Mr. Blackann's Factual Basis identifies the roles of Todd Boulanger ("Lobbyist D"), James Hirni ("Lobbyist E"), and Mr. Verrusio ("Staffer D") related to the World Series trip at this time.

SEPTEMBER 5, 2008
The indictment of Kevin Ring is unsealed.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2008
Mr. Verrusio is interviewed about the events that appear in his indictment.

NOVEMBER 21, 2008
Team Abramoff lobbyist Jim Hirni is formally charged on events related to the World Series trip and becomes a cooperating witness. Mr. Hirni relates facts about Mr. Boulanger's involvement in the World Series trip. Mr. Verrusio is identified in these court documents as "Staffer D".

JANUARY 16, 2009
Todd Boulanger signs plea agreement, promising to cooperate with prosecutors. Mr. Boulanger's Factual Basis for Plea identifies acts related to the World Series trip and Mr. Verrusio ("Staffer D").

MARCH 6, 2009
Fraser Verrusio is indicted related to events including the World Series trip.

SEPTEMBER 2009
Mr. Boulanger appears as a government witness in Mr. Ring's corruption trial.

While the ACR Blog finds the "confidential source" story extremely interesting since we believe it relates to an investigation of Rep. Young, it doesn't appear that the "confidential source" episode led to a vindictive indictment against Mr. Verrusio. Other individuals involved in the World Series trip were held criminally accountable. The evidence suggests that the DoJ's interest in Mr. Verrusio's World Series trip was a result of their strategy to obtain Mr. Boulanger's cooperation in the trial of Kevin Ring.

===

Impeachment of Witnesses

The other item in the Motion in Limine is far less interesting. The DoJ does not want Mr. Verrusio to be able to use documents authored by law enforcement to be used to impeach government witnesses. The DoJ claims that only a witness's own statements can be used to impeach a witness. Since documents authored by law enforcement are not the witnesses' own statements, they can't be used for impeachment.

We can't believe that this is the first time a court has had to confront this matter. Surely on-point case law exists. This is so insignificant, we don't care what the resolution is.

===

¹ UPDATE 5:00 p.m. CST We just reviewed Judge Robertson's scheduling order. Today was the deadline for Motions in Limine. There probably isn't a lot to read into the fact that this motion was filed today.

Who is Ryan Thomas?

Ryan Thomas is a former staffer to former Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Mr. Thomas is of particular interest to the ACR Blog since he was named a co-conspirator during the trial of Kevin Ring. We don't know what Mr. Thomas did to earn such a designation from the DoJ, but we'd like to take this opportunity to take a look at a couple of highlights of Mr. Thomas' career.

Super Bowl 2001

Federal investigators have long been interested in a Team Abramoff sponsored trip to the 2001 Super Bowl. This trip is mentioned as early as the January 2006 Jack Abramoff's Factual Basis for Plea (Paragraph 32; Page 23 of .pdf). During Mr. Ring's recent corruption trial, fellow Team Abramoff lobbyist Todd Boulanger testified that three Hill staffers were on this trip:

• Will Brooke (staffer to Senator Conrad Burns, R-Mont.)


• Ryan Thomas (staffer to Senator Conrad Burns, R-Mont.)


• Tim Berry (staffer to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land)

We're not going to spend a lot of time on these other individuals right now. We've written about Tim Berry before, wondering if he could be incented to provide information about his former boss and our former Congressman, Tom DeLay. While we've mentioned Will Brooke in passing before, we've never thought that scrutiny of Mr. Brooke would be fruitful. Mr. Brooke worked at Greenberg Traurig for a period of time. Shortly after the Justice Department announced a plea deal with Mr. Abramoff (January 3, 2006), Mr. Brooke told the Bozeman (Mont.) Daily Chronicle about the Super Bowl trip and claimed that he sought out the Justice Department to tell his story (January 7, 2006).

We're most interested in Mr. Thomas, the alleged Abramoff scandal co-conspirator. Best we can tell, Mr. Thomas has not spoken publicly about the events surrounding the Super Bowl trip. Roll Call's Mary Ann Akers reported that Mr. Thomas left Sen. Burns' staff in February 2006, just a month after Abramoff's plea. Roll Call suggests that Mr. Thomas left due to the Abramoff investigation.

Super Bowl tickets could be considered a thing of value.

===

Saginaw Chippewa

Just as investigators interested in Mr. Thomas' Super Bowl trip in 2001, the DoJ also seems interested in a specific appropriation Mr. Thomas worked on. The WaPo's venerated Susan Schmidt wrote in 2005:

A $3 million grant from a federal program intended for impoverished Indian tribal schools went to one of the richest tribes in the country under pressure from Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), who oversees the budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The tribe that last year received the money for a new school, the Saginaw Chippewas of Michigan, was at the time a client of Jack Abramoff, a prominent Republican lobbyist whose practices are the subject of multiple federal investigations...

Ryan Thomas, a Burns staffer on the appropriations subcommittee, took the lead in tangling with Interior officials over the funding, former department officials said. He did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.

Thomas had close ties to some members of Abramoff's lobbying team, former Abramoff associates said. He and Will M. Brooke, Burns's chief of staff, traveled to the 2001 Super Bowl on the Abramoff corporate jet, along with several staffers from the office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)

Notably, the activity surrounding the Saginaw Chippewa school funding occurred in 2003, two years after the Super Bowl trip. The WaPo seems to be connecting the two events, though, and we have way too much respect for Sue Schmidt to think that she mistakenly connected two unrelated events. The ACR Blog concludes that it is possible that the 2001 Super Bowl trip and the 2003 Sag Chip school funding are related. In the opinion of the ACR Blog, "Tangling with Interior officials over the funding" of the Saginaw Chippewa school can be considered an official act.

===

Ryan Thomas and the Kevin Ring Trial

Although he didn't appear as a witness, Mr. Thomas garnered attention in the Kevin Ring trial beyond the events surrounding the 2001 Super Bowl. Let's look at Government Exhibit 1043:

EXHIBIT 1043 1/7/2002 Email from Boulanger to Thomas;, "I got you"

In this email, Boulanger told a public official [presumably Thomas] that he was able to get him floor seats to an event and wrote, "I had to ask Jack directly, which means you are going to owe me for these.... date and project to be determined!!" (ellipsis in original), thereby clearly establishing the coconspirators' transactional approach to giving tickets.

If, as we believe, this exhibit refers to Mr. Thomas, the Justice Department may be able to prove that Team Abramoff provided Mr. Thomas with an illicit stream of things of value. While it isn't unreasonable to believe that the "date and project to be determined" could be the Saginaw Chippewa school, we also know that Mr. Thomas worked on projects for other Team Abramoff tribal clients. For example, during pre-trial discussion of GX 1043, Justice Department attorneys mentioned work that Mr. Thomas and Ann Copland (staffer for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.) did for the Mississippi Choctaw. GX 833 suggests to us that Mr. Thomas and Team Abramoff also worked on issues for the Pueblo Sandia.

===

Given the numerous actions of Mr. Thomas recounted in the Ring trial and given that he was named a co-conspirator in the Abramoff scandal, we are fully expecting to learn more about Ryan Thomas.