Update June 3, 2008
Welcome ElectionLawBlog visitors. I often mention through the course of my blog that I am not a lawyer, so take my legal conclusions with a fistful of salt. Also, I want to make it clear that the lawsuit I reference here was the one filed in Galveston, Texas back in August 2007. Original lawsuit (.pdf) courtesy: CREW. Two months ago, I observed that this case had moved to Washington, DC. At that time, Don McGahn was no longer a defendant. As CREW noted, Mr. McGahn was removed as a defendant due to jurisdictional issues. Perhaps the reason the case was moved to DC was to remove those jurisdictional barriers.
I've placed two tags on this post. If you're only interested in what I have to say about Mr. McGahn's role in this matter, click "McGahn". For a wider discussion on the Corwin Teltschik case, click "W+J" for Williams and Jensen.
I have more to say about this case, so check back in a couple of days or so.
==
[Beginning of original post dated June 1, 2008]
I re-read the lawsuit filed in Galveston by Corwin Teltschik. I know that this lawsuit has been re-filed in Washington, DC, but to my knowledge, that version of the lawsuit has never appeared on the internet. So be aware that I'm looking at something that may be dated.
I have a few observations I'd like to make about this case:
==
Barbara Bonfiglio as Treasurer
According to paragraph 4 of the lawsuit, a woman named Mona Stevens was the original treasurer of ARMPAC. I've been able to determine that Ms. Stevens was a former staff member in Tom DeLay's Congressional office. On April 4, 1995, Ms. Stevens was removed as treasurer and replaced by Barbara Bonfiglio. Less than four weeks later, Christine DeLay was in Corwin Teltschik's office trying to convince Mr. Teltschik to become ARMPAC's treasurer. Ms. DeLay gave some lame inducements to Mr. Teltschik such as Mr. Teltschik could help raise money for ARMPAC from Sugar Land, but apparently this was enough for Mr. Teltschik to accept the job. On May 11, 1995, Mr. Teltschik became treasurer of ARMPAC and Ms. Bonfiglio became assistant treasurer.
I want to know why Ms. Bonfiglio couldn't remain as treasurer. According to this article, Ms. Bonfiglio was treasurer to no less than 31 political action committees. Campaign finance law was an area of particular expertise for Ms. Bonfiglio. So why couldn't Ms. Bonfiglio remain treasurer for ARMPAC?
I don't have an answer to that question. Out of dozens and dozens of political action committees, there was something unique about ARMPAC. ARMPAC needed a naive treasurer. And it got one. I'd like to know why ARMPAC needed a naive treasurer.
==
A Bank Associated with Jack Abramoff
I find paragraph 26 of the lawsuit to be somewhat odd:
On October 9, 2006, Williams & Jensen faxed to Plaintiff some of the requested formation documents and sample bank statements. Plaintiff learned for the first time that Bonfiglio had caused other bank accounts to be opened in ARMPAC's name at two different banks - one of which was associated in the press with Jack Abramoff...
OK, I get that Bonfiglio was essentially the de facto treasurer at ARMPAC. She opened bank accounts and such. But what is this reference to Jack Abramoff? Certainly not all accounts at banks associated with Jack Abramoff are suspect. What is the significance of this? On one hand, I'd suggest that the reference to Jack Abramoff was some sort of non-sequitur, but on the other hand, I doubt lawyers typically put non-sequiturs in the factual sections of their lawsuits.
Conclusion: I have no idea what the significance of ARMPAC having a bank account at a bank associated with Jack Abramoff is.
==
Who was Don McGahn's Client?
In paragraph 27 of the Teltschik lawsuit, Mr. Teltschik refers to the Conciliation Agreement and cover letter (.pdf) sent by the Federal Election Commission to Don McGahn. Mr. McGahn had been designated counsel to ARMPAC on September 30, 2005 in order to handle this crisis with the Federal Election Commission. Somewhere along the line, Mr. McGahn acquired authorization to represent Mr. Teltschik in this matter. Mr. Teltschik asserts that he never gave such authorization (paragraph 23). Nevertheless, it appears that the FEC thought that Mr. McGahn represented Mr. Teltschik. According to the cover letter, "[T]he Federal Election Commission accepted the signed conciliation agreement on [Mr. McGahn's] clients' behalf ..." That is "clients" plural. Two or more clients. Well, there were only two defendants in MUR 5675: ARMPAC and Mr. Teltschik. If Mr. McGahn had clients plural, he must have represented them both.
The really odd thing, though, is that in paragraph 28, Mr. Teltschik asserts that he received a draft response to the FEC from Robert Martinez, the managing director at Williams & Jensen. If the characterization in Mr. Teltschik's lawsuit is accurate, the draft response to the FEC defended only ARMPAC and not Mr. Teltschik. It is not clear to me who authored the draft response to the FEC. It could have been Mr. McGahn, but it could have been some lawyer at Williams & Jensen since it was Mr. Martinez who had a copy of the draft. At any rate, Mr. Teltschik claims he received an adverse judgment by default from the FEC because he was inappropriately defended. It is not clear to me how Mr. Teltschik knows that the final version of the response to the FEC did not defend him since Mr. Teltschik only seems to have seen an earlier draft of the response.
The bottom line is that Mr. McGahn seems to have accepted Mr. Teltschik as a client. Mr. Teltschik claims that he never authorized Mr. McGahn to represent him. Furthermore, Mr. Teltschik seems to claim that Mr. McGahn was far more interested in defending ARMPAC than defending Mr. Teltschik. We are a long way from settling all these facts, but if they are true, why did Mr. McGahn defend only ARMPAC?
==
Correction
Back on August 8, 2007, I wrote:
Also notice the timing of Mr. Teltschik's discovery of the check to Dani DeLay Ferro. It was November 2006, just nine months ago. The investigation into suspicious payments from ARMPAC to DeLay family members including Dani DeLay Ferro was well underway by then. I'm betting that Mr. Teltschik learned of the check to Dani DeLay Ferro when the Justice Department asked him about it. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that Mr. Teltschik is unhappy about that check. Mr. Teltschik is obviously disgruntled, and if he's telling the truth, his disgruntlement is justified. I just wonder how cooperative he's been with the Justice Department -- if he knows anything at all.
After reviewing the lawsuit once more, I know how Mr. Teltschik became aware of the "retroactive" "payroll" checks to Dani DeLay Ferro, James Ellis and Chris Perkins. It is clear to me from paragraph 29 that Mr. Teltschik learned of the checks when William & Jensen's Robert Martinez sent documents detailing the checks on November 7, 2006. I no longer think it is possible that Mr. Teltschik learned of the checks in question from the Justice Department.
0 comments:
Post a Comment