Employees of Alexander Strategy Group

I'm getting into the bowels of this scandal, and unfortunately, I don't have an encyclopedic memory. Alexander Strategy Group (ASG) was a lobbying firm founded by scandal figure Ed Buckham. I can't seem to find a list of Alexander Strategy Group employees anywhere, but I find fragments of information all over the place. The purpose of this post is to provide myself a database of ASG employees for future reference. I think it already is the most complete list of ASG employees on the internet. I'm sure this list won't be entirely comprehensive, so any help making it more robust would be appreciated.

1. Edwin Buckham - Founder (Former aide to Tom DeLay)
2. Karl Gallant - Lobbyist (Former aide to Tom DeLay)
3. Jim Ellis - Lobbyist (Former aide to Tom DeLay)
4. Tony Rudy - Lobbyist (Former aide to Tom DeLay)
5. Dan Gans - Lobbyist (Former aide to Current Alabama Governor and former US Rep. Bob Riley (R-Ala.))

6. Michael Mihalke
7. Allison Shulman
8. Amelia Blackwood
9. Paul Behrends
10. Terry Haines

11. Ed Stewart
12. Brian Darling
13. Anne Duke

==

CONSULTANTS

1. Christine DeLay - Wife of Rep. Tom DeLay
2. Julie Doolittle - Wife of Rep. John Doolittle
3. Linda Feulner - Wife of Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner

==

I may or may not beef this post up later. I'll certainly try; hopefully it will inspire new posts as I do.

Waitin' on a Woman - Brad Paisley

In the first half of June, I panned Brad Paisley's current single. In fact, I said that "I fear that Mr. Paisley's streak of seven straight #1 songs will be broken. My prediction is that "Waitin on a Woman" will not reach #1."

Well, I was wrong. On September 20, "Waitin' on a Woman" hit #1 on the Hot Country Songs chart and lasted there one week.

After my original post, the official video for "Waitin' on a Woman" was released. It is an instant classic starring Andy Griffith. In large part due to the video, I've really warmed up to this song, and it warrants a post as September's music video.

Brad Paisley
Waitin' on a Woman (2008)

Attorneys: Tony Rezko is "Talking"

From the Associated Press:

Convicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko has been quietly visiting Chicago's federal courthouse, setting off speculation that he may be spilling secrets to prosecutors in return for a lenient sentence.

Prosecutors investigating Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration would plainly like to hear what Rezko knows, and there is plenty of incentive to talk.

"Jail is horrible and Tony Rezko has just two options," says Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association. "One option is to do nothing and get a full sentence. The other is to cooperate with prosecutors."

Attorneys with knowledge of the government's investigation of corruption in state government say they are convinced the one-time key fundraiser for Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama is either talking or about to do so...

Rezko, 53, a one-time millionaire real estate developer and fast-food entrepreneur, raised funds for many Illinois politicians—more than $1 million for Blagojevich. And in return he became one of the governor's key advisers.

He also raised money for Obama's Illinois campaigns but not for his presidential bid. Obama has donated $159,000 in Rezko-related contributions to charity.

Recall that Mr. Rezko was a key participant in a shady land deal involving Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Sen. Obama has called his involvement with Mr. Rezko "a mistake".

Does anyone know of a principled lefty blogger who is taking a serious look at Sen. Obama's role in this matter. If Mr. Rezko is indeed "talking", we may hear more of this in the future.

Revisiting Paul Vinovich

July 3, 2008 -- Something's Up with Paul Vinovich

July 11, 2008 -- July 11: Paul Vinovich Update

==

Background: In early July, I was picking up hints that there was some movement in this scandal dealing with Paul Vinovich, former General Counsel to convicted Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio).

From the July 11 post:

With only moderate confidence, I believe that the movement surrounding Paul Vinovich has to do with travel disclosure forms submitted by Mr. Vinovich with respect to his trip with convicted Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) to Scotland. I first wrote about these travel disclosure forms in August 2007 ...

At the time of my August 2007 post, I couldn't figure out whom Mr. Vinovich could provide information about. I still can't answer that question. But I still have a sneaking suspicion that it might actually have to do with Tom DeLay somehow.

I still suspect that the Paul Vinovich story has something to do with Tom DeLay. However, reading some admittedly tiny tea leaves, I now believe that the primary interest prosecutors have with Mr. Vinovich has to do with the retrial of administration official David Safavian. Mr. Safavian had been convicted of lying to government official, but that conviction was overturned in June 2008 on what seems to me to be technical grounds. Federal prosecutors are preparing for the retrial of Mr. Safavian, currently scheduled for December 1, 2008.

Although Mr. Vinovich did not testify at Mr. Safavian's first trial, he was a topic of interest in the trial:

Vinovich’s name came up when U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman was discussing the cost of the Scotland trip with Justice Department lawyers and Safavian’s defense attorneys.

When Friedman asked prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg why he would not call Vinovich as a witness to discuss the costs of the trip, Zeidenberg responded that Vinovich “has a 5th Amendment privilege.” The constitutional amendment bars prosecutors from forcing a person to give testimony that might be self-incriminating.

Now I'm not suggesting I have any inside information, but I firmly believe the interest in Mr. Vinovich has to do with Mr. Safavian's retrial later this year. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Vinovich waives his 5th Amendment rights. Will he testify? Will his travel disclosure forms be admitted as evidence?

As far as elected officials go, it is hard for me to see what value Mr. Vinovich brings to the table. After all, his former boss, Rep. Ney, has already been convicted. In fact, it is hard for me to see any value to the testimony or other evidence from Mr. Vinovich beyond the trial of Mr. Safavian. Nevertheless, I still have a gut feeling that Mr. Vinovich will be useful in a potential trial for Tom DeLay.

Potential Judicial Misconduct in Texas Money Laundering Case

Via the Houston Chronicle, the AP tells us that Travis County DA is charging corruption at the 3rd Court of Appeals:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has raised the specter of judicial corruption in asking an appeals court to reconsider an opinion in a money-laundering case against two associates of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

"The dark shadow of corruption of our system of justice looms over this case," Earle wrote in a brief. "Every lawyer has a duty to raise questions of corruption that go to the heart of our judicial system, and it is in the discharge of that duty that the State pursues this effort."

Emphasis Added

Mr. Earle is upset over his lost appeal in a money laundering case against two of Tom DeLay's associates. The judges ruled that checks were not "funds" under the pre-2005 money laundering statute. I've already opined that this case was wrongly decided. Case law decided by Texas courts has already determined that checks were covered under the pre-2005 money laundering statute. In fact, at least three individuals were convicted of money laundering when the instrument laundered was a check. What happens to these people if the law is retroactively changed?

Anyway, with case law on his side, Mr. Earle need not have resorted to his overblown claims of corruption. I have to agree with one of the defendant's lawyers:

[The] strong language implying corruption caught defense attorneys off-guard, the Austin American-Statesman reported in Tuesday's editions.

"It is just way out of line," said San Antonio lawyer J.D. Pauerstein, who represents Ellis. "That sounds like it was written by a politician instead of a lawyer."

Well, Mr. Earle is a lawyer who uses his position in a political manner.

The Chron, as usual, leaves the reader to wonder what the substance of Mr. Earle's appeal is. To answer that, let's go to a more levelheaded Austin American Statesman editorial:

After a bizarre appeals court ruling last month, the long-running money-laundering charge against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two other Republican operatives now includes possible judicial misconduct.

A three-judge panel of the state's 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin last month upheld the constitutionality of the law under which DeLay and two others were indicted. However, the panel ventured into uncharted territory by volunteering that the money-laundering law did not apply to checks...

Now we learn from an article by the American-Stateman's Laylan Copelin that the appeals judge who wrote that opinion, Justice Alan Waldrop, was the lawyer for a group helping the defendants. Waldrop represented Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which strategized with Colyandro and others about the 2002 elections, which led to both the civil suit and criminal charges.

Waldrop should have recused himself from hearing the criminal case against DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro. He has written that the lawsuit, which mirrored the criminal case, was "politically motivated."

Have judicial ethics in Texas fallen so far that it is considered proper for a judge to rule on a motion involving defendants he previously counseled in a case he criticized? That's an outrageous ethical violation that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct should investigate fully.

Moreover, the ruling by the panel, which also included Justices W. Kenneth Law and Bob Pemberton, should be tossed out and the appeal sent to another jurisdiction for a fair hearing. There's precedent for that.

The Statesman gets it right. Judge Waldrop should have recused himself from this appeal. The 3rd Court's finding of law that checks are not "funds" under the applicable money laundering statute needs to be reviewed and brought in alignment with existing case law. I'll leave the decision as to whether that second review comes from a higher court or, as the Statesman suggests, from another jurisdiction to someone who, like, actually understands the law.

McCain Up Three In Michigan?

That's what Mark Hemmingway at National Review's "The Corner" reports:

The poll showed that Obama continues to show strong support among women (+2%), young voters (+16%), African Americans (+89%), voters living in the Detroit Metro area (+9%) along with his traditional Democratic base.

John McCain is showing strength among blue-collar voters (+10%), men (+9%), white males (+29%), conservatives (+62%) and voters living in West Michigan (+12%) and the Flint/Saginaw/Bay City Area (+8%).

As much as I'd like to believe this poll, something just doesn't seem right. McCain +8% in Flint/Saginaw/Bay City? All three of those cities are blue cities.

Let's look at the 2004 election results:

Genesee County (Flint)
Kerry 60%; Bush 39%
Kerry +44,000 votes

Bay County (Bay City)
Kerry 54%; Bush 45%
Kerry +6,000 votes

Saginaw County (Saginaw)
Kerry 53%; Bush 46%
Kerry +7,000 votes

How does McCain even draw even in those three cities? Even if you consider all the red counties in the thumb and go north from Saginaw and Bay City to capture a lot of rural red counties like the one I grew up in, it is difficult to make up the margin in Flint, Saginaw and Bay City, much less seeing McCain lead by 8%. Although McCain will win a lot of counties in that area, they just don't have enough voters to overwhelm Flint alone.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see McCain win the Water Winter Wonderland. But McCain will need to win the suburban Detroit counties (Oakland, Macomb) handily and see a great turnout in Michigan's red cities like Grand Rapids and, well, just Grand Rapids, to win the state.

While I'm on the subject of Michigan, I have got to believe that Sarah Palin will play very well in the upper Great Lakes. Even though her accent is more Minnesota or Wisconsin, I love listening to her voice. My high school was full of Sarah Palins. All the girls were extremely smart and self confident. Many of them had beauty queen good looks, too. I suspect more than a few are comfortable handling a Remington 870. I just wonder how many of them are hockey moms today.

Tom Feeney's Rookie Mistake

This has to be the strangest campaign ad I've ever seen. Apparently, we've been invited to breakfast with Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. Feeney holds a coffee mug and has a newspaper nearby. He explains that he's honest despite accepting a junket to Scotland with Jack Abramoff:



Let's look at just a few of those claims:

1. Rep. Feeney claims his dalliance with Jack Abramoff was just a "rookie mistake". A year ago, Rep. Feeney explained his behavior as "an embarrassing episode in his 17-year career as an elected official and an expensive lesson for him as a public servant". Which is it? A mistake from someone just learning the ropes or an isolated incident in a very long tenure in public service?

2. Rep. Feeney claims that he reported the Scotland trip to the ethics committee. OK, technically that may be true. But according to the Orlando Sentinel, "Feeney asked the ethics committee for guidance in March 2005 after media reports about the trip, according to the statement by outgoing ethics chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and ranking Democrat Howard Berman of California." Wasn't it big of Rep. Feeney to own up to his "mistake" after being caught by the press?

3. Rep. Feeney says he "paid the money back". Since Rep. Feeney says the Scotland trip was paid for by a "corrupt lobbyist" (read: Jack Abramoff), did Rep. Feeney "pay back" Mr. Abramoff? No! Rep. Feeney paid back the US Treasury for a trip that the taxpayer didn't fund. Furthermore, Rep. Feeney only paid a quarter of the trip's value to the US Treasury. [See: Fuzzy Math]

4. I'm sure I might get a reader or two who thinks that Rep. Feeney just might be telling the truth about the Abramoff-financed Scotland trip. Remember that Rep. Feeney also went on a junket to South Korea with Abramoff associate Ed Buckham [See: Fun Fact]. What a coincidence! I'm sure there's an innocent explanation for that, too.

Who is Elliot Berke?

A couple of days ago, I looked at a recent filing in Teltschik v. Williams and Jensen, et. al.. Lawyers for Corwin Teltschik provided us with a list of 13 people who may have relevant information in this case. Several names were not familiar to me, but I am most interested in just two: Elliot Berke and Dan Flynn. I want to learn more about these two, and even though I had previously suggested I was more interested in Dan Flynn, I'd like to start with Elliot Berke.

Mr. Berke was a member of Tom DeLay's "war room" team in or around April 2005:

The team — which includes DeLay Chief of Staff Tim Berry, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Flynn, Communications Director Dan Allen, general counsel Elliot Berkes [sic] and policy adviser Brett Shogren — holds a 7:30 a.m. conference call with aides from the Speaker’s office, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) to discuss daily media coverage of DeLay. His aides then hold their own meeting in DeLay’s first-floor Capitol office to discuss message strategy for the day.

I'll get back to events going on during this time period in a later post. As I've already indicated, I want to learn more about Elliot Berke.

We already know Mr. Berke was general counsel to Tom DeLay's leadership office. After Mr. DeLay left Congress, Mr. Berke softly landed as counsel to then House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Mr. Berke served in this capacity as the former Speaker did nothing in the Mark Foley mini-scandal. After the disastrous 2006 midterm elections, Mr. Berke left the office of Speaker Hastert to join a GOP lobbying practice:

Also leaving the Hill is Elliot S. Berke, most recently counsel to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who has signed up with GOP lobby shop Barbour Griffith & Rogers as general counsel. He will focus on advising clients and the firm on such issues as foreign agent registration, lobbying disclosure and campaign finance issues.

Mr. Berke has since hung his own shingle (Berke & Associates PLLC), but for a time, he had a boss with a very familiar name. The Atlantic seems to report that as recently as January 2008, Mr. Berke worked for a firm called McGahn & Associates. Who is McGahn? Any guesses? Any guesses?

For what it is worth, here is a list of Mr. Berke's campaign contributions in 2008. I want you to notice two things:

1. It appears that Berke & Associates was founded somewhere between April and June 2008. Drawing an inference here, but I think that Mr. Berke was an employee of Don McGahn until the spring of 2008.

2. Hey! Mr. Berke contributed to a Congressional candidate right here in TX22! That's right, Mr. Berke has contributed to Pete Olson's campaign. Why does Pete Olson have to smell so much like Tom DeLay?

I have so much I'd like to write about, but I really must make another post speculating on the role of Mr. Berke (and Mr. Flynn for that matter) when it comes to Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen et. al. I promise that post will be easier to read ... it can't be any worse than this one. Stay tuned.

DeLay Family members, Don McGahn named in Witness List

There have been some recent filings in Corwin L. Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen PLLC et al. I'd like to point out some specific items in Plaintiff's Disclosures (.pdf).

Lawyers for plaintiff Corwin Teltschik provide a list of people likely to have relevant information. This is the list in its entirety:

1. Corwin Teltschik, plaintiff. (Obviously)
2. Tom DeLay (Wowzer! It's good to see this in a court document!)
3. Christine DeLay (Wowzer! etc. etc.)
4. Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio (PAC Treasurer extraordinaire including de facto treasurer ARMPAC)
5. Robert Martinez (Head honcho at Williams & Jensen, ARMPAC's law firm)
6. Don McGahn (Former ARMPAC lawyer; current Chairman of Federal Election Commission)
7. Meredith Kelley (Accomplished PAC treasurer in her own right; authorizer of controversial Conciliatory Agreement.)
8. Dani DeLay Ferro (Wowzer! Recipient of controversial "retroactive" "payroll" payments from ARMPAC)
9. Jim Ellis (Former ED for ARMPAC; Recipient of "retroactive" "payroll" payments from ARMPA)
10. Elliot Berke (Off my radar screen, but former counsel for DeLay)
11. Dan Flynn (Off my radar screen, but former CoS for DeLay. I probably ought to look into this guy a little more.)
12. Elaine Moore (Co-worker of plaintiff Teltschik)
13. Michael Mills (Expert witness wrt legal implications of Conciliatory Agreement)

Of course I'm most interested in where this case is going with respect to Tom DeLay and his family.

A few days after this disclosure was filed with the DC District Court on September 15, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain on Friday, September 19, said, "The chairman of the FEC should resign and leave office and be replaced."



[OK, I know Sen. McCain meant to call for the resignation of the chairman of the SEC, but this item was irresistible ... h/t MSNBC.]

Seriously, though, just as I started to wonder whatever happened to the Motion to Reconsider the dismissal of Don McGahn, Mr. Teltschik's attorneys give us an update on that issue. The Motion to Reconsider is still outstanding. I still have no idea when Judge Henry Kennedy will rule on that motion. It is still possible that Chairman of the Federal Election Commission could be a defendant in a electoral fundraising case.

Defendants submitted a similar disclosure (.pdf) on September 11, 2008. There was absolutely nothing interesting in the defendants' disclosure. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

==

Click on the "teltschik" tag below for more posts on this case.

Electricity!

I've had electricity since Saturday night. It was restored within hours of tropical storm force winds leaving the area.

Most people around the area are still without power. We have a houseful of people enjoying air conditioning and watching TV. Seven people spent the night last night.

Also, we've been freezing all the bottled waters we can. Ice may not be a necessity, but it sure is nice when you don't have electricity. We're giving the frozen bottles to friends without power. The frozen bottles can keep stuff cold, and when they melt, you have ice cold water.

Life in the Anti Corruption household has been near normal after Ike -- except for all the friends visiting. As for me, the airport is open and I'm off to New York City.

Abramoff Seeks Florida Sentence Cut

From the AP:

Imprisoned former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff is seeking a reduction in his prison sentence for fraud in an ill-fated Florida casino boat deal...

A judge in Washington last week sentenced Abramoff to four years behind bars in the corruption case but did give him credit for helping investigators.

I've never claimed to be very smart, so don't be surprised when I say I don't understand what Mr. Abramoff seeks to accomplish. My understanding is that cutting the Florida sentence won't mean a thing. It is the four year Washington sentence that is operative. If Mr. Abramoff wants out of prison early, he needs to cut the Washington sentence.

Evacuation for Brazoria County Coast

County Judge Joe King ordered a mandatory evacuation of part of Brazoria County's coast in anticipation of Hurricane Ike. I'm pretty much as far away from the coast as I can be while still inside the cozy confines of Brazoria County.

Part I -- Kevin Ring Indictment: ED BUCKHAM!

***UPDATE***
July 29, 2009

The ACR Blog has changed its major premise in this article. We now believe that Paragraph 88 refers to a job Jack Abramoff was attempting to arrange with Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition. See this post for more information.

Original post begins below:

:::

I've been traveling and I'm late to the game. News broke on Monday that an indictment for Jack Abramoff associate Kevin Ring had been unsealed on September 8.

A lot of people have written about this already, and I don't want to cover ground already well traversed. Here is a link dump to interesting observations already made:

Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) has a major role in the indictment. So does his wife, Julie Doolittle. Rep. Doolittle is given the ominous name of "Representative 5". Rep. Doolittle is not happy about the attention.

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) earns some indictment ink, too. I'll have to digest the indictment a little more before I conclude whether or not Rep. Wilson faces any jeopardy.

Let's get to what is underreported. Let's zoom to paragraph 88:

88. On or about October 10, 2000, Abramoff sent an email to Representative 5 in which Abramoff asked Representative 5 to let his wife know that Abramoff's associate, who was to provider her with a job, intended to contact her after the holidays.

We need a scorecard to sort this out. Representative 5 is Rep. Doolittle, and his wife is Julie Doolittle. I believe that the unnamed Abramoff "associate" is none other than Ed Buckham. Remember that Mrs. Doolittle "worked" for the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a group created by Alexander Strategy Group which, in turn, was created by Mr. Buckham:

Julie Doolittle also was paid about $30,000 for bookkeeping work for a nonprofit firm set up by another lobbying group, the Alexander Strategy Group. The Washington Post reported last year that ASG, a firm founded by Edwin Buckham, former chief of staff to Tom DeLay, set up the U.S. Korea-U.S. Exchange Council [sic] for the benefit of the Hanwha Group, a South Korean conglomerate. The council paid for luxury trips abroad for members of Congress.

For a little more substantiation, we know from the indictment that Mr. Buckham intended to contact Mrs. Doolittle about a "job" after the 2000 holidays. According to the Washington Post, the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council was created in 2001.

Prosecutors are obviously interested in Mrs. Doolittle's bogus "job" with Ed Buckham. A year and a half ago, the Houston Chronicle looked at a strange "job" held by Tom DeLay's wife, Christine DeLay. Like Mrs. Doolittle, Mrs. DeLay worked for Ed Buckham.

While we're revisiting this, let's look again at what the Houston Chronicle wrote in April 2007:

[P]rosecutors could decide within weeks whether to bring charges against former DeLay staff chief Edwin Buckham, according to sources close to the investigation who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. The decision should give a clear signal on whether DeLay remains in legal jeopardy, the sources said...

And like [California Rep. John] Doolittle's wife, DeLay's wife, Christine, received payments from lobbyists that are now being scrutinized by investigators to determine whether they were part of an improper granting of favors.

Investigators have looked closely at the $115,000 that Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group, paid Christine DeLay at a rate of $3,200 a month beginning in 1998, soon after Buckham left his job as DeLay's chief of staff.

Emphasis added

Is it possible that the Chron's Michael Hedges was right back in April 2007 but just wrong on the timing? This case certainly is still moving forward.

Clearly the Kevin Ring indictment is bad news for Rep. Doolittle and his wife. Expect one or both to get indicted. But I also see the Kevin Ring indictment as bad news for Ed Buckham. Connecting the dots, this doesn't augur well for Tom and Christine DeLay, either.

==

The Abramoff Sentencing Memo that came out at the end of August had a few indications that Kevin Ring was in trouble. Unfortunately, I never got around to blogging about that. There is a lot more I have to say about the Kevin Ring indictment. Hopefully, entitling this post as "Part I" will force me to follow up with at least a "Part II".

I still have a bit of travel ahead of me. I'm in NYC next week, and I'm actually going to meet one of my readers while there. I've met a couple of people through blogging, but until now, I've only met people in Houston.

Cash or Check?

Last week, I wrote about an opinion issued by the Third Court of Appeals dealing with Travis County DA Ronnie Earle's partisan prosecution of Tom DeLay on state money laundering charges. The majority of the Third Court of Appeals seems to have already concluded that the definition of "funds" in the money laundering statute applies only to cash and not checks. See original post: Future Headline: Charges Against Tom DeLay Dismissed.

In that post, I condoned the opinion of the Third Court of Appeals in very weak language. Basically, I said that defining "funds" to include cash but not checks was "odd", but that there was probably some "case law behind this that isn't clear to me." Beyond that, I showed very little curiosity about the matter. A regular DC-area reader and correspondent called me on this, so I looked a little deeper into the matter.

Now I know that the Austin American Statesman reported today that a Democratic judge on the 3rd Court of Appeals has criticized her colleagues on the timing of this opinion:

In a dissent unusual for its critical tone, Justice Diane Henson, a Democrat, wrote that three Republican colleagues first delayed the resolution of the case for years, effectively tying the hands of prosecutors, and then issued an opinion about 10 days agothat went too far when it concluded that the state's money-laundering statute did not cover checks at the time that DeLay is accused of laundering corporate money into campaign donations...

Henson noted that panel's opinion came three years after the court first got the case and two years after the three Republican justices heard oral arguments in what she said was supposed to be an accelerated pretrial challenge...

"In a case where the panel has been unable to resolve pretrial proceedings in this accelerated case in even a remotely reasonable period of time, effectively tying the hands of the prosecution for several years and delaying the resolution of charges of public corruption that undermine the very core of our political system, the need for en banc review is evident," she wrote.

You know what? I can't get too excited about any argument regarding the timing of these kinds of matters. If I ever make a similar argument, please point me back to this post. I'm pretty sure I'll never complain about the "timing" of anything. That point is easily dismissed.

But Judge Henson makes another observation:

About 10 days ago, three Republican judges on the 3rd Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the law.

But the opinion by Justices Alan Waldrop, Kenneth Law and Robert Pemberton went further. They concluded that the state's 1993 money-laundering statute covered cash transactions, not checks, as were used in this case.

That conclusion did not end the case, but defense lawyers think it might force a trial judge to dismiss the felony charges.

In her dissent, Henson disagreed with her colleagues' reasoning. She wrote that the panel "oversteps the boundaries of this Court's authority" in deciding a pretrial matter. She said the justices should have decided the constitutionality of the law — on its face — and not delved into the check-versus-cash argument that was not before them. She dismissed it as an "advisory opinion."

This argument has a little more meat on the bone, but I still find it lacking. Yes, in a sense, the majority provided an "advisory opinion" with respect to whether the term "funds" in the money laundering statute excluded checks. But that was central to the legal question the majority needed to answer: Was the money laundering statute unconstitutionally vague? The majority determine that no, the statute was not vague; it clearly defined "funds". The majority proceeded to give us that definition.

My problem with the majority is that it appears to have ignored precedential case law. The DeLay / Ellis / Colyandro money laundering case is not the first time that a Texas court has had to determine whether or not the pre-2005 money laundering statute included checks. In fact, Judge Pat Priest looked at some the relevant case law when he determined that checks were indeed considered "funds" under the pre-2005 law:

The courts of Texas have repeatedly affirmed convictions in cases wherein checks have underlain the transactions. In Lee v. State (2000), the court held that, because the defendant knew the check the victim gave him had been fraudulently obtained (because it was for repairs that had not been done and were not going to be done), he was guilty of money laundering when he cashed the cashier's check purchased with it. In Thomas v. State, the defendant induced a woman to part with over $440,000 by false representations as to what he was doing with the money. When he used some of the proceeds to purchase an airplane, he was guilty of money laundering. In Davis v. State (2002), a defendant who ran a phony viatical scheme and collected checks that were subsequently deposited to his offshore accounts, committed money laundering when he made those deposits. None of these cases involved cash, and all involved personal checks.

Emphasis in original; citations omitted

All of these cases involved convictions under the pre-2005 Texas money laundering statute and all involved checks. It appears to me that case law exists to help judges answer the question regarding whether or not the pre-2005 law included checks. It most certainly did.

There is a huge consequence to Texas law if the Third Court of Appeals definition of "funds" stands. What do we to to Lee, Thomas and Davis who were convicted of money laundering? If the Third Court of Appeals is right, none of those defendants should have been convicted. If those people are still in prison, they need to be released immediately if they haven't been convicted of other crimes. We may even have to find some way to provide restitution to people convicted under a law that doesn't exist (as Tom DeLay's attorneys frame the issue).

Of course there is another possible route to take. Lee, Thomas and Davis may have been properly convicted of money laundering. That would mean that checks are "funds" as defined by the pre-2005 law. As a result, Mr. DeLay shouldn't see his own money laundering indictment dismissed due to a changing definition.

Judge Priest should stick to his original conclusion of law regarding the definition of "funds". Judge Priest has the case law to back him up. If the Third Court of Appeals wants to overturn settled cases, let them. I hope they don't, but if they do, I hope the Court of Criminal Appeals provides a little consistency to Texas law.