Christine DeLay Subpoena Update

Lawyers for Williams & Jensen, Barbara Bonfiglio, Meredith Kelley and Robert Martinez (the W&J defendants) support the efforts of Christine DeLay to quash her subpoena in the civil case of Corwin Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen et. al.

The W&J defendants make many of the sames points that Mrs. DeLay did in her Motion to Quash. The W&J defendants assert that they "are unaware of any involvement by Christine DeLay whatsoever in" the FEC case central to this lawsuit. Discovery can be burdensome. Yada, yada, yada.

I did, however, find something interesting in the Defendants' Joinder to Quash:

Teltschik nevertheless theorizes he could be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the State Bar of Texas¹ or that his reputation might suffer as a result of his name appearing in the Agreement, even though he is not personally named.

:::

¹ Actually, the deadline for any such disciplinary proceedings has run.

Emphasis in original

First, I want to clarify what the W&J counsel means when he says that Mr. Teltschik is not "personally named" in the Conciliation Agreement. One of the defenses in this case claims that there is a distinction between Mr. Teltschik being "personally named" in the Conciliation Agreement with the FEC and being named in his "official capacity". Mr. Teltschik was named in his "official capacity" in the Conciliation Agreement. I'll let smarter people than I debate the merits of that.

But the more important piece of information I learned from this filing is that the deadline for any disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar of Texas has passed. The claim that Mr. Teltschik possibly faces such hearings is one of the stronger damages that Mr. Teltschik has claimed. Yes, as defense counsel states, this is only a possible outcome (courts don't like to think of possible outcomes, do they?). But more importantly, if defense counsel is accurate, the chance that Mr. Teltschik will face disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar is zero, meaning a major damage cannot occur.

I suspect that judges and lawyers like to spend Christmas with their families just like normal people do. But there is a short fuse until Mrs. DeLay's scheduled deposition on January 2. The judicial system must move on. There very well be more court documents prior to the schedule January 2 deposition.

==

I will upload and link to the Plaintiff's Joinder to Quash this weekend.

==

Update
December 24, 2008

I can't explain something. Why did the W&J defendants even file the joinder to quash the subpoena of Mrs. DeLay? Here are a couple random thoughts regarding that:

1. As the W&J joinder claims, Mrs. DeLay doesn't have any relevant information regarding this case.

So what? Are the W&J defendants supposed to be counsel to Mrs. DeLay? It seems to me that the W&J defendants might be in a better position if attorneys for Mr. Teltschik waste time chasing down red herrings.

:::

2. Are the W&J defendants counsel to Mrs. DeLay? Am I just being snarky?

I don't know if I'm snarky or not. Recall that Christine DeLay suggested that some of her conversations with W&J might be protected under attorney-client privilege. It seems that there is little space between Mrs. DeLay and the W&J defendants.

David Safavian Trial II: VERDICT -- GUILTY (again)

The Associated Press reports that jurors in the retrial of Abramoff scandal figure David Safavian have reached a verdict.

Mr. Safavian is a small fish in this scandal. As I've said many times before, I don't understand why the Justice Department is prosecuting this case so actively. But as I've also said, I have an immense amount of respect for the Justice Department and trust that the DoJ is doing the right thing.

==

Update

Guilty

Job well done, Justice Department!

Who is Ernest Delle Donne?

According to this on-line profile, Mr. Delle Donne is Vice President - National Accounts and Government Services at United Rentals.

I'd like to learn more about Mr. Delle Donne from a more authoritative source. The United Rentals website has a page dedicated to Mr. Delle Donne. Here is what United Rentals says, in full, about Mr. Delle Donne: " ".

Other members of the United Rentals leadership team have full profiles, like this one for Michael J. Kneeland, President and CEO of United Rentals.

Any tips that could be provided about Mr. Delle Donne would be appreciated. I have suspicions, but I have such low confidence in them that I can't write about them.

Christine DeLay: SUBPOENAED

Christine DeLay (L) with husband Tom DeLay

=======

Update
December 19, 2008

Welcome OfftheKuff readers!

One trick Kuff has taught me is to look at the lawyers representing the parties in this case. Check out the Motion to Quash (link below). One Brent Perry is representing Christine DeLay. Mr. Perry is or at one time was a trustee for Tom DeLay's legal defense fund. Very interesting.

=======

[Begin original post dated December 17, 2008]

Saturday was a disappointing day for me. I wore out my clicker trying to find a good football game to watch, and I had to settle for watching Minnesota-Duluth win the D-2 championship.

Christine DeLay had a worse day, though. She was served with a subpoena compelling testimony in Corwin Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen PLLC, et. al.

Today, attorneys for Mrs. DeLay, wife of Abramoff scandal figure Tom DeLay, filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena. Alternatively, Mrs. DeLay's counsel are asking the court to place limitations on any deposition. Here are the basic arguments made by Mrs. DeLay's attorneys:

2. Christine DeLay, according to the disclosures filed by Teltshcik [sic], "has knowledge of her dealings with ARMPAC, Tom DeLay [her husband], Christine DeLay [sic], various members of Williams & Jensen, and Mr. Teltschik." Teltschik's central claim in this action is that a Conciliation Agreement between ARMPAC and the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") that lists him as ARMPAC's treasurer has damaged him. Christine DeLay does not have any knowledge of the Conciliation Agreement or the FEC action leading to the agreement, was not an officer of ARMPAC, and - in her dealings with ARMPAC, Tom DeLay, Williams & Jensen, and Telschik - did not discuss the FEC enforcement action of the Conciliation Agrement.

[Bracketed comments in original]
[Bolded and bracketed comments added]

I'm sure lawyers try to quash subpoenas all the time. I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with these things, so I'm not going to opine on the likelihood of Mrs. DeLay's motion being granted. While I take Mrs. DeLay at her word that she had nothing to do with the FEC action or the Conciliation Agreement, this motion glosses over how deeply Mrs. DeLay was involved with ARMPAC. In fact, according to Mr. Teltschik, Mrs. DeLay was the person who persuaded him to take on the role of ARMPAC's treasurer. (Why did ARMPAC need a naive treasurer?)

That's the thrust of Mrs. DeLay's attempt to quash the subpoena. Mrs. DeLay's attorneys make other seemingly standard points. The subpoena places an undue burden on Mrs. DeLay. There isn't enough time before the January 2, 2009 deposition for Mrs. DeLay to prepare properly. (I'm kind of sympathetic to that one, so just push the depo out a week or two. Interestingly, there was another version of the subpoena out on PACER with an earlier deposition date. Court documents aren't clear regarding what happened to that subpoena.) Lastly, Mrs. DeLay faces the financial burden of hiring a lawyer to represent her / quash the subpoena.

If I were a judge, I might tend to grant wide latitude for parties seeking depositions. After all, the deposition stage of a lawsuit is intended to gather information. Mr. Teltschik and his attorneys are hoping to learn more about the activities of the defendants by talking to Mrs. DeLay. Plaintiff may find out that Mrs. DeLay actually doesn't have anything relevant to say, but that determination should come after the deposition. That said, I'm sure I'd feel exactly the way Mrs. DeLay feels if I were subpoenaed in a case I thought touched me only tangentially.

Here's the strangest part of the Motion to Quash:

Any testimony regarding her dealings with her husband may be protected by spousal immunity, and attorney-client privilege may attach to any dealings with Williams & Jensen, a Washington, DC law firm.

Although I don't know the limits of spousal immunity, at least I understand that Tom DeLay may not want his wife testifying truthfully about his actions. I don't understand the attorney-client privilege between Mrs. DeLay and Williams & Jensen. Just exactly when did Mrs. DeLay become a client of Williams & Jensen? I'll have to think about that one a little longer.

These are the first statements under oath that Mrs. DeLay has made regarding her role at ARMPAC. This affidavit isn't very illuminating. Let's hope we see more such statements!

==

For more background on Teltschik vs. Williams & Jensen, click the "Teltschik" label below.

Thank You to my Readers

For the longest time, my best 30-day period ever immediately followed the 2006 mid-term elections when I was at the old place. I never thought I'd match those traffic numbers again.

But all records fall. Over the past 30 days, I have received the most hits since I began blogging. I can't believe that thousands of people all around the country care what a joker in Pearland, Texas writes.

Safavian Trial Wrapping Up

There has been a dearth of news regarding the re-trial of Scotland vacationer and Abramoff scandal figure David Safavian. We do, however, learn a bit from a blog in the Washington Post:

A former top White House official, on trial for a second time for allegedly lying and obstructing justice during the investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, unexpectedly decided today to forego taking the stand in his own defense, handing the case over to a jury...

But this afternoon [David Safavian] told U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman that while he had given the decision "a lot of thought," the "right course of action" was to not testify. Safavian's attorneys did not call a single defense witness as the six-day trial wrapped up today.

The fact that there was nearly a total news blackout of this case combined with the fact that the defense didn't call any witnesses means that my optimistic predictions on what we'd learn in this case won't come true.

It doesn't appear that we'll learn the identity of the witness given immunity. We also didn't learn anything that could substantiate whether or not Paul Safavian and his Scotland travel disclosures played a role in this case.

Chief Glenn Marshall: GUILTY

Chief Glenn Marshall
Mashpee Wampanoag

==

James Kinsella at Cape Cod Today tells us of an extremely significant development in the Abramoff scandal:

Glenn A. Marshall, the former chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, has pleaded guilty to violations of campaign finance law, along with tax, wire fraud and Social Security fraud in connection with efforts to gain federal recognition for the tribe.

Marshall signed the plea agreement Thursday. Charges were filed against him today in U.S. District Court in Boston.

Mr. Kinsella is my kind of guy because he proceeds to give us primary documents. I'm still digesting the main one, the "Information". An "Information" reads like an indictment to me.

As is common with these kinds of documents we get from the Justice Department, the most interesting figures earn cutesy names. Let's look at a few from the Marshall "Information":

==

24. In or about 1999, Investor A met with the then-chairman of the Tribal Council. As a result of this meeting, Investor A agreed to support the Tribe's recognition effort by providing the Tribal Council $10,000 per month, with an understanding that the parties would enter into a formal agreement at some point thereafter.

I'm of the opinion that "Investor A" is Herbert Strather. Mr. Strather admits giving the Mashpee $15 million since 1999. In early January, I was picking up hints that federal prosecutors were interested in Mr. Strather's link to the Mashpee Wampanoag and the connection to Kevin Ring. (Recall that the Mashpee Wampanoag, Rep. John Doolittle [R-Calif.], and former Interior Secretary Gale Norton were mentioned in Mr. Ring's indictment.)

==

23. In or about 1999, Investor B, who had done work for the Tribe and was aware of its recognition petition, contacted Investor A to see whether Investor A would be interested in providing financial support to the Tribe's recognition effort in exchange for a financial stake in any casino that the Tribe, once it obtained recognition, might build.

I'm still digesting all of this, and the identity of Investor B is a little more elusive to me. I'll throw out a couple of plausible guesses: Marian Ilitch or Michael Malik. Both Mr. Ilitch and Mr. Malik are Michigan-based casino investors who work with Indian tribes just like Mr. Strather. Admittedly, the tea leaves are small there.

Update
December 16, 2008

The Boston Globe suggests that Investors A and B are likely Mr. Strather and "other Michigan investors".

==

Update #2
December 16, 2008

An emailer suggests that we consider Sol Kerzner as Investor B. Who knows?

==

32. In or about late-2001, in an attempt to bolster the Tribe's lobbying efforts, MARSHALL hired Political Consultant A to oversee the Tribe's lobbying and public relations activities. Political Consultant A worked directly with the Washington, D.C.-based lobbyists paid for by AtMashpee.

I don't have a clue who Political Consultant A is. It appears to me by the construction of the above paragraph that Political Consultant A is not based in Washington, DC since we are told that he worked directly with Washington DC-based lobbyists. So my guess is that Political Consultant A is Massachusetts-based.

Update
December 16, 2008

The Boston Globe indicates that Political Consultant A is Stephen J. Graham of Boston.

==

Chief Marshall is accused of circumventing federal campaign finance laws in paragraph 45. We are given several specific instances:

Date: March 7, 2005
Recipient: Political Action Committee A
Amount: $8,000

Political Action Committee A is Rich PAC, the leadership PAC of former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) Notice on March 7, 2005, Rich PAC received three donations summing up to $8,000 from Mashpee residents Shawn Hendricks, Glenn Marshall and Desire Moreno (.pdf). Remember those names, we'll look at the political donations of Mr. Hendricks and Ms. Moreno a little bit closer in a minute.

==

Date: April 19, 2005
Recipient: Campaign Committee of Member of Congress A
Amount: $4,000

Date: April 21, 2005
Recipient: Campaign Committee of Member of Congress B
Amount: $12,000

Date: October 17, 2005
Recipient of Campaign Committee of Member of Congress C
Amount: $6,000

Looking at Ms. Moreno's political contributions (.pdf), we can determine that:

Member of Congress A is Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

Member of Congress B is former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.)

A quick look at Mr. Hendrick's political contributions yields the name of Member of Congress C:

Member of Congress C is Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.)

==

A couple of observations here. I believe that the Justice Department is giving us a bit of a head fake with Members of Congress A-C. I do not believe that they are all under investigation. In fact, a good case could be made that none of them are in legal jeopardy.

That said, I also believe that the Justice Department has tipped its had a bit in the Marshall "Information". One of my observations makes me a little disappointed in the Justice Department. The other one indicates to me that there is quite a bit of justice to come!

Alas, it is my bedtime. With Christmas coming up, I don't know when I'll get to my observations. Keep checking in, though. The roadmap is getting clearer.

==

The bottom line is that Kevin Ring and Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) should be the most nervous about Chief Marshall's guilty plea.

James Hirni: GUILTY

Jim Hirni

==

We learn from The Hill newspaper:

James Hirni, a former congressional aide-turned-lobbyist with ties to Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty Friday to one count of honest services fraud in D.C. district court...

He is cooperating with prosecutors and faces the maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Depending on his level of cooperation, his sentence could be drastically reduced to as little as zero to six months, according to his attorney.

Of course I want primary sources, so I acquire the Factual Basis for the Plea of James F. Hirni (.pdf). I've already stated my opinion that the pressure placed on Mr. Hirni and Trevor Blackann is meant to pressure Todd Boulanger. As a result of my theory of the Justice Department's strategy, I read the Factual Basis with Mr. Boulanger in mind. Strangely, Mr. Hirni's Factual Basis is skimpy on implicating Mr. Boulanger.

Here's what we learn of Mr. Boulanger from Mr. Hirni's Factual Basis. (Recall that Mr. Boulanger is 'Lobbyist D'.)

1. United Rentals hired Mr. Hirni and Mr. Boulanger about the same time. Mr. Boulanger worked for Greenberg Traurig during this period. (Paragraph 6)

2. Mr. Hirni, Mr. Boulanger and an unknown (to me) lobbyist from United Rentals wanted a legislative amendment to essentially require state agencies to rent rather than purchase construction equipment. The same trio also wanted a legislative amendment essentially requiring state agencies to rent construction equipment from companies with a high level of liability insurance coverage (like United Rentals). (Together, I will refer to these as "the United Rentals amendments") All three lobbyistwanted to attach these amendments to a federal highway funding bill. (Paragraph 7)

3. According to the United Rentals lobbyist, Mr. Boulanger suggested taking Mr. Blackann and another Congressional staffer (unidentified 'Staffer D') on the infamous World Series trip. (Paragraph 9)

4. Mr. Boulanger emailed drafts of the United Rentals amendments to Mr. Blackann, Mr. Hirni and the United Rentals lobbyist on October 22, 2003. (Paragraph 13)

5. On October 30, 2003, Mr. Boulanger emailed "the new amendment that was requested by the House authors" saying that the revised amendment "opens the entire highway and transit titles to construction equipment leasing". It isn't clear to me whether these were revised versions of one or both of the United Rentals amendments or something else. (Paragraph 14)

6. Because Mr. Blackann couldn't convince his boss, Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), to offer the amendments, Mr. Hirni, Mr. Boulanger, Mr. Blackann and the United Rentals lobbyist tried to find some other staff member of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to insert the United Rentals amendments. (Paragraph 18).

7. Mr. Hirni, Mr. Boulanger and Mr. Blackann garnered support and protected the United Rentals amendments as they worked through the committee process in the Senate. The men were successful. (Paragraph 19)

OK, that was really long-winded. But do you notice what I do? First, Mr. Hirni's Factual Basis doesn't even suggest that Mr. Boulanger was on the infamous World Series trip. Yes, we learn that the United Rentals lobbyist claims the whole thing was Mr. Boulanger's idea, but there isn't anything here to suggest that Mr. Boulanger was present on the trip. Why are things so coy in Mr. Hirni's Factual Basis for Plea?

Recall that things were not so ambiguous in the "Information" filed in Mr. Hirni's case. The "Information" clearly states that Mr. Boulanger (Lobbyist D) conspired "to use corrupt means to solicit and received favorable action from Staffer D and Blackann" (Paragraph 10). The "Information" also clearly states that Mr. Boulanger "provided things of value to Staffer D and Blackann, including an all-expenses-paid trip to Game One of the 2003 Baseball World Series in New York City, meals and drinks, and tickets to professional sporting events."

The only observation I have to make is that the "Information" was signed by attorneys from the Department of Justice; the "Factual Basis" was signed by Mr. Hirni. One plausible explanation is that Mr. Hirni doesn't have personal knowledge of how deep Mr. Boulanger was involved, but the DoJ has developed evidence elsewhere to support the allegations made in the "Information".

At any rate, I'm much less interested in Mr. Hirni than I am in Mr. Boulanger. Mr. Hirni is taking responsibility for his actions. Mr. Boulanger still needs to be held accountable. I tend to look forward and not behind. I've already speculated on what is going on here. Prosecutors are pressuring Mr. Boulanger. Mr. Boulanger, ideally, can provide evidence against Kevin Ring. Mr. Ring may be able to deliver Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and Edwin Buckham.

==

As an aside, I have received emails and search hits indicating that many people suspect that Mark Zachares is Staffer D. My position is that I do not know who Staffer D is, but I don't think Mr. Zachares is Staffer D. See this post for my reasoning.

SHOW TIME: Safavian Retrial Begins

David Safavian

==

As an introduction, I'd like to make my position on the retrial of David Safavian clear. As I have said time and again, the value of prosecuting Mr. Safavian has always been elusive to me. As always, however, I have great respect for the US Justice Department, and I will defer to the DoJ's judgment that prosecuting Mr. Safavian is important.

==

In reporting the highlight's of opening day of Safavian Trial II, The Blog of Legal Times casts doubt on whether anyone will be able to find the case even remotely interesting:

For its part, the audience seemed less than enthralled. A couple of the journalists in attendance considered dodging out before the first witnesses came to testify. Even Judge Paul Friedman could be seen gazing around the room, away from the action.

As a service to my readers, I will try to predict the excitement we all will see.

1. A witness has been granted immunity, and we'll likely learn who it is:

The United States ... files this unopposed motion to disclose to the defendant a March 10, 2006 Sealed Order ... providing a witness ... court-ordered immunity for the witness's testimony before a federal grand jury. The government makes this motion for limited disclosure of the Sealed Order because it anticipates that this witness will testify at the trial of the above-captioned matter ...

My first guess at our immunized witness would have been Paul Vinovich, but the dates don't match up. We know our witness was given immunity on March 10, 2006. Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg explained that Mr. Vinovich would not be called to testify at Mr. Safavian's first trial because Mr. Vinovich "has a 5th Amendment privilege". Mr. Safavian's first trial was in May 2006, after the immunity deal. Mr. Vinovich couldn't have invoked his 5th Amendment privilege at Mr. Safavian's first trial if he is our immunized witness. We'll have to wait and see who the immunized witness is. To my knowledge, this will be the first time we've learned the identity of anyone given immunity.

==

2. Federal prosecutors believe that Mr. Safavian's defense will be, in part, to attack law enforcement and the prosecutors. The government has asked the judge in the case to prohibit any testimony to this effect. It seems to me that this kind of "The Cops Set me Up" defense is pretty boilerplate in criminal prosecutions. I expect this motion to be denied, but that doesn't mean I buy the defense. Mr. Safavian's lawyers are also likely to claim this case is the result of a vindictive prosecution. Even though I don't understand why the Justice Department is pressing this case so hard, I don't buy the vindictive prosecution theory, either.

The most interesting part of the defense's strategy here is this:

[O]n Friday, December 5, 2008, Defendant provided notice for the first time that he intends to call as a witness the FBI case agent in the Jack Abramoff investigation.

While this is certainly part of the improper prosecution defense, we may get to learn more about this scandal more broadly in the Safavian retrial. The first trial was notable in how little we learned about anything beyond Mr. Safavian.

==

3. Despite the fact that when Mr. Safavian was seeking an ethics opinion on the Scotland trip, he wrote that Jack Abramoff was "a lawyer and lobbyist, but one that has no business before GSA (he does all his work on Capitol Hill)," the Safavian defense team wants the jury to believe something quite different. Defense counsel submitted the following proposed jury instructions to the court (in its entirety):

There will be no evidence that Mr. Safavian told the ethics official that Mr. Abramoff was not seeking business from the GSA. Accordingly, even though this opinion says that Mr. Safavian made such a statement, you must assume that this aspect of the opinion is incorrect, and that Mr. Safavian did not actually make such a statement to the GSA ethics officials.

Apparently, the defense team wants us to think that Mr. Safavian claimed that Mr. Abramoff did not currently have business before the GSA, but was silent about whether or not Mr. Abramoff was seeking business before the GSA. This must be some tortuous, Clintonian version of the truth. But if it is true that Mr. Safavian carefully constructed his statement to the GSA ethics official in order to avoid saying that Mr. Abramoff was seeking business before the GSA, wouldn't that still make the statement that Mr. Abramoff "does all his work on Capitol Hill" knowingly false?

RUMOR: Hightower Used Ineligible Players

Any accusations regarding this better be bulletproof, and I'm not convinced they are.

Hightower lit up Pearland's defensive secondary with the team's best aerial attack of the season in its 38-21 victory over Pearland last Saturday. On the flipside, Pearland gave up more passing yards in Saturday’s game than it did in any other game all season.

I'm convinced that Hightower will represent the Houston area in the semi-final game on Saturday against San Antonio Clark. Pearland’s players have probably started turning in their equipment after a great playoff run. I doubt they’ve seen a lot of time on the practice field this week, either.

Unless there are facts to substantiate this rumor, let's just assume that it isn't true.

==

UPDATE
December 11, 2008

Rivals at Yahoo! has just released its top 100 high school football pool. Pearland comes in at #79 in the nation. Congratulations to the team for a perfect regular season and a great playoff run.

Joseph Cao defeats "Dollar" Bill Jefferson

Joseph Cao (R-La.)

==

Immediately after the 2006 midterm elections, I mocked the Democratic Party for reelecting "Cold Cash" William Jefferson to Congress. We here in TX-22 wouldn't support Tom DeLay for re-election and he eventually withdrew from the race handing it over to Nick Lampson for two years. But despite the fact that the FBI discovered nearly $100,000 in alleged bribe money in Rep. Jefferson's freezer, Louisiana voters returned him to Congress.

This year, however, with Rep. Jefferson under indictment, Louisiana voters gave Rep. Jefferson the boot. Joseph Cao, the challenger, has won election to the LA-02 seat. Ultimately, I suspect Mr. Cao will be a one-termer just like Nick Lampson. This district is too Democratic to remain Republican. As long as the Democratic candidate isn't under indictment, the Democratic candidate will win.

I'm proud of TX-22 for having higher standards than LA-02. We don't have to wait for an indictment to kick out our corrupt Congressmen.

==

We cannot cut wasteful spending and inefficient government systems until we are willing to expose those who support them. While we cannot ‘legislate morality’ we can certainly demand moral and ethical behavior from those who have been elected to serve.

This is your money that our government is spending! Let’s demand that they manage your tax dollars with respect and let’s begin by putting a stop to taxpayer funded retirement benefits from any public official convicted of political corruption no matter race, party affiliation or political status.

Joseph Cao

Kevin Ring Rejected Plea Bargain

Kevin A. Ring

==

Politico reports on a recent court document dump in USA vs. Kevin A. Ring.

Ring’s lawyers are pressing Justice Department lawyers to turn over any information they developed on Ring with the help of imprisoned former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as White House documents and materials from congressional offices that Ring lobbied. Ring’s lawyers have refused to tell the government whether they intend to call Abramoff as a witness in the case.

These legal filings also show that Ring held extensive talks throughout 2007 and early 2008 with the Justice Department about a potential plea agreement before the grand-jury indictment was handed down.

The Justice Department even seized drafts of an unfinished book by Ring when FBI agents searched his home. Ring allegedly admitted in these drafts “that he had taken certain actions as a lobbyist with a corrupt intent,” according to a DOJ legal filing.

I've read the documents, and Politico has highlighted the most significant items contained within them.

Let's take a closer look at the single most significant item -- the revelation that lawyers for Mr. Ring entertained plea bargain talks. From a Status of Discovery Production filed by the Department of Justice:

First, on or about May 8, 2007, the government conducted a detailed reverse-proffer with counsel for the defendant, during which the goverment outlined its evidence and theory of the prosecution regarding the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General ("DOJ OIG") aspect of the investigation. In addition, during 2007, the government repeatedly spoke with counsel for the defendant about his criminal exposure regarding the non-DOJ-OIG aspect of the investigation.

Second, on or about February 15, 2008, during plea negotiations in advance of the indictment, the government presented a lengthy PowerPoint presentation to the defendant and his counsel for several hours.

On April 17, 2007, I wrote that I thought Mr. Ring was cooperating with investigators. On May 6, 2008, I reversed my position. I offered my opinion that prosecutors were building a case against Mr. Ring with the assistance of admitted felon Robert Coughlin. In hindsight, the timing of those statements looks pretty good.

When Mr. Coughlin resigned from the Justice Department in 2007, I expressed my surprise that accepting tickets from Mr. Ring was unlawful. After all, Mr. Ring and Mr. Coughlin had a friendship predating the alleged corruption. I still think the Justice Department is on thin ice on this narrow subject. Meanwhile, Mr. Ring's lawyers seem to think the long-time friendship is exculpatory, too. From a letter from Mr. Ring's lawyers to the Justice Department:

[W]e specifically request any statement, document, or other piece of evidence reflecting a witness' belief, understanding, or knowledge that:

...

6. Mr. Ring's provision of a ticket, meal, drink, entertainment outing, or other benefit as defined by the government was made out of friendship or a personal relationship and not in seeking or in return for an official act taken by that witness or any person with whom the witness worked.

Even though parts of the Ring-Coughlin episode may be difficult for the Justice Department to explain, I still think the DoJ has a good case against Mr. Ring overall. After all, can't we agree that Mr. Ring was truthful when he claimed “that he had taken certain actions as a lobbyist with a corrupt intent”?

==

One last thing ... we learn from the court that Mr. Ring's trial is scheduled to begin in September 2009.

Pearland vs. Hightower

Pearland meets Hightower for the Region III (Houston area) big school championship on Saturday. Both teams enter the game highly regarded and undefeated.

==

Rivals.com from Yahoo! Sports

Both teams are ranked in the top 100 national high school football poll. Pearland checks in at #35 and Hightower is #53. This implies a Pearland win.

==

Massey Ratings

The Massey Ratings are one of the computer polls used to determine college football BCS rankings. Massey Ratings also has a high school football product.

In the state of Texas, Hightower is ranked #4 by the Massey Ratings and Pearland is #20. Using the Massey Ratings "Power" score, we can derive a "line" for tomorrow's game. Massey Ratings predicts an 8 point Hightower victory.

One caveat to give about the Massey Ratings. Strength of schedule is a critical factor in deriving the Massey Ratings. Pearland has a dismal strength of schedule. Admittedly, Pearland's district 22-5A is a generally weak football district. Pearland was required to play every team in the district (7 games). Pearland had no discretion in playing these games; the UIL creates athletic districts. Pearland did have discretion on the other three games of the regular season, and all of the non-district opponents were good enough to qualify for the playoffs. Additionally, one game non-district game was canceled due to Hurricane Ike. The strength of schedule factor harms Pearland, but there's not much Pearland could have done to improve it.

==

Houston Chronicle

The last Chron poll had Pearland #1 and Hightower #2 in the Houston area, implying an edge to Pearland in Saturday's game. A current reader poll on the Chron website (link above; bottom left) shows that the voters expect a Pearland win, but by quite a slim margin. As of 9:30 a.m. CST, 53% of voters predict a Pearland victory, while 47% think Hightower will get the 'W'.

It's all settled on the field tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. at Tully Stadium.