Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to Kevin Ring: DENIED

Ooh, That'll Leave a Mark!

--

The Blog of Legal Times is the first to report that US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle has denied Kevin Ring's Motion to Dismiss his ten count indictment related to the Jack Abramoff scandal. Undoubtedly, this will be the first in a string of denials to the often ludicrous and illogical motions filed by Mr. Ring and his attorneys. From the Blog of Legal Times:

A federal judge today refused to dismiss the government’s case against former Jack Abramoff associate Kevin Ring.

In a 41-page opinion, Judge Ellen Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld all ten of the counts facing the ex-lobbyist, who is accused of helping Abramoff pull off his plot to bribe lawmakers and their aides by lavishing them with free gifts, trips and meals.

We're sure many of you immediately headed over here after hearing the news because you knew the ACR Blog would post the 41-page opinion. We won't disappoint.

Judge Huvelle's opinion reiterates facts alleged in Mr. Ring's indictment and contains much case law. You know by now that the ACR Blog doesn't go anywhere near case law, so read the opinion for yourself.

The strong language Judge Huvelle used in this opinion is notable. It is obvious that the decision to deny Mr. Ring's Motion to Dismiss wasn't even a close call. Judge Huvelle repeatedly wrote that Mr. Ring and his attorneys misread and mischaracterized the indictment. Judge Huvelle went beyond saying Mr. Ring's arguments were "not compelling" or "unpersuasive" (which she did); on more than one occasion she ruled his arguments had "no merit".

Congratulations to the Justice Department. This was one well-earned smack-down of Mr. Ring and his attorneys.

:::

The only item of fact that the ACR Blog finds interesting in the order to deny Mr. Ring's Motion to Dismiss involves a "Bill of Particulars" that the Justice Department provided to Mr. Ring in May:

Ring also contends that the conspiracy count is invalid because the government has not specified which public officials are co-conspirators, and yet certain of the alleged criminal violations "turn on proof of 'official acts' and relevant duties." Such an argument is meritless. First, the co-conspirators need not be identified in the indictment. Second, the government's bill of particulars does identify them.

Page 29; Citation omitted

No, I'm not trying to point out that Mr. Ring and his lawyers were wrong on both law and fact in this contention (though they clearly are!). I just find it interesting that the Bill of Particulars names more co-conspirators than the indictment. Man, I wish I had that Bill of Particulars.

=======

UPDATE
June 26, 2009

The ACR Blog freely admits that it didn't even attempt to get into much of the substance of Judge Huvelle's opinion. You see, Judge Huvelle spent 41 pages explaining why Mr. Ring and his attorneys have a poor understanding of the law. She had to explain why the reasoning of Mr. Ring and his attorneys was wrong. The ACR Blog only cares about items that are factually accurate and theories of the law that are legally sound. We didn't really care about the misunderstanding of law originating from Mr. Ring and his legal team.

We are sure, however, that there are some people who want to understand the issues that Judge Huvelle had to respond to. Wendy at Unheard No More! takes a crack at explaning the law behind Judge Huvelle's opinion. As usual, Wendy's analysis is the best on the web.