Kevin Ring: "Loser, Idiot, F-----" ?

The ACR Blog is unabashedly biased in favor of good government. As a result, we support the Justice Department's efforts to bring those involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal to justice. That said, the ACR Blog doesn't want to be accused of not giving the defendants in this case a full, fair hearing.

In our continuing efforts to present both sides of the story, let's look at how Mr. Ring and his attorneys respond to Count IX and Count X of his indictment. Both counts allege that Mr. Ring committed Obstruction of Justice when he lied to investigators who Mr. Ring knew were likely to transmit the findings of their investigation to the Justice Department and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

The government alleges that Mr. Ring made material false statements, material misrepresentations, and material omissions regarding his role in acquiring the Sandia Pueblo Indian tribe as a client for his law firm, Greenberg Traurig (GT), and Michael Scanlon's public relations firm, Capitol Campaign Strategies (CCS). Basically, the indictment says that Mr. Ring was more deeply involved than he admitted to the investigator. For more background, focus on pages 43-45 of the indictment.

In Mr. Ring's Reply to the Government's Opposition to Kevin A. Ring's Motion to Sever Counts¹, Mr. Ring argues that Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon hid details regarding fees to be paid by the Sandia Pueblo. From pages 3-4:

The government repeatedly argues that "Defendant and Mr. Abramoff" agreed to change the New Mexico Tribe's fee arrangement when it knows the change was made against Mr. Ring's wishes and worked to the financial detriment of Mr. Ring. When Mr. Ring complained to Mr. Abramoff that the new arrangement would significantly reduce his compensation, Mr. Abramoff promised to make Mr. Ring whole by having Mr. Scanlon give Mr. Ring a portion of Mr. Scanlon's profit on the deal. Mr. Ring accepted the money.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Ring at the time, Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon had a secret agreement whereby Mr. Scanlon paid a significant portion of all money he received through Abramoff referrals back to Mr. Abramoff. The government is in possession of email traffic between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon about this very matter, in which Mr. Abramoff mocked Mr. Ring, calling him a "faggot", "loser", and "idiot", and complained that they would have to share a portion of their $2.7 million take to replace what Mr. Ring would have realized for bringing in a new case to his firm. The suggestion that Mr. Ring implemented the change in the New Mexico Tribe's engagement of the firm is ridiculous. <sup>3

3</sup> As is the notion that Mr. Ring was conspiring with Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon at the very time that their secret emails prove they were concealing the nature of their financial side-dealing from not only the clients, but Mr. Ring. Mr. Ring has raised the fundamental inability of the government to define and prove the illegal agreement from the time of his first substantive filing in this case and submits that it will continue to be an element the government is unable to prove.

Emphasis in original; Citation omitted

First, the ACR Blog would like to submit for the record that there is some language in the above court filing that is not exactly befitting a family blog like our own. In over three years of blogging, the ACR Blog has never before used the words "f-----", "loser" or "idiot". Attorneys for Mr. Ring believe that if we know that these words were used to describe their client, we'll be more sympathetic to him. So even though these words aren't typically used by the author of the ACR Blog, we will begin to call Mr. Ring a "f-----", "loser" and/or "idiot" in the future.

In addition to the sympathy ploy above, Mr. Ring and his attorneys also contend that he wasn't really involved in negotiation of the fee agreement with the Sandia Pueblo. This is obvious, say Mr. Ring and his lawyers, because the fee agreement with GT was to Mr. Ring's detriment. (The ACR Blog doesn't really understand this argument because Mr. Ring and his lawyers later claim that Mr. Ring was made "whole" through a side agreement with Mr. Scanlon's CCS. It seems to the ACR Blog that if Mr. Ring was made "whole", the fee structure wasn't to Mr. Ring's detriment.)

It seems that Mr. Ring's version of events isn't supported by the evidence, though.

Was Mr. Ring involved in negotiating the fee structure with the Pueblo Sandia?

Mr. Ring and his attorneys say that the suggestion that Mr. Ring implemented the reduction in fees paid to GT is ridiculous (see last sentence, 2nd paragraph in above quote). This isn't what the indictment alleges, though. On page 41, the indictment says:

4. Sometime between February 14, 2002 and March 12, 2002, defendant RING, in order to secure the New Mexico tribe as a client, agreed to Abramoff's reducing Firm B's fee from $125,000 per month to $50,000 per month and, unknown to the New Mexico tribe, further agreed with Abramoff to personally accept approximately five percent of $2.75 million (Scanlon's expected fee for the grassroots services), or $135,000. As a result, on or about March 12, 2002, the [N]ew Mexico tribe hired Firm B [GT] at a rate of $50,000 per month.

US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle has already observed that Mr. Ring and his lawyers have misread and mischaracterized the indictment in their motion to dismiss the ten counts pending against Mr. Ring. Now, in their Reply to the Government's Opposition to Sever, we have Mr. Ring and his lawyers saying that it is "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Ring implemented the change to the fees paid by the Sandia Pueblo. But clearly, as we see above, the indictment says it was Mr. Abramoff who lowered the fee and that Mr. Ring merely agreed to this new arrangement. Either this is an attempt to mislead the Judge by intentionally misconstruing what is stated in the indictment, or this is an example of poor reading comprehension skills of Mr. Ring and his attorneys.
While the indictment clearly states that Mr. Abramoff reduced the fees the Sandia Pueblo were to pay to GT, it seems silent as to who negotiated the fee to be paid by the Sandia Pueblo to Scanlon's CCS. Amazingly, a March 7, 2002 email string between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon seems to suggest that Mr. Ring negotiated the CCS fee:

Mr. Scanlon: 2.75 [million dollars] is chump change! ! ! What [t]he hell were we thinking?

Mr. Abramoff: No kidding. Ring brought us down! Next time one of these guys brings us something we are not going to listen to their f------ whining.

Mr. Scanlon: Hey - it[']s still a W-- and I will take the W any way we can - now a 4.5 [million dollar] W would be nicer - but wait till Thursday when C[o]ush comes to town!

Mr. Abramoff: Good Point

The ACR Blog interprets this exchange to mean that Mr. Ring was somehow involved in setting the fee paid by the Sandia Pueblo to CCS. While Mr. Scanlon expected the fee paid by the Sandia Pueblo to be $4.5 million, that "idiot" Mr. Ring was somehow involved in lowering the fee to $2.75 million. Looks to the ACR Blog that Mr. Ring is involved more than he admits.

Mr. Ring and his lawyers also admit that Mr. Ring was made "whole" through the CCS kickback scheme where Mr. Ring received money from CCS. Being made "whole" implies to the ACR Blog that the amount of the kickback he received from CCS was roughly equal to the compensation Mr. Ring gave up when the fee paid to GT was lowered. The ACR Blog questions this premise. As evidence, we offer another email exchange (March 20-21) between Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff:

Mr. Scanlon: [Ring] asked if we got the wire yet in an email. I have no problem telling him yes - what do we owe him again? 10% of profit?

Mr. Abramoff: No. 5% of gross. I told him that he would split the profit (which I told him was 10%) with you 50-50.

Mr. Scanlon: So we owe him 135k??

Mr. Abramoff: Damn I guess so. S---, that sucks.

Mr. Scanlon: I forgot to tie that [amount in] to the sandia figures - so our numbers are going to come down a little bit.

Mr. Abramoff: Finders fee I guess. I had a chat with Candace last night. Give me a buzz at home.

Messrs. Abramoff and Scanlon seem quite surprised at the amount they agreed to pay Mr. Ring. The way they reacted, it looks like they're paying Mr. Ring much more than they intended. The ACR Blog wonders if Mr. Ring actually received more money through the CCS kickback scheme than he would have if the fee paid to GT had never been reduced. We strongly suspect that to be the case, but ultimately we don't have the proof we'd like to have to make that conclusion.

Because Mr. Ring and his lawyers have a penchant of mischaracterizing the indictment, the ACR Blog fears that when the defense team says that Mr. Ring was made "whole", even that description is another mischaracterization. If we believe the exchange in the emails above, Mr Ring was more than made whole - he actually profited quite handsomely from the new fee arrangement.

::

¹ For additional discussion of the Reply to the Government's Opposition to Kevin A. Ring's Motion to Sever Counts and other documents related to USA vs. Kevin Ring, be sure to read this post at Unheard No More!

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.

USA vs. Kevin Ring: The Battle over William Welch II -- Part II

USA vs. Kevin Ring: The Battle over William Welch II

--

Just when the ACR Blog thinks that the defense counsel for Kevin Ring can't get any more illogical, the attorneys at Miller and Chevalier amaze me again.

In the case of USA vs. Kevin Ring, there is a kerfuffle surrounding the former lead attorney for the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, William Welch II. The ACR Blog understands that there are serious allegations of prosecutorial misconduct involving Mr. Welch in the corruption case against Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). As a result, Mr. Welch's actions will thoroughly investigated by respected DC-based attorney and special prosecutor Henry Schuelke. And there's the rub ... because Schuelke is also scheduled to appear as a witness for the prosecution in the case of USA v Kevin Ring.

Count X of Mr. Ring's indictment involves the alleged lies he told to Mr. Schuelke while Mr. Schuelke was investigating the corruption of Team Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig. In my previous post I described the extremely convoluted reasoning used by Mr. Ring's lawyers that there would be "prejudice to Mr. Ring caused by Mr. Schuelke's dual roles as prosecutor/investigator [of Mr. Welch] and witness [against Mr. Ring]". So even though Mr. Welch has now removed himself from the case, Mr. Ring's lawyers are persisting with this distracting motion.

Reply in Support of Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest, June 25, 2009

In the opinion of the ACR Blog, the Justice Department hasn't acted in an ideal manner regarding Mr. Welch. Instead of building a wall between Mr. Welch and the Ring case, the DoJ has informed Judge Ellen S. Huvelle that Mr. Welch will have a limited role in meeting certain discovery obligations. This is contrary to Judge Huvelle's "expectation" announced in April that Mr. Welch would be removed from this case. The ACR Blog finds itself in rare agreement with Mr. Ring's attorneys that this "expectation" implied that Judge Huvelle wanted Mr. Welch removed from the case entirely. It is disappointing to the ACR Blog that Mr. Welch retains any role whatsoever in this case.

The ACR Blog believes that the best course of action is simply to remove the distraction -- Mr. Welch should have absolutely no contact with this case. (Actually, the ACR Blog would prefer that Attorney General Eric Holder find a new chief for the Public Integrity Section.) But of course that simple solution never occurred to the defense attorneys:

Because the government has ignored this Court's earlier recommendation concerning how to remedy the situation, the Court should now act more decisively. The matters raised in the defense motion are serious and warrant the relief requested ...

But the simple remedy isn't one of the remedies sought by Mr. Ring and his attorneys. The remedies proposed by Mr. Ring are:

1. Disqualification of the entire prosecution team.

2. Dismiss Counts IX and X, two counts that depend on Mr. Schuelke's testimony.

3. Sever Counts IX and X.

4. Prohibit the testimony of Mr. Schuelke.

Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest, pp. 8-9

All of the remedies proposed by Mr. Ring are akin to swatting a distracting fly with a sledgehammer. There is no conflict of interest involving Mr. Schuelke's anticipated testimony. The appropriate course of action for the Justice Department is to actually comply with Judge Huvelle's recommendation and remove the distracting fly. The most Judge Huvelle should do is chastize the Justice Department for its poor judgment and encourage the DoJ to actually "wall off" Mr. Welch from this case. Mr. Ring's Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest should be denied.

Who is Justin Sprinzen?

Justin Sprinzen
Political Science

My regular readers have - without a doubt - noticed the name Justin Sprinzen appearing on the pages of the ACR blog with increasing regularity. Some may even have wondered why this new character wasn't "properly" introduced in the typical ACR manner with a "Who is Justin Sprinzen?" post. Well wonder no more gentle readers, for here is the post you have long been waiting for. (Part I anyway, as Mr. Sprinzen cannot be adequately covered in a single post.)

Justin Craig Sprinzen tried to grow up in Woodbridge, Conn., but only recently has he shown signs of actually becoming a grown-up. While High School may have never ended for former cheerleader Jessica Boulanger, it appears that for Mr. Sprinzen it was college and his frat boy years that he had a hard time leaving behind. That college would be the University of New Hampshire at Durham, which Mr. Sprinzen enrolled in sometime during the 1992-1993 school year. Like many freshmen, especially those from out-of-state, Mr. Sprinzen initially moved into the centrally-located campus dormitory named Stoke Hall.


Stoke Hall, UNH - Former Residence of Justin Sprinzen

Living on the fourth floor, Mr. Sprinzen had a bird's eye view of the campus and surrounding area. Of course, that also means he had a bird's ear, leaving little doubt that the cacophony of weekend parties emanating from nearby Madbury Rd (Fraternity Row) registered in his auditory canal. In fact, all Mr. Sprinzen had to do was walk out the door of Stoke Hall, hang a left on Garrison, walk two blocks, and - voila - he could have had his pick of fraternities to explore, sampling their free beer and whatever other delightful sundries they wished to offer up at rush parties.

Sometime prior to the publication of the 1994-1995 UNH Student Directory, Mr. Sprinzen apparently made his choice. And the choice he made appears to be Zeta Chi, the scandal-plagued UNH frat reportedly founded by Team Abramoff flunky and admitted felon Todd Boulanger. Zeta Chi, as we have previously posted, was the successor frat to Theta Chi, whose former President Shane Tessimond is heading for jail on July 8 for also pleading guilty to multiple felonies related to theft and identity fraud committed while he resided in Washington, DC. And that's just what the DOJ knows - but we digress.

On what basis can we infer that Mr. Sprinzen joined Zeta Chi, even if we cannot pin down the exact date he became a member? An entry from the 1994-1995 UNH Student Directory offers a first clue:



At the risk of being repetitious, the ACR Blog notes that Mr. Sprinzen moved out of Stoke Hall and into off-campus housing at 17 Madbury Rd. The "SO" in the upper right indicates that he is a "sophomore", and the ACR Blog notes that it has blacked out parts of his home address and home phone number out of respect for the privacy of Mr. Sprinzen's family. But gentle readers, the most important thing I want you to notice is Mr. Sprinzen's campus phone number for 1994-1995: 868-3369.

Now let's have a look at Mr. Tessimond's listing from the UNH Alumni Directory for 1995, and gentle readers, please note Mr. Tessimond's listed phone number:



Does anyone think it's a coincidence that Mssrs. Sprinzen and Tessimond appear to be sharing the same phone number at approximately the same point in time? Now my sharp-eyed readers will surely notice that the two addresses do not match up - Mr. Sprinzen is listed at 17 Madbury Rd and Mr. Tessimond is listed at 37 Madbury Rd. They will also recall, however, that Theta Chi (the predecessor frat to Zeta Chi) was located at 37 Madbury Rd, but lost its charter in the Fall of 1992. Many of the brothers, pledging to re-organize as Zeta Chi in January of 1993, reportedly moved into the single story multi-resident apartment building located at 17 Madbury Rd two doors down from 37 Madbury Rd:


17 Madbury Rd, Durham N.H. - Former Residence of Justin Sprinzen

In fact, if we go back just a little bit in time, the 1993-1994 UNH Student Directory reveals which miscreant moved to 17 Madbury Rd from 37 Madbury Rd during this exact time period

The ACR blog notes neither phone number listed above for Mr. Tessimond from his (outdated?) 1993-1994 listing matches the 868-3369 number listed for both Mssrs. Sprinzen and Tessimond in 1994-1995, but in as much as this listing predates the time that Sprinzen moved to 17 Madbury Rd, we do not find this inconsistency troubling. More telling is the match in 1994-1995 for the same time period.

To complete the assemblage of The Three Stooges at 17 Madbury Rd - meaning the addition of Moe (Mr. Boulanger) to this dynamic duo - requires a bit of a leap. For Mr. Boulanger was lucky enough to have never included a campus address in any of the UNH Student Directories - he only provided his home address, which the ACR Blog will not post for privacy reasons. But clearly Mr. Boulanger had a campus address in Durham, as a jury determined that an under-age student purchased beer from his supposedly locked Durham apartment on February 21, 1994, "located in a different part of the fraternity house" as we have previously posted:

In addition, Andrew Strachan, a nineteen-year-old guest at the [Zeta Chi] fraternity party, testified that at some point during the evening he learned that beer was available from a soda machine. He made his way to an apartment in another part of the fraternity house where the machine was located, waited in line with three or four other people, and purchased three to five cans of beer. Strachan also testified that he noticed someone making change for the machine. The fraternity's secretary testified that the fraternity members voted not to provide alcohol at the rush and that they moved the vending machine that contained beer to a separate apartment in another part of the fraternity house for the rush.

Gentle readers, the ACR Blog submits that this scandalous fraternity party was held at the de facto "fraternity house" for Zeta Chi at 17 Madbury Rd. where many of the brothers of Theta/Zeta Chi had moved. The building is designed so that each apartment has a separate lockable entrance and thus is consistent with the description excerpted above from the opinion of the New Hampshire State Supreme Court that upheld the fraternity's guilt on prostitution and under-age alcohol sales. Buttressing this supposition, this now infamous photo of Messrs. Boulanger and Sprinzen proudly posing in front of their achievement in conspicuous alcohol consumption at the 2000 UNH Zeta Chi reunion was taken in front of the dumpster at: 17 Madbury Rd.

What the ACR Blog would like to know is this: Did Mr. Sprinzen join Zeta Chi prior to the infamous February 1994 rush party? Or did he join because of the February 1994 rush party?¹

Be sure to catch our next post in this series: Mr. Sprinzen Goes to Washington.

==

¹ The ACR blog again stresses that it has no evidence that Mr. Sprinzen has done anything illegal, either while a student at UNH or during any of the jobs he has held since arriving in Washington DC. We cannot at this point say with certainty whether or not he attended the infamous 1994 Zeta Chi rush party, and even if he did, it was not illegal to do so. So why is the ACR Blog even interested in Justin Sprinzen? The man is an enigma - despite being a central figure in the F Street Gang (which is why we're interested in him), the ACR Blog has seen nothing in any of the legal documents, hundreds of emails, etc that we've reviewed that suggest that he is in any legal jeopardy in the Abramoff case. In short, he may be 100% "clean", but as we shall see, the man would be one heckuva person for the DOJ to put under oath in many of these upcoming cases. Perhaps Mr. Sprinzen is simply guilty of having extremely poor judgment in selecting fraternities as well as friends, drinking partners, and housemates.

USA vs. Kevin Ring: The Battle over William Welch II

The ACR Blog's friend Wendy over at Unheard No More! is becoming a great source for timely developments in the USA vs. Kevin Ring court case, especially in times like these when circumstances leave me with less time at the keyboard. Yesterday, she wrote about a recent filing by the Justice Department opposing a motion by defendant Kevin Ring alleging prosecutorial conflict of interest.

The ACR Blog does not intend to duplicate the great work done at Unheard No More! Rather, we shall strive to be complementary to her. The problem is that Wendy is so thorough, it is difficult to add anything to complete her work. For a comprehensive factual background, read Wendy's latest post here and an earlier related post here. This post will only highlight one small piece of this matter that is of particular interest to the ACR Blog.

In the May 29, 2009 Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest, Mr. Ring, through his attorneys, questions the integrity of Justice Department attorneys Michael Leotta (District of Maryland), Nathaniel Edmonds (Fraud Section) and Michael Ferrara (Public Integrity Section). Mr. Ring's lawyers also attack the integrity of widely respected DC attorney Henry Schuelke, who will almost certainly be a witness for the prosecution:

The defense wants to "avoid the prejudice to Mr. Ring caused by Mr. Schuelke's dual roles as prosecutor/investigator and witness."

Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest; Page 5

Oddly, even though defense counsel suggests that "Mr. Schuelke's dual roles" would "cause" "prejudice to Mr. Ring", the Government reveals to us that "Lead defense counsel [presumably Richard Hibey] is known to be a long-time friend of Mr. Schuelke." (Government's Opposition to Motion to Remedy Alleged Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest, p.4). This is why I could never be a lawyer. I could never suggest that the role of a long-time friend would cause prejudice in a court case without cause. Perhaps I should be thankful that Mr. Hibey is not my friend.

It seems to the ACR Blog that the only evidence that there is any prosecutorial conflict of interest in USA vs. Kevin Ring resides in the vivid imaginations of the defense team. Honestly, the ACR Blog doesn't expect this motion to lead to any adverse result to the prosecution.

So why is the defense pursuing this?

I've alluded to my belief that the defense team simply intends this and other motions to be distractions to the prosecution. On page 1 of the Government's Opposition, the Justice Department says basically the same thing:

[I]t is apparent that the defendant will continue to use Mr. Welch's supervision of the Public Integrity Section and the Stevens matter as an excuse for filing distracting motions.

A commenter offered a very plausible explanation (June 5, 2009; 8:57 am) as to why Mr. Ring's defense team is making another unrelated motion that is unlikely to succeed. The reasoning the commenter gave for the unrelated motion seems to apply to the one we're discussing, too:

Defense attorneys have to put much on record to mitigate future claims re ineffective assistance of counsel. When defendant is comvicted the first round of appeals caca is to blame the lawyer. They do have to vigorously defend the client no matter how far fetched the legal arguements might seem.

The Justice Department offers another possible explanation. Among the laundry list of "remedies" for the non-existent prosecutorial conflict of interest the defense team suggests are:

1. Disqualification of the entire prosecution team.

2. Dismiss Counts IX and X, two counts that depend on Mr. Schuelke's testimony.

3. Sever Counts IX and X.

4. Prohibit the testimony of Mr. Schuelke.

Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest, pp. 8-9

On page 9 of the Motion to Remedy, Mr. Ring's lawyers lobby for remedy 4, prohibiting Mr. Schuelke from appearing as a witness. In fact, the defense seems to admit that proposed remedies 1-3 are too extreme. ("Short of [dismissing or severing Counts IX and X] and short of disqualifying the team as a whole and requiring the government to begin anew, the Court should require the United States not to call Mr. Schuelke as a witness.")

[Oddly, Mr. Ring and his attorneys never propose the obvious remedy already completed by the Justice Department: The removal of Mr. Welch from any role in this case.]

Why are Mr. Ring and his lawyers trying so hard to prohibit Mr. Schuelke from testifying against Mr. Ring? The Justice Department tells us what this is all about on pages 7-8 of the Government's Opposition:

Presumably, the defendant will not concede that he had criminal intent when he lied to Mr. Schuelke after being told that his statements could likely be shared with federal law enforcement authorities - he has, after all, pled not-guilty to Counts Nine and Ten. Mr. Schuelke's long experience in investigating complicated matters will serve to support the Government's case that defendant acted with criminal intent. Moreover, if factual issues in Mr. Schuelke's testimony are disputed, the Government will likely be required to also call Mr. Shields to rebut defendant's statements or arguments that Mr. Schuelke did not testify truthfully or completely. The jury then is likely going to be required to weigh the credibility of both Mr. Schuelke and Mr. Shields in evaluating the consistency of their testimony. Defendant's attempt to remove Mr. Schuelke from being available as a witness is unnecessary and would deprive the Government from proving its case in the manner it believes is most effective.

See what is going on here? Mr. Ring's attorneys are not satisfied with the removal William Welch, the source of the imaginary conflict of interest and a very real distraction in this case. That is apparently not their real objective. No, Mr. Ring's attorneys want to prohibit the testimony of the widely respected Mr. Schuelke because they know his testimony will be devastating to their client. Mr. Ring's motion should be categorically denied. With any luck, Judge Huvelle will also include a stern warning to his legal team to stop wasting the Court's time with silly and irrelevant motions that seek remedies for problems that do not exist. And to the extent that a problem does exist, the suggested remedies do not even address the underlying problem.

Shane Tessimond: Order to Surrender for Prison July 8

United States Penitentiary-Canaan - Mr. Tessimond's New Residence (2009-2010)

And so the strange saga of Shane Elliot Tessimond enters its next phase: incarceration. What a tragic waste of a life, just like so many other members of the F Street Gang that rode the wave of corruption along with him. Just yesterday, Mr. Tessimond was ordered to report to the custody of the US Bureau of Prisons in Waymart, Pa. on July 8 to begin serving the sentence handed down to him on May 21, 2009 by US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

Despite being elected as one of the youngest representatives to the New Hampshire statehouse after his graduation as a UNH Willdcat, Mr. Tessimond had the misfortune of having miscreants like Todd Boulanger and Justin Sprinzen as fraternity brothers , housemates, drinking buddies. Or was it the other way around? Gentle readers, its awfully hard to tell just who was a bad influence on whom.


UNH Theta Chi Frat House - Mr. Tessimond's Former Residence (1992-1994?)

There is still much to Mr. Tessimond's story that we find intriguing - things we suspect even the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section is not aware of - especially immediately after his arrival on the Hill in early 1997. Our research indicates that initially Mr. Tessimond went to work for a start-up company called Statescape, which was an internet-based state legislative tracking service. Mr. Tessimond was hired largely to bring in new business (sales), since he was a "former legislator from New Hampshire". But this job apparently didn't work out for Mr. Tessimond, as he was let go from Statescape sometime in 1998 because apparently he failed to bring in a single new client. Too much drinking perhaps?

What Mr. Tessimond did after Statescape remains a mystery, despite our best efforts to decipher his past. However, we have been able to ascertain that he was also dismissed from a job at another start-up, this one at a Maryland-based company called Vocus. The ACR Blog has been unable to pin down the exact time period he was employed at Vocus (1999? 2000?), but we have learned his dismissal was very abrupt and apparently caught him by complete surprise. While we cannot say with certainty why Mr. Tessimond was abruptly dismissed from Vocus, we can say that we are reminded of the infamous line from DOJ's Sentencing Recommendation to Judge Huvelle, that Mr. Tessimond be committed to prison in order "to protect the pubic from further crimes of the defendant". It seems to the ACR Blog that perhaps the DOJ was a little late to the party, just like the Stafford County (N.H.) Prosecutor.

During this entire period of time - January / February 1997 through his time at Vocus - the ACR Blog has it on good authority that Mr. Tessimond lived with fellow UNH Frat Boyz Boulanger and Sprinzen and honorary Zeta Chi Frat Boy Robert Turner at 328 F Street NE. To the Boyz (and to Ms. Erin Hass, who moved in after Mr. Sprinzen moved out), this was the House of the Homies.



The "House of the Homies" - Mr. Tessimond's Former Residence (1997-2000)

Sometime after the Independence Day 2000 Party hosted by the Homies, apparently Mr. Tessimond had a serious falling out with Messrs. Boulanger and Sprinzen. (And presumably Mr. Turner and Ms. Hass as well.) The ACR Blog suspects this falling out may have been caused by the unseemly events that cost Mr. Tessimond his job at Vocus, but we cannot be certain. We do know that by August 18, 2001, Mr Tessimond had left the House of the Homies and moved to Alexandria, Va.:

Shane Tessimond, 31, was entering a new phase in his life when he moved into one of Alexandria's newest high-rises, the Meridian at Carlyle. "After you've worked on Capitol Hill and paid your dues, you sort of graduate to Old Town. Capitol Hill is like a college campus. . . . This is much more refined and sophisticated," he said.

Emphasis added

Was I the one who referred to him as a Frat Boy N The Hill, or is this the way Mr. Tessimond even saw himself? Also note the way he says he's paid his dues, he's graduated, now he's even refined and sophisticated. Is this statement a not-too-subtle poke in the eyes to his roomies and frat brothers he left behind on the Hill, or what?


The Meridian at Carlyle - Mr. Tessimond's Former Residence (2001?-2002)

In December 2002, Mr. Tessimond went to work for the John Kerry for President campaign, apparently moving back to DC at or around this time (on Q Street, near DuPont Circle). After stealing checks from the campaign to feed his "self-indulgent" lifestyle, he then went to work for a firm called Radnor, Inc. where according to his federal indictment (.pdf), he was "responsible for setting up a website called lobbyist.net".

But do the Feds know Mr. Tessimond's business card put him out there as the PRESIDENT of lobbyist.net?

Click Link for an image of Mr. Tessimond's Business Card, 2004

This suggests to the ACR Blog that Mr. Tessimond's duties were far more substantial that setting up a simple website, and that he would not have been put into such a high-level position without his employer having confidence that he was up to the task. The ACR Blog has to wonder, though, if Mr. Tessimond looked with envy at his former F Street Gang friends and their association with Team Abramoff.

We may never know the real story of Mr. Tessimond and all of its gory details, unless he decides to reveal it himself as he seeks personal redemption. We sincerely hope that Mr. Tessimond has some time to think while he's in prison, and that he finds something more meaningful to do with the rest of his life once he gets out. We wish him success in controlling the demons that dwell within his tortured soul. One thing is for sure: with Mr. Boulanger also very likely headed for prison, we sure hope they don't end up as roommates - again.

City of Valdez Hires a New Lobbyist

It's Tuesday night, and you all know what that means. The ACR Blog is reading the minutes of the city council meetings of Valdez, Alaska. We've been out of pocket for some time, and we're way behind in all matters related to our blog. Catching up on our reading of the Valdez minutes is no exception. As a matter of fact, we are just getting around to reading the May 18, 2009 minutes (.pdf).

We're interested in Item 1 under New Business (pp. 7-9):

1. Approval of Federal Lobbyist Contract with the Capital [sic] Hill Consulting Group in the Amount of $36,750

MOTION: Council member Cobb moved, seconded by Council member Moore to approve Federal Lobbyist contract with Capitol Hill Consulting Group in the amount of $36,750

An Agenda Statement submitted by Valdez City Manager John Hozey that indicates that he recommended Capitol Hill Consulting Group because "[i]n February of this year the city was notified by our federal lobbyist that she had accepted a position with a company that would preclude her from continuing to serve as our lobbyist in Washington DC."

A couple of months ago, the ACR Blog observed that Valdez was searching for a new lobbyist. The city's previous lobbyist, Stephanie Szymanski Victory abruptly gave up her lobbying responsibilities for Valdez. Although facts were sparse, the ACR Blog suspected that Ms. Victory could no longer lobby for the city because she had accepted a position at Hesco Bastion USA.

So who is the lobbyist at Capitol Hill Consulting Group who will be filling Ms. Victory's shoes? Well, this isn't the first time the ACR Blog has mentioned Capitol Hill Consulting Group. The firm originally caught our attention because one of Tom DeLay's former aides, Jack Victory, works there. Of all the lobbyists in the country, Valdez chooses to hire Jack Victory?!

Mr. Victory doesn't seem to be all that interested in highlighting his association with Mr. DeLay, though. Here is how the Valdez City Council minutes describe the discussion of Mr. Victory's background:

Mr. Victory stated that the consulting group was started by a former member of congress from Oklahoma and is a mid-sized lobbyist firm with approximately ten lobbyists. Mr. Victory said that Bill Brewster started the Blue Dog Coalition in the House of Representatives which is a group of conservative Democrats, a large and very important voting bloc in the House. Mr. Victory said that he spent twelve years on Capitol Hill working form House Leadership and Resources Committee. Mr. Victory stated that he has experience working with the White House Administration and the Senate.

"House Leadership". That is as close as Mr. Victory gets to mentioning Mr. DeLay. Mr. Victory apparently didn't think the attention he earned from the House Ethics Committee was worth mentioning either.

Mr. Victory does mention his contacts with one scandal-related Alaskan lawmaker, though:

Mr. Victory provided an update regarding the million dollars in federal funds the city is requesting for harbor expansion. Mr. Victory said that in speaking with Congressman Don Young's office, this is Congressman Young's number one request in energy and water development appropriations.

Mr. Victory also reported that both Alaska Senators were in favor of the harbor expansion appropriation. It appears to me that there is a lot of support for the project even before Mr. Victory was hired. It looks like his job will be an easy one.

Mr. Victory was sensitive to at least one concern of a Council member:

Council Member Dunham said his ongoing concern regarding our Federal lobbyist has been the need for scheduled visits to Valdez to establish familiarity with the city and residents and in-person contact with the city council. Mr. Victory responded that if the council approves the contract this evening, he has planned to spend time in Valdez during the month of August to go through the minutia of the Port and discuss in depth any other issues of concern by the city council and city administration.

August, huh? Mr. Victory has impeccable timing. He'll be there for the Valdez Silver Salmon Derby. I hope he has a good time.

To the concerns of another Council member, Mr. Victory wasn't as sensitive:

Council member Prax asked Mr. Victory if he knew the amount of the national debt. Mr. Victory said he did not. Mr. Prax responded that the national debt was 11 trillion dollars and the federal government budget proposed to spend money they do not have by adding 1.5 trillion dollars. Mr. Victory said he was not sure he agreed with this evaluation.

I don't know what Mr. Victory means when he claimed that he wasn't sure if he agreed with the evaluation of Council member Prax. It appears that Mr. Prax made two assertions of fact ... that the national debt is $11.5 trillion and that the deficit this year will add $1.5 trillion to that figure. Is Mr. Victory disputing the assertions by Mr. Prax? If so, Mr. Victory is mistaken; Mr. Prax's figures are accurate. The National Debt Clock indicates that the national debt is between $11.4 trillion and $11.5 trillion. Also, as the chart below shows, the 2010 deficit is projected to be about $1.75 trillion. (Click the picture for a bigger version.)



Mr. Prax continues:

Council member Prax said nothing personal, but he believed the position of lobbyist is a reason why the country is broke. He stated that lobbyists are enabling organizations such as the City of Valdez to ask for more federal funds than is available and that to get reelected our politicians are spending more money than is there, placing debt on our children's and grandchildren's future. Therefore he could not in good conscious mortgage his children's future by voting for the enabler.

Bravo to Council member Prax! He states my own personal position in a much more forceful manner than I could dream of doing. Mr. Prax's characterization of Mr. Victory as an "enabler" is spot on. Recall that the first time we looked at Mr. Victory, he was extolling the virtues of pork barrel spending in President Obama's so-called stimulus package. Mr. Victory is by no means a conservative.

This matter obviously piqued the ACR Blog's interest, so we called our omniscient Alaskan correspondent. According to our source Valdez City Manager John Hozey did not advise the City Council that Mr. Victory worked for Rep. DeLay or that his actions were examined by the House Ethics Committee. Additionally, the City Council has not been advised that Stephanie Szymanski Victory, the city's former lobbyist and wife of Mr. Victory seemingly did not register as the city's lobbyist with Congress. Fortunately, Mr. Victory is more diligent in that regard. Mr. Victory submitted his own lobbying registration for the City of Valdez (.pdf) last week.

Either City Manager John Hozey knew of Mr. Victory's brush with the House Ethics Committee or he didn't. If Mr. Hozey didn't know of Mr. Victory's history with the Ethics Committee, it calls into question how comprehensive the due diligence process was in identifying a federal lobbyist. If Mr. Hozey did know of Mr. Victory's background, he has left himself open to accusations that he concealed relevant information from the City Council. Either way, I wouldn't want to be in Mr. Hozey's shoes if City Council finds out about Mr. Victory's background.

Memoranda in Opposition

Four Memoranda in Opposition related to USA v. Kevin Ring were filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia. Three were filed by the Justice Department in response to motions filed by Kevin Ring. One was filed by Kevin Ring in response to a motion filed by the Justice Department.

Since the ACR Blog is a one-man operation, when circumstances take us away from the keyboard, posting and other activity must slow. The ACR Blog's break ends this weekend. We've already mentioned five defense motions in this case. But recall: there are only three Memoranda in Opposition filed by the government.

Fortunately, there's no need to wait for my analysis. Unheard No More! beats me to the punch!

Ann Copland Status Report

In US District Court for the District of Columbia, prosecutors and the defense team for Ann Copland, a former top aide to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), submitted a status report (not available online). The prosecution and defense jointly suggest that US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle postpone setting a sentencing date for Ms. Copland for 90 days.

Interestingly, unlike Jim Hirni or Trevor Blackann, lawyers did not assert that Ms. Copland has been cooperating with government agents. The government does claim, though, that it "anticipates that the need for Ms. Copland's cooperation will continue for the foreseeable future".

M. Kendall Day signed the joint report for the Justice Department, but William Welch's name does appear on the document as head of the Public Integrity Section. The ACR Blog would prefer to see Mr. Welch extricate himself from all the Abramoff-related cased. Even though Mr. Welch is only a distant supervisor, his involvement is nothing but a distraction for the hard-working attorneys who are doing all the work in these cases.

More Trouble for the Sen. Stevens Prosecution Team

An Alaskan friend gives the ACR Blog a heads-up on a story that we would have otherwised missed. The convictions of two Alaskan state legislators appear in peril, and the Justice Department has asked that the two Republicans be released from prison pending a possible retrial. The convictions of Reps. Pete Kott and Vic Kohring are related to VECO and Sen. Ted Stevens.

The Sen. Stevens / VECO case has always been outside of the scope of this blog. To keep on top of this case, the ACR Blog's Alaskan correspondent suggests following the Alaska Political Corruption blog. The ACR Blog has no connections to the Alaska Political Corruption blog and is not a regular reader, but it does like what it sees.

Inevitably, we'll see someone try to use this case to advance some sort of claim that the prosecutors in the Abramoff / Ring cases are tainted. The two teams are distinct except for the common link of William Welch II as supervisor of the Public Integrity Section. That link is minimal, and will likely soon be severed if the suggestion of US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to remove Mr. Welch from Kevin Ring's prosecution is implemented.

USA vs. Kevin Ring: COMPANY EMAILS

I ought to just post a link to Kevin Ring's Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence related to emails he sent from his company email accounts at Preston Gates and Greenberg Traurig and be done with this post. It may very well be the lamest post I've ever made.

There are absolutely no noteworthy facts in this Motion to Suppress. None.

Basically, Mr. Ring claims that when his former lobbying firms produced emails written by Mr. Ring on the companies' computers, Mr. Ring's Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure were violated. Mr. Ring claims he had an expectation of privacy with respect to the emails he sent on the companies' computers.

Personally, this argument seems silly to me. I expect it to fail. Mr. Ring and his attorneys cite case law for those legal eagles in the audience. Since I have already stated I won't comment on case law, I don't have anything else to say about this Motion.

USA vs Kevin Ring: Govt's Motion to Compel Discovery

First up in our tour of legal filings related to the case of USA vs. Kevin Ring is the Government's Motion to Compel Discovery.

This document is very heavy on legal arguments and quite skimpy on the facts. That's why it is ideal to be the first document examined. Basically, the Justice Department is asking US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to compel Mr. Ring's defense team to provide materials the defense will use at trial. "Defendant has not provided any discovery and has indicated that he does not intend to provide the Government with any discovery at this time." Read the actual document if you need to know more about the legal issues.

Best I can tell, there is one factual item we learn from the Motion to Compel Discovery:

[T]he Government's case-in-chief is currently scheduled to last approximately four weeks at most ...

My interpretation is that the prosecution plans on taking up to four weeks to present its case before passing it to the defense. That seems like an extraordinarily long period of time. In the trial of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ak.), the prosecution rested about two weeks after the trial began.

Two plausible explanations here:

(1) We already know that the team prosecuting Kevin Ring is more thorough and professional than the team that prosecuted Sen. Stevens. Perhaps the extra time reflects the extra diligence the Ring prosecutors bring to the case.

(2) Perhaps the estimate of four weeks is intended to be the absolute longest time the prosecution will need. In other words, perhaps this is a case of under-promise and over-deliver.

USA vs Kevin Ring: Motions and Emotions Are Flying

Lawyers for Kevin Ring and federal prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ traded motions on May 29, and even though written in "lawyerese", its clear that emotions are running high. Attorneys for Mr. Ring argued in five separate motions that:

1. All of the materials seized by the Government from its search of Mr. Ring's Maryland residence on May 28, 2008 should be disqualified as evidence because, according to Mr. Ring's attorneys, the warrant was so broad that it violated Mr. Ring's Fourth Amendment rights and therefore constituted unreasonable search and seizure.

2. The emails that form a significant part of the Government's case against Mr. Ring - emails provided to the Government by Preston Gates and Greenberg Traurig - also represent an unreasonable "search and seizure" of Mr. Ring's personal and/or protected "attorney/client" correspondence, and accordingly, the Government should not be allowed to use these materials at trial either. In this and the above motion, evidentiary hearings were requested.

3. Counts IX and X from Mr. Ring's indictment should be severed from the remaining eight counts, because they have no relationship to these prior counts and serve only to "prejudice" the jury that Mr. Ring was dishonest and therefore more likely guilty on all counts.

4. A request to "remedy" an alleged prosecutorial "conflict of interest", because William Welch, the former head of the prosecution team (Mr. Welch's status in the Ring case is unclear; his name no longer appears in the government filing), will be investigated for misconduct in the Senator Ted Stevens case by Harry Schuelke, one of the witnesses in the case. Mr. Ring's lawyers state that the "most appropriate remedy would be disqualification of the [entire] prosecution team ... and, if merited, dismissal of the indictment." Realizing they wouldn't likely get such a decision from Judge Huvelle, their fallback position seems to be to bar Mr. Schuelke as a witness against Mr. Ring on counts IX and X.

5. Yet another Motion calls for the dismissal of "evidence of uncharged conduct" that the Government informed Mr. Ring of in a letter dated January 30, 2009, which again his attorneys argue has no connection to the other ten counts pending against Mr. Ring, and thus unfairly seeks to characterize Mr. Ring as dishonest and thus is prejudicial to the entire case.

Additionally, the Government also filed its own motion seeking to compel Mr. Ring and his attorneys to disclose what evidence they plan to use in their defense, produce witness lists, and otherwise disclose "Discovery Materials" in a reciprocal manner as the Government has provided to Mr. Ring. Now I've mentioned many times that I am not a lawyer, so now is as good a time as any to remind my readers of this fact. I have no specialized knowledge of case law in evidentiary or any other complex matters of the law.

Over the next few days, however, I plan to go through these documents looking for additional facts that strike me as useful items to bring to the attention of my loyal readers. Accordingly, we'll be releasing each document in turn with specific analysis and commentary as my limited time permits. Hopefully, the first of these posts will go up tonight - Mrs. Anti-Corruption permitting. My general consensus is that Mr. Ring's attorneys realize that their client's goose is cooked if the evidence as it exists today is allowed to be presented to a jury, and therefore they are going all out to have it be suppressed and disqualified as evidence.

And despite my previous comment - half in jest - regarding the proclivities of one of Mr. Ring's lawyers to want to go plumbing, its seems to me that at least some of their arguments might have some merit. It should be noted however, that Ring attorney Andrew Wise made the "plumb" comment before US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle. The senior attorney on Mr. Ring's team, Richard Hibey, signed the more coherent motions submitted to the court last week. But again the disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so I will do my best to avoid any legal analysis and stick to the new facts revealed in these new motions.