"Filter Team" Revisited

Last week we discussed a letter from the Justice Department to US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle. From the letter, we learned that the Justice Department wants to use certain evidence (Exhibits A, B, and C -- "The Exhibits") in the upcoming criminal trial of Kevin Ring. Before the government can use the Exhibits, Judge Huvelle must make a determination whether the evidence used to create the Exhibits is protected under some privilege. The ACR Blog offered two guesses as to the specific privilege potentially being asserted. We leaned toward a Speech or Debate privilege, but also considered an attorney-client privilege claim.

Jennifer Yachnin of Roll Call ($$$) looked at the same issue and adds a lot of new facts:

It remains unknown what exactly the filter team in Ring's case is examining, although District Judge Ellen Huvelle indicated at a status hearing in late June that the team may be examining documents that could lead attorneys to invoke the attorney-client privilege ...

A search warrant [for Mr. Ring's home] indicates that federal investigators could seize materials related to an autobiographical book being drafted by Ring ...

According to federal prosecutors, the draft book included discussions between Ring and his attorney, Richard Hibey, a possible point of contention.

Remember that the search warrant specifically authorized investigators to seize Mr. Ring's unfinished book. Federal authorities were obviously aware of the existence of the book, otherwise it would not have been specifically mentioned in the warrant. Therefore, the ACR Blog concludes that Mr. Ring informed people of the draft's existence. We know that Mr. Ring engaged in failed plea negotiations, so perhaps the DoJ learned of the book directly from Mr. Ring himself. Or maybe Mr. Ring told friends and/or colleagues that he was working on the book, and those people told investigators. But it is possible that Mr. Ring shared his draft with a third party -- maybe a friend for proofreading or a potential publisher. If Mr. Ring did show the draft to a third party, any claim for attorney-client privilege could go *POOF* and disappear. It will be interesting to see what we learn when this matter is discussed at the next status conference.

A bit of a mystery still remains in this matter. Filter Teams are created to prevent Prosecution Teams from viewing evidence that might possibly be privileged. Our understanding of the process is that the Filter Team views any disputed evidence first, and removes it before the Prosecution Team even gets a chance to see it. Since the matter will be discussed at the next status conference, the process is clearly not yet complete. We know that the Prosecution Team wants to use Exhibits that were derived from potentially privileged material. Yet doesn't it seem that the Prosecution Team would know the information in its Exhibits, meaning that in fact they have already viewed the disputed materials? Why use a Filter Team AFTER the Exhibits have been prepared?

The author of the ACR Blog isn't a lawyer, and, well, we just don't get it.

============

We want to take this opportunity to advise our readers about another situation where the position of the ACR Blog has changed.

On September 9, 2008, shortly after the Ring indictment was released, we examined 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.

The ACR Blog originally speculated that this reference referred to a "job" that scandal figure Ed Buckham was to offer to Julie Doolittle, wife of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.), also known as "Representative 5". We know that Mr. Buckham hired Mrs. Doolittle in a no-show job.

Since that time, however, the ACR Blog discovered an email from Mr. Ring to Jack Abramoff that indicates that the "job" in question is more likely one that Mr. Abramoff tried to persuade Toward Tradition director Daniel Lapin to give to Mrs. Doolittle. Although Mr. Abramoff tried to facilitate this "job", Toward Tradition never hired Mrs. Doolittle.

Sing, Canary, Sing

During the month of July, three scandal figures had status conferences related to sentencing reset.

Michael Scanlon
Tony Rudy
Todd Boulanger

The Justice Department says that the cooperation of each admitted felon will continue for the foreseeable future. The ACR Blog believes that this indicates prosecutions will continue after the trial of Kevin Ring.

ACR Blog Gets Results!

On Tuesday night, the ACR Blog published a post noticing that Tom DeLay's erstwhile organization, Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM), appeared to be defunct. At that time, we pointed out that Mr. DeLay's personal website still had a link to the former website of CCM even though that site no longer existed. When the ACR Blog checked again on Saturday, TomDeLay.com had removed the hyperlink to CCM's former location.

While we're on this topic, the ACR Blog thinks it has learned why CCM folded. According to the minutes of the June 8, 2009 meeting of CCM's Phoenix chapter, the members watched a video from the John Birch Society. After watching the JBS video, members were advised that the link between their chapter and the national organization had been dissolved:

Due to financial constraints, each chapter of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority is now an autonomous and independent group.

Heh.

===

***UPDATE***
July 27, 2009

The ACR Blog has really bad timing. Shortly after pointing out that Tom DeLay's own website had a link to the dead CCM site, it was removed. Now, the site that hosted the CCM logo used in this post took it down. Fortunately, I found another one.

What's up with Kevin Koonce?

It's been a long time since the Associated Press first broke the news that a former Legislative Director for Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) named Kevin H. Koonce was the infamous "staffer F" cryptically referred to in the Todd Boulanger Guilty Plea. The ACR Blog hinted that Mr. Koonce was Staffer F several days earlier, but without the resources of the AP, we could merely point out the "similarities" shared between Staffer F and Mr. Koonce's bio without coming to a definitive conclusion. While it took the AP several attempts to reach him, Mr. Koonce finally replied to an e-mail saying only that he was taking a leave of absence from his job as Senior Director of Government Affairs at Sorini, Samet & Associates. Interestingly, Mr. Koonce's bio remains on the Sorini, Samet website. So perhaps this really is a "leave of absence", at least in Mr. Koonce's mind, and he has every intention of returning to Sorini, Samet. Perhaps his employer is standing by their man, and giving Mr. Koonce time to respond to any inquiries from the DoJ in an effort to clear his good name.

This is all speculation, though. Facts are few, and we want to know what's been happening on the Koonce front. After all, accepting over $10,000 in unreported "gifts" from Mr. Boulanger and Team Abramoff, as the AP reported, is not something that the DOJ would typically ignore. Any way you cut it, that's a lot of crab cakes, beer, and Red Sox tickets. In exchange for these gifts, according to the Boulanger Factual Basis, "Staffer F on repeated occasions during this time provided and agreed to provide such official actions."

Gentle readers, we frankly don't know what Mr. Koonce's status is. Normally when a new individual is referenced in court documents, an Information or an Indictment soon follows. To illustrate, here is a complete list of cryptically-named staffers in the Abramoff case and their current status:

Staffer A: Tony Rudy -- GUILTY
Staffer B: Neil Volz -- GUILTY
Staffer C: Will Heaton -- GUILTY
Staffer D: Fraser Verrusio -- INDICTED
Staffer E: Ann Copland -- GUILTY
Staffer F: Kevin Koonce -- Not charged

The ACR Blog is eagerly waiting for the first court document related to Mr. Koonce to appear on PACER. We have no idea whether Mr. Koonce is cooperating with the DoJ - in which case an Information would be the expected charging document (e.g. Will Heaton, Todd Boulanger). Or whether he's decided not to cooperate - which would likely mean an Indictment (see: Fraser Verrusio). Or, possibly, Mr. Koonce faces no legal jeopardy in which case there will never be any Koonce documents on PACER. While Mr. Koonce is himself a lawyer, we know he has retained an experienced scandal defense attorney, Joshua Berman of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

Since this matter remains a mystery to us, we are turning to our readers for help. At least a few previous commenters on this blog have indicated they know Mr. Koonce, and so the ACR Blog has decided to try a unique experiment. Can any of you provide any information on Kevin Koonce - either as a comment or, if you prefer, as an email sent to gregintx22-at-yahoo-dot-com. Your confidentiality is assured. Before we begin this experiment, I think its wise to remind everyone of the ACR Blog's posting rules:

1. Personal insults or unsubstantiated character assassination-type comments will be deleted.

2. Posts attacking other readers/commenters or non-scandal players will be deleted.

So gentle readers, here's your chance to educate all of us. Please share what you know about Kevin Koonce.

Dear Jurors: Kevin Ring is a Liar

In the case of USA v. Kevin A. Ring, the Justice Department and counsel for Kevin Ring submitted a Joint Proposed Jury Questionnaire (.pdf). Now don't be confused. Even though this is a joint motion, the government and defense clearly don't see eye to eye on what questions should be posed to jurors during voir dire. Many of the questions seem rather standard:

18. What political internet sites or weblogs do you read, if any?

Yes, gentle readers, I suspect anyone who admits visiting the "Anti Corruption Republican Blog" will be dismissed for cause by the defense.

20. What television programs do you watch on a regular basis?

The author of the ACR Blog would answer (1) Rock of Love (VH1); (2) Gene Simmons Family Jewels (A&E); and (3) The (Wall Street) Journal Editorial Report (Fox News). We're not sure what the attorneys would think of that. We're not sure what anyone would think of that.

38. Are you a lawyer or have you attended law school?

No, we aren't a lawyer, we haven't attended law school, and we know you're tired of hearing that.

:::

Several of the questions are contested. You'll have to read the questionnaire for yourself to read all of the contested questions. We're going to highlight just two:

29. Would you tell a lie to protect yourself or a loved one from prosection?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

[The government objects to no. 29. This appears to be a suggestion about how the jurors should view this case, or an issue for argument, rather than an inquiry relevant to a juror's qualifications.

The defense believes this is a valid inquiry tied to a central theory of the defense. The defense has specifically crafted this question in a short and simple fashion to limit any potential that a juror would perceive it is argumentative or suggestive. The defense believes it is entitled to know if a juror comes into the case with a predisposition to disbelieve a central tenant of the defense.]

30. Do you believe that others would tell a lie to protect themselves or a loved one from prosecution?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

[The government objects to no. 30. This appears to be a suggestion about how jurors should view this case, or an issue for argument, rather than an inquiry relevant to a juror's qualifications. Obviously there are some "others" who would lie to protect themselves from prosecution. The defendant is unfairly attempting to use voir dire to suggest that such has happened in this case.

The defense repeats its position from question 29, as questions 29 and 30 are intended to be two parts of the same question. The defense would not object to framing these questions as 29 and 29(a).]

Formatting and emphasis in original

The defense tells us that a "central tenant" of their theory has something to do with telling lies. Based on questions 29 and 30, the ACR Blog believes that Mr. Ring will argue that he lied in many of his statements and/or written documents. Presumably these statements would otherwise be quite incriminating to Mr. Ring. It seems odd to us that someone would claim that "I'm not guilty because I'm a liar", but it appears that Mr. Ring will do just that.

Recall that Count IX & X in Mr. Ring's indictment (.pdf) related to alleged false statements that Mr. Ring made to an investigator hired by his former law firm, Greenberg Traurig. Mr. Ring's lawyers argued that these counts were unrelated to the rest of the indictment which accused him of illegal lobbying activities. Mr. Ring asserted that if jurors heard evidence that he lied to investigators (Count IX & X), the jurors would be more likely to believe he committed all the crimes in the indictment. The defense successfully got the alleged false statements severed from the indictment based on this argument.

It seems strange to the ACR Blog that, after Mr. Ring got the charges of lying to investigators severed from the indictment because evidence of lying would be prejudice their deliberations on the other counts, Mr. Ring would proceed to proclaim his innocence based on the argument that many of his statements and/or documents were based on lies. What happened to the argument that evidence of lying would prejudice the jury's deliberations?

Mr. Ring and his lawyers are not intellectually honest.

Wither Tom DeLay's Coalition for a Conservative Majority?

An aware commenter on this post tips the ACR Blog off to the possibility that something is amiss at Tom DeLay's 2007 creation, the Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM). As reported by our commenter, CCM's website has been taken down. A Google cache of CCM's website indicates that it was active on July 8, 2009, and perhaps even later.

The ACR Blog has attempted to contact CCM tonight, but both its telephone number, (202 625-4379) and its fax number (775 659-2036) are not working numbers. TomDeLay.com still has a link to CCM -- of course it isn't working anymore.

CCM's former Executive Director, Chris Perkins, surfaced in Austin at the political consulting firm of Wilson Research Strategies in May 2009.

The ACR Blog has previously profiled Mr. Perkins. Not once, but twice. Mr. Perkins played a major role in Mr. DeLay's Homestead Resort fundraiser that the House Ethics Committee found to be objectionable under House rules. Mr. Perkins is also a figure in that old civil suit I found so interesting, Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen et. al. Mr. Perkins, Dani DeLay Ferro (Tom DeLay's daughter), and Jim Ellis received "retroactive" "payroll" payments from Tom DeLay's political action committee, ARMPAC. The then-treasurer of ARMPAC said in his lawsuit that he might not have approved of the payments if other ARMPAC administrators had not concealed the payments from him.

Gentle reader, I suggest you keep an eye on Mr. Perkins.

USA v. Kevin Ring and the "Filter Team"

***UPDATE***
July 29, 2009

Roll Call suggests that the Filter Team is working on a claim of attorney-client privilege of Kevin Ring. See this post for more information.

Original post begins below.

:::::

[DISCLAIMER: We're sure you're sick of hearing us tell you that we're not a lawyer, but the truth is we're not a lawyer. Please be wary of any of our legal conclusions.]

Because delivery of a letter from the DC District Court to the Justice Department was delayed, we get to learn of some previously unknown legal wrangling in the case of USA v. Kevin Ring. In a document that appeared on PACER late last week, the Justice Department reports to Judge Ellen S. Huvelle that it had not received an Order issued by the Court due to a two-week delay in delivery. The ACR Blog believes the Order was related to disputed evidence in this case. Let's take a look at the substance of the letter:

In that Order, the Court asked the government to inform defense counsel and the Court on or before July 8, 2009, if the government wishes to continue to seek disclosure of Exhibits A, B, and C to the government's motion for review and privilege determination (filed under seal and submitted in camera on April 30, 2009).

The government does wish to continue to seek disclosure of Exhibits A, B, and C...

Per the Court's Order, an attorney assigned to the "filter team" will be present for argument regarding disclosure of these exhibits at the next status conference.

Emphasis in original

The DoJ has some evidence it wants to use at trial. Someone somewhere is asserting an unknown privilege in an attempt to prevent the exhibits from being used. The last sentence quoted above indicates to the ACR Blog that no determination has been made regarding whether or not the exhibits are actually privileged or not. This matter will be discussed at the next status conference.

So what kinds of privileges may be asserted in this matter and who might be asserting them?

Our first thought was that the DoJ has some documents that Mr. Ring asserts are protected under attorney-client or work-product privilege. While that explanation may be accurate, the reference to a "filter team" causes us to have less and less confidence in it.

We have heard of a "filter team" before. A "filter team" was employed in the aftermath of the search of the congressional office of Rep. "Dollar" Bill Jefferson (D-La.). The purpose of the "filter team" was to determine if any of the documents acquired from the search were protected by Speech or Debate privileges:

Link from National Review:

Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.

The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…

Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or any other pertinent privilege…

For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…

The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.

The ACR Blog believes the Justice Department wants to use evidence from the office of a Congressman¹ against that loser Kevin Ring. According to this theory, the Filter Team will have to convince Judge Huvelle at the next status conference that the materials are not protected under Speech or Debate or any other privilege (e.g. attorney client privilege).

There is a problem with this theory. We know from an opinion issued in the case of former Rep. Jefferson that the DC Court of Appeals determined that the Filter Team in that case did not protect the Congressman's Speech or Debate privileges. The Court of Appeals ruled that in order for a search of a Congressman's office to be Constitutional, the Congressman must be able to identify materials he intends to assert are protected by the Speech or Debate clause before anyone from the Executive Branch views them. Even though the Jefferson "Filter Team" process was not Constitutional, we now know that a Filter Team exists in the Ring case. Presumably the role of the Filter Team in the Ring case is different than the role of the Filter Team in the Jefferson case, otherwise there would be Constitutional issues.

With Mr. Ring's trial scheduled to begin in early September, there doesn't seem to be enough time to resolve this issue should Judge Huvelle's ruling be appealed. One side or the other will likely be unsatisfied with Judge Huvelle's decision.

:::

Because of the delayed mail, the Justice Department missed a July 8 deadline to inform the Court and defense whether the government intended to use the Exhibits at trial. On one hand, Courts typically are very strict on deadlines (think statutes of limitations). On the other hand, it seems the Justice Department acted in good faith as soon as it received Judge Huvelle's Order. The mail was delayed due to the x-ray sterilization process prior to its delivery to federal offices. Unfortunately, the sterilization process is a sad fact in the post-anthrax era, and Judge Huvelle, being a federal employee herself, may have personally experienced a similar event. It is possible that the Justice Department will not receive an adverse decision from Judge Huvelle for simply missing the deadline.

:::

¹ The ACR Blog has a guess regarding which congressional office the materials may relate to. A Speech or Debate claim may have been invoked on an email between Rep. Doolittle and Mr. Ring. Such an email may have been acquired from Greenberg Traurig or the search of Mr. Ring's home. The material may have come in response to the 2007 subpoena served on staffers to former Rep. John Doolittle. And don't forget about the Doolittle Raid where the FBI searched the Virginia home of John and Julie Doolittle. Sure there's a lot of speculation involved here ... we don't even know that it is a Congressman who is asserting the privilege. But if we're right, take it from me that former Rep. Doolittle has a little more to worry about this week than last. The next status conference will be interesting. They all are.

American Conservative Union Imitates Team Abramoff

Politico reports that the American Conservative Union is willing to sell its endorsements:

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”

The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.

This matter reminds the ACR Blog of similar Team Abramoff activity. A 2005 Business Week article entitled "Op-Eds for Sale" (keep that headline ... it can be recycled) describes how Team Abramoff essentially bought op-eds for roughly $2,000 each. The op-eds took positions supporting Team Abramoff clients such as the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. From Business Week:

A senior fellow at the Cato Institute resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients. Doug Bandow, who writes a syndicated column for Copley News Service, told BusinessWeek Online that he had accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s....

After receiving BusinessWeek Online's inquiries about the possibility of payments, Cato Communications Director Jamie Dettmer said the think-tank determined that Bandow "engaged in what we consider to be inappropriate behavior and he considers to be a lapse in judgment" and accepted his resignation. "Cato has an excellent reputation for integrity, and we're zealous in guarding that," Dettmer said.

We applaud the Cato Institute for taking the action it did.

One of the more bizarre reactions to the American Conservative Union story is found in the blog "The Conscious of a Liberal" written by New York Times columnist and former Enron adviser Paul Krugman. Concluding his entry entitled "Opinions for Sale", Mr. Krugman says:

Despite everything that’s happened, I don’t think many people grasp just how raw, how explicit, the corruption of our institutions has become.

This is the same Paul Krugman, who, while collecting tens of thousands of dollars from Enron, wrote a puff piece appearing in Fortune Magazine that praise the failed company. Granted, Mr. Krugman did disclose his position at Enron, and that is a significant mitigating factor. Nevertheless, Mr. Krugman's explanation of these events seems awfully defensive. And Mr. Krugman's point seems to be that "Opinions for Sale" are a form of corruption, a position the ACR Blog is sympathetic to. But even with Mr. Krugman's disclosure of his relationship with Enron, doesn't it seem his opinions were for sale?

In another case that mimicked Team Abramoff activities, the Washington Post recently canceled plans to sell access to senior government officials.

Judge Kavanaugh's Concurring Opinion

US Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh

A few days ago, we examined the unanimous decision of the DC Circuit Court in which a three judge panel determined that statements made by former Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) to the House Ethic Committee were protected under the US Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause.

Based on its case number (1:07-mc-00319) we know the case, In Re: Grand Jury Subpoenas, was originally filed in early August 2007. We don't have the District Judge's opinion, but it appears that she determined that Mr. Feeney's Scotland vacation was personal in nature and not connected to his legislative duties. Therefore, the ACR Blog presumes, the District Judge determined that statements made about the personal trip were not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. (Precedent: United States v. Rose)

In the unanimous Circuit Court opinion, the three-judge panel determined that merely because Mr. Feeney asserted that the vacation was actually a legislative fact-finding mission at St. Andrews, the Ethics Committee was necessarily looking into Mr. Feeney's official activities. Consequently, his testimony to the Ethics Committee was protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. (Precedent Ray v. Proxmire)

:::

Judge Brett Kavanaugh went further. He issued a concurring opinion that declared the existing precedential framework to be problematic:

The disarray has prompted all of the competing parties in this case - the Executive Branch, the House of Representatives, and an individual Member of Congress^[1] - to suggest that the en banc Court reconsider Ray, Rose or both. I agree that the full Court should do so at an appropriate time.

Judge Kavanaugh looks at the text of the Speech or Debate Clause Article I; Section 6:

[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Emphasis Added

Judge Kavanaugh finds the plain text of the Constitution to be inconsistent with the Ray/Rose precedents. The Ray/Rose test says that the subject matter of a Congressman's speech determines whether or not it is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. Topics dealing with a Congressman's official duties are protected under the Speech or Debate Clause; topics of a personal nature are not. Judge Kavanaugh can't seem to reconcile the Ray/Rose test with the Constitution's provision that Congressmen have Speech or Debate Clause protections for "any Speech or Debate in either House".

Judge Kavanaugh concludes that the Ethics Committee process is the means by which the House fulfills its constitutional duty to punish its Members for disorderly behavior. The Ethics Committee, in Judge Kavanaugh's opinion, is clearly an official proceeding of the House of Representatives. By virtue of the fact that the Ethics Committee is an official proceeding of the House, testimony/documents provided to the Ethics Committee fall under the category of "any Speech or Debate in either House".

:::

Judge Kavanaugh clearly and concisely states in his opinion that the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause should be expanded to apply to any official House or Senate proceeding. His colleagues on the Circuit Court, Judge Ginsburg and Senior Judge Williams, did not sign off on Judge Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.

It is important to note that the Ray/Rose framework remains intact. The Circuit Court did not expand the reach of the Speech or Debate Clause. Judge Kavanaugh recommends that the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause be expanded to cover all official Congressional proceedings. The purpose of the en banc hearing is to determine whether or not to expand the Speech or Debate protections.

:::

Obviously, it annoys the ACR Blog that the press (other than the Washington Times) has reported so poorly on this matter. Courthouse News is one example. Here is the first sentence in its article:

Lawmakers can't be held criminally liable for statements they make during congressional ethics investigations, the D.C. Circuit ruled in a case stemming from the Abramoff scandal.

FALSE: According to United States v. Rose, statements made to the Ethics Committee related to an investigation of a Congressman's personal matters are not protected under the Speech or Debate Clause. The DC Circuit did not hold that "lawmakers can't be held criminally liable for statements they make during congressional ethics investigations".

Amazingly, Courthouse News gets it right for those who stuck around long enough to read the last two sentences of the article:

In a concurring opinion, Judge Kavanaugh urged the full court to reconsider the test used to determine if the Speech and Debate Clause applies. Kavanaugh called it "unwise in principle and unworkable in practice" to grant protection only when the underlying investigation involves a lawmaker's official conduct, but not when it concerns his or her personal conduct.

:::

^[1] It is notable that all competing parties in this case wanted the en banc Court to hear this case. Notice, too, the "competing parties". We have:

1. Executive Branch (Justice Department)
2. An individual Member of Congress (Mr. Feeney)
3. The House of Representatives

The ACR Blog doesn't find it surprising that the House would be a party to this case. We don't doubt the House as an institution has an interest in expanding the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause. It just seems to us that this fact has been ignored by the MSM.

In Re: Tom Feeney's Grand Jury Subpoenas

Yesterday, we looked at the DC Circuit Court's opinion holding that statements by former Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) to the House Ethics Committee are protected under the US Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause and the decision to review the matter en banc.

Today, the MSM follows the first-rate reporting of Michael Scarcella of The Blog of Legal Times / The National Law Journal. The AP declares that the "Appeals court expands lawmakers legal protection". Meanwhile the Washington Times paraphrases William & Mary law professor William van Alstyne as saying, "the court's ruling follows the way the speech or debate clause has been applied in other cases."

So which is it? Were lawmakers' legal protections expanded or did the court follow the way the speech or debate clause has been applied in other cases? We're going to take a stab at answering that question, but first we must remind you that we aren't a lawyer ... standard salt grain caveat given.

First, let's define the question the court was trying to answer:

Are former Rep. Feeney's written statements to the House Ethics Committee protected under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause?

The Opinion for the Court, written by Judge Ginsburg, and joined by Judge Williams and Judge Kavanaugh, identifies two precendential cases to help guide us in determining whether statements to congressional ethics committees are subject to the Speech or Debate Clause:

Ray v. Proxmire (1978)
Sen. Proxmire submitted a letter to the Senate Ethics Committee in response to the Committee's investigation into whether he had misused Senate rooms for his wife's benefit. Ray, the plaintiff, alleged that Sen. Proxmire made a libelous statement in the letter. The DC Circuit Court found that because the allegation "directly touched the institution of the Senate", the Speech or Debate Clause prohibited the court from examining Sen. Proxmire's letter.

United States v. Rose (1994)
The Government charged Rep. Rose with filing a false personal financial disclosure statement and relied on testimony Rep. Rose had given the House Ethics Committee. Because the Committee was investigating a personal financial matter relating to Rep. Rose, the Speech or Debate Clause did not apply.

Therefore the 2009 DC Circuit Court set out to determine whether this case was more like Ray or more like Rose. Did testimony/documents provided by former Rep. Feeney to the Ethics Committee relate to an official matter that would be protected or a personal matter that wouldn't be protected?

At first, the Ethics Committee appeared to be investigating a personal matter ... the receipt of an unlawful gift, a recreational vacation. As part of his defense, however, Mr. Feeney claimed that the purpose of the trip was legislative fact-finding. The Committee then had to determine whether or not the trip contained official business. Mr. Feeney's defense changed the character of the investigation from an inquiry of his personal matters into an examination of his official duties. Therefore, the Court reasoned, testimony/documents provided by Mr. Feeney were covered by the Speech or Debate Clause.

The ACR Blog is underwhelmed by this opinion. It is inconceivable to us that the Speech or Debate Clause was triggered in this case solely based on Mr. Feeney's assertion that the purpose of the trip was legislative fact-finding. The statement by the Ethics Committee regarding Mr. Feeney's trip highlights its "recreational" nature and doesn't even mention any legislative fact-finding. According to this opinion, future Congressmen have a template to invoke the Speech or Debate Clause into any personal matter.

:::

Ultimately, the Circuit Court panel worked very hard to keep its opinion within the boundaries of the Ray / Rose framework. The Court did not expand the Speech or Debate protections. Professor van Alstyne hits the mark with his observation that "the court's ruling follows the way the speech or debate clause has been applied in other cases."

:::

Next time: A look at Judge Kavanaugh's concurring opinion ... you may be surprised at my take on that!

Feeney "Speech or Debate" Case to go "En Banc"

The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) scoops everyone tonight with an article on a development in the investigation into former Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Back in February, the Washington Post told us that a grand jury was investigating Mr. Feeney. Furthermore, we were told that a federal appeals court ruled that the constitution's "Speech or Debate" clause prohibited the grand jury from acquiring information they sought. At the time facts were sparse. Today, we learn that the grand jury wanted materials Mr. Feeney provided to the House Ethics Committee. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals also made the opinion public today.

BLT picks the quote from Judge Brett Kavanaugh that succinctly sums up this matter:

[C]ourts must respect the constitutional balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches regardless of the perceived needs of the moment.”

Understand that Judge Kavanaugh is my kind of judge. He demonstrates that here by showing that he feels constrained by the constitution. I have written before that the "Speech or Debate" issue is a tricky one. Nearly two years ago when we learned that former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) was using a "Speech or Debate" defense, I wrote:

I certainly hope that the courts won't allow Congressmen to use the Constitution to protect themselves from a criminal investigation. But as an admirer of the Founding Fathers, I also know that the "Speech and Debate" clause was necessary to prevent abuses of Congress like the abuses perpetrated by the English crown against parliament.

Later, after some of Mr. Doolittle's staffers were subpoenaed, I wondered if the House of Representatives would assist Mr. Doolittle in a "Speech or Debate" defense:

I suspect this means that the House will exert some privileges under the "Speech and Debate" clause of the US Constitution. Now I'm all in favor of protecting legislative materials from the executive branch. But there must be some balance struck in these corruption cases. Corruption should not be protected by the US Constitution, but the executive branch shouldn't be able to claim corruption to pierce the very real protections of the "Speech and Debate" clause. Smarter people than I need to find a way to strike that balance.

It appears that three people who are smarter than I am couldn't find a way to strike that balance. Now the case goes to the full court, which appears to me to consist of thirteen judges.

I won't pretend to know with certainty how en banc hearings operate, but humor me for a moment. I think we can assume that the three judges panel that unanimously reversed the lower court (Judges Kavanaugh, Ginsburg and Williams) will hold similar positions in the en banc hearing. Therefore, to overturn the panel's opinion, a supermajority of seven of the ten remaining judges would have to find that Mr. Feeney is not protected by the "Speech or Debate" clause. This would lead to a 7-6 reversal of the original Court of Appeals decision.

Smart money says that former Rep. Feeney's statements to the Ethics Committee are protected under the "Speech or Debate" clause.

==========



Mr. Feeney in a 2008 campaign commercial apologizing for his Jack Abramoff-funded trip to Scotland. In it, he claims "I did everything I could to make it right." Apparently this was not entirely accurate. He did not want to let a grand jury review his statements to the House Ethics Committee.

=============

Check in again soon. I have more to say about this matter.

Robert Coughlin: SENTENCING DATE SET

Robert Coughlin is a former Justice Department official who pled guilty to violating a conflict-of-interest statute related to the Abramoff scandal. He admitted accepting gifts from Team Abramoff in return for performing official acts. A status conference is scheduled later this week in the case of USA vs. Robert Coughlin. As a status conference approaches in these kinds of cases, the prosecution and defense typically file a Joint Motion to Continue. This means that the case isn't ready for sentencing and asks the judge to revisit the matter in 90 days. The DoJ and Mr. Coughlin's attorney, Joshua Berman,¹ didn't ask the Court to revisit the case in three months. Both sides asked US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to schedule an actual sentencing date: November 24, 2009.

From the Joint Motion to Adjourn Status Conference and Set Sentencing Date:

1. On April 22, 2008, Robert Coughlin appeared before Your Honor and pled guilty to a one-count Information in the above-captioned case. Because Mr. Coughlin was cooperating in the investigation of others, including Kevin A. Ring, Your Honor scheduled a status conference in lieu of a sentencing date, for September 18, 2008.

2. On September 5, 2008, the federal grand jury for the District of Columbia indicted Kevin Ring on ten counts, in Case No. 08-274. Mr. Ring was arraigned on September 8, 2008. Trial currently is set in that matter to begin on September 9, 2009 before Your Honor.

[...]

4. Mr. Coughlin's cooperation in the prosecution of Mr. Ring is continuing. In light of the September 9, 2009 trial date in the Ring matter and the fact that Mr. Coughlin resides out of state, the parties jointly request that the status conference in Mr. Coughlin's case be adjourned. The parties also believe that another status date is unnecessary and that this matter can be set for sentencing, to occur after the conclusion of the Ring trial.

After reading this document, it appears that Mr. Coughlin's cooperation almost solely related to the prosecution of Mr. Ring. Yes, paragraph 1 mentions that Mr. Coughlin was cooperating in the investigation of "others" (plural), and we don't doubt that Mr. Coughlin did help prosecutors understand the roles of people other than Mr. Ring. We just believe that Mr. Ring was the primary subject of Mr. Coughlin's cooperation.

It appears that Mr. Coughlin has held himself accountable for his actions and has assisted investigators to the satisfaction of the Justice Department. Kudos to Mr. Coughlin.

Let's compare and contrast Mr. Coughlin's Joint Motion to Set Sentencing Date to John Albaugh's Joint Motion to Continue Status Conference that we reviewed yesterday:

Similarities: Messrs. Coughlin and Albaugh both appear to be cooperating to the satisfaction of the Justice Department. The cooperation of both men seems to be almost wholly related to Mr. Ring's prosecution.

Differences: Lawyers are asking for a hard sentencing date for Mr. Coughlin. The parties in Mr. Albaugh's case didn't ask for a sentencing date, but strongly suggested that Mr. Albaugh's cooperation will conclude by "late-2009". Presumably, Mr. Albaugh's sentencing could be completed shortly thereafter.

Why are the two men being treated differently? The ACR Blog can't answer that question. Given that the DoJ wants to move forward with Mr. Coughlin's sentencing, though, our speculation yesterday that Mr. Albaugh's cooperation is nearing its end appears more likely to be accurate.

The ACR Blog believes that the events of the past two days augur well for former Rep. Ernest Istook (a.k.a. Representative 4) for the reasons I mentioned yesterday.

For those holding out that former Rep. Istook will be held legally accountable, remember that National Journal reporter Peter Stone interviewed two sources familiar with the investigation who told him to expect a plea or indictment of a "bigger fish" early this summer. Early summer has ended, and we haven't seen a plea or indictment. The ACR Blog believes the only way former Rep. Istook will be convicted is if he is that "bigger fish". It is more likely, though, that Rep. Istook is off the hook.

::

¹ As an interesting aside, Joshua Berman is the only lawyer we know of to represent two Abramoff scandal figures. In addition to representing Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Berman is also the lawyer for Kevin Koonce, a former aide to former New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg.

John Albaugh's Cooperation

Today in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, a Joint Motion to Continue Status Conference (.pdf) was filed in the case of USA vs. John Albaugh. Basically this document asks Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to delay the sentencing process for John Albaugh due to his continuing cooperation. Mr. Albaugh was a former aide to former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) and figures prominently in the indictment of Kevin Ring.

If all we learn from such a document is that a status conference has been reset, the ACR Blog typically won't mention Motions to Continue. Of course, there is something different in this Motion:

The government anticipates that Mr. Albaugh's cooperation will continue for the foreseeable future, and in any event well into late-2009.

Normally the government doesn't set an anticipated conclusion date of a defendant's cooperation. The ACR Blog can't get inside the head of the lawyers who drafted this document. We don't know if there truly is something significant about "late-2009" or not.

Mr. Ring's trial is expected to begin in early September and last about a month. The ACR Blog wonders if the conclusion of Mr. Ring's trial really is the end of Mr. Albaugh's cooperation.

Court documents related to Mr. Albaugh's plea deal identify former Rep. Istook as "Representative 4". When the DoJ uses codenames like "Representative 4", the ACR Blog infers that the person identified faces legal jeopardy. Not all Congressmen are given such codenames. Recall that former Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) was identified as "the New Mexico tribe's U.S. Representative", not "Representative 6".

Perhaps we're making a mountain out of a molehill here, but does the possible conclusion of Mr. Albaugh's cooperation in "late-2009" portend well for Rep. Istook? We'll certainly be watching in three months to see what is said about Mr. Albaugh's cooperation at that time. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Albaugh's cooperation is still needed after Mr. Ring's trial.

Washington Post Imitates CREA

Katharine Weymouth, Publisher and CEO of the Washington Post has apologized for and canceled plans that appear to sell access to top government officials in exchange for cash money:

I want to apologize for a planned new venture that went off track and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity. A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home...

Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor.

The ACR Blog believes that Ms. Weymouth's apologize is sincere. She identified the specific act for which she was apologizing and conceded that the plans were inappropriate.

But the ACR Blog sees a similarity between the now-canceled Washington Post dinners and an episode in the Jack Abramoff scandal. The Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) was an "astroturf" organization ostensively created to ... well, we're not sure what it was purportedly supposed to do. But we do know that its leader, Italia Federici, liked to host parties where, in exchange for money, sponsors could gain access to government officials such as Department of Interior brass Gale Norton and Steven Griles.

From none other than the Washington Post:

The Council for Republican Environmental Advocacy, founded by Norquist and Norton, who resigned as interior secretary earlier this year, also appeared to have been used "as an extension of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying organization," the report said.

Abramoff directed his client Indian tribes to donate a total of about $500,000 to the group, telling them that the donation was a way to cultivate Norton at the Interior Department, which oversees the tribes and their casinos. E-mails show that Abramoff told the tribes that they would be CREA's "trustees" and that Norton would "host" a series of CREA dinners. Interior Department documents obtained by The Washington Post suggest that Norton was an invited guest at a CREA dinner, not a host.

The ACR Blog can't see any difference between the dinners hosted by CREA and the dinners hosted by the Washington Post. Except for the immensely significant difference that the Washington Post showed enough wisdom to back out of its plans.

Gov. Sarah Palin's Indictment

Lefty sites have gone haywire with a rumor that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will soon be indicted. Of course these hopes are mere fantasy. The FBI says there is no investigation into Gov. Palin.

The ACR Blog finds it disturbing how eager the left is to fantasize about non-existent scandal in its political opponents. And it isn't the first time, either. Remember the crazy stories that Gov. Palin's daughter Bristol was the real mother of Gov. Palin's youngest child, Trigg?

While we might find comfort in the fact that this is only the latest ugly example of libelous character assassination, the left's desire for unfounded criminal indictments does have even more serious consequences. In Travis County, Tom DeLay still faces politically inspired criminal charges initiated by former District Attorney Ronnie Earle. These charges have no merit either, but lefties in Texas believe that Mr. Earle is an excellent candidate for statewide office precisely because he attempts to throw political opponents in jail on trumped up charges.

The left should be embarrassed about this. I predict they won't be. In fact, there will be another example of the left trying to criminalize its political opponents. Sad, but true.

Fraser Verrusio gets Pro Bono Attorney from Baker Botts

Readers of the ACR Blog have long known that indicted scandal figure Fraser Verrusio, also known as "Staffer D" in court documents, was being represented by a public defender. According to a document filed in US District Court (.pdf) for the District of Columbia earlier this week, this has changed. Mr. Verrusio will be represented on a pro-bono basis by Baker Botts attorney Sabita J. Soneji. Interestingly, Ms. Soneji has Houston ties in her background ... she attended UH.

Admitted felon and Abramoff scandal participant Michael Scanlon was also represented by a Baker Botts criminal defense attorney, Stephen Braga. Mr. Braga still represents Mr. Scanlon, but Mr. Braga has since moved to the firm of Ropes and Gray. (A status hearing is scheduled for July 16, 2009 for Mr. Scanlon. Expect a joint motion from Mr. Braga and the DoJ to reset that status hearing due to Mr. Scanlon's continued cooperation.)

The ACR Blog has long wondered how many of these scandal participants have been able to retain high-powered legal defense. According to public filings, unindicted figures such as Mr. Verrusio's former boss¹ Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees (Rep. Young has spent in excess of $1 million). Even if indicted defendants like Kevin Ring are spending half that amount in attorney fees the ACR Blog has to wonder where that money coming from.

Now we have a new question: Why would a high-powered law firm like Baker Botts represent a low-level scandal participant like Mr. Verrusio for free? The ACR Blog believes the answers to those questions would be quite revealing.

==

¹ In addition to being Mr. Verrusio's former boss, Rep. Young was also the boss of Justin Sprinzen when he was a staffer on the House Transportation Committee. In fact, Mr. Sprinzen still works for the House Transportation Committe, but Rep. Young is no longer the senior Republican on that panel.

Judge Huvelle to Kevin Ring: DENIED (For the most part)

On June 1, we reviewed a number of motions filed in USA vs. Kevin Ring. Now, on July 1, US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle has issued an order related to these motions. Judge Huvelle sees two distinct types of crimes in the indictment. The first set (Counts I-VIII and a specific part of Counts IX and X) involve allegedly unlawful lobbying of federal officials (essentially bribery). The second set of crimes involve the alleged false statements Mr. Ring told to investigators (Counts IX and X). This distinction guided Judge Huvelle's decisions. Let’s go through each motion and see what Judge Huvelle said about each one:

1. Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence (Office Emails)

Argument: Kevin Ring had an expectation of privacy related to emails he sent/received on his company email accounts at Greenberg Traurig and Preston Gates and therefore are inadmissible under the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable searches.

Result: DENIED
Commentary: The ACR Blog has always believed this was a weak argument.

::

2. Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Argument: A conflict of interest exists surrounding the head of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, William Welch II. Henry Schuelke, an investigator hired by a former employer of Mr. Ring, Greenberg Traurig, was expected to be a witness against Mr. Ring at the same time that he is investigating Mr. Welch. To resolve this perceived conflict, the prosecution team should be disqualified.

Result: DENIED
Commentary: Judge Huvelle was willing to let Counts IX and X remain unsevered where they related to Mr. Ring's efforts to obtain a job for Julie Doolittle. Mr. Schuelke was likely going to testify against Mr. Ring with respect to Counts IX and X. Therefore, Judge Huvelle must have denied this motion on the merits. The ACR Blog never understood those who saw a conflict of interest surrounding Mr. Welch.

::

3. Motion to Sever Counts

Argument: Counts I-VIII involved alleged acts of unlawful lobbying. Counts IX and X involve alleged lies Mr. Ring told Mr. Schuelke. The two sets of charges are so different that they should be tried separately. Also, if a jury hears evidence about the alleged lies in Counts IX and X, it will prejudice their deliberations on Counts I-VIII.

Result: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Most of the alleged lies told by Mr. Ring involve fraudulent billing and kickbacks from Michael Scanlon's firm, Capitol Campaign Strategies (CCS). These matters are sufficiently different from the alleged unlawful lobbying activities that they warrant a separate trial. However, alleged lies that Mr. Ring told Mr. Schuelke regarding Mr. Ring's efforts to obtain a job for Julie Doolittle, wife of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) (Representative 5) are similar to other efforts to unlawfully lobby federal officials. Therefore, this narrow section of Counts IX and X may be tried with the other counts related to alleged unlawful lobbying.

Because Judge Huvelle severed Counts IX and X to the extent that they related to fraudulent billing and kickbacks, she also struck paragraphs 27-29 from the indictment:

27. Defendant RING and his coconspirators used the growing success of their lobbying practice, which had been built in part by corrupt means, to retain existing clients and attract future clients. As part of their marketing efforts, defendant RING and his coconspirators persuaded the New Mexico tribe that the hiring of Scanlon to perform certain grassroots and public-relations services was critical to achieve the New Mexico tribe's lobbying goals and objectives.

28. Abramoff and Scanlon had a preexisting profit-sharing relationship. Defendant RING, Abramoff, and Scanlon agreed and understood that defendant RING would receive approximately five percent of the total revenues generated by Scanlon from the New Mexico tribe. Defendant RING, Abramoff, and Scanlon did not disclose to the New Mexico tribe any of the payments by Scanlon to defendant RING or Abramoff.

29. Abramoff used funds derived from his lobbying practice and the Scanlon payments in part to finance the scheme to defraud. This included, but was not limited to, the things of values provided to public officials as well as bonuses, payments, and other financial benefits provided to defendant RING and other coconspirators.

Commentary: Judge Huvelle has drawn a bright line between acts related to unlawful lobbying and other allegedly unlawful acts. She is committed to making this trial focused solely on Mr. Ring's alleged unlawful lobbying. Even though Judge Huvelle would have allowed the government to try part of Counts IX and X with Counts I-VIII, the government today filed an Unopposed Motion to Sever Counts IX and X. It remains to be seen whether the government issues a second indictment to reinstate Counts IX and X. Update: A commenter at Wendy's place says a new indictment is not necessary. Judge Huvelle's decision means that there will be two trials ... one for Counts I-VIII and the other for Counts IX and X. It isn't clear to me, but I suspect that the sticken paragraphs will be reinstated for the Count IX and X trial.

::

4. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Uncharged Conduct

Argument: There are three types of evidence that the government wants to use against Mr. Ring that are not mentioned in the indictment. The government should not be able to use this evidence at trial. These three types of evidence include evidence of alleged (1) Fraudulent billing; (2) Kickbacks from CCS; and instances of (3) Unlawful lobbying activities not mentioned in the indictment.

Result: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Evidence of alleged (1) fraudulent billing and (2) kickbacks from CCS will not be allowed. Evidence of uncharged instances of alleged (3) unlawful lobbying will be allowed. Some evidence of alleged (1) fraudulent billing may be used if the alleged fraud was meant to conceal recipients of meals/tickets in an effort to further the alleged conspiracy of (3) unlawful lobbying.

Commentary: The unsevered Counts I-VIII related to instances of alleged (3) Unlawful lobbying. While evidence of Mr. Ring's alleged (1) fraudulent billing and receipt of (2) kickbacks from CCS might be relevant to the severed portion of Counts IX and X, they are not relevant to Counts I-VIII. Judge Huvelle will allow evidence of uncharged acts of (3) unlawful lobbying because Counts I-VIII are involved alleged acts of unlawful lobbying. Judge Huvelle will also allow evidence of uncharged (1) fraudulent billing when the fraudulent billing contains elements of (3) unlawful lobbying.

::

5. Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence (Search of Mr. Ring's residence)

Argument: All evidence seized from Mr. Ring's residence must be suppressed because the search warrant was so broad that it was in effect a general search prohibited by the 4th Amendment.

Result: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Judge Huvelle refused to deny any evidence responsive to the search warrant. Source materials used by Mr. Ring in his book draft are allowed, but not items that "could be" source material.

Commentary: Read the Motion to see what items were specified in the search warrant. The search warrant specified one class of items that the defense found particularly objectionable -- a draft and the source material for a book where Mr. Ring allegedly indicates “that he had taken certain actions as a lobbyist with a corrupt intent". Judge Huvelle seems to say that the draft and source materials are admissible, but that items that speculatively "could be" source material are not admissible. It isn't clear who gets to determine which items are indeed source material and which items merely "could be" source material. At any rate, we don't view this order to be too damaging to the Justice Department. After all, the only evidence Judge Huvelle ruled inadmissible is evidence the jury would have given the least weigh to. The DoJ probably wouldn't have used such evidence anyway.

========

Overall, Judge Huvelle's order must be considered a victory for the government. With respect to the counts related to unlawful lobbying activities, the only thing the government lost was their weakest evidence from the search of Mr. Ring's home.

Mr. Ring won't be sleeping any easier in July than he did in June.

========

Wendy at Unheard No More! examines the same documents.

Rep. Don Young to Seek Re-Election

L-R: Rep. Don Young (R-Pork Barrel), Justin Sprinzen

The ACR Blog's Alaskan correspondent points us to a report that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) will seek re-election in 2010:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - U.S. Rep. Don Young and his anti-Big Government message will seek a 20th term in the office.

Young, 76, filed Monday with the Division of Elections and said he wanted to make it clear to potential challengers that he was not retiring.

"There's people that are interested in this job," Young said. "Let's not kid yourself. If there are, I want them to know there's no chance that I'm not going to run. I'm going to continue to run as long as I'm able to do the job."

No challengers have filed to face Young in the 2012 race.

A lot of weird stuff appears in this article by the Associated Press.

First, who in the world would characterize Rep. Young as anti-Big Government? Rep. Young is the king of tainted earmark. Have we already forgotten the Bridge to Nowhere? And that is just one of the more recent examples of Rep. Young's spending excess. Rep. Young is the embodiment of Big Government. Behavior like his is one of the major reasons our party lost its Congressional majority in 2006.

Next, I don't know if we should read anything into Rep. Young's extremely early announcement that he's running for re-election. After all, the 2008 election was only eight months ago ... the 2010 election is 16 months from now. Our freshman Congressman, Rep. Pete Olson (R-Sugar Land), hasn't felt the need to make such an announcement yet. Maybe Rep. Olson is more confident about his chances of success than Rep. Young.

Lastly, I can't believe that editors at the AP didn't catch the statement that Rep. Young has no announced challengers in 2012. Should we be looking at 2010 first? [The ACR Blog has no editors.]


Lt. Governor Sean Parnell (R-Alaska)

Let's hope Alaskan voters don't make the same mistake they did in 2008 when they nominated a fatally flawed candidate (Sen. Ted Stevens) and lost the seat to a Democrat. Let's hope Alaskan Republicans nominate a clean candidate over Rep. Young. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell would make a great Congressman.

Justin Sprinzen worked for Rep. Young in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Sprinzen Goes to Washington - Part I

Justin Sprinzen, 2001

In our previous post, "Who is Justin Sprinzen?", we provided some interesting background information on a man the ACR Blog referred to as an enigma: someone with deep ties to a number of important scandal figures, yet he himself does not seem to be a target of federal prosecutors in any of their on-going corruption probes. But perhaps federal prosecutors may want to "invite" Mr. Sprinzen in for a chat - under oath - as in all likelihood he would have much to tell them.

As we saw in the last post, Mr. Sprinzen's penchant for making bad choices has ironically left him in a position where he could be a very valuable witness to the DOJ. For example, he made an extremely bad choice when he apparently elected to join the Zeta Chi fraternity as an undergrad at UNH-Durham. At or around this time, his fraternity was convicted of felony under-age alcohol sales and misdemeanor prostitution charges. After he moved to Washington DC, Mr. Sprinzen made two more bad choices: continuing his friendships - and even sharing a house - with Todd Anthony Boulanger and Shane Elliot Tessimond. Both of these miscreants would ultimately cop guilty pleas to felonies, the former for his "Best Supporting Actor" role in the Abramoff scandal and the latter for stealing money from the Kerry for President campaign (and the identity of a former co-worker). We can only imagine what Mr. Sprinzen has witnessed first-hand, from his early frat boy daze in New Hampshire, through his daze as an F Street Gang member, staffer for Don Young (R-AK), and staffer for House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (a juicy target of federal prosecutors). But before we get ahead of ourselves, let's pick up where we left off last time, shall we?

Mr. Sprinzen graduated with a degree in Political Science from UNH in 1996, and the ACR Blog suspects - but cannot prove - that upon his arrival on the Hill in the Summer/Fall of 1996 he moved into a shared house at the invitation of his Zeta Chi frat brother Mr. Boulanger. Mr. Boulanger had just begun working on the Hill as a staffer for Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.) in 1996, while his other frat brother (Mr. Tessimond) continued his hard work in the New Hampshire State House to "improv(e) the criminal system through preventative measures and increasing deterrents."

According to this bio, Mr. Sprinzen worked as a paralegal for five years (1996-2001).

Another bio identifies the firm as Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson and also reveals that prior to 2001, Mr. Sprinzen also worked "as director of business development for SpeakOut.com/Ntercept Online Research". The ACR Blog believes that SpeakOut came first, a still-existing but mostly moribund site that allows very vain people a chance to think that their political opinions matter (e.g. click here to weigh in on who the GOP should choose as their next Presidential candidate - for 2008).

After the Three Stooges (Messrs. Boulanger, Tessimond, and Sprinzen) were reunited at 328 F Street NE in early 1997 (after Mr. Tessimond completed his criminal deterrence work in New Hampshire), the group morphed into the Frat Boyz N The Hill. Records are a bit sparse for the 1996-1998 period, but thanks to Robert "Big Pappa" Turner (and WebArchive), we have a pretty good idea of what was going on with the Boyz (including what was overheard) from early 1999 forward. Basically, it can be summed up as drinking, drinking and drinking - interspersed with making juvenile comments about sex. Indeed, these comments are so immature that the ACR Blog has decided not to link to them, despite Mr. Boulanger's threats against "knotholes" and the obvious temptation to embarrass these delinquents further. [ACR Note: Of course we already know that sometimes the boyz were willing to go much further than simply making comments about sex, but Zeta Chi is not the vocus of this post. Nor is Kevin Ring and unnamed "others" who gathered for a bachelor party for an unnamed lobbyist at a strip club.]

Once again we are left scratching our heads at Mr. Sprinzen's bad choices. Not only did he allow some amateur papparazzi to take his picture while cavorting all over DC drinking, but he also allowed the same individual to document numerous juvenile sexual comments and innuendos made by himself (and his future wife) and post all of this material on the internet for posterity. Considering that Mr. Sprinzen was at least contemplating running for elective office someday, we think that, putting it mildly, Mr. Sprinzen's behavior was unwise.

The period of 1999-2001 was a particularly tumultuous and exhilarating time for Mr. Sprinzen and the Frat Boyz N The Hill. Mr. Boulanger would leave the employ of Sen. Smith and join Team Abramoff as a lobbyist at Preston-Gates in 1999. Meanwhile, Mr. Sprinzen was falling in love with Nicole Hagenbuch (a 1992 graduate of Dimond High School in Anchorage, Alaska) and decided to leave the "House of the Homies" in the period 1999-2000. Erin Hass would move in to replace him. Shortly thereafter Messrs. Sprinzen and Boulanger would have a major falling out with Mr. Tessimond as he continued to lose his vocus pursuing his "self-indulgent lifestyle". This entire time period was characterized by extremely heavy drinking on and off the Hill, and of course getting plastered at those infamous Zeta Chi reunions in 1999 and 2000.

Mr. Sprinzen would leave his paralegal job at Fried, Frank and accept a new position as a lobbyist (What else?) at the American Financial Services Association sometime around March/April 2001. Shortly thereafter, on July 21, 2001, Mr. Sprinzen and Ms. Hagenbuch tied the knot in White Plains, N.Y. in a wedding attended by "a who's who list of DC political and social players." At least that's the way it was described and documented by his former roommate Robert "Big Pappa" Turner. The "who's who list" included such luminaries as Mr. Turner himself (of course, holding wine glass on far left), Mr. Boulanger (who was in the wedding party), Ms. Hass (on left) and a variety of other miscreants not worthy of our attention or identification. (Yes, we know who you are ... you're not as "Lucky" as you think.)

Back on The Hill after the wedding, Mr. Turner appears to have made a rather transparent attempt to raise Mr. Sprinzen's profile on the Hill by featuring him as a very serious (and sober) looking Lobbyist of the Week in Hill Zoo. According to Mr Turner:

You love them when they buy you lunch - you hate them when they ask for that teeny, tiny appropriations rider. Now you get to see them in a new light. Each week we'll profile a Washington lobbyist and ask them important, pointed questions.

[It occurs to the ACR Blog that an intrepid investigator from the DOJ ought to ask Mr. Turner if he had any knowledge of Mr. Sprinzen or other lobbyists/housemates/drinking buddies paying for lunch in return for an appropriation. Of course, any statute of limitations has long passed ... unless there have been waivers.]

But sooner or later, Mr. Sprinzen must have figured out: why bother lobbying Hill staffers for that "teeny, tiny appropriations rider"? Why not just become a Hill staffer for the master of tainted appropriations, that being Rep. Don Young (R-Pork Barrel)?

To be continued in Mr. Sprinzen Goes to Washington - Part II...