Attorneys for indicted scandal figure Fraser Capone Verrusio have been trying to get Count Two of the indictment, an illegal gratuities charge, dismissed. The defense claims that the Justice Department has not linked the alleged gratuity, a trip to the 2003 World Series, to an "official act". Both sides appeared at a Motion Hearing today in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts to argue this matter, and the ACR Blog's Washington Correspondent was present for the proceedings.
In a court document filed on March 30, the government offers at least three alleged "official acts" related to the illegal gratuity charge in Count 2 (Doc. 33 at 2):
(a) meeting with [United Rentals'] lobbyists about amendments that would come before Verrusio
(b) advising the lobbyists on the need to improve their proposed amendments and offering to discuss the matter with them further
(c) counseling the lobbyists on how to defeat an effort to strip the amendments from the Transportation bill
The government identifies a fourth "official act", Mr. Verrusio's alleged offer to insert United Rentals' amendments in conference committee. The DoJ mentions this fourth official act in Paragraph 12 of the indictment. However, the DoJ seems to have been a little sloppy in drafting the indictment. The DoJ did not incorporate Paragraph 12 into the allegations related to the illegal gratuity charge in Count 2 (Paragraphs 24-25). The defense wants Judge Roberts to dismiss Count 2 due to this oversight. Basically, the defense claims that it isn't clear from the indictment that the grand jury properly considered Mr. Verrusio's pledge to insert UR's amendments as part of the illegal gratuity charge.
Judge Roberts stated that he believed the offer to insert the amendments was an "official act", but was not as certain with respect to the other three. Nonetheless, he seemed disinclined to dismiss Count 2. Judge Roberts felt that at this point in the case, the defendant should not face any uncertainties with respect to the charges he must defend. He ordered the Justice Department to provide a Bill of Particulars to Mr. Verrusio by June 1. Judge Roberts gave the DoJ an opportunity to convince him that the first three "official acts" (a-c above) were indeed "officials acts" under the gratuities statute. The DoJ must submit this brief by June 1 as well.
Overall, the developments in today's hearing appear to have resulted in a draw. Judge Roberts' order requiring a Bill of Particulars must be judged a win for the defense. Also, while Judge Roberts left the door open to dismissing Count 2 over the "official act" matter, our Washington Correspondent sensed that the judge was leaning toward allowing the inclusion of the offer/pledge to insert amendments as one of the "official acts" under Count 2.
Fraser Capone Verrusio
Now be aware that neither the author of the ACR Blog nor its Washington Correspondent are lawyers, so much of what happens in court is new to us. Having said that, our Washington Correspondent found it noteworthy that at the end of the hearing, Judge Roberts called Mr. Verrusio to the bench and reminded him to comply with all of his conditions of release or consequences would apply. Although the judge did not explicitly state these conditions in court, the ACR Blog reminds its readers of Mr. Verrusio's conditions of release:
1. Report (by phone) weekly to D.C. pretrial services.
2. Reside at a specific address.
3. May not travel outside continental U.S.
4. Must not have contact with former House Transportation Committee co-workers Graham Hill, Levon Boyagian and Elizabeth Megginson.
5. Must submit to a narcotics evaluation.
6. Must surrender passport.
7. May not discuss case with former House Transportation Committee co-worker Lloyd Jones.
We're not sure which, if any, of the above conditions may have led to this rather stern warning delivered by Judge Roberts in open court. All we can say is that U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle did not give a similar admonishment to Kevin Ring in any of the proceedings attended by our Washington Correspondent. Perhaps the two judges just have a difference in style.
Lastly, our Washington Correspondent noted that Mr. Verrusio seemed uncomfortable being in the courtroom. At one point, Mr. Verrusio briskly left the courtroom, and a member of the defense team had to go outside and retrieve him in response to a request from Judge Roberts. Following the judge's admonishment, Mr. Verrusio made another quick dash for the door. In fact, he easily beat Judge Roberts himself out of the courtroom.
21 comments:
Your last comment is revealing. Its disrespectful for anyone to leave the court before the Judge. Typically all stand as the Judge makes his exit and only after he/she is gone do you make your exit.
ACR
Your Washington Correspondent is as blinded as you are with the crack team of DOJ lawyers. Calling this a draw is laughable. I too have a source who was there and I'm told something very different unfolded.
Let's get to the play by play from yesterday. Judge Roberts continues to ask DOJ for specific acts and proof of those acts to make the conspiracy charge. Meeting with lobbyists is not an official act. It happens every day on both sides of the aisle. Young Kendall Day continues to bob and weave when Roberts asks him for specific actions taken by Verrusio. As I've posted before, there is no record that any amendment on the House side was inserted about the equipment rental company. So just because some lobbyists try to get their language inserted does not mean that Verrusio or any other House staffer actually put the language in. On the other hand, it is clear that scumbag Trevor Blackann did in fact do this on the Senate side.
As to your description of Verrusio leaving the courtroom, Roberts dismissed Verrusio, so he left the courtroom only to find out Roberts meant to reiterate his release conditions. So he was called back...only to have you describe it as something out of the ordinary rather than the casual mistake on Roberts part. It is very misleading for your Washington Correspondent to portray this as he did. Facts matter.
You correctly state that styles among judges differ. And if you ask anyone from the federal bar, Roberts is known to be the slowest of all of them. In past hearings he has said he wants to move this case forward to trial, yet here he is continuing to drag this case out until 2011 at the current pace. Huvelle on the other hand runs a tight ship and understands how the Hill works based on the number of cases she's seen. Roberts has no idea how Congress or for that matter a conference committee works and is assuming that just because a staffer works for a member, that he/she can hide language in bills. It's not easy and there are checks on this type of behavior.
This ruling was a huge victory for Verrusio as Young Kendall Day and his side-kick Peter now have to inform the defense as to what they think he actually did that was an official act and part of some grand conspiracy. There’s a concept, tell the accused what he did so that he can defend himself!
I was happy to see your recent posting on DeLay since this case is no longer about Members of Congress, rather it’s just about DOJ trying to save face for wasting years and dollars chasing phantom charges against staff. Six years and this is all we have. Again, here’s hoping that Lanny Breuer is paying attention to the egg on DOJ’s face.
Dude Balt:
You write:
This ruling was a huge victory for Verrusio as Young Kendall Day and his side-kick Peter now have to inform the defense as to what they think he actually did that was an official act and part of some grand conspiracy. There’s a concept, tell the accused what he did so that he can defend himself!
Look, I stated that I thought the indictment was sloppy, particularly the failure to incorporate Paragraph 12 into Count 2. But all the Bill of Particulars (BoP) does is better define the charges. As your comment suggests, this should have been done earlier. So while getting a BoP is obviously a win for the defense, as I pointed out in the post, the defense is only getting what it should have had all along. Not sure that I would call that "a huge victory for Verrusio."
It is certainly possible that, again as I pointed out, the DoJ will not be able to convince Judge Roberts to accept all four of their allegations as cognizable "official acts" under the Gratuities statute. I think I made that clear in the post. However, the DoJ only needs one "official act" to move forward. Mr. Verrusio, in his motion, had requested the dismissal of Count 2. He did not get that. Therefore, in my opinion, the hearing was a draw. The defense even conceded that it was highly likely that the grand jury considered Mr. Verrusio's alleged pledge to insert the three amendments during the Conference Committee as they drew up their indictment. Judge Roberts was clear that he viewed this particular allegation as an "official act". If I were to engage in similar rhetorical overkill, I might have called that "a huge loss for Verrusio." Now depending on how well the DoJ does their homework...
As for Fraser Verrusio's behavior, it is my understanding that a defense attorney speculated that Mr. Verrusio had left the courtroom to take a bathroom break. The description related to me doesn't fit with your explanation that Judge Roberts dismissed Mr. Verrusio and later changed his mind and wanted him to return. Of course, I admit that I was not present at the hearing. Having said that, is it not common practice for attorneys, witnesses, defendants, and even spectators to stand out of respect for the Judge until he has left the courtroom before making a beeline for the door?
With respect to your allegation that my Washington Correspondent is as "blind" as I am: He is a seasoned professional, and has excellent vision. Many others see only what they want to see.
~ACR
ACR
Are you admitting your "Rock Star" was sloppy? Rookie Day doesn't know what he's doing. This is his first case that's gone to trial (i.e. he wasn't able to bully Fraser into lying to the court to get what he wanted... another plea) and he's getting his butt handed to him by professionals. Sloppy is when it happens to some else. Tragic is when it happens to you or someone you know.
I hope someday a corruptly ambititous prosecutor makes a target of you or someone you know for perfectly legal and acceptable (at the time of the acts) behavior.
Then your blindness for the hacks at DOJ might be cured.
Anon (May 7, 2010 3:44 PM):
I don't know who drafted the Verrusio indictment. Prosecutor Peter Sprung signed it. Because I wouldn't want anyone to hang me on an honest mistake, I wouldn't hang the nameless DoJ prosecutor for his honest mistake. (Hypothetically speaking, if a Congressional staffer allegedly offered to insert legislative amendments in exchange for a trip to the World Series, that would be an ethical lapse - perhaps criminal - and not an honest mistake.)
You allude to my post where I called Kendall Day a "Rock Star". That was meant to be a reference to Jack Abramoff's own characterization of Bush White House Political Director Ken Mehlman as a "Rock Star". My impression of Mr. Day is that he is a hard worker who is performing a public service at the DoJ.
Anon, I try to be a dispassionate observer of events. When I believe the DoJ has tripped up, I'll say so. I know I'll never be 100% effective at controlling my biases, but I think I do a far better job than many of my critics.
~ACR
"My impression of Mr. Day is that he is a hard worker who is performing a public service at the DoJ."
I am sure many people at the time thought Senator Joseph McCarthy was performing a public service. There are more than a few of is in DC who understand what is happening and who would put Master Day in that camp.
Anon (May 8, 2010 5:59 AM):
There's nothing to be found in your comment other than a juvenile attack on Kendall Day's character.
~ACR
Michael Kennedy Day has made a career at the DOJ of being a bully (like McCarthy). Now that someone has stood up to him and asked him to prove his case (where are the "official acts? those mentioned are laughable), he's got his back up against the wall and will very likely lose.
Do you not see the insanity of, 6 years after Abramoff got busted, and the statute of limitations have all run, and the SCOTUS is about to invalidate the underlying premis of so many of the cases... that MKD is reaching, grasping, for a middle level staffer who had no juice at the time who may or may not have boasted he could get an amendment inserted on his friends behalf... but never did? Does not the millions of dollars of tax payer funds expended on Day's bullying tactics to advance his own career at great expense to people's lives never mind the treasury not offend you? It certainly offends me and other rational Americans.
Anon (May 9, 2010 4:53 AM):
Contrary to your comment, Judge Roberts sees an "official act". Specifically, Judge Roberts has stated that he believes that agreeing to insert and/or causing the insertion of the UR amendments (Indictment; Paragraph 12) is an "official act".
There is another theme developing in the comments. The DoJ says that Trevor Blackann will provide testimony supporting the allegation that Mr. Verrusio offered to insert the amendments at Conference Committee. More than one commenter on the ACR Blog has specifically denied that Fraser Verrusio did anything to insert such amendments. What is the basis for such statements? Are we just paying semantics here? Are we distinguishing between "offer to insert" and "actually inserting"? What are you trying to say?
~ACR
To Anon at 4:53AM,
What offends me and other rational Americans are prosecutors in the DOJ who have not gone far enough in this scandal. We need prosecutors even more aggressive & ambitious than Day who are not afraid to go after Delay, Doolittle, Don Young, & ALL of their corrupt enablers - like Verussio & probably you too by the way you make excuses for these jerks.
Frankly, I could give a crap if they get off on a technicality as long as their careers are ruined & they become such an embarrassment that no one will hire them.
Oh yeah there's one other thing that offends me Anon - people like you who are all about making excuses for these corrupt bums. I want an honest govt, you clearly don't.
I think the guy who posted at 5:44 captures my sentiments on this topic as well. Even if the DOJ made a mistake bad enough that this guy gets off, his career is ruined and thus it still has deterrent effects for any other staffers thinking of trading World Series tickets for Congressional favors.
Plus, his point about going after the Congressman is well-taken too. Why haven't these guys been indicted yet? If anything the DOJ has been too timid. No doubt that's why JD Hayworth and Richard Pombo are running for Congress again this year. I suppose in 2012 we'll have Delay and Doolittle running again as well.
to the last two anons... "why haven't these guys been indicted yet.." It's not because the DOJ has been too timid.. it's because, despite what you may believe based on your limited understanding of the law.... they didn't committ a crime!! You are case in point to the McCarthy analogy. Take a legitimate scandal, allow for the bad guys to go to jail, add opportunistic, ambitious, and unscrupulous young whipper snapper and you have the perfect storm.
Were there corrupt people in this scandal? Absolutely! Have the true criminals been brought to justice? Some have and some probably haven't (but going after these staffers is ridiculous (and by the way, I disagree their careers are over - I suspect there's money in the books they will write about a corrupt DOJ under William Welch)). Is going after Fraser a desperate attempt to save face on behalf of a rookie, wanna-be Eliot Ness a very expensive and embarrasing episode on DOJ's behalf? You bet your sweet a** it is.
To Anon at 6:55,
First of all, ACR should reset his clock. Because it ain't on Texas time. Putting that aside for the moment, are you seriously going to tell me that Delay or Doolittle hasn't committed any crimes? What kool-aid are you drinking??
Not sure what you mean by "take a legitimate scandal." Did you mean illegitimate? I'm confused, as you seem to dismiss the whole thing, but then turn around and call it legitimate. Then you say "allow for the bad guys to go to jail." But the problem is that the bad guys are NOT going to jail, because the prosecutors haven't even indicted them yet! You're double talking here!
Then you spew this crap: "Were there corrupt people in this scandal? Absolutely! Have the true criminals been brought to justice? Some have and some probably haven't (but going after these staffers is ridiculous..." What made you such a resident expert on this whole scandal, whether you view it as legitimate or not? And who the heck appointed you the Judge? And tell me why going after staffers is "ridiculous"? Because I want to see them share a jail cell with their corrupt bosses! The more the merrier, and I don't mean those Club Feds with minimal security.
The only intelligent thing you say is to let them write books. I agree. But get them the hell out of my Congress. They can also write books in jail by the way...
Anon (May 9, 2010 6:55 PM):
Books. I imagine that you're overestimating the public's desire to read books by these scandal figures.
Outrage: The Ambiguous Official Act - by Fraser Verrusio
As much as I pay attention to this scandal, I doubt I'd buy that book.
~ACR
Good Lord.
The vitriol along with the lack of understanding of the Hill and the law here is breathtaking sometimes. Not to mention perspective.
If anybody commenting here is under any notion that any of these four - Copland, Hirni, Boulanger, or Verussio are going to spend a night in jail, I've got some real estate in Roswell, NM I'd like to offer to you.
Copland, Hirni, and Boulanger's pleas will be vacated along with HSF. YES, ACR, Trever is facing other charges. However, the optics, along with the fact that MKD stretched the facts (using a felon's plea - I don't believe there's any concrete evidence Fraser offered to include the amendment, and even if he did - that is not an official act - he would have to actually have done it...) will force Roberts (or at the very least the appeals judge) to dismiss his case. Fraser was smart, he hired someone with impeccable integrity and respect at DOJ - not to mention the ability to talk to the adults over there.
I'm all for clean government - but you ought to know from civics that there are three braches of government.. all three are capable of wrongdoing.
Anon above,
Your attitude is exactly the problem. It is most definately NOT our lack of understanding of the Hill (as you put it), it is that we DO understand and we see it as the corrupt rotten system it is. Now you may choose to accept that as fact, and play in the sandbox with these criminals, but I for one reject "business as usual" on the Hill and believe sending a few of them to jail will help clean it up. When your cesspool is overflowing, you may choose to go for a swim if you like, but I for one will call in the professionals to root it out and clean it up. Everyone outside the Beltway knows this and is absolutely disgusted with what we see. You are obviously inside the Beltway and offer nothing but excuses.
whoa easy ACR. I know you have a sensitivity when someone referes to conspiracies but I was just trying to add some perspective. From your perspective you see the system as rotten - I get and can understand that. My point was, be that as it may - the facts on the ground are what they are... 6 years after the Abramoff scandal broke, who has gone to jail? And now that it's winding down and MKD (who as you point out was in law school when this stuff was going on and didn't have any perspective) is left holding the bag because one of the 4 people he went out refused to plead to a crime he doesn't think he committed. BTW, don't you feel a little cheated, given your perspective, that Fraser is the best they could do? I mean, if Kevin Ring, Jack's right-hand-man can't get convicted in a DC court because he arguably didn't committ a crime (again you have a differnet perspective but we're sticking to the facts here), do you really think there's a jury in the land that will take Master Kendall's word for it? Especially when Berman makes him look like a whiny snot-nosed kid in court?
I actually understand your frustration with the broken system. But two wrongs don't make a right and what the DOJ has done to some decent people (especially when you have the chairman of the Ways and Means committee - the tax writing committee committing major crimes) is unconscionable. Remember, everything you know you've read from public documents filed by the DOJ. these are the MOST favorable items out there - there is no exculpatory language in there because the DOJ is putting the best possible spin they can on what they want to do. Often, they rely on confessed felons for direction.
You're usually a rational guy, just take a deep breath and ask yourself, are you satisfied? was all this worth it? Because if I'm sitting in Texas and teaching school or whatever it is you do, and millions of dollars and half a decade later, the best the United States government can to do bring justice to "the scandal of the century" is to get an indictment (but not a conviction) for a mid-level staffer who had too many beers and said, "yeah, sure, I can get that amendment passed for you" when in fact he didn't and couldn't. I'd feel cheated and upset too.
Anon (May 11, 2010 3:19 PM):
I welcome anonymous comments on this blog. Whenever I leave a comment, though, I am always logged into my Blogger account as ACR. I represent to you that I do not insulate myself from, nor do I manufacture any comments under the cover of anonymity.
I'd like to extend an invitation to you to email me at gregintx22-at-yahoo-dot-com. I promise to extend to you the same courtesy and discretion that I give all anonymous commenters.
~ACR
ACR,
Now don't go getting all soft and fuzzy with these apologists for corruption. If you left it to the guy above (he's gotta be a guy considering the testerone), Abramoff would still be in power and he'd probably be working for him.
I said it once and I'll say it again: send them all to jail. At the very least, indict them in order to end their careers. Otherwise where's the detterrent?? I fault the DOJ for being too lax in this case; overly aggressive my butt!
As for the Anon above - Dude, like I'm flattered that you confuse me with ACR. Thank you for the compliment. But I can't claim credit for everything written in this thread, just some of it.
ACR
None of my comments are manufactured (not sure where you're going with that). In fact, if the adults looking into the corrupt folks at DOJ (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/13/fresh-allegations-emerge-in-probe-of-stevens-prosecutors/ ) needed any help, I could produce two dozen witnesses attesting to the incomptetence at best, self-serving hiding the ball at worst tactics that have made the Welch/Day crew infamous in and around DC. No, I like to stick to the facts... for they are stubburn things.
Anon (May 14, 2010 3:31 AM):
Re: the "manufacture" comment
I just wanted to let you know that everything I do is this blog is on the up-and-up. I do not intend to deceive you or anyone else. If I had malicious intent, I could have shown it long ago in a more direct manner. I'd honestly prefer to take this off-blog. Please email me.
~ACR
Post a Comment