Here's an interesting snippet (page 13):
I spent two years secretly cooperating with the FBI and DOJ on an investigation into the biggest lobbying scandal of the past 40 years. I was threatened with indictment and plead guilty [sic].
[I was named Legislative Director for a Member of Congress at 24. I became a partner[1] in a major law firm at 31. I was a published author at 34. And I became a convicted felon at 36.]
Emphasis added
Mr. Ring indicates that he was writing the proposal in 2007 (page 13). This suggests that the two years Mr. Ring was "secretly cooperating with the FBI and DOJ" were 2005-2007. We don't know the extent of Mr. Ring's cooperation.
The ACR Blog believes that Mr. Ring was born in 1970. When he says that he "became a convicted felon at 36", we're concluding that Ring means he was convicted in 2006. This is all confusing because to the best of our knowledge, Mr. Ring has never been convicted of any crime. What in the world is he referring to? In order to provide context about the events of 2006, Jack Abramoff (Greenberg Traurig) pleaded guilty in January 2006. Tony Rudy (Greenberg Traurig) pleaded guilty in March 2006. Neil Volz (Greenberg Traurig) also pleaded guilty that year. It isn't unreasonable to think that Mr. Ring (Greenberg Traurig) faced immense pressure to "plead guilty" and become a "convicted felon" in 2006, but Mr. Ring did not plead and was not convicted.
At the end of day, the ACR Blog is just plain confused about this passage in Mr. Ring's book. We didn't understand it when U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle ruled this passage of Ring's book proposal inadmissible, but she was wise to do so. With all the background information that we have, this quote still doesn't make any sense to us. A jury who hasn't been following the case wouldn't have a chance of understanding it.
...
[1] It is the understanding of the ACR Blog that Greenberg Traurig did not have partners during Ring's tenure. The owners were referred to as shareholders, not partners. The significance of this distinction is not clear to us.
11 comments:
Ring calls himself a "revolutionary felon"?! He's got that half right!
Hey ACR - whaddya gonna do when this whole thing is over? You're gonna hafta get a job like the rest of us!
Isn't it possible he intended to plead, and figured out that by the time he was finished writing the book and had it published he would have already pled, so he may as well write it as a fait accompli?
Anon (July 22, 2010 3:54 AM):
Your scenario where Kevin Ring had written about his plea and conviction in the past tense even though it hadn't occurred yet is certainly plausible. In fact, that explanation is the best one I can come up with, too.
Here's a whole lot of speculation. I strongly suspect that Ring's home was searched by the FBI in April 2007, maybe even the same day as the Doolittle Raid. (You'd like my reasoning behind that speculation.)
I'm assuming that the FBI took the book proposal/draft at that time. If I'm right, the book is frozen in time in April 2007. Mr. Ring wouldn't have had the chance to make revisions to his draft after that time. (It is possible that Mr. Ring wrote the draft much earlier than that and simply never revisited it, too.)
Anyway, strolling down the speculation path, I believe that it is plausible that Mr. Ring intended to plead guilty in early 2007. Obviously something changed. Could the raid on his house changed Ring's resolve from pleading to fighting? If so, the DoJ's raid was a huge tactical mistake.
Thoughts?
~ACR
My sense is that Ring never believed he'd committed a felony but that given the deck stacked against him at the time, he intended to plead guilty so long as he got a Voltz, Heaton, type sentence, i.e. guilty on one charge of HSF and little to no jail time. He had a family and he wanted to get on with his life - he probably thought he could write the book, become a consultant, talknig head, whatever but that it wouldn't end his life. When the DOJ insisted on multiple charges and a lengthly stay at club fed, he said go to hell. And now, given the fall from grace of HSF, and if you read between the lines of Judge Huvelle's comments, it looks like he may get off... at least until the DOJ files an appeal.
This is turning into a Greek tragedy.
I believe that Ring does not think that he committed a felony. However, you must remember that it was not Ring that the DOJ wanted all along. It has been Doolittle. DoJ wanted Ring to say that Doolittle did all kinds of things (ie Neil Volz) and Ring never believed that he or Doolittle did these things. I believe that is why Ring said, "Go to hell".
To commenter number 4:
But acr already reported that ring was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a single count and refused. Back before the first trial even started. The doj was not insisting on multiple charges.
Anon (July 22, 2010 4:15 PM):
I did mention a 2009 plea offer made by the government requiring Kevin Ring to plead guilty to a single count. Mr. Ring rejected the offer. It appears to me that 7:17 AM and 7:29 AM were referring to a plea bargain (with multiple counts) that existed in 2007.
By 2009, Mr. Ring had told the DoJ to "Go to Hell". He was committed to trial. Mr. Ring may have rejected an offer in 2009 that he may have accepted in 2007.
This is all just speculation on my part, but I wanted to make a distinction between the 2009 environment vs. the 2007 environment.
~ACR
Anon (July 22, 2010 7:17 AM)
Anon (July 22, 2010 7:29 AM)
I should have thought this through a little better. It does seem unlikely that Kevin Ring told the DoJ to "Go to Hell" due to the search of his house. It seems more likely that the DoJ searched Ring's house after being told to "Go to Hell".
Both of your explanations are better than mine. Either:
1. The DoJ wanted Mr. Ring to plead to more than a single count and he refused.
-or-
2. The DoJ wanted Mr. Ring to provide evidence/testimony against someone else (e.g. John Doolittle) and Mr. Ring refused.
It could've even been a combination of the two factors that led Mr. Ring to tell the DoJ to "Go to Hell".
Thank you to both of the Anons referenced above. Your comments have made me think through this matter a little more in depth.
~ACR
In your blog, you mention that the DOJ provided you a copy of RIng's rough draft (there is a link ) of his so called book. How can private property obtained from a private citizen, who has yet to be proven guilty, from an FBI raid now be available for all to read on the internet? Somehow that does not seem right if not illegal. Is this just the DOJ getting spiteful?
Anon (July 23, 2010 7:05 AM):
First of all, I didn't mean to imply that the DoJ provided Kevin Ring's book proposal only to me. The proposal was submitted as part of a court filing. You may have noticed the Docket Entry number on the document. I paid $1.50 for it off of PACER -- and anyone else could do the same.
As to why the DoJ submitted the proposal to the court: The DoJ made a few arguments that didn't really help me understand this scandal. First, the DoJ said that Mr. Ring questioned the motives of some of the witnesses against him in the first trial. You see, some of the witnesses were admitted felons (Boulanger, Copland, Albaugh, Volz). In his book draft, Mr. Ring wrote that many people he worked with became/would become felons and that he viewed some of those individuals as good people. The DoJ wanted to use the book to rebut an argument made at the first trial. I didn't plan on writing about that.
As far as the legality of what the DoJ has done, I assume the DoJ acts lawfully. I understand your point that Mr. Ring's book proposal/draft has been converted from private property to the public domain. I would never claim to know the first thing about the Federal Rules of Evidence, but I've got to believe that both sides in this case abide by them.
~ACR
ACR,
With regard to what time Ring's house was searched, didn't we find that date a while ago, in one of the pre-trial documents? In something like a motion to compel discovery? I believe it was sometime in early 2008. Do you believe it was searched twice?
Post a Comment