U.S. v. Kevin Ring 2.0: What the DoJ Will NOT Attempt to Prove

Yesterday, we wrote about the Bill of Particulars (BoP) filed by the DoJ in the pending case of U.S. v. Kevin Ring. We listed the specific public officials named in the BoP, and because former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif) has protested so loudly that there is "no evidence" to support a corruption investigation of him, we kindly listed the official actions he allegedly took on Team Abramoff's behalf that the DoJ intends to prove at trial. We also invited our gentle readers to check back in often, as there is much to be learned in these new court filings. For example, in Footnote 2 of the BoP (page 2) the DoJ writes:

For ease of reference, the Government has identified the following paragraphs that we do not intend to prove at trial and, consequently, have no objections to redacting from the Retyped Indictment: 33, 82, 83, 102, 106, 111, 112, 130, 147, and 151.

Intrigued to learn what the DoJ decided not to prove, the author of the ACR Blog decided to investigate.

Paragraph 33 makes reference to a fundraising event for Representative 4 (Ernest Istook, R-Okla).

Paragraphs 82 and 83 make reference to tickets allegedly provided by Mr. Ring to a staffer for Representative 5 (John Doolittle, R-Calif)

Paragraph 102 alleges that Representative 5 (Doolittle) emailed Mr. Ring to ask for his help "in raising and additional $13,000 before December 31, 2001."

Paragraph 106 alleges that Mr. Ring emailed Mr. Abramoff to ask "if they could raise another $25,000 as soon as possible" because Rep Doolittle was "spooked" by a primary challenger.

Paragraph 111 makes reference to five tickets allegedly provided to two of Mr. Doolittle's staffers to attend a baseball game at Camden Yards.

Paragraph 112 - we'll just quote this one in its entirety: "On or about June 27th, 2002, Volz sent an email to defendant RING in which Volz, after noting that they had secured a $3.5 million earmark for a client, stated that he assumed that they would "jack up" the client's fees after obtaining a couple of million dollars and reported that he was talking with Representative 5's Legislative Director (Peter Evich was Doolittle's LD on this date) to help Representative 5 "with the moderates."

Paragraph 130 alleges Mr. Ring expensed catering costs for an event (fundraising?) for Representative 5 (Doolittle).

Paragraph 147 makes reference to an email allegedly sent from a lobbyist (Todd Boulanger) from Firm B (Greenberg Traurig) to a staffer for a New Mexico tribe's (Sandia) House Representative (former Rep Heather Wilson, R-N.M.) thanking him and confirming he was "all set for the Clippers game."

Paragraph 151 makes reference to another email sent from a firm B lobbyist (Mr. Boulanger) threatening repercussions for the N.M. tribe with their U.S. Representative "if we (Greenberg Traurig) don't get hired."

So what can we learn about the DoJ's courtroom strategy from its decision to drop the burden of proof associated with these allegations? First of all, Paragraphs 33, 102, 106, and possibly Paragraph 130 reference fundraising events, and since the mere mention of fundraisers has raised Judge Huvelle's concern in the past, it would appear that the DoJ believes they can make its case without going there. In addition, because defense attorney Andrew Wise has also (rightfully) raised objections to the inclusion of evidence of fundraisers on the grounds that such activity is protected political speech, we believe the DoJ's move is a wise decision.

Secondly, Paragraphs 82, 83, and 111 all reference event tickets Mr. Ring allegedly provided to staffers for former Rep. John Doolittle. We're not sure why the DoJ finds these paragraphs to be expendable. One plausible explanation is that these gifts were provided to staffers who were not identified in the BoP. Of course, there could be any number of plausible explanations.

Paragraph 112 is frankly just a bit mysterious. "Jack(ing) up" the fees charged to clients is certainly not illegal, nor is attempting to help Rep. Doolittle "with the moderates." Furthermore, this paragraph does not describe any action(s) taken by either Mr. Ring or Rep. Doolittle, so perhaps the DoJ rightfully concluded that this referenced email has no relevance to the case.

That leaves Paragraphs 147 and 151. To be continued...