U.S. v. Kevin Ring: Bill of Particulars

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle issued an order last week requiring the Justice Department to file a Bill of Particulars (BoP) in U.S. v. Kevin Ring. Yesterday, the DoJ complied. As always, the ACR Blog provides access to primary sources. Click here for the BoP.

The BoP specifies allegations related to Count 1 of Kevin Ring's Retyped Indictment. This count is conspiracy to violate the (1) Illegal Gratuities and (2) Honest Services Fraud (HSF) statutes. The BoP lists items the DoJ intends to prove at Mr. Ring's retrial including the identities of the public officials alleged to be involved as well as the items of value the public officials received and the acts allegedly committed by the public officials.

The following public officials are specifically named in the BoP:

John Albaugh (Istook)
Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.)
David Lopez (Doolittle)
Peter Evich (Doolittle)

Gregory Orlando (Doolittle)
Laura Blackann (Doolittle)
Neil Volz (Ney)
William Heaton (Ney)

Jennifer Farley (White House)
Robert Coughlin (Dept. of Justice)
David Ayers (Dept. of Justice)

We'd like to take a moment to make special note of the fact that former California Congressman John Doolittle makes the DoJ's list of public officials who allegedly received items of value and performed official actions. We certainly hope that Mr. Doolittle stumbles upon our humble little blog. You see, just a month ago, Mr. Doolittle claimed there was "no evidence" to support a corruption investigation into him. Obviously, Mr. Doolittle has not been following this scandal very closely, and the ACR Blog is always willing to help inform others. The BoP lists the following official actions allegedly committed by Mr. Doolittle:

• Assistance regarding the immigration status of Carmencita Abad, a vocal advocate for wage and labor reform in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, including sending a letter to INS (55);

• Assistance in obtaining appropriations for the CNMI, specifically, appropriations for Rota and Tinian harbors, ports, and airports, including speaking with other
members of Congress (58, 59);

• Assistance regarding Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status, including the introduction of a bill regarding statehood (62, 63, 65), and chairing a hearing on Puerto Rico statehood (77, 78);

• Assistance regarding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, specifically, efforts to prevent legislation harmful to Ring’s and Abramoff’s client’s business interests, including signing a letter (66, 67), and meeting with Ring’s client (72);

• Assistance with an earmark for a Russian housing project, including meeting with Ring and Abramoff’s Russian clients(74);

• Assistance in obtaining appropriations for a CNMI water project, including meeting with other members of Congress (91);

• Assistance in obtaining an earmark for a jail grant for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, including speaking with other members of Congress and congressional staffers (95, 97, 98, 101);

• Assistance with a tribal-governance dispute within the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa/Meskwaki, including meeting with the client and signing a letter to the Department of Interior (125, 127);

• Assistance seeking tribal recognition for one of Ring’s clients, the Mashpee Wampanoag, including meeting with the client and signing a letter to the Department of Interior (132, 134);

• Assistance in inserting earmarks into various legislation which benefitted Ring’s and Abramoff’s clients (120, 121. 123).

We've mentioned many of these alleged official acts before. But the alleged "[a]ssistance with an earmark for a Russian housing project, including meeting with Ring and Abramoff’s Russian clients" is new to us. The ACR Blog has always been interested in the Russian angle of the Abramoff scandal. We hope to learn more about this in the future.

...

One interesting aspect of the BoP is that the DoJ doesn't appear to be alleging a specific item of value was exchanged for a specific official act for any public officials. In fact, it appears to the untrained eye of the ACR Blog's author that the DoJ is suggesting that a stream of things of value were given to public official and a number of official acts were performed in return. This appears suspiciously close to the "Retainer Theory" of HSF found in U.S. v. Kemp, a case approvingly cited by the Supreme Court in its recent string of cases limiting the reach of the HSF statute. The ACR Blog has already opined that the "Retainer Theory" of HSF remains intact after Skilling.

...

Read the Bill of Particulars and check back with the ACR Blog later. There are a lot of new facts to be discussed.