* Jason Meisner…

Lawyers for the ex-president of AT&T Illinois are seeking to bar key evidence in his upcoming bribery trial, arguing in a recent filing that prosecutors have failed to identify any conspiracy to “corruptly” influence then-House Speaker Michael Madigan to win passage of key legislation in Springfield.

Paul La Schiazza, 66, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in October 2022 with conspiracy, federal program bribery, and using a facility in interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity. His trial is set to begin in September.

Earlier this month, prosecutors filed what is known as a Santiago proffer, detailing the statements of co-conspirators and other evidence they intend to use to prove that there was a scheme by La Schiazza and AT&T to secretly funnel money to a Madigan-connected ex-legislator to gain a competitive edge as the utility was seeking to pass a bill ending mandated landline service.

In their 13-page response filed Friday, lawyers for La Schiazza argued that the government’s proffer “is devoid of any evidence” showing La Schiazza or any other AT&T employee knew “that seeking to influence Mr. Madigan was forbidden,” as required by current Chicago-area case law.

* More from the La Schiazza response…

It is not enough that these individuals were referenced in the Indictment as playing some role in the charged events, particularly since their bona fide and legally permissible jobs were to further AT&T’s legislative agenda. The government must show knowledge of the illegal object of the conspiracy—which here requires a showing of “corruptly”—and that there was an agreement to advance further that illegal object… Doing something to develop or maintain a positive relationship with a politician or politically influential person is not a crime.

Currying favor with a politician or politically influential person is not a crime. Hiring a consultant recommended by a politician or politically influential person in order to build relationships or curry favor is not a crime. In this case, it is especially important for the Court to scrupulously police the lines between permissible—indeed, protected—political acts and those that cross the line into criminality. The government must show that Individuals ATT-1, -2 and -3 understood that they were acting improperly and outside the bounds of their bona fide duties in order to prove that they knowingly joined the charged conspiracy to corruptly influence Mr. Madigan. The Santiago proffer does not meet this burden.

Even if the government could meet its burden to show that ATT-1, -2 and -3 were members of the charged conspiracy, that does not mean any communication between these individuals is admissible under this Rule. Mere conversations between co-conspirators are not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The statements must be being made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

* There’s more. Outline…

A. The Government Fails to Sufficiently Identify which Statements it Seeks to Admit under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).

B. The Government Fails to Proffer Evidence of Any Effort to “Corruptly” Influence Mr. Madigan.

C. The Government Fails to Proffer Evidence of Any Agreement by Mr. Madigan to Take Action Respecting the COLR Legislation in Exchange for AT&T Retaining Mr. Acevedo as a Consultant.

D. The Santiago Proffer Alleges a Materially Different Conspiracy than the One Charged in the Indictment.

E. Neither Intermediary 4 nor Mr. Acevedo are Alleged to be Co-Conspirators so Their Hearsay Statements are Inadmissible.

F. If this Court Does Not Deny the Santiago Proffer Outright, it Should Defer Ruling on the Admissibility of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements until the Time of Trial.