* Click here for some background if you need it. The Center Square…
An Illinois lawmaker charged in a federal alleged kickback scheme is asking a judge to dismiss the case against her.
Attorneys for State Rep. Carol Ammons, D-Champaign, filed a motion Friday contending the indictment either fails to allege a crime or doesn’t clearly explain what laws she is accused of violating. […]
“The wire fraud counts fail to specify the Illinois conflict of interest law at issue and fail to allege that Rep. Ammons engaged in deception or had the victims’ money or property as an object of the scheme to defraud,” according to the filing.
It continued by contending that the federal government misrepresented Illinois law defining conflicts of interest as it relates to taxpayer dollars in the Grant Accountability and Transparency Act.
Illinois’ grant rules, the Grant Transparency and Accountability Act, require conflict of interest disclosures only from people who oversee an organization or are a grant recipient. They said Ammons was acting as a state legislator, not in either of those roles.
* Rep. Ammons’ attorneys also cite a separate state contracting provision covering elected officials, their spouses and minor children. From the motion…
To the extent the Indictment references the foregoing conflict-of-interest law, the Indictment misleadingly omits that it applies only to spouses and minor children─not “family members” in general, as alleged. Rep. Ammons’s adult daughter’s employment with HVNT, Bridgewater, or the Independent Media Center, therefore, could not constitute a conflict of interest under Illinois law. […]
Here, the Indictment does not allege that the victims suffered the loss of money or a property right. For instance, there is no indication that Rep. Ammons’s daughter did not perform her job duties for Bridgewater. And any interest in avoiding conflicts of interest is an intangible interest not covered by the wire fraud statute.
* On the alleged kickbacks…
The scheme alleged by the government, however, deprived only the employee paying the kickback of any property. Moreover, the Indictment does not suggest that Rep. Ammons deceived the state and/or taxpayers with the goal of depriving them of property.
* More from the Center Square…
As for the false statement charge, which stems from the representative telling federal investigators that she was unaware of any conflict of interest, her lawyers said that she couldn’t have made a false statement because a conflict of interest doesn’t exist under state law.
* Back to the motion…
Count Ten, charging a conspiracy to obstruct justice, must be dismissed as it fails to allege an agreement to tamper with a witness, fails to identify a witness and/or relevant investigation, and fails to allege that either Rep. Ammons or Aaron Ammons employed “misleading conduct” to tamper with a witness. […]
Here, the Indictment is fatally defective as it fails to allege an agreement to tamper with a witness. Rather, the Indictment alleges that Rep. Ammons was merely present when Aaron Ammons attempted to tamper with the witness. Mere presence, however, is not sufficient to allege a conspiracy.
Thoughts?
- Demoralized - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 9:38 am:
==They said Ammons was acting as a state legislator, not in either of those roles==
Well there’s a giant hole in the conflict of interest provision. Apparently its ok to have a conflict of interest as long as you’re a state legislator?
- Think Again - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 10:14 am:
Only in politics could a leader deeply implicated in what appears to be crooked family dealings and potential witness tampering use a loophole to act like everything is 100% fine. Even if her legal team is successful, the behaviour is morally reprehensible. This is why lots of folk hate politics.
- Walker - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 10:29 am:
Feds always overcharge “wire fraud” which was originally written to prevent consumer fraud by ticker tape related to stock trades. It’s since become some kind of catch all for any oral statement related to any charged crime using a phone. Making the exact same oral statement face to face is somehow not the same crime. Smart juries often disregard. Sorry, pet peeve.
- Sue - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 10:29 am:
And there goes the Gov’s claim we don’t need ethics reform because the evil doers will just self deport from holding office
- Anyone Remember - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 10:35 am:
Her behavior was wrong, but after McDonnell vs. U.S. (2016), Snyder vs. U.S. (2024), Jeffrey Skilling vs. U.S. (2010), nothing would surprise me.
- hmmm - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 10:53 am:
Hopefully it gets tossed out. Her lawyers made some good points.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 11:19 am:
===Apparently its ok to have a conflict of interest as long as you’re a state legislator? ===
I think that’s the argument.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 11:28 am:
I understand the lawyer’s desire to beat the case as early as possible, but as the comments above make clear, without arguing the merits, the filing leaves open the impression that the defendant is guilty but getting off on a technicality. The defense may yet argue the merits of the substance in a future filing, it that’s necessary. At best, the kind of argument made here might result in a restatement of the charges, not a full acquittal in the court of public opinion.
- Sharia Capo - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 11:28 am:
===Apparently its ok to have a conflict of interest as long as you’re a state legislator? ===
With respect to proposing grants, that is. But what makes these grants so sacrosanct? They’re just vote-getting gravy, the whole lot of them practically.
Time to do away with “applying” to get your federal and state taxes returned locally. Just chop the taxes and let the locals decide what they want to fund!
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 11:32 am:
Seems to be an interesting argument… though I hope it fails.
- Duck Duck Goose - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 12:46 pm:
Yikes! It appears that the plain language of the state statutes does not support the indictment. And, judging by the way the language in the indictment tries to fudge around this, it sure looks like the Feds knew they didn’t have the goods but decided to indict anyway.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 1:47 pm:
===Even if her legal team is successful, the behaviour is morally reprehensible. This is why lots of folk hate politics. ===
I have yet to see anyone’s federal defense deliberately cave just to be “fair” to the prosecutors. Please. Maybe try to loosen your grip on the stake.
Also, this phenomenon you claim exists has nothing to do with politics.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Monday, Oct 26, 26 @ 1:49 pm:
Whatever she’s paying her lawyers, Ammons is getting her money’s worth.