Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Like sands in the hourglass, these are the days of our lives…
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
In yesterday’s Capitol Fax, I complained that the press was ignoring two recent court cases that may very well impact the US Attorney’s ongoing corruption investigations and appeals of past convictions.
One of the cases involved a woman named Georgia Thompson, who was in charge of finding a new travel agent for Wisconsin’s state government. The 7th Circuit (which also covers the Chicago area) ordered Thompson’s release, declared her “innocent” and issued a scathing opinion about how she had been railroaded.
I didn’t realize it at the time, but oral briefs were scheduled yesterday in the 7th Circuit appeals case of Mayor Daley’s former patronage chief Robert Sorich and three co-defendants. The Thompson case came up during arguments and the Tribune and Sun-Times both have pretty decent stories today about the back-and-forth between the two sides.
* Tribune…
A new federal court case — decided less than two weeks ago — shows that public officials who dole out jobs based on political clout are not guilty of a crime unless they also take bribes or kickbacks, lawyers for former top aides to Mayor Richard Daley argued before an appeals court Tuesday.
Lawyers for former Daley patronage chief Robert Sorich seized on the recent case out of Wisconsin as they fought to overturn their clients’ convictions last year for rigging hiring and promotions at City Hall.
In exchange for their alleged roles in the scheme, Sorich and others may have enjoyed promotions, pay raises or added job security, said John Cline, Sorich’s attorney.
But the new case “says pretty categorically that that type of gain doesn’t count,” said Cline, arguing to a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago
* Sun-Times…
Charges against Sorich shouldn’t hold up because, like Thompson, Sorich didn’t get kickbacks or gain personally through the scheme, his lawyer, John Cline, argued. “But in the Thompson case, a lot of the behavior she engaged in could be considered innocent,” Judge Ann Claire Williams said. “Here we have a situation where a patronage scheme involved lies, false entries and cover up.”
Slattery lawyer Patrick Blegen said similar allegations were lodged against Thompson, including rigging test scores and basing decisions on “political non-merit reasons.”
“That’s essentially the same allegations they made against Mr. Slattery,” Blegen said.
But [Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Miller] drew distinctions between Sorich and Thompson. He said she didn’t necessarily know the governor benefited from her actions. Meanwhile: “Here, there was overwhelming evidence that these defendants intended to commit fraud and to divert resources for political purposes and other purposes for other beneficiaries,” he said.
* Here are some quotes from the surprisingly strong Thompson appellate decision that I told subscribers about yesterday…
* “The idea that it is a federal crime for any official in state or local government to take account of political considerations when deciding how to spend public money is preposterous.”
* “An error - even a deliberate one, in which the employee winks at the rules in order to help out someone he believes deserving but barely over the eligibility threshold - is a civil rather than a criminal transgression.”
* “But these [previous court] decisions do not say that the Constitution forbids all politically motivated contracting practices.”
* “Once again that approach has the potential to turn violations of state rules into federal crimes.”
* “Treating an incorrect application of state procurement law as a ‘misuse of office’ and [an employee pay] raise as a ‘private gain’ would land us back in the soup - once again, simple violations of administrative rules would become crimes.”
* You can read the Thompson decision here [.pdf file]. Another case almost completely ignored by the media - and Patrick Fitzgerald first real setback in Illinois - was the complete dismissal of all charges against Nick Hurtgen. That decision is here. Fitzgerald’s motion to reconsider is here. The original criminal complaint against Sorich is here.
Listen to yesterday’s oral arguments below…
[That may not work for you, if not, you can go here and listen to the arguments instead.]
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE *** You can listen to the oral arguments in the Thompson appeal below…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 9:07 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Like sands in the hourglass, these are the days of our lives…
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The opinion was by Easterbrook. He’s a great conservative judge (one of the greatest judges never to make the Supreme Court — he ranks with Learned Hand in that category).
Given the opinion by Easterbrook, it will be difficult for Republicans to claim that these decisions were reached for political reasons.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 9:25 am
Aside: Appellant George Ryan and his attorneys must be looking at the Thompson case with wide-eyed glee right about now - at least as to the part about “no personal gain.”
Comment by Shadoobie Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 10:08 am
So? Let me get this straight, so-called “Plum(State, City) Jobs” qualify as “no personal gain.â€
Great!
Let’s hire more inept state and city personnel at exorbitant salaries.
No wonder we need new taxes.
Illinois stinks and nobody cares!
Comment by Give Me A Break Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 10:59 am
GMAB, I think it’s referring to no personal gain for the person handing out the plum. Not the person on the receiving end.
Comment by Shadoobie Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 11:19 am
I would be pretty shocked if the Sorich decision were overturned as a result of the Thompson decision.
First, Thompson steered a contract to a Wisconsin company that provided better service at a lower cost over an East Coast company the provided worse service at a higher cost but gave a better power point presentation. The Wisconsin company also happened to be a contributor to Governor Jim Doyle ($10,000).
The board went with the other company solely because of the oral presentation, so Thompson decided to manipulate the system, mostly using legal means to do so, so that the Wisconsin company would get the contract. The political considerations involved could have been, and were most likely, either saving the State of Wisconsin money (they’re broke, just like we are) or awarding an in-state company versus an out-of-state.
The line that the political consideration are not outlawed refers to considerations being taken in to account along with other criteria like cost and quality of service.
Compare this situation to the Sorich case, where it has been alleged that political considerations were the sole or primary consideration and I don’t see how the two cases really compare.
Comment by Juice Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 11:29 am
I hope that the Court applies this logic to the Sorich and Slattery verdicts and overturns them. Regardless how you feel about the City of Chicago government and how it is run, the heart of the Government’s case appears to me (and Judge Easterbrook judging by his opinions) not to be criminal violations. That doesn’t mean that these actions were good, moral, just or whatever, just not that they were crimes.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 11:35 am
Also, as an aside, the US Attorney in this case used the Sorich case as precedent to deem Thompson’s actions as a violation of federal law. In the opinion, the Circuit says it does not find that argument persuasive. (But it’s not clear whether it’s because of the different circumstances of the case, or because it does not consider Sorich’s actions as creating personal benefit.)
Comment by Juice Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 11:48 am
Nice catch, Juice. Here’s what the court wrote….
===The United States has not cited, and we have not found,
any appellate decision holding that an increase in official
salary, or a psychic benefit such as basking in a superior’s
approbation (and thinking one’s job more secure), is the
sort of “private gain†that makes an act criminal under
§1341 and §1346. The United States does rely on a few
decisions of district courts, e.g., United States v. Sorich,
427 F. Supp. 2d 820, 829 (N.D. Ill. 2006); United States
v. Munson, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14274 *3 (N.D. Ill. July
27, 2004), but we do not find them persuasive. We now
hold that neither an increase in salary for doing what
one’s superiors deem a good job, nor an addition to one’s
peace of mind, is a “private benefit†for the purpose of
§1346. ===
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 11:56 am
Sounds like the lunatics(individuals with the power)have taken over the asylum(Illinois and Chicago government).
It will eventually destroy itself, but at what cost to all the taxpayers?
Comment by Quicksand Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 11:56 am
Do we care if these folks go to jail or not. After all, jail costs us money and minimum security prisons for white collar types are likely as expensive as the other kinds. Whether it be Sorich, Jeff Skilling or any other government or corporate wrong-doer, we pay for their jail stays (and their trials, of course). Even if they have gadzillions in a bank account somewhere.
I’d rather see Sorich barred from government employment for life; and Skilling barred from
working in certain business fields; I don’t want to pay for their room and meals and entertainment.
And I certainly don’t want them to have any opportunities to repeat their infractions.
Let them suffer at home where I don’t have to pay.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 12:30 pm
Juice also makes a good point above. Take a look at what the Circuit justices wrote about the case against Ms. Thompson…
===An error in carrying out one’s duties
differs from “misuse†of position, but it is possible to
imagine action as a result of impermissible motives that
turns a mistake into a misuse of power. This would be
a hard case if the prosecutor had established that Thomp-
son acted because of political contributions rather than,
say, because she (and her boss) thought that buying
services for less, or from local suppliers, is a form of good
government from which incumbents would gain.===
Campaign contributions, perhaps even campaign workers might be considered “impermissable motives” or at least make it a “tough” case. Sorich may have his hopes way too high.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 12:33 pm
Besides Sorich, there are many within the current administration’s state and city who wish all this would go away.
Cassandra - Sounds to me that white collar crime pays and they certainly do have gadzillions in a bank account somewhere.
Believe me! They won’t suffer, they’re laughing all the way to the Big Bank probably Rezko’s.
Comment by Quicksand Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 12:58 pm
QS, I’m very interested in knowing which current or former government employees convicted or charged here have “gadzillions” in the bank. I think you’re dead wrong, and that appears to be some part of what the 7th is saying in Thompson; these people who stand accused or convicted haven’t done these things for personal gain.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 1:39 pm
S.S. - They’re certainly not going to admit to anything that cast’s them in a bad light.
But only TIME will TELL.
Comment by Quicksand Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 1:49 pm
Well, I bet Skilling has gadzillions in a bank somewhere. He spent 40 million on his defense and
is now bankrolling an appeal. I don’t bet much if any of his gadzillions went to compensate the Enron victims.
As to Sorich, as soon as he is available, the Daley machine will no doubt give him another highly paid political job on the taxpayer dime.
Whether the conviction is just or not, it likely did not act as a deterrent to the behavior.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 1:53 pm
What government position did Skilling hold?
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 2:02 pm
The Thompson case is a bit different. She was accused of using political considerations to give a company connected to the governor a contract, but that was so ridiculous (She was hired by the previous, Republican governor and had no political relationship with the governor nor contact with governor’s office) that I’m not sure the case was overturned on the (lack of) merit of the charge.
Comment by anon 1:11 Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 2:40 pm
Defense attorneys would be better advised to ignore the 7th CCA’s decision in the Thompson case and look to their finger-pointing at the blatant politicization of the DOJ and the USAs throughout the country. It’s hard to imagine how a bunch of cowboys as dense as Gonzo-Rove-Bush could compromise every product coming out of all the federal prosecutors’ offices since 2004.
Were I cooling my heels in some federal tank I’d demand that my attorney immediately challenge my conviction based on corruption of the whole of the federal criminal justice system.
Comment by Phil Ball Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 7:13 pm
Steering one contract (the Thompson case) hardly seems to compare with the vast conspiracy involved in the Daley-Sorich case, where tests were rigged and official documents altered over a long period of time.
Comment by Southern Man Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 8:41 pm
There’s another point in the Sorich case. There’s the little issue of the existing Federal Shakman consent decree, and Sorich’s circumvention of the consent decree.
Looks like “A bridge too far” for Sorich.
Comment by Judgement Day Is On The Way Wednesday, May 2, 07 @ 8:56 pm
Let me see, Federal authorities have uncovered evidence implicating multiple state agencies in their investigation into “allegations of endemic hiring fraud” in Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration, U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald said.
The corruption case in Wisconsin pales in comparison to what is going on in Illinois and Chicago. But Governor Blagojevich and Mayor Daley continue to be arrogant and claim to be clueless.
Who’s steering the ship? REZKO
Comment by Fly In The Ointment Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 7:58 am