Thursday, April 30, 2009
Review of Russian Helo Conviction Sought
Source: Wired Magazine
By Sharon Weinberger
April 29, 2009, 10:52 am
For those who want a lesson in the perils of buying foreign weapons for the U.S. government, it makes sense to take note of an appeal that is currently winding its way through the federal courts. Last week, a magistrate judge issued a “show cause” order in response to an emergency motion filed on behalf of Jeffrey Stayton, a federal prisoner who was once a top U.S. government expert on Russian helicopters.
At issue is a little known trial that took place in Alabama in 2007, when Stayton, then an Army official, and William Childree, a defense contractor, were convicted of a scheme to defraud the government. The contract in question was for the purchase of two Russian Mi-17 helicopters.
The Justice Department accused Childree, whose firm was under contract to buy the helicopters for the Army, of paying about $61,000 to Stayton in exchange for favorable treatment. To support its claim that the money was a personal loan—not a bribe or payoff—the defense submitted a note, dated 2002, written by Stayton thanking Childree for the loan and promising repayment. The government, which asserted the note was an obvious fraud written years later to cover the defendants’ tracks, submitted the document to the FBI for forensic testing. After DOJ received the lab reports, it told the defense that the results were “inconclusive,” but declined to release the actual report.
In December 2007, both Stayton and Childree were convicted and later sentenced to prison.
This case is worth highlighting in the context of more recent revelations that the U.S. Army steered $500 million in limited and no-bid contracts to ARINC to purchase Mi-17s for Iraq and Afghanistan. Russian helicopters seem to attract a lot of intrigue.
But what’s interesting about this case right now is not the helicopters per se, but the involvement of theDepartment of Justice Public Integrity section, which has until May 4 to respond to allegations that it withheld exculpatory FBI forensic testing (a separate claim is that the government failed to produce a key witness; I’ll also get to that another time).
This has a familiar ring to it. The DOJ’s Public Integrity section is currently under the spotlight for its bungling of the prosecution of Ted Stevens, the former Alaskan senator who turned pork barrel politics into a form of high art during his four decades in Congress. A federal judge recently tossed Steven’s conviction for failing to report gifts (such as a nifty massage chair) after it was discovered that attorneys in the Public Integrity section withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. Six DOJ lawyers are themselves now under investigation.
Getting back to the Russian helicopter case, which involves the same section of DOJ, I was curious why the government attorneys would so steadfastly refuse to turn over the forensic analysis, since they argued back in 2007 that they did “not believe this document is even arguably exculpatory of the charges…”
This raises an obvious question: if that claim were true, then why not release the analysis?
For the moment, I’m going to set aside the merits of this court case, and deal strictly with the forensic testing, since it’s the subject of multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests I have filed dating back over six months.
When I first filed a request last year to see the forensic analysis, the FBI, amusingly, told me they could not locate any files on Stayton or Childree (an interesting response considering that the FBI took part in the multi-year investigation). After I traveled to Alabama to examine court records and obtained the FBI case file number for the analysis, the FBI located the relevant documents. It has now been sitting with the FBI’s FOIA office for several months waiting to be assigned for disclosure review; weekly calls from my research assistant have showed little progress on that front (a separate FOIA, to the Department of Justice, has also yielded nothing).
In February, attorneys at Frohsin & Barger in Birmingham, Alabama took up the Stayton case pro bono and filed an appeal on his behalf, noting the withheld FBI analysis, among other issues. They also asked DOJ for a copy of the FBI testing, initially with no response. (An appeal has also been filed by the co-defendant, Childree, on separate grounds.)
Since neither the FBI nor DOJ have shown any indication of moving forward with my FOIA requests, I decided to take the direct approach: I called DOJ and told them I would be writing on this issue for Danger Room. Within minutes, DOJ somehow managed to locate the file—at least some of it—and release it to Stayton’s new defense team (who, in turn, released the analysis to me).
Reading the forensic analysis, it’s pretty clear why DOJ would hold on to it like a 10-year old with a bad report card; testing performed by the Secret Service for the FBI confirmed the ink used in the note was indeed in production in 2002, the year the note is dated. This does not prove when the note was written, but it does discount one obvious sign of fraud, which was the sole purpose of the test.
DOJ has declined all requests for interviews on this case. I e-mailed and called again last week to ask why the department is still refusing to release the in-house FBI tests. So far, I have received no reply. But several months ago, in response to a written question about the forensic analysis, the department replied: “The government complied with all of its discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence.”
But treating the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence as a game of hide and seek has its drawbacks, as the Stevens case demonstrates. It’s perhaps even more troubling in the Russian helicopter case, because DOJ at trial and sentencing specifically argued that the note in question was fraudulent, yet refused to disclose testing that showed no evidence of fraud.
The Justice Department, according to Stayton’s defense attorneys, has still not released the rest of the testing results. “In the wake of Public Integrity outrage, it is not at all surprising that the Ashcroft/Gonzales Era DOJ elected to suppress such key evidence to avoid the prospect of a jury acquittal,” Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Stayton, told Danger Room.
“What is so disturbing now is the same denials seem to be emanating from the prior prosecutors without a new review or fresh oversight,” he said. “ How in the world can one justify withholding a forensic laboratory result that lends credence or corroborates the position of defendant?”
[Speaking of missing documents; I’m also still waiting for the Army to locate the very, very special letter outlining ARINC’s unique relationship with the Russian manufacturer of Mi-17s, as well as a purported market survey the Army says it conducted to justify the outrageous price it paid for Iraq’s helos. I'm guessing I'll get the FBI lab reports first, because at least I know those really exist. Also, tune in later this week as I finally get to writing about the oh-so mysterious Threat Systems Management Office, and its strange role in buying Russian helicopters.]
By Sharon Weinberger
April 29, 2009, 10:52 am
For those who want a lesson in the perils of buying foreign weapons for the U.S. government, it makes sense to take note of an appeal that is currently winding its way through the federal courts. Last week, a magistrate judge issued a “show cause” order in response to an emergency motion filed on behalf of Jeffrey Stayton, a federal prisoner who was once a top U.S. government expert on Russian helicopters.
At issue is a little known trial that took place in Alabama in 2007, when Stayton, then an Army official, and William Childree, a defense contractor, were convicted of a scheme to defraud the government. The contract in question was for the purchase of two Russian Mi-17 helicopters.
The Justice Department accused Childree, whose firm was under contract to buy the helicopters for the Army, of paying about $61,000 to Stayton in exchange for favorable treatment. To support its claim that the money was a personal loan—not a bribe or payoff—the defense submitted a note, dated 2002, written by Stayton thanking Childree for the loan and promising repayment. The government, which asserted the note was an obvious fraud written years later to cover the defendants’ tracks, submitted the document to the FBI for forensic testing. After DOJ received the lab reports, it told the defense that the results were “inconclusive,” but declined to release the actual report.
In December 2007, both Stayton and Childree were convicted and later sentenced to prison.
This case is worth highlighting in the context of more recent revelations that the U.S. Army steered $500 million in limited and no-bid contracts to ARINC to purchase Mi-17s for Iraq and Afghanistan. Russian helicopters seem to attract a lot of intrigue.
But what’s interesting about this case right now is not the helicopters per se, but the involvement of theDepartment of Justice Public Integrity section, which has until May 4 to respond to allegations that it withheld exculpatory FBI forensic testing (a separate claim is that the government failed to produce a key witness; I’ll also get to that another time).
This has a familiar ring to it. The DOJ’s Public Integrity section is currently under the spotlight for its bungling of the prosecution of Ted Stevens, the former Alaskan senator who turned pork barrel politics into a form of high art during his four decades in Congress. A federal judge recently tossed Steven’s conviction for failing to report gifts (such as a nifty massage chair) after it was discovered that attorneys in the Public Integrity section withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. Six DOJ lawyers are themselves now under investigation.
Getting back to the Russian helicopter case, which involves the same section of DOJ, I was curious why the government attorneys would so steadfastly refuse to turn over the forensic analysis, since they argued back in 2007 that they did “not believe this document is even arguably exculpatory of the charges…”
This raises an obvious question: if that claim were true, then why not release the analysis?
For the moment, I’m going to set aside the merits of this court case, and deal strictly with the forensic testing, since it’s the subject of multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests I have filed dating back over six months.
When I first filed a request last year to see the forensic analysis, the FBI, amusingly, told me they could not locate any files on Stayton or Childree (an interesting response considering that the FBI took part in the multi-year investigation). After I traveled to Alabama to examine court records and obtained the FBI case file number for the analysis, the FBI located the relevant documents. It has now been sitting with the FBI’s FOIA office for several months waiting to be assigned for disclosure review; weekly calls from my research assistant have showed little progress on that front (a separate FOIA, to the Department of Justice, has also yielded nothing).
In February, attorneys at Frohsin & Barger in Birmingham, Alabama took up the Stayton case pro bono and filed an appeal on his behalf, noting the withheld FBI analysis, among other issues. They also asked DOJ for a copy of the FBI testing, initially with no response. (An appeal has also been filed by the co-defendant, Childree, on separate grounds.)
Since neither the FBI nor DOJ have shown any indication of moving forward with my FOIA requests, I decided to take the direct approach: I called DOJ and told them I would be writing on this issue for Danger Room. Within minutes, DOJ somehow managed to locate the file—at least some of it—and release it to Stayton’s new defense team (who, in turn, released the analysis to me).
Reading the forensic analysis, it’s pretty clear why DOJ would hold on to it like a 10-year old with a bad report card; testing performed by the Secret Service for the FBI confirmed the ink used in the note was indeed in production in 2002, the year the note is dated. This does not prove when the note was written, but it does discount one obvious sign of fraud, which was the sole purpose of the test.
DOJ has declined all requests for interviews on this case. I e-mailed and called again last week to ask why the department is still refusing to release the in-house FBI tests. So far, I have received no reply. But several months ago, in response to a written question about the forensic analysis, the department replied: “The government complied with all of its discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence.”
But treating the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence as a game of hide and seek has its drawbacks, as the Stevens case demonstrates. It’s perhaps even more troubling in the Russian helicopter case, because DOJ at trial and sentencing specifically argued that the note in question was fraudulent, yet refused to disclose testing that showed no evidence of fraud.
The Justice Department, according to Stayton’s defense attorneys, has still not released the rest of the testing results. “In the wake of Public Integrity outrage, it is not at all surprising that the Ashcroft/Gonzales Era DOJ elected to suppress such key evidence to avoid the prospect of a jury acquittal,” Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Stayton, told Danger Room.
“What is so disturbing now is the same denials seem to be emanating from the prior prosecutors without a new review or fresh oversight,” he said. “ How in the world can one justify withholding a forensic laboratory result that lends credence or corroborates the position of defendant?”
[Speaking of missing documents; I’m also still waiting for the Army to locate the very, very special letter outlining ARINC’s unique relationship with the Russian manufacturer of Mi-17s, as well as a purported market survey the Army says it conducted to justify the outrageous price it paid for Iraq’s helos. I'm guessing I'll get the FBI lab reports first, because at least I know those really exist. Also, tune in later this week as I finally get to writing about the oh-so mysterious Threat Systems Management Office, and its strange role in buying Russian helicopters.]
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Judge Criticizes Prosecutors in Asbestos Case
Source: The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com
Associated Press
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
MISSOULA, Mont., April 27 -- The federal judge in the W.R. Grace asbestos case told Justice Department prosecutors Monday that they "presented discombobulated allegations" and didn't understand the evidence.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy did not rule immediately on defense motions to dismiss charges against Grace, a Columbia, Md.-based firm, and several former executives. But he raised the possibility of declaring a mistrial in the case, which has been before a jury for two months. Jurors, absent during the hearing Monday, were due back in court Tuesday.
Acting on a motion from the prosecution, Molloy did dismiss charges against one former executive, Robert Walsh. Prosecutors said they lacked evidence to continue their case against Walsh.
The government alleges that Grace and five former executives concealed health risks posed by asbestos-laced vermiculite from a northwestern Montana mine that closed in 1990. Attorneys for some Libby residents say asbestos has sickened about 2,000 people in and around the community and killed about 225.
The judge said that he mistrusts the testimony of a key government witness, Robert Locke, a former Grace executive who testified that he helped the company impede a government study of health issues related to the mine near Libby.
"Do you want to have these jurors convict someone on perjured testimony?" Molloy asked.
"We don't believe it's perjured testimony," replied Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Racicot.
Another federal prosecutor, David Cassidy, said that Locke's testimony was "more consistent than inconsistent" and that documents corroborate much of it.
Grace lawyer David Bernick said that misleading and prejudicial testimony have so tainted the trial that it cannot be salvaged. Bernick said the case has been litigated for political reasons, aimed at advancing the agenda of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversaw years of environmental cleanup in Libby.
Associated Press
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
MISSOULA, Mont., April 27 -- The federal judge in the W.R. Grace asbestos case told Justice Department prosecutors Monday that they "presented discombobulated allegations" and didn't understand the evidence.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy did not rule immediately on defense motions to dismiss charges against Grace, a Columbia, Md.-based firm, and several former executives. But he raised the possibility of declaring a mistrial in the case, which has been before a jury for two months. Jurors, absent during the hearing Monday, were due back in court Tuesday.
Acting on a motion from the prosecution, Molloy did dismiss charges against one former executive, Robert Walsh. Prosecutors said they lacked evidence to continue their case against Walsh.
The government alleges that Grace and five former executives concealed health risks posed by asbestos-laced vermiculite from a northwestern Montana mine that closed in 1990. Attorneys for some Libby residents say asbestos has sickened about 2,000 people in and around the community and killed about 225.
The judge said that he mistrusts the testimony of a key government witness, Robert Locke, a former Grace executive who testified that he helped the company impede a government study of health issues related to the mine near Libby.
"Do you want to have these jurors convict someone on perjured testimony?" Molloy asked.
"We don't believe it's perjured testimony," replied Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Racicot.
Another federal prosecutor, David Cassidy, said that Locke's testimony was "more consistent than inconsistent" and that documents corroborate much of it.
Grace lawyer David Bernick said that misleading and prejudicial testimony have so tainted the trial that it cannot be salvaged. Bernick said the case has been litigated for political reasons, aimed at advancing the agenda of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversaw years of environmental cleanup in Libby.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Holder to District Judges: DOJ Will Confront Misconduct
Source: The BLT: Blog of the Legal Times
Mark Scarcella
April 28, 2009
Addressing a group of chief judges of federal district courts last week, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. vowed the Justice Department will take seriously failures of prosecutors to perform their duties, according to a judge who participated in the conference.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of Massachusetts, who has pressed the Justice Department to be more aggressive in confronting allegations of attorney misconduct, wrote Holder on April 23 “with a renewed hope” that he will tackle misbehavior. Wolf’s letter was disclosed today in a mob racketeering case in Boston in which Wolf cited a prosecutor for misconduct.Wolf wrote that former Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey did not respond to letters in recent years concerning allegations of misconduct in criminal cases in Massachusetts. In his letter to Holder, Wolf thanked him for his remarks to the chief judges.“We appreciate your determination to assure that Department of Justice attorneys perform their duties honorably and ably, and to take seriously any failure to do so,” Wolf wrote in the five-page letter. Holder had asked the judges, Wolf said in the letter, to report to him directly when the judges encounter a problem.
Wolf noted the recent decision of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of misconduct in the Ted Stevens case in the District of Columbia. The special counsel is investigating whether six prosecutors deliberately violated court orders and rules in the Stevens case. At Holder’s request, the judge tossed Stevens’ conviction earlier this month.
Sullivan’s action in the Stevens case, Wolf wrote in the letter, “confirms that other judges share my concern” about prosecution misconduct. “As the Stevens case also indicates, prosecutorial misconduct is neither a rare nor merely historical problem,” Wolf wrote.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/holder-to-district-judges-doj-will-confront-misconduct.html
Mark Scarcella
April 28, 2009
Addressing a group of chief judges of federal district courts last week, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. vowed the Justice Department will take seriously failures of prosecutors to perform their duties, according to a judge who participated in the conference.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of Massachusetts, who has pressed the Justice Department to be more aggressive in confronting allegations of attorney misconduct, wrote Holder on April 23 “with a renewed hope” that he will tackle misbehavior. Wolf’s letter was disclosed today in a mob racketeering case in Boston in which Wolf cited a prosecutor for misconduct.Wolf wrote that former Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey did not respond to letters in recent years concerning allegations of misconduct in criminal cases in Massachusetts. In his letter to Holder, Wolf thanked him for his remarks to the chief judges.“We appreciate your determination to assure that Department of Justice attorneys perform their duties honorably and ably, and to take seriously any failure to do so,” Wolf wrote in the five-page letter. Holder had asked the judges, Wolf said in the letter, to report to him directly when the judges encounter a problem.
Wolf noted the recent decision of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of misconduct in the Ted Stevens case in the District of Columbia. The special counsel is investigating whether six prosecutors deliberately violated court orders and rules in the Stevens case. At Holder’s request, the judge tossed Stevens’ conviction earlier this month.
Sullivan’s action in the Stevens case, Wolf wrote in the letter, “confirms that other judges share my concern” about prosecution misconduct. “As the Stevens case also indicates, prosecutorial misconduct is neither a rare nor merely historical problem,” Wolf wrote.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/holder-to-district-judges-doj-will-confront-misconduct.html
Monday, April 27, 2009
Director John McTiernan to Discuss Political Prosecutions on Young Turks Show
Director John McTiernan, of Die Hard fame will be on The Young Turks Show this evening, April 28th discussing the intuitive new documentary, "The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove". The film delves into the depths of the Justice Department corruption, under Karl Rove, and sheds light on many of the 600 politically motivated cases brought against Democrats across the country between 2002 and 2008.
Tune into XM Satellite Radio/Air America to hear the live interview at 8:40 pm.
Tune into XM Satellite Radio/Air America to hear the live interview at 8:40 pm.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Siegelman Case--Editorial
Source: The New York Times, nytimes.com
April 25, 2009
Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to drop all of the charges against Ted Stevens, the former Republican senator from Alaska, because of prosecutorial misconduct raises an important question: What about Don Siegelman? A bipartisan group of 75 former state attorneys general has written to Mr. Holder asking him to take a fresh look at the former Alabama governor’s case. He should do so right away.
Mr. Siegelman was convicted in 2006 on dubious corruption charges. He spent nine months in prison before being released on appeal, and he faces years more behind bars. He has long insisted that the case against him was politically motivated and that prosecutors engaged in an array of professional and ethical violations.
Many aspects of the case require further scrutiny. United States Attorney Leura Canary is the wife of a prominent Republican political operative who was a strong opponent of Mr. Siegelman. Her office prosecuted Mr. Siegelman. Ms. Canary said that she recused herself from the prosecution, but questions have been raised about whether she actually did.
Mr. Siegelman’s supporters have long argued that he was targeted by the Justice Department because he was Alabama’s leading Democratic politician and stood a good chance of once again being elected governor. A Republican lawyer in Alabama, Jill Simpson, has said that she heard Ms. Canary’s husband, William Canary, say that he had discussed the prosecution with Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser.
In the case of Mr. Stevens, who was convicted of felony charges for failing to disclose gifts and services, Mr. Holder was so troubled by the way the prosecution was carried out that he decided to drop the case entirely.
According to the Siegelman camp, at least three of the same officials who have been accused of prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case were involved in Mr. Siegelman’s prosecution. If true, this alone would seem to justify a thorough investigation of the case.
April 25, 2009
Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to drop all of the charges against Ted Stevens, the former Republican senator from Alaska, because of prosecutorial misconduct raises an important question: What about Don Siegelman? A bipartisan group of 75 former state attorneys general has written to Mr. Holder asking him to take a fresh look at the former Alabama governor’s case. He should do so right away.
Mr. Siegelman was convicted in 2006 on dubious corruption charges. He spent nine months in prison before being released on appeal, and he faces years more behind bars. He has long insisted that the case against him was politically motivated and that prosecutors engaged in an array of professional and ethical violations.
Many aspects of the case require further scrutiny. United States Attorney Leura Canary is the wife of a prominent Republican political operative who was a strong opponent of Mr. Siegelman. Her office prosecuted Mr. Siegelman. Ms. Canary said that she recused herself from the prosecution, but questions have been raised about whether she actually did.
Mr. Siegelman’s supporters have long argued that he was targeted by the Justice Department because he was Alabama’s leading Democratic politician and stood a good chance of once again being elected governor. A Republican lawyer in Alabama, Jill Simpson, has said that she heard Ms. Canary’s husband, William Canary, say that he had discussed the prosecution with Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser.
In the case of Mr. Stevens, who was convicted of felony charges for failing to disclose gifts and services, Mr. Holder was so troubled by the way the prosecution was carried out that he decided to drop the case entirely.
According to the Siegelman camp, at least three of the same officials who have been accused of prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case were involved in Mr. Siegelman’s prosecution. If true, this alone would seem to justify a thorough investigation of the case.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
AGs Demand Siegelman Review
Source: Harper's Magazine, harpers.org
April 22, 2009
By Scott Horton
Seventy-five former state attorneys general, Democrats and Republicans, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that he personally review the file relating to former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. According to a report in today’s New York Times (as usual, the matter is not reported in the major Alabama newspapers, which championed Siegelman’s prosecution), the attorneys general cite
“gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial. “We believe that if prosecutorial misconduct is found, as in the case of Senator Ted Stevens, then dismissal should follow in this case as well,” the group said in the letter, which was organized by Robert Abrams, a former attorney general of New York.
The links to the Stevens case are numerous. The grave prosecutorial misconduct that led to the decision to overturn the Stevens conviction is virtually identical to the accusations in the Siegelman case. The charges are also sustained in the Siegelman case, as in the Stevens case, by a whistleblower inside the prosecution team. Moreover, the cases involve many of the same prosecutors, now themselves under internal Justice Department investigation for ethics lapses
April 22, 2009
By Scott Horton
Seventy-five former state attorneys general, Democrats and Republicans, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that he personally review the file relating to former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. According to a report in today’s New York Times (as usual, the matter is not reported in the major Alabama newspapers, which championed Siegelman’s prosecution), the attorneys general cite
“gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial. “We believe that if prosecutorial misconduct is found, as in the case of Senator Ted Stevens, then dismissal should follow in this case as well,” the group said in the letter, which was organized by Robert Abrams, a former attorney general of New York.
The links to the Stevens case are numerous. The grave prosecutorial misconduct that led to the decision to overturn the Stevens conviction is virtually identical to the accusations in the Siegelman case. The charges are also sustained in the Siegelman case, as in the Stevens case, by a whistleblower inside the prosecution team. Moreover, the cases involve many of the same prosecutors, now themselves under internal Justice Department investigation for ethics lapses
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)