Prosecutors filed court documents Tuesday listing graft recipients, official actions, and valuables they allege lobbyist Kevin Ring traded for congressional favors and aid.
Kevin Ring (Getty Images)
A former associate of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Ring was charged last September with brokering “exchanges” from January 2000 to October 2004 that involved 11 public officials. Ring faces 10 charges, six of which allege violation of the honest services statute and a seventh for conspiracy to commit honest services fraud.
The bill of particulars filed Tuesday outlines the government’s charges against Ring and includes many of the same allegations the government presented in its first case against the lobbyist, which ended in a hung jury last fall.
The Abramoff probe has led to the convictions of former Republican Rep. Bob Ney, and 17 other lobbyists, Bush administration officials, congressional staffers and businessmen. But only two defendants, including Ring, have forced the Justice Department to go to trial.
The stakes are high for the Justice Department, which decided to press forward in the face of a June Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of the honest-services law. The decision found that the statute applies only to instances of bribery and kickbacks.
Peter Koski, a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, said at a hearing July 7 that the ruling has “no impact whatsoever” on the prosecution’s case, the National Law Journal reported.
But the judge in the case — U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the District of Columbia — appeared to disagree. The case had been on hold pending the Supreme Court decision, and in light of the ruling, Huvelle gave Ring’s attorneys additional time to file a motion for acquittal.
The document filed Tuesday lists congressmen, congressional aides and public officials involved in the scandal and alludes to “numerous meals and tickets to events” that Ring allegedly provided them in exchange for exerting influence in matters important to his clients.
According to the documents, three former Republican House members — John Doolittle of California, Ernest Istook of Oklahoma and Ney — purportedly pushed multimillion-dollar earmarks into appropriations bills, opposed Internet gambling legislation, intervened in tribal governance issues and pushed for an investigation to discredit Carmencita Abad, a wage and labor reform advocate unfavorable to Abramoff’s clients.
Robert Coughlin, former Deputy Chief of Staff in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, allegedly accepted meals and basketball game tickets in exchange for providing Ring with information from inside the Justice Department and helping one of Ring’s clients, the Choctaw tribe, obtain a $16.3 million grant for a jail.
David Ayres, then-chief of staff to Attorney General John Ashcroft, also allegedly assisted Ring in attempts to affect the amount of the grant and waive competitive bidding, according to documents.
The list will form the basis of the government’s case that Ring conspired to commit honest services wire fraud, prosecutors wrote. It does not provide monetary estimates for the valuables Ring exchanged or the exact dates the exchanges took place.
Huvelle has scheduled Ring’s second trial to begin in October.
Court documents list the officials Ring allegedly traded favors with, including:
- Doolittle, former Republican representative for California’s 4th District;
- David Lopez, Doolittle’s chief of staff;
- Peter Evich, Doolittle’s legislative director;
- Gregory Orlando, Doolittle’s legislative director;
- Laura Blackann, Doolittle’s press secretary;
- John Albaugh, former chief of staff to Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.);
- Neil Volz, former chief of staff to Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio);
- William Heaton, former chief of staff for Ney
- Jennifer Farley, associate director for the Bush White House’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs;
- Coughlin, former Deputy Chief of Staff in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division;
- Ayres, chief of staff to Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Bill of Particulars is embedded below.
U.S. v. Ring Bill of Particulars
