February 20, 1998
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Vice President of the United States
and President of the Senate
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510-6250
Dear Mr. Vice President and Mr. Speaker:
This is my third annual report to Congress pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¤
598(a)(2). In my first annual report, submitted on December 28, 1995, I described the
events leading to my appointment and the activities of this office's first year in
operation. My second annual report, submitted on November 15, 1996, described our second
year in operation, informing you of our first indictments and convictions. During my
office's third year, and since the last report, we have obtained convictions of five
individuals, three corporations, one law firm, civil settlement with a Wall Street
securities firm and collected $10.6 million in fines and penalties for the United States
Treasury. Also of significance, in consideration of my investigative mandate, a federal
grand jury indicted former Secretary of Agriculture Espy on 39 felony counts, and Tyson
Foods, Inc., identified in the Attorney General's application for the appointment of an
Independent Counsel as having given illegal gratuities to Secretary Espy amounting to
"several hundred dollars in value," pleaded guilty to giving approximately
$12,000 worth of gratuities to the Secretary.
THE INVESTIGATION SINCE NOVEMBER 15, 1996
- The Henry Espy Campaign Cases
On September 14, 1994, Attorney General Reno
referred to me for investigation the related matter of Secretary Espy hosting a March 31,
1994 fundraising dinner at the 116 Club in Washington, attended by agricultural lobbyists,
the purpose of which was to retire the campaign debt of his brother. Henry Espy ran for
the Congressional seat vacated by Mike Espy when he resigned to serve as Secretary of
Agriculture. During the campaign, Henry Espy incurred a debt exceeding $100,000, and the
campaign failed to file numerous reports with the Federal Election Commission
("FEC"). In addition to the cases discussed in this section of my report, the
James Lake, Sun-Diamond, and Richard Douglas prosecutions also involved illegal
contributions to the Henry Espy campaign debt retirement. The Attorney General's referral
of this related matter led, to date, to the following prosecutions by this office and, in
turn, to one referral by this office to the FEC:
- United States v. Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr., et al.
On
December 19, 1996, in a case that I tried with Michael Davis, Assistant United States
Attorney from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Jacob Frenkel, Senior Counsel from the Division
of Enforcement of the Securities Exchange Commission, a jury in New Orleans, Louisiana
convicted Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr. and John J. Hemmingson of interstate transportation
of $20,000 obtained by fraud and money laundering, and Ferrouillet of false statements to
federal law enforcement agents. The jury convicted Ferrouillet, a New Orleans lawyer and
chairman of Secretary Espy's brother's campaign debt retirement committee, of ten counts,
including laundering the proceeds of the misappropriated funds through a New Orleans area
grocery store to the campaign's bank account and lying to United States Customs and
Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General Special Agents concerning the source
of the funds. The jury convicted Hemmingson, the President, Chairman of the Board and
largest shareholder of Crop Growers Corporation, the country's then second largest crop
insurance company, of misappropriating the $20,000 from a corporate subsidiary and the
company's shareholders for the purpose of contributing the funds to help retire Henry
Espy's campaign debt and two of three counts of laundering the funds.
Although the federal Sentencing Guidelines required and the United
States Probation Office recommended a 41 to 51 month term of incarceration for Ferrouillet
and Hemmingson, the trial court judge, on May 14, 1997, opined that the defendants'
conduct fell outside the "heartland" of money laundering as contemplated by
Congress and sentenced both defendants to one year in a half-way house/work-release
program. The Court also sentenced Hemmingson to pay a $30,000 fine and $20,000 restitution
to Crop Growers. Ferrouillet's sentence was consolidated with his guilty plea from Oxford,
Mississippi, discussed below. The Court also imposed a $10,000 fine on Ferrouillet. Both
defendants are appealing their convictions and we are appealing the sentences.
- United States v. Crop Growers Corp., et al.
On May 30, 1996,
a District of Columbia federal grand jury returned a 17 count indictment against Crop
Growers, John Hemmingson and Gary A. Black for conspiracy, impeding the Federal Election
Commission ("FEC") by causing the Henry Espy for Congress Committee to file
false federal campaign disclosure reports, failing to keep accurate books and records,
omitting to disclose material facts in different filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") and securities fraud. The Indictment also charged Hemmingson
and Black with falsifying the financial books and records of a public company and lying to
the company's outside independent auditors. This case, based on our research, represented
the first application of the federal securities laws, in particular the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act ("FCPA"), to an unlawful campaign contribution scheme in a
criminal indictment.
The evidence revealed a scheme to make illegal contributions to Henry
Espy's campaign in 1993 and 1994 26-$1000 conduit contributions in 1993 by senior
corporate officials, agents and family members that the company reimbursed and a $20,000
debt retirement contribution in 1994. The Indictment charged the defendants with
conspiring to generate money to be used for illegal corporate campaign contributions to
Henry Espy for the purpose of gaining access to Secretary Espy in order to favorably
influence his decisions concerning matters affecting Crop Growers before the Department of
Agriculture. Among the matters pending before the Department of Agriculture that concerned
Hemmingson were Secretary Espy's contemplated revisions to the crop insurance program and
the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994. In order to conceal the reimbursements,
Crop Growers, acting through Hemmingson, Black and others, created false vouchers (check
requisitions for travel reimbursement), false invoices (increased bills submitted to Crop
Growers), and fictitious entries (recording as travel advances, travel reimbursements,
expense advances, consulting fees, computer purchases, an advance on crop loss
adjustments, and attorneys fees) in the financial books and records of the company. When
Crop Growers later became a public company, the false entries were summarized in the
company's certified financial statements filed with the SEC, but disguised as legitimate
expenses.
On January 3, 1997, the trial court dismissed the counts that alleged
the defendants concealed material facts by failing to make certain disclosures in filings
with the SEC and the securities fraud count based on vagueness and ambiguities in the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities regulations. United States v. Crop
Growers Corp., 954 F. Supp. 335, 347-348 (D.D.C. 1997). In fact, the court's specific
language was that "the SEC clearly knows how to write specific disclosure
requirements into its regulations, and has chosen not to do so for uncharged criminal
conduct." Id. at 346. The court also dismissed for lack of venue Hemmingson's and
Black's falsification of corporate records and lying to the auditors. I referred to the
United States Attorney for the District of Montana the four counts dismissed for lack of
venue so that the defendants would not be allowed to escape prosecution because of the
dismissal or because of the unique nature of Independent Counsel prosecutions.
The trial court opinion, notwithstanding the dismissal of certain
counts, established several critical propositions. First, the books and records provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), contained in the FCPA,
apply to corporations that disguise political contributions to campaigns for federal
office. Second, falsifying accounting records, including preparation of financial
statements to conceal such contributions, can be prosecuted as criminal violations under
the Exchange Act. Third, false statements by corporate officials to auditors about the
accuracy of the books and records can constitute criminal offenses. Fourth, the reach of
the criminal proscriptions of the books and records provisions of the FCPA extend to the
years immediately preceding the year in which a corporation goes public. Fifth, financial
statements fall within the definition of "books and records" under the federal
securities laws. And sixth, a corporation can be both a victim and a participant in crimes
arising out of the same facts.
On January 21, 1997, the trial court found Crop Growers guilty,
pursuant to its plea of nolo contendere, to one count of conspiracy and one count
of making and keeping false books and records in violation of the FCPA. Crop Growers paid
a $2 million fine to the United States Treasury.
Hemmingson and Black went to trial on the three remaining counts in
the indictment conspiracy and causing the Henry Espy campaign to make false
statements to the FEC. The two substantive counts charged Hemmingson and Black, by virtue
of their roles in the conduit contribution scheme, with causing the campaign to fail to
identify three Crop Growers subsidiaries, rather than the persons who actually wrote the
checks, as the contributors to Henry Espy' campaign. On February 13, 1997, the jury
acquitted the two defendants.
- United States v. Henry W. Espy, Jr., et al.
The Henry Espy
case began as part of the Indictment originally returned on July 9, 1996 in New Orleans,
Louisiana. However, on November 6, 1996, the New Orleans trial court judge transferred to
the Northern District of Mississippi for trial the first six counts of the indictment
conspiracy and false statements to a federally insured financial institution in
connection with a $75,000 loan to Henry Espy.
On February 24, 1997, Ferrouillet, who as a result of the transfer
was a defendant in New Orleans and Oxford, and Municipal Healthcare Cooperative, Inc.,
Ferrouillet's corporate alter ego for conducting his insurance business, pleaded guilty to
the conspiracy and five false statements counts. Ferrouillet guaranteed the bank loan,
with his law firm, Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet, as guarantor. The court transferred
Ferrouillet's sentencing back to New Orleans for consolidation with his 10-count felony
conviction. The sentence on the 16 felony counts was 12 months in a half-way house/work
release program. The court sentenced Municipal Healthcare to five years of inactive
probation. Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
defraud Henry Espy's hometown Mississippi bank in connection with the loan and was
sentenced to pay a $10,000 fine.
Henry Espy thus became the lone remaining defendant in what began as
a five defendant case. On February 28, 1997, in a bench trial, the judge entered a
Judgment of Acquittal on the five counts of false statements to a federally-insured bank.
On March 4, 1997 the Judge entered a Judgment of Acquittal on the remaining conspiracy
count.
- In the Matter of American Family Life Assurance Company
During
the investigation, this Office uncovered illegal corporate and conduit campaign
contributions to the Henry Espy campaign debt retirement effort by the American Family
Life Assurance Company ("AFLAC"), a New York Stock Exchange - listed and Fortune
500 company. In September 1994, AFLAC's Vice President of Marketing Support, solicited two
independent AFLAC insurance agents and their wives to each contribute $1,000 to Henry
Espy's failed congressional campaign, and subsequently authorized the issuance of checks
using AFLAC corporate funds to reimburse the contributions. My office declined prosecution
because, as noted in the company's Conciliation Agreement with the FEC, AFLAC's vice
president was the only employee involved in the unlawful reimbursement scheme. Before
referring the matter to the FEC for administrative resolution, we obtained AFLAC's
agreement to pay an $80,000 penalty and its consent to the FEC's jurisdiction.
On January 14, 1998 the FEC made public the Conciliation Agreement.
AFLAC paid an $80,000 civil penalty and admitted to knowingly and willfully violating the
corporate contribution and conduit contribution provisions of the Federal Election
Campaign Act ("FECA").
- The Department of Agriculture's Chief of Staff: Ron Blackley
Ronald
H. Blackley was the Chief of Staff at USDA between January 21, 1993 and February 1994.
During the mid-1980s, Blackley worked in Mississippi for the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service ("ASCS"), an agency of the USDA. The USDA description
of Blackley's Chief of Staff position was the "alter ego" to the Secretary of
Agriculture and specified that he "shared with the Secretary the burdens and
responsibilities of his office." Blackley also served as an agriculture aide to
then-Congressman Espy from 1989 until Espy's appointment as Secretary. When illegal
conduct by Blackley came to light, the Department of Justice refused to prosecute him and
vigorously opposed my January 25, 1996 application for investigatory and prosecutive
jurisdiction to the Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit ("Special
Division"). On April 22, 1997, the Special Division referred to me the following:
The jurisdiction and authority to investigate and prosecute any violation of any
federal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor, by any organization or individual,
related to any application, appeal or request for subsidy made to or considered by [USDA]
for which [Secretary Espy] and/or his Chief of Staff Ronald Blackley intervened in the
application, approval, or review process.
The referral of this related matter led to the following prosecutions:
- United States v. Five M Farming Enterprises, Inc., et al.
In
my last report, I advised you of the disposition of this case. Five M Farming Enterprises
and Brook Keith Mitchell, Sr. pleaded guilty on November 13, 1996 to conspiracy to defraud
the USDA by making false and fraudulent statements to obtain in excess of $700,000 in farm
deficiency payments in the flagrantly abused "Mississippi Christmas Tree"
program, making false statements to the USDA and submitting false entries in books and
records. Between May 1993 and May 1996, Mitchell was an Espy appointee to the five member
Mississippi ASCS State Committee. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled. Brook Keith
Mitchell, Jr., a college student and the third defendant, concluded a one year pre-trial
diversion program on November 13, 1997.
- United States v. Norris J. Faust, Jr.
On November 19, 1996,
a grand jury in the Southern District of Mississippi indicted Norris Faust, Jr., the
Executive Director of the Farm Services Agency for the State of Mississippi, on three
counts of perjury. On March 8, 1993, in contravention of agency protocol, Faust rescinded
an agency regulation that enabled Brook Mitchell, Sr. to collect farm subsidies on behalf
of his sons without disclosing that they were full-time college students and had
insignificant involvement in the operation of Mitchell's farm. Mitchell, who lobbied to
get Faust his position, and Blackley, who was Chief of Staff and represented Mitchell as a
paid consultant in a USDA appeal contesting the denial of subsidies to Mitchell, had urged
Faust to rescind the regulation. Faust lied to the federal grand jury on three different
occasions regarding the circumstances surrounding the rescission in order to hide the true
motives behind his conduct. On February 14, 1997 the jury acquitted Faust on the three
perjury counts.1
- United States v. Ronald H. Blackley
On April 22, 1997, a
federal grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Blackley on three counts of false
statements relating to his receipt of $22,000 in 1993 from Mississippi agri-business
interests, which were prohibited sources, after Blackley became Chief of Staff at USDA.
The agri-businesses that gave him the $22,000 were clients of Blackley's consulting
business and had matters pending before the USDA. In fact, these businesses sought and
received in excess of $400,000 in USDA subsidies in the one year that Blackley served as
Espy's Chief of Staff. During this period, Blackley also attempted to influence and
reverse a USDA decision not to provide one of the businesses with the amount of subsidies
it requested. The agri-businesses made payments to Blackley, his wife and his son. On
December 1, 1997 the jury convicted Blackley on all counts. Sentencing before the
Honorable Royce C. Lamberth is scheduled for March 13, 1998.
- The Sun-Diamond Gratuities and Illegal Contribution cases
Sun-Diamond
Growers of California, Inc. describes itself as a "mega-cooperative," an
agricultural cooperative with more than 4,500 growers operating as Diamond Walnut Growers
(operator of the world's largest processing plant for walnuts), Sun Maid Growers of
California (producer of 30 percent of California's raisins), Sunsweet Growers, Hazelnut
Growers of Oregon (producer of nearly 20 percent of Oregon's hazelnuts), and Valley Fig
Growers (producer of nearly 50 percent of California's figs). Sun-Diamond also is the
parent of Sun-Land Products of California, a for-profit corporation that processes and
makes dried fruits and nuts. In 1994, Sun-Diamond's combined sales and revenues were $670
million; in 1993 its net proceeds were $51.5 million. Since 1986, Richard Douglas served
as Sun-Diamond's senior vice president of corporate affairs, responsible for all of
Sun-Diamond's interests in Washington, D.C. The Sun-Diamond cases include the following
three prosecutions:
- United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California
In my
last report, I advised you that, in September 1996, a jury in the District of Columbia
convicted Sun-Diamond of three felonies illegal gratuities and two counts of wire
fraud, and five Federal Election Campaign Act misdemeanors one illegal corporate
political contribution count and four illegal conduit contribution counts. On May 13,
1997, the court sentenced Sun-Diamond to five years probation, with special conditions,
and a $1,500,000 fine. Sun-Diamond has appealed its conviction.
On September 7, 1996, the trial Court ruled that illegal gratuities
to public officials did not require showing a nexus between the gratuity and a specific
official act. Instead, the Government only must prove the existence of a status gratuity
that the gratuity-giver has a matter "within the purview of the official
receiving the gratuity," and the gratuity was provided simply because of the
official's position. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 941 F. Supp.
1262, 1266 (D.D.C. 1996). In the appeal, Sun-Diamond seeks to rewrite the gratuity
statute, 18 U.S.C. ¤ 201(c)(1)(A), by requiring the government to demonstrate a nexus
between the gratuity and a specific official act. Both sides have briefed and argued the
case for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- United States v. Richard Douglas
In my last report, I
advised you of the indictment of Richard Douglas on October 15, 1996, in the Northern
District of California on 17 counts of illegal gratuities to a public official (Secretary
Espy), mail and wire fraud, illegal corporate and conduit campaign contributions, and
false statements to the FBI. On April 2, 1997, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson severed
the nine wire fraud counts alleging Douglas committed fraud in his mortgage application
for a half-million dollar house in Oakland, California, from the gratuities and illegal
campaign contribution counts.2 Judge Henderson also
dismissed the two counts that charged Douglas with making false statements o the FBI
concerning whether Sun Diamond had matters pending at the USDA and whether he gave
gratuities to Secretary Espy, and that he received free tickets to the June 1993 Chicago
Bulls-Phoenix Suns National Basketball Association championship from New York Knicks guard
Greg Anthony when in fact Espy obtained the tickets from a Quaker Oats corporate
executive.
On November 24, 1997 a jury convicted Douglas on one count of giving
$7,600 in illegal gratuities to and for the benefit of Secretary Espy. The illegal
gratuities included a new set of luggage worth $2,427, tickets, limousine rides and meals
for Secretary Espy and his girlfriend to attend the 1993 U.S. Open in New York valued at
$4,590, and approximately $655 in meals. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the
second count of illegal gratuities, a $3,100 airplane ticket to Espy for his girlfriend to
accompany Espy on a trip to Greece. The jury acquitted Douglas on the remaining counts.
This case exemplifies, among other things, how trial court delays
hinder the progress of an Independent Counsel's office operation. The first trial, on the
gratuities and illegal contributions, commenced exactly one year, to the day, after the
initial trial setting conference on October 28, 1996, when the court deferred setting a
trial date upon request of defense counsel. Notwithstanding our repeated requests for an
early trial date, the trial court did not do so at hearings or requests made on December
2, 1996, February 26, 1997 and April 14, 1997. Although on April 30, 1997 the court set a
"firm" trial date of September 16, 1997, on August 21, 1997, Judge Henderson
vacated the trial date because of the unavailability of defense counsel and reset trial
for October 21, 1997. Unavailability of defense counsel resulted in one additional
postponement until October 28, 1997.
Although Judge Henderson originally committed to beginning the wire
fraud trial two weeks after the conclusion of the first trial, he still has not yet set a
trial date. As discussed below under Appellate Matters, we appealed the court's dismissal
of the two false statement counts, and, as a result of a January 26, 1998 United States
Supreme Court opinion "on point," expect to prevail and proceed to trial on the
charges.
- United States v. James H. Lake
In the first disposition
obtained by this office in October 1995, James Lake pleaded guilty to wire fraud and
making illegal contributions to the Henry Espy campaign. Douglas, in managing
Sun-Diamond's Washington lobbying staff, directed Lake's work, and that of his firm,
Robinson Lake Sawyer and Miller, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bozell Worldwide.
Sun-Diamond paid Lake an annual retainer of $240,000. The wire fraud count was for
defrauding his company of his loyal and honest services by submitting a false $5,000
invoice to a charity dinner, and the FECA counts were for an illegal corporate campaign
contribution and conduit contribution to Henry Espy's campaign more than one year after
his primary election defeat. Lake testified as a government witness in United States v.
Sun-Diamond Growers and United States v. Richard Douglas.
On January 31, 1998, the Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina sentenced Lake
to to pay a fine of $150,000, representing $100,000 for the wire fraud count and $25,000
for each FECA count, and two years probation. The Court also required that Lake, as a
special condition of probation, write and distribute to more than 2,000 lobbyists and
entities, at his own expense, a monograph detailing the criminal provisions of FECA
relating to corporate and conduit contributions to candidates for federal political
office. The monograph is to cover four areas of FECA: (1) its contribution limits; (2) its
prohibitions and criminal provisions regarding corporate campaign contributions; (3) its
prohibitions and criminal provisions regarding conduit contributions; and (4) methods of
preventing criminal violations. Additionally, the Court required Lake to distribute the
monograph to the 490 members of the American League of Lobbyists, the 1,602 political
action committees sponsored by corporations, and the 41 political action committees
sponsored by cooperatives. Federal law does not require the lobbyists to register with the
FEC.
- Super Bowl Atlanta and Smokey Bear Espy's Tickets
As first reported in the
press on August 25, 1994, Secretary Espy made an official government trip to and attended
the January 30, 1994 Super Bowl in Atlanta, Georgia.3 When
Secretary Espy first made plans to attend the game, there also were plans to honor Smokey
Bear, the mascot of the United States Forest Service which is under USDA jurisdiction. On
approximately January 21, 1994, Secretary Espy learned that there were no official USDA
events scheduled for the Super Bowl. So he then caused his staff to schedule and attempt
to schedule meetings in Atlanta during Super Bowl weekend to justify his travel and
attendance. Secretary Espy billed the government for travel, two nights' lodging and other
expenses for his trip to Atlanta.
In addition, to attending the football game, Espy did meet with
senior officials of Oglethorpe Power Corporation concerning its efforts to refinance $3
billion worth of debt guaranteed by the Rural Electrification Administration, an agency of
the USDA. Espy obtained one ticket to the game from Smith Barney, which was working for
Oglethorpe on the refinancing, and four tickets from Fernbank Museum of Natural History,
which invited Espy and assembled an exhibition marking Smokey's 50th birthday. Fernbank
publicly stated that it paid $900 for the four tickets, $200 more than their face value,
for tickets for Espy's girlfriend and children. Fernbank obtained a $71,000 Federal
Financial Assistance Grant for the 1994 Smokey Bear exhibition. At the game, two 30-second
animated video public service announcements honored Smokey Bear during halftime.
- United States v. Smith Barney, Inc.
On July 29, 1997, Smith
Barney, Inc. paid $1,050,000 to the United States in settlement of a civil tort and
conflict of interest action for giving Secretary Espy a Super Bowl ticket in 1994 valued
at $2,200. The Complaint charged that Smith Barney gave the gratuity to Secretary Espy
while Smith Barney's Public Power Group was seeking Espy's assistance to convince the
Department of Treasury to reconsider a decision not to waive more than $286 million in
prepayment penalties on a $3.1 billion loan to Smith Barney's client, Oglethorpe Power.
This case was the first civil action for damages and civil penalties brought by an
Independent Counsel. Additionally, we believe that this was the first case brought by the
United States under the tort theory of interference with an agency relationship and the
first application of 18 U.S.C. ¤ 209 against a non-government person or entity. Although
Smith Barney denied legal liability, the Wall Street securities firm accepted
responsibility for the conduct of its employee for participating in and procuring a
violation of Secretary Espy's fiduciary duty to the United States and interference with
his agency relationship with the United States Department of Agriculture and the Executive
Branch of the United States Government.
The facts of the Smith Barney case also were unique in that
Secretary Espy went outside of the Department of Agriculture in support of Oglethorpe's
loan refinancing proposal on several occasions to the Secretary of the Treasury,
once to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and twice to the Vice
President of the United States. Where Fernbank paid $225 for each of four tickets for the
Secretary, Smith Barney paid a ticket scalper a total of $6,600, $2,200 for each of three
tickets, one of which Espy received. The Complaint alleged that the Smith Barney Managing
Director responsible for the Oglethorpe account used an Atlanta-based financial printer to
purchase the Super Bowl tickets. When the financial printer issued an invoice to Smith
Barney for "Super Bowl tickets," the Managing Director instructed the financial
printer to falsify and reissue the invoice to read "printing consultation fee on
Oglethorpe Power Project," eliminating any reference to Super Bowl tickets.
- The Tyson Foods Gratuities and Cover-Up
The role of Tyson Foods,
Inc. and its principals in the giving of illegal gratuities to Secretary Espy has been a
central component of this investigation since its inception. In Attorney General Janet
Reno's August 8, 1994 application to the Special Division for the appointment of an
Independent Counsel, she made the following representations concerning violations of
federal criminal law by Tyson Foods:
On March 17, 1994, there was a press report that Tyson Foods, Inc., a major poultry
processing corporation headquartered in Arkansas, was receiving lenient treatment from the
Department of Agriculture on a number of pending regulatory issues . . . .[T]he Department
of Agriculture Office of Inspector General . . . referred to the Department of Justice
allegations that Secretary Espy may have violated 21 U.S.C. ¤ 622, the anti-gratuity
provision of the Meat Inspection Act, by accepting gifts from Tyson Foods. . . .
Investigation developed evidence that Secretary Espy accepted gifts from Tyson Foods in
the course of two separate trips. . . . The gifts fall into the categories of
entertainment, transportation, lodging and meals. In total, the gifts amount to at least
several hundred dollars in value.
In re Espy, Application to the Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¤ 592(c)(1) for the
Appointment of an Independent Counsel, Petition No. 94-2 (D.C.Cir., filed Aug. 8, 1994) at
1-2. My appointment followed from and was as a result of this application. The following
prosecutions relate specifically to Tyson Foods' conduct:
- United States v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
On December 29, 1997
Tyson Foods, Inc. pleaded guilty to a one count criminal information before Judge Urbina
in the District of Columbia to giving more than $12,000 in gratuities to Secretary Espy.
The unlawful gratuities that Tyson Foods gave Espy for or because of official acts Espy
performed or would perform, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. ¤ 201(c)(1)(A) (the illegal
gratuities provision of the federal criminal code), consisted of (1) four tickets to the
January 18, 1993 Presidential Inaugural Dinner for a total cost of $6,000; (2) air
transportation (round trip for Secretary Espy's girlfriend and one way for Secretary Espy)
on a Tyson Foods jet, meals, lodging, and entertainment at the May 14-16, 1993 Don
Tyson/John Tyson Birthday Party weekend, Tyson Management Development Center,
Russellville, Arkansas, valued in the approximate amount of $2,556; (3) a Tyson Foundation
scholarship check for Secretary Espy's girlfriend, issued on January 4, 1994, in the
amount of $1,200 for the first semester of an eight semester college program; and (4)
airline tickets for Secretary Espy's girlfriend, skybox tickets, food, and limousines for
the Dallas CowboysGreen Bay Packers January 16, 1994 playoff game in the approximate
amount of $2,271. Tyson Foods gave these gratuities to Secretary Espy while it had a
number of matters pending before the Department of Agriculture, including, among other
things, an emergency interim final rule issued on or about August 16, 1993, by the USDA
that required processors, including Tyson Foods, to place safe handling instructions on
all raw meat and poultry packaging labels.
As part of the Plea Agreement, Tyson Foods agreed to pay $6 million
in fines and investigative costs. On January 12, 1998 Judge Urbina accepted the terms of
the plea agreement negotiated between my office and Tyson Foods, modified only by the
addition of a four-year term of probation, and sentenced the company to pay the $6 million
in fines and investigative costs, adhere to a comprehensive Corporate Compliance Agreement
and fully cooperate with this office's ongoing investigation and prosecutions of Secretary
Espy, Tyson Foods' principal lobbyist Jack Williams and Tyson Foods official Archibald
Schaffer. The Compliance Agreement entered into with the USDA and Office of Independent
Counsel was unprecedented in its breadth requiring Tyson Foods to: (1) appoint a
new Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors; (2) retain an outside
expert to review, evaluate and comment on Tyson Foods' relevant internal reporting
structure and controls, relevant policies and procedures and implementation of the
controls, policies and procedures; (3) require the Audit Committee and independent
auditors to (a) review officer expenses, and (b) review all contracts for lobbying and
consulting services relating to matters dealing with the Executive Branch and expenses
attendant thereto; (4) design, establish, and begin implementing a compliance program
which includes (a) a Corporate Code of Conduct and Compliance Policy; (b) distribution of
the Corporate Code of Conduct and Compliance Policy to Tyson Foods directors, officers,
managers, employees, consultants, lobbyists, or others employed or retained by Tyson Foods
involved in matters relating to the USDA and dealing with USDA officials; (c)
certifications by those to whom Tyson Foods is required to distribute the Code of Conduct
and Compliance Policy that they understand and will comply with applicable laws and
regulations and with the policies set forth in the policy; and (d) conduct annual training
programs concerning, among other things, the fiduciary duties and other obligations of
officers and directors; (5) establish an Ethics Compliance Committee; (6) appoint an
Ethics Compliance Officer; (7) create a log of all substantive contacts by Tyson Foods
officers and directors with representatives of all federal agencies at the Contracting
Officer level and above; (8) prepare a quarterly Compliance Report; and (9) review its
internal reporting structure and controls to assure that the control environment,
accounting system and procedures can be relied on to assure reporting of transactions in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Although the USDA did find cause to debar Tyson Foods from
procurement and non-procurement programs, the USDA determined that the terms and
conditions of the Compliance Agreement provided adequate assurance that Tyson Foods'
future dealings with the federal government would be conducted with the high integrity the
federal government expects of its business partners, and that suspension, debarment, or
action was not necessary to protect the USDA's interests. As a term of the four year
probation, the Court required Tyson Foods also to make quarterly reports to the Court
regarding its dealings with federal officials and separate reports to the Court on its
performance of the Compliance Agreement.
- United States v. Jack L. Williams and Archibald R. Schaffer, III
On January 15, 1998, a District of Columbia Grand Jury returned a 15-count second
superseding indictment charging Jack L. Williams, Tyson Foods' principal Washington
lobbyist, and Archibald R. Schaffer, III ("Schaffer"), Tyson Foods' official in
charge of Media, Public and Governmental Affairs and the company's lobbying activities,
with conspiring to defraud the United States and the USDA of the right to the honest
services of Secretary Espy, to violate the illegal gratuities provisions of Title 18 and
the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1907 and to make false statements to federal law
enforcement officers to conceal their knowledge of the illegal gratuities. The Indictment
alleged that Williams and Schaffer conspired to commit these offenses with four unindicted
co-conspirators Tyson Foods, Don Tyson (chairman of the Board of Directors of Tyson
Foods and control person over approximately 90 percent of its voting shares), John Tyson
(Tyson's son, a member of Tyson Food's Board of Directors, president of the Beef and Pork
Division, and a trustee of the Tyson Foundation) and the Tyson Foundation (a
not-for-profit Arkansas charitable corporation controlled by the Tyson family). The
Indictment superseded two previous indictments of Williams, one charging that Williams
made false statements to FBI agents and USDA Office of Inspector General agents, and one
charging Williams with giving illegal gratuities to Secretary Espy and making the false
statements.
A grand jury first indicted Williams on September 17, 1996 on the
two false statements counts. On March 21, 1997, a jury convicted Williams on both counts
of lying to the federal law enforcement agents. On June 4, 1997, the trial court granted a
defense motion for a new trial upon claiming the unavailability of certain evidence. The
information in question involved testimony by a government witness who was not testifying
concerning any underlying facts in the case, rather he was a witness concerning the
materiality to the investigation of false statements by Williams and others. We asserted
that a 15-year old false statement in a totally unrelated affidavit in an administrative
matter, after which the agent was promoted, was irrelevant to the witness' credibility;
however, the court disagreed.
On September 30, 1997, the grand jury returned a superseding
indictment charging Williams with the two false statements counts and two additional
charges of violating the illegal gratuities provision of the Meat Inspection Act. The
second superseding indictment returned on January 15, 1998, which included Schaffer, is
scheduled for trial before Judge Robertson on June 15, 1998.
- Indictment and Prosecution of the Secretary: United States v. Alphonso Michael Espy
On August 27, 1997, for the first time in more than seventy years and
only the second time in American history, a federal grand jury indicted a Secretary of a
Department of the United States and member of the President's Cabinet for accepting
illegal gratuities.4 The District of Columbia federal grand
jury indicted former Secretary of Agriculture Alphonso Michael Espy on 39 counts of wire
and mail fraud, a public official accepting illegal gratuities, violations of the Meat
Inspection Act and the Travel Act, false statements, tampering with a witness and causing
a criminal act to be done. The charges include violating his duty to provide honest
services to the American public by taking more than $35,000 in things of value for his own
benefit, and that of his girlfriend and his family, from prohibited sources during a
fifteen month period in 1993 and 1994. 5
The focus of the Indictment is Secretary Espy's acceptance of things
of value from firms and individuals with business before the USDA6
Sun-Diamond and its lobbyist (Market Promotion Program, Methyl Bromide, Teamsters
Union strike at Diamond Walnut, Commodity Letter of Credit Program, USDA commodities
purchases, the "Delaney Clause," USDA position for Kimberly Schnoor, and
Elsmere/BKK land swap); Tyson Foods and its lobbyist ("zero tolerance" policy
for fecal contamination of poultry, safe-handling labeling, fresh/frozen labeling, and
USDA inspections and certifications); Oglethorpe (refinancing $3.1 billion in REA bonds);
Smith-Barney (refinancing $3.1 billion in REA bonds for Oglethorpe); the EOP Group, Inc.,
a Washington, D.C. political and business consulting company that represented
organizations before USDA and employed Espy's girlfriend after he became Secretary of
Agriculture (refinancing $3.1 billion in REA bonds for Oglethorpe, product use approval
for Konjac Flour, and representation of National Agricultural Chemical Association);
Quaker Oats Corporation, a multi-national food company doing business in the areas of
grain-based cereals and snacks, and with a food division that processes red meat products
(USDA compelled recall of 1.8 million pounds of meat); and Fernbank ($71,000 contract).
The illegal gratuities that Espy accepted and/or solicited included: luggage (Sun-Diamond
and Douglas) valued at $2,427; cash to his girlfriend (Sun-Diamond and Douglas) in the
amount of $3,200; U.S. Open tennis tickets and limousines (Sun-Diamond and Douglas) valued
at $4,446; tickets to a Washington Bullets-New York Knicks NBA basketball game
(Sun-Diamond and Douglas) valued at $222; Waterford Crystal Bowl (Sun-Diamond and Douglas)
valued at $173; four seats to a Presidential Inaugural dinner (Tyson Foods/Williams)
valued at $6,000; Russellville birthday party, including airfare, meals, lodging and
entertainment (Tyson Foods/Williams) valued at $2,556; Tyson Foundation scholarship check
to his girlfriend (Tyson Foods/Williams) valued at $1,200; weekend trip to Dallas, Texas,
including airfare, limousines and tickets to the Dallas Cowboys-Green Bay Packers NFL
Playoff football game (Tyson Foods/Williams) valued at $2,087; Super Bowl ticket
(Oglethorpe Power/EOP Group/Smith Barney) valued at $2,200; employment for his girlfriend
(EOP Group) value not assigned; tickets to the Chicago Bulls-Phoenix Suns NBA Championship
basketball game (Quaker Oats) valued at $90; and four Super Bowl tickets (Fernbank) valued
at $857.
Among the additional felonies charged in the Indictment were offenses
related to Secretary Espy's efforts to conceal his illegal conduct tampering with a
witness and false statements. The charge of witness tampering (18 U.S.C. ¤¤
1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) and 1512(b)(3)), which exposes the former Secretary to possible 10
years incarceration, relates to his directing another USDA employee under his immediate
supervision to alter an official document. On April 8, 1994, in response to a request from
Special Agents of the USDA Office of Inspector General ("USDA-OIG") to produce a
copy of his travel itinerary for the January 15 - 16, 1994 weekend, Espy met with and
directed a member of his staff to delete certain information from his official travel
itinerary and create an altered travel schedule. The false itinerary omitted all
references to his girlfriend, Don Tyson, limousine service provided by Tyson Foods and the
Dallas-Green Bay NFC playoff game which Espy and his girlfriend attended as guests of
Tyson Foods. After Secretary Espy approved the altered itinerary, he then caused a member
of his staff to deliver the false itinerary, on his behalf, to the USDA-OIG Special
Agents.
The false statements counts (18 U.S.C. ¤ 1001) involve lying to
federal law enforcement agents, lying to the Executive Office of the President and filing
false Financial Disclosure reports. Secretary Espy lied to USDA-OIG Special Agents about
his receipt of things of value from Tyson Foods. He lied to FBI Special Agents about his
receipt of the NBA playoff tickets from Douglas, claiming, as did Douglas, that the
tickets came from Greg Anthony. He also lied to the FBI agents about other things of value
he received from prohibited sources. Moreover, he concealed material facts from and lied
to Leon Panetta, President Clinton's then Chief of Staff, and Lloyd Cutler, then White
House Counsel, in response to their questions concerning Espy's unlawful receipt and
solicitation of gifts, gratuities, and things of value from prohibited sources. Espy told
Panetta and Cutler, in substance, that "there's nothing else out there," when he
knew at the time of his statement that he had concealed and covered up certain illegal
gratuities that he received and/or solicited illegally. Espy also lied to the President's
representatives about all of the gratuities that he had received from prohibited sources.
Finally, Espy filed Personal Financial Disclosure Report forms for the years 1993 and 1994
on which he failed to disclose reportable gifts that he received from prohibited sources
and others. The value of the undisclosed gifts and gratuities was approximately $6,761 for
1993 and $3,191 for 1994.
On December 15, 1997, Judge Urbina dismissed four counts in the
Indictment three counts of violating the illegal gratuities provision of the Meat
Inspection Act and the one count of false statements to the Executive Office of the
President. Judge Urbina denied Espy's motion to dismiss the thirteen counts charging
illegal receipt of gratuities by a public official under Title 18. Judge Urbina dismissed
the Meat Inspection Act gratuities counts by reading the statute narrowly and finding that
the Act did not apply to the Secretary of Agriculture. He dismissed the count charging
false statements to the President's Chief of Staff and the White House Counsel, both
members of the Executive Office of the President, by finding that the Executive Office of
the President was not a department of the United States covered by the false statements
statute. As discussed below, we appealed the dismissal of these counts.
The court originally scheduled Espy's trial to begin on March 30,
1998. On February 13, 1998, the court, acting on a motion of the defendant that we opposed
vigorously, continued the Espy trial until some unstated future date after the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit renders its decisions in the Government's
Espy and defendant's Sun-Diamond appeals.
II
APPELLATE MATTERS
This office's appellate practice encompasses the three stages of an
Independent Counsel's investigative and prosecutive jurisdiction the grand jury
investigation, post-indictment but pre-trial interlocutory appeals, and post-conviction
relief. In my last report, I wrote that "[i]t has become clear in the course of this
investigation that persons resisting an independent counsel investigation or prosecution
see the question of the independent counsel's jurisdiction as a productive avenue for
delaying tactics."7 As recently as November 1997, we
were filing briefs opposing motions to quash grand jury subpoenas. The most notable
challenge to a grand jury subpoena issued by this Office, and challenge to our
jurisdiction, came from the White House. That grand jury litigation and related appeal
gave rise to the June 17, 1997, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in In re: Sealed Case, 116 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1997)8 concerning an October 14, 1994 subpoena to the White House
for relevant documents. The D.C. Circuit vacated the district court's September 30, 1996
order denying our motion to compel the documents. Although the appellate court did not
overturn the lower court's decision, it ordered the district court to "identify and
release specific items of evidence that might reasonably be relevant to the grand jury's
investigation" and afford the Office of Independent Counsel "an opportunity to
make out a sufficient showing of need in regard to other evidence." Id. 582. To date,
we still have not received the "identified and specific items" the Circuit Court
ordered the district court to turn over eight months ago.
There currently are two
post-indictment/pre-trial matters before the appellate courts. The first, now pending
before the Ninth Circuit, is Judge Henderson's April 2, 1997, dismissal of the two false
statements counts against Richard Douglas, discussed above at page 11. The fundamental
issue on appeal was whether Douglas' conduct fit within the "exculpatory no"
defense to criminal charges brought under 18 U.S.C. ¤ 1001, and whether such a defense
should exist.9 Several circuits, including the Ninth
Circuit, had adopted the "exculpatory no" defense. On November 5, 1997,
following oral arguments, the Ninth Circuit deferred decision pending ruling in United
States v. Brogan. On January 26, 1998, the Supreme Court held that "[b]ecause the
plain language of ¤ 1001 admits of no exception for an Ôexculpatory no,' we affirm the
judgment of the [Second Circuit disallowing the Ôexculpatory no' defense]." Brogan
v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 1998 WL 23151, at p.5. The Supreme Court decision is
consistent with the position my office took with the trial court and Ninth Circuit in
Douglas.10 We currently are preparing supplemental briefs
addressing whether Brogan applies retroactively to Douglas.
The other pre-trial ruling on appeal is Judge Urbina's dismissal of
the three Meat Inspection Act and one false statement to the Executive Office of the
President counts in United States v. Espy, discussed above at pages 22-23. The appeal by
the Government raises two issues. The first is whether the gratuities section of the Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. ¤ 622), which forbids the acceptance of things of value by
"any officer or employee of the United States authorized to perform any of the duties
prescribed by this subchapter," applies to a former Secretary of Agriculture, who at
the time he accepted gratuities was an officer of the United States authorized to perform
duties prescribed by the Act. The second issue, is whether the False Statement Statute (18
U.S.C. ¤ 1001), which prohibits false statements made "in any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States," reaches false
statements made to officials in the Executive Office of the President in the course of an
investigation ordered by the President concerning the ethical conduct of a Cabinet
officer. The trial court's rationale for dismissing the Meat Inspection Act counts was
that "Congress did not intend for ¤ 622 to extend to the Secretary of
Agriculture." The trial court's rationale for dismissing the false statement count
was that "defendant's alleged false statements were not made in matters within the
jurisdiction of any executive Ôdepartment' of the United States." We are arguing
that the district court's dismissal of the four counts resulted wholly from a blatant
misreading of the applicable statutes. The D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments on March
25, 1998.
Three defendants currently are seeking post-conviction relief from
Courts of Appeals Sun-Diamond from the D.C. Circuit and Ferrouillet and Hemmingson
from the Fifth Circuit. On December 11, 1997, the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the
appeal of United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, and the matter is under submission to the
Court. As the conviction involved giving illegal gratuities to Secretary Espy, Judge
Urbina, who tried the Sun-Diamond case and will preside over United States v. Espy,
indicated that a pronouncement from the D.C. Circuit concerning illegal gratuities may
cause him to reconsider his pre-trial rulings in Espy. Both sides are still briefing
United States v. Ferrouillet and Hemmingson for the Fifth Circuit, in which, as discussed
above at page 3, the Government has appealed the sentence.11
The Fifth Circuit has not determined whether to schedule oral argument.
III
REFERRED MATTERS
During the past year we have referred several matters that we
uncovered during our investigation to other agencies for further investigation, as
necessary, and/or prosecution. These referrals are as follows: (1) United States Attorney
in Montana the four Foreign Corrupt Practices Act counts dismissed for lack of
venue in the District of Columbia Hemmingson-Black prosecution; (2) Department of Justice
gratuities from a major agri-business to public officials, including members of
Congress, outside of the Department of Agriculture; (3) Department of Justice
program loan fraud in excess of $500,000 by a corporation and individual; (4) Department
of Justice Mississippi Christmas Tree scheme in excess of $450,000 involving a
ten-person farming operation; (5) Department of Justice use of Board of Directors
stipends for illegal corporate and conduit campaign contributions; and (6) Federal
Election Commission the AFLAC conduit contributions to the Henry Espy debt
retirement effort discussed above at page 6.
With the exception of the AFLAC referral that resulted in a
Conciliation Agreement and payment of an $80,000 civil penalty, the other matters are
pending. The United States Attorney in Montana advised me that her office will make a
prosecution determination in 60 to 90 days. I will keep you apprised in future reports of
the dispositions of each referral.
IV
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL REPORT
The Independent Counsel Reauthori-zation Act of 1994 requires that I
conduct all activities "with due regard for expenses" and have "authorized
only reasonable and lawful expenditures." 28 U.S.C. ¤¤ 594(l)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). To
that end, we located our office in Alexandria, Virginia, three miles south of National
Airport, where rents were less than in the District of Columbia. As I have since my
appointment, I have implemented and maintained a system of financial controls, internal to
this office and with personnel from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
that are effective in assuring that costs are reasonable and proper. The General
Accounting Office's Audit Report covering my office's expenditures through March 31, 1997
verify my accomplishment of this objective. Further consistent therewith and in the
interest of efficiency, I have hired staff who were either known to me, had experience
with Independent Counsel operations, administration and financial management, and/or were
familiar with the relevant federal laws and regulations to administer office operation.
In addition to the information provided in this report, during the
past year I have responded to an detailed request for information received November 18,
1996 from Senator Carl Levin. I trust that the information I furnished in my six replies
dated April 30, 1997, June 9, 1997, June 10, 1997, July 31, 1997, September 17,
1997, and November 13, 1997, have assisted you in your oversight responsibility for
Independent Counsels.
V
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
In my first report, I expressed concern about the hardship created by
travel reimbursement and per diem regulations on detailees to my office, which continues
to be a cause of turnover in qualified staff. In my second report, I addressed the need to
clarify the scope of an independent counsel's statutory jurisdiction, investigative and
prosecutive, because of the large number, but meritless, judicial challenges to
jurisdiction. Both of these issues, which are subject to legislative remedy, are a source
of delay in advancing and concluding Independent Counsel investigations. As I share
Congress' concern for, and in fact experience great frustration from, unnecessary delays
in Independent Counsel investigations and prosecutions, I write about what is the source
of greatest delay judicial procrastination and non-action. The Courts are the
Source of Greatest Delay for Independent Counsel Cases
The Special Division, in its published decision in In re Espy, 80
F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1996), noted that the 14 month period ending in approximately February
1996 produced 43 litigated motions challenging my office's jurisdiction in grand jury
matters. Since then, and as recent as November 1997, the challenges continue, with the
total far surpassing the 43 mentioned by the Special Division. The principal
jurisdictional challenge has been to subpoenas issued by my office. The average delay for
the district court supervising the grand jury in the District of Columbia to respond to
jurisdictional challenges in 1995, 1996 and much of 1997 was approximately 15 weeks.
Delays of this length impair the efficient functioning of the institution of an
independent counsel and, without doubt, have extended manifold the length of operation of
this office.
Unnecessary delays of approximately four months in duration have a
direct effect on, among other things, agent manpower and allocation of agent resources.
Agents from different agencies on detail to this investigation perform various assigned
tasks in different phases of the investigation tailored to their areas of expertise.
However, the detail agents are senior investigators, typically supervisory special agents,
from, for example, the FBI, USDA-OIG and Customs. The detailing agencies expect their
agents to return within a reasonable period of time, generally one year. Additionally,
most aspects of the investigation are integrally related, comprising pieces of a larger
puzzle. When an investigative avenue is tied up awaiting judicial resolution of an issue,
I reassign the agent to a different issue or phase of the investigation. That agent then
may become unavailable to return to the original assignment upon a decision from the
court, if the new issue is active. Alternatively, the detailing agency may return the
agent to his or her official duty station. If the agent who has spent time and learned an
issue cannot return to the Office of Independent Counsel, the agency may send another
agent in his or her place. This precipitates additional delay attributable to the
"learning curve" associated with a particular issue.
The Impact of Multiple District Litigation on Costs
An additional factor that impacts costs is multiple district
litigation. Ironically, a criminal defendant may influence a legal proceeding by his
choice of where he committed the crime. Ferrouillet committed his offenses in Louisiana
and Mississippi, and aided and abetted a crime in Montana. Faust lied to the grand jury in
Mississippi. The Northern District of California was the only common venue for all 19
counts on which Douglas was indicted. The requirement of seeking return of an indictment,
and more importantly conducting a trial, in a venue other than the District of Columbia
adds significant cost to an Independent Counsel investigation. Unlike United States
Attorneys Offices which are located in every federal judicial district in the United
States, Independent Counsels must create satellite offices in order to function
effectively in the distant district. The criminal conduct that my investigation uncovered
and fell within our prosecutorial jurisdiction necessitated operating three satellite
offices during the past year. Two of the offices, which now are closed, were in New
Orleans, Louisiana (United States v. Henry Espy, et al. indictment and United States v.
Ferrouillet and Hemmingson trial), and Oxford, Mississippi (United States v. Henry Espy,
et al. trial). The third satellite office, which will remain open until mid-March 1998, is
in San Francisco, California (United States v. Douglas indictment and trial).
In locating offices in the Northern District of Mississippi and
Northern District of California, we contracted with GSA to obtain low-cost space. In New
Orleans, the GSA was unable to accommodate our time constraints for opening an office. As
a result, the GSA issued a waiver so that we could obtain a lease in New Orleans. When
setting up an office for trial, we confronted the reluctance of landlords to grant
short-term leases of indeterminate length. Although we sought office space in the United
States Attorneys offices in these jurisdictions, they were unable or unwilling to
accommodate us.
The San Francisco Office
The operation of satellite offices, particularly when the courts
impose additional delays, increases operations costs. The San Francisco office, opened
November 1996 in anticipation of an early 1997 trial date, best illustrates the severe
financial strain resulting from court-driven delays. The monthly cost of operating and
maintaining the San Francisco office with minimal staff, while awaiting a trial date, was
$35,000 to $40,000 a month. Beginning in approximately July 1997, the cost rose in excess
of $85,000 to support (including pay) a full staff a team of lawyers, agents, and
support staff, and prepare for a trial we anticipated would begin in mid-September.
The one year from indictment to trial in the first of the two Douglas
cases in San Francisco also highlights the professional staffing problems associated with
trial date postponements facing Independent Counsels. Extended judicial delays may give
rise to disbanding an entire trial team and restaffing the case, causing repetition of
trial preparation and adding to mounting expenses.12 The
year-long delay forced me to recast the trial team three times. In fact, had the first
Douglas case not proceeded to trial in late October 1997, I stood to lose the two
Assistant United States Attorneys, one from San Francisco and the other from Tampa,
Florida, detailed to my office for the trial. In anticipation of scheduling a reasonable
trial date, the two United States Attorneys consented to the details upon my
representation that they would complete the two trials in October. I now must again
restaff the trial team because, on February 12, 1998, the United States Attorney for the
Middle District of Florida advised me that he would not make available for the mortgage
fraud case the Assistant United States Attorney who served as my lead counsel in the
gratuities-FECA case. The mortgage fraud case, the second trial, still does not have a
trial date.
Additionally, in November 1996, I relocated a lawyer from Washington
to San Francisco to oversee the office we opened for a trial expected to begin in January
1997. She was an integral part of the trial team in the companion case, United States v.
Sun-Diamond, tried in Washington in September 1996. This lawyer was intimately conversant
with the factual and legal issues in the West Coast case. She subsequently married and
left the office in May 1997 to raise a family.
The New Orleans and Oxford Offices
The Henry Espy indictment in New Orleans gave birth to a second
satellite office, Oxford, Mississippi, when the trial court transferred six counts to
Henry Espy's home district. On February 9, 1996, a senior narcotics prosecutor from the
United States Attorney's Office in New Orleans began a detail to work on the Henry Espy
and Ferrouillet aspect of the investigation. In June 1996, I opened the New Orleans office
in anticipation of seeking an indictment and a possible trial. New Orleans was the logical
venue for prosecuting the offenses surrounding Henry Espy's $75,000 bank loan guaranteed
by Ferrouillet and the laundering, and concealment, of the $20,000 campaign debt
retirement payment. On July 9, 1996, the grand jury returned an indictment, and, on August
8, 1996, superseded the indictment to add Hemmingson as a defendant. The defendants twice
moved, and we opposed, to continue the trial date. In October 1996, when the court changed
the trial date from early November 1996 to December 1996, the Assistant United States
Attorney from New Orleans returned to the United States Attorney's Office to prosecute a
major narcotics case. As a result, on October 18, 1996, six weeks before trial, an
Assistant United States Attorney from Baton Rouge, Louisiana joined me and another trial
lawyer to complete the trial team. The jury convicted the defendants on December 19, 1996;
however the court did not sentence the defendants until May 14, 1997. During the five
months between verdict and imposition of sentence, the defendants filed 14 motions. I
closed the New Orleans office in March 1997.
Additionally, on November 6, 1996 the trial court transferred the
first six counts of the Indictment to the Northern District of Mississippi for trial. This
necessitated opening another office in Oxford, Mississippi, which we operated between
February 1 and March 15, 1997.
Attorney Turnover
In addition to the effect of judicial delays on agent manpower, the
delays have directly effected attorney tenure. I currently have ten full-time attorneys on
staff. Since mid-1995, my staff has averaged sixteen to twenty attorneys. Since opening
the office, 41 attorneys have worked for this office, of which only two my former
Deputy, Counsellor, and now Senior Advisor and I have worked on the investigation
since the beginning. In less than four years, thirteen full-time attorneys have left this
office, most to return to Department of Justice assignments or pursue other professional
opportunities.13 As I noted above, the year-long judicial
delay in Douglas forced me to recast the trial team three times, and almost a fourth.
Qualified senior trial lawyers are essential to the successful completion of an
independent counsel's mission, regardless of whether an investigation results in even one
indictment or prosecution. The turnover among attorneys that I experienced as a direct
consequence of judicial delays has added unnecessarily to the length of this
investigation.
VI
CONCLUSION
My cases have involved prosecuting both sides of the offense of
illegal gratuities involving federal officials the receiving and the giving. The
motive for these illegal acts is rooted in the importance of access to and the ability to
influence persons and entities regulated by the federal government. Our 13 cases to date
reflect the susceptibility of the regulator and the regulated to crossing the line from
how the political process was designed to work to manipulation of the process by corrupt
means and concealment of the illegal conduct.
If you have any questions concerning the content of this report or my
work as Independent Counsel, I would be pleased to respond.
|
Respectfully,
Donald C. Smaltz
Independent Counsel |
1. Notwithstanding the acquittal, one
of the jurors wrote the following in a Letter to the Editor of the Jackson, Mississippi
Clarion Ledger published on February 27, 1997:
There is no question that Norris Faust Jr. did rescind an
important farming regulation which only would benefit an influential elite. By his own
admission, Faust stated that he never even had reviewed the important documentation in the
regulation before he changed it.
So the consideration of reinstating Norris Faust Jr. [as
Farm Service Director] would only be equivalent to rescinding the fairness and
equality of our system and our country.Back
2. The mortgage fraud fell within the
scope of my investigative jurisdiction. At my request, the Attorney General, on October
15, 1996, referred to me for prosecution "[t]hat Richard Douglas may have obtained a
mortgage loan in 1993 by making false representations and submitting false writings and
documents to a broker and lender."Back
3. Some facts discussed in the two
introductory paragraphs to this section derive exclusively from press reports. Oglethorpe
Power Corp. and Fernbank have not been charged criminally or civilly.Back
4. During the 1920s, in the "Tea
Pot Dome" scandal, so-named for a naval petroleum reserve in Salt Creek, Wyoming,
President Calvin Coolidge's Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, was indicted and found
guilty of accepting bribes totaling $300,000 from the principals of two private companies
to which he had granted and leased petroleum drilling rights. On June 16, 1992, Secretary
of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger became the second cabinet Secretary indicted this century
-- on five counts of obstruction, perjury and false statements in the Iran-Contra affair.Back
5. The text provides an overview of
the Indictment, the full text of which accompanies this letter as Attachment 1.Back
6. The Government set forth in detail
the matters pending by the prohibited sources discussed in this paragraph in a Bill of
Particulars filed in United States v. Espy on January 5, 1998, which accompanies
this letter as Attachment 2.Back
7. The trial courts consistently have
upheld the prosecutive jurisdiction of this office, denying pre-trial defense motions to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California,
Inc., 941 F. Supp. 1262, 1272-5 (D.D.C. 1996); United States v. Henry Espy, et
al., No. 96-198 (E.D. La. October 9, 1996), 1996 WL 586364, *5-6; United
States v. Crop Growers Corp., et al., 954 F. Supp. 335, 342 (D.D.C. 1997): United
States v. Blackley, No. 97-0166 (RCL) (D.D.C. November 12, 1997), 1997 WL 754224,
*10; United States v. Alphonso Michael Espy, et al.,
No. 97-0335 (RMU) (D.D.C. December 23, 1997), 1997 WL 795807, *12-14.Back
8. On August 29, 1997, the D.C.
Circuit unsealed its opinion in this matter. (121 F.3d 729).Back
9. As characterized by the Supreme
Court, the "central feature of [the 'exculpatory no'] doctrine is that a simple
denial of guilt does not come within [the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1001]." Brogan v.
United States, ___ U.S. ___, 1998 WL 23151, at p.2. Back
10. Justice Scalia, writing for the
majority in Brogan, wrote that:
We cannot imagine how it could be true that
falsely denying guilt in a Government investigation does not pervert a governmental
function. Certainly, the investigation of wrongdoing is a proper governmental function;
and since it is the very purpose of an investigation to uncover the truth, any falsehood
relating to the subject of the investigation perverts that function.Back
Id., at p.2.
11. On May 14, 1997, the trial court departed downward from the
United States Sentencing Guidelines and held that the defendants' conduct (Ferrouillet's
16 felony counts and Hemmingson's conviction for interstate transportation of stolen
property, money laundering and illegal monetary transactions) fell outside the
"heartland" of money laundering. The Government is arguing to the Fifth Circuit
that the trial court defied the intent of both Congress and the Sentencing Commission, by
refusing to treat money laundering as money laundering. The Probation Department
recognized that the Guidelines commanded a 41-51 month sentence of incarceration, rather
than one year in a half-way house/work release program. That at least one other court
already has cited to the trial court's "heartland" analysis to circumvent the
Sentencing Guidelines evidences the importance of this appellate issue.Back
12. A grand jury indicted Douglas on October 18, 1996. At the
October 28, 1996 arraignment, in February 1997, and again on April 9, 1997, we requested
an early trial date. It was not until April 30, 1997 that the court set a trial
date of September 16, 1997. The September 16, 1997 trial date slipped to October 21,
1997, then to October 28, 1997 upon defense attorney requests.Back
13. One left because of the federal
income tax consequences of per diem after one year, and two left because of pregnancy. Back Back to top
|
|