Feeding at the Public Trough
US v. Baldridge, 2009 WL 692107, No. 07-5121 (10th Cir. 3/18/09) (published): The Tenth affirms the convictions of a local (former) politician for conspiracy, fraud and misapplication of funds by a local government official, mail fraud, money laundering and corrupt persuasion of a person to obstruct a federal investigation. Basically, as a county commissioner, Baldridge schemed to file false claims with the county for payment. In one case, he got a county employee (Bentz) to do road work and then arranged to have payment made to a friend of the employee's. In another incident, he hired the husband (Brian Rash) of a county employee (Cindy Rash) to do contract labor at his sister's house and paid with county funds. The county employee prepared the invoices arranging payment to her husband. Some of this money was given back to Baldridge. In another incident, Baldridge arranged for money to be paid to a friend, ostensibly for bridge repair, but there was no evidence the work was done. Again, there was a kickback to Baldridge. In another case, Baldridge arranged to have a friend's driveway paved with County materials. Once the investigation started, there were efforts to lie and cover up.
Defendant complained on appeal that the prosecutor tried to insinuate that he and a friend had a homosexual relationship. Because there was no objection to the questions (Q: "Would you say you have a very, very close relationship?" A: "I love him like a brother." Q: "Do you love the Defendant...?") except on relevance grounds (which the court sustained), the Tenth reviewed for plain error. The court found no error because it is appropriate to question a witness about possible bias.
Baldridge argued there was insufficient evidence of a single conspiracy, but rather the evidence showed three or four separate conspiracies. The Court apparently agreed that it appeared not all the conspiracies were interrelated; however, the evidence to support the conspiracy charge was sufficient because Cindy Rash prepared false documents with respect to the false claims and at the very least she knew that the payments for her husband were for work at Baldridge's sister's house, for which he was entitled to receive county money. Those payments totaled more than $6000, and therefore met the $5000 jurisdictional threshhold.
The defendant also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 USC 666(a)(1)(A), which prohibits misappropriation of $5000 or more if the local government "in any one year period" received federal benefits in excess of $10000. The Tenth held that the relevant one year period does not have to be fiscal or calendar, and the fact the county received more than $72000 in federal benefits on Sept. 27, 2004, provided a jurisdictional basis for the defendant to be held liable for any fraud between that date and September 26, 2005. This time period included the dates on which all the warrants alleged in this charge were issued.
The Tenth rejected the argument that the payments to the county employees could be deemed legitimate under the safe harbor provision of 666(c). However, those employees weren't merely paid for more hours than they actually worked, they were paid for work for which they could not have been paid by the county.
Mailing the fraudulent warrants in the US mail was sufficient to support the mail fraud counts. There was sufficient evidence to support the money laundering counts, in that several transactions were designed to hide the ultimate recipient of the funds.
The Tenth also discussed the meannig of "corruptly persuaded," and concluded that the defendant's actions here met the standard that they be "done voluntarily and intentionally to bring about false or misleading testimony or to prevent testimony with the hope or expectation of some benefit to the defendant." Direct threats or requests to lie are not required.
Defendant complained on appeal that the prosecutor tried to insinuate that he and a friend had a homosexual relationship. Because there was no objection to the questions (Q: "Would you say you have a very, very close relationship?" A: "I love him like a brother." Q: "Do you love the Defendant...?") except on relevance grounds (which the court sustained), the Tenth reviewed for plain error. The court found no error because it is appropriate to question a witness about possible bias.
Baldridge argued there was insufficient evidence of a single conspiracy, but rather the evidence showed three or four separate conspiracies. The Court apparently agreed that it appeared not all the conspiracies were interrelated; however, the evidence to support the conspiracy charge was sufficient because Cindy Rash prepared false documents with respect to the false claims and at the very least she knew that the payments for her husband were for work at Baldridge's sister's house, for which he was entitled to receive county money. Those payments totaled more than $6000, and therefore met the $5000 jurisdictional threshhold.
The defendant also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 USC 666(a)(1)(A), which prohibits misappropriation of $5000 or more if the local government "in any one year period" received federal benefits in excess of $10000. The Tenth held that the relevant one year period does not have to be fiscal or calendar, and the fact the county received more than $72000 in federal benefits on Sept. 27, 2004, provided a jurisdictional basis for the defendant to be held liable for any fraud between that date and September 26, 2005. This time period included the dates on which all the warrants alleged in this charge were issued.
The Tenth rejected the argument that the payments to the county employees could be deemed legitimate under the safe harbor provision of 666(c). However, those employees weren't merely paid for more hours than they actually worked, they were paid for work for which they could not have been paid by the county.
Mailing the fraudulent warrants in the US mail was sufficient to support the mail fraud counts. There was sufficient evidence to support the money laundering counts, in that several transactions were designed to hide the ultimate recipient of the funds.
The Tenth also discussed the meannig of "corruptly persuaded," and concluded that the defendant's actions here met the standard that they be "done voluntarily and intentionally to bring about false or misleading testimony or to prevent testimony with the hope or expectation of some benefit to the defendant." Direct threats or requests to lie are not required.
posted by Anonymous at 3:37 PM
<< Home