Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Daley Patronage Guys Robert Sorich, et al, Fail in “No One Could Have Guessed” Effort to Wiggle Out of Trial
“They argue that the honest services charges [of the mail fraud statute] are ‘non-starters,’” the judge continues, “because the government does not allege that there was any personal gain by the Defendants at the expense of the City of Chicago or City residents.
“The problem with this case is not that the Defendants stood to gain” Judge Coar wrote. “Vigorous campaigning is makes for a healthy democracy.
“The problem is that the Defendants abused their positions as public officials in order to reward and encourage partisan campaigning.
“By creating a complicated system that ensured preferred candidates would be rewarded with jobs and promotions in exchange for political support, the Defendants were no longer providing their honest services to the City that employed them or the City’s residents…The conduct, as alleged in the indictment, can support a charge of mail fraud.
”The misuse of office and ensuing harms are particularly egregious in this case:
the Defendants created and supported an alternative, hidden system of hiring for non-policy jobs that allowed them to use the City payroll as a personal bank account whose sole purpose was rewarding those who were politically useful, at the expense of both the City—the entity stuck with the bill—and the populace—the entity that was misled about the hiring process via issuance of false certifications of hiring was apolitical. The public was manipulated into believing that hiring for non-policy positions was not political.”
“The argument that the public gained and was not harmed by rewarding employees for their political work is quite beside the point,” the Federal judge added. “Some choices, however, are clearly made not to benefit the City or its populace but rather the decision makers and those who the decision makers favor. Defendants, who are alleged to have instituted a system of hiring that is virtually the antithesis of public representations about City hiring, are hardly in the position to evade responsibility for subverting the employment process on the grounds that their system—in their opinion—led to what they consider favorable results.”
“The problem with this case is not that the Defendants stood to gain” Judge Coar wrote. “Vigorous campaigning is makes for a healthy democracy.
“The problem is that the Defendants abused their positions as public officials in order to reward and encourage partisan campaigning.
“By creating a complicated system that ensured preferred candidates would be rewarded with jobs and promotions in exchange for political support, the Defendants were no longer providing their honest services to the City that employed them or the City’s residents…The conduct, as alleged in the indictment, can support a charge of mail fraud.
”The misuse of office and ensuing harms are particularly egregious in this case:
the Defendants created and supported an alternative, hidden system of hiring for non-policy jobs that allowed them to use the City payroll as a personal bank account whose sole purpose was rewarding those who were politically useful, at the expense of both the City—the entity stuck with the bill—and the populace—the entity that was misled about the hiring process via issuance of false certifications of hiring was apolitical. The public was manipulated into believing that hiring for non-policy positions was not political.”
“The argument that the public gained and was not harmed by rewarding employees for their political work is quite beside the point,” the Federal judge added. “Some choices, however, are clearly made not to benefit the City or its populace but rather the decision makers and those who the decision makers favor. Defendants, who are alleged to have instituted a system of hiring that is virtually the antithesis of public representations about City hiring, are hardly in the position to evade responsibility for subverting the employment process on the grounds that their system—in their opinion—led to what they consider favorable results.”
# posted by Cal Skinner : 1:18 PM
