united states of america v. rod … states district court northern district of illinois eastern...

75
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) No. 08 CR 888 v. ) Violations: Title 18, Sections ) 1001(a)(2), 1343, 1346, 1349, 1951(a), ROD BLAGOJEVICH, ) and 1962(d) CHRISTOPHER KELLY, ) ALONZO MONK, ) Judge James B. Zagel WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR., ) JOHN HARRIS, and ) Superseding Indictment ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH ) COUNT ONE The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY charges: 1. At times material to this Superseding Indictment: Relevant Entities and Individuals a. Defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH was the Governor of the State of Illinois. He was elected Governor in 2002 and was reelected Governor in 2006. BLAGOJEVICH previously served as a Member of the United States House of Representatives from the Fifth Congressional District in Illinois. b. Friends of Blagojevich was established in or about June 2000 and was a private entity existing under the laws of Illinois as a campaign committee for the purpose of supporting the election of ROD BLAGOJEVICH as Governor of Illinois, and was the principal campaign fundraising vehicle for ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Friends of Blagojevich maintained offices at 4147 North

Upload: dodung

Post on 19-Mar-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )) No. 08 CR 888

v. ) Violations: Title 18, Sections ) 1001(a)(2), 1343, 1346, 1349, 1951(a),

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, ) and 1962(d)CHRISTOPHER KELLY, )ALONZO MONK, ) Judge James B. Zagel WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR., )JOHN HARRIS, and ) Superseding IndictmentROBERT BLAGOJEVICH )

COUNT ONE

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY charges:

1. At times material to this Superseding Indictment:

Relevant Entities and Individuals

a. Defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH was the Governor of the

State of Illinois. He was elected Governor in 2002 and was reelected Governor

in 2006. BLAGOJEVICH previously served as a Member of the United States

House of Representatives from the Fifth Congressional District in Illinois.

b. Friends of Blagojevich was established in or about June 2000

and was a private entity existing under the laws of Illinois as a campaign

committee for the purpose of supporting the election of ROD BLAGOJEVICH as

Governor of Illinois, and was the principal campaign fundraising vehicle for

ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Friends of Blagojevich maintained offices at 4147 North

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
What difference does it make whether he was elected more than once to Governor or previously to Congress?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Item "a" (supra) refers to "Governnor of the State of Illinois". This item "b" refers to "Governor of Illinois". Are the terms synonymous or are we catching a glimpse of the difference between The State and this state?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Not one of these defendants is named in his official capacity. Alll are charged privately. Given that this is a CRIMINAL rather than CIVIL proceeding, that may not be surprising. The feds can't charge the Governor with committing a crime since the Governor can only do what is lawful under the Constitution or laws of The State. If the man holding the Office of Governor commits some crime, by definition, he does so in his private capacity and must therefore be charged or sued in that private capacity.

Ravenswood, Chicago, Illinois. Although various individuals, including, at

times, defendant CHRISTOPHER KELLY, Alonzo Monk, and Robert

Blagojevich, held the office of chairman of Friends of Blagojevich, at all times the

activities and financial affairs of Friends of Blagojevich were controlled and

directed by ROD BLAGOJEVICH, for whose benefit Friends of Blagojevich was

operated.

c. Defendant CHRISTOPHER KELLY was a Chicago-area

businessman and a principal campaign fundraiser for defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH. KELLY served as Chairman of Friends of Blagojevich from

in or about early 2004 until in or about August 2005. With the knowledge and

permission of ROD BLAGOJEVICH, KELLY at times exercised substantial

influence over certain activities of the Office of the Governor.

d. Antoin Rezko was a Chicago-area businessman and a principal

campaign fundraiser for defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH. With the knowledge

and permission of ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Rezko at times exercised substantial

influence over certain activities of the Office of the Governor.

e. Alonzo Monk was a long-time associate of defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, and among other things served as his general counsel while a

Member of Congress, as campaign manager for his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial

campaigns, on his transition team after his election in November 2002, and as

2

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
No Zip Code.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
He didn't exercise influence over the MAN who was elected as Governor, he exercised influence over the OFFICE of the Governor.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Not a named defendant; not named with alll-upper-case name ("REZKO")
AntiShyster News
Note
Mork is a defendant. Why isn't his name all-upper-case ("MONK")?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

his Chief of Staff from in or about January 2003 until in or about December

2005. Beginning in or about early 2007, Monk worked as a lobbyist, doing

business as AM3 Consulting, Ltd. As a lobbyist, Monk principally represented

businesses with interests involving Illinois state government, including

businesses in the horse racing industry. In addition, Monk served as Chairman

of Friends of Blagojevich from in or about December 2006 to in or about July

2007.

f. Robert Blagojevich is the brother of defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH. Beginning in or about August 2008, Robert Blagojevich served

as the chairman of Friends of Blagojevich.

g. Beginning in or about late 2005, John Harris was employed

by the State of Illinois as the Chief of Staff to the Governor, defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH.

h. Stuart Levine was a member of the Illinois Health Facilities

Planning Board and the Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement System.

i. The Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board (“Planning

Board”) was a commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose

members were appointed by the Governor of the State of Illinois. State law

required an entity seeking to build a hospital, medical office building, or other

3

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Robert Blogojevich is another defendeant. Why isn't his name all-upper-case?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Not a named defendant
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

medical facility in Illinois to obtain a permit, known as a “Certificate of Need,”

from the Planning Board prior to beginning construction.

ii. The Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois

("TRS") was a public pension plan created by Illinois law for the purpose of

providing pension, survivor, and disability benefits for teachers and

administrators employed in Illinois public schools except in the City of Chicago.

It served approximately 325,000 members and annuitants, and had assets in

excess of approximately $30 billion. TRS was funded by annual contributions

from teachers, their employers, and the State of Illinois, as well as investment

income. The activities of TRS were directed by a Board of Trustees. Certain of

the trustees, among them Stuart Levine, were appointed by the Governor, while

other trustees were elected by teachers and annuitants. Among its other

responsibilities, the Board of Trustees reviewed and voted to approve or reject

proposals by private investment management companies to manage funds on

behalf of TRS.

i. William F. Cellini, Sr., was a Springfield, Illinois, businessman

and had longstanding relationships and influence with TRS trustees, including

Stuart Levine, as well as TRS staff members. Cellini was associated with a real

estate asset management firm, Commonwealth Realty Advisors, that invested

hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of TRS. Cellini also raised significant

4

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Not named defendant
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

campaign funds for defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, in part through Cellini's

role as the executive director of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association, an

industry organization.

j. Capri Capital was a real estate asset management company

based in Chicago, Illinois, that invested funds on behalf of TRS. Thomas

Rosenberg was a principal and part owner of Capri Capital.

Duties and Powers of the Office of Governor

k. The Office of the Governor of the State of Illinois (“Governor’s

Office”) was entrusted with extensive duties including, among other things,

supporting, approving and vetoing legislation; appointing directors and key

administrators of state departments, agencies, and boards; issuing executive

orders; authorizing expenditures of certain grant funds; annually proposing a

budget and overseeing the expenditure of state funds; and otherwise setting

priorities and direction for the State of Illinois. As chief executive of the State

of Illinois, the Governor was responsible for administration of all areas of the

executive branch of state government not under the authority of the other

constitutionally-elected officials. The Office of the Governor employed staff

members to assist the Governor in performing his duties.

l. Shortly after his election on November 4, 2008, as President

of the United States, Barack Obama resigned his position as United States

5

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Senator from Illinois, creating a vacancy in that office. As Governor of Illinois,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH had the duty under Illinois law, 10 ILCS 5/25-8,

to appoint a replacement, who would serve the approximately two years

remaining in Barack Obama’s term as United States Senator.

Illinois Laws Regarding the Conduct of Government Officials

m. Defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Monk, and Harris, while

serving as officers and employees of the State of Illinois, and Levine, while

serving as a Trustee of TRS and a member of the Planning Board, were bound

by the following laws, duties, policies and procedures:

i. As Governor, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH was a

constitutional officer and as such, at the outset of each term, was required to

take an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and the

Constitution of the State of Illinois, and to faithfully discharge the duties of the

office of Governor to the best of his ability.

ii. Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1(a) of the Constitution

of the State of Illinois, public funds, property and credit shall be used only for

public purposes.

iii. As officers and employees of the State of Illinois,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Monk, and Harris owed a duty of honest

6

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
the Senator is from "Illinois" rather than from "The State of Illinois".
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
duty under "Illinois law" rather than under the Constitution of The State of Illinois.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Of The State of Illinois.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
The duties imposed by the Constitution are not imposed on the MAN who holds the office, per se, they are imposed on the OFFICE. Thus, you have to 1) prove that the duties are imposed on the OFFICE by the Constitution; and then prove 2) that the MAN held that office (by election or appointment); 3) that the MAN voluntarily agreed to perform the DUTIES of the OFFICE as evidenced by his OATH of Office; and finally, 4) did knowingly and intentionally breach those DUTIES.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

services to the people of the State of Illinois in the performance of their public

duties.

iv. As a Trustee of TRS, Levine owed a fiduciary duty and

a duty of honest services to the beneficiaries of TRS and was required to act

solely for their benefit. As a member of the Health Facilities Planning Board,

Levine owed a duty of honest services to the people of the State of Illinois in the

performance of his duties on the Health Facilities Planning Board.

v. Pursuant to the criminal laws of the State of Illinois (720

ILCS 5/33-3(c) and (d)), defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Monk, Levine, and

Harris each was prohibited from committing the following acts in his official

capacity: (1) performing an act in excess of his lawful authority, with intent to

obtain a personal advantage for himself or others; and (2) soliciting or knowingly

accepting, for the performance of any act, a fee or reward which he knows is not

authorized by law.

vi. Pursuant to the criminal laws of the State of Illinois (720

ILCS 5/33-1(d)), defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Monk, and Levine each was

prohibited from receiving, retaining, or agreeing to accept any property or

personal advantage which he was not authorized by law to accept, knowing that

such property or personal advantage was promised or tendered with intent to

7

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

cause him to influence the performance of any act related to the employment or

function of his public office.

vii. Pursuant to the criminal laws of the State of Illinois (50

ILCS 105/3), defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Monk, and Levine each was

prohibited from being, in any manner, financially interested, either directly or

indirectly, in any contract or the performance of any work in regard to which he

may have been called upon to act.

n. In or about September 2008, the Illinois General Assembly

enacted Public Act 95-971, effective January 1, 2009, that, among other things,

prohibits business entities with aggregate state contracts or pending state

contract bids of more than $50,000 from making campaign contributions to any

political committee established to promote the candidacy of, among others, a

candidate for the office of Governor. This law also prohibits such contributions

by affiliated entities and affiliated persons of such business entities.

The Enterprise

2. At times material to this indictment, defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, the Office of the Governor of Illinois, and Friends of

Blagojevich were associated in fact, and constituted an “enterprise” as that term

is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), which enterprise was

engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce. This

8

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Such intent would be extraordinarily hard to prove in most cases against politicians. In this case, the "fix is in" in that the court knows that Blagojevich is already scheduled to be convicted. The question of intent is very hard to prove. But I presume it's a fact issue. I'm fascinated that the prosecutor would try to prove such "intent"--but this is a "kitchen sink" indictement. They'll probably allege a lot of crimes and settle for a convictions on a few offenses. The fact that the gov-co is alleging so many crimes is evidence that either 1) Blagojevich is really, really dirty; or 2) the gov-co's case is weak and they hope to buffalo the jury by making a huge number of charges believing the jury will rule "guilty" on at least a few.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

enterprise is referred to for purposes of this count as the “Blagojevich

Enterprise.” The Blagojevich Enterprise constituted an ongoing organization

whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of

achieving the objectives of the enterprise.

Purpose of the Enterprise

3. The primary purpose of the Blagojevich Enterprise was to exercise

and preserve power over the government of the State of Illinois for the financial

and political benefit of defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, both directly and

through Friends of Blagojevich, and for the financial benefit of his family

members and associates.

The Racketeering Conspiracy

4. From in or about 2002 to on or about December 9, 2008, in the

Northern District of Illinois and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and CHRISTOPHER KELLY,

defendants herein, together with Alonzo Monk, William F. Cellini, Sr., John

Harris, Robert Blagojevich, Antoin Rezko, and Stuart Levine, being persons

employed by and associated with an enterprise, namely the Blagojevich

Enterprise, which enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affected,

interstate commerce, did conspire and agree, with each other and others known

9

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
That is apparently an important RICO prerequisite: the the events complained of took place in a "federal" district. I.e., the "federal" crime had to be alleged to have taken place in the "federal" district for the "federal" court to have jurisdiction.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

and unknown to the Grand Jury, to conduct and participate, directly and

indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Blagojevich Enterprise through a

pattern of racketeering activity, as that term is defined in Title 18, United States

Code, Sections 1961(1) and (5), consisting of:

a. multiple acts indictable under the following provisions offederal law:

i. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, and 1346 (mail fraud and wire fraud);

ii. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a) (extortion,attempted extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion); and

b. multiple acts involving bribery chargeable under the followingprovisions of Illinois law:

720 ILCS 5/33-1(c) and (d).

5. Each defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two

acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.

Means and Method of the Conspiracy

6. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH

and CHRISTOPHER KELLY, as well as co-conspirators Alonzo Monk, William

F. Cellini, Sr., John Harris, Robert Blagojevich, Antoin Rezko, and Stuart

Levine, and others, engaged in a scheme to deprive the people of the State of

Illinois and the beneficiaries of TRS of their intangible right to the honest

10

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
What's the difference between "acts INDICTABLE . . . under FEDERAL law and "multiple acts . . . CHARGEABLE . . . under ILLINOIS law"? Are the "chargeable" acts merely offenses while the "indictable" acts are crimes?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

services of defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Alonzo Monk, John Harris, and

Stuart Levine, as more fully described in Count Two, paragraphs 3 through 44

of this indictment.

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and KELLY, along with Monk, Cellini, Robert Blagojevich,

Harris, Rezko, and Levine, and others, used and attempted to use the powers of

the Office of the Governor and of certain state boards and commissions subject

to the influence of the Office of the Governor, to take and cause governmental

actions, including: appointments to boards and commissions; the awarding of

state business, grants, and investment fund allocations; the enactment of

legislation and executive orders; and the appointment of a United States

Senator; in exchange for financial benefits for themselves and others, including

campaign contributions for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, money for themselves, and

employment for ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his wife.

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH permitted defendant KELLY and Rezko to exercise substantial

influence over certain activities of the Office of the Governor, as well as state

boards and commissions with members appointed by the Governor, with the

knowledge that KELLY and Rezko would use this influence to enrich themselves

and their associates. In return, KELLY and Rezko provided benefits to ROD

11

BLAGOJEVICH by (a) generating millions of dollars in contributions to Friends

of Blagojevich, and (b) providing financial benefits directly to ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and his family members.

9. It was further part of the conspiracy that in connection with the

following acts, transactions, and matters, members of the conspiracy exercised

their power and influence over Illinois state government for the purpose of

benefitting defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his family members, Friends

of Blagojevich, and members of the conspiracy and their associates:

a. Defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH and KELLY, along with

Rezko and Monk, agreed to direct lucrative state business relating to the

refinancing of billions of dollars in State of Illinois Pension Obligation Bonds to

a company whose lobbyist agreed to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to

Rezko out of the fee the lobbyist would collect, and Rezko in turn agreed to split

the money with ROD BLAGOJEVICH, KELLY, and Monk;

b. KELLY, Rezko, Cellini, and Levine agreed that KELLY and

Rezko would use their influence with the Blagojevich administration to assist

Cellini and Levine in maintaining influence over the activities of TRS, and in

return, Cellini and Levine would use their influence with TRS to cause TRS to

invest in funds, and to use the services of professional firms, selected by KELLY

12

and Rezko, at times in exchange for substantial contributions to Friends of

Blagojevich.

c. Rezko arranged for a total of $50,000 in contributions to

Friends of Blagojevich from Ali Ata, a Chicago-area businessman, and in

exchange for those contributions discussed with Ata, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, and

Monk obtaining a high-level state appointment for Ata, whom ROD

BLAGOJEVICH ultimately appointed as the executive director of the Illinois

Finance Authority;

d. In response to a lobbyist’s inquiry about how the lobbyist’s

clients could become eligible to manage investments for TRS, KELLY advised

the lobbyist that TRS was Rezko’s area, and subsequently advised the lobbyist

that KELLY had spoken with Rezko, and that it would require a $50,000

campaign contribution to defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH for a firm to get on

TRS’s list of recommended investment funds; and

e. KELLY, Cellini, Rezko, Levine, and others agreed to demand

that Thomas Rosenberg, the owner of Capri Capital, arrange to raise or donate

substantial funds to Friends of Blagojevich, and to threaten that if such funds

were not forthcoming, they would block a proposed TRS investment of $220

million with Capri Capital.

13

10. It was further part of the conspiracy that Rezko provided defendant

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his family with financial benefits. In particular,

Rezko: directed a real estate commission in the amount of approximately

$14,396 to the wife of ROD BLAGOJEVICH, even though she had done no work

to earn that commission; subsequently hired the wife of ROD BLAGOJEVICH

as an employee of Rezko’s real estate business at a salary of approximately

$12,000 per month; and supplemented her salary by directing another real

estate commission to her in the amount of approximately $40,000, even though

she had done little or no work to earn that commission.

11. It was further part of the conspiracy that after it became public that

defendant KELLY and Rezko were under law enforcement scrutiny and they

ceased to play significant roles in raising funds for Friends of Blagojevich,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH continued to exchange and attempt to exchange

his official actions as Governor for personal benefits to ROD BLAGOJEVICH

and members of his family, and contributions to Friends of Blagojevich. At

times, ROD BLAGOJEVICH acted with the assistance of others, including

Monk, Harris, and Robert Blagojevich. These efforts included, but were not

limited to, attempts to:

a. withhold a state grant to benefit a publicly-supported school

until a campaign fundraiser for ROD BLAGOJEVICH was held by a United

14

States Congressman who supported the school, or by a relative of that United

States Congressman;

b. extort a campaign contribution from Children’s Memorial

Hospital, a not-for-profit children's hospital located in Chicago, Illinois, and its

chief executive officer, in return for official action on state reimbursement for

pediatric care;

c. extort a campaign contribution from two horse racing tracks

and an executive associated with them, in return for prompt action on legislation

financially benefitting horse racing tracks;

d. extort a campaign contribution from a company that supplied

materials for road construction, and from an executive of that company (who was

also a representative of a road construction industry trade organization), in

return for official action financially benefitting that company and the road

construction industry;

e. withhold state financial support that would benefit the

Tribune Company, publisher of the Chicago Tribune newspaper, unless the

Tribune Company fired editorial board members who had been critical of ROD

BLAGOJEVICH; and

15

f. obtain personal financial benefits for ROD BLAGOJEVICH in

return for his appointment of a United States Senator to fill the seat vacated by

President Barack Obama.

12. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and KELLY, and other members of the conspiracy,

misrepresented, concealed, and hid, and caused to be misrepresented, concealed,

and hidden, the purposes of and the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d).

16

COUNT TWO

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraph 1 of Count One is hereby realleged and incorporated as

if fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about 2002 to on or about December 9, 2008, in the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

ALONZO MONK, JOHN HARRIS, and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH, together with

Christopher Kelly, William Cellini, Antoin Rezko, Stuart Levine, and others,

devised and participated in a scheme to deprive the people of the State of Illinois

and the beneficiaries of TRS of their intangible right to the honest services of

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, HARRIS, MONK, and Levine.

Overview of the Scheme

3. It was part of the scheme to defraud that defendants ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, MONK, HARRIS, and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH, together

with Kelly, Cellini, Rezko, Levine, and others, used and attempted to use the

powers of the Office of the Governor, and of certain state boards and

commissions subject to influence by the Office of the Governor, to take and cause

governmental actions, including: appointments to boards and commissions; the

awarding of state business, grants, and investment fund allocations; the

enactment of legislation and executive orders; and the appointment of a United

17

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
the attempted to use the POWERS of the Office, but not the AUTHORITY. By definition, they couldn't use the "authority" to commit criminal acts. In a sense, the lawful use of the Office includes simultaneous use of BOTH legitimate powers and legitimate authority. The crime would be to exercise the POWERS without the AUTHORITY. Quo warranto.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Only Paragraph 1--not the other 11 paragraphs in Count 1?

States Senator; in exchange for financial benefits for themselves and others,

including campaign contributions for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, money for

themselves, and employment for ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his wife.

Sharing Financial Benefits from State Actions

4. It was further part of the scheme that, in a series of conversations

that began in 2002 and continued after defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH was

elected Governor in November 2002, defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH and

MONK, along with Kelly and Rezko, agreed that they would use ROD

BLAGOJEVICH’s position as Governor and MONK’s position as Chief of Staff

for financial gain, which would be divided among them, with the understanding

that the money would be distributed after ROD BLAGOJEVICH left public

office. The defendants and their co-schemers later implemented this agreement,

including in connection with a transaction involving state Pension Obligation

Bonds as further described below.

The Pension Obligation Bond Deal

5. It was further part of the scheme that in or about 2003, defendants

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and MONK, and Kelly and Rezko, agreed to direct

lucrative state business relating to the refinancing of billions of dollars in State

of Illinois Pension Obligation Bonds to a company whose lobbyist agreed to

provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rezko out of the fee the lobbyist

18

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

would collect, and Rezko in turn agreed to split the money with ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, MONK, and Kelly.

Maintaining Control Over TRS

6. It was further part of the scheme that in or about the spring of 2003,

Kelly, Rezko, Cellini, and Levine agreed that Kelly and Rezko would use their

influence with the Blagojevich administration to assist Cellini and Levine in

maintaining influence over the activities of TRS, and in return, Cellini and

Levine would use their influence with TRS to cause TRS to invest in funds, and

to use the services of law firms, selected by Kelly and Rezko, at times in

exchange for substantial contributions to Friends of Blagojevich.

The Solicitation of Ali Ata

7. It was further part of the scheme that in or about late 2002, Ali Ata,

an Illinois businessman who was solicited by Rezko to make political

contributions to defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, brought a $25,000 check to

Rezko’s offices, where Ata met with ROD BLAGOJEVICH. During that meeting,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Rezko if Rezko had talked to Ata about positions

in the administration, and Rezko said that he had. In or about July 2003, after

discussions with Rezko about possible state appointments, Ata gave Rezko

another $25,000 check payable to ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s campaign. Shortly

after this, Ata had a conversation with ROD BLAGOJEVICH at a fundraising

19

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

event, during which ROD BLAGOJEVICH indicated that he was aware Ata

recently had made another substantial contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s

campaign, and told Ata that he understood Ata would be joining his

administration. Ata replied that he was considering taking a position, and ROD

BLAGOJEVICH said that it had better be a job where Ata could make some

money. ROD BLAGOJEVICH ultimately appointed Ata as the executive director

of the Illinois Finance Authority.

The Solicitation of Joseph Cari

8. It was further part of the scheme that on or about October 29, 2003,

when Joseph Cari, a national Democratic fundraiser, was traveling on a plane

with defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Kelly, and Levine to a Blagojevich

fundraiser in New York hosted by Cari, he spoke with ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

who discussed Cari’s background as a national fundraiser and ROD

BLAGOJEVICH’s interest in running for President. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said

it was easier for governors to solicit campaign contributions because of their

ability to award contracts and give legal work, consulting work, and investment

banking work to campaign contributors, and that Kelly and Rezko were his point

people in raising campaign contributions. ROD BLAGOJEVICH also said there

were state contracts and other state work that could be given to contributors

20

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

who helped ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Rezko, and Kelly, and that Rezko and Kelly

would follow up with Cari in relation to the discussion that had just occurred.

9. It was further part of the scheme that during the October 29, 2003,

fundraiser, Levine told Cari that there was a plan in place in the Blagojevich

administration pursuant to which Rezko and Kelly would pick consultants to do

business with State of Illinois boards, and, thereafter, the consultants would be

asked to make campaign contributions.

10. It was further part of the scheme that sometime after October 2003,

Rezko told Cari that Rezko had a close relationship with the Blagojevich

administration, that Rezko had a role in picking consultants, law firms and

other entities to get state business, and that defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s

Chief of Staff, defendant MONK, helped implement Rezko’s choices for state

work. Rezko also said that, in exchange for raising money for ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, the Blagojevich administration would be helpful to Cari’s

business interests.

11. It was further part of the scheme that on or about March 5, 2004,

Cari met with Kelly, who said he was following up on Cari’s conversations with

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Rezko, and Levine. Kelly asked for Cari’s help

in raising money on a national level for ROD BLAGOJEVICH. When Cari said

he was not inclined to help, Kelly pushed Cari to assist and said that helping

21

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

ROD BLAGOJEVICH would be good for Cari’s business interests and that Cari

could have whatever Cari wanted if he agreed to help.

Campaign Contributions Solicited for TRS Investments

12. It was further part of the scheme that in or about March 2004,

Lobbyist A met with Christopher Kelly to ask how two clients of Lobbyist A

could become eligible to manage investments for TRS. Kelly informed Lobbyist

A that TRS was Rezko’s area, and subsequently told Lobbyist A that he had

spoken with Rezko, and that it would require a $50,000 campaign contribution

to defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH for a firm to get on TRS's list of

recommended fund managers.

The Attempted Extortion of Capri Capital

13. It was further part of the scheme that in about April 2004, Levine,

Rezko, and Kelly agreed that unless Capri Capital or one of its principals,

Thomas Rosenberg, arranged to raise or make significant political contributions

for defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH, Capri Capital would not receive a proposed

$220 million investment from TRS. They further agreed that William F. Cellini,

Sr. would deliver that message to Rosenberg.

14. It was further part of the scheme that in or about early May 2004,

Levine advised Cellini of the plan to require Rosenberg to raise or make

significant political contributions for defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH as a

22

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Why the secrecy? Why isn't "Lobbyist A" named? Is he "too big to be indicted"? Is he associated with some "favored" lobby that doesn't wish to be named?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

condition for Capri Capital’s receipt of the $220 million in TRS funds, and Cellini

assisted the plan by indicating to Rosenberg that Capri Capital had not yet

received its $220 million allocation from TRS because of its failure to make

political donations to defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH.

15. It was further part of the scheme that after Rosenberg advised

Cellini that Rosenberg would not be extorted, and threatened to expose the

extortion attempt, Cellini ensured that Kelly, Rezko, and Levine learned about

Rosenberg’s threat to expose their extortion attempt.

16. It was further part of the scheme that on or about May 11, 2004,

Cellini, Levine, Rezko, and Kelly agreed that in light of Rosenberg’s threat to

inform law enforcement about the extortion, it was too risky to continue

demanding money from Rosenberg or to block the $220 million allocation to

Capri Capital. They agreed that although Capri Capital would receive the $220

million allocation, it would not receive any further business from any State of

Illinois entity, including TRS.

17. It was further part of the scheme that Rezko told Cellini and Levine,

in separate conversations, that defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH had been told

about the attempt to extort Rosenberg, and ROD BLAGOJEVICH had said that

Rosenberg meant nothing to him.

23

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
"State of Illinois"--NOT "The State of Illinois" or "the State of Illinois".
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

18. It was further part of the scheme that after the discussion involving

Kelly, Rezko, Levine, and Cellini on or about May 11, 2004, Cellini and Levine

took steps to conceal the extortion plan, including by using their influence and

Levine’s position at TRS to ensure that Capri Capital received its $220 million

allocation.

Benefits Given to ROD BLAGOJEVICH and ALONZO MONK

19. It was further part of the scheme that to ensure that defendants

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and MONK would continue to give Rezko substantial

influence regarding matters such as appointments to boards and commissions,

the selection of candidates for state employment, and the awarding of state

contracts, grants, and investment fund allocations, Rezko gave certain benefits

to ROD BLAGOJEVICH and MONK, including the following:

a. In or about late August 2003, Rezko directed to ROD

BLAGOJEVICH’s wife a payment of $14,396, purportedly in connection with a

real estate transaction involving property at 850 North Ogden Avenue, Chicago,

Illinois, for which transaction ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife had not performed

any services.

b. From in or about October 2003 to in or about May 2004, Rezko,

through his real estate development company, provided ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s

24

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
So far as I iknow, Blagojevich's WIFE is not charged as a defendant in this matter. I'll bet they're threatening to add her as a defendant to get her to testify against her husband. That threat might even work on the husband if it implies that their children will lose both parents and be sent to foster homes, etc..

wife with payments of $12,000 a month, purportedly for real estate brokerage

services.

c. In or about January 2004, while Rezko’s real estate

development company was paying ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife $12,000 a month,

Rezko directed to ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife a payment of $40,000, purportedly

for brokerage services in connection with the sale of property at 1101 West Lake

Street, Chicago, Illinois, even though ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife had provided

few, if any, services in relation to that sale.

d. From in or about the spring of 2004 until in or about 2006,

Rezko provided to MONK a number of $10,000 cash gifts to pay for various

items, such as a car and home improvements, which cash gifts totaled

approximately $70,000 to $90,000.

The Search for Employment for ROD BLAGOJEVICH=s Wife

20. It was further part of the scheme that after the real estate business

of defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife became the subject of critical media

coverage, ROD BLAGOJEVICH directed defendant HARRIS to try to find a paid

state board appointment or position for her. During several conversations in or

about early 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed HARRIS that ROD

BLAGOJEVICH wanted his wife put on the Pollution Control Board, which pays

salaries to its board members. When HARRIS told ROD BLAGOJEVICH that

25

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

his wife was not qualified for the position, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS

to find other employment for his wife.

21. It was further part of the scheme that, in or about the spring of

2008, around the time that defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife passed a

licensing examination that allowed her to sell financial securities, ROD

BLAGOJEVICH asked defendant HARRIS and others to set up informational

or networking meetings for his wife with financial institutions that had business

with the State of Illinois in hopes that those businesses would assist in getting

ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife a job. HARRIS subsequently arranged meetings

between ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife and officials at two financial institutions

that had business with the State of Illinois. When ROD BLAGOJEVICH

concluded that officials at these institutions were unhelpful in finding ROD

BLAGOJEVICH’s wife a job, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS that he did not

want the institutions receiving further business from the State of Illinois.

Attempted Extortion of United States Congressman A

22. It was further part of the scheme that in or about 2006, after United

States Congressman A inquired about the status of a $2 million grant for the

benefit of a publicly-supported school, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH

instructed defendant HARRIS not to release the grant until further direction

from ROD BLAGOJEVICH, even though ROD BLAGOJEVICH previously had

26

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
The point is that Blogojevich is TELLING, INFORMING, others to CONTROL them. The fact that he TELLS and they OBEY is evidence of the conspiracy and ENTERPRISE.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Again, Blago ASKED/TOLD co-defendent to merely "set up" a meeting to achieve a goal that was outside his authority as governor. The co-defendant did so, and that act of obedience only proved the existence of an "extra-gubernatorial" enterprise or scheme. Even though the attempt to secure a job failed, the fact that they even TRIED becomes evidence of the conspiracy, enterprise or scheme. Then, Blago retailiates against those that won't help him and his wife by depriving the organizations of receiving further business from the State. That's at least evidence of retaliation; if it was threatened to the private organizations, it's evidence of extortion--both of which acts (retaliation and extortion) are outside the authority of the governor's OFFICE.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

agreed to support the grant and funding for the grant had been included in the

state’s budget.

23. It was further part of the scheme that, in response to inquiries by a

high-ranking state official as to whether the grant money could be released,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed the official that ROD BLAGOJEVICH

wanted it communicated to United States Congressman A that United States

Congressman A's brother needed to have a fundraiser for ROD BLAGOJEVICH.

24. It was further part of the scheme that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH told Lobbyist A that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was giving a $2

million grant to a school in United States Congressman A’s district and

instructed Lobbyist A to approach United States Congressman A for a

fundraiser.

25. It was further part of the scheme that after defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH learned from defendant HARRIS that the school had started to

incur expenses that were to be paid with the grant funds, ROD BLAGOJEVICH

initially resisted the release of the grant money, and then ultimately agreed to

the release of certain of the grant funds to cover incurred expenses, but only on

a delayed basis, even though no fundraiser had been held.

27

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Attempted Extortion of Children=s Memorial Hospital

26. It was further part of the scheme that on or about October 8, 2008,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH advised Lobbyist A that he intended to take

official action that would provide additional state money to Children's Memorial

Hospital, and that ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted to get $50,000 in campaign

contributions from the Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital

(“the Children’s CEO”).

27. It was further part of the scheme that on or about October 17, 2008,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH called the Children’s CEO to tell him of his

intent to increase the Illinois Medicaid reimbursement rate for speciality-care

pediatric physicians. Shortly before this, ROD BLAGOJEVICH had directed

Deputy Governor A to initiate such an increase, which Illinois providers of

pediatric healthcare, including Children’s Memorial Hospital, had actively

supported for years.

28. It was further part of the scheme that on or about October 22, 2008,

defendant ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH spoke with the Children’s CEO and asked

him to arrange to raise $25,000 for ROD BLAGOJEVICH prior to January 1,

2009.

29. It was further part of the scheme that on or about November 12,

2008, after the Children’s CEO had not returned additional phone calls from

28

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
It's interesting to see how many "ATTEMPTS were made to extort, control, influence, etc. that FAILED. How many ATTEMPTS to extort actually SUCCEEDED? Any? If Blago & Associates were so unsuccessful in their extortion attemtps, were they just a bunch of Keystone Cops? Or are the successful ATTEMPTS being concealed because they involve powerful and well-connected corporations that "cooperated" in the "extrotion" and were therefore guilty of BRIBERY? I.e., are there other, powerful corporations that gov-co does not want to expose as having engaged in BRIBERY rather than EXTORTION? I'll bet the concepts of BRIBERY and EXTORTION can become very confused. The primary distinction should be WHO initiates the transaction? If the Governor initiates, it's EXTORTION. If the corporation initiates, it's BRIBERY. The second distinction between Bribery and Extortion should be WHO BENEFITS? If only one party benefits and the other party loses, we have EXTORTION, but if both parties benefit, we have BRIBERY. But when a chummy relationship exists between the Governor and the Corporation where both sides expect to benefit from a transaction, the question of who initiated a transaction becomes unclear.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
I.e., as Governor, Blago has sufficient power to increase the hospitals costs and thereby diminish its PROFITS.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Whut? I thought Blago was threatening to use his power to cut hospital profits, but actually he's offering to do something the hospital wants--on condition that the hospital does something "nice" for Blago.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

defendant ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH, and no political contributions from the

Children’s CEO or other persons associated with Children’s Memorial Hospital

had been received, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke to Deputy Governor

A about the increase in the Medicaid reimbursement rates for specialty-care

pediatric physicians, asking whether “we could pull it back if we needed to. . . .”

As a result of this conversation, Deputy Governor A instructed the Department

of Healthcare Services to stop its work on increasing the reimbursement for

specialty-care pediatric physicians.

Attempted Extortion of Racetrack Executive

30. It was further part of the scheme that on or about November 13,

2008, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH told defendant ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH

that he wanted campaign contributions to be made by the end of the year by

Racetrack Executive, who, as ROD BLAGOJEVICH knew, managed horse racing

tracks that would financially benefit from a bill pending in the Illinois

legislature that would require certain Illinois casinos to give money to a fund

that would be used to help the Illinois horse racing industry (the “Racing Bill ”).

At that time, as ROD BLAGOJEVICH knew, defendant MONK had been trying

to arrange a contribution from Racetrack Executive, and ROD BLAGOJEVICH

had set a goal of raising $100,000 in contributions from and through Racetrack

Executive.

29

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

31. It was further part of the scheme that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH had further conversations with defendant MONK about the

Racing Bill after it was passed by the Illinois legislature on or about November

20, 2008. In those conversations, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and MONK discussed

whether and when ROD BLAGOJEVICH would sign the bill, and whether and

when Racetrack Executive would arrange for a campaign contribution to ROD

BLAGOJEVICH. On or about December 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH

indicated to MONK that he was concerned that Racetrack Executive would not

make a contribution by the end of the year if he signed the Racing Bill before the

contribution was made. As a result, MONK and ROD BLAGOJEVICH agreed

that MONK would speak with Racetrack Executive to ensure that Racetrack

Executive would make a contribution by the end of the year.

32. It was further part of the scheme that after meeting with defendant

ROD BLAGOJEVICH on or about December 3, 2008, defendant MONK visited

Racetrack Executive. During that visit, MONK communicated to Racetrack

Executive that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was concerned that Racetrack Executive

would not make a contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH if the Racing Bill was

signed before the contribution was made.

33. It was further part of the scheme that after meeting with Racetrack

Executive on or about December 3, 2008, defendant MONK reported to

30

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH that MONK had said to Racetrack Executive,

“look, there is a concern that there is going to be some skittishness if your bill

gets signed because of the timeliness of the commitment,” and made it clear to

Racetrack Executive that the contribution has “got to be in now.” ROD

BLAGOJEVICH responded, “good,” and “good job.”

34. It was further part of the scheme that on or about December 4, 2008,

defendant MONK asked defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH to call Racetrack

Executive and to suggest that ROD BLAGOJEVICH would sign the Racing Bill,

because this would be better “from a pressure point of view.” ROD

BLAGOJEVICH agreed to call Racetrack Executive.

Attempted Extortion of Highway Contractor

35. It was further part of the scheme that on or about September 18,

2008, defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH, MONK, and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH

met with Construction Executive, who was both an executive with a company

that manufactured and distributed road building materials and a representative

of a trade group involved with the construction of roads. In that meeting, ROD

BLAGOJEVICH said that he was planning on announcing a $1.5 billion road

building program that would be administered through the Illinois Toll Highway

Authority (the “Tollway”) and that he might authorize an additional $6 billion

road building program later on. Shortly thereafter in the conversation, ROD

31

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
The government has so much knowledge about Blago's very conversations, that they must've had him under electronic survelliance for months or years before the U.S. Senate seat ploy became public and FORCED gov-co to charge Blagojevich. I don't recall the details of the Senate-seat bribery scandal. Was it first exposed by the government or by some private source? It's entirely possible that government had been investigating Blago for years, just to keep him under the federales thumb. I.e., the feds might have enough on Blago to THREATEN to charge him if he didn't "play ball". Alternatively, it's possible that Blago was never the intended defendant but merely a central source so the feds could track all the corrupt CORPORATIONS that were bribing the state gov-co. It's entirely possible that when the Senate-seat bribery case went public, the feds were FORCED (against their will) to charge Blago.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
The key to most conspiracy charges is an AGREEMENT. All the rest is trivial. Asking, telling, finding, etc. probably mean little or nothing unless the other party AGREES to "obey" and actually does commit some act in evidence of that AGREEMENT.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Again, the ATTEMPTED extortion. Blagojevich might argue that he never attempted to EXTORT (where one person benefits and the other is victimized) but was only SOLICITING BRIBES (where both parties stood to benefit). Blago could argue that SOLICTING BRIBES was common in government; he might even threaten to release the names of all the persons and corporations who had willingly paid the bribes. While EXTORTION is a crime subject to RICO charges, SOLICITATION OF BRIBES might not be subject to RICO charges. Alternatively, assuming the soliciation succeeds, SOLICITATION might be a lessor crime (perhaps a misdemeanor?) than EXTORTION. And if the SOLICITATION of bribes is FAILS (is merely attemtped) then what is the seriousness of the charge. If Blagojevich wanted to really fight the indictment, he might expose how bribery and corruption were INSTITUTIONALIZED in state government. He might name every person and corporation who routinely COOPERATED in BRIBERY (rather than extortion). Blago could probably drag in scores of very powerful men, corporations, unions, institutions, and essentially "blow up" the whole Illinois state government. Of course, he'd probably get killed if he tried to use that defense. But it would be one helluva show.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

BLAGOJEVICH asked for Construction Executive’s help in raising contributions

for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s campaign by the end of the year. After Construction

Executive left the meeting, ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed MONK to try to get

Construction Executive to raise $500,000 in contributions. As ROD

BLAGOJEVICH knew, MONK subsequently had a series of conversations with

Construction Executive about the possibility of Construction Executive

arranging for campaign contributions to ROD BLAGOJEVICH.

36. It was further part of the scheme that, on or about October 6, 2008,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Lobbyist A that he would make an

announcement concerning a $1.8 billion project involving the Tollway and that

defendant MONK would approach Construction Executive to ask that he raise

substantial campaign contributions. ROD BLAGOJEVICH further said that he

could have announced a larger amount of money for road projects, but wanted

to see how Construction Executive performed in raising contributions, and he

added words to the effect of “If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em.”

37. It was further part of the scheme that, on or about October 22, 2008,

approximately one week after defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH publicly

announced a portion of a $1.8 billion program to upgrade interchanges on the

tollway system, ROD BLAGOJEVICH called Construction Executive, spoke with

32

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

him about the $1.8 billion program, and asked how he was coming with

fundraising.

Efforts to Obtain Personal Financial Benefits for Rod Blagojevich in Return for his Appointment of a United States Senator

38. It was further part of the scheme that beginning in or about October

2008, and continuing until on or about December 9, 2008, defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, with the assistance of defendants HARRIS and ROBERT

BLAGOJEVICH, and others, sought to obtain financial benefits for himself and

his wife, in return for the exercise of his duty under Illinois law to appoint a

United States Senator to fill the vacancy created by the election of Barack

Obama as President of the United States.

39. It was further part of the scheme that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH engaged in numerous conversations with others, at times

including defendants HARRIS and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH, certain high-

ranking employees of the Office of the Governor, and certain political

consultants, to devise and set in motion plans by which ROD BLAGOJEVICH

could use his power to appoint a United States Senator to obtain financial

benefits for himself and his wife. At times ROD BLAGOJEVICH directed

others, including state employees, to assist in these endeavors, including by

performing research and conveying messages to third parties.

33

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
This is not EXTORTION. This is pure SOLICITATION of BRIBES. The feds recognize this.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

40. It was further part of the scheme that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and his co-schemers devised and discussed means of using ROD

BLAGOJEVICH’s power to appoint a United States Senator in exchange for

financial benefits for himself and his wife, which benefits would take the

following forms, among others:

a. Presidential appointment of ROD BLAGOJEVICH to high-

ranking positions in the federal government, including Secretary of Health and

Human Services or an ambassadorship;

b. A highly paid leadership position with a private foundation

dependent on federal aid, which ROD BLAGOJEVICH believed could be

influenced by the President-elect to name ROD BLAGOJEVICH to such a

position;

c. A highly paid leadership position with an organization known

as “Change to Win,” consisting of seven affiliated labor unions, which, in a

transaction suggested by defendant HARRIS, could appoint ROD

BLAGOJEVICH as its chairman with the expectation that the President-elect

would assist Change to Win with its national legislative agenda;

d. Employment for the wife of ROD BLAGOJEVICH with a union

organization or lobbying firm, or on corporate boards of directors;

34

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
I've never before heard the term "co-schemers".
AntiShyster News
Note
Does the gov-co even alleged that Blago took MONEY? Or do they only allege "financial benefits". I'll bet FRNs are only "financial benefits" to which the holder has an equitable title, but no legal title. I've read in the AmJur texts on "real party in interest" that in at least some trust relationships, the TRUSTEE is the "real party in interest". If that principle applied to the receipt of FRNs, then the "real party in interest" should be the Federal Reserve System and/or the Federal Reserve Banks. So, what would happen if Blogojevich alleged he was not the "real party in interest" in the receipt of some "campagin contributions" and demanded that the "real party in interest" be joined as defendant and/or plaintiff?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Clearly, Illinois politics of overtly corrupt. Obama emerged from Illinois politics and cannot be deemed to be a stranger to that corruption. Insofar as Obama knows of the corruption and said nothing, he may be guilty of misprision of felony.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
This entire indictment is evidence of widespread corruption among all political entities, businesses, unions, boards of directors, lobbying firms, etc. I'll bet that Blagojevich is "suicided" before this is all over.

e. A highly paid leadership position with a newly-created not-for­

profit corporation that ROD BLAGOJEVICH believed could be funded with large

contributions by persons associated with the President-elect; and

f. Substantial campaign fundraising assistance from individuals

seeking the United States Senate seat and their backers, including from Senate

Candidate A, whose associate ROD BLAGOJEVICH understood to have offered

$1.5 million in campaign contributions in return for ROD BLAGOJEVICH's

appointment of Senate Candidate A.

41. It was further part of the scheme that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH discussed with his co-schemers means by which he could

influence the President-elect to assist ROD BLAGOJEVICH in obtaining

personal benefits for himself and his wife, including by appointing as United

States Senator a candidate whom ROD BLAGOJEVICH believed to be favored

by the President-elect. At times, ROD BLAGOJEVICH attempted to further this

goal by conveying messages, directly and with the assistance of others, to

individuals whom he believed to be in communication with the President-elect.

42. It was further part of the scheme that on or about December 4, 2008,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed defendant ROBERT

BLAGOJEVICH to contact a representative of Senate Candidate A, and advise

the representative that if Senate Candidate A was going to be chosen to fill the

35

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Why would anyone offer to pay $1.5 million for a job that pays $175,000 a year? A: Because you can get rich taking bribes as a SENATOR. If you paid $1.5 million for the job, over the six years you're in office, you might be able to take $10 million or $20 million or God only knows how much bribery money. This is the only time the gov-co listed "money" (FRNs) as a "financial benefit".
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
That Blago merely "BELIEVED" some people were "in communication" with Obama was sufficient ground to allege criminal conduct. This is truly a "crime" of "intent". It doesn't matter whether Blago succeeded in any "attempt," the facts that he 1) merely intended to succeed in some criminal objective; and 2) committed any act--even if misguided or unsuccessful--to achieve his criminal objective--would be enough to charge him with a crime. As an extreme, hypothetical example, suppose I was fantasizing about robbing a bank yesterday and went out to buy a gun or a ski mask today. In theory, my criminal fantasy backed up by one or two objective acts could be enough to charge me with criminal conduct. LESSON: Can buying a gun or a ski mask be construed as a criminal act? It depends on the PURPOSE for the purchase. If you buy a ski mask for the purpose of going skiing, that's innocent. If you purchase the ski mask for the purpose of holding up a bank, that purchase can be used as evidence of your intent to commit a crime. The essence of the conspriacy, scheme or enterprise is probably its PURPOSE. If a defendant can deny acting for that particular PURPOSE, the defendant can probably defeat the prosecution. I.e., Yes, I bought a ski mask--but it was for the PURPOSE of going skiing. Yes, I bought a gun--but it was for the PURPOSE of self-defense.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Senate seat, some of the promised fundraising had to occur before the

appointment. ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH to

communicate the urgency of the message, and to do it in person, rather than

over the phone. ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH agreed to do so, and thereafter

arranged a meeting with an associate of Senate Candidate A.

43. It was further part of the scheme that on or about December 5, 2008,

following the publication that day of a newspaper article reporting that ROD

BLAGOJEVICH had been surreptitiously recorded in connection with an

ongoing federal investigation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed ROBERT

BLAGOJEVICH to cancel his meeting with the associate of Senate Candidate

A, and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH agreed to do so.

44. It was further part of the scheme that defendants ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and KELLY, and other participants in the scheme,

misrepresented, concealed, and hid, and caused to be misrepresented, concealed,

and hidden, the purposes of and the acts done in furtherance of the scheme.

45. On or about October 17, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

36

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and the Children's CEO in Florida, in

which ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked the Children's CEO for a campaign

contribution;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

37

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Isn't that clever. Blago acts "in the Northern District" but the resulting phone call emanates from "in Chicago, Illinois" (not the Northern District) and is received "in Florida" proving INTERSTATE COMMERCE. But this is a very snaky alllegation. I'll bet there can't be "interstate commerce" from one federal "District" to another federal "District". There is no obvious governmental control over "inter-district commerce". So, suppose you were charged with interstate commerce violations and you argued that all of your acts took place in either a federal "DISTRICT" or even a TERRITORY rather than a "state/State". I don't know what such argument would be resolved, but it would be a mare's nest that gov-co would not welcome. InterSTATE commerce is not interDISTRICT or interTERRITORY commerce.

COUNT THREE

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 1, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH,

defendants herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH in

Nashville, Tennessee, in which ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH gave ROD

BLAGOJEVICH an update on the solicitation of campaign contributions from

Construction Executive and Racetrack Executive, and they discussed potential

contributions from Senate Candidate C and Senate Candidate A;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

38

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Including the first paragrapn in Count 1, but not the other 11 paragraphs in Count 1.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Gov-co claims that Blago is solicting "campaign contributions" (where only Blago benefits) rather than BRIBES where both sides benefit and thus the entity making the alleged "campaign contribution" would also be guilty of BRIBERY. Thus, "political campaign contributions" are a pretext to shield the persons paying the BRIBES from being charged with BRIBERY. I have little doubt that it's no accident that gov-co has (so far) failed to allege BRIBERY but instead alleged EXTORTION and SOLICITATION OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. Extortion and Campaign Contributions only result in one beneficiary of the criminal act: Blagojevich. BRIBERY would result in TWO beneficiaries of the criminal act and cause gov-co to indict both Blagojevich AND whichever POWERFUL corporations and/or individuals cooperated in the BRIBES. Thus, alleging BRIBERY would threaten the whole SYSTEM while merely alleging EXTORTION threatens Blagojevich.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT FOUR

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 7, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS,

defendants herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and HARRIS, in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor A, in

Washington, D.C., in which ROD BLAGOJEVICH, HARRIS, and Advisor A

discussed financial benefits which ROD BLAGOJEVICH could request in

exchange for the appointment of Senate Candidate B to the United States

Senate;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

39

AntiShyster News
Note
But nothing from Count 3.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
N.B. the language concerning the "place" where "ROD BLAGOJEVICH" acted "AT Chicago, IN the Northern District of Illinois" and the language descriing the places from and to which the wire fraud was alleged to have taken place: "IN Chicago, ILLINOIS" and "IN Washington, D.C." Clearly, the place "AT Chicago, IN the Northern DISTRICT of Illinois" is a different place, venue and/or jurisdiction from the place "IN Chicago, ILLINOIS". But which is "real"? "AT Chicago" or "IN Chicago"? Which is The State and which is "this state"?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
I keep seeing references to "financial benefits" moreso than money. I suspect the underlying significance of "financial benefits" is unjust enrichment. I.e., the recipient of the "financial BENEFITS" is a FIDUCIARY receiving a BENEFIT to which he is not entitled. Unjust enrichment. Thus, improper "finanical benefits" implies some violation of a trust relationship and, almost certainly, violation by a fiduciary rather than another beneficiary. All of this suggests that if the "real party in interest" must be a beneficiary, then the plaintiff RPII must charge the defendant as a fiduciary guilty of unjust enrichment. More, if I were filing a RICO suit, instead of alleging that the defendant were trying to take or extort MONEY from me, I should allege that the defendant was trying to take "financial benefits" to which the defendant was not entitled.

COUNT FIVE

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 10, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a conference call between

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, John Harris and others, in Chicago, Illinois, and various

advisors in Washington, D.C., and New York City, in which they discussed

financial benefits which ROD BLAGOJEVICH could request in exchange for the

appointment of Senate Candidate B to the United States Senate;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

40

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
"and elsewhere" triggered my suspicions from the first instance. The "and elsewhere" implies that Blagojevich essentially committed a SINGLE act for criminal purposes at TWO places at the same time. Blagojevich is implicitly alleged to have SIMULTANEOUSLY been BOTH "AT Chicago, in the Northern DISTRCT of Illinois," and "IN Chicago, Illinois". I'm not sure how to exploit that distinction, but I believe that distinction is CRITICAL. To invoke RICO in a federal court, the offenses must probably been committed "AT" some city located IN a federal DISTRICT. On the other hand, to invoke "interstate commerce" there must be two places that a located in two different "states". Districts aren't "states". I'm not sure which (if either) of these two places is within a State of the Union. If I were Blago, I would deny being in two places/jursdictions at the same time. If I were only "AT Chicago" in the DISTRICT or "IN Chicago, Illinois," then the prosecution would have to either have to abandon prosecuting these counts in a federal court, or drop the interstate commerce complaint. It's entirely possible that The State of the Union is even a THIRD "venue". If I were in Blago's position, I'd declare that all of my acts took place within a State of the Union. It's entirely possible that most "pro se's" who try to file a RICO alleging wire fraud or mail fraud have their cases DISMISSED because they fail to allege that the perpetrator acted AT some city in a federal DISTRICT to cause a result (telephone call or letter) that moved from "IN" that city in the "state"/"State" to another place in another "state"/"State" and thereby engaged in interstate commerce. LESSON: Learn to allege the defendant acted in both venues.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
"Chicago, ILLINOIS," "Washngtion D.C.," and "New York CITY". Why not "New York, New York"? Note that all three words ("New York City") are capitalized indicating a single, proper name. Does the prosecution recognize "New York CITY" to be outside of the federal DISTRICTS, TERRITORIES and STATES? Is "New York CITY" an INTERNATIONAL place? I've heard rumors to that effect for years . . . something to do with the U.N. and being the "world capital". I wonder if they might be true.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT SIX

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 12, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor A in Washington, D.C.

(Sessions 533 and 535), in which they discussed a proposal where, in exchange

for the appointment of Senate Candidate B to the United States Senate, a not-

for-profit organization would be set up where ROD BLAGOJEVICH would be

employed when he was no longer governor;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

41

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
OK--I'm beginning to understand. The indictment alleges that Blagovich was at all times acting "AT Chicago, IN the Northern DISTRICT" and FROM THAT PLACE did "knowingly CAUSE" a telephone call to take place at an entirely different place--namely "IN Chicago, Illinois". Contrary to my earlier speculation, the proseuction does not allege Blago was simultaneously in two places at the same time. They allege that Blago was in one place/venue and from that place/venue, CAUSED certain criminal acts to take place in the SECOND place/venue.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT SEVEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 12, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and a labor union official in Washington,

D.C. (Session 541), in which ROD BLAGOJEVICH proposed that, in exchange

for the appointment of Senate Candidate B to the United States Senate, a not-

for-profit organization be set up where ROD BLAGOJEVICH would be employed

when he was no longer governor;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

42

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Washington D.C. is not a STate of the Union. Insofar as "interSTATE commerce" can include Washington D.C., it appears that "interstate commerce" may not be among the several States of the Union, but rather between the "territories" in the singular "United States". If so, "inter-state commerce" may be among the several States of the Union.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT EIGHT

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 12, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and a labor union official in Washington,

D.C. (Session 546), in which ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed the union official

that it was a very real possibility that Senate Candidate B could get the United

States Senate appointment, and again raised his interest in employment by a

not-for-profit organization;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

43

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
"Sounds" would seem to have a physical reality. If so, then "in Chicago, Illinois" would seem to be in the "real" world. This implies that the place "at Chicago, IN the Northern DISTRCT" may be a fictional place/state.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Not for profit organizations must offer some real advantages when it comes to concealing income or other activities from public scrutiny.

COUNT NINE

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 13, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor B in Michigan (Session 624),

in which they discussed presenting to United States Congressman A a proposal

by ROD BLAGOJEVICH that a not-for-profit organization be set up and that the

connection between setting up this organization and the awarding of the U.S.

Senate seat would be ?unsaid”;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

44

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT TEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about November 13, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor B in Michigan (Session 627),

in which ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor B to call Lobbyist A and ask

Lobbyist A to present to United States Congressman A ROD BLAGOJEVICH's

proposal that a not-for-profit organization be set up and that, while it would be

unsaid, this would be a ?play” to obtain a benefit for ROD BLAGOJEVICH in

return for the awarding of the United States Senate seat;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

45

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT ELEVEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about December 4, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and ALONZO MONK,

defendants herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and MONK in Miami, Florida, in which

BLAGOJEVICH agreed with MONK that, in order to obtain the campaign

contribution sought from Racetrack Executive in exchange for a prompt signing

of the Racing Bill, it would be better “from a pressure point of view” for

BLAGOJEVICH himself to call Racetrack Executive to discuss the timing of

signing the Racing Bill;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

46

COUNT TWELVE

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Count Two are realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about December 4, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH,

defendants herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did

knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication

in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and Deputy Governor A in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor A in

Washington, D.C., in which ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that if he gave the

Senate seat to Senate Candidate A, there would be ?tangible political support

. . . specific amounts and everything . . . . some of it up front”;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

47

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Note that these appear to be wire FRAUD charges; not wire EXTORTION or wire BRIBERY charges. 18 USC Section 1346. Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud" For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the INTANGIBLE RIGHT TO HONEST SERVICES." SOB! That's HOT! Every time we send a letter of inquiry to the IRS and they refuse to answer our questions, that refusal could be construed as an attempt to deprive us of our 'INTANGIBLE RIGHT TO HONEST SERVICES".
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT THIRTEEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1(a) through 1(d), 1(h) through 1(k), and 1(m)(iii)

through 1(m)(vii) of Count One are realleged and incorporated as if fully set

forth herein.

2. At times material to this Count of the Superseding Indictment:

a. It was the ordinary course of business for TRS to use the U.S.

mails, private and commercial interstate carriers, and wirings in interstate

commerce, in the course of making investments.

b. TRS Staffer A was the Executive Director of TRS. In that

position, TRS Staffer A had significant influence over the investments made by

TRS. TRS Staffer A was a longtime associate of defendant WILLIAM F.

CELLINI, SR., and CELLINI and TRS Staffer A discussed matters involving

TRS, including matters that affected Commonwealth Realty Advisors.

c. Steven Loren was a lawyer. He and his law firm were outside

counsel for TRS.

d. On or about February 20, 2004, the TRS Board approved

allocations of TRS funds to four real estate management firms, including

allocations totaling $220 million to defendant CELLINI's firm, Commonwealth

Realty Advisors. Prior to the February 2004 TRS Board meeting, TRS staff had

48

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

planned to recommend that Capri Capital also receive allocations totaling $220

million at the February 2004 TRS Board meeting. Prior to the February 2004

TRS Board meeting, Levine used his influence and position at TRS to change the

TRS staff recommendation with respect to the $220 million allocation to Capri

Capital. The TRS Board did not approve any allocation of TRS funds to Capri

Capital at the February 2004 TRS Board meeting.

e. Pursuant to the laws of the State of Illinois relating to

pensions (40 ILCS 5/1109), Levine, as a member of the TRS Board, was required

to discharge his duties solely in the interest of TRS participants and

beneficiaries and (a) for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to TRS

participants and their beneficiaries, and (b) with the care, skill, prudence and

diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person would

use.

f. Pursuant to the laws of the State of Illinois relating to

pensions (40 ILCS 5/1110), Levine, as a member of the TRS Board, was

prohibited from (a) dealing with the assets of TRS in his own interest or for his

own account, and (b) receiving any consideration for his own personal account

from any party dealing with TRS in connection with a transaction involving the

assets of TRS.

49

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
I wonder if Levine would act "in his own interests" in the name "Levine" while he might act "for his own ACCOUNT" in the name of "LEVINE".
AntiShyster News
Highlight

g. Pursuant to the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (5

ILCS 430/5-50), effective December 9, 2003, Levine, as a member of the TRS

Board, was prohibited from having any material communications with a

representative of a party concerning a pending matter, or ex parte contacts,

without reporting that contact to the TRS Board in writing.

The Conspiracy To Defraud

3. Beginning no later than in and about the spring of 2003 and

continuing through in or about the summer of 2005, in the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

CHRISTOPHER KELLY, and WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR.,

defendants herein, together with Stuart Levine, Antoin Rezko, Steven Loren,

and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did conspire and agree with

each other to devise and participate in a scheme to deprive the beneficiaries of

TRS of their intangible right to Levine’s honest services, and it was foreseeable

that for the purposes of executing and attempting to execute such scheme, one

or more members of the conspiracy would use and cause the use of the United

States mails and private and commercial interstate carriers, and the

transmission of a wire communication in interstate commerce, in violation of

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, and 1346.

50

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
To make a claim to "honest services," we must first establishe that we are BENEFICIARIES of whatever trust the defendant serves as a fiduciary.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Overview

4. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants CELLINI and KELLY,

together with Levine and Rezko, agreed to and did use their influence at TRS

and Levine’s position at TRS to arrange for TRS to invest with and hire firms

that made contributions for the benefit of Rod Blagojevich. As CELLINI,

KELLY, and Rezko knew, Levine agreed to use his influence and position at TRS

to help the firms that had made contributions for the benefit of Blagojevich even

though Levine understood that those firms were being chosen based on their

political contributions.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants CELLINI and

KELLY, together with Levine and Rezko, agreed that they would use their

influence and Levine’s position at TRS to prevent Thomas Rosenberg’s firm,

Capri Capital, from receiving a planned $220 million allocation of TRS funds

unless Rosenberg and Capri Capital agreed to raise or donate a substantial

amount of funds for the benefit of Rod Blagojevich. When Rosenberg threatened

to expose the plan, CELLINI, KELLY, Levine, and Rezko acted together to

prevent Rosenberg from telling law enforcement about the extortion plan. As a

result of Rosenberg’s threat, CELLINI, KELLY, Levine, and Rezko agreed that

Capri Capital would receive the $220 million allocation, but that Capri Capital

and Rosenberg would receive no further funds from the State of Illinois.

51

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Again, we see gov-co prosecuting for an extortion attempt that FAILED. Why don't they prosecute for a successful extortion? There must've been several, probably scores of successfull "extortion" attempts where the defendants 1) solicited a bribe; and 2) the parties solicited actually paid the bribe. But if Blago & Co. succeeded in an alleged "extortion attempt" that was actually a solicitation for a bribe, I presume that the party that paid the bribe and received some unearned benefit in return would also be a defendant. Again, I'd bet that the reason the gov-co has only (so far) charged Blagojevich with his failed "extortion" attemtps is to PROTECT the identify of the multitude of rich and powerful who routinely and corruptly profited from the mutual exchange of unlawful BRIBES. Evidence that Blagojevich & Co were not engaged in EXTORTION but merely solicting BRIBES is seen at least twice in the consequences when the "target" refused to pay the bribe. No one came out to break their knees or elbows. Instead, they got the deal they wanted without paying the bribe. The only penalty imposed was allegedly after the fact when the entities that were unwilling to pay a bribe were removed from the list of possible FUTURE beneficiaries of State funds. Yes, there was a kind of "penalty" imposed on those who refused to "play ball". That that penalty was not evidence of "extortion" in the sense that you hold a gun to someone's head or threaten publish pictures of him having sex with his neighbors son. The penalty was merely a refusal to do future business with those who wouldn't pay a bribe.

6. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants CELLINI and

KELLY, and Rezko, agreed to and did engage in ex parte communications with

Levine, other TRS trustees, and TRS staff members, including TRS Staffer A,

concerning official actions and related matters pending before TRS. As

CELLINI and KELLY were aware, Levine concealed from and failed to disclose

to the TRS Board the existence and nature of these ex parte communications.

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that, as defendants CELLINI

and KELLY knew, Levine concealed from and failed to disclose to the TRS Board

material facts concerning the benefits that Levine sought to obtain for and on

behalf of CELLINI, KELLY, Levine, Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, and others for

official actions taken by TRS.

Maintaining Control Over TRS

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that in or about the spring of

2003, defendant CELLINI and Levine agreed that CELLINI would ask

defendant KELLY and Rezko to use their influence with the Blagojevich

administration to defeat a proposal to consolidate TRS with two other State of

Illinois pension funds. Such a consolidation would have jeopardized the

influence that CELLINI and Levine had over the activities of TRS, as well as the

profits received by Commonwealth Realty Advisors as an asset manager for TRS.

52

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

9. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant KELLY and

Rezko agreed to and did use their influence with the Blagojevich administration

to defeat the consolidation proposal and that, in return, defendant CELLINI and

Levine agreed to use their influence with TRS to ensure that TRS selected asset

managers and investment firms, and hired professional firms (including law

firms), selected by KELLY and Rezko. KELLY, CELLINI, Rezko, and Levine

further agreed that CELLINI and Levine would use their influence with TRS to

assist asset managers, investment funds, and professional firms that made

substantial contributions to Friends of Blagojevich.

10. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant KELLY and

Rezko used their influence with the Blagojevich administration to ensure that

KELLY, Rezko, defendant CELLINI, and Levine retained their influence over

the activities of TRS, including by ensuring that Rod Blagojevich reappointed

Levine to an additional term on the TRS Board of Trustees in or about the spring

of 2004.

11. It was further part of the conspiracy that at times defendant KELLY

and Rezko gave Levine the names of firms that KELLY and Rezko wanted TRS

to invest with or hire, in exchange for past or prospective contributions to

Friends of Blagojevich, and that Levine used his influence with TRS to assist

those firms.

53

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Attempted Extortion of Thomas Rosenberg and Capri Capital

12. It was further part of the conspiracy that in about April 2004, Levine

told Rezko that they could force Thomas Rosenberg and Capri Capital to pay to

obtain a potential $220 million allocation of TRS funds. Levine and Rezko

agreed that they would use their influence and Levine’s position at TRS to

prevent Capri Capital from receiving its $220 million allocation unless Capri

Capital or one of its principals, Rosenberg, agreed to make a payment as Levine

and Rezko directed. Levine, Rezko, and defendant KELLY further agreed that

if Rosenberg and Capri Capital arranged to raise a significant amount of money

in campaign contributions for the benefit of Rod Blagojevich, then Levine, Rezko,

and KELLY would permit Capri Capital to receive the $220 million allocation

from TRS. Levine, Rezko, and KELLY further agreed that Levine would arrange

for defendant CELLINI to communicate to Rosenberg that Capri Capital was not

going to receive its $220 million allocation because of Rosenberg’s failure to

make a significant political contribution for the benefit of Blagojevich.

13. It was further part of the conspiracy that in or about early May

2004, Levine informed defendant CELLINI about the plan to require Rosenberg

and Capri Capital to raise or donate money for the benefit of Rod Blagojevich in

order for Capri Capital to receive its $220 million allocation from TRS.

CELLINI agreed to tell Rosenberg that Capri Capital was not going to receive

54

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Note that virtually each of these "parts" of "the conspiracy" involve TWO people who "agreed" to act one way or another in each "part". The key to conspiracy charges is an "agreement". It's obvious that one man can not "agree" with himself. To have an agreement, there must be two people who have each "agreed" to peform some act. To have a valid "part" of the conspiracy, it appears that there must be TWO parties which enter into an AGREEMENT. It further appears to me that each "part" of "THE conspiracy" may be a separate AGREEMENT. Part #10 is an AGREEMENT. Part #11 is another AGREEMENT. Part #12 is a third AGREEMENT. Each "Part"/AGREEMENT requires two persons.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Note how often these "conspiracies" are based on someone (Blago) receiving an improper BENEFIT. It appears that this entire CRIMINAL RICO suit is ultimately based on some breach of FIDUCIARY duties or the "unjust enrichment" of receiving (or even trying to receive) BENEFITS to which one was unentitled. It is bizarre to see that most of these CRIMES are based on violations of TRUST relationships that did not actually result in unearned BENEFITS for Blagojevich. This is all about TRUSTS.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

its $220 million allocation because Rosenberg had not made a significant

contribution for the benefit of Blagojevich. CELLINI and Levine agreed that

once Rosenberg understood that the reason Capri Capital was not going to

receive its $220 million allocation was because of Rosenberg’s failure to make a

significant contribution for the benefit of Blagojevich, CELLINI would direct

Rosenberg to talk with Levine so that Levine could discuss with Rosenberg how

Rosenberg and Capri Capital could make the necessary contributions for the

benefit of Blagojevich to ensure that Capri Capital would receive its $220 million

allocation.

14. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about May 6, 2004,

Levine told TRS Staffer A that defendant CELLINI was going to tell Rosenberg

that Rezko was shocked that Rosenberg wanted to receive the $220 million

allocation from TRS without having made any political contributions for the

benefit of Blagojevich and that Rosenberg was going to have to deal with Rezko.

15. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about May 7, 2004,

defendant CELLINI told Rosenberg that there had been a meeting involving

Rezko and defendant KELLY concerning plans for raising political donations for

the benefit of Rod Blagojevich from pension fund managers, and that during this

meeting Rezko had observed that Capri Capital had a lot of TRS funds under

management but had not made any political donations for the benefit of

55

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Blagojevich. CELLINI told Rosenberg words to the effect that Capri Capital had

not received its $220 million allocation from TRS because of its failure to make

political donations for the benefit of Blagojevich.

16. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about May 7, 2004,

after defendant CELLINI told Rosenberg about the reasons that Capri Capital

had not received its $220 million allocation, CELLINI called Levine. In that call,

CELLINI told Levine about Rosenberg’s reaction when CELLINI had explained

to Rosenberg that Capri Capital would not receive the $220 million allocation

because Rosenberg had failed to make a political donation for the benefit of Rod

Blagojevich.

17. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about May 8, 2004,

defendant CELLINI called Levine and reported on another conversation

CELLINI had with Rosenberg earlier that day in which Rosenberg advised

CELLINI that Rosenberg would not be extorted. CELLINI further told Levine

that Rosenberg had threatened to inform law enforcement about the extortion.

CELLINI and Levine discussed ways in which they could deal with Rosenberg’s

threat to inform law enforcement about the extortion.

18. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about May 10, 2004,

defendant CELLINI informed defendant KELLY about Rosenberg’s threat to

expose the extortion plan.

56

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
It's possible that the person solicited for a bribe might have described the solicitation as "extortion". However, I doubt that either defendant used the words "extort" or "extortion" to describe what they were doing. The fact that the gov-co is using the words "extorted" and "extortion" repeatedly in this "part" suggests to me that they are faking it, trying to make "extortion" appear where none clearly existed.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

19. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about May 10, 2004,

defendant CELLINI told Levine about CELLINI’s prior conversation with

defendant KELLY about Rosenberg’s threat to expose the extortion plan. In that

conversation, CELLINI and Levine further discussed ways in which they could

discourage Rosenberg from going to law enforcement to expose the extortion

plan.

20. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about May 11, 2004,

defendants CELLINI and KELLY, together with Stuart Levine and Rezko,

agreed that in light of Rosenberg’s threat to inform law enforcement about the

extortion, it was too risky to continue demanding money from Rosenberg and

Capri Capital or blocking the $220 million allocation to Capri Capital.

21. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants CELLINI and

KELLY, together with Levine and Rezko, agreed that although Capri Capital

would receive the $220 million allocation, it would not receive any further

business from any State of Illinois entity, including TRS.

22. It was further part of the conspiracy that after the discussion

involving defendants CELLINI and KELLY, and Levine and Rezko, on or about

May 11, 2004, CELLINI spoke with Thomas Rosenberg on several occasions for

the purpose of discouraging him from disclosing the extortion attempt, falsely

advising Rosenberg that Rezko, Levine, and KELLY had nothing to do with

57

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
The "discusion" is evidence of the plan, the conspiracy. The fact that Cellini SPOKE with Rosenberg is the ACT that manifests and PROVES the allege "conspiracy"/"agreement".
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Capri Capital’s failure to receive its $220 million allocation, and representing

that CELLINI and Levine had used their influence with TRS staff to ensure that

Capri Capital would receive its allocation.

23. It was further part of the conspiracy that after the meeting on or

about May 11, 2004, defendant CELLINI and Levine used their influence and

Levine’s position at TRS to ensure that Capri Capital received its $220 million

allocation at the next TRS Board meeting so that the extortion plan against

Rosenberg and Capri Capital would not be revealed. On or about May 25, 2004,

the TRS Board, including Levine, voted to allocate a total of $220 million to

Capri Capital.

Concealment

24. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants CELLINI and

KELLY, together with Levine, Rezko, and their co-conspirators, did

misrepresent, conceal and hide, and cause to be misrepresented, concealed, and

hidden, the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy and the purposes of those

acts.

25. It was further part of the conspiracy that in or around the summer

of 2004, defendants CELLINI and KELLY, and Rezko and others, discussed

moving TRS Staffer A from his position at TRS into another job with a different

58

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
It's an interesting irony that first, Blago & Co attempt to solicit a bribe from Capri Capital in return for giving Capri $220 million deal. Then, when Capri refuses to enter into a bribery relationship, Blago and company THREATEN to stop the $220 million deal. And then, when Capri threatens to go to the cops, Blago & Co are forced to WORK to MAKE SURE that the $220 million deal is approved so as to "prove" that they never tried to "extort" or solicit a bribe from Capri. In a sense, Blago & Co did not extort Capri--they merely solicited a bribe where boths sides stood to make some money. But by threatening to report that solicitation to the police, Capri effectively EXTORTED the $220 million deal out of Blago & Co.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
That's a surprising and strong allegation. How many gov-co officials of "this state" are "misrepresenting, conealing and hiding" the fact that "this state" is not The State of the Union? I'm about 95% confident that such "misrepresentation" etc. might only be alleged in the context of a trust relationship. I.e., a man acting "at arm's length" might be charged with FRAUD but would probably not be subject to these charges of "misrepresentation". This suggests that while FRAUD is chargeable at LAW, "MISREPRESENTATION" etc may be the parallel charge to be applied in trust relationships in EQUITY. If that were true, then instead of alleging FRAUD, we might do well to 1) allege the existence of a TRUST RELATIONSHIP between ourselves and the defendant; and then 2) allege that the defendant had engaged in "MISREPRESENTATION" etc. For example, consider a "judge" who has an OATH of office to the People of The State of Texas. That oath creates a fiduciary relationship between himself and the People of The State wherein the purported "judge" is the fiduciary and each of the "People" are beneficiaries. This OATH to The State is completely separate from his employment agreement with "this state". It is the nature of all employer-employee relationships, that the "judge's" employment agreement with "this state" obligates the "judge" (who acts as an employee of "this state") to act as fiduciary for the benefit of his employer ("this state"). The purported judge's OATH of office obligates him to act as a fiduciary for the People of The State who are the BENEFICIARIES of The Constitution of The State of Texas. The purported judge is sitting on the bench in two possible capacities: 1) As fidcuiary for his employer "this state"; and 2) and as fiducicary for the "People" of The State. The capacity in which the purported judge acts depends on the litigants. If they don't object, the "judge" will function as a fiduciary for "this state" and probably fiind the defendant guilty. But if the defendant 1) expressly identifies himself as a BENEFICIARY of the express charitable trust called "The Constitution of The State of Texas," and 2) introduces evidence of the judge's OATH into the record--then the defendant should be able to compel the court to function as the defendant's fiduciary rather than fiduciary for "this state". Then, once the defendant has established his fiduciary relationship to the "judge," the defendant might sue under that trust relationship fro "misrepresenation," etc. if the judge tries to bamboozle and keep the defendant in the IMPLIED charitable trust relationship of "this state".
AntiShyster News
Highlight

state entity in an effort to ensure that TRS Staffer A would not cooperate with

law enforcement authorities.

26. It was further part of the conspiracy that in or around the summer

and fall of 2004, in an effort to conceal the conspiracy, defendant CELLINI,

Rezko and others discussed the possibility of removing the U.S. Attorney for the

Northern District of Illinois in an effort to stop any investigation into the

co-conspirators and others;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.

59

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
That allegation sounds serious. That's first allegation that sounded really solid to me.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
In A.D. 2002, Congress added section 1349 to Title 18. Section 1349. Attempt and conspiracy Any person who ATTEMPTS or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. Damn. That's strong and dangerous. A mere "attempt" to commit some crime by means of the mail or wire is subject to just as strong a penalty as if you'd actually succeeded.
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT FOURTEEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Thirteen of this Superseding

Indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. Beginning in or about April 2004 and continuing through at least in

or about the summer of 2005, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, and elsewhere,

CHRISTOPHER KELLY, and WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR.,

defendants herein, did conspire with Stuart Levine, Antoin Rezko, and others,

to commit extortion, which extortion would obstruct, delay, and affect commerce,

in that they attempted to obtain property, in the form of political contributions

for the benefit of Rod Blagojevich from Thomas Rosenberg and Capri Capital,

with Rosenberg’s and Capri Capital’s consent induced under the color of official

right, and by the wrongful use of actual and threatened fear of economic harm.

Overview of the Conspiracy

3. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants CELLINI and KELLY,

together with Levine and Rezko, agreed that they would use their influence and

Levine’s position at TRS to prevent Thomas Rosenberg’s firm, Capri Capital,

from receiving a planned $220 million allocation of TRS funds unless Rosenberg

and Capri Capital agreed to raise or donate a substantial amount of money in

60

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
There is no doubt that "commerce" is their god. Commerce by means of FRNs is the key to everything "this state" does. If you're using FRNs, you're in commerce. If you're in "commerce," you're in "this state".
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
And what "property" is being referenced? I'll bet that "property" is 1) the res of some trust; and 2) almost certainly FRNs. The "property" is intended to the use of the "beneficiaries" of whatever trust is implicated. The charge is that the defendants attempted to "obtain" such trust "property" without being entitled to do so as lawful beneficiaries of that trust. I'll bet that "property" is that of the "public interes" and/or the "FRN-TRUST".
AntiShyster News
Note
Whew! Isn't that a beauty?! How many times has your "consent" to some governmental act been "induced under the color of official right". How many times have people been threatened with arrest and incarceration if they don't pay a fine? Isn't their "consent" to pay the fine being "induced" by the "wrongful use of actual and threatened FEAR of ECONOMIC harm"? Isn't going to jail a cause for ECONOMIC harm? You can lose your job or your belongs. How many government officials involved an any "law enforcement" would not be subject to these allegations?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Actually, legal tender (FRNs).

the form of campaign contributions for the benefit of Rod Blagojevich. When

Rosenberg threatened to expose the plan, CELLINI, KELLY, Levine, and Rezko

acted together to prevent Rosenberg from telling law enforcement about the

extortion plan. As a result of Rosenberg’s threat, CELLINI, KELLY, Levine, and

Rezko agreed that Capri Capital would receive the $220 million allocation, but

that Capri Capital and Rosenberg would receive no further funds from the State

of Illinois.

4. Paragraphs 12 through 26 of Count Thirteen of this Superseding

Indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

61

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
It's all about the "benefit" to "Rod Blagojevich" to which Blago was not justly "entitled".
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
This is just TOO good. This entire case against Blagojevich is a template for filing similar RICO suits against LOTS of other gov-co employees. o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE + PART I - CRIMES # CHAPTER 95 - RACKETEERING U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04 Section 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence (a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) As used in this section - (1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining. (2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. (3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. (c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or sections 151-188 of Title 45.
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT FIFTEEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Thirteen are realleged and

incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

2. Beginning in or about April 2004 and continuing through at least in

or about the summer of 2005, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, and elsewhere,

CHRISTOPHER KELLY, and WILLIAM F. CELLINI, SR.,

defendants herein, together with Stuart Levine, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, and

others, did attempt to commit extortion, which extortion would obstruct, delay,

and affect commerce, in that the defendant attempted to obtain property, in the

form of political contributions for the benefit of Rod Blagojevich from Thomas

Rosenberg and Capri Capital, with Rosenberg’s and Capri Capital’s consent

induced under the color of official right, and by the wrongful use of actual and

threatened fear of economic harm;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

62

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
"Commerce" itself appears to be the "trust". To use FRNs is to be in "commerce". To be in "commerce" is to act as either a fiduciary or a beneficiary. "this state" is the venue for such "commerce". And note that all that had to be done to 'AFFECT COMMERCE" was to ATTEMPT to "obtain property" for the BENEFIT of Blagojevich from persons whose "consent" to such act would be "induced under the color of official right and by the wrongful use of actual or threatened fear of ECNOMIC harm". Note that the "economy," "commerce" and "this state" appear to be almost synonymous. To say either implies the other two.

COUNT SIXTEEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraph 1(a) of Count One is realleged and incorporated as though

fully set forth herein.

2. Beginning in or about October 2008 and continuing through on or

about December 9, 2008, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, and others did attempt to commit extortion, which extortion

would obstruct, delay, and affect commerce, in that the defendant attempted to

obtain property, in the form of political contributions for the benefit of ROD

BLAGOJEVICH from the Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Memorial

Hospital, and Children's Memorial Hospital, with the consent of the Chief

Executive Officer and Children's Memorial Hospital induced under the color of

official right, and by the wrongful use of actual and threatened fear of economic

harm;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

63

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
This is the second time I've noticed that the "property" was in the FORM of a political contribution. It appears that this "property" can manifest in more than one FORM. I suspect that the fundamental "property" may be FRNs and the various FORMS are those items whose value is calculated (or more probably, paid for) in FRNs. Perhaps, in this "commercial" universe all things are priced/valued in the fundamental particle of that universe: FRNs. More, I think I get the "affect commerce" requirement: It's inherent in the alleged "ECONOMIC HARM" that's part of the mere THREAT. For example, if a judge threatened to jail you for not paying a fine, that threat would remove you from the stream of COMMERCE and thereby cause you ECONOMIC HARM. In theory, which ECONOMIC HARM is greater: the loss of the fine to the judge and municipality? Or the loss of your earnings by being jailed? Both the court and the defendant stand to suffer ECONOMIC HARM based on the court's decision. If ECNOMIC HARM is the ultimate taboo, then a court might be called on to balance which ECONOMIC HARM would be more hurtful to the COMMERCE-FRN-TRUST--the municipality losing a $200 fine or the defendant losing 2, 10 or 30 days work will he was jailed. In the alternative, or perhaps additionally, the word "benefit" is constantly declared to be the objective of the conspiracy. I'll bet that "benefit" (especially being a campaign contribution) is denominated in FRNs. If Blago is taking (or attempting to take) an unearned, unentitle BENEFIT in FRNs, he's doing so in violation of the rules of the "FRN-TRUST" and would be subject to some sort of prosecution in equity.

COUNT SEVENTEEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(e) of Count One are realleged and

incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

2. Beginning in or about October 2008 and continuing through on or

about December 9, 2008, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, did conspire with Alonzo Monk and others to commit

extortion, which extortion would obstruct, delay, and affect commerce, in that

they attempted to obtain property, in the form of political contributions for the

benefit of ROD BLAGOJEVICH from Racetrack Executive and two horse racing

tracks with which Racetrack Executive was affiliated, with the consent of

Racetrack Executive and the horse racing tracks induced under the color of

official right, and by the wrongful use of actual and threatened fear of economic

harm.

3. It was part of the conspiracy that on or about November 13, 2008,

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Robert Blagojevich that he wanted

campaign contributions to be raised by the end of the year by Racetrack

Executive, who, as ROD BLAGOJEVICH knew, managed horse racing tracks

64

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
These "Districts" are clearly "federal" in nature. They appear to be "in this state" rather than within The State.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Prosecutors use the name "Racetrack Executive" as a proper name to stand for the proper name of someone who is a "racetrack executive" but wishes to remain unnamed in this indictment.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

that would financially benefit from a bill pending in the Illinois legislature that

would require certain Illinois casinos to give money to a fund that would be used

to help the Illinois horse racing industry (the "Racing Bill"). At that time, as

ROD BLAGOJEVICH knew, Monk had been trying to arrange a contribution

from Racetrack Executive, and ROD BLAGOJEVICH had set a goal of raising

$100,000 in contributions from and through Racetrack Executive.

4. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH had further conversations with Monk about the Racing Bill

after it was passed by the Illinois legislature on or about November 20, 2008. In

those conversations, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Monk discussed whether ROD

BLAGOJEVICH would sign the bill, and whether and when Racetrack Executive

would arrange for a campaign contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH. On or

about December 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH indicated to Monk that he was

concerned that Racetrack Executive would not make a contribution by the end

of the year if he signed the Racing Bill before the contribution was made. As a

result, Monk and ROD BLAGOJEVICH agreed that Monk would speak with

Racetrack Executive to ensure that Racetrack Executive would make a

contribution by the end of the year.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that after meeting with

defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH on or about December 3, 2008, Monk visited

65

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
I'll bet that's the KEY to this indictment. Blagojevich sort to "obtain" $100,000 or various other sums in the FORM of campaign contributions that were, in fact, "property" of the Federal Reserve System. I.e., the Federal REserve System held LEGAL title to the FRNs and loaned those FRNs into circulation as a "benefit". Makes sense. The Federal Reserve System--a private entity and probably trust--buy FRNs from the U.S. Mint and then loans its now-private script into circulation for the BENEFIT of the American people who--without gold and silver coin in circulation--had no other form of currency. Use of the Fed's FRNs would be a benefit. Anyone who tried to take an unearned or unentitled benefit would be guilty of some sort of trust violation.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

Racetrack Executive. During that visit, Monk communicated to Racetrack

Executive that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was concerned that Racetrack Executive

would not make a contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH if the Racing Bill was

signed before the contribution was made.

6. It was further part of the conspiracy that after meeting with

Racetrack Executive on or about December 3, 2008, Monk reported to defendant

ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Monk had said to Racetrack Executive, “look, there

is a concern that there is going to be some skittishness if your bill gets signed

because of the timeliness of the commitment,” and made it clear to Racetrack

Executive that the contribution has “got to be in now.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH

responded, “good,” and “good job.”

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about December 4,

2008, Monk asked defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH to call Racetrack Executive

and to suggest that ROD BLAGOJEVICH would sign the Racing Bill, because

this would be better “from a pressure point of view.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH

agreed to call Racetrack Executive.

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH and Monk did misrepresent, conceal and hide, and cause to be

misrepresented, concealed, and hidden, the acts done in furtherance of the

conspiracy and the purposes of those acts;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

66

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT EIGHTEEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraph 1(a) of Count One is realleged and incorporated as though

fully set forth herein.

2. Beginning in or about October 2008 and continuing through

December 9, 2008, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and

elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, and others did attempt to commit extortion, which extortion

would obstruct, delay, and affect commerce, in that the defendant attempted to

obtain property, in the form of political contributions for the benefit of ROD

BLAGOJEVICH from Construction Executive (who was both an executive with

a company that supplied materials for road construction, and a representative

of a trade group involved with the construction of roads), and from the company

that employed Construction Executive, with the consent of Construction

Executive and his employer induced under the color of official right, and by the

wrongful use of actual and threatened fear of economic harm;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

67

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

COUNT NINETEEN

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of Count One are realleged and incorporated

as though fully set forth herein.

2. In 2005, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating

corruption and fraudulent conduct relating to the Office of the Governor of

Illinois and related entities and individuals (the “Investigation”). As of March

16, 2005, the following matters, among others, were material to the

Investigation:

a. Whether defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his associates

solicited business entities for campaign contributions for the benefit of ROD

BLAGOJEVICH in exchange for obtaining or keeping state contracts and other

business opportunities with State agencies, boards, and commissions;

b. Whether defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his associates

solicited individuals for campaign contributions for the benefit of ROD

BLAGOJEVICH as a condition of obtaining state employment and appointments

to state boards and commissions;

c. Whether defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his associates

required that campaign contributions for the benefit of ROD BLAGOJEVICH be

in certain amounts in order for the contributors to obtain state employment,

68

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
This is exactly what I suspect primarily happened: Bribery. Quid pro quo. An EXCHANGE between both Blagojevich and the companies from which he SOLICITED BRIBES.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Previously, the indictment has repeatedly complained that the conspirators acted for the purpose of "OBTAINING property". Here, the FBI investigated whether "OBTAINING state employment," etc. was an object in this matter. Is it possible that the generic class of "property" that Blagojevich should not have received might include "state employement"?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
I'll bet the "certain amounts" are denominated in FRNs.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
I'm pretty much amazed that Blago was investigated by the FBI starting in A.D. 2005, and yet he continued his allegedly criminal acts on into A.D. 2008 with the Senate seat hustle. Blago almost certainly knew about the FBI investigation. The fact that Blago continued to seek campaign contributions after the FBI was investigating indicates 1) the FBI found nothing; 2) Blago's political pull was too great for the FBI to file charges; or 3) Blago had a death wish.

appointments to state boards and commissions, state contracts, and other

business opportunities with state entities;

d. Whether, after becoming Governor of Illinois, defendant ROD

BLAGOJEVICH kept informed of the individuals and entities contributing to his

political campaign and the amounts of the contributions.

2. On or about March 16, 2005, in Chicago, in the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious

and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the

jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the

executive branch of the Government of the United States, when ROD

BLAGOJEVICH, interviewed by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

in the presence of his counsel, stated in sum and substance that:

Since the time that he became governor,

(i) ROD BLAGOJEVICH maintains a separation or firewall betweenpolitics and state business; and

(ii) ROD BLAGOJEVICH does not track, or want to know, who contributes to him or how much they are contributing to him;

69

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
employment, appointmenst to positions, and state contracts are all kinds of "BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES". That would seem to link those activities to COMMERCE and the FRN-TRUST in "this state".
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Are the terms "Governor of Illinois" and "Governor of The State of Illinois" synonymous or is the fomer "in this state" while the latter is within The State of the Union?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
OK--the FBI investigated to see "whether" Blagojevich did or did not do something. What was the result?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
What "matters" are "within the jurisdiction of the FBI"? To learn what the "Government of the United States" is, visit the following URL: http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_hzm13r You'll learn that this "Government" is a private company that's been in business since A.D. 1787--two years before the national Constitution was ratified.

Whereas, in truth and in fact, as ROD BLAGOJEVICH then well knew,

these statements were false;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

70

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE + PART I - CRIMES # CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04 Section 1001. Statements or entries generally (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to - (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. Section 1001 - Notes SOURCE (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104-292, Sec. 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 80 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, Sec. 35, 35 Stat. 1095; Oct. 23, 1918, ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015; June 18, 1934, ch. 587, 48 Stat. 996; Apr. 4, 1938, ch. 69, 52 Stat. 197). Section 80 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was divided into two parts. The provision relating to false claims was incorporated in section 287 of this title. Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title. Words "or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder" in said section 80 were omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "agency" in section 6 of this title. In addition to minor changes of phraseology, the maximum term of imprisonment was changed from 10 to 5 years to be consistent with comparable sections. (See reviser's note under section 287 of this title.) CHANGE OF NAME Reference to United States magistrate or to magistrate deemed to refer to United States magistrate judge pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101-650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. SHORT TITLE OF 2003 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 108-21, title VI, Sec. 607(a), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 689, provided that: "This section [amending section 1028 of this title] may be cited as the 'Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003' or 'SAFE ID Act'." SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 24, 981, 982, 1345 of this title; title 2 section 437g; title 7 sections 12a, 136h, 511r, 1314i, 5662, 6519; title 8 section 1324a; title 12 section 1833a; title 15 sections 637, 657a, 6003; title 17 section 1312; title 19 sections 2515, 3391, 3432; title 21 section 374; title 22 sections 1623, 3622; title 35 section 25; title 40 section 3145; title 42 sections 2000b-3, 2000c-6, 3795a; title 43 section 1212; title 49 sections 5307, 30170; title 50 App. section 566.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION ONE

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. The allegations contained in Count One are realleged and

incorporated by reference for the purposes of alleging forfeiture pursuant to Title

18, United States Code, Section 1963.

2. As a result of the violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1962(d), as alleged in the foregoing indictment,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein:

a. has acquired and maintained interests in violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1962, which interests are subject to forfeiture to the

United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(1);

b. has interests in, claims against, and property and contractual

rights affording sources of influence over, the enterprise, described in Count

One, which the defendant established, operated, controlled, conducted, and

participated in the conduct of, and conspired to do so, in violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1962, thereby making all such interests, claims, and

property and contractual rights subject to forfeiture to the United States of

America pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(2); and

71

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Section 1963. Criminal penalties (a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law - (1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962; (2) any - (A) interest in; (B) security of; (C) claim against; or (D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over; any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and (3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962. The court, in imposing sentence on such person shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to this section, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds. (b) Property subject to criminal forfeiture under this section includes - (1) real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land; and (2) tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities. (c) All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee establishes in a hearing pursuant to subsection (l) that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of such property who at the time of purchase was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section. (d)(1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) for forfeiture under this section - (A) upon the filing of an indictment or information charging a violation of section 1962 of this chapter and alleging that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section; or (B) prior to the filing of such an indictment or information, if, after notice to persons appearing to have an interest in the property and opportunity for a hearing, the court determines that - (i) there is a substantial probability that the United States will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and that failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed, removed from the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture; and (ii) the need to preserve the availability of the property through the entry of the requested order outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is to be entered: Provided, however, That an order entered pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be effective for not more than ninety days, unless extended by the court for good cause shown or unless an indictment or information described in subparagraph (A) has been filed. (2) A temporary restraining order under this subsection may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and that provision of notice will jeopardize the availability of the property for forfeiture. Such a temporary order shall expire not more than ten days after the date on which it is entered, unless extended for good cause shown or unless the party against whom it is entered consents to an extension for a longer period. A hearing requested concerning an order entered under this paragraph shall be held at the earliest possible time, and prior to the expiration of the temporary order. (3) The court may receive and consider, at a hearing held pursuant to this subsection, evidence and information that would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. (e) Upon conviction of a person under this section, the court shall enter a judgment of forfeiture of the property to the United States and shall also authorize the Attorney General to seize all property ordered forfeited upon such terms and conditions as the court shall deem proper. Following the entry of an order declaring the property forfeited, the court may, upon application of the United States, enter such appropriate restraining orders or injunctions, require the execution of satisfactory performance bonds, appoint receivers, conservators, appraisers, accountants, or trustees, or take any other action to protect the interest of the United States in the property ordered forfeited. Any income accruing to, or derived from, an enterprise or an interest in an enterprise which has been ordered forfeited under this section may be used to offset ordinary and necessary expenses to the enterprise which are required by law, or which are necessary to protect the interests of the United States or third parties. (f) Following the seizure of property ordered forfeited under this section, the Attorney General shall direct the disposition of the property by sale or any other commercially feasible means, making due provision for the rights of any innocent persons. Any property right or interest not exercisable by, or transferable for value to, the United States shall expire and shall not revert to the defendant, nor shall the defendant or any person acting in concert with or on behalf of the defendant be eligible to purchase forfeited property at any sale held by the United States. Upon application of a person, other than the defendant or a person acting in concert with or on behalf of the defendant, the court may restrain or stay the sale or disposition of the property pending the conclusion of any appeal of the criminal case giving rise to the forfeiture, if the applicant demonstrates that proceeding with the sale or disposition of the property will result in irreparable injury, harm or loss to him. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), the proceeds of any sale or other disposition of property forfeited under this section and any moneys forfeited shall be used to pay all proper expenses for the forfeiture and the sale, including expenses of seizure, maintenance and custody of the property pending its disposition, advertising and court costs. The Attorney General shall deposit in the Treasury any amounts of such proceeds or moneys remaining after the payment of such expenses. (g) With respect to property ordered forfeited under this section, the Attorney General is authorized to - (1) grant petitions for mitigation or remission of forfeiture, restore forfeited property to victims of a violation of this chapter, or take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter; (2) compromise claims arising under this section; (3) award compensation to persons providing information resulting in a forfeiture under this section; (4) direct the disposition by the United States of all property ordered forfeited under this section by public sale or any other commercially feasible means, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons; and (5) take appropriate measures necessary to safeguard and maintain property ordered forfeited under this section pending its disposition. (h) The Attorney General may promulgate regulations with respect to - (1) making reasonable efforts to provide notice to persons who may have an interest in property ordered forfeited under this section; (2) granting petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture; (3) the restitution of property to victims of an offense petitioning for remission or mitigation of forfeiture under this chapter; (4) the disposition by the United States of forfeited property by public sale or other commercially feasible means; (5) the maintenance and safekeeping of any property forfeited under this section pending its disposition; and (6) the compromise of claims arising under this chapter. Pending the promulgation of such regulations, all provisions of law relating to the disposition of property, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, or the remission or mitigation of forfeitures for violation of the customs laws, and the compromise of claims and the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures shall apply to forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof. Such duties as are imposed upon the Customs Service or any person with respect to the disposition of property under the customs law shall be performed under this chapter by the Attorney General. (i) Except as provided in subsection (l), no party claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture under this section may - (1) intervene in a trial or appeal of a criminal case involving the forfeiture of such property under this section; or (2) commence an action at law or equity against the United States concerning the validity of his alleged interest in the property subsequent to the filing of an indictment or information alleging that the property is subject to forfeiture under this section. (j) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to enter orders as provided in this section without regard to the location of any property which may be subject to forfeiture under this section or which has been ordered forfeited under this section. (k) In order to facilitate the identification or location of property declared forfeited and to facilitate the disposition of petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, after the entry of an order declaring property forfeited to the United States the court may, upon application of the United States, order that the testimony of any witness relating to the property forfeited be taken by deposition and that any designated book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material not privileged be produced at the same time and place, in the same manner as provided for the taking of depositions under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (l)(1) Following the entry of an order of forfeiture under this section, the United States shall publish notice of the order and of its intent to dispose of the property in such manner as the Attorney General may direct. The Government may also, to the extent practicable, provide direct written notice to any person known to have alleged an interest in the property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture as a substitute for published notice as to those persons so notified. (2) Any person, other than the defendant, asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may, within thirty days of the final publication of notice or his receipt of notice under paragraph (1), whichever is earlier, petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property. The hearing shall be held before the court alone, without a jury. (3) The petition shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury and shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioner's right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the petitioner's acquisition of the right, title, or interest in the property, any additional facts supporting the petitioner's claim, and the relief sought. (4) The hearing on the petition shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with the interests of justice, be held within thirty days of the filing of the petition. The court may consolidate the hearing on the petition with a hearing on any other petition filed by a person other than the defendant under this subsection. (5) At the hearing, the petitioner may testify and present evidence and witnesses on his own behalf, and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. The United States may present evidence and witnesses in rebuttal and in defense of its claim to the property and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. In addition to testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall consider the relevant portions of the record of the criminal case which resulted in the order of forfeiture. (6) If, after the hearing, the court determines that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that - (A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section; or (B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title, or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section; the court shall amend the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination. (7) Following the court's disposition of all petitions filed under this subsection, or if no such petitions are filed following the expiration of the period provided in paragraph (2) for the filing of such petitions, the United States shall have clear title to property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture and may warrant good title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee. (m) If any of the property described in subsection (a), as a result of any act or omission of the defendant - (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of any property described in paragraphs (1) through (5). Section 1963 - Notes SOURCE (Added Pub. L. 91-452, title IX, Sec. 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 943; amended Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Secs. 302, 2301(a)-(c), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2040, 2192; Pub. L. 99-570, title I, Sec. 1153(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207-13; Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 23, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3597; Pub. L. 100-690, title VII, Secs. 7034, 7058(d), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4398, 4403; Pub. L. 101-647, title XXXV, Sec. 3561, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4927.) REFERENCES IN TEXT The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in subsec. (d)(3), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. AMENDMENTS 1990 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101-647 substituted "or both" for "or both." in introductory provisions. 1988 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100-690, Sec. 7058(d), substituted "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both." for "shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both". Subsecs. (m), (n). Pub. L. 100-690, Sec. 7034, redesignated former subsec. (n) as (m) and substituted "act or omission" for "act of omission". 1986 - Subsecs. (c) to (m). Pub. L. 99-646 substituted "(l)" for "(m)" in subsec. (c), redesignated subsecs. (e) to (m) as (d) to (l), respectively, and substituted "(l)" for "(m)" in subsec. (i) as redesignated. Subsec. (n). Pub. L. 99-570 added subsec. (n). 1984 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 2301(a), inserted "In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds." following par. (3). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 302, amended subsec. (a) generally, designating existing provisions as pars. (1) and (2), inserting par. (3), and provisions following par. (3) relating to power of the court to order forfeiture to the United States. Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 302, amended subsec. (b) generally, substituting provisions relating to property subject to forfeiture, for provisions relating to jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 302, amended subsec. (c) generally, substituting provisions relating to transfer of rights, etc., in property to the United States, or to other transferees, for provisions relating to seizure and transfer of property to the United States and procedures related thereto. Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 2301(b), struck out subsec. (d) which provided: "If any of the property described in subsection (a): (1) cannot be located; (2) has been transferred to, sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value by any act or omission of the defendant; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of any property described in paragraphs (1) through (5)." Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 302, added subsec. (d). Subsecs. (e) to (m). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 302, added subsecs. (d) to (m). Subsec. (m)(1). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 2301(c), struck out "for at least seven successive court days" after "dispose of the property". TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 203(1), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 2516, 3293, 3554 of this title; title 7 section 12a; title 50 App. section 2410.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE + PART I - CRIMES # CHAPTER 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04 Section 1962. Prohibited activities (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. Section 1962 - Notes SOURCE (Added Pub. L. 91-452, title IX, Sec. 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 942; amended Pub. L. 100-690, title VII, Sec. 7033, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4398.) AMENDMENTS 1988 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100-690 substituted "subsection" for "subsections". SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 1963, 1964, 3554 of this title; title 7 section 12a; title 8 section 1101.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
The word "interest" frequently signifes an equitable "right". Odds are, Blago's "interests" are equitable titles to "property" that may be deemed to be "property" of the "FRN-TRUST" (whatever its true name may be). Odds are, Blagojevich "acquired" these equitable "interests" in properties subject to forfeit by purchasing those "interests" with FRNs. The answer to this speculation is probably in 18 USC 1962. I would bet that these "interests" are purely those held by equitable title under a TRUST relationship. If so, the proposed FORFEITURE is of property "possessed" by BENEFICIARIES. The object would probably be to take "benefits" away from a BENEFICIARY who had somehow violated the rules of the "FRN-TRUST". . . . . After reading 18 USC 1962, I can see that my "bet" wouldn't be exactly right. The object of Section 1962 is to allow the gov-co to compel the purported BENEFICIARIES of the "FRN-TRUST" to "FORFEIT" whatever properties they've purchased with FRNs gaine by means of improper activities. Essentially, the beneficiarl use of FRNs is retroactively restricted by the FRN-TRUST policies to those activities that are approved by the FRN-TRUST. In other words, if you break FRN-TRUST laws to acquire FRNs, whatever you use those unlawfully-acquired FRNs to purchase, can be seized or FORFEITED to the FRN-TRUST. This interpration presumes that, at least, all items purchased with FRNs are subject to forfeiture to "this state" for violations of the FRN-TRUST rules. More, it's at least likely that "this state" presumes that legal title to ALL "property" in commerce is owned by the Federal Reserve System and the most you and I will ever have is equitable title and equitable right to "possess" and "use" such property--but never truly own it. This analysis is supported by the Blagojevich indictment in particular which only charges that Blagojevic has an"INTEREST" in various properties than can be subjected to FORFEITURE. That "INTEREST" is almost certainly equitable. The government only demands FOREFEITURE of Blago's equitable INTERESTS because they know damn well that Blago doesn't actuall hold legal title to anything he purchased with FRNs. Damn! Back in the late 1990s, in my book "The Nature of Money," I hypothesized that whenever something was purchased with FRNs, legal title (actual ownership) to that property went to the Federal Reserve System and equitable title (right of possession and use) went to the purchaser. As a result we had no legal title to any property purchased with FRNs and therefore had no standing at LAW to sue relative to "our" property. We could only sue in EQUITY since we held only EQUITABLE title to property purchased. Today, almost ten years later, for the first I see in the Blagojevich indictment and in 18 USC 1962 EVIDENCE to support my earlier hypothesis. I am seeing our relationship to FRNs more clearly than ever before. For me, the big objective is now to discover the proper name of the entity that I've so far described as the "FRN-TRUST". I can see two possibilities: 1) the Federal Reserve System; and 2) the private company named "Government Of The United States" and reported by Dunn and Bradstreet at http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_hzm13r. Who owns that "private company"? Is it possible that the principal property of the "Government Of The United States" is FRNs? I'm even beginning to wonder if the reason for the 12(b)(6) dismissals for "failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted" may be that we are "stating claims" that would seem to implicatet the defendant's legal title to property rather than mere "equitable INTERESTS". You can't sue a man for legal title to property if he doesn't have legal title to that property. If he only had equitable title and an equitable INTEREST in a property (and that's all he should have if he purchased with FRNs), we could only sue him in a court of EQUITY for his equitable INTERESTS. This whole line of insight is giving me chills. I doubt that I'm presenting this insight with enough clarity to do much more than confuse any current reader. In order to "see," this seeming "insight" you must first "see" a great deal mor that I don't have time to describe here, but was previous presented in my book "The Nature of Money" which I have also published for free at this blog (http://adask.wordpress.com). But I'm telling you that, if you make the effort to understand this hypothesis, you may be going a long ways to truly understanding how the "system" of "this state" really works.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Is an equitable title (interests) a "source of influence"?
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

c. has property constituting and derived from proceeds obtained,

directly and indirectly, from racketeering activity in violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1963(a)(3).

3. The interests of the defendant subject to forfeiture to the United

States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(1) and (a)(2)

include but are not limited to:

All funds, certificates of deposit, letters of credit and assets held byRavenswood Bank, DuQuoin State Bank, First Suburban National Bank, and Community Bank of DuPage in the name of or on behalf of Friends ofBlagojevich.

4. The interests of the defendant subject to forfeiture to the United

States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(3), include but

are not limited to approximately $188,370.

5. To the extent that the property and the proceeds described above as

being subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

1963, as a result of any acts or omission by the defendant:

cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

have been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

have been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

have been substantially diminished in value, or;

have been commingled with other property which cannot besubdivided without difficulty;

72

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Note that all of YOUR "funds, CDs, letters of credit and assets" held by your bank are probably mere "INTERESTS". You don't own them. You only have equitable title (right of use and possession) in them. You should find that disturbing. You don't actually OWN the funds in your bank account.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Fascinating. First, where did gov-co find the $188,370 figure? So far as I can recall, all of the previous extortion attempts charged by gov-co failed to actually extort one dime. Is Blagojevich being charged according to what he ATTEMPTED to "extort"? I.e., even though he didn't collect a dime, he ATTEMPTED to "extort" $188,370 and must therefore forfeit $188,370 worth of his property purchased LAWFULLY? If the $188,370 is not the sum he attempted but failed to "extort," what is it? How did gov-co arrive at that relatively precise ("$370"?) figure? More, $188,370 should be peanuts for a man like Blagojevich. He should have that much "mad money" squirrelled away in a shoe box in his closet. If $188,370 is all gov-co wants out of Blagojevich, he should simply pay it and eliminate that part of the charges. Item #4 is another confirmation that you only have an INTEREST (presumably equitable) in your FRNs--you do not OWN the FRNs (legal tender passing for money) in your wallet or bank accounts. If you don't OWN your FRNs, who does? If you only have equitable title to your FRNs, who holds LEGAL title? Whoever hold legal title to "your" FRNs should receive legal title to any property you purchase with "your" FRNs. Because you only have an equitable INTEREST (title) in your FRNs, you can only acquire EQUITABLE TITLE to whatever you purchase with those FRNs. A court of LAW has a single object: To determine LEGAL title to property. If you've used FRNs to purchase property, you can have ONLY EQUITABLE title to that property. Without LEGAL title, you have no standing AT LAW to make claims against or defend "your" property. By means of using FRNs, you've become nothing but a sharecropper who works "his" land, but does not OWN "his" land.
AntiShyster News
Highlight

it is the intent of the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1963(m), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the

defendant up to the value of the proceeds and property described above as being

subject to forfeiture, including:

a. Real property located at 1736 18th Street, NW, Apartment303, Washington, DC, 20009-6105 and legally described asfollows:

Lot 2075, Block 0133, Map 40 DPIN: 0133 // 2075

b. Real property located at 2934 Sunnyside Avenue, Chicago,Illinois, and legally described as follows:

LOT 24 AND THE SOUTH 20 FEET OF LOT 25 IN BLOCK 52 IN RAVENSWOOD MANOR, BEING A SUBDIVISON OF PART OF THE NORTH ½ OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

PIN: 13-13-121-031;

Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963.

73

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
In other words, if the gov-co can't easily find whatever it is Blagojevich actualy purchased with his "ill-gotten FRNs," the gov-co will siimply seize whatever they can find that Blago has an interest in up to the amount of FRNs Blago is alleged to have unjustly acquired. If they can't find what you stole, they'll just take what they can find.
AntiShyster News
Note
The proper name for the "confederaton" and perpetual Union established by the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781 is "The United States of America". Note that the word "The" is part of the proper name and that this inclusion is demonstrated by the fact that the word "The" is capitalized. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely that "the United States of America" is the same entity named "The United States of America".
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
"Lot and Block" appears to be the "legal description" of property allegedly located "in this state". I believe that if the same property were described by METES AND BOUNDS that property would be deemed to be located on the soil, within the physical boundaries of "The State" of the Union (in this case, The State of Illinois). I suspect that all of the property "legally described" as by Lot and Block "in this state" is technically subject to forefeiture anytime gov-co wants to take it. Why? Because all property purchased with FRNs has to be "in this state" and because the FRNs aren LOANED into circulation by the Federal Reserve System, the Fed retains legal title to the FRNs and is entitled to legal title to whatever property its FRNs are used to purchase. I believe that "COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS" is part of "this state"--a territory rather than a member-State of the perpetual Union styled "The United States of America". I'm about 85% confident that the correct name for the "county" within The State whereat the "real property" is located is "The County of Cook within The State of Texas".

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION TWO

The SPECIAL FEBRUARY 2008-2 GRAND JURY further charges:

1. The allegations contained in Counts Two through Twelve are

realleged and incorporated by reference for the purposes of alleging forfeiture

pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28,

United States Code, Section 2461(c).

2. As a result of the violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections

1343 and 1346, as alleged in the foregoing indictment,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United

States Code, Section, 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section

2461(c), any and all right, title and interest in property, real and personal, which

constitutes and is derived from proceeds traceable to the charged offenses.

3. The interests of the defendant subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title

18, United States Code, Section, 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code,

Section 2461(c) include but are not limited to approximately $188,370.

4. If any of the property subject to forfeiture and described above, as

a result of any act or omission of the defendant:

Cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

Has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

74

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
See 18 USC 981 "Civil Forfeiture" at Findlaw.com at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=981 See 28 USC 2461 "Mode of Recovery" at Findlaw.com: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=2461 I am surprised to see CIVIL Forfeiture. I'd supposed this was a purely CRIMINAL RICO suit. Apparently, CIVIL forfeiture can be sought in the context of a CRIMINAL proceeding.
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight

______________________________

________________________________

Has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

Has been substantially diminished in value; or

Has been commingled with other property which cannot be dividedwithout difficulty,

the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property

under the provisions of Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as

incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), including

a. Real property located at 1736 18th Street, NW, Apartment303, Washington, District of Columbia, 20009-6105 andlegally described as follows:

Lot 2075, Block 0133, Map 40 DPIN: 0133 // 2075

b. Real property located at 2934 Sunnyside Avenue Chicago,Illinois, and legally described as follows:

LOT 24 AND THE SOUTH 20 FEET OF LOT 25 IN BLOCK 52 IN RAVENSWOOD MANOR, BEING A SUBDIVISON OF PART OF THE NORTH ½ OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS PIN: 13-13-121-031;

Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title

28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).

F O R E P E R S O N

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

75

AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Highlight
AntiShyster News
Note
Ohh, this is almost too good. Title 21 is "Food and Drugs" an Section 853 deals with "Criminal Forfeiture". What the hell does "Food and Drugs" have to do with Blagojevich? Not much. Nevetheless, the gov-co alleges that 21 USC 853 has been "INCORPORATED" by Title 28 ("Judiciary and Judicial Proceedings") Section 2461(c) which declares: "(c) If a forfeiture of property is authorized in connection with a violation of an Act of Congress, and any person is charged in an indictment or information with such violation but no specific statutory provision is made for criminal forfeiture upon conviction, the Government may include the forfeiture in the indictment or information in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and upon conviction, the court shall order the forfeiture of the property in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that section." I'm not sure what all that means and I'm not going to try to dissect that Section now. However, I do know that the Food and Drug laws are based on the premise that the people are ANIMALS rather than men and women made in God's image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. I'd bet there's at least a 50/50 chance that if I were Blagojevich, I could use the "man or other animals" defense to stop the forfeiture elements of this case.
AntiShyster News
Note
I'm not sure what penality gov-co intends to impose on Blagojevich. They'll try to take a lot of his property. They'll probably try to jail him. I wouldn't bet that I could completely stop the gov-co's case, but I'd bet that I could reduce Blagojevich's exposure by at least 80%. The case is almost astonishingly weak. Blago and his "co-conspirators" are being charged with having "agreed" and "communicated" and "informed others" in furtherance of their alleged conspiracy, but all of these acts are superficially harmless. When did Blago & Co pull a gun and threaten to kill anyone? Never--at least not within this indictment. The acts of "extortion" were actually part of a pattern of soliciting bribes--a time-honored tradition in Chicago and Illinois (and now, American) politics. Are we to believe that the Democratic machine elected a former Congressman to Illinois Governor's mansion who, during his six years in office, was unable to actually consumate a single bribe for a lousy $25? Former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley would be rolling over in his grave. The truth is that Blagojevich did not merely "obtain" $188,370 over his six years in office. He probably "obtained" that much every 3 to 6 months during his time in office. Blagojevich should probably have "obained" several millions of dollars while in office. The $188,370 is chump change. But gov-co apparenlty does not want to talk about all the money Blago actually "obtained" because if they did, that money would represent BRIBES for which the parties paying should also be guilty. That would mean indicting a LOT of wealthy and powerful men and probably destroying the entire Illinoise DEMOCRATIC PARTY. If Blago insisted on bringing those other rich and powerful "BRIBERS" into the case--and if Blago could figure out a way to do within being whacked (another time-honored tradition in Chicago, Illinos and now American politics)--the gov-co would either drop the case or at least agree to some settlement where Blogo coughed up $188,370 and otherwise walked. And then there's the forfeiture under Food and Drug laws that are based on the presumption that man is an animal. Raise that issue properly, and the forfeiture charges might mysterioualy "disappear". As alleged, the case against Blagojevich is somewhat like gov-co charging a 12-year boy with attempting to assassinate the President because he fired his slingshot at Air Force One when it was flying about 5,000 feet overhead. Well, yeah, the kid might've intentionally fired his slingshot at Air Force One, but the kid didn't one chance in hell of actually doing any damage. Charing the kid with attemptting to assassinate the President would be silly. As presented in their indictment, the gov-co's case against Blagovich is not "silly," but a long ways from strong. If the case can be dragged out for 2 years, Blagojevich could probably walk away with a wrist slap.