Appendix

Appendix

Texas Penal Code

TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 36. BRIBERY AND CORRUPT INFLUENCE

§ 36.01. Definitions

In this chapter: . . .

(3) "Benefit" means anything reasonably regarded as pecuniary gain or pecuniary advantage, including benefit to any other person in whose welfare the beneficiary has a direct and substantial interest.

§ 36.02. Bribery

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:

(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;

(2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;

(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official; or

(4) any benefit that is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or that is an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, if the benefit was offered, conferred, solicited, accepted, or agreed to pursuant to an express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion if such exercise of official discretion would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit; notwithstanding any rule of evidence or jury instruction allowing factual inferences in the absence of certain evidence, direct evidence of the express agreement shall be required in any prosecution under this subdivision.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction[1] or for any other reason.

(c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:

(1) the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or

(2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.

(d) It is an exception to the application of Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of Subsection (a) that the benefit is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code.

(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

§ 36.03. Coercion of Public Servant or Voter

(a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:

(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty; or

(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.

(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.

§ 36.04. Improper Influence

(a) A person commits an offense if he privately addresses a representation, entreaty, argument, or other communication to any public servant who exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to influence the outcome of the proceeding on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law.

(b) For purposes of this section, "adjudicatory proceeding" means any proceeding before a court or any other agency of government in which the legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified parties are determined.

§ 36.05. Tampering With Witness

(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to influence the witness, he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit on a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding or coerces a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding:

(1) to testify falsely;

(2) to withhold any testimony, information, document, or thing;

(3) to elude legal process summoning him to testify or supply evidence;

(4) to absent himself from an official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned; or

(5) to abstain from, discontinue, or delay the prosecution of another.

(b) A witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding commits an offense if he knowingly solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit on the representation or understanding that he will do any of the things specified in Subsection (a).

(1) reasonable restitution for damages suffered by the complaining witness as a result of the offense; and

(2) a result of an agreement negotiated with the assistance or acquiescence of an attorney for the state who represented the state in the case.

(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

§ 36.06. Obstruction or Retaliation

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm another by an unlawful act:

(1) in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of another as a:

(A) public servant, witness, prospective witness, or informant; or

(B) person who has reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime; or

(2) to prevent or delay the service of another as a:

(A) public servant, witness, prospective witness, or informant; or

(B) person who has reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime.

(b) For purposes of this section, "informant" means a person who has communicated information to the government in connection with any governmental function.

§ 36.07. Acceptance of Honorarium

(a) A public servant commits an offense if the public servant solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept an honorarium in consideration for services that the public servant would not have been requested to provide but for the public servant’s official position or duties.

(b) This section does not prohibit a public servant from accepting transportation and lodging expenses in connection with a conference or similar event in which the public servant renders services, such as addressing an audience or engaging in a seminar, to the extent that those services are more than merely perfunctory, or from accepting meals in connection with such an event.

§ 36.08. Gift to Public Servant by Person Subject to His Jurisdiction

(a) A public servant in an agency performing regulatory functions or conducting inspections or investigations commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows to be subject to regulation, inspection, or investigation by the public servant or his agency.

(b) A public servant in an agency having custody of prisoners commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows to be in his custody or the custody of his agency.

(c) A public servant in an agency carrying on civil or criminal litigation on behalf of government commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person against whom the public servant knows litigation is pending or contemplated by the public servant or his agency.

(d) A public servant who exercises discretion in connection with contracts, purchases, payments, claims, or other pecuniary transactions of government commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows is interested in or likely to become interested in any contract, purchase, payment, claim, or transaction involving the exercise of his discretion.

(e) A public servant who has judicial or administrative authority, who is employed by or in a tribunal having judicial or administrative authority, or who participates in the enforcement of the tribunal’s decision, commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows is interested in or likely to become interested in any matter before the public servant or tribunal.

(f) A member of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, or a person employed by a member of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, or an agency of the legislature commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from any person.

(g) A public servant who is a hearing examiner employed by an agency performing regulatory functions and who conducts hearings in contested cases commits an offense if the public servant solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from any person who is appearing before the agency in a contested case, who is doing business with the agency, or who the public servant knows is interested in any matter before the public servant. The exception provided by Section 36.10(b) does not apply to a benefit under this subsection.

(h) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(i) A public servant who receives an unsolicited benefit that the public servant is prohibited from accepting under this section may donate the benefit to a governmental entity that has the authority to accept the gift or may donate the benefit to a recognized tax-exempt charitable organization formed for educational, religious, or scientific purposes.

§ 36.09. Offering Gift to Public Servant

(a) A person commits an offense if he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit on a public servant that he knows the public servant is prohibited by law from accepting.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

§ 36.10. Non-Applicable

(a) Sections 36.08 (Gift to Public Servant) and 36.09 (Offering Gift to Public Servant) do not apply to:

(1) a fee prescribed by law to be received by a public servant or any other benefit to which the public servant is lawfully entitled or for which he gives legitimate consideration in a capacity other than as a public servant;

(2) a gift or other benefit conferred on account of kinship or a personal, professional, or business relationship independent of the official status of the recipient; or

(3) a benefit to a public servant required to file a statement under Chapter 572, Government Code, or a report under Title 15, Election Code, that is derived from a function in honor or appreciation of the recipient if:

(A) the benefit and the source of any benefit in excess of $50 is reported in the statement; and

(B) the benefit is used solely to defray the expenses that accrue in the performance of duties or activities in connection with the office which are nonreimbursable by the state or political subdivision;

(4) a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code;

(5) a gift, award, or memento to a member of the legislative or executive branch that is required to be reported under Chapter 305, Government Code;

(6) an item with a value of less than $50, excluding cash or a negotiable instrument as described by Section 3.104, Business & Commerce Code; or

(7) an item issued by a governmental entity that allows the use of property or facilities owned, leased, or operated by the governmental entity.

(b) Section 36.08 (Gift to Public Servant) does not apply to food, lodging, transportation, or entertainment accepted as a guest and, if the donee is required by law to report those items, reported by the donee in accordance with that law.

(c) Section 36.09 (Offering Gift to Public Servant) does not apply to food, lodging, transportation, or entertainment accepted as a guest and, if the donor is required by law to report those items, reported by the donor in accordance with that law.

§39.01: Official Misconduct

"(a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm another, he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) violates a law relating to his office or employment . . ."

§39.02: Official Oppression

"(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity."

D.A. probes judge’s legal assignments By JOE STINEBAKER (emphasis added)

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office will look into reports that a local juvenile court judge assigned paying cases in his court to lawyers who had contributed to his recent re-election campaign.

District Attorney John B. Holmes Jr. said he had asked his office’s public integrity division to look into reports that Judge Pat Shelton rewarded campaign contributors by assigning them cases from families who had not selected lawyers.

"Actually we had looked into it before," Holmes said. "If there’s any truth to it, that’s a crime. But I can tell you right now, we're not going to get there. I don't think we'll ever get there, quite frankly. But I don't think we can do nothing either."

Holmes said that because the accusations, which came primarily from a local lawyer, were of a "he said, she said" nature, it would be difficult to prove or disprove them.

The accusations against Shelton derived primarily from the way he appointed attorneys in some of the juvenile cases in his court from January until last month. Like other judges, Shelton assigns lawyers to represent poor clients with criminal cases in his court. But many families he described as "paycheck to paycheck working poor" do not qualify for free legal help but still cannot afford lawyers of their own. So Shelton said he began a program that would connect those families to attorneys waiting in his courtroom for a flat fee, usually $150.

Shelton said he cancelled the program after many of those lawyers complained that they were being paid with checks that later bounced.

Some of the attorneys assigned cases by Shelton were contributors to the judge’s 1998 re-election campaign, and one attorney said she was told by Shelton’s court coordinator that she would not receive such appointments unless she made regular campaign contributions.

Shelton denied the accusations Wednesday and said the criticisms were similar to those that all judges get about assigning cases to lawyers who contribute to their campaigns -- a common practice, but one that is widely criticized as being ripe for political corruption.

Shelton said that of the 200 appointments made in his courtroom last year, only 40 went to campaign contributors.

"In my opinion, I think that speaks for itself," he said. "There is no quid pro quo.

Tuesday | September 12, 2000

Texas court warned on clerks' pay

Prosecutor says bonuses from firms may be illegal

09/12/2000

By Pete Slover / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – A local prosecutor has warned the Texas Supreme Court of possible legal and ethical violations with a longstanding practice of letting private firms pay hiring bonuses to court clerks who agree to join the firms after their clerkships expire.

The problem, Travis County Attorney Ken Oden said, is that the bonuses – as well as other expenses and the promise of future employment – may constitute illegal gifts to the 18 briefing attorneys the court hires each year.

Court critics said that arrangement could create conflicts of interest if the clerks are presented with cases involving their future law firms. Justices on the court said that a "Chinese wall" – a policy banning clerks from working on cases involving their future employers – prevents such conflicts.

Mr. Oden said no criminal prosecution is planned.

"I think we have honest confusion that needs to be sorted out," Mr. Oden said. He said he has first-hand experience with one factor cited by the court and law firms as justification for the bonuses: It’s difficult to lure top-of-the-class law talent into lower-paying government jobs.

At least two Texas law firms have promised $35,000 "clerkship" bonuses – in addition to $100,000-plus salaries and other benefits – to third-year law students who agree to join their offices after taking a year off to work for a judge.

This year, the briefing attorney jobs on the Texas Supreme Court will pay $36,700, and attorneys at two firms granting the bonuses said they view the bonuses as subsidies for the court pay.

In January, the Texas Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion that a similar program at the Attorney General’s office could violate the penal code. In that case, private firms agreed to pay severance and moving expenses to any of their lawyers who take time off to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.

Court officials said a written policy prohibiting briefing attorneys from working on their future employers' cases is made clear to the clerks in writing when they arrive at the court.

Cris Feldman, staff attorney for the court-monitoring group Texans for Public Justice, said state law doesn't make exceptions for "Chinese walls."

If the public employee works for a court that hears cases from a firm, he or she cannot accept gifts or benefits from that firm, no matter what mechanisms are in place to avoid conflicts, he said.

"The penal code prevents even the appearance that firm-subsidized employees are working for the court," Mr. Feldman said.

And, if the court is policing itself, he said, it should disclose lists of which clerks were recused from which cases, to help the public measure the effectiveness of the policing.

The chief justice of the court said Monday that no such records are kept, but that the conflict-of-interest rules are strictly observed. And, he said, the justices have periodically examined the current practice and believe it to pass legal muster.

"We look forward to the opportunity to discuss the law," Chief Justice Tom Phillips said. "We want to comply, and the county attorney wants us to comply."

Mr. Oden and Justice Phillips said their staffs would meet to review the matter.

Mr. Oden said, if necessary, he might suggest changes to the statute to allow the practice.

Mr. Feldman said that isn't the right approach.

"Changing the law to create loopholes doesn't solve the problem," he said.

James Maloney, the hiring partner for the Houston firm Baker & Botts, said his firm sees the bonuses, offered to new hires for clerkships on any court nationwide, as a recruiting tool and a way to help support the operations of the judiciary.

"The courts themselves have policed the issue," he said. "We do see some judges that simply prohibit the acceptance of employment or bonuses."

But, the Supreme Court justice who oversees the clerkships said that even the distinction of working for the state’s highest court might not be enough to attract top legal talent in the current market.

"It’s a little hard to live off of prestige for a year," Justice James Baker said.

Chung’s allegations require Reno to appoint a prosecutor, House Rules chairman says

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 21) -- An influential member of the House insisted this morning that Johnny Chung’s campaign-finance allegations require Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent prosecutor. But Reno continues to show no signs of budging on the issue.

House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) has faxed a letter to Reno, asking her to immediately appoint an independent counsel to investigate allegations that former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary violated federal criminal law.

This is not the first controversy surrounding the former Energy secretary, who had a reputation for taking numerous costly overseas business trips.

In a letter faxed to Reno, Solomon alleges that "the Honorable Hazel O'Leary, former Secretary of Energy in the Clinton Administration, may have successfully solicited a bribe from Johnny Chung."

According to Solomon’s letter, "Mr. Chung has admitted that he paid $25,000 to Africare in order to arrange a private meeting with a group of ten to twelve Chinese businessmen and Secretary O'Leary. The current Secretary takes this quid pro quo seriously and has properly referred the case to DOE’s Inspector General."

For her part, Reno says her staff is still looking into the matter, but gave no indication she’s any closer to appointing a prosecutor. "As I have said all along, we will consider each new piece of information that we get," she told reporters in her weekly briefing this morning. "And if it triggers the statute, we'll do it."

CNN has obtained copies of the $25,000 check to Africare, as well as documentation of O'Leary’s meeting with the Chinese businessmen.

Closing his letter, Solomon writes to Reno, "you have been intransigent in the past, much to my disappointment. In this instance, however, you cannot claim that administration officials implicated in alleged criminal activities were not covered by the relevant statute. This being the case, I request you immediately appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate the serious allegation that Ms. O'Leary violated federal criminal law."

From: CNN

In: Washington

Posted 9-19-97

Subject: Reno Takes The Next Step On Prosecutor For O'Leary

CNN has learned that Attorney General Janet Reno has accepted the recommendations of her prosecution team and will begin a 90-day "preliminary investigation" by the FBI into allegations against former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary.

However, Reno said in her statement to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., that she had been "unable to determine the specificity and credibility" of allegations made against O'Leary by controversial Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, "due to the unavailability of witnesses and documents ..."

At issue are allegations that a Chinese business executive received a meeting with the Energy secretary after Chung was told it could be arranged if the donor gave $25,000 to one of O'Leary’s favorite charities. Chung has said the donation to Africare came at the behest of a lobbyist and an Energy Department official working with O'Leary. The organization promotes economic development and health care in rural Africa.

According to Justice Department sources, the issue is whether the former Energy secretary violated bribery statutes.

O'Leary Thursday flatly denied the allegations, saying neither she nor anyone who worked for her had undertaken a "solicitation or receipt of a charitable contribution in return for a meeting..." O'Leary said she had been told that the Justice Department needed "additional time to fully investigate allegations made against me by Johnny Chung," and that she was cooperating "extensively" and looked forward "to complete vindication in the near future."

At the end of the 90 days, Reno will have to decide whether to ask the court for an independent counsel.

From: CNN

In: Washington

Posted 9-19-97

Subject: Reno Takes The Next Step On Prosecutor For O'Leary

At issue are allegations that a Chinese business executive received a meeting with the Energy secretary after Chung was told it could be arranged if the donor gave $25,000 to one of O'Leary’s favorite charities. Chung has said the donation to Africare came at the behest of a lobbyist and an Energy Department official working with O'Leary. The organization promotes economic development and health care in rural Africa.

According to Justice Department sources, the issue is whether the former Energy secretary violated bribery statutes.

At the end of the 90 days, Reno will have to decide whether to ask the court for an independent counsel.

Webb County DA says charges' timing politically motivated

Father, cousins, staff members indicted in corruption case

07/24/99

Associated Press

LAREDO - Webb County District Attorney Joe Rubio said a federal corruption indictment of 10 people, including his father, two cousins and four members of his staff, was timed to hamper his re-election bid.

Federal prosecutors announced a 21-count indictment that charged 10 people with bribery and conspiracy. It’s the latest chapter in the FBI’s three-year investigation into allegations of Webb County corruption.

Mr. Rubio said in Friday’s editions of the Laredo Morning Times that it was no coincidence the latest indictments were unsealed on his 45th birthday and a week after he announced his bid for re-election.

"I question the motives of the individuals at this time, and I question the timing," Mr. Rubio said. "They made decisions timed to affect this race."

He said he thinks investigators are out to get him.

"I think they want to change the leadership in the district attorney’s office using the power of the federal government," Mr. Rubio said. Roderick Beverly, chief of the FBI’s San Antonio office, denied there are ulterior motives in the case.

"The timing of this has nothing to do with any type of political schedule," he said.

The indictment says Mr. Rubio’s office was used starting in 1992 to extort money from criminal defendants in return for having charges dismissed or lowered in the county. The 10 people named could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

The 21-count indictment came 14 months after agents raided the district attorney’s office and hauled off about 5,000 files.

Mr. Rubio has not been charged with any wrongdoing, but the alleged corruption involves many of those around him.

Mr. Rubio said that if there has been any criminal activity in his offices, he expects to see justice carried out.

The indictment alleged that bail bondsman Jesse Castaneda and Mr. Rubio’s father, Jose Marcelino Rubio Sr., helped criminal defendants win better terms with prosecutors.

Investigators think those involved in the alleged scheme collected more than $85,000 in bribes. Payments from the criminal defendants, charged with crimes ranging from drunken driving to weapons violations, paid anywhere from $300 to $20,000, prosecutors said.

Seven of the 10 pleaded not guilty at a hearing Thursday.

In addition to Mr. Rubio’s father, his brother, Carlos Manuel Rubio and a cousin, Jose Warren Rubio, were indicted.

Also indicted were Ernesto Cavazos, assistant Webb County district attorney; Jose Luis Degollado, Laredo police officer; Domingo Noe Dimas, investigator for the Webb County district attorney’s office; Agustin Mendoza, investigator for the Webb County district attorney’s office; Juan Alfonson Rodriguez, investigator for the Webb County district attorney’s office and Ramon A. Villafranca, former assistant district attorney for Webb County.

Laredo area DA’s future tied to case

Corruption inquiry into Joe Rubio Jr.’s office led to convictions of brother, father

September 10, 2000

By David McLemore / The Dallas Morning News

“LAREDO –. . .

“On Aug. 31, a federal jury convicted five men, including the father and brother of Webb County District Attorney Joe Rubio Jr., of conspiring to fix criminal cases. It became more grist for the conversation mill in Laredo’s coffee shops and bars, with residents wondering aloud about the four-year federal investigation of illegal activity within the district attorney’s office. . . .

“The guilty verdicts capped a six-week trial in which federal prosecutors detailed a conspiracy by the defendants – Jose M. Rubio Sr., Carlos Rubio, Agustin Mendoza, Juan Alfonso Rodriguez and bail bondsman Gregorio Jesus Castañeda – to fix criminal cases within the Webb County district attorney’s office.

“Each faces up to 20 years in prison.

“Assistant U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle said there were 20 instances of alleged bribes ranging from $3,000 to $20,000 – a total of $85,000 – to drop or reduce criminal charges, a number of them involving narcotics cases. . . .

“The investigation is not finished, according to Mervyn Mosbacker, U.S. attorney for the Houston-based Southern District of Texas. "Obviously, we're looking at a pattern of behavior uncovered by the Webb investigation," Mr. Mosbacker said. "This case represents the seriousness of our resolve to investigate corruption by those who hold public office."

“The FBI’s public corruption task force has investigated the Webb County district attorney’s office for about four years. In May 1998, FBI agents raided the district attorney’s office in the courthouse, seizing 5,000 criminal case files. They also seized evidence from the elder Mr. Rubio’s home and the law office of Ruben Garcia, a former state district judge

“Three months later, Mr. Garcia pleaded guilty to fixing criminal cases and began cooperating with the government. Subsequently, a federal grand jury in Laredo returned two separate indictments charging 10 people in the case-fixing scheme.

“One of those, Webb County Assistant District Attorney Ramon Villafranca, was convicted in January 1999 and sentenced to 63 months in federal prison. He still faces trial on the second indictment, along with another Webb County prosecutor, Ernesto Cavazos, and district attorney’s investigator Domingo Dimas.

“Another conspirator, Jose Juan Rubio, the district attorney’s cousin, pleaded guilty to his role in the scheme in September 1999. He testified for the government, telling how he referred drug offenders to the elder Mr. Rubio to get their cases dismissed or reduced. One defendant, Laredo police officer Jose Degollado, was acquitted in an earlier trial. . . .

"During the entire time of this investigation, Joe Rubio has refused to make an internal investigation," said Ms. Cavazos-Ramirez. "He has always claimed to not have known his father, his brother and key members of his staff were making illegal deals. Anyone who dealt with the DA’s office knew it. How could he not?"

“Public-corruption investigations continue to be a priority in the Southern District, Mr. Mosbacker said. ‘We're sending a message to those in power there that we won't tolerate public corruption and neither will their residents,’ he said.

"We also appreciate the support of the citizens of Laredo and Webb County," Mr. Mosbacker said. ‘The return of this verdict indicates that the citizens are serious about the business of extinguishing corruption in their community."

“Federal prosecutors have had some major successes in recent years, such as the convictions of Hidalgo County Sheriff Brigidio Mamalejo and Starr County Sheriff Gene Falcon. Both men recently finished serving prison sentences and returned to South Texas.

“In 1998, a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper was convicted of helping two brothers bring cocaine from Mexico.

“Federal prosecutors based in McAllen have also won drug-smuggling convictions against five Donna police officers as well as bribery convictions against seven Starr County officials.

“Efforts to prosecute Hildalgo County officials on bribery charges, however, failed twice. When jurors in McAllen failed to reach a verdict, a second trial in Laredo resulted in acquittals.

“‘South Texas is not unique in having issues of corruption, and South Texas is not being singled out,’ Mr. Mosbacker said. ‘Corruption investigations are under way across the country. It remains a priority in the Southern District.’

“It’s premature to say whether the convictions herald a turning point for public attitudes on corruption, Ms. Cavazos-Ramirez said. ‘The jury’s verdict shows that,’ she said. ‘Now, it all depends whether these five are the end of it. I think it’s only the beginning.’(c) 2000 The Dallas Morning News

DA remains calm in eye of scandal

South Texas official goes to work while colleagues, family face prison

08/21/2000

By Michelle Koidin / Associated Press

LAREDO – Joe Rubio sits in his quiet, bright office on the fourth floor of the Webb County Justice Center. A family man, the 46-year-old district attorney is surrounded by snapshots of his wife and four children.

Joe Rubio ... the Webb County district attorney was re-elected after family and colleagues were arrested on charges of fixing cases.

A short walk away, Mr. Rubio’s father and brother sit before a federal jury, along with two investigators from Mr. Rubio’s office and a local bail bondsman.

The five are accused of soliciting $200,000 in bribes for pledges to drop or reduce charges in 40 drug, weapon and drunken driving cases between 1992 and 1998.

Already, a cousin of Mr. Rubio’s and a former state district judge have pleaded guilty. A prosecutor from Mr. Rubio’s office has also been convicted – all part of a case-fixing scandal that has rocked this border city of nearly 200,000.

Yet Mr. Rubio, the district attorney for Webb and Zapata counties since 1988, remains in the justice center, toiling over his programs to cut down on child abuse and domestic violence.

He has not been charged with any crime or accused of wrongdoing.

Four months ago, the native of Laredo was re-elected to a fourth term. Even he was amazed.

Mr. Rubio maintains he knew nothing of the activities of assistant district attorney Ramon Villafranca, convicted and serving a five-year sentence, or Rubén García, the former state district judge who has admitted taking bribes while working as a public defender. Mr. Rubio says he doesn't keep up with cousin José Juan Rubio, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

And he said he believes the men on trial now are innocent.

"If we could know that someone was going to commit a crime, then you wouldn't need me," said Mr. Rubio, a man with the gift of gab who resembles actor Richard Gere but with a neatly groomed mustache.

"Did the police chief in L.A. know that some of his officers were doing something wrong? Did Janet Reno know what they were doing in Waco? Did the FBI director know that those guys were going to shoot those people at Ruby Ridge? I mean, they all report to someone, you know."

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Lenoir said he could not disclose whether Mr. Rubio was or is under investigation. "We go where the evidence takes us," he said, and "there is a continuing vigilance through the FBI’s public corruption task force."

Both sides in the trial – the FBI and defense attorneys – said they could not comment on the case, citing U.S. District Judge George Kazen’s gag order.

After 15 days of testimony, federal prosecutors rested their case Thursday.

Their star witness was an FBI informant who testified that he acted as a middleman between would-be criminal defendants and the district attorney’s 75-year-old father, José M. Rubio Sr., and bail bondsman Jesse Castaneda. The informant said he gave the two men thousands of dollars he collected from possible defendants.

But the informant admitted under cross-examination that he never saw José Rubio or Mr. Castaneda give the money to anyone in the prosecutor’s office.

In other testimony, four women said they paid Mr. Castaneda to get their men out of jail, but they also said they didn't know what the bondsman did with the money. A convicted drug trafficker testified that he gave a bondsman $25,000 for dismissal of charges, and that bondsman testified that he gave $20,000 to Mr. Rubio Sr.

And the district attorney’s cousin who has pleaded guilty testified that he overheard Mr. Rubio Sr. plotting to fix a case with younger son Carlos that would have brought them $18,000.

Prosecutors presented 125 witnesses and dozens of taped conversations, wrapping up by listing hundreds of phone calls between the defendants as six cases allegedly were being fixed.

Now, defense attorneys are calling their own witnesses and working to dispel the accusations.

At least one former public official hopes to see convictions.

Anna L. Cavazos Ramírez, who worked next door to Mr. Rubio from 1989 to 1996 as county attorney, said case fixing was common knowledge in the office.

"Everybody knew who had an inside track on special deals, and everyone knew a bondsman could be doing just about anything with a case," said Ms. Cavazos, who ran against Mr. Rubio twice but lost and now is a private attorney. "It had been going on for so long that they became so confident that they were the ultimate law enforcement here. Who was going to prosecute them?"

Ms. Cavazos was one of several people who complained to the FBI. Then, on May 29, 1998, federal agents raided Mr. Rubio’s office, hauling away 5,000 files in a moving truck.

Mr. Rubio, who rushed to the office from his son’s little-league game still wearing his cap and jersey, believes the agents made a scene to punish him for a stand he took regarding drug arrests at border checkpoints.

Mr. Rubio and other district attorneys along the border had been prosecuting smaller cases handed off by federal agents for many years, but in 1997, saying an explosion of arrests was costing Webb County $1 million a year, Mr. Rubio declared he would take no more. He said the cases were the federal government’s responsibility.

The months after the raid, Mr. Rubio said, were tough for his family as the accusations and indictments regularly made front-page news.

But in April, Mr. Rubio was re-elected. Ultimately, he says, voters looked at his accomplishments, such as the creation of new child abuse and domestic violence programs, and at his high conviction rate for violent crime.

"I'm very grateful and I'm very fortunate," he says. "On election night if I would have lost, I would've been disappointed, but I would not have been surprised."

Some supporters, such as Laredo Mayor Betty Flores, viewed the stance Mr. Rubio took with the federal government as gutsy.

"Joe Rubio doesn't take anything lying down. He doesn't accept the status quo," she said. "We need risk-takers."

When Election Day came, the people of Laredo didn't turn their backs on him, she said.

"I think we shouldn't be so fast to judge," Ms. Flores said. "I think people saw a lot of good in him."

Sunday July 23, 2000 4:06 PM ET

Ill. Prosecutor in Political Storm

By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO (AP) - Corrupt judges and payroll padders have gone to prison by the dozens after running up against U.S. Attorney Scott Lassar.

Six aldermen caught stuffing their pockets in an FBI sting operation went to prison. So did three agribusiness executives convicted of plotting to fix the $14 billion market in a soybean-based livestock feed additive.

Now the 50-year-old federal prosecutor is in charge of a case that has become the biggest political scandal to burst over Illinois in decades.

Thirty-seven people have been charged and 28 convicted in a two-year federal investigation of truck drivers licenses that were issued in return for bribe money while Gov. George Ryan was secretary of state. Dozens of licenses have been revoked and other states have been warned of unqualified drivers swapping Illinois licenses for new permits.

So far, $170,000 of the payoff cash has been traced to Ryan’s campaign fund. And just last week, Lassar unveiled fresh racketeering charges against a longtime Ryan friend accused of covering up seven years of scandals.

``We will follow the evidence wherever it leads,'' Lassar said.

Far from the movie version of a tough, big-city prosecutor, Lassar’s rangy build, devoid of middle-age spread, betrays what friends call his chief passion outside work: tennis. He is soft-spoken and polite; speaking in a flat monotone at times tinged by a sly but stiletto-sharp humor.

Lassar rarely shows excitement. ``You could fool a lot of people as to whether that has occurred at any time during his adult lifetime,'' says Chicago attorney Vincent Connelly, a longtime friend.

He also has no deep-seated appetite for political big-game hunting, despite his success in investigating the corrupt, insists Connelly. ``He’s not the kind of guy who puts pelts on his wall simply because they are big names,'' he said.

Lassar grew up in Evanston, the son of the suburb’s Democratic committeeman, who later became head of the Small Business Administration in Chicago. He acknowledges it was a political appointment.

He says he has always been interested in politics and makes no bones of his Democratic views, but has never been active in campaigns.

As a young prosecutor, Lassar played a major role in the federal investigation that uncovered widespread corruption among Chicago judges.

``People didn't know whether their cases were being decided straight up,'' Lassar recalls. ``Criminals were going free, including murderers, because the judges were bribed. It was a terrible situation.''

As first assistant U.S. attorney, Lassar helped supervise two other high-profile public corruption investigations. Dozens of payroll padders went to prison as a result of Operation Haunted Hall, and six aldermen and a number of other public officials were imprisoned for taking payoffs in Operation Silver Shovel.

He personally prosecuted three executives of Archer Daniels Midland Co., the Decatur-based agribusiness giant, for conspiring to fix the global market in lysine - a soybean-based feed additive. All three were convicted.

Silver Shovel, in which a number of black officials were convicted, renewed complaints that the federal government too often focuses on minorities while giving a pass to the Old Guard white ward bosses who still have most of the clout at City Hall.

Lassar says most of the defendants in the bribes-for-licenses investigation and Haunted Hall were not minorities.

``We don't sit around and decide who to investigate and say let’s go investigate the City Council today, tomorrow let’s investigate the secretary of state’s office,'' Lassar said.

``We don't target anybody,'' he said. ``We don't engage in strategic planning. Maybe we should, but we're too busy. We just react to what comes in the door.''

RICO defines "racketeering activity" to mean "(A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnaping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-2424 (relating to white slave traffic), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11, fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any law of the United States, or (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act." 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) (1982 ed., Supp. III).

In relevant part, 18 U.S.C. 1962 provides: "(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 . . . 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. . . . "(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 subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section."

Judge Sues Over Allegations Made in Yahoo Suit

by JOHN COUNCIL

Texas Lawyer

Aug. 3, 2000

A Dallas judge has gone on the attack, filing a defamation suit against his own friend and former lawyer amid allegations of bribery and ex parte communications.

Judge David R. Gibson’s suit and the circumstances that prompted it are shaping up to be one of the most outrageous ethical battles concerning a Dallas civil judge in recent memory.

Gibson, judge of Dallas Civil County Court Court-at-Law No. 1, recused himself on July 27 from a $5 billion contract dispute after his friend and former lawyer Jeffrey T. Robnett’s affidavit was submitted in a breach-of-contract suit alleging that Gibson solicited a bribe from the defense lawyer in that case.

Robnett, who had represented Gibson in his divorce, signed a sworn affidavit detailing the bribery allegations. That affidavit was entered into the record on July 27 in Universal Image Inc. d/b/a Chalkboardtalk.com v. Yahoo Inc., et al., which alleges that Yahoo backed out of a deal to provide its customer user information list to Chalkboardtalk.

Then on July 31, Gibson fired back at Robnett by filing a defamation suit against him, effectively ending both their friendship and their attorney-client relationship.

Robnett alleged in the affidavit that he attended a May 8 meeting concerning Gibson’s divorce at the Dallas home of Yahoo!/Broadcast lawyer Steven Stodghill, a partner in Fish & Richardson. All of the men agree that the meeting was held to discuss modifying Gibson’s divorce decree. But they strongly disagree about what was discussed near the conclusion of that meeting.

Meetings and Accusations

According to Robnett’s affidavit, while having drinks, he listened as Gibson and Stodghill allegedly discussed pending motions in the Yahoo! case, including a sanction motion filed against Chalkboardtalk lawyer Lawrence J. Friedman.

Friedman is a well-known Dallas civil attorney and partner in Friedman Driegert & Hsueh. Friedman’s partner, Robert Driegert, is chairman of the Dallas County Republican Party.

"Judge Gibson queried what would happen to him ‘two years from now’ as the result of his rulings in the case at issue," Robnett alleges in his affidavit. "He told Mr. Stodghill that he needed to be ‘protected’ from adverse political ramifications for sanctioning Friedman or other rulings against Friedman’s client."

"Judge Gibson then told Mr. Stodghill that he wanted a fundraiser prior to his re-election at the home of Mark Cuban, one of the defendants in the lawsuit," Robnett alleges in his affidavit. "The tenor of this part of the conversation was that Mr. Stodghill would indeed insure sufficient financial support, with the help of Mark Cuban, to ‘protect’ Judge Gibson’s re-election, in light of his rulings in the lawsuit."

In an interview at the office of his lawyer Randy Johnston, Gibson angrily denies Robnett’s allegations.

"Jeff Robnett I’ve known for six years," Gibson says. "He was one of my best friends ever. I’m shocked that he would say anything like that."

Gibson says he’s curious about Robnett’s motives because Robnett attended a divorce modification hearing as Gibson’s lawyer the day after the alleged May 8 conversation.

"If he believed anything in the affidavit was true, he should have opened his mouth," Gibson says. "He never disclosed his affidavit to me."

In his defamation suit, Gibson alleges that Robnett became jealous when he consulted with Stodghill about his divorce case. The suit makes much of the fact that Robnett filed the affidavit rather than admonish his client about bribery.

Gibson says he was worried about losing his parental rights to his daughter and consulted Stodghill about representing him even though Stodghill had a major case pending in his court.

"My daughter’s more important to me than that case," Gibson says. "And if that case would have gone to trial I would have recused myself."

Johnston also questions Robnett’s actions.

"What lawyer on God’s green earth would listen to a client supposedly planning to commit a felony and not say to the client, ‘Look, don’t do that.’ " says Johnston, a legal malpractice lawyer and partner in Dallas’ Johnston * Tobey. "That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard."

Robnett refers questions to his lawyer, Cheryl Wattley. Wattley says her client stands by the affidavit.

The Parties

As expected, there were equal amounts of outrage spread among the lawyers representing opposing parties in the Yahoo! litigation. Key lawyers on both sides have retained counsel to represent them in the wake of the bribery allegations.

Stodghill refers calls to his lawyer, John Bickel. Bickel says the allegations in Robnett’s affidavit are "outlandish."

"At no time did Judge Gibson request nor did Steve Stodghill offer anything approaching a bribe," says Bickel, a partner in Dallas’ Bickel & Brewer. "It just didn’t happen. It is not true."

As for the allegations about a request to hold a fundraiser at the home of Dallas billionaire Cuban, Bickel says: "There may have been discussions about a fundraiser, but it wouldn’t have been in Cuban’s house because Cuban doesn’t hold fundraisers. It’s the weirdest thing I’ve heard."

Since the affidavit surfaced, Chalkboardtalk lawyers have added a civil rights claim to their petition, alleging that Yahoo! lawyers conspired to deny the plaintiff access to the courts. <