« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Today's Must Read

Once, Brent Wilkes built a railroad. Made it run. Made it race against time. Made it spend over $1 million to bribe a Republican Congressman in exchange for multi-million dollar defense contracts. (Allegedly!) Now, the tracks have supposedly come apart on Wilkes' financial railroad.

Yesterday, Judge Larry Burns, the San Diego federal district magistrate presiding over the multifaceted Duke Cunningham-related trials, ruled that Wilkes is too broke to afford representation in his upcoming trial for bribery, money laundering and conspiracy. Wilkes, of course, made millions as the head of defense contractor ADCS, thanks largely to Cunningham, who Wilkes (allegedly!) rewarded with cash and the occasional prostitute. Can he really be bankrupt?

The government doesn't buy it. Wilkes' current attorneys -- who apparently see the end of the gravy train in front of them -- submitted a sealed financial document to Burns claiming indigence. But prosecutors are fighting to have it released, claiming that Wilkes may have profited from a transaction shortly after his March indictment alongside his best friend, ex-CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. Reports the San Diego Union-Tribune:

During the hearing, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office questioned whether Wilkes should be allowed to have an attorney paid for by the government, noting that the defense contractor is believed to have greatly profited from his alleged crimes. In April, Wilkes sold a Poway building that owed millions in past-due mortgage payments for $16.8 million to a San Francisco real estate investment firm.

The government also wanted to view the financial affidavit, arguing the public has a right to know its contents, Jason Forge, a federal prosecutor, told the judge.

Determining who wants what to remain secret in the Cunningham cases -- and who profited from what, even post-indictment -- gets practically comic. Forge is part of the prosecution team fighting to keep key details of Thomas Kontogiannis' guilty plea (and apparent cooperation in related prosecutions) under seal. Burns questioned how Forge can think Wilkes' finances should be public while the basic terms of Tommy K's plea remain sealed. And on Friday, lawyers for yet another defendant, New York mortgage broker John Michael, claimed that the government had turned a blind eye to Kontogiannis profiting from real-estate assets in exchange for his cooperation.

Wilkes is to be represented, at taxpayer expense, by the nonprofit Federal Defenders of San Diego. His trial, the paper reports, is likely to be deferred until next year. And if Wilkes finds himself dissatisfied at trial with FDSD's performance, maybe he can ask Kontogiannis to float him some cash.


7 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Wilkes sold a Poway building that owed millions in past-due mortgage payments for $16.8 million to a San Francisco real estate investment firm.

Laughing.... just add some CA REIT's to this story along with a sub-prime loan....

user-pic

Wilokes is involved in 2 trials: 1- with John T. Michael (Kontogiannis' nephew) and 2- with Dusty Foggo, childhood friend and formerly third highest ranking spook.

Geragos is still Wilkes lawyer for the first trial. The public defender is for trial 2. Geragos refused to get a security clearance, so Judge Burns demanded that Wilkes get a new laywer for that trial. So, apparently Wilkes still has enough money to pay Geragos for his first trial and enough to pay him for the 2nd trial (if he didn't need a security clearance) but not enough to pay for a new laywer for the 2nd trial. Interesting.

user-pic

Since when has the indigence of the defendent become a reason for the prosecution to not pursue a case in court.

Also, why wouldn't RICO apply here - preventing an accused from using supposedly ill-gotten gains to defend themselves from prosecution.

On the other hand, where did all the money go? The Cayman Islands?

user-pic

What are they complaining about? So the government subsidizes his defense.

In the long-run, paying for a public defender will save the fed money. Private firms usually try to spam the courts with legal docs in a case like this to try and overwhelm the understaffed government team prosecuting the case. But the public defender team is likely to be even smaller!

The interesting thing here will be to see what type of accommodations the indigent mr. wilkes finds to spend the next 12 months waiting for his trial.

user-pic

Yes...back to that issue of two trials with two different lawyers...

user-pic

This galls me. Ok, maybe having the taxpayers foot the bill is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things but isn't this about delaying prosecution of this case once more? First fire Carol Lam, now get a magistrate that will sign off on a multi-millionaire defendent as indigent.

Code: "past" - as in justice a thing of the past in the US of A.

user-pic

ok, what we have here is the set-up for appealing his conviction, when/if it happens. Wilkes can say he was denied a fair trial by being "forced" to give up his attorney (Geragos) and using a public defender who, he can argue, was unable to represent him as well as his lawyer of choice. If Geragos was representing him pro bono, then finances don't matter.

What happened to his replacement lawyer, Eugene Iredale? Is this Iredale's recommended strategy, or did he dump Wilkes after seeing the evidence?

Leave a comment

Tag Cloud

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address