The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money

 

War Profiteers Main Index

CIA Main Index

CIA Lawsuits Index

 

CIA Lawsuits: U.S. vs. Kyle Dustin Foggo & Brent Roger Wilkes

 

Background

Media Reports

Legal Documents

Photo Credits

 

Background

 

“The CIA’s former executive director and a defense contractor were indicted yesterday by a San Diego grand jury for allegedly corrupting the intelligence agency’s contracts, marking one of the first criminal cases to reach into the CIA’s clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East. Kyle ‘Dusty’ Foggo, a longtime logistics officer who was the CIA’s top administrator from November 2004 until last May, was accused of using his seniority and influence at a prior CIA job in Europe to steer business deals to his longtime friend Brent R. Wilkes, a California businessman and top Republican fundraiser. […]”

 

Excerpt of Washington Post article from 14/2/2007.

Kyle Foggo in 2004 as CIA Director

Indicted: Foggo in 2007

 

Media Reports

 

August 13th, 2009 - A Window Into C.I.A.’s Embrace of Secret Jails

1 news article from the New York Times

 

February 26th, 2009 - Former CIA Exec Gets More Than 3 Years in Prison

1 news article from the Associated Press

 

February 25th, 2009 - Feds: Misconduct by CIA’s Foggo Spanned Decades

1 news article from the Associated Press

 

January 29th, 2009 - Details of CIA Fraud to Stay Secret, Judge Rules

1 news article from ABC News

 

January 9th, 2009 - Prosecutors Urge Release of Testimony in CIA Case

1 news article from the Associated Press

 

October 1st, 2008 - Poker, Hookers, and Black Contracts: How To Make a CIA Trial Go Away

1 news article by Mother Jones

 

September 29th, 2008 - Ex-CIA Executive Pleads Guilty to Wire Fraud

2 news articles by the Associated Press & New York Times

 

September 9th, 2008 - Ex-CIA Exec Facing Trial Say He’ll Expose Agents

1 news article by the Associated Press

 

June 10th, 2008 - Judge Denies European Summer Vacation for Disgraced CIA Official

1 news article by ABC News

 

May 20th, 2008 - New Indictment in Case Against Former CIA Executive Director

1 news article by the Associated Press

 

February 19th, 2008 - 12 Years for Contractor in Bribery Case

1 news article by the Associated Press

 

November 20th, 2007 - Judge Proposes Moving Wilkes, Foggo Trial to Virginia

1 news article by the San Diego Union-Tribune

 

November 6th, 2007 - Jury Finds Wilkes Guilty

1 news article by the San Diego Union-Tribune

 

May 15th, 2007 - Trial Dates Set for Wilkes, Foggo in Corruption Case

1 news article by the San Diego Union-Tribune

 

May 14th, 2007 - Wilkes, CIA Official Arraigned on New Charges

1 news article by North County Times

 

May 2nd, 2007 - Separate Trial, Transfer of Venue Sought for Ex-CIA Official

1 news article by San Diego Union-Tribune

 

April 25th, 2007 - Wilkes’ Attorneys Target Classified Information Rules

News article by San Diego Union-Tribune

 

April 13th, 2007 - Wilkes’ Home to go on Auction Block

1 news article by North County Times

 

March 30th, 2007 - Feinstein Challenges Criticism Against Lam

1 news article by Copley News Service

 

March 19th, 2007 - Democrats Turn up Heat on Firing of U.S. Attorney

1 news article by the Los Angeles Times

 

March 6th, 2007 - Judge Limits Defense Access to State Secrets in Foggo Case

1 news article by the Associated Press

 

February 14th, 2007 - Former Top CIA Official Indicted

1 news article by the Washington Post

 

May 15th, 2006 - Intelligence: Goss Goes Out - But the CIA’s Struggles Go On

1 news article by Newsweek

 

May 12th, 2006 - F.B.I. Says House of Ex-C.I.A. Deputy Is Searched

1 news article by the New York Times

 

May 9th, 2006 - CIA Official Quits; FBI Probes Role in Defense Contracts

1 news article by the Washington Post

 

December 3rd, 2004 - Politicized Espionage

1 news article by the Boston Phoenix

 

Legal Documents

 

U.S.A. vs. Kyle Dustin Foggo

 

United States District Court

Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria)

Case No.: 08 CR 00079 JCC 1

 

Date Filed: February 26th, 2008

 

February 26th, 2009 - Minute Entry & Judgment

 

“[…] Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge James C. Cacheris:Sentencing held on 2/26/2009 for Kyle Dustin Foggo (1), Count 1ss. Count(s) 15ss-18ss, 21ss, 22ss-24ss, 25ss-28ss, 2ss-14ss, Dismissed per Order 9/29/08; Count(s) 1s, 2-22s, 23-30s, Dismissed per the filing of the superseding indictment. US appeared through Jason Forge & Valerie Chu. Deft appeared w/counsels Mark MacDougall & Andrew Dober. Deft committed to the custody of the BOP to serve a term of: 37 months, 2 years supervised release, $100 assessment.

 

“Special conditions: 1) deft must participate in & complete alcohol treatment program, deft to pay; 2) provide financial information as requested; 3) complete 100 hours of community service; 4) mandatory drug testing waived, testing as directed. Recommendation to BOP: Deft to be designated to FCI Cumberland, Maryland. Deft to self surrender. Until he self surrenders, deft shall remain under the Order Setting Conditions of Release. […]”

 

February 6th, 2009 - Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Emergency Motion

 

“[…] This Court’s January 28, 2009 memorandum opinion and order make clear the importance of maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. The Government’s notice manifests its respect for, and deference to, the Court’s concerns by abandoning altogether the notion of relying on any grand jury transcripts. Instead, the Government will support its sentencing arguments with written statements and summaries of interviews provided and conducted this year – months after Foggo was last indicted and pled guilty. None of these statements will reveal whether the witness has ever testified before any grand jury, let alone what might have been a part of such testimony. As such, these statements will not reveal what took place in a grand jury room that has been empty since May 20, 2008. Likewise, the Government will rely on approximately 10 pages of transcripts from recorded interviews, which the Government conducted telephonically on days the grand jury was not in session and without any reference to the grand jury. Therefore, these interview excerpts will not reveal what took place in a grand jury room. Nevertheless, Foggo objects.

 

“Foggo’s Emergency Motion attempts to tilt the playing field for his contested sentencing proceedings. Foggo will enjoy a free hand to file publicly, and express in open court, purported facts supported by statements and letters from witnesses, including himself. But he wants the Court to impose restrictions on the Government and its witnesses. These restrictions would force to Government to present the facts supporting its sentencing position in a cumbersome combination of sealed transcripts, sealed pleadings, redacted pleadings, and repeated sidebar requests at the sentencing hearing. There is nothing in the parties’ plea agreement that dictates this disparate treatment. The Government’s notice presents a method of proof that will streamline the sentencing proceedings and ensure a level the playing field. Because Foogo’s objection to the Government’s notice is unsupported, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny it. […]”

 

February 5th, 2009 - Defendant Emergency Motion for an Order Requiring Govt. to Provide Evidence

 

“[…] Comes now Defendant Kyle Dustin Foggo, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this Court to enter an Order requiring the government: (a) to provide the materials described in its February 3, 2009 Notice of Government’s Intention to Rely on Evidence Other Than Grand Jury Transcripts (‘Notice’) to this Court for in camera review; and (b) to refrain from publicly disclosing the content of those materials. Defendant Foggo files this motion on an emergency basis because the government has failed to indicate precisely when and how it plans to disclose its ‘evidence.’ […]”

 

February 3rd, 2009 - Notice of Govt.’s Intention to Rely on Evidence other than Grand Jury Transcripts

 

“[…] On January 28, 2009, this Court issued a memorandum opinion and order establishing parameters for the use of grand jury transcripts in connection with the sentencing of defendant Foggo. The Court’s order permits the United States to submit for in camera review grand jury transcripts that will assist the Court in sentencing defendant Foggo. In light of the concerns raised in the Court’s memorandum opinion, however, the United States intends to take whatever steps are necessary to avoid having to rely on grand jury transcripts at sentencing. […]

 

“[…] In lieu of grand jury transcripts, the United States will obtain declarations from witnesses who may or may not have previously testified before a grand jury (including a declaration of an agent summarizing information obtained during witness interviews). The United States estimates that it can establish the additional facts necessary to assist the Court in sentencing Foggo with approximately 7 concise declarations, a summary declaration from an agent, and approximately 10 pages of transcripts from recorded interviews. […]”

 

January 26th, 2009 - Order & Memorandum Opinion

 

“[…] For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ordered that:

 

“(1) The Government’s Motion for an Order Allowing the Use of Grand Jury Transcripts for Sentencing is granted in part and denied in part;

 

“(2) the Government may, within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this Order, provide the Court with grand jury transcripts for in camera review in preparation for the sentencing hearing;

 

“(3) Defendant may, within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order, provide the Court with grand jury transcripts for in camera review in preparation for the sentencing hearing;

 

“(4) the parties shall omit or redact any portions of the grand jury materials that are not necessary to assist the Court in its sentencing determination;

 

“(5) neither party shall publicly disclose any portion of the grand jury transcripts; and

 

“(6) the Clerk of the Court shall forward copies of this Order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion to all counsel of record. […]”

 

January 9th, 2009 - Defendant Kyle Foggo’s Supplemental Filing Regarding Government’s Motion

 

“[…] During this morning’s hearing regarding the government's motion, the government referred to the opinion in In re Washington Post, 807 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1986). Defendant Kyle Dustin Foggo, by and through undersigned counsel, attaches a copy of that case for the Court’s consideration.

 

“The opinion does not address the disclosure of grand jury transcripts. The court in In re Washington Post did not consider a public right of access to grand jury materials, and in fact it made no mention whatsoever of grand jury materials. The litigant in that case was a newspaper seeking the right to attend closed plea and sentencing hearings and to view affidavits that the government had filed under seal with its motion to hold the hearings in camera. See 807 F.2d at 388. The decision involved the First Amendment right of access to closed plea and sentencing hearings and recognized the right to attend. Id. at 390. That issue is not present here, as all sides agree that the February sentencing will be in open court. […]”

 

December 2nd, 2008 - Defendant Kyle Foggo’s Opposition to Government’s Motion

 

“[…] Comes now, Defendant Kyle Dustin Foggo, by and through undersigned counsel, in opposition to the government’s motion to permit the disclosure of grand jury materials in connection with sentencing arguments. The government’s broad request for grand jury materials does not meet the particularized need standard that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(i) requires for overriding grand jury secrecy protections and stands in stark contrast to its position throughout this case that virtually all grand jury transcripts and, indeed, nearly all information related to this case, and Mr. Foggo's career, are classified.

 

“Putting aside the issue of the government’s perplexing and unexplained about-face, the transcripts are not necessary to determine the appropriate sentence because the United States and Foggo have stipulated to the facts underlying the offense, as reflected in the already filed plea agreement. Moreover, this has not been an ‘open files’ discovery case and defense counsel has not been provided with all grand jury transcripts generated during the government’s investigation. If the Court decides to consider grand jury transcripts for the purpose of sentencing, it should order the government to provide defense counsel with copies of all grand jury transcripts from the investigation so the defense has access to the same grand jury information as the prosecution in formulating sentencing arguments and so that excerpts from such transcripts may be used to counter any argument made by the government. […]”

 

November 20th, 2008 - Motion for Order Allowing Use of Grand Jury Transcripts for Sentencing

 

“[…] The United States moves this Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(i) to allowing the disclosure of grand jury information in the United States’ Sentencing Memorandum and at the sentencing hearing. The information is necessary to assist the Court in determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant and fulfill the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). […]”

 

September 29th, 2008 - Order

 

“[…] Defendant Kyle Dustin Foggo, having entered a plea of guilty to count 1 of the second superseding indictment pursuant to the agreement entered into between him and the United States, and the Court having accepted that plea, and The United States having moved to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment as they pertain to defendant Kyle Dustin Foggo, it is therefore ordered that counts 2 through 28 of the indictment against this defendant be and are hereby dismissed. […]”

 

September 29th, 2008 - Statement of Facts

 

“[…] 10. Beginning in or about December 2002, and continuing through in or about September 2006, within the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, Foggo devised and intended a scheme: (1) to defraud, including depriving the United States and its citizens of their right to Foggo’s honest services, including their right to his loyal, faithful, disinterested, unbiased service, to be performed free of deceit, undue influence, conflict of interest, self-enrichment, self-dealing, concealment, fraud, and corruption; and (2) to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, and concealment and omissions of material facts.

 

“11. Foggo, through direct and indirect instructions, abused his supervisory positions with the CIA in order to cause the CIA to hire companies or individuals with whom Foggo had a personal relationship (Foggo’s Friends). […]”

 

September 29th, 2008 - Plea Agreement

 

“[…] 1. The defendant, Kyle Dustin Foggo, pursuant to Rule 11 (c), agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment. Count One charges the defendant with devising a scheme to defraud, induding depriving the United States and its citizens of their right to his honest services, and to obtain money and property by means of false representations and concealment of material facts, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1343. […]

 

“4. In exchange for the concessions in this plea agreement, the United States will move to dismiss: (1) Counts 2 through 28 of the Second Superseding Indictment and (2) the forfeiture allegations, inasmuch as the defendant has no readily attachable assets (the United States will not pursue any civil actions based on these allegations). […]”

 

September 29th, 2008 - Minute Entry

 

“[…] Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge James C. Cacheris: Change of Plea Hearing as to Kyle Dustin Foggo held on 9/29/2008; […] Deft withdrew NG plea and PG to Count 1 of the Second Superseding Indictment - Court accepts plea. Counts 2 - 28 of Second Superseding Indictment are dismissed based on Oral Motion/Plea Agreement - Order entered. Deft referred to PO for PSI and Sentencing scheduled for: 1/8/2009 at 10:00 AM before District Judge James C. Cacheris (Classified material to be discussed). Deft continued on bond. […]”

 

July 31st, 2008 - Order & Memorandum Opinion

 

“[…] For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ordered that:

 

“(1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 27 and 28 of the second superseding indictment is denied;

 

“(2) The Government’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply is granted; […]”

 

July 14th, 2008 - Order & Memorandum Opinion

 

“[…] For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ordered that:

 

“(1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied in part;

 

“(2) The Court shall take under advisement the question of whether Counts 27 and 28 of the second superseding indictment should be dismissed;

 

“(3) Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars is denied; […]”

 

July 10th, 2008 - Protective Order

 

“[…] it is ordered,

 

“1) that the Court grants the Government’s motion pursuant to Section 4 of CIPA and Rule 16(d)(l).

 

“2) that the Government need not disclose to the defense the classified materials described in the Government's pleading, its declaration and the attached exhibits.

 

“3) that the Government’s pleading, its declaration and the attached exhibits are hereby sealed and shall be maintained in a facility appropriate for the storage of such classified information by the Court Security Officer as the designee of the Clerk of Court, in accordance with established security procedures, until further order of this Court. […]”

 

July 10th, 2008 - Order

 

“[…] it is ordered,

 

“1) that the Defendant's In Camera, Ex Parte motion to compel Government to allow defense counsel to conduct voluntary pre-trial interviews of current and former CIA employees is denied.

 

“2) and finds that the Government need not provide defense counsel access to the classified programs and other information sought by counsel. Further, CIA Office of General Counsel may instruct the former and current CIA employees who have agreed to be interviewed by the defendant that they may not discuss the information contained within that classified programs including the specific information sought by defense counsel by way of his motion to compel. […]”

 

June 9th, 2008 - Order, Protective Order & Memorandum Opinion

 

“[…] For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ordered that: (1) Government’s Motion for Amended Protective Order is granted; (2) Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Discovery Order is denied; […]

 

May 22nd, 2008 - Minute Entry

 

“Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge James C. Cacheris: Arraignment as to Kyle Dustin Foggo Count 1ss-14ss,15ss-18ss,19ss-20ss,21ss,22ss-24ss,25ss-28ss held on 5/22/2008 and Motion Hearing as to Kyle Dustin Foggo held on 5/22/2008 re Motion for Protective Order filed by USA and Motion for Discovery Motion for Entry of Discovery Order Consistent With the Parties’ Previous Agreement and the Law of the Case Regarding the Production of Jencks Act Materials filed by Kyle Dustin Foggo […]

 

“Deft waived FA, PNG as to all counts of Second Superseding Indictment, and demanded a trial by Jury. Jury Trial previously scheduled for November 3, 2008 to remain. Court advises that Jury Trial is to last no longer than 3 weeks. Motions Hearing to be scheduled as needed. Motions argued and taken under advisement. Amended Proposed Scheduling Order submitted - Court to await review by Deft before entering. […]”

 

May 20th, 2008 - Second Superseding Indictment

 

March 21st, 2008 - Minute Entry

 

“[…] Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge District Judge James C. Cacheris: Status Conference as to Kyle Dustin Foggo held on 3/21/2008: Govt appeared through: James P. Gillis, Phillip Halpern and Valerie Chu. Deft appeared w/ counsel: Andrew J. Dober, William Potts, Mark MacDougall, W. Randolph Teslik and Paul Butler.

 

“Deft orally waived Speedy Trial - Court finds deft waived his right to Speedy Trial. Counsel will submit an Amended Protective Order. Counsel submitted Discovery Order - Deft to review and get back w/ Court before being entered.

 

“Pretrial Conference set for 5/6/2008 at 10:00 AM before District Judge James C. Cacheris. Jury Trial set for 11/3/2008 at 10:00 AM before District Judge James C. Cacheris. (Est. to last 2 - 3 weeks for Govt and 2 weeks for Deft) Deft continued on bond under same conditions. […]”

 

February 26th, 2008 - Order of Transfer

 

United States Dictrict Court

Southern District of California

Case No.: 07 CR 0329 LAB

 

Case Title: U.S.A. vs. Kyle Dustin Foggo & Brent Roger Wilkes

Date Filed: February 23th, 2007

 

February 20th, 2008 - Order Dismissing Charges against Wilkes & Transferring Case against Defendant Foggo

 

“[…] This matter has come before this Court on defendant Foggo’s motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia and the government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice the charges against defendant Wilkes. Having considered the pleadings and arguments of the parties, the Court hereby orders the following: 1. The charges in the indictment and superseding indictment in case 07CR0329-LAB against defendant Wilkes are dismissed without prejudice. 2. The case against defendant Foggo is transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. 3. The Clerk of Court shall transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia the files and records of this case. It is so ordered. […]”

 

February 19th, 2008  - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry Alan Burns

 

“Motion Hearing as to Kyle Dustin Foggo - n/a, Brent Roger Wilkes held on 2/19/2008. Court grants the motion Dismissing Without Prejudice Charges Against Defendant Wilkes and Transferring Case Against Defendant Foggo to the Eastern District of Virginia. (Plaintiff Attorney Phillip Halpern; Jason Forge; Valerie Chu; Sanjay Bhandari). (Defendant Attorney Andrew Dober; W. Randolph Teslik; Shereen Charlick; Reuben Cahn; Mark Geragos - s/a).”

 

December 31st, 2007 - Government’s Response & Opposition to Defendant Foggo’s Motion

 

“[…] Defendants Foggo and Wilkes are charged with, inter alia, participating in a conspiracy encompassing national and international offense conduct that is properly brought ‘in any district in which any act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed.’ […] As this case is properly charged in the Southern District of California, Foggo seeks to transfer venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b), which allows a defendant to initiate a motion for a transfer of venue to another district if convenient for the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

 

“As set forth in great detail in the government’s original Response and Opposition, this case belongs in the Southern District of California (the ‘SDCA’). Our position on this is unchanged, and defendant Wilkes agrees. Nevertheless, at the hearing on December 17, 2007, the Court posed the hypothetical of severing the case against Foggo and transferring it to the Eastern District of Virginia (the ‘EDVA’). The Court then asked the government whether it would respond to such a scenario by moving to dismiss without prejudice its case against Wilkes in the SDCA and re-indicting Wilkes in the EDVA. The government has examined and re-examined the Platt1/ factors, and we believe that Foggo has failed to demonstrate the “substantial inconvenience” necessary to warrant the extraordinary relief he seeks. As such, the government respectfully declines to encourage such an outcome by agreeing to dismiss and re-indict its case against Wilkes. […]”

 

December 11th, 2007 - Defendant Foggo’s Renewed Motion for Transfer of Venue

 

“[…] Defendant Kyle Dustin Foggo, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, previously moved for severance and transfer of venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on the grounds that the natural center of gravity of the events alleged in the indictment lies in Virginia and Mr. Foggo, the CIA, and the vast majority of potential witnesses and documents reside in the Washington, D.C. area. This Court denied Mr. Foggo’s motion without prejudice on May 14, 2007, primarily because of Mr. Wilkes’ desire to be tried in San Diego. Mr. Wilkes has, however, recently been convicted in a highly publicized trial in the Southern District of California and is scheduled to be sentenced in the near future. See United States v. Wilkes, 07-cr-330-LAB.

 

“If Mr. Wilkes is remanded into the custody of the Bureau of Prisons after sentencing, his future place of residence is uncertain and within the discretion of the federal govement. Therefore, defendant Foggo respectfully renews his motion for severance and transfer of this case to the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. […]”

 

November 19th, 2007 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry Alan Burns

 

“Defendant Kyle Foggo and Brent Wilkes not available. Status Conference as to Kyle Dustin Foggo, Brent Roger Wilkes held on 11/19/2007. Further Status Conference re: possible transfer of the case set for 12/18/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Larry Alan Burns. (Court Reporter Eva Oemick). (Plaintiff Attorney Sanjay Bhandari; Jason Forge, Phillip Halpern; Valerie Chu). (Defendant Attorneys telephonic appearances of Paul Butler, Elizabeth Tobio, Andrew Dober, Mark MacDougall for defendant Kyle Foggo; Shereen Charlick and Reuben Cahn for defendant Brent Wilkes).”

 

August 14th, 2007 - Declaration of Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip L. B. Halpern

 

May 14th, 2007 - Minute Entry for Proceedings held before Judge Larry Alan Burns

 

“Arraignment on the superseding indictment as to Kyle Dustin Foggo (1) Count 1s, 2s-22s, 23s - 30s and Brent Roger Wilkes (2) Count 1s, 2s - 22s, 23s - 30s held on 5/14/2007. Not Guilty plea entered as to both defendants. (Court Reporter Eva Oemick). (Plaintiff Attorney: Jason Forge; Phillip Halpern; Valerie Chu). (Defendant Attorney: Andrew Dober; Mark MacDougall; Mark Geragos).

 

“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry Alan Burns: Motion Hearing as to Kyle Dustin Foggo, Brent Roger Wilkes held on 5/14/2007. Motion for Protective Order Regarding Attorney-Client Communications, Touhy Disclosures and Treatment of Classified Information filed by Kyle Dustin Foggo - granted/denied in part; Motion to Compel Investigation Into Acknowledged 6(e) Violations filed by Kyle Dustin Foggo - granted. A written report shall be filed under seal with the court as soon as possible; Motion to Sever - denied without prejudice; Motion for transfer of venue to Eastern District of VA filed by Kyle Dustin Foggo - denied; Motion To declare CIPA Unconstitutional defendant Brent Wilkes motion for order declaring CIPA unconstitutional on its face or as applied, or in the alternative rejecting its application to defendant brent Roger Wilkes in this case filed by Brent Roger Wilkes - denied.

 

“Jury Trial set for 10/23/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Larry Alan Burns. Motions in limine hearing set for 10/22/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Larry Alan Burns. Court waives the future appearances of dft Kyle Foggo unless ordered by the court. (Court Reporter Eva Oemick). (Plaintiff Attorney Jason Forge; Phillip Halpern; Valerie Chu). (Defendant Attorney Andrew Dober; Mark MacDougall; Mark Geragos). (John McPherson, Departement of Justice) (Court Security James Londergan) […]”

 

May 11th, 2007 - Defendant Foggo’s Reply in Support of Motion for Severance & Transfer of Venue

 

May 10th, 2007 - Superseeding Indictment

 

May 7th, 2007 - Government’s Response to Defendant Foggo’s Motion for Entry of Protective Orders

 

May 7th, 2007 - Government’s Response to Defendant Wilkes & Foggo’s Motions

 

April 27th, 2007 - Defendant's Motion for Severance & Transfer of Venue

 

April 23rd, 2007 - Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order

 

April 23rd, 2007 - Defendant Kyle Foggo’s Motion to Compel Investigation

 

March 26th, 2007 - Government’s Response & Opposition to Defendants’ Motion & General Requests

 

“[…] Despite the extensive detail contained in the Indictment – and despite the extensive discovery produced or in the process of being produced – defendants claim to be unable to frame adequately their discovery requests. Nevertheless, stripping the defendants’ motions of rhetoric, they raise only two routine and fairly de minimus disputes for the Court’s determination: (1) is the government required to disclose details of its on-going investigation (e.g., lists of unrelated search sites, unrelated grand jury subpoenas, and any search warrants that were sought from, but not granted by, the Court); and (2) should the government be required to file a bill of particulars. The answer to both questions is clearly no.

 

“[…] From virtually the inception of this criminal case, the government has made available voluminous amounts of unclassified discovery. On February 22, 2007, the government confirmed in writing its earlier oral representations that it had already made available for review and/or copying: (1) relevant search warrant applications, affidavits and inventory sheets related to the search warrants that were executed in investigating the above-captioned matter; (2) documents and other evidence seized from Randall Cunningham’s residence; (3) documents and other evidence seized from the ‘Duke-Stir’; (4) documents and other evidence seized from Mitchell Wade’s residence; (5) documents and other evidence seized from MZM; (6) documents and other evidence seized from Brent Wilkes’s residence; and (7) documents and other evidence obtained from a variety of third party sources, e.g., bank records, phone tolls, credit card records, etc. […]”

 

March 19th, 2007 - Minute Entry for Proceedings held before Judge Larry Alan Burns

 

“Kyle Dustin Foggo - not appearing. Pretrial Conference as to Kyle Dustin Foggo and Brent Roger Wilkes held on 3/19/2007. Bond Hearing as to Brent Roger Wilkes held on 3/19/2007. Motions terminated as to Kyle Dustin Foggo, Brent Roger Wilkes: Motion for Reconsideration of Scope of Protective Order - denied. Defense counsel as to defendants’ Kyle Dustin Foggo and Brent Roger Wilkes shall file motions regarding CIPA immediately with the court. Court grants an extension of time until 4/2/07 to post the bond as to Brent Roger Wilkes. Bond hearing set for 4/2/07 at 2:00 before Judge Larry Alan Burns. Court orders Mr. Londergan be notified of all future filings. (Court Reporter Eva Oemick).(Plaintiff Attorney: Jason Forge; Phillip Halpern; Valerie Chu).(Defendant Attorney: Andrew Dober; W. Randolph Teslik; Mark J. Geragos)(Court Security Officer: James Londergan).”

 

March 16th, 2007 - Government’s Response and Opposition to Defendant’s Motion

 

March 15th, 2007 - Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Entry of Protective Order

 

March 5th, 2007 - Protective Order pursuant to Section 3 of the Classified Information Procedures Act

 

February 13th, 2007 - Indictment

 

“[…] 1. From on or about July 6, 2001 to about November 3, 2004, defendant Kyle Dustin Foggo, was the senior officer in charge of support operations at an ‘Overseas Location’ of the Central Intelligence Agency (‘CIA’), and as such directed the Overseas Location’s daily operations supplying equipment to personnel overseas.

 

“2. From on or about November 4, 2004 to about May 12, 2006, defendant Foggo was the Executive Director of the CIA (then the third-highest position in the CIA), and as such directed the CIA’s daily operations. […]

 

“9. Beginning on a date unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing through in or about April 2005, within the Southern District of California and elsewhere, defendants Kyle Dustin Foggo aka ‘Dusty’ Foggo, and Brent Roger Wilkes, did knowingly and intentionally conspire with each other, and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following offenses against the United States:

 

“a) Honest Wire Fraud, […]

 

“b) Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity, […]”

 

Raid in 2006 & Arraignment in 2007

Reporters film raid at Foggo’s home

Foggo at the courthouse

Brent Wilkes

Photo Credits

 

Background

 

1) Kyle Foggo as Executive Director of the CIA - 2004 - CNN;

2) Former Executive Director of the CIA, Kyle ‘Dusty’ Foggo arrives at the Federal Courthouse for Foggo’s arraignment on charges stemming from the corruption of former U.S. Rep. Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham in San Diego. - February 14th, 2007 - Lenny Ignelzi/Associated Press;

 

Raid & Arraignment Photos

 

1) Reporters watch federal agents raid the home of former CIA Executive Director Kyle 'Dusty' Foggo in Vienna, Virginia. - May 12th, 2006 - Jonathan Ernst/Reuters;

2) Former Executive Director of the CIA, Kyle ‘Dusty’ Foggo turns away from cameras as he leaves the Federal Courthouse following his arraignment on charges stemming from the corruption of former U.S. Rep. Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham in San Diego. - February 14th, 2007 - Denis Poroy/Associated Press;

3) Defense contractor Brent Wilkes arrives at the federal courthouse for Wilkes’ arraignment on charges stemming from the corruption involving former U.S. Rep. Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham in San Diego. -  February 14th, 2007 - Lenny Ignelzi/Associated Press;

Back to CIA Personnel

Back to CIA Lawsuits

Back to CIA

Back to main index

 

 

http://www.ritecounter.com/scripts/htmlc.php?id=52711alt="Website Statistics">