|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
CIA Lawsuits: U.S. vs. Kyle Dustin Foggo & Brent
Roger Wilkes |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
“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 |
||||
|
|
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
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 |
||||
|
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; |
||||||
|
|
||||||
