Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : v. : CRIMINAL DOCKET NO. 5:17-cr : EDWIN PAWLOWSKI : HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 29 AND NOW, the Defendant, Edwin Pawlowski, by and through counsel, Jack McMahon, Esquire, hereby submits this Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule 29 and avers the following: Rule 29 Analysis: 1. At the conclusion of the Government s case, counsel for Defendant Pawlowski moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule Defendant incorporates all oral argument made at conclusion of Government s case in support of the Rule 29 motion. 3. The Court held the motion under advisement pending the jury s verdict. 4. Counsel for Defendant Pawlowski now requests this Court to grant the Rule 29 judgment of acquittal. 5. Count 4 (December 18, 2013 check from Sean Kilkenny): Mr. Kilkenny specifically testified that he gave the check on this date with no strings, contingencies or any discussion regarding the pending RFP. This testimony makes a clear, unambiguous quid quo pro impossible. Lacking this legal requirement demands granting the Rule 29 motion.

2 Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 2 of 7 6. Count 5 (January 4, 2014 check from Sean Kilkenny): The legal analysis and factual analysis is exactly the same as Count 4 and the Rule 29 motion should be granted. 7. Count 6 (December 2014 check from Ramiz Hadad): Evidence at trial clearly demonstrated that check given was a pattern of historical donations with no connection with the Defendant for any specific zoning assistance. Mr. Hadad never communicated at all with the Defendant regarding this contribution. The Defendant did nothing more than refer this issue to the proper Government agent who then performed her job in a perfectly proper and legitimate way. This is hardly the official act standard set forth in the McDonnell case. 8. Count 39 (April 2015 contribution): Again, no testimony the contribution check of April 2015 had anything to do with the inspection. Mr. Hadad never testified to that fact in any way. There was simply no evidence of an agreement between Hadad and Defendant over a contribution for inspection. Also, merely referring a constituent to the proper Government employee for their action is simply not an official act. 9. Count 8 (June 24, ): The June 2, 2015 request for contribution that led to this follow up contained no reference at all to any contract. Mr. Biondo testified that the solicitation had nothing to do with contract and there was no agreement between Defendant and Biondo regarding this contribution. 10. Count 26 (Mail fraud; Spillman-Farmer): The foundation of this fraud was the illegal agreement of contributions for a contract. Mr. Biondo testified this is not what happened. The committee members testified that the awarding of the contract was a fair process

3 Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 3 of Count 10 (April 27, 2015 check by McTish): This transaction was taped and there is simply not one statement that reflects a clear, explicit, unambiguous agreement. No official act was ever specified or done. It is not bribery for some future unspecified act. 12. Counts 11 and 12 (Stevens & Lee; Jonathan Saidel): This March 12, 2015 event was taped by the Government. There was never a request by the Defendant for a contribution. Reconsidering giving work to Stevens & Lee is hardly a clear unambiguous agreement. Also, merely setting up meeting with appropriate person for legal work (Susan Wild) is not official act. 13. Counts 13 and 14 (Don Weiand contribution): Mr. Weiand testified he was a historical donor because of the great job Defendant had done as Mayor. The Defendant s request for contributions had no component that it was in exchange for specific legal work. The only thing suggested was a possible meeting with Susan Wild who was the correct person to discuss possible legal work. Mr. Weiand testified he gave because A) doesn t like to say no and B) he felt that he would not get call from Susan Wild unless he gave. Unilateral, subjective belief is hardly a clear agreement. 14. Count 15 (Patrick Regan - Municipal League): Phone message that Government taped says nothing; about contract or business except for the possible benefit to Mr. Regan of networking with other Mayors. There is absolutely nothing in this message to suggest a bribe. 15. Count 16 (Hickey solicitation): There is no evidence that Defendant knew Hickey was involved in TEN contract. The solicitation makes no reference to the TEN contract. In fact evidence shows that Defendant acknowledged in tape that he doesn t know why Hickey would contribute

4 Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 4 of Count 17 (Norris McGlaughlin): May 20, 2015 tape has absolutely no mention of any agreement of work for contributions. It is just simply absent from the conversation. In fact, prior to that meeting the Defendant expressed his intent to not cross the line. Disappointment in contributions expressed to the Defendant s staff is totally different from expressing that disappointment to the law firm. 17. Counts 18 and 46 (Jack Rosen): The tape of Government again is devoid of any clear, unambiguous agreement of 5C contract for campaign contributions. There is no clear link that is required under the law. These conversations were explicitly done in a way to avoid that clear link. 18. Counts 20, 22, 29 and 30 (Northeast Revenue s; acceptance and rejection): There was no fraud that caused damage to other law firms and collection agencies. The premise these counts are based on is addressed in previous counts 4 and 5 analysis. Also, Mr. Kilkenny testified at trial that there was no agreement or conspiracy with the Defendant to defraud other bidders. 19. Counts 27, 28, 34, 35, 36 and 37 (TEN s): The premise of this fraud is the illegal acceptance of campaign contributions to give contract to TEN therefore eliminating other bidders. Patrick Regan never testified to this and none of the taped conversations reflect this. The testimony of Fran Dougherty as to the Defendant s keen interest and wanting TEN to get the contract is a far cry from the quid quo pro required by law. 20. Counts 26, 31, 32 and 33 (Pool contract fraud): The foundation of this scheme is the Defendant giving contract to Spillman for campaign contributions as discussed as to Count 8. There was no evidence of this agreement between Mr. Biondo and the Defendant. Also, the - 4 -

5 Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 5 of 7 committee that selected Spillman did so in a fair process with no influence by Defendant. 21. Counts 38 and 39 (Hadad; honest services): See argument as to Count 6 referring a constituent to appropriate Government official to fairly deal with an issue is simply not an official act. 22. Counts (Honest service - TEN): See argument on Counts 27, 28, 34, 35, 36 and 37. There is simply not one piece of evidence to show an explicit agreement between Regan (TEN) and Defendant. 23. Count 48 (Hadad; Travel Act; May 18, 2015): Again, the tape the Government presented in no way makes out a clear, explicit unambiguous agreement between Hadad and Defendant to do anything with Banko building or tax plan. The mere fact that business was talked about at the same meeting as contributions is not sufficient to show the link between the two. In fact, the best evidence of this is that Hadad was told his project (Banko) was not going forward, yet he still contributed. Hardly quid quo pro. 24. Counts 46 and 47 (Travel Act - Jack Rosen; February 6, 2015 and May 18, 2015): The Government tape of this New York meeting isn t even close to a clear, explicit quid quo pro between the Defendant and Rosen. Again, the mere discussion of business and contributions in the same meeting does not meet the exacting legal standard needed in campaign contribution cases. 25. Count 49 (Contract bidding process): The testimony as presented by the Government clearly shows the Defendant had no direct input into any of the contract bidding process. He did not participate in RFP formulation or a decision on the RFP

6 Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 6 of Count 50 (Influencing contracts to vendors): The testimony of all Government witnesses on committees to award contracts was the same Defendant had no role or influence in the process. 27. Count 51 (Legal Contracts - City Solicitor): The testimony could not be clearer from Susan Wild that Defendant never told her who to award legal contracts to. 28. Count 52 (List of vendors - campaign use): Defendant clearly, in the totality of his FBI statement, indicated he used these lists for people to reach out to for contributions. 29. Count 53 (Eagles tickets): The testimony regarding these tickets demonstrated Defendant never requested these tickets from Kilkenny and never used the tickets from Kilkenny. 30. Count 54 (Hadad - official action): Expediting zoning and inspection to proper Government official is not an official action. 31. Count 55 (Stevens & Lee selection): The testimony of Susan Wild, Government witness, clearly shows the Defendant had absolutely no role in this selection process. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request this Court to direct a verdict of not guilty to all of the above counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. Respectfully submitted, Date: April 20, 2018 /s/ Jack McMahon Jack McMahon - 6 -

7 Case 5:17-cr JS Document 171 Filed 04/20/18 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing Motion for Judgement of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule 29 was served by the Court s electronic case filing system upon the following: Anthony Wzorek, AUSA Michelle Morgan, AUSA Office of the United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA Date: April 20, 2018 /s/ Jack McMahon Jack McMahon