So reports Patsy Brumfield, with details to follow later. This is about 15 minutes ago.
|
||||
|
I am Tom Freeland,
a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office.
I'm on Twitter as NMissC
Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page. Search NMCError: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page. PagesCategoriesBlogRollLaw: NationalMississippi & Local: BlogsMississippi & Local: PressPolitics |
Hal Neilson jury: Not Guilty on 2 Counts, Hung Verdict on others14 comments to Hal Neilson jury: Not Guilty on 2 Counts, Hung Verdict on othersLeave a Reply Cancel reply |
Write NMCtips, tirades, or just say hello at nmisscommentor (@) gmail.com
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
|
||
|
Copyright © 2012 T. Freeland - All Rights Reserved
Technorati Profile 56 queries. 0.933 seconds. |
||||
woot woot!
As a former prosecutor, my humble advice to the Gov’t. would be to announce that they are very disappointed, and then hope that everyone forgets this fiasco over the next few busy weeks. Admittedly I knew very little about most of the charges, but it seemed liked spitting into the wind from the start.
At the beginning of this case, I was mildly suspicious as to whether this was some kind of vengeance, or payback, kinda prosecution … it just had a strange odor to it from the start.
But after the trial began and the toothpaste came outta the tube … I believe strongly this was a personal attack on the Neilson guy. He crossed someone in the USA’s office, or someone with a direct line to the USA’s office, and the word went out to thump Hal Neilson. This case troubles me. But I’m sure it destroyed Mr. Neilson.
Ben, I understand that take on it, but I’ve gotta ask:
An FBI agent is involved in a partnership that ultimately cuts a dealt to rent space to the FBI, and he’s an (undisclosed) partner at a time he has input to the decision to chose the rental space.
Am I misunderstanding the basic facts? I’d like to hear your response.
NMC, you are exactly right. But McCoy put up a good defense. She confused the issues for the jury. She maligned the moronic assistant director from DC, and showed that some of Neilson’s former supervisors were idiots. She used current FBI agents to demean the OIG agent from Miami and they helped portray her as an “entrapping hussy”, to borrow that line from somewhere. Lastly, Neilson got on the stand, a native son with a thick accent, crocidile tears and shell shocked kids, being questioned by a coonass with a Jewish sounding last name and brought the case home to Momma. Its justice or some version of it I guess.
Very interesting result and from what I understand, the jury was not allowed to hear anything about the feud between the local FBI office and the U.S. Attorney’s office.
No, they weren’t Floyd, as I understand it.
do you think the gov wiil retry the other 3 counts? do you think the gov attys burned too many bridges to do so?
The prosecution lost me when I read in the DJ that Greenlee had people looking through the land records in various courthouses to dig up something on Neilson.
NMC wrote:
Ben, I understand that take on it, but I’ve gotta ask:
An FBI agent is involved in a partnership that ultimately cuts a dealt to rent space to the FBI, and he’s an (undisclosed) partner at a time he has input to the decision to chose the rental space.
Am I misunderstanding the basic facts? I’d like to hear your response.
NMC: yes you do misunderstand the basic facts.
Let’s break it down. Your first sentence states: “an FBI agent involved in a partnership that ultimately cuts a deal to rent space to the FBI.”
That sentence is incorrect. The un-contradicted proof was that Neilson was NOT in the partnership until Oct. 2005 (and the Gov did not even contend he was in the partnership until 2004). This was AFTER the deal was cut to rent space to the GSA, which occurred in 2001.
So (1) he was not “in a partnership” that cuts a deal to rent space to the FBI.”
Second, your assertion that the partnership rented space “to the FBI” is also wrong. The lease (which was done in 2001- when Nielson was NOT in the partnership) was made to lease space to the GSA- not the FBI.
Next, the uncontradicted proof from the Gov witnesses was that Neilson had NOTHING to do with the decision by the GSA to lease the building. Even if you could argue that he had “input” into the decision by GSA to lease the building, the uncontradicted proof was that Neilson had NO interest in the partnership at the time the building was leased to the GSA. So as a matter of law there is no conflict at the time the lease is made- even if Neilson had “input” into GSA’s decision to lease the building?
In fact, the Gov DID NOT charge Neilson with a conflict in connection with the lease of the building to GSA.
Tthe 2 conflice of interest counts in the indictment alleged Neilson “personally and substantially” participated in the lease by doing 2 things: (1) that Neilson asked the FBI if they wanted to rent a storage space in the building in 2004. BUT THE GOV DID NOT RENT THAT SPACE. Also, the proof showed that Neilson was not in the partnership until AFTER that inquiry- which was uncontradicted testimony by john Covington, the Gov’s witness.
The 2nd conflict of interest count was that Neilson signed off on a “punch list”. Again the proof was that Neilson did not have any real participation in the “punch list” and also that the “punch list” involved minor issues that maybe added up to a couple of thousand dollars- hardly “substantial” on a project worth 2.2 million.
Count 5 (the alleged lying to Susan Howell) was so bogus the jury acquitted in about 2 minutes. Count 5 alleged that Neilson denied participating in ANY meetings in 2001. The jury easily saw Howell had tried to trap and trick Neilson on this charge and more importantly the transcript of the interview clearly showed that Neilson ADMITTTED driving the GSA ladies around town, showing them property, offering his input into sites. Thus, the allegation in the indictment that he denied participating in ANY meetings was a joke.
I think the trouble so many people have understanding is that a federal employee- unlike a state elected official- is no prohibited from having an interest in a gov contract- it is only prohibited if the fed gov employee “personally and substantially” participated in the contract. In this case, by the Gov’s own admission, Neilson was not in the partnership when the partnership leased the building to the GSA. The two purported acts of participation (1) offering to lease a storage space- which was not ever rented by the FBI and (2) signing off on a miinor “punch” list, looked like the Gov was grasping at straws.
Benson, good explanation. A debacle from the beginning. No doubt, the fireworks in this matter will continue.
The FBI is far removed from what it was intended to do when founded. Deal with them at your peril. They are a professional pack of liars. Personally, I thought it amusing to read about Neilson squirming around on the witness stand fending of the tactics that he honed and used on hapless targets for years. If they all burst into flames, I wouldn’t urinate on them.
“If they all burst into flames, I wouldn’t urinate on them.”
And if your guts were on fire, they wouldn’t whiz down your throat, either.
Neilson was railroaded with an unprofessional, if not criminal, prosecution a la the Stevens case. You ought to worry that this same set of tactics would be used on you, but you don’t have to because the FBI (not the OIG) investigates folks like you.
The OIG shoots the wounded and eats the dead. And NO judge, nor executive, nor Congressman reins them in.
Clyde, you have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to the FBI. You ought to talk to other law enforcement and get their opinions of them.