A Former New York City Councilman Is Appealing His Federal Conviction

A former New York City Councilman is appealing his Federal conviction on several grounds including substantial improprieties in the government’s tactics during its investigation and the questionable applications of state and federal laws by the trial Court. The federal government manufactured both the crime and criminal jurisdiction where there was none, appellate briefs will contend, which are being prepared now on behalf of Daniel J. Halloran III, a 5th generation Queens native and former prosecutor himself. The 19th District of New York City‘s Councilman for the past 4 years, Halloran will argue that the Government invented a crime and then intentionally twisted state law to create criminal liability where none existed. Some legal experts see numerous problems with the government scheme, including its use of a cell phone with a North Carolina area code by one of their undercover Agents. As it turns out, this out of state phone number was the sole basis for the Federal government to acquire jurisdiction, and it seems to have been chosen for just for that purpose. What was clear from the trial record was that nothing is alleged to have happened outside of New York, begging the question; why was the FBI and Federal Government involved in such an investigation at all? The manufacturing of jurisdiction by the Federal government violates the “Archer Rule” created by U.S. v. Archer, according to 2nd Circuit Case law. In that case, the federal government attempted to gain jurisdiction in Queens County by having a local prosecutor, allegedly involved in wrongdoing in Queens, make a call New Jersey. Upon review, the Second Circuit ruled that in such cases, where the Federal government fabricates a plan to induce someone to act “interstate” in order to gain federal jurisdiction in a matter which takes place otherwise wholly within a state or locality, it would be barred from being able to prosecute. The parallels to Halloran’s case couldn’t be clearer despite the trial judge’s nearly 200 page decision trying to distinguish the cases and trivialize other legal arguments. After a grueling 8 week trial, in July 2014 a jury convicted Halloran of conspiracy to commit bribery, two counts of wire fraud and two counts of travel violations, a total of five counts. In March Judge Karas sentenced him to an extraordinary 120 months in prison with restitution of $45,300. That sentence was well beyond any other similar criminal sentences in any Federal Court related to political corruption. The sentence for Halloran, with no priors, in a non-violent crime, involving barely $45,000.00 in alleged money transactions over 9 months, stunned many in the legal community who expected a 60 month sentence at the outside. Federal legal practioners could not point to a single similarly harsh sentence, especially one for which there was no “completed crime”; and in fact only Assemblyman Brian McLoughlin, convicted of actually taking over $3.1 million in his many years in office, a 20+ count racketeering indictment, that included stealing from the local little league, received a comparable sentence of 10 years. NYS Assemblyman Anthony Seminario, convicted of taking over $400,000.00 received a mere 6 years, and NYS State Senator Kruger, who accepted and steered over $350,000 in bribes received only 7 years. The former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonald recently received a 2 year sentence for his part in a $200,000.00 scheme involving state funds, acting as a state executive. Finally, Bronx born New York City Council Member Larry Seabrook was convicted just last year and was sentenced to only 4 years, having diverted over $600,000 in New York City money to not-for profit organizations run by friends and family, in 9 counts of a 12 count indictment. Halloran is not accused of taking ANY City funds or causing any to be dispersed unlawfully. The money provided to Halloran came from a “wealthy developer”, actually an undercover Federal Agent, and a local real estate speculator turned government snitch, who was facing his own litany of criminal charges. No city funds were dispersed and no political favors were ever actually traded in Halloran’s case, unlike the many other cases involving public officials garnering far smaller sentences. Halloran, who is currently under House Arrest, has a 10 p.m. curfew, and is scheduled to self-surrender on June 17 unless a federal appeals court grants his application for bail pending the appeal ruling. Another key issue in his appeal is that the judge gave the jury instructions that would have been impermissible in state court. His instruction was that even if the alleged scheme could not happen, impossibility is not a defense in federal court, almost conceding the scheme alleged by the Government was impossible. However, Halloran’s defense team, and some legal experts contend that the state law bribery charges should have carried with them state law jury charges. Another significant issue raised both in pretrial motions and now in the appeal is that the federal government and Court has grossly misinterpreted and misapplied the Wilson Pakula Act of 1947, calling an otherwise legal transaction a ‘quid pro quo’ so that prosecutors could obtain a conviction under federal Honest Services Law. As many attorneys noted, the Federal Honest Services statute has been under intense judicial scrutiny for being overbroad. In fact the US Supreme Court has already once ruled the statute Un-Constitutional and Justice Scalia called it a “dangerous slippery slope” that could criminalize legal behavior. As Justice Scalia put it in his Skilling dissent, “even with the bribery and kickback limitation the statute does not answer the question ‘What is the criterion of guilt?’ The Halloran defense team echoed those sentiments. Halloran claimed to be brokering a legitimate political “horse trade” in which Queens State Senator Malcolm Smith, a conservative Democrat would be eligible to participate in the Republican primary for the 2013 NYC Mayoral race. The interest of the NYC Republican leaders in just such a cross endorsement, opening up the Republican Party Primary to several candidates including Senator Smith and former Bronx Borough President, and fellow Democrat Aldolfo Carrion, in addition to the 4 declared Republicans (Joe Lhota, who eventually won the designation, John Catsimitidis, Tom Allen, and George McDonald) was widely reported by numerous news outlets from April to August of 2012. This was long before the FBI and DOJ leadership targeted Smith and Halloran for prosecution. Under New York law, a Wilson Pakula is an authorization given by a political party to a candidate for public office which allows a candidate not registered with that party to petition voters for ballot access in their primary. New York as a “fusion” state permits a candidate to have the support of, and run on, more than one party line on a given ballot. In his appeal, Halloran’s lawyers note there are substantial questions of whether the federal Travel Act can even be applied to money transactions that were intended to secure a Wilson-Pakula certificate. The Travel Act forbids the use of the U.S. mail, or interstate or foreign travel, for the purpose of engaging in specified crimes. In fact, in an Amicus Curiae brief, the Queens County Republican Party said the federal government unlawfully tied the Wilson-Pakula authorization process to the Travel Act. They specifically pointed out that a “Wilson-Pakula authorizations is not a designation, nomination or appointment, and [therefore] it is not within the reach of the state penal bribery laws.” When a multimillion dollar swindler-turned government informant, Moses “Mark” Stern, infiltrated Halloran’s campaign for U.S. Congress in August 2012, Court testimony by FBI Agents confirmed that Halloran was neither under federal investigation nor a suspect in any crime at that time. Essentially, the government conceded during trial that Halloran was not under suspicion of any wrong doing whatsoever when they sent informant Stern to meet with him in 2012. Somehow there were no tapes of those initial meetings. Some legal experts question how they were able to go forward with any investigation under those circumstances, as it smacked of entrapment at a minimum. Halloran lost his 2012 congressional bid to Rep. Grace Meng, whose own father and campaign manager Jimmy Meng was arrested during the campaign and sentenced in March 2013 to a one-month jail term on an $80,000.00 felony bribery conviction. “There was more of a reason to investigate Meng’s campaign for congress than Halloran’s" one political insider noted. Independent Democrat, Queens State Senator, Malcolm A. Smith, was drawn into negotiations with Stern to petition the Republican Party primary ballot for the 2013 New York City Mayor’s race, meeting with GOP State Chairman Ed Cox, who was not accused of any wrongdoing. They approached, as an additional intermediary, Halloran, who is also a former law enforcement officer, because of his connections in New York City Republican circles as one of the few elected Republicans in the City. Because Smith received neither a promise of appointment to a public office, nor a designation, nor a nomination, there was no ‘quid pro quo’, Appellate briefs contend. “If the Wilson-Pakula Travel Act counts were to fail, the discretionary-fund counts would also be subject to reversal due to the extensive spill-over of evidence from Travel Act charges.” said two prominent lawyers. Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Rockland County Times Dylan Skriloff said the government’s key witness is a huge red flag. “Stern who lives in Rockland County is a convicted felon who admitted to illegally bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates.” One such beneficiary of Stern was NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who was also not accused of any wrong doing by the FBI.

Load more