Source:
TPM MuckrakerBy Paul Kiel - February 5, 2008, 11:58AM
When it rains, it pours.
Brent Wilkes was
convicted in November on all counts for bribing Duke Cunningham. And a probation officer has
advised the court that he should get 60 years in prison for it.
But he's still got another trial to go -- one for bribing his longtime buddy Dusty Foggo when he was executive director of the CIA. For that trial, he's represented by a couple of public defenders, because his very expensive celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos
refused to undergo the necessary security clearance and so was tossed off the case. Wilkes, once flush with government contracts, pleaded poverty and so the court assigned him public defenders.
But prosecutors
say it was all an act by a man who's already been convicted once of thieving from taxpayers:
Wilkes got the taxpayer-funded lawyers appointed in August.... He submitted a financial affidavit under seal to Burns to show he could not afford his own lawyers.
(Judge Larry) Burns made the appointment provisional, meaning it could be withdrawn if prosecutors came up with information showing Wilkes could fund his own defense.
...
Read more:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/prosecutors_wilkes_faked_pover.php
Hmm... I originally wondered why he was pleading for a public defender, and then wound up with Geragos, AFTER Geragos earlier complained about getting a security clearance. Interesting. Now it sounds like this is the trial where there perhaps is "interesting" stuff that reflects badly on the "State Secrets" gang in Washington! The other was more of the "public show" to take the visibility away from this coming case I think.
As noted in another thread I started yesterday, John Michael, Thomas Kontogiannis's nephew who was also charged along with Wilkes and Dusty Foggo when Carol Lam left office plead guilty to money laundering yesterday. There still is a mound of excrement that still needs to be cleared away here I think!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3169442&mesg_id=3169442