McHenry County Blog

Four years after his 2008 interview, a physician was indicted for income tax evasion and mail fraud according to the following press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The Chicago Tribune explains his connection to our crooked former Governor Rod Blagojevich:

“Raghuveer Nayak, a former fundraiser for U.S. Jesse Jackson Jr.and Rod Blagojevich and a key figure in the U.S. Senate seat scandal, was arrested at his Oak Brook home this morning and charged with bribing doctors to send patients to his surgery centers.”

RAGHUVEER NAYAK, OWNER OF AREA SURGERY CENTERS, CHARGED WITH FRAUD AND TAX OFFENSES FOR ALLEGEDLY PAYING PHYSICIANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN BRIBES FOR PATIENT REFERRALS

CHICAGO — The owner of multiple area outpatient surgery centers was arrested today on federal fraud and tax charges alleging that he paid bribes and kickbacks to physicians for patient referrals and filed false federal income tax returns that understated his income.

The defendant, Raghuveer Nayak, was charged in a 19-count indictment that was returned by a federal grand jury last week and unsealed today following his arrest, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Thomas Jankowski, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division.

Nayak, 57, of Oak Brook, is scheduled to appear at 11:00 a.m. today before Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez in U.S. District Court.

He was charged with 10 counts of mail fraud, five counts of interstate travel in aid of racketeering, and four counts of filing false income tax returns for the years 2005-08.

The indictment seeks forfeiture of at least $1.8 million in alleged fraud proceeds, or substitute assets, including

• Nayak’s Oak Brook residence
• the Rogers Park One Day Surgery Center, Inc., located at 7616 North Paulina St.
• the Lakeshore Surgery Center LLC, located at 7200 North Western Ave.

In addition to those two facilities, Nayak owned and/or controlled the following health care-related businesses in Illinois and Indiana:

• Lakeside Surgery Center LLC
• Merillville Plaza Surgery Center LLC
• Lincoln Park Open MRI
• Delaware Place MRI LLC
• Paulina Anesthesia, Inc.
• Illiana Anesthesia
• Western Touhy Anesthesia, Inc.
• Division Medical Diagnostics, Inc.,

according to the indictment.

Nayak’s facilities did not accept patients covered public health insurance programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and instead accepted patients insured by private health insurers, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, or patients who agreed to pay the entire fee themselves. Private insurers treated Nayak’s facilities as “out-of-network” when paying bills submitted for patient services.

Between 2000 and December 2010, Nayak allegedly defrauded patients by paying and arranging to pay bribes and kickbacks in the form of cash and other hidden payments to physicians who would refer their patients to Nayak’s facilities for medical treatment.

Nayak paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to different physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the charges allege, adding that the physicians deceived their patients by not disclosing that they were being paid for making referrals to Nayak’s facilities.

At times, the indictment alleges that Nayak paid bribes and kickbacks to physicians to begin referring patients, while at other times he did so to ensure that they continued to refer patients to his facilities.

He allegedly offered to pay physicians a set amount of money for each patient referral.

Nayak allegedly concealed and attempted to conceal the scheme by making payments in cash, disguising the payments as advertising, or by disguising the true purpose of the payments through fraudulent agreements and contracts, including contracts purporting to pay physicians for performing services that Nayak knew they had not provided.

Between 2002 and December 2008, Nayak allegedly obtained cash to pay bribes and kickbacks by giving Individual A more than $2 million in checks drawn on his facilities’ accounts and, in exchange, at Nayak’s direction, Individual A gave Nayak cash equaling approximately 70 percent of the value of the checks.

Nayak allegedly indicated to his tax preparer that the checks to Individual A were for advertising and should be treated as a business expense on tax returns for Nayak and his facilities.

After he was interviewed by law enforcement agents in December 2008, Nayak allegedly took additional steps to hide the scheme by executing fraudulent contracts and by warning physicians not to speak with agents about the payments.

The tax counts allege that Nayak caused the preparation of false individual federal income tax returns that understated his true income because he claimed that the checks to Individual A should be treated as advertising expenses when he knew they were not.

As a result, Nayak allegedly understated his gross income when he reported the following amounts:

• $4,643,916 for 2005
• $6,471,865 for 2006
• $5,791,109 for 2007
• $9,362,647 for 2008

Each count of mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000, or an alternate fine totaling twice the loss or twice the gain, whichever is greater, as well as mandatory restitution. Interstate travel in aid of racketeering carries a maximum prison term of five years and a $250,000 fine on each count, and each count of filing a false income tax return carries a three-year maximum prison term and a $250,000 fine. In addition, defendants convicted of tax offenses must pay the costs of prosecution and remain liable for any and all back taxes, as well as a potential civil fraud penalty of 75 percent of the underpayment plus interest. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carrie Hamilton and Andrianna Kastanek.

The public is reminded that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

John Harris, former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s chief of staff, has plead guilty to “participating in a scheme to commit wire fraud, including through the deprivation of honest services.”

Harris admits that

“from approximately October 2008 to on or about December 9, 2008…together with co-defendant Rod Blagojevich and others, participated in a scheme to deprive the people of the State of Illinois of their intangible right to the honest services of Defendant and Rod Blagojevich.”

“It was part of the scheme,” the plea agreement continues, “that beginning in or about October 2008, and continuing until on or about December 9, 2008, Rod Blagojevich, with the assistance of Defendant and others, sought to obtain financial benefits for Blagojevich and his wife, in return for the exercise of his duty under Illinois law to appoint a United States Senator to fill the vacancy created by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

“At times Defendant assisted Blagojevich’s efforts to carry out the scheme by suggesting means by which Blagojevich could secure personal benefits for himself in exchange for appointing a United States Senator, conducting factual research relating to the scheme at Blagojevich’s direction, and counseling Blagojevich on carrying out the scheme.

“At other times, Defendant expressed opposition to Blagojevich’s efforts to enrich himself through his appointment of a United States Senator, and/or did not follow instructions from Blagojevich to assist in those efforts.

“Specifically, starting in December 2005 and continuing until December 2008, Defendant served as then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff.

“Over the course of many months in 2008, Defendant participated in and was aware of discussions involving Blagojevich and others about the possibility that Blagojevich might have the ability to appoint someone to replace then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama if he won the general election for the President of the United States.

“By early October 2008, Defendant participated in regular conversations with Blagojevich about what personal benefits Blagojevich could obtain in exchange for naming someone to the U.S. Senate seat should Obama win the Presidency.

“As one example, around October 6, Blagojevich asked Defendant what Blagojevich could get in exchange for the U.S. Senate seat.

“Defendant told Blagojevich that the appointment could either reward an ally or make a new ally but that Blagojevich could not trade the Senate seat for something for himself.

“In other discussions with Blagojevich, Defendant and others told Blagojevich that he could not receive money (either campaign money or other money) in exchange for naming someone to the Senate seat. Blagojevich ignored Defendant’s statements.

“Shortly before and immediately after the November 4, 2008 election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, Blagojevich’s discussions with Defendant about Blagojevich’s appointment of a replacement Senator became more frequent and more detailed.

“Defendant participated in numerous discussions with Blagojevich and others about this issue.

“Defendant was aware that Blagojevich was also talking to a small group of internal and external advisors about this issue.

“Throughout the course of these discussions, Blagojevich made it clear to Defendant that Blagojevich was not focused on what was in the best interest of the people of the state of Illinois but instead was focused in large part on what Blagojevich could get personally in exchange for the Senate appointment.

“Around the time of the November 4 election, Defendant learned that Senate Candidate B was interested in the Senate seat. Blagojevich discussed with Defendant that he wanted to use Senate Candidate B’s interest in the Senate seat as a way to get something for himself from President-elect Obama.

“Initially, Blagojevich wanted to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services.

“On or about November 6, 2008, Blagojevich met with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Official A, who had been presented to Blagojevich and Defendant as an emissary working on behalf of President-elect Obama with respect to filling the Senate seat. Prior to the meeting, Defendant helped Blagojevich strategize regarding how to ask SEIU Official A for the HHS position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“After the meeting, Blagojevich told Defendant and others that during the meeting, he asked SEIU Official A for the HHS position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“During discussions with Defendant, Blagojevich expressed interest in an ambassadorship from President-elect Obama in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“On or about November 5, 2008, Blagojevich directed Defendant and Deputy Governor A to research ambassadorship options for him. Blagojevich also directed Defendant and Deputy Governor A to research private foundations where he might be able to get a high-paying position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“Defendant told Blagojevich that the private foundation option would give President-elect Obama a buffer, meaning that it would not be obvious that Blagojevich was getting a position in exchange for making Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“Defendant suggested that the foundation would need to be a group that was dependent on federal funding, so that President-elect Obama would have enough influence to get Blagojevich a position. Blagojevich was very interested in this idea and told Defendant to look into options right away.

“Deputy Governor A asked whether Blagojevich was thinking about a position with a private foundation for 2010 (when his term as Governor ended) or now.

“Blagojevich said that he wanted the position now and wanted to know how much the position paid. Deputy Governor A responded that the salary was likely $200,000 to $300,000.

“Blagojevich seemed disappointed in that salary and asked something like, ‘Oh is that all?’

“At that point, Defendant said that he thought the salary was more like $300,000 to $500,000.

“Blagojevich had a more positive reaction to that salary.

“Blagojevich suggested that SEIU and other labor unions provided funds to some private foundations and suggested those foundations be the ones Defendant and Deputy Governor A research. Defendant understood that Blagojevich’s personal financial circumstances and security were a significant consideration for Blagojevich in his analysis of whom he should name to the Senate seat.

“Blagojevich told Defendant that if he could not get a position directly through President-elect Obama in exchange for picking a desired candidate, then Blagojevich would seek a position through supporters of President-elect Obama in exchange for naming someone to the Senate seat. Blagojevich asked Defendant to develop a union-based option for him.

“The next day Defendant responded to his assignment by presenting Blagojevich with an idea by which Blagojevich could become the national coordinator for an organization named ‘Change to Win.’

“Change to Win is an organization associated with a number of labor unions, including SEIU. Defendant suggested to Blagojevich that SEIU Officials A and B, whom Defendant and Blagojevich believed were already acting as emissaries between Blagojevich and President-elect Obama for purposes of picking a desired Senate candidate, could get Blagojevich the Change to Win position in exchange for Blagojevich agreeing to make Senate Candidate B the Senator.

“Defendant explained to Blagojevich that the benefit to SEIU would be that SEIU would have helped President-elect Obama by getting Blagojevich to appoint Senate Candidate B to the Senate and in exchange, President-elect Obama would look favorably on SEIU’s agenda in President-elect Obama’s administration.

“The benefit to Blagojevich would be a paid position as National Coordinator with Change to Win. Defendant further explained that the benefits to President-elect Obama would be that Blagojevich would appoint Senate Candidate B to the U.S. Senate seat, and SEIU Officials A and B would act as a buffer between President-elect Obama and Blagojevich.

“Defendant explained to Blagojevich that the Change to Win position would keep him politically viable, pay him a salary, and provide him with union support and connections for whatever he wanted to do down-the-road. Blagojevich said that he thought it was a great idea, but was concerned that he would have to make the Senate appointment first, which meant that SEIU could withhold the Change to Win position later.

“Defendant explained to Blagojevich that part of the advantage to the Change to Win idea was that this was something that SEIU Officials A and B could promise to Blagojevich now and Blagojevich could believe that they would follow through on later, while part of the disadvantage to the Change to Win idea was that it was not politically acceptable for Blagojevich to step down as Governor to take that position.

“In response, Blagojevich suggested the possibility of having his wife take a position now and then Blagojevich could take the national position later.

“Defendant told him that this was not a good idea. Blagojevich asked Defendant what the Change to Win position paid and asked whether he could get extra income if he sat on other boards. Defendant speculated that the position would pay no more than SEIU Official A’s salary.

“On November 7, 2008, Defendant participated in a conference call with Blagojevich and Advisor A, in which Blagojevich solicited Advisor A’s thoughts on the Change to Win idea.

“Defendant knew that Advisor A was an outside consultant whom Blagojevich trusted and upon whom Blagojevich relied for political advice. During the call, Blagojevich told Advisor A what had happened at the November 6 meeting with SEIU Official A.

“Blagojevich then directed Defendant to tell Advisor A about the Change to Win idea. Defendant explained the idea and Advisor A responded in a very positive way.

“Advisor A analogized the Change to Win deal to a three-way trade in baseball because it allowed President-elect Obama to stay out of Illinois politics because he would have a buffer and there would be no obvious quid pro quo for Senate Candidate B. Blagojevich told Advisor A that he was looking for $250,000-$300,000 in salary and also to sit on some boards.

“During the call, Defendant understood that Blagojevich was focused on obtaining money and maintaining his political viability in his analysis of whom to name to the Senate seat.

“After this call, defendant and Blagojevich learned that SEIU Official A’s salary was approximately $125,000 to $150,000 annually. Upon learning this, Blagojevich was disappointed and wanted to know if he could be paid more than SEIU Official A.

“On or about November 12, 2008, the media reported that Senate Candidate B was going to work at the White House. Defendant participated in a number of conversations with Blagojevich about this development.

“Defendant believed that Senate Candidate B’s decision to go to the White House caused Blagojevich to become anxious about losing leverage for what he might be able to ask of President-elect Obama with respect to a position for himself.

“At this point, Blagojevich began to express greater interest in the possibility that supporters of President-elect Obama would establish and fund a 501(c)(4) organization for the benefit of Blagojevich in exchange for a Senate seat appointment.

“Blagojevich asked Defendant to reach out to United States Congressman A about this possibility.

“Defendant believed that this was a direct quid pro quo and Defendant did not make any calls to further Blagojevich’s request.

“Defendant concealed from Blagojevich that he did not follow Blagojevich’s directive to contact United States Congressman A about the 501(c)(4).

“Blagojevich later told Defendant that he had approached SEIU Official A about the 501(c)(4) idea and Blagojevich said that SEIU Official A was going to ‘run it up the flag pole,’ which Defendant took to mean that he was going to check with representatives of President-elect Obama.

“At this time, Blagojevich also pressed Defendant to have an ‘off campus’ discussion with Senate Candidate D. Defendant knew that this was a reference to Blagojevich’s prior directive to Defendant to ask Senate Candidate D for Senate Candidate D’s remaining campaign funds in exchange for appointing Senate Candidate D to the U.S. Senate Seat.

“Sometime in the summer of 2008, Blagojevich told Defendant that if he appointed Senate Candidate D to the vacant Senate seat, he would want and expect Senate Candidate D to give Blagojevich some or all of Senate Candidate D’s campaign funds.

“Blagojevich raised this topic, which was often referred to as ‘he off-campus discussion’ with Senate Candidate D, in several phone calls with Defendant.

“Defendant believed that Blagojevich was again raising this issue because Blagojevich believed that a deal with representatives of President-elect Obama involving Senate Candidate B was no longer a possibility.

“In response to Blagojevich’s directives to him, on November 12, 2008, Defendant met with Senate Candidate D in his Springfield office.

“During the meeting, Defendant had a discussion with Senate Candidate D about his plans for his campaign funds that could not be converted to personal use.

“Defendant did not directly tell Senate Candidate D that Blagojevich was going to ask Senate Candidate D for his campaign funds.

“Based on what Defendant did say, however, Defendant believed that Senate Candidate D was on notice that, in relation to the Senate seat, Blagojevich was going to talk with Senate Candidate D about Senate Candidate D’s campaign funds.

“On or about December 4, 2008, Blagojevich told Defendant that Senate Candidate A, through a third-party, had offered to raise $1.5 million in campaign funds for Blagojevich in exchange for the U.S. Senate appointment.

“Defendant told Blagojevich that the offer to raise funds should not be a factor in his decision, although it was clear to Defendant that a large part of Blagojevich’s consideration for appointing Senate Candidate A to the Senate was the offer of campaign funds.

“Defendant had previously advanced an argument in favor of Senate Candidate A, listing all of the favorable points of a Senate Candidate A appointment, in response to which Blagojevich had dismissed all of the points Defendant made and had refused to even entertain the idea of appointing Senate Candidate A.

“Although Blagojevich was previously not willing to consider Senate Candidate A, Defendant believed that Blagojevich was now seriously considering Senate Candidate A because of the offer of campaign funds.

“In addition, Defendant was aware that, from time to time, in the course of considering options to fill the open Senate seat, Blagojevich considered appointing certain other individuals or appointing himself to the open Senate seat, often with personal benefits to himself as part of Blagojevich’s consideration.

“For instance, with respect to appointing himself, Blagojevich expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including to possibly avoid impeachment by the Illinois legislature, to obtain greater resources if he was indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor, and to facilitate his wife’s employment as a lobbyist.

“In or about the spring of 2008, around the time that Blagojevich’s wife passed her Series 7 examination, which allowed her to sell financial securities, Blagojevich told Defendant that Blagojevich wanted to get Blagojevich’s wife a job using her Series 7 license with an entity that did business with the State of Illinois. Defendant told Blagojevich that his wife could not work for an entity that did business with the State of Illinois.

“Despite this, Blagojevich asked Defendant to set up informational or networking meetings for his wife with financial institutions that had business with the State of Illinois in hopes that those businesses would assist in getting Blagojevich’s wife a job.

“Defendant subsequently arranged a meeting between Blagojevich’s wife and an official at a financial institution that had business with the State of Illinois.

“Defendant also spoke with an official at another financial institution that had business with the State of Illinois concerning that official helping Blagojevich’s wife develop possible employment opportunities.

“When Blagojevich concluded that officials at these institutions had been unhelpful in finding his wife a job, Blagojevich told Defendant that he did not want the institutions to receive further business from the State of Illinois.

“With respect to one of the institutions, Defendant told Blagojevich that, because the entity had business through the state pension funds, Blagojevich did not control those decisions.

“With respect to the other financial institution, despite Blagojevich’s directive, Defendant did not prevent that institution from getting further business with the State and avoided telling Blagojevich when the institution was applying for State business so as to prevent Blagojevich from following through on his directive.

“Further, in November and December 2008, in response to Chicago Tribune editorials that had been critical of Blagojevich, Blagojevich directed Defendant to tell Tribune Financial Advisor that Blagojevich was going to withhold state financial support that would benefit the Tribune Company, unless the Tribune Owner fired people on the editorial board.

“In order to appease Blagojevich, Defendant told Blagojevich that he would and did relay this threat to Tribune Financial Advisor. Although Defendant did have a conversation with Tribune Financial Advisor about the negative editorials regarding Blagojevich, Defendant did not relay the threats as directed by Blagojevich.

“On or about November 7, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, Defendant and Blagojevich, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between Blagojevich and Defendant, in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor A, in Washington, D.C., in which Blagojevich, Defendant, and Advisor A discussed financial benefits which Blagojevich could request in exchange for the appointment of Senate Candidate B to the United States Senate; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.”

Maximum penalties are 20 years and a $250,000 fine.

The plea bargain, however, states,

“Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.”

Harris also “agrees he will fully and truthfully cooperate in any matter in which he is called upon to cooperate by a representative of the United States Attorney’s Office…”

In return for his cooperation, “the government will recommend a sentence of imprisonment that is 50% of the low end of Federal Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to defendant’s offense…”

Carrie Hamilton was Patrick Fitzgerald’s Assistant U.S. Attorney on the case.

Here’s what folks have been waiting for all day. The “Year of a Million Dreams” is over for the governor and his family.

Former Governor Rod Blagojevich and his family have reported checked out of their hotel at Disney World.

Just as Blagojevich Elvis has left the building, so now the Governor’s family has left Fantasyland.

Here is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s press release:

FORMER ILLINOIS GOV. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, HIS BROTHER, TWO FORMER TOP AIDES AND TWO BUSINESSMEN INDICTED ON FEDERAL CORRUPTION CHARGES ALLEGING PERVASIVE FRAUD

CHICAGO – Since 2002, even before he was first elected governor that November, and continuing until he was arrested on Dec. 9, 2008, former Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and a circle of his closest aides and advisors allegedly engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to deprive the people of Illinois of honest government, according to a 19-count indictment returned today by a federal grand jury.

Blagojevich, 52, of Chicago, was charged with 16 felony counts, including racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion and making false statements to federal agents. He allegedly used his office in numerous matters involving state appointments, business, legislation and pension fund investments to seek or obtain such financial benefits as money, campaign contributions, and employment for himself and others, in exchange for official actions, including trying to leverage his authority to appoint a United States Senator, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

Also charged as co-defendants in the same indictment are:

John Harris, 47, of Chicago, Blagojevich’s chief of staff from late 2005 until last December after he was arrested along with Blagojevich. Through his attorney, Harris, who is charged with a single count of wire fraud, has authorized the Government to disclose that he has agreed to cooperate with the United States Attorney’s Office in the prosecution of this case;

Alonzo Monk, 50, of Park Ridge, a lobbyist doing business as AM3 Consulting, Ltd., and a long-time Blagojevich associate who served as his general counsel when Blagojevich represented Illinois’ Fifth Congressional District, and later managed his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns, was his first gubernatorial chief of staff from 2003 through 2005, and later chairman of his campaign fund;

Robert Blagojevich, 53, of Nashville, Tenn., Blagojevich’s brother, who became chairman of his campaign fund in August 2008;

Christopher Kelly, 50, of Burr Ridge, a businessman and a principal campaign fundraiser who also served as chairman of Blagojevich’s campaign fund from early 2004 until August 2005. The indictment alleges that with Blagojevich’s knowledge and permission, Kelly at times exercised substantial influence over certain activities of the governor’s office; and

William F. Cellini, Sr., 74, of Springfield, a businessman who also raised significant funds for Blagojevich, in part through his role as the executive director of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association. Cellini had longstanding relationships and influence with trustees and staff members of the Teachers Retirement System of Illinois (TRS), and he was associated with Commonwealth Realty Advisors, a real estate asset management firm that invested hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of TRS, the indictment alleges.

All six defendants will be arraigned on dates yet to be determined before U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel in Federal Court in Chicago. Blagojevich was charged with 11 counts of wire fraud, two counts of attempted extortion, and one count each of racketeering conspiracy, extortion conspiracy, and making false statements. The specific counts and maximum penalties each defendant is facing are listed separately.

The charges are part of Operation Board Games, a continuing public corruption investigation of pay-to-play schemes, including insider-dealing, influence-peddling and kickbacks involving private interests and public duties. The investigation began in 2003 and has resulted in charges against a total of 17 defendants. Today’s charges were brought in a superseding indictment that replaces one brought Oct. 30, 2008, against Cellini alone for allegedly conspiring with others to obtain campaign funds for Blagojevich by shaking down an investment firm that was seeking a $220 million allocation from TRS.

Mr. Fitzgerald announced the indictment with Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Alvin Patton, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division in Chicago; Thomas P. Brady, Inspector-in-Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Chicago; and James Vanderberg, Regional Inspector-in-Charge of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General.

The indictment adds several new allegations to those that were lodged in the criminal complaint filed in December when Blagojevich and Harris were arrested. It includes the previous factual allegations that Blagojevich conspired to sell or trade Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat formerly held by President Obama; threatened to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical of Blagojevich; and schemed to obtain campaign contributions in exchange for official actions – both historically and in a push late last year before a new state ethics law took effect.

Among the new factual allegations are that:

• beginning in 2002 and continuing after Blagojevich was first elected governor, Blagojevich and Monk, along with Kelly and previously convicted co-schemer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, agreed that they would use the offices of governor and chief of staff for financial gain, which would be divided among them with the understanding that the money would be distributed after Blagojevich left public office;

• in 2003, Blagojevich, Monk, Kelly, Rezko and other co-schemers implemented this agreement by directing lucrative state business relating to the refinancing of billions of dollars in State of Illinois Pension Obligation Bonds to a company whose lobbyist agreed to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rezko out of the fee the lobbyist would collect, and Rezko in turn agreed to split the money with Blagojevich, Monk and Kelly;

• After it became public that Kelly and Rezko were under investigation and ceased playing a significant role in raising campaign funds, Blagojevich personally continued to trade his actions as governor for personal benefits, including, for example, delaying a state grant to a publicly-supported school while trying to leverage a U.S. Congressman, who supported the school, or the Congressman’s brother, to hold a campaign fundraiser for Blagojevich; and

• in an interview on March 16, 2005, Blagojevich lied to FBI agents when he said that he maintains a separation, or firewall, between politics and state business; and he does not track, or want to know, who contributes to him or how much they are contributing to him.

While expanding the allegations, the 75-page indictment is cast somewhat more broadly than the 76-page complaint affidavit, which contained excerpts from court-authorized wiretaps of intercepted conversations that Blagojevich had with others in both his personal office and a conference room in the Chicago offices of his campaign fund, Friends of Blagojevich, located at 4147 North Ravenswood, Suite 300, as well as over his home telephone.

Friends of Blagojevich is not a defendant, but, pursuant to the racketeering count, the indictment seeks forfeiture from Blagojevich of all funds and assets held at four banks in the name of, or on behalf of, Friends of Blagojevich. Although Kelly, Monk and Robert Blagojevich at various times held the post of chairman of Friends of Blagojevich, the indictment states that fund’s activities and financial affairs at all times were controlled by Blagojevich personally and the fund operated for his benefit. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of $188,370 from Blagojevich as proceeds of the alleged fraud scheme and racketeering activity, and lists Blagojevich’s apartment in Washington, D.C., and his Ravenswood Manor home in Chicago as substitute assets.

Separate counts of racketeering conspiracy and wire fraud contain similar, overlapping factual allegations. The RICO conspiracy count alleges that Blagojevich personally, the Office of the Governor of Illinois and Friends of Blagojevich were associated and, together, constituted the “Blagojevich Enterprise,” whose primary purpose was to exercise and preserve power over Illinois government for the financial and political benefit of Blagojevich, both directly and through Friends of Blagojevich, and for the financial benefit of his family members and associates. Blagojevich and Kelly, the only RICO conspiracy defendants, allegedly conspired with Monk, Cellini, Harris, Robert Blagojevich, Rezko and previously convicted cooperating defendant Stuart Levine, to conduct the Blagojevich Enterprise through a pattern of multiple acts of mail and wire fraud, extortion, attempted extortion and extortion conspiracy, and state bribery.

As part of the racketeering conspiracy, Blagojevich allegedly permitted Kelly and Rezko to exercise substantial influence over certain gubernatorial activities, as well as state boards and commissions, knowing that they would use this influence to enrich themselves and their associates. In return, Kelly and Rezko allegedly benefited Blagojevich by generating millions of dollars in campaign contributions and providing financial benefits directly to Blagojevich and his family.

The principle fraud scheme count, which names Blagojevich, Monk, Harris and Robert Blagojevich as co-schemers, together with Kelly, Cellini, Rezko, Levine and others, alleges that they deprived the people of Illinois and the beneficiaries of TRS of the honest services of Blagojevich, Harris, Monk and Levine, who was a member of the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board and the TRS board of trustees.

The alleged fraud scheme provides the most detailed recitation of the various factual allegations in the indictment. It alleges that Blagojevich, Monk, Kelly and Rezko agreed to use Blagojevich’s and Monk’s offices to divide financial gain among themselves, including the kickback from the Pension Obligation Bond refinancing. In addition, the indictment sets forth the following allegations as part of the fraud scheme:

Maintaining Control over TRS

In the spring of 2003, Kelly Rezko, Cellini, and Levine agreed that Kelly and Rezko would use their influence with the Blagojevich administration to assist Cellini and Levine in maintaining influence over the activities of TRS, and in return, Cellini and Levine would use their influence to cause TRS to invest in funds, and to use law firms, selected by Kelly and Rezko, at times in exchange for substantial contributions to Friends of Blagojevich.

The Solicitation of Ali Ata

In late 2002, Ali Ata, a businessman who previously pleaded guilty and is cooperating, and who was solicited by Rezko to make political contributions to Blagojevich, brought a $25,000 check to Rezko’s offices, where Ata met with Blagojevich. Blagojevich asked Rezko if Rezko had talked to Ata about positions in the administration, and Rezko said that he had. In July 2003, after discussions with Rezko about possible state appointments, Ata gave Rezko another $25,000 check payable to Blagojevich’s campaign. Ata then had a conversation with Blagojevich at a fundraising event in which Blagojevich indicated that he was aware Ata recently had made another substantial contribution to his campaign, and told Ata that he understood Ata would be joining his administration. Ata replied that he was considering taking a position, and Blagojevich said that it had better be a job where Ata could make some money. Blagojevich ultimately appointed Ata as the executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority.

The Solicitation of Joseph Cari

On Oct. 29, 2003, Joseph Cari, then a Chicago lawyer and a national Democratic fundraiser who has also pleaded guilty and is cooperating, was traveling on a plane with Blagojevich, Kelly and Levine to a Blagojevich fundraiser that Cari hosted in New York. Cari and Blagojevich spoke about Cari’s fundraising background and Blagojevich’s interest in running for President. Blagojevich said it was easier for governors to solicit campaign contributions because of their ability to award contracts and give legal work, consulting work, and investment banking work to campaign contributors, and that Kelly and Rezko were his point people in raising campaign contributions. Blagojevich said that Rezko and Kelly would follow up with Cari about this discussion.

Sometime after October 2003, Rezko told Cari that Rezko had a close relationship with the Blagojevich administration and a role in picking consultants, law firms and other entities to get state business, and that Monk helped implement Rezko’s choices for state work. Rezko said that the Blagojevich administration would be helpful to Cari’s business interests in exchange for raising money for Blagojevich.

On March 5, 2004, Cari met with Kelly, who said he was following up on Cari’s conversations with Blagojevich, Rezko and Levine. Kelly asked for Cari’s help in raising money on a national level for Blagojevich. When Cari said he was not inclined to help, Kelly pushed Cari to assist and said that helping Blagojevich would be good for Cari’s business interests and that Cari could have whatever Cari wanted if he agreed to help.

Campaign Contributions Solicited for TRS Investments

In March 2004, Lobbyist A met with Kelly to ask how two of Lobbyist A’s clients could become eligible to manage investments for TRS. Kelly told Lobbyist A that TRS was Rezko’s area, and later told Lobbyist A that he had spoken with Rezko, and that it would require a $50,000 campaign contribution to Blagojevich for a firm to get on TRS’s list of recommended fund managers.

The Attempted Extortion of Capri Capital

In April 2004, Levine, Rezko and Kelly agreed that unless Capri Capital or one of its principals, Thomas Rosenberg, arranged to raise or make significant political contributions for Blagojevich, Capri Capital would not receive a proposed $220 million investment from TRS. They further agreed that Cellini would deliver that message to Rosenberg.

In early May 2004, Levine advised Cellini of the plan, which Cellini assisted by indicating to Rosenberg that Capri Capital had not yet received its $220 million allocation from TRS because of its failure to make political donations to Blagojevich. After Rosenberg told Cellini that Rosenberg would not be extorted and he threatened to expose the attempt by informing law enforcement, Cellini ensured that Kelly, Rezko and Levine learned about Rosenberg’s threat.

On May 11, 2004, Cellini, Levine, Rezko and Kelly agreed that in light of Rosenberg’s threat to expose the extortion attempt, it was too risky to continue demanding money from him or to block the $220 million allocation to Capri Capital. They agreed that although Capri Capital would receive the $220 million allocation, it would not receive any further business from any state entity, including TRS. After the discussion, Cellini and Levine took steps to conceal the extortion plan, including using their influence and Levine’s position at TRS to ensure that Capri Capital received its $220 million allocation.

(A separate fraud conspiracy count against Kelly and Cellini alleges that in the summer of 2004, they discussed with Rezko and others moving TRS Staffer A – the Executive Director of TRS – to another job with a different state entity to ensure that he would not cooperate with law enforcement. And, in the summer and fall of 2004, Cellini, Rezko and others allegedly discussed the possibility of removing the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to stop the investigation.)

Rezko told Cellini and Levine, in separate conversations, that Blagojevich had been told about the attempt to extort Rosenberg, and Blagojevich had said that Rosenberg meant nothing to him.

Benefits Given to Blagojevich and Monk

To ensure that Blagojevich and Monk continued to give Rezko substantial influence regarding appointments to boards and commissions, hiring for state employment, and the awarding of state contracts, grants, and investment fund allocations, Rezko gave certain benefits to Blagojevich and Monk including the following:

• in late August 2003, Rezko directed to Blagojevich’s wife a payment of $14,396 in connection with a real estate transaction involving property at 850 North Ogden Ave., Chicago, even though Blagojevich’s wife had not performed any services;

• from approximately October 2003 to May 2004, Rezko, through his real estate development company, gave Blagojevich’s wife payments of $12,000 a month, purportedly for real estate brokerage services;

• in January 2004, Rezko directed to Blagojevich’s wife a payment of $40,000 purportedly for brokerage services in connection with the sale of property at 1101 West Lake St., Chicago, even though Blagojevich’s wife had provided few, if any, services relating to that sale; and

• from the spring of 2004 until 2006, Rezko provided to Monk a number of $10,000 cash gifts to pay for various items, such as a car and home improvements, totaling approximately $70,000 to $90,000.

The Search for Employment for Blagojevich’s Wife

After Blagojevich’s wife’s real estate business became the subject of critical media coverage, Blagojevich directed Harris to try to find a paid state board appointment or position for her. During several conversations in early 2008, Blagojevich informed Harris that he wanted his wife put on the Pollution Control Board, which pays salaries to its board members. When Harris told Blagojevich that his wife was not qualified for the position, Blagojevich told him to find other employment for his wife.

In the spring of 2008, around the time that Blagojevich’s wife passed a licensing exam that allowed her to sell financial securities, Blagojevich asked Harris and others to set up informational or networking meetings for his wife with financial institutions that had business with the state in hopes that those businesses would assist in getting his wife a job. Harris later arranged meetings between Blagojevich’s wife and officials at two financial institutions that had business with the state. When Blagojevich concluded that officials at these institutions were unhelpful in finding his wife a job, he told Harris that he did not want the institutions receiving further business from the state.

Attempted Extortion of United States Congressman A

In 2006, after Congressman A inquired about the status of a $2 million grant for the benefit of a publicly-supported school, Blagojevich instructed Harris not to release the grant until Blagojevich gave further direction, even though Blagojevich previously had agreed to support the grant and funds were included in the state’s budget.

In response to inquiries by a high-ranking state official as to whether the grant money could be released, Blagojevich informed that official that Blagojevich wanted it communicated to Congressman A that the congressman’s brother needed to have a fundraiser for Blagojevich.

Blagojevich told Lobbyist A that Blagojevich was giving a $2 million grant to a school in Congressman A’s district and instructed Lobbyist A to approach Congressman A for a fundraiser. After Blagojevich learned from Harris that the school had started to incur expenses that were to be paid with the grant funds, Blagojevich initially resisted the release of the grant money, and ultimately agreed to the release of certain grant funds to cover incurred expenses, but only on a delayed basis, even though no fundraiser had been held.

Attempted Extortion of Children’s Memorial Hospital

On Oct. 8, 2008, defendant Blagojevich advised Lobbyist A that he intended to take official action that would provide additional state money to Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, and that Blagojevich wanted to get $50,000 in campaign contributions from the hospital’s chief executive officer.

On Oct. 17, 2008, Blagojevich called the hospital’s CEO to tell him of his intent to increase the Illinois Medicaid reimbursement rate for speciality-care pediatric physicians. Shortly before this, Blagojevich had directed Deputy Governor A to initiate such an increase, which Illinois providers of pediatric healthcare, including Children’s Memorial Hospital, had actively supported for years.

On Oct. 22, 2008, Blagojevich spoke with the Children’s CEO and asked him to arrange to raise $25,000 for Blagojevich prior to Jan. 1, 2009. On Nov. 12, 2008, after the Children’s CEO had not returned additional phone calls from Robert Blagojevich and no political contributions from the Children’s CEO or other persons associated with the hospital had been received, Blagojevich spoke to Deputy Governor A about the increase in the Medicaid reimbursement rates for specialty-care pediatric physicians, asking whether “we could pull it back if we needed to. . . .” As a result of this conversation, Deputy Governor A instructed the Department of Healthcare Services to stop its work on increasing the reimbursement for specialty-care pediatric physicians.

Attempted Extortion of Racetrack Executive

On Nov. 13, 2008, Blagojevich told Robert Blagojevich that he wanted campaign contributions to be made by the end of the year by Racetrack Executive, who, as Blagojevich knew, managed horse racing tracks that would financially benefit from a bill pending in the Illinois General Assembly that would require certain Illinois casinos to give money to a fund that would help the state’s horse racing industry. At that time, as Blagojevich knew, Monk had been trying to arrange a contribution from Racetrack Executive, and Blagojevich had set a goal of raising $100,000 in contributions from and through this individual.

Blagojevich had further conversations with Monk about the horse racing and casino bill after it was passed by the state legislature on Nov. 20, 2008. Blagojevich and Monk discussed whether and when Blagojevich would sign the bill, and whether and when Racetrack Executive would arrange for a campaign contribution to Blagojevich. On Dec. 3, 2008, Blagojevich indicated to Monk that he was concerned that Racetrack Executive would not make a contribution by the end of the year if he signed the bill before the contribution was made. As a result, Monk and Blagojevich agreed that Monk would speak with Racetrack Executive to ensure that he would make a contribution by the end of the year.

After meeting with Blagojevich on Dec. 3, 2008, Monk visited Racetrack Executive and told him that Blagojevich was concerned that Racetrack Executive would not make a contribution to Blagojevich if the bill was signed before the contribution was made. After meeting with Racetrack Executive, Monk reported to Blagojevich that Monk had said to Racetrack Executive, “look, there is a concern that there is going to be some skittishness if your bill gets signed because of the timeliness of the commitment,” and made it clear to Racetrack Executive that the contribution has “got to be in now.” Blagojevich responded, “good” and “good job.”

On Dec. 4, 2008, Monk asked Blagojevich to call Racetrack Executive and to suggest that Blagojevich would sign the bill, because this would be better “from a pressure point of view.” Blagojevich agreed to call Racetrack Executive.

Attempted Extortion of Highway Contractor

On Sept. 18, 2008, Blagojevich, Monk and Robert Blagojevich met with Construction Executive, who was both an executive with a company that manufactured and distributed road building materials and a representative of a road construction trade group. Blagojevich said that he was planning on announcing a $1.5 billion road building program that would be administered through the Illinois Toll Highway Authority and that he might authorize an additional $6 billion road building program later on. Blagojevich then asked for Construction Executive’s help in raising contributions for Blagojevich’s campaign by the end of the year. After Construction Executive left the meeting, Blagojevich instructed Monk to try to get Construction Executive to raise $500,000 in contributions. As Blagojevich knew, Monk later had a series of conversations with Construction Executive about the possibility of arranging for campaign contributions to Blagojevich.

On Oct. 6, 2008, Blagojevich told Lobbyist A that he would make an announcement concerning a $1.8 billion project involving the tollway and that Monk would approach Construction Executive to ask that he raise substantial campaign contributions. Blagojevich further said that he could have announced a larger amount of money for road projects, but wanted to see how Construction Executive performed in raising contributions, and he added words to the effect of “If they don’t perform, [expletive] ‘em.”

On Oct. 22, 2008, approximately one week after Blagojevich publicly announced a portion of a $1.8 billion program to upgrade interchanges on the tollway system, Blagojevich called Construction Executive, spoke with him about the $1.8 billion program, and asked how he was coming with fundraising.

Efforts to Obtain Personal Financial Benefits for Blagojevich

in Return for his Appointment of a United States Senator

Between October and Dec. 9, 2008, Blagojevich, with the assistance of Harris and Robert Blagojevich, and others, sought to obtain financial benefits for himself and his wife, in return for exercising his duty under Illinois law to appoint a United States Senator to fill the vacancy created by the election of President Barack Obama.

Blagojevich engaged in numerous conversations with others, at times including Harris and Robert Blagojevich, certain high-ranking employees of the Office of the Governor, and certain political consultants, to devise and set in motion plans by which Blagojevich could use his Senate appointment power to obtain financial benefits for himself and his wife. At times, Blagojevich directed others, including state employees, to assist in these endeavors, including by performing research and conveying messages to third parties. Blagojevich and his co-schemers devised and discussed obtaining financial benefits in the following forms, among others:

• presidential appointment of Blagojevich to high-ranking positions in the federal government, including Secretary of Health and Human Services or an ambassadorship;

• a highly-paid leadership position with a private foundation dependent on federal aid, which Blagojevich believed could be influenced by the President-elect to name Blagojevich to such a position;

• a highly-paid leadership position with an organization known as “Change to Win,” consisting of seven affiliated labor unions, which, in a transaction suggested by Harris, could appoint Blagojevich as its chairman with the expectation that the President-elect would assist Change to Win with its national legislative agenda;

• employment for Blagojevich’s wife with a union organization, lobbying firm, or on corporate boards of directors;

• a highly-paid leadership position with a newly-created, not-for-profit corporation which Blagojevich believed could be funded with large contributions by persons associated with the President-elect; and

• substantial campaign fundraising assistance from individuals seeking the United States Senate seat and their backers, including from Senate Candidate A, whose associate Blagojevich understood to have offered $1.5 million in campaign contributions in return for Blagojevich’s appointment of Senate Candidate A.

Further, Blagojevich discussed with his co-schemers means by which he could influence the President-elect to assist him in obtaining personal benefits for himself and his wife, including by appointing to the Senate a candidate whom Blagojevich believed to be favored by the President-elect. At times, Blagojevich attempted to further this goal by conveying messages, directly and with the assistance of others, to individuals whom he believed to be in communication with the President-elect.

On Dec. 4, 2008, Blagojevich instructed Robert Blagojevich to contact a representative of Senate Candidate A, and advise the representative that if Senate Candidate A was going to be chosen to fill the Senate seat, some of the promised fundraising had to occur before the appointment. Blagojevich instructed Robert Blagojevich to communicate the urgency of the message, and to do it in person, rather than over the phone. Robert Blagojevich agreed to do so, and thereafter arranged a meeting with an associate of Senate Candidate A.

On Dec. 5, 2008, following the publication that day of a newspaper article reporting that Blagojevich had been surreptitiously recorded in connection with an ongoing federal investigation, Blagojevich instructed Robert Blagojevich to cancel his meeting with the associate of Senate Candidate A, and Robert Blagojevich agreed to do so.

The Government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Reid Schar, Carrie Hamilton and Christopher Niewoehner.

If convicted, the maximum penalty for each offense is set forth in the accompanying chart. The Court, however, would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the indictment makes allegations that Blagojevich at times directed others to take various actions, but it should not be read to allege that those other persons carried out those directions unless the indictment specifically alleges so.

April 7, 2009.

That’s the new Rod Blagojevich indictment deadline being sought by Chicago’s United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Too many tapped thousands of telephone calls to analyze.

Too many new witnesses to interview.

Too many potential defendants.

Grand juries on vacation.

But you can look at the sealed attachment, Judge.

And, by the way, attorney’s for Rod Blagojevich and John Harris don’t object.

Here’s the legal filing:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) No. 08 CR 1010
)

JOHN HARRIS )

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), for a 90-day extension of time, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek the return of an indictment against the defendants, for the following reasons:

1. This investigation was initiated in approximately 2003, and involves multiple potential defendants. Two individuals, defendants Rod R. Blagojevich and John Harris, were charged by way of a criminal complaint on December 9, 2008, with:

(a) conspiring to defraud the citizens of Illinois of their right to his honest services, as well as conspiring to obtain money and property by fraud, in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349; and

(b) corruptly soliciting and demanding the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of Blagojevich, in exchange for the awarding of millions of dollars in financial assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2.

2. Part of this investigation utilized Court-authorized Title III intercepts over multiple phones and in particular locations.

In the most recent set of Title III intercepts, thousands of phone calls were intercepted between late-October 2008 and early-December 2008.

In addition, this investigation has used confidential witnesses.

In addition, multiple witnesses have come forward in recent weeks to discuss their knowledge of criminal activity in relation to the ongoing investigation.

3. A number of factors have led to the government’s request for an extension and the length of the extension being sought.

One factor that affects the length of the requested extension is that federal holidays have limited the dates and times that the government will be able to present evidence to the Grand Jury. The federal grand juries are not sitting during the week of December 22nd (Christmas week) or the week of December 29th (New Years Day week).

The remaining factors that have led to the government’s request for an extension are stated in the Attachment hereto, which the government respectfully requests be placed under seal. The government is requesting that this Attachment be sealed so as not to compromise its ongoing investigation and so as not to reveal matters occurring before the Grand Jury.

4. Given the length of time that this investigation has been ongoing (more than 5 years), the number of intercepted calls involved, and the additional reasons stated in the government’s sealed Attachment, the thirty days available to the government pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b) in which to file an indictment or information against a defendant based on his arrest will not be sufficient.

The United States estimates that a 90-day extension from the current expiration date of January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, will be sufficient time within which to return an indictment in this matter. The government does not presently plan to seek another extension of time to indict in this case.

5. Among the factors identified by Congress as relevant to the determination whether time should be extended for indictment are those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B), which provide in relevant part:

Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution… that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section; [or]

Whether, in case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex.

Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii), (iii), and (iv).

6. The government respectfully submits that a 90-day continuance is warranted in this case pursuant to the forgoing provisions. The government has been conducting a diligent and thorough investigation in this case, but the investigation includes multiple defendants and potential defendants as well as thousands of intercepted phone calls, and additional factors warranting an extension of time (as cited in the government’s Attachment) exist. The government cannot complete its investigation and appropriately conclude the investigation within the time allowed under Section 3161(b) of the Speedy Trial Act currently extended.

7. Following telephone calls and/or meetings over the past week, counsel for both Blagojevich and Harris have represented that they do not object to this motion.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests a 90-day extension of time from January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek an indictment in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney

By: s/ Reid Schar
REID SCHAR
CHRIS NIEWOEHNER
CARRIE HAMILTON
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-8897

Dated: December 31, 2008

April 7, 2009.

That’s the new Rod Blagojevich indictment deadline being sought by Chicago’s United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Too many tapped thousands of telephone calls to analyze.

Too many new witnesses to interview.

Too many potential defendants.

Grand juries on vacation.

But you can look at the sealed attachment, Judge.

And, by the way, attorney’s for Rod Blagojevich and John Harris don’t object.

Here’s the legal filing:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) No. 08 CR 1010
)

JOHN HARRIS )

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), for a 90-day extension of time, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek the return of an indictment against the defendants, for the following reasons:

1. This investigation was initiated in approximately 2003, and involves multiple potential defendants. Two individuals, defendants Rod R. Blagojevich and John Harris, were charged by way of a criminal complaint on December 9, 2008, with:

(a) conspiring to defraud the citizens of Illinois of their right to his honest services, as well as conspiring to obtain money and property by fraud, in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349; and

(b) corruptly soliciting and demanding the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of Blagojevich, in exchange for the awarding of millions of dollars in financial assistance from the State of Illinois, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 2.

2. Part of this investigation utilized Court-authorized Title III intercepts over multiple phones and in particular locations.

In the most recent set of Title III intercepts, thousands of phone calls were intercepted between late-October 2008 and early-December 2008.

In addition, this investigation has used confidential witnesses.

In addition, multiple witnesses have come forward in recent weeks to discuss their knowledge of criminal activity in relation to the ongoing investigation.

3. A number of factors have led to the government’s request for an extension and the length of the extension being sought.

One factor that affects the length of the requested extension is that federal holidays have limited the dates and times that the government will be able to present evidence to the Grand Jury. The federal grand juries are not sitting during the week of December 22nd (Christmas week) or the week of December 29th (New Years Day week).

The remaining factors that have led to the government’s request for an extension are stated in the Attachment hereto, which the government respectfully requests be placed under seal. The government is requesting that this Attachment be sealed so as not to compromise its ongoing investigation and so as not to reveal matters occurring before the Grand Jury.

4. Given the length of time that this investigation has been ongoing (more than 5 years), the number of intercepted calls involved, and the additional reasons stated in the government’s sealed Attachment, the thirty days available to the government pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b) in which to file an indictment or information against a defendant based on his arrest will not be sufficient.

The United States estimates that a 90-day extension from the current expiration date of January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, will be sufficient time within which to return an indictment in this matter. The government does not presently plan to seek another extension of time to indict in this case.

5. Among the factors identified by Congress as relevant to the determination whether time should be extended for indictment are those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B), which provide in relevant part:

Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution… that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section; [or]

Whether, in case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex.

Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii), (iii), and (iv).

6. The government respectfully submits that a 90-day continuance is warranted in this case pursuant to the forgoing provisions. The government has been conducting a diligent and thorough investigation in this case, but the investigation includes multiple defendants and potential defendants as well as thousands of intercepted phone calls, and additional factors warranting an extension of time (as cited in the government’s Attachment) exist. The government cannot complete its investigation and appropriately conclude the investigation within the time allowed under Section 3161(b) of the Speedy Trial Act currently extended.

7. Following telephone calls and/or meetings over the past week, counsel for both Blagojevich and Harris have represented that they do not object to this motion.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests a 90-day extension of time from January 7, 2009, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek an indictment in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney

By: s/ Reid Schar
REID SCHAR
CHRIS NIEWOEHNER
CARRIE HAMILTON
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-8897

Dated: December 31, 2008