Monday, October 8, 2007
The Jamie Olis Story has been one that needs to be followed. From an initial draconian sentence, to a more modest term in prison, to watching those around him receive minimal sentences or fines -- this case has been a case to continue to draw interest - as it should. The bottom line here has always been - if you risk the trial - you risk an outrageously high punishment.
But today there is a new dimension to the Jamie Olis story. It comes in the form of a motion filed by Olis' new counsel, and is a Motion to Set Aside Jamie Olis' Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2255. The 105 page motion, not including introductory material, presents the argument that "[t]he United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) acted purposefully to sabotage Olis’ ability to prepare and defend his case by blocking funding from his former employer, Dynegy, despite the fact that Dynegy was legally and contractually obligated to pay the funds."
The KPMG related case also contested DOJ interference with the company's payment of individual attorney fees. The Stein case brought to light DOJ practices in a deferred prosecution agreement. The question is now whether Olis was deprived of his right to counsel and whether a court should examine this issue. Olis, in his Memo "requests a hearing with evidence" and argues that "[t]he violation of Olis’ fundamental right to prepare and present his defense using funds lawfully available to him requires that the Court vacate Olis’ conviction and dismiss the charges against him with prejudice."
See also - Tom Kirkendall's Houston ClearThinker's here; Larry Ribstein's Ideoblog here; Paul Davies - Wall Street Journal here; Mary Flood - Houston Chronicle here; John Porretto - Houston Chronicle (AP) here; Loren Steffy - Houston Chronicle here.