Senate Report 109-325 - "GIMME FIVE"--INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS

[Senate Report 109-325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress 2d Session SENATE Report
109-325
_______________________________________________________________________

``GIMME FIVE''--INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS

----------

FINAL REPORT

Before the

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

----------

SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

----------

September 5, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
``GIMME FIVE''--INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS
109th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
109-325
_______________________________________________________________________

``GIMME FIVE''--INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS

__________

FINAL REPORT

Before the

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

__________

September 5, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
INVESTIGATION STAFF

PABLO E. CARRILLO, Esq., Chief Investigative Counsel for the Majority
BRYAN D. PARKER, Esq., Deputy Chief Investigative Counsel for the
Majority
JEANNE L. BUMPUS, Esq., Staff Director for the Majority
BRANDON I. ASHLEY, Staff Assistant for the Majority
KATHERINE B. ROSSI, Staff Assistant for the Majority
SARA G. GARLAND, Staff Director for the Minority
DAVID MONTES, Professional Staff for the Minority
EAMON P. WALSH, Research Assistant for the Minority
ALLISON C. BINNEY, Esq., General Counsel for the Minority
EMMETT M. O'KEEFE, Esq., Counsel for the Vice Chairman

A special thanks to the efforts and support of the entire staff of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs through the course of this
investigation.
C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Investigation Staff.............................................. iii
Table of Names................................................... ix
Table of Entities................................................ xiii
Investigation Hearings........................................... xvii
Introduction..................................................... 1
Executive Summary and Findings................................... 7

PART ONE--FACT SUMMARY BY TRIBE

I. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians........................... 13
A. Introduction.............................................. 13
B. Background on the Tribe................................... 14
C. Background on Abramoff and the Tribe's Relationship--
Building Trust and Confidence.............................. 15
D. Substantial Fees and Conduits--Setting the Stage for
Scanlon.................................................... 18
E. Abramoff Brings Scanlon to the Choctaw.................... 24
F. Abramoff Has the Choctaw Fund His Pet Projects............ 27
1. 2000 Scotland Golf Trip............................... 27
2. Sports Suites......................................... 27
3. Liberty Consulting Services, LLC...................... 28
G. Conclusion................................................ 28
II. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana................................. 31
A. Introduction.............................................. 31
B. Background on the Tribe................................... 33
C. Abramoff and Scanlon Get the Louisiana Coushatta's
Business................................................... 34
D. Scanlon's Grassroots Projects for the Tribe............... 39
E. Conclusion................................................ 43
III. Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan.......................... 45
A. Introduction.............................................. 45
B. Background on the Tribe................................... 46
C. Christopher Petras--Abramoff and Scanlon's Access to the
Tribe...................................................... 47
D. The ``Slate of Eight''--Abramoff and Scanlon's Trojan
Horse...................................................... 48
E. The Tribe Hires Abramoff and Scanlon...................... 54
F. Abramoff on Tribal Client Management--``keeping our people
in power''................................................. 58
G. Christopher Petras' Hearing Testimony Is Not Credible..... 63
1. Petras' Relationship With Abramoff and Scanlon........ 63
2. Problems With Petras' Testimony....................... 65
H. Abramoff and Scanlon Privately Express Contempt for the
Tribe...................................................... 68
I. Conclusion................................................ 70
IV. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians....................... 73
A. Introduction.............................................. 73
B. Background on the Tribe................................... 74
C. Abramoff and Scanlon Offer the Promised Land.............. 75
D. Scanlon Works on C. Patencio and Siva's Election Campaigns 79
1. Mail.................................................. 81
2. Door-to-Door.......................................... 82
3. Telephone............................................. 82
4. Candidates' Meeting................................... 82
E. C. Patencio and M. Patencio Pave the Way for Abramoff and
Scanlon.................................................... 83
F. Abramoff and Scanlon Seek Additional Money From the Tribe. 90
G. Abramoff and Scanlon's Work for the Tribe................. 91
H. 2003 Tribal Elections..................................... 93
I. Chapman and Sierra Dominion Consulting.................... 94
1. Payments to Chapman................................... 94
2. Payments to Sierra Dominion........................... 98
J. Conclusion................................................ 99
V. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Tigua)................................. 101
A. Introduction.............................................. 101
B. Background on the Tribe................................... 102
C. Abramoff, Scanlon, and Reed Work Against the Tigua........ 103
D. Abramoff and Scanlon Seek the Tribe's Money............... 106
E. Secrecy and Contributions................................. 114
F. Abramoff and His Colleagues Set the Plan in Motion in the
House...................................................... 115
G. Scanlon Purportedly Sets the Plan in Motion in the Senate. 117
H. Things Begin To Unravel................................... 120
I. Abramoff Asks the Tigua To Finance a Golfing Junket to
Scotland................................................... 121
J. The Tribe Meets With Congressman Ney...................... 123
K. Election Reform Passes Without the Tigua Provision........ 125
L. The Elder Legacy Project.................................. 127
M. Abramoff and Scanlon Attempt To Obstruct the Investigation 127
N. Conclusion................................................ 128
VI. Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico............................... 129
A. Introduction.............................................. 129
B. Background on the Tribe................................... 129
C. The Search for a New Lobbyist............................. 130
D. Implementing the Plan..................................... 132
E. The Database.............................................. 134
F. A Happy Ending, in Spite of .............................. 136

PART TWO--``GIMME FIVE''--ANALYSIS BY ENTITY

Introduction..................................................... 137
I. Capitol Campaign Strategies................................... 141
A. Background................................................ 142
B. Abramoff Conceals His Financial Relationship With Scanlon. 143
C. Abramoff Induces the Tribes Into Hiring and Paying Scanlon 145
D. What Happened to the Money That the Tribes Paid Scanlon?.. 149
1. Snapshots of CCS' Representation of the Tribes........ 149
a. Transaction #1 (Miscellaneous)--Huge Profit
Margins............................................ 150
b. Transaction #2 (August 2002)--Louisiana Coushatta
and Agua Caliente Pay CCS a Total of $5,000,000.... 152
c. Transaction #3 (October 2001-January 2002)--
Louisiana Coushatta Pays CCS $2,170,000............ 153
d. Transaction #4 (January-April 2002)--Several
Tribes Pay CCS Over $22,000,000.................... 157
e. Transaction #5 (October 16, 2002)--Louisiana
Coushatta Pays CCS $950,000 and the Agua Caliente
Pays $1,745,000 to CCS............................. 161
f. Transaction #6 (January-March 2003)--Louisiana
Coushatta Pays CCS $5,000,000...................... 163
2. The ``Database''...................................... 165
a. The Pitch......................................... 165
b. The Facts......................................... 171
3. CCS' Use of Fictitious Grassroots Organizations....... 174
E. Conclusion................................................ 177
II. American International Center................................ 179
A. Introduction.............................................. 179
B. A Day at the Beach--How AIC Was Started................... 180
C. Making It Look Real--Abramoff Has AIC Post a Website...... 183
D. How Abramoff and Scanlon Used Conduits To Represent the
Tribes..................................................... 187
E. AIC as a ``Gimme Five'' Entity............................ 191
F. Conclusion................................................ 193
III. Capital Athletic Foundation................................. 195
A. Introduction.............................................. 195
B. General Background on CAF................................. 196
C. Abramoff Attempts To Secure Federal Funding for CAF, and
Fails...................................................... 197
D. Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Tribal Funds for CAF
Seed Money in 2001......................................... 198
1. Abramoff and Scanlon Divert Louisiana Coushatta Money
to CAF................................................. 198
2. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2001................ 201
E. In 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon Scam Other Tribes Into
Paying Into CAF............................................ 203
1. Abramoff Deceives the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
Into Partially Funding a Golfing Trip to Scotland--June
Through November 2002.................................. 203
2. Abramoff and Scanlon Deceive the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians Into Sending $1 Million to CAF--January
and August 2002........................................ 206
3. Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Another $1 Million
From the Choctaw--October 2002......................... 209
4. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2002................ 212
F. In 2003, Abramoff Funnels Tribal Money Through Conduits to
CAF........................................................ 219
1. Kaygold Sends Tribal Funds to CAF..................... 219
2. Abramoff and Scanlon Use ARA as a Conduit To Funnel
Louisiana Coushatta Funds to CAF....................... 219
3. Abramoff's Use of CAF Funds in 2003................... 222
G. Conclusion................................................ 223

PART THREE--OTHER

I. Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy............. 225
A. Background................................................ 225
1. Abramoff Has His Tribal Clients Pay CREA.............. 226
2. Federici Promises To Help Abramoff in Exchange for, or
Because of, CREA Contributions......................... 229
B. Abramoff and Federici Start Working Together.............. 230
C. Contributions in Exchange for Access?..................... 233
D. What Did Federici Do for Abramoff at Interior?............ 236
E. What, if Anything, Griles Did for Abramoff's Clients Is
Unclear.................................................... 239
F. Conclusion................................................ 244

PART FOUR--RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Introduction.................................................. 247
B. Contracting for Legal, Lobbying and Other Professional
Services....................................................... 247
1. No New or Revised Federal Legislation Needed.............. 247
2. Best Practices Recommendations............................ 247
a. Contracting for legal, lobbying and other services
should follow a specific, open and competitive process. 248
b. Contracting rules should be structured to prevent
conflicts of interest.................................. 248
c. Contracting and conflict of interests rules should
include appropriate sanctions.......................... 249
d. Tribes should consider working with tribal
organizations and educational institutions to develop
model codes and education programs addressing
contracting and conflicts of interests................. 249
C. Integrity of Tribal Elections................................. 249
D. Tribal Political Contributions................................ 250
E. Referrals to Other Committees................................. 251
1. Possible Misuse of Tax Exempt Organizations............... 251

PART FIVE--VIEWS

I. Additional Views of Senator Daniel K. Inouye.................. 253
A. Introduction.............................................. 253
B. Discussion................................................ 253

PART SIX--EXHIBITS

I. Appendix One (Dated Exhibits)................................. 255
A. Pre-2001 Exhibits......................................... 255
B. 2001 Exhibits............................................. 285
C. 2002 Exhibits............................................. 423
D. 2003 Exhibits............................................. 831
E. 2004 Exhibits............................................. 1044
II. Appendix Two (Undated Exhibits).............................. 1107
III. Appendix Three (Documents Transmitted to Senate Finance
Committee)..................................................... 1278
TABLE OF NAMES

Abramoff, Jack: former lobbyist, Greenberg Traurig; Preston
Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.

Baggett, Fred: Chair, National Governmental Affairs Practice,
Greenberg Traurig.

Ben Zvi, Shmuel: former high-school friend of Abramoff.

Benn, Charlie: Director of Administration, Office of the Chief,
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Biederman, Amy: former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies.

Boulanger, Todd: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Bozniak, Allison: former assistant to Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig.

Cathcart, Christopher: former associate, Capitol Campaign
Strategies.

Chapman, Michael: former business associate of Abramoff and
Scanlon.

Doolittle, Julie: president, Sierra Dominion Financial
Solutions.

Federici, Italia: president, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy.

Griles, J. Steven: former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
the Interior.

Grosh, David: former director, American International Center.

Halpern, Gail: former tax advisor to Abramoff.

Hisa, Carlos: Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of
Texas.

Kahgegab, Maynard: former Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Kilgore, Donald: Attorney General, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians.

Kuhn, Jennifer: vice-president, Finance and Development,
Americans for Tax Reform.

Lane, Rodney: former assistant to Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig;
former business associate of Abramoff.

Lapin, Rabbi Daniel: president, Toward Tradition.

Lippy, Laura: assistant to Abramoff.

Mann, Brian: former director, American International Center.

Martin, Phillip: Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Martin, Terry: Governmental Affairs/Administrative Liaison,
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana.

McConnon, BR: president, Democracy Data & Communications.

Mielke, David: outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia.

Milanovich, Richard: Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians.

Norquist, Grover: president, Americans for Tax Reform.

Norton, Gale: former Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Interior.

Otto, David: former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Paisano, Stuwart: former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia.

Pego, Robert: former council member, Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe.

Petras, Christopher: former legislative director, Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Patencio, Candace: former council member, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians.

Reed, Ralph: president, Century Strategies.

Ridenour, Amy: president, National Center for Public Policy
Research.

Ring, Kevin: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Rogers, Nell: planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Rossetti, Michael: former Counselor to the Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior.

Scanlon, Michael: president, Capitol Campaign Strategies;
Scanlon Public Affairs; Scanlon Gould Public Affairs; American
International Center; Principal, Atlantic Research & Analysis.

Schwartz, Marc: president, Partners Group Consultants; former
spokesperson, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas.

Short, Stephanie Leger: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Sickey, David: Council member, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

Sickey, Kevin: Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

Siva, Virginia: Tribal Council member, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians.

Smith, Michael: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Sprague, Bernie: Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Stetter, Aaron: former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies.

Van Hoof, Kathryn: former outside counsel, Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana.

van Horne, Jon: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Vasell, Shawn: former associate, Greenberg Traurig.

Volz, Neil: former associate, Greenberg Traurig; former chief
of staff, U.S. Congressman Robert W. Ney.

Worfel, William: former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana.
TABLE OF ENTITIES

Entities Owned or Controlled by Abramoff

Aeneas Enterprises: a consulting firm that received payments
from another Abramoff controlled entity called Grassroots
Interactive, which did business with, among others, Tyco
International and International Interactive Alliance.

Archives: a company that owned Stacks, formerly a kosher deli
located in Washington, DC.

Beis Avrohom Chaim: a company used to acquire real estate.

Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''): a charitable foundation
used to fund Abramoff's private Jewish boys' school, called the
Eshkol Academy, and other projects with which he was in some
way associated.

Eshkol Academy: See Capital Athletic Foundation, supra.

Grassroots Interactive (``GRI''): See Aeneas Enterprises,
supra.

Kaygold: a company used to collect ``consulting fees'' from
entities owned or controlled by Scanlon.

Lexington Group: a company that performed lobbying-type
services.

Livsar Enterprises: a company that owned Signatures, formerly a
restaurant-bar located in Washington, DC.

Sports Suites: a company that leased, with money provided by
some of Abramoff's Tribal clients, sky boxes at sports and
concert venues in Washington, DC and Baltimore, Maryland.

Entities Owned or Controlled by Scanlon

American International Center (``AIC''): a supposed think tank
used to collect money for services performed by others and to
secretly pay money to Abramoff.

Atlantic Research and Analysis (``ARA''): a company used to
secretly pay money to Abramoff.

Capitol Campaign Strategies (``CCS''): a grassroots/political
consulting firm that secretly paid money to Abramoff.

Christian Action Network: a fictitious grassroots organization.

Christian Research Network: a fictitious grassroots
organization.

Concerned Citizens Against Gaming Expansion (``CCAGE''): a
fictitious grassroots organization.

Global Christian Outreach Network (``GCON''): a fictitious
grassroots organization.

Scanlon Capital Management: a company used to invest money.

Scanlon Gould Public Affairs: a grassroots/political consulting
firm that secretly paid money to Abramoff.

Scanlon Venture Capital: a company used to invest money.

Other

Alexander Strategies Group (``ASG''): a consulting firm owned
or controlled by former Congressman Tom DeLay's former chief of
staff Ed Buckham to or through which Abramoff or Scanlon
directed their Tribal clients to pay money.

Americans for Tax Reform (``ATR''): a non-profit anti-tax
organization headed by conservative activist Grover Norquist to
or through which Abramoff or Scanlon directed their Tribal
clients to pay money.

Capitol Media: a grassroots/political consulting firm owned or
controlled by former Christian Coalition Executive Director
Ralph Reed.

Century Strategies: a grassroots/political consulting firm
owned or controlled by former Christian Coalition Executive
Director Ralph Reed.

Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA''):
an environmental non-profit organization to or through which
Abramoff or Scanlon directed their Tribal clients to pay money.

Democracy Data and Communications (``DDC''): a firm that built,
operated and maintained political databases for Scanlon and his
Tribal clients.

Greenberg Traurig (``GT''): a lobbying firm with which Abramoff
was associated during the relevant period.

Kollel Ohel Tiferet: an entity used to enable the CAF to
distribute money to a sniper workshop in Israel.

Liberty Consulting: a consulting firm owned or controlled by
former Congressman Tom DeLay's former deputy chief of staff
Tony Rudy to or through which Abramoff or Scanlon directed some
of their Tribal clients to pay money.

National Center for Public Policy Research (``NCPPR''): a non-
profit educational foundation on whose board Abramoff sat, to
or through which he or Scanlon directed some of their Tribal
clients to pay money.
INVESTIGATION HEARINGS

First Hearing

Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.,
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 9:30 am, Room 216 of the Hart
Senate Office Building.
Panel One--Mr. Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist, Greenberg
Traurig, and Mr. Michael Scanlon, president, Capitol Campaign
Strategies. Mr. Scanlon was invited, but did not appear before
the Committee on this date.
Panel Two--The Honorable Richard Milanovich, Chairman, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and The Honorable Bernie
Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
Panel Three--Dr. Christopher Petras, former legislative
director, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

Second Hearing

Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.,
Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 3:00 pm, Room 216 of the Hart
Senate Office Building.
Panel One--Mr. Marc Schwartz, president, Marc Schwartz
Partners and The Honorable Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor,
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.
Panel Two--Mr. Michael Scanlon, president, Capitol Campaign
Strategies.

Third Hearing

Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.,
Wednesday, June 22, 2005, 9:30 am, Room 216 of the Hart Senate
Office Building.
Panel One--Mr. Charlie Benn, Director of Administration,
Office of the Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians;
Donald Kilgore, Esq., Attorney General, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians; and Ms. Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band
of Choctaw Indians.
Panel Two--Mr. Kevin Ring, former Abramoff associate and
Mr. Shawn Vassell, former Abramoff associate.
Panel Three--Mrs. Amy Ridenour, president, National Center
for Public Policy Research; Ms. Gail Halpern, Abramoff's former
tax advisor; Mr. Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center; Mr. David Grosh, former director,
American International Center; and Mr. Aaron Stetter, former
Scanlon associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies.

Fourth Hearing

Oversight Hearing on In re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.,
Wednesday, November 2, 2005, 9:00 am, Room 216 of the Hart
Senate Office Building.
Panel One--The Honorable Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana and Mr. David Sickey, Tribal Council Member,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.
Panel Two--Mr William Worfel, former Tribal Council member,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Mrs. Kathryn Van Hoof, former
outside counsel, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and Mr. Fred
Baggett, managing shareholder; Chair, National Governmental
Affairs Practice, Greenberg Traurig.
Panel Three--Mr. B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications; Mr. Christopher Cathcart, former associate,
Capitol Campaign Strategies; and Ms. Gail Halpern, Abramoff's
former tax advisor.
Panel Four--Mr. J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Michael Rossetti, Esq.,
former counsel to the Secretary of the Interior, U.S.
Department of the Interior; and Ms. Italia Federici, president,
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. Ms. Federici
was invited, but did not appear before the Committee on this
date.

Fifth Hearing

Oversight Hearing on In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.,
Wednesday, November 17, 2005, 10:00 am, Room 216 of the Hart
Senate Office Building.
Panel One--Ms. Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy.
INTRODUCTION

Etched in the history of our great nation is a long and
lamentable chapter about the exploitation of Native
Americans. It began with the sale of Manhattan, and has
continued ever since. Every kind of charlatan and every
type of crook has deceived and exploited America's
native sons and daughters. While these accounts of
unscrupulous men are sadly familiar, the tale we hear
today is not. What sets this tale apart, what makes it
truly extraordinary, is the extent and degree of the
apparent exploitation and deceit.

Opening Statement of then-Committee Ranking Majority Member
John McCain, during the Committee's September 29, 2004, hearing
on allegations made by Tribes against Jack Abramoff and Michael
Scanlon

[J]ust speaking as an enrolled member of an Indian
tribe, not the chairman of this committee, I have to
tell you that for 400 years people have been cheating
Indians in this country, so you're not the first one,
Mr. Scanlon. It's just a shame that in this enlightened
day that you have added a new dimension to a shameful
legacy of what's happened to American Indians. You're
the problem, buddy, of what's happened to American
Indians.

Closing remarks of then-Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
during the Committee's November 17, 2004, hearing on
allegations made by Tribes against Jack Abramoff and Michael
Scanlon

[It] [n]eeds to have a bit more about how the tribes in
the past were left helpless at the whims and good will
of non-tribal members. Some reference to the past and
how they were always given the [short] end of the stick
would be pretty important, I think.

Email from Jack Abramoff to associate Todd Boulanger,
February 26, 2004 (critiquing draft letter intended for The
Washington Post and Senate Indian Affairs Committee regarding
Committee investigation)

Yes, I did wrong, but I did a hell of a lot right too.
Basically, I was the best thing they had going. I knew
it, they knew it. My mistake was not informing them
(about Scanlon).

Jack Abramoff to contributing editor David Margolick,
Vanity Fair, ``Washington's Invisible Man,'' April 2006

Factual Background

On the afternoon of June 18, 2001, in Washington, D.C.,
racquetball was the order of the day.\1\ Having brought former
congressional communications director Michael Scanlon with him
to the lobbying shop at Greenberg Traurig for what ended up as
a brief stint, Jack Abramoff wanted to get together with
Scanlon for a round.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, and
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011945) (June 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, Scanlon, who was now out on his own, wanted to talk
shop: ``A few weeks ago you mentioned something to me--I took
the concept and have put together a plan that will make serious
money. We also talked briefly about it in the beginning of the
year but I think we can really move it now.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon went on to describe ``the broad strokes'': ``I have
been making contacts with some larger Public Affairs companies
in town for a few months. I have two solid relationships that
will seriously consider acquiring Capitol Campaign Strategies.
The problem is that there is not much in CCS right now.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``However,'' he continued, ``if we build up Capitol
Campaign Strategies enough I can get it acquired by a large
firm by the end of next year at 3x [sic] the firm revenue.
Bottom line: If you help me get CCS a client base of $3 million
a year, I will get the clients served, and the firm acquired at
$9 million. We can then split the [sic] up the profits. What do
you think?'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff's response was brief: ``Sounds like a plan, but
let's discuss when we are together.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be the genesis of a partnership the two
would later infamously label as ``gimme five''--their secret
plan ``to put in $5[million] revenue/yr [in fees from tribes,
into] CCS.'' \6\ Later, the term ``gimme five'' came to mean
kickbacks to Abramoff from payments made by any of Scanlon's
Tribal clients to Scanlon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Rodney Lane
(GTG-E000011577) (March 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Spring 2003, Abramoff and Scanlon's secret financial
arrangement was apparently straining. The two had failed to get
a Tribal client's casino reopened. And Scanlon, apparently
awash in cash, seemed to have outgrown the partnership and
appeared more interested in putting his ill-gotten gains to
work.
He offered Abramoff, ``I have a few real estate
developments in the pipeline--One really big one--and a couple
of small ones that I may need to raise outside capital for. I
can guarantee the returns on rate and time, and if you wanted
to do more down the road taking a run at the upside potential
you could get into some of the longer term stuff ... (I'm
turning a 100% return on a one year project next month).'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012012) (March 25, 2003).
Scanlon might have been referring to his resale of an expensive five-
bedroom canal-front home near Rehoboth, Delaware, he had bought in
November 2001, apparently with Tribal proceeds, in one of that area's
most prestigious neighborhoods--reportedly for $1,200,000 more that he
paid. See Cris Barrish, Abramoff cohort spent millions on Sussex
homes--As a Rehoboth lifeguard last year, he made $11.35 an hour, The
News Journal, May 14, 2006. Early in 2003, Scanlon also reportedly paid
$1,600,000 in cash for a home on Baltimore Avenue (across the street
from where he ran his supposed international think tank, the American
International Center) where he later opened offices. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``OK, let's chat when we are next
together. Meanwhile, let's get some more fucking money!'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, and
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-000012012) (March 25, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making money was certainly nothing new to Abramoff. When he
left the premier Washington, D.C. offices of the lobbying firm
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds in December 2000 for a
relatively new Washington lobbying group at Greenberg Traurig,
Abramoff brought with him a book of business worth more than $6
million annually, according to Abramoff's own estimates.\9\
This helped Greenberg Traurig generate a 500 percent increase
in lobbying fees over the previous year.\10\ With that
increase, Greenberg Traurig reportedly vaulted into the top ten
Washington lobbying firms--jumping from sixteenth place to
fourth.\11\ While Abramoff's impact on ``K Street'' \12\ during
this period is generally well-known, the precise nature of his
relationship with Scanlon has been, until recently, a closely-
held secret--concealed, most importantly from Abramoff and
Scanlon's Tribal clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ John Bresnahan, Jack Doubles Down, Washington Business Forward,
November/December 2002 (citing estimates provided by Abramoff).
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
\12\ ``K Street'' is a commonly used term for the numerous think
tanks, lobbying firms, law firms and associations located on and around
this major thoroughfare in Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By February 5, 2004, time was running out for Abramoff and
Scanlon's secret business arrangement. In a conference room at
Greenberg Traurig, Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt
interviewed Abramoff on allegations that he and Scanlon may
have bilked several Tribes out of millions of dollars in
fees.\13\ With Abramoff were Greenberg Traurig spokesperson
Jill Perry and associates Todd Boulanger, Kevin Ring, Allen
Foster, and Jon van Horne.\14\ Things apparently heated-up
quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Email from Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010599-614) (February 3, 2004)
(embedding transcript of Abramoff interview with Schmidt).
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt began, ``As I'm sure you know I'm working on a
story about your work with some of these gaming tribes and your
relationship with Mike Scanlon and his company and the work
that the two of you have done in tandem for some of the tribes
and so that's what I want to talk to you about ... So, I want
to ask you, basically what your relationship is with his firm,
well he's got several firms. As I understand it from the tribes
that I've talked to, you guys work together and you recommend
that they hire him.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff deftly answered--truthfully but non-responsively:
``In terms of Mike or any other third party, you know the firm
does not have any formal relationship, to my knowledge, with
any third party vendor used by any of the tribes for some of
their activities and so probably best to have you go ahead and
check directly with him and if you have specific questions
again, we'll take them and we'll look at them, but in general I
think we feel at liberty to discuss in general our practice,
which we're delighted to do, with the tribes.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt pushed: ``Okay, but you basically recommend to
these tribes that they hire him?'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, Abramoff strained to avoid answering the
question, but was quickly running out of wiggle room: ``We have
recommended that different tribes hire different vendors for
different needs that they might have. Again, I'm going to defer
in terms of any discussion of Scanlon or his company or any
specific third party vendor.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt pushed more: ``Well, do you recommend his company
and do you know what they are doing for the tribes and do you
endorse what he's doing?'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff offered, ``Well, again I think that some of this
gets into the area of our confidential dealings with our
clients so I'm happy, we'll go back and look at that
question.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt finally cut to the chase: ``Do you have an
ownership stake in Capitol Campaign Strategies or Scanlon Gould
or any of Mike Scanlon's other ventures?'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even a pregnant pause here might be looked on with some
suspicion. So, Abramoff had no choice: ``No. No, I don't. ...''
\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As future events would soon reveal, this of course was a
lie.
Perhaps mindful of his actual financial arrangement with
Scanlon, which he withheld from Schmidt, Abramoff was very
concerned about how the interview went. Among others, he wrote
to Candace Patencio, an ally at the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians.\23\ The next race for Chairman was the topic
of conversation. Abramoff wrote, ``I think you are right that
we really need Richard [Milanovich] to beat [his opponent].
[His opponent] is poison. She has been feeding The Washington
Post a hit piece about Scanlon and me. It's going to be
horrible. It is so obvious it's her doing this too. Can't wait
to see you on the 23rd.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Candace
Patencio, Agua Caliente of Cauhilla Band (GTG-E000057926) (February 3,
2004).
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of days later, on February 5, 2004, Abramoff's
most senior associate, Todd Boulanger reached out to Abramoff
and colleague Kevin Ring: ``Someone on the [Saginaw Chippewa
Tribal] council trashed us, our work, and [S]canlon ... We are
going to get smoked here.'' \25\ He added, ``[Abramoff] should
[file suit for slander] ... after what happe[n]ed a couple of
months ago. We are dead.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Kevin Ring, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000028537) (February 5, 2004).
\26\ Id. (ellipses in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely appreciating that the thrust of the pending Post
story was true, Abramoff could only offer, ``Where are you
now?'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulanger answered, ``Going to bed. I'm really [sic] in a
terrible mood.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff could only reply, ``Me too.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conduct of the Investigation and the Report

On February 22, 2004, The Washington Post published
Schmidt's article, entitled ``A Jackpot From Indian Gaming
Tribes; Lobbying, PR Firms Paid $45 Million Over 3 Years.''
Based on the allegations of misconduct made by several Tribes
documented in the Post article, then-Chairman Ben Nighthorse
Campbell of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, authorized
then-Ranking Majority Member John McCain to conduct an
investigation of these matters. Following Senator Campbell's
retirement at the end of the 108th Congress, Senator McCain
continued the investigation during the 109th Congress, as
Chairman of the Committee. Ultimately, the Committee examined
Abramoff and Scanlon's dealings with six tribes: the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas
and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico.
While a Department of Justice task force reportedly began a
parallel inquiry into related matters, the Committee sought to
answer several questions, including but not limited to the
following: (1) are the Tribes' allegations of misconduct
regarding Abramoff and Scanlon true; (2) if so, how much did
those Tribes pay Abramoff and Scanlon's partnership, as well as
third-parties at their direction, as a result of that
misconduct; and (3) did those Tribes receive the intended
benefit of the tens of millions of dollars that they paid
Scanlon and Abramoff. With this Report, the Committee attempts
to set forth definitive conclusions and the bases for those
conclusions regarding each of those areas, and others.
After an intensive two-year investigation--consisting of
five hearings, 70 formal requests for documents, including
subpoenas, resulting in the production of about 750,000 pages;
and about 60 depositions and witness interviews, \30\ the
Committee found that, as Scanlon's secret partner, Abramoff
received about half of the profit that Scanlon collected from
the $66 million in fees he obtained from six of his Tribal
clients from 2001 through 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Where witnesses whom the Committee interviewed were not put
under oath, they were reminded of the applicability of the False
Statements Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001, and the federal criminal statute
prohibiting the obstruction of congressional investigations, under 18
U.S.C. sec. 1505. Because all witness interviews and depositions were
conducted in executive session, the Committee will not release
summaries or transcripts of those proceedings in toto unless said
release is duly authorized.
In the course of the Committee's investigation, several witnesses
declined to provide the Committee with important information under
oath, citing their right against self-incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, or indicated that they intended to
assert their Fifth Amendment right if called to testify. These
witnesses include not only Abramoff and Scanlon but also former
Abramoff associates Todd Boulanger, Kevin Ring, Shawn Vassell, and Neil
Volz as well as former Scanlon associate Christopher Cathcart. Cathcart
did, however, submit to several informal interviews with staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principally, this Report focuses on allegations of
misconduct made by the covered Tribes. Generally, those
allegations relate to the activities of entities owned or
controlled by Abramoff and/or Scanlon, including Capitol
Campaign Strategies, the American International Center and the
Capital Athletic Foundation. This Report also addresses
payments that those Tribes made at Abramoff or Scanlon's
direction to particular third parties--payments that were
apparently used by third parties, like the Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, for purposes unintended
by the Tribes. While some of the Tribes have expressed concern
about discreet billing anomalies, those Tribes have generally
not alleged wrongdoing arising from the federal lobbying
activities of Greenberg Traurig, the firm with which Abramoff
was associated. Therefore, this Report does not address those
activities.
Also beyond the scope of this Report is an in depth
discussion of the internal political or organizational
conditions within each of the Tribes that may have rendered
them susceptible to exploitation by Abramoff and Scanlon. Those
are internal Tribal matters.
Part I of this Report, presented in chapters relating to
each Tribe, provides the factual background as to how each
Tribe came to hire Abramoff and Scanlon and discusses how
Abramoff and Scanlon's representation of those Tribes caused
unique harm to each of them. After these chapters, the Report
explicates Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' arrangement
and how it injured the Tribes generally. Each chapter in Part
II addresses these issues by focusing on the relevant ``gimme
five'' entity. Part III of this Report discusses ancillary
issues that have arisen during the course of the investigation,
namely, the Tribes' payment of money to a non-profit called the
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA'').
Finally, Part IV of the Report contains the Committee's
recommendations flowing from its investigation.

Committee Action

On June 12, 2006, the Committee invited Members and any
duly designated staff to review a completed draft of the Report
in anticipation of a business meeting to be convened for the
purpose of voting the Report out of Committee and filing it
with the Senate. It also gave Members the opportunity to accept
a confidential copy of the draft in their offices on June 20,
2006. On June 22, 2006, the Committee held a business meeting,
at which time it voted 13 to 0 to approve this Report and file
it with the Senate. Voting with the majority were Senators
McCain, Dorgan, Domenici, Thomas, Smith, Murkowski, Crapo,
Burr, Coburn, Conrad, Akaka, Johnson, Cantwell. No Members
voted in the negative. Senator Inouye submitted additional
views.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

After (or at the same time when) several Tribes hired
Abramoff as their federal lobbyist, Abramoff urged some of them
to hire Scanlon to provide grassroots support. Abramoff,
however, failed to disclose that he and Scanlon were partners.
Evidence obtained over the course of a two-year investigation
indicates that Abramoff and Scanlon had agreed to secretly
split, between themselves, fees that the Tribes paid Scanlon
from 2001 through 2003. Abramoff and Scanlon referred to this
arrangement as ``gimme five.''
As a general proposition, the scheme involved the
following: getting each of the Tribes to hire Scanlon as their
grassroots specialist; dramatically overcharging them for
grassroots and related activities; setting aside for themselves
an unconscionable percentage of what the Tribes paid at a
grossly inflated rate--a rate wholly unrelated to the actual
cost of services provided; and using the remaining fraction to
reimburse scores of vendors that could help them maintain vis-
a-vis the Tribes a continuing appearance of competence. One
example of this fee-splitting arrangement arises from a payment
of $1,900,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan. On
or about July 9, 2002, Scanlon assured Abramoff, ``800 for
you[,] 800 for me[,] 250 for the effort the other 50 went to
the plane and misc expenses. We both have an additional 500
coming when they pay the next phasem [sic].'' Indeed, on July
12, 2002, after that payment arrived, Scanlon made three
payments to Abramoff, including a payment of $800,000.
In some cases, Abramoff and Scanlon obtained lobbying and
grassroots contracts by insinuating themselves into Tribal
Council elections and assisting with the campaigns of
candidates who were calculated to support their proposals. In
other cases, Abramoff and Scanlon were even more aggressive,
for example, helping to shut down the casino of one Tribe, only
to pitch their services--for millions of dollars--to help that
same, now desperate Tribe reopen its casino.
Typically, the most expensive element of Scanlon's
proposals to the Tribes related to a purportedly elaborate
political database. But, in all cases, it appears that the
degree to which Scanlon marked-up his actual costs was
unconscionable. For example, while Scanlon told the Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana that their ``political'' database would cost
$1,345,000, he ended up paying the vendor that actually
developed, operated and maintained that database about
$104,560. The dramatic mark-ups were intended to accommodate
Scanlon's secret 50/50 split with Abramoff.
In total, six tribes paid Scanlon's companies, in
particular a company called Capitol Campaign Strategies
(``CCS'') (which also did business as Scanlon Gould Public
Affairs and Scanlon Public Affairs), at least $66,000,000 over
the three-year period. By the Committee's reckoning, each Tribe
paid CCS as follows: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(``Choctaw''), $14,745,650; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
(``Louisiana Coushatta''), $26,695,500; the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe of Michigan (``Saginaw Chippewa''), $10,007,000; the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''),
$7,200,000; the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''),
$4,200,000; and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (``Pueblo of
Sandia''), $2,750,000. Of that $66,000,000, Abramoff secretly
collected from Scanlon, through (among other entities) an
entity called Kaygold, about $24,000,000. This constituted
about one-half of Scanlon's total profit from the Tribes.
The $66,000,000 figure includes only those payments made by
the Tribes to Scanlon for grassroots activities. The total cost
of doing business with Abramoff and Scanlon was actually much
higher. To determine that cost, one must add to the $66,000,000
figure, payments made by the Tribes to the lobbying firms with
which Abramoff was associated and payments made by the Tribes
directly to other entities owned or controlled by Abramoff,
such as the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), or by
Scanlon, such as the American International Center
(``AIC'').\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ According to records in the Committee's possession, two of
Abramoff's Tribal clients made payments to the AIC: the Choctaw,
$2,655,654 and the Coushatta, $3,653,200. So, the total that all of
Abramoff's Tribal clients paid the AIC was $6,308,854. During the
relevant period, Scanlon paid Abramoff through the AIC a total of
$991,000 and an additional $950,000 through another entity that he
controlled, called Atlantic Research & Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the money that the Tribes paid Scanlon appears to
have been used by Scanlon and Abramoff for purely personal
purposes--purposes unintended by the Tribes. Generally,
Abramoff seems to have used his share of the proceeds he
received from Scanlon to float his restaurant ventures and,
through CAF, operate his Jewish boys' school in Maryland.
Likewise, Scanlon seems to have used his share to purchase real
estate and other investments. The Committee, therefore, finds
that most of the Tribes received little of the intended benefit
for the significant sums they paid to Scanlon and that most of
the money paid by the Tribes was used for purposes unintended
by the Tribes. Against that backdrop, understanding under what
circumstances the Tribes paid Scanlon becomes important.
Probably Abramoff's most valued Tribal client was the
Choctaw. Since 1995, when the Choctaw first hired Abramoff, a
history of dramatic victories emerged, with Abramoff
successfully advocating the Tribe's sovereignty and anti-tax
interests before Congress. In many instances, Abramoff had the
Tribe use conduits to conceal its grassroots activities from
the world--activities often conducted by former Christian
Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed. After this history of
success, in early 2001, things changed. Following Abramoff's
guidance, the Tribe hired Scanlon. And, to implement its
grassroots strategies, the Tribe, at Abramoff and Scanlon's
direction, paid to or through conduits owned or controlled by
Abramoff and Scanlon. As an example of how much Scanlon sought
from the Choctaw, he had the Tribe pay him $4,500,000 for
efforts related to a single program--a grandiose idea Scanlon
called ``Operation Orange.'' During the relevant period,
Abramoff manipulated the Tribe into funding, among other
things, a much reported golfing trip to Scotland. The Tribe
thought that its money, which it paid to a non-profit on whose
board Abramoff sat, would be used for anti-tax and other policy
work. At the end of the day, having collected about $15,000,000
from the Choctaw during the relevant period, Scanlon secretly
kicked back to Abramoff about $6,364,000--about 50 percent of
his total profit from the Tribe.
Specifically citing the work he had done for the Choctaw,
Abramoff subsequently secured contracts for himself and Scanlon
from the Louisiana Coushatta. Regrettably, of all the Tribes
that hired Scanlon, the Louisiana Coushatta ended up paying
Scanlon the most. Initially, the Tribe hired Scanlon to help
with its compact renegotiations with the State of Louisiana.
But, after having successfully done so, Scanlon dramatically
expanded his scope of work, which ranged from squelching
supposedly ubiquitous threats to the Tribal casino's customer
market share to supposedly getting the ``right'' candidates
elected to the Louisiana State Legislature. To its detriment,
the Tribe trusted Abramoff and Scanlon's expertise in Indian
gaming and were captured by their lure of making the Coushatta
``the Choctaw of Louisiana.'' Accordingly, it deferred to
Abramoff and Scanlon's judgment when they recommended that it
fund very expensive grassroots campaigns. Ultimately, having
collected about $30,000,000 from the Louisiana Coushatta during
the relevant period, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff
about $11,450,000--about 50 percent of his total profit from
the Tribe. This includes a payment of $1,000,000 that Abramoff
and Scanlon manipulated the Tribe into paying to Abramoff's
private charity, the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF'').
Abramoff and Scanlon's efforts to sign on the Saginaw
Chippewa and the Agua Caliente as clients are notable. With
both Tribes, Abramoff and Scanlon insinuated themselves into
Tribal Council elections to maximize their chance of getting
hired afterwards. In particular, they provided, among other
things, strategic advice and material support to some of the
candidates. Those who ran in the Saginaw Chippewa election
called themselves the ``Slate of 8.'' The weight of evidence
obtained by the Committee indicates that, in both the Saginaw
Chippewa and Agua Caliente cases, those candidates who were
elected to the Council with Abramoff and Scanlon's assistance
ultimately supported Abramoff and Scanlon's contract proposals
because of, or in exchange for, the assistance that Abramoff
and Scanlon provided them.
Key to Abramoff and Scanlon's success in getting contracts
with the Saginaw Chippewa and the Agua Caliente was the
assistance of non-Tribal Members Christopher Petras and Michael
Chapman, respectively. In the course of the Tribe's dealings
with Abramoff and Scanlon, Abramoff and Scanlon apparently
provided each things of value. Evidence indicates that, over
the course of Abramoff and Scanlon's representation of the
Saginaw Chippewa, Abramoff and Scanlon provided Petras with a
great deal of attention during his frequent trips to
Washington, D.C. (which, with private cars, tickets to sporting
events and concerts, meals at posh restaurants, and meetings
with prominent personalities, one former Abramoff associate
described as a ``dog and pony show'') and some favors.
Likewise, for the services that Chapman provided Abramoff and
Scanlon over the course of the Agua Caliente retainer, Chapman
received about $271,482.
From June 2002 through October 2003, the Saginaw Chippewa
paid Scanlon about $3,500,000 for among other things ``a
strategy for making [the Tribe] the most dominant political
entity in Michigan'' that Scanlon called ``Operation Redwing.''
Of those proceeds, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff
about $540,000--about 50 percent of his total profit from the
Tribe during this period. Similarly, from the Agua Caliente,
Scanlon collected about $7,200,000 from the Agua Caliente
during the relevant period and appears to have secretly split
about 50 percent of his total profit from that Tribe with
Abramoff.
How Abramoff and Scanlon had the Tigua hire them was
particularly aggressive. In late 2001 through early 2002,
(largely with the assistance of Ralph Reed) Abramoff and
Scanlon successfully helped Texas authorities shut the Tigua's
casino down, as violating federal law. Despite the fact that
the Louisiana Coushatta's casino was in southwest Louisiana and
the Tigua's was in El Paso, Texas, Abramoff and Scanlon
succeeded in persuading the Louisiana Coushatta that the Tigua
posed a threat to its customer market share. So, the Louisiana
Coushatta largely funded the grassroots effort to help close
their casino.
Having succeeded in helping shut down the Tribe's casino,
Abramoff and Scanlon then pitched their services to help reopen
it. In pitching their services, Abramoff offered to represent
the Tribe on a pro bono basis if it hired Scanlon for millions
of dollars to provide grassroots support for his federal
lobbying effort. He did so without telling the Tribe of his
financial arrangement with Scanlon.
After they signed the Tigua on as a client, Abramoff and
Scanlon promised to, among other things, insert language
allowing the Tribe to re-open its casino. Cumulatively, Scanlon
called this plan ``Operation Open Doors.'' Abramoff and Scanlon
were ultimately unsuccessful, despite that they collected (and
split between themselves) millions of dollars from the Tribe.
Having collected about $4,200,000 from the Tigua during the
relevant period, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff about
$1,850,000--about 50 percent of his total profit from the
Tribe.
The Pueblo of Sandia hired Abramoff and Scanlon to help
them with the lobbying aspects of a legal dispute related to
Sandia Mountain, revered by the Tribe as sacred. Abramoff
pitched his and Scanlon's services as a ``package deal,''
actually insisting that the Tribe hire Scanlon as its public
relations specialist. He even offered to reduce Greenberg
Traurig's retainer in contemplation of the Tribe's hiring
Scanlon, but insisted that Scanlon's asking price could not be
reduced further because his ``10 percent profit margin'' was
``locked in.'' After having paid Scanlon about $2,750,000 for
grassroots work intended to support Abramoff's federal lobbying
effort, the Tribe became dissatisfied with the quality of
Scanlon's effort and ceased the representation. From those
proceeds that Scanlon collected from the Pueblo Sandia during
the relevant period, on information and belief, Scanlon
secretly split about 50 percent of his total profit from the
Tribe, with Abramoff.
A couple of ``gimme five'' entities--entities owned or
controlled by Abramoff or Scanlon that they used in their
kickback scheme--are especially worth noting. One is an
``international think tank'' called the American International
Center (``AIC''). With two of Scanlon's beach buddies sitting
on its board, AIC's purpose was actually to collect fees
associated with activities conducted by others and, in some
cases, divert those fees to entities owned or controlled by
Scanlon or Abramoff. In other words, AIC was a sham. From 2001
through 2003, the Choctaw and the Coushatta paid AIC about
$6,308,854. While much of this money went to vendors such as
Reed as intended (to conduct grassroots activities supportive
of several Tribes' gaming interests), millions did not.
CAF, Abramoff's private charity, is a particularly
interesting ``gimme five'' entity. In total, four of the Tribes
paid CAF about $2,075,000. The totals for each Tribe is as
follows: the Louisiana Coushatta, $1,000,000; the Choctaw,
$1,000,000; the Saginaw Chippewa, $25,000; and the Alabama
Coushatta, $50,000, which was not even a client. Evidence
obtained by the Committee indicates that Abramoff treated CAF
as his own personal slush fund, using CAF for a number of
activities wholly unrelated to its charitable mission and tax-
exempt status. Such activities included, for example, evading
taxes, financing lobbying activities and purchasing military-
related equipment.
In 2001, the single largest contributor to CAF was the
Louisiana Coushatta, supposedly giving CAF $1,000,000. However,
the Tribe never intended to make a charitable contribution to
CAF. While it thought that its money was going to fund its
grassroots activities, the money simply padded the coffers of
CAF for Abramoff's discretionary use.
In 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon manipulated the Choctaw into
sending directly and indirectly $2,000,000 to CAF, making the
Choctaw CAF's largest donor that year. However, the Choctaw
never intended to contribute to CAF. The Tribe thought that its
payments to CAF were going to pass through to grassroots
organizations working to oppose the expansion of gaming in the
Tribe's customer market. The Tribe's money was not used for its
intended purpose.
As described above, Abramoff also deceived the Saginaw
Chippewa into paying $25,000 to CAF that year. While the Tribe
was led to believe that CAF ``create[d] programs that teach
leadership skills to disadvantaged youth in the D.C.-area in an
effort to keep them off the streets and enhance their
educational opportunities'' and was a charity important to an
important Member of Congress, the Tribe's ``donation'' was used
to partially fund a widely publicized golf trip to Scotland for
Congressman Bob Ney and others.
For 2003, CAF's tax records do not list any Tribe as a
donor. However, substantial evidence indicates that a $47,891
contribution to CAF listed as having been made by Abramoff's
corporate alter ego, Kaygold, and a $950,000 contribution from
a Scanlon-controlled entity called Atlantic Research & Analysis
(``ARA'') were actually funds from some of the Tribes, paid as
a result of Abramoff and Scanlon's manipulation.
Among the third parties that Abramoff had some of his
Tribal clients pay money was an environmental organization
called the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy
(``CREA''). From 2001 through 2003, Abramoff managed to have
these Tribes ``contribute'' at least $250,000 to CREA,
sometimes under false pretenses. The Coushatta, for example,
paid CREA $25,000 to help the Department of the Interior with a
``national park study,'' which was apparently never conducted.
Likewise, the Saginaw Chippewa made a $25,000 donation, having
been told that former Interior Secretary Gale Norton was
``involved'' with and supported CREA and that supporting such
``a project'' that the Secretary was involved with would ``look
good'' for the Tribe. In both cases, the Tribes were deceived.
In any event, with the possible exception of the Choctaw,
the Committee has found no evidence that those Tribes that gave
to CREA did so because of any interest in CREA's mission. In
fact, Abramoff apparently had his clients contribute to CREA,
described by CREA president Italia Federici as a ``mom and
pop'' operation, because he believed that Federici would help
him possibly influence tribal issues pending at the Department
of the Interior. Ample evidence indicates that she repeatedly
told Abramoff that she would talk with a particular senior
Interior official to help ensure that the concerns of
Abramoff's clients were addressed. However, what she, or her
working contact at Interior, former Deputy Secretary J. Steven
Griles, actually did at Interior for the benefit of Abramoff's
Tribal clients, remains unclear.
PART ONE--FACT SUMMARY BY TRIBE

CHAPTER I

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

Lets [sic] do this, lets [sic] plan a swing to the big
three [Choctaw, Coushatta, and Saginaw] as soon as is
convenient to go over existing operations and hit them
for new ones--Ill [sic] start working gup [sic] the
reports (choctas [sic] is almost done) and the new
proposals. We will take two maybe three days and take
no prisoners--we are coming home with a bag of cash.

Email from Michael Scanlon to Jack Abramoff, May 31, 2002.

You know, it's the lack of care for people and just the
personal greed. And who knows? I don't understand that
point of view.

Nell Rogers on Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, April 29,
2005.

A. INTRODUCTION

When the Committee first began this investigation in
February 2004, many of Jack Abramoff's and Michael Scanlon's
long-time friends and clients came to their defense. Among them
were Chief Phillip Martin and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians (``Choctaw''). Six months into the Committee's
investigation, however, Chief Martin wrote to Senators John
McCain and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who were leading the
investigation:

In light of information we have recently obtained from
various sources, it now appears that our Tribe may in
fact have been the victim of serious wrongdoing by
Abramoff and Scanlon. Thus, despite my prior concerns,
I appreciate your Committee's work on this matter.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Chief Phillip Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, to Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Ranking Majority
Member John McCain, Committee on Indian Affairs (no Bates number)
(August 9, 2004).

Indeed, of all the Tribes that Abramoff and Scanlon
betrayed, their misdeeds were perhaps most painful for the
Choctaw, which Abramoff had represented for nearly a decade.
Nell Rogers, the Tribal planner who had dealt most closely with
Abramoff and Scanlon, gave an impassioned, tearful account
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
during her interview with Committee staff:

Staff: If Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon were
sitting in this room today and you had a chance to look
them in the eye, what would you tell them?
Rogers: I would tell them that--there are a lot of
things that I could say about being angry or bitter.
But I think the worst is that they betrayed the tribe.
They betrayed the Chief who had a great deal of
confidence in them. They betrayed me ... But I think at
the end of the day, it's the betrayal that's worse. And
I think of the people whose lives they've destroyed. I
think of all those young kids who worked at Greenberg
and Preston Gates with them, who, fairly or unfairly,
are going to have to bear that burden.
And I think about the other tribes. I mean, you know,
let's face it. The tribes they dealt with were not the
poorest of the poor tribes. Of all those tribes,
Choctaw, though, probably has the greatest needs, the
biggest tribe, was the poorest tribe. And they used the
success they had with Choctaw to gain entree with the
other tribes.
You know, not only did they betray Choctaw but they
betrayed the tribe's good name and Chief's reputation.
And, you know, Phillip Martin has spent his life
working for not only this tribe but for Indian people.
And for him to have to be smeared like this is
intolerable. I've spent my whole life working. You
know, it's the lack--it's the lack of care for people
and just the personal greed. And who knows? I don't
understand that point of view.\2\

\2\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005). During his
interview, Chief Phillip Martin expressed similar feelings of betrayal
caused by Abramoff and Scanlon. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief,
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is a federally
recognized Indian tribe of nearly 10,000 members, most of whom
reside on eight reservation communities located on trust lands
scattered over a five-county area in East-Central
Mississippi.\3\ The Tribal capital is in Choctaw,
Mississippi.\4\ The majority of Tribal members are full-blood,
Choctaw language speaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 52 (June 22, 2005) (prepared statement
of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Choctaw Indians are the descendants of those Choctaw
people who resisted efforts by the Federal Government around
1830-1840 to remove them to Oklahoma, then known as Indian
Territory.\6\ Although the Choctaw chose to stay in
Mississippi, they did not receive their initial reservation
lands until 1944 and it was not until the following year that
they were federally recognized.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribe has developed a stable governmental structure
providing a full panoply of governmental services.\8\ These
include a school system, police and fire protection services,
courts, hospitals, clinics, and housing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many years the Choctaw struggled to survive. By 1964,
ninety percent of the Tribe's population lived in poverty.\10\
The Choctaw's situation improved when Chief Phillip Martin
began a campaign to bring economic development to the
reservation.\11\ The Choctaw are unusual in their development
because they first gained economic success through their non-
gaming business ventures, before opening the Silver Star Hotel
and Casino in 1994.\12\ In 2000, the Tribe announced an
expansion to include another casino, the Golden Moon, and a
shopping complex.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Choctaw Chronology (visited March 21, 2006) (providing a detailed
chronology of Choctaw history).
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribe now is the third largest employer in Mississippi,
employing nearly 9,200 people in 25 different enterprises
including greeting card manufacturing, wiring harness
production for the automotive industry, a nursing home, and a
world renowned golf course, the Dancing Rabbit.\14\ The annual
Tribal payroll is over $1,237,000 and covers many non-member
employees.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 52 (June 22, 2005) (prepared statement
of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians);
Economic Development History How We Got Here (visited March 21, 2006)

(providing an overview of the Choctaw's economic development).
\15\ Economic Development History How We Got Here (visited March
21, 2006) (providing an overview of the Choctaw's
economic development).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. BACKGROUND ON ABRAMOFF AND THE TRIBE'S RELATIONSHIP--BUILDING TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE

The Choctaw have long enjoyed a government-to-government
relationship with the Federal Government, particularly with the
United States Congress.\16\ In the beginning, Chief Martin of
the Choctaw preferred to lobby Congress himself.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\17\ Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005); Interview of Nell
Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw,
Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That changed in 1994. Either through retirement or defeat,
many of the Members of Congress who provided the institutional
memory on American Indian issues were gone.\18\ At the same
time, the opening of the Choctaw's Silver Star Hotel and Casino
in 1994 gave rise to an array of new issues and concerns that
required the Tribe to track and address them at the federal
level.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 12 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Nell
Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, tribes apparently began to see a slew of proposed
legislation they believed were inimical to their interests.\20\
One of the first major initiatives came from the U.S. House of
Representatives, in a bill seeking to apply the unrelated
business income tax (``UBIT'') to tribal enterprises.\21\
Confronted with this legislation and a sea of unknown faces in
Congress, the Choctaw decided to hire outside lobbyists.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coincidentally, around the same time, Nell Rogers, the
Tribe's planner responsible for legislative affairs, was
speaking with a friend in California who knew Abramoff's
father.\23\ Aware that Abramoff had once been a Republican
activist, Rogers' friend suggested she speak with Abramoff.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id. Rogers' friend had actually attended a fundraiser that
Abramoff's father had thrown in support of Abramoff's bid for the Chair
of the College Republican National Committee. Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through further due diligence, Chief Martin and Rogers
learned that Abramoff worked for Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds (``Preston Gates''), and that Meeds was former
Congressman Lloyd Meeds from Washington State.\25\ The Choctaw
had known and respected Meeds during his tenure in Congress, as
a member of at least one House committee that had jurisdiction
over Indian issues.\26\ The Tribe decided to contact Preston
Gates.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a brief telephone call, Meeds and Abramoff traveled
to the Choctaw reservation.\28\ There they made a presentation
about their firm's capabilities and connections, and discussed
the Tribe's legislative concerns.\29\ Rogers was extremely
fascinated by how Abramoff proposed mobilizing other groups to
assist the Choctaw in its legislative battle: ``I came away
thinking this is really different and unusual. It was. It was
an unusual approach that you would engage other groups to help
you in a campaign to say `these are good guys.' '' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the meeting, Chief Martin and Rogers concluded that
the Choctaw needed to educate the new members of Congress about
Indian Country and the issues it faced.\31\ They therefore
hired Preston Gates.\32\ The issues on which Preston Gates
would lobby were not limited to the UBIT. At the time, Rogers
recalled, there seemed to be daily issues emerging that
adversely affected tribes, a ``sea change of proposals'' that
were ``hostile to the tribes.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help the Choctaw in its campaign to educate the new
Members of Congress, Abramoff mobilized his friends and
colleagues at various think tanks and grassroots organizations.
The Preston Gates team recast the issue from an Indian issue
into a tax issue.\34\ Abramoff then enlisted the aid of his
long term friend and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and his
organization Americans for Tax Reform (``ATR''), which,
according to its website, ``opposes all tax increases as a
matter of principle'' and serves as ``a national clearinghouse
for the grassroots taxpayers movement.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Jim Vandehei, Rain Dance, Mississippi's Choctaw Find an
Unlikely Ally In a GOP Stalwart, The Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2000.
\35\ ATR opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle.
(visited May 21, 2006) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to one document in the Committee's possession,
Abramoff described ATR as ``an effective conduit of support for
other groups which have provided assistance to Indian gaming's
efforts to fight the tax proposal.'' \36\ There were a number
of anti-tax grassroots groups in various states, and ``it was
ATR's job to make contacts with those groups, to assist them in
making contacts with members of the Ways and Means Committee or
other committee members.'' \37\ The Choctaw apparently paid ATR
a total of $60,000 in 1996 to oppose the UBIT tax.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ February 22, 1996, List of Suggested Contributions,
Republicans and Conservative Organizations (GTG-E000106655-57)
\37\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\38\ Id. This apparently was not the only time that Abramoff and
his clients had sought to hire Norquist and ATR. During the UBIT battle
for the Choctaw, Abramoff discussed with a colleague the possibility of
Brown Forman, a company in the wine and spirits business, retaining
Norquist as a lobbyist:

I spoke this evening with Grover. He said that, if they want the
taxpayer movement, including him, involved on this issue and anything
else which will come up over the course of the year or so, they need to
become a major player with ATR. He recommended that they make a $50,000
contribution to ATR. It seems that, on another ``sin tax'' matter, he
is getting a similarly large contribution to get involved. ... He would
prefer donations to ATR.

Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, to
Mark Ruge, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000106493)
(October 22, 1995). Abramoff said that keeping the arrangement with
Norquist and ATR secret was important. After all, Abramoff wrote,
``[w]e do not want opponents to think that we are trying to buy the tax
payer [sic] movement.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis &
Rouvelas Meeds, to Pamela Garvie, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds
(Greenberg Traurig production) (GTG-E000106492) (October 24, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and his colleagues at Preston Gates eventually
succeeded in their efforts, and the UBIT tax failed in the
Senate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three years later, however, the Choctaw were still battling
congressional attempts to tax its Tribal revenue. In so doing,
in September 1999, the Choctaw paid ATR another $25,000.\40\
Rogers believed that the payment was in furtherance of ATR's
opposition to a sales tax issue at the time.\41\ According to
Rogers: ``Well, we did not support the general work of ATR
unless we had a tax issue. That's what I mean by saying general
work. We would have expected them to take a position opposing--
we did expect them to take a position opposing the sales tax.''
\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id.
\42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this issue, Abramoff enlisted other allies. The Choctaw
paid Americans for Economic Growth (``AEG'') $45,000 in 1999
for its work opposing the sales tax.\43\ The payments were
intended for grassroots work and the anti-tax program in
1999.\44\ Rogers understood that AEG would be ``contacting
their supporters, contacting members of Congress'' and
``staffers that they might have known to talk to them about the
tribe--this was after they had been to visit [the Choctaw
reservation]--to let them know what the tribe was about. That
was our understanding of what they would do.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The outside groups were not limited to grassroots
organizations. Abramoff put together visits to the Choctaw
reservation for reporters and public policy groups, with the
goal of demonstrating the Tribe's success in an environment
unfettered by unnecessary government regulation.\46\ One group
that visited the reservation was the National Center for Public
Policy Research (``NCPPR''), which was headed by long-time
Abramoff friend Amy Ridenour. Ridenour visited the Tribe,
``wrote some articles about the tribe, the tribe's economic
development, cultural preservation of the tribal community. And
we had made a contribution--had said that we would make a
contribution to the National Center.'' \47\ The Tribe paid
NCPPR $5,000 in 1999.\48\ Others who attended were
representatives from think tanks including Doug Bandow from the
Cato Institute.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id.
\47\ Id.
\48\ Id.
\49\ Id. According to one news article, Bandow resigned from the
Cato Institute, after admitting he received money from Abramoff to
write between 12 and 24 articles in the mid '90s addressing topics
important to Abramoff's clients. Eamon Javers, Op-Eds for Sale,
BusinessWeek Online, December 16, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Choctaw's campaign against the sales tax was ultimately
successful.
The UBIT and sales tax issues were only two among the many
issues on which Abramoff and his team lobbied for the Choctaw.
As time passed, and Abramoff and his team repeatedly succeeded
in their lobbying efforts for the Choctaw, the Tribe developed
a great deal of trust and confidence in Abramoff and his
capabilities.\50\ Another Abramoff trait that engendered trust
with the Choctaw was that he ``always presented himself as a
deeply religious person ... his conversations were spiked with
references to a good cause or working for a good cause. And he
talked quite a bit about his religious beliefs and what he
could and what he couldn't do.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was during the UBIT battle that Abramoff assumed primary
responsibility for the Choctaw account.\52\ In fact, he
remained ultimately responsible for the account throughout his
tenure at Preston Gates and, later, at Greenberg Traurig.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Id.
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. SUBSTANTIAL FEES AND CONDUITS--SETTING THE STAGE FOR SCANLON

As the Tribe's trust and confidence in Abramoff grew,
Rogers would often discuss with Abramoff issues affecting the
Tribe, both at a local and national level.\54\ In 1999, Rogers
and Abramoff discussed various legislative proposals in
Mississippi and elsewhere that threatened the market share of
the Choctaw's casino operations, and which the Tribe wanted to
somehow counter.\55\ It just so happened that a few months
earlier, Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the
Christian Coalition and one of Abramoff's long-time friends,
had reached out to Abramoff: ``Hey, now that I'm done with
electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate
accounts! I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts.''
\56\ Abramoff saw an opportunity: he suggested a grassroots
effort and recommended the Choctaw hire Reed to orchestrate an
anti-gaming effort.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000079102) (November 12,
1998).
\57\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribe agreed to hire Reed to mobilize grassroots
opposition to various legislative proposals throughout the Gulf
Coast \58\ that would have increased gaming, thereby
diminishing the Choctaw casino's market share.\59\ No one from
the Choctaw had any direct contact with Reed; rather, Abramoff
served as the liaison with Reed and his firm, which eventually
became a subcontractor to Preston Gates.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Committee has seen no evidence that the Choctaw undertook
or authorized any work by Abramoff or Scanlon, or anyone else, to
oppose gaming in other Southern states, such as Louisiana and Texas.
\59\ Id.
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 1999, Abramoff and his associate, Shawn Vasell,
spoke with Reed about the Choctaw's grassroots needs.\61\
According to a draft engagement letter from Reed to Abramoff,
Reed was hired to defeat a bill that had passed the Alabama
House of Representatives ``authorizing dog tracks in the state
to install video poker and other casino-style games on their
sites.'' \62\ Reed promised to ``build a strong grassroots
network across the state against the extension of video poker
and [REDACTION].'' \63\ He claimed that no firm had better
relationships than his with the grassroots conservatives in
Alabama, including the Alabama Christian Coalition, the Alabama
Family Alliance, the Alabama Eagle Forum, the Christian Family
Association, and ``leading evangelical pastors such as Frank
Barker of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.'' \64\
Reed boasted that ``Century Strategies has on file over 3,000
pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households in Alabama
that can be accessed in this effort.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Shawn Vasell,
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000111956) (March 26, 1999).
\62\ Ralph Reed document production (Bates number 5908-09) (March
26, 1999) (letter from Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff).
\63\ Id.
\64\ Id.
\65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed promised to leverage his contacts for the Tribe:

Working closely with your existing team at Preston
Gates, we can play on [sic] operational role in
building a strong anti-video poker grassroots structure
that will leverage the considerable contacts and
reputation of our principals within Alabama, the
conservative faith community, and state elected
officials.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id.

Reed proposed a $20,000 monthly retainer for his services, and
ended his letter by writing, ``We look forward to bringing
about the desired results for you.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After receiving Reed's proposed engagement agreement,
Abramoff responded, ``Ralph, I spoke with Nell this evening.
She wants much more specifics. They are not scared of the
number, but want to know precisely what you are planning to do
for this amount.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111956) (March 29,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Reed told Abramoff he was devoting half his staff to
the project for two weeks, but needed the green light to begin,
Abramoff directed:

Please page me with a page of no more than 90 words ...
informing me of your completion of the budget and
giving me a total budget figure with category
breakdowns. Once I get this, I will call Nell at
Choctaw and get it approved.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, and Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111992) (April 4,
1999).

On April 6, 1999, Abramoff informed Reed that he ``spoke
with our managing partner [at Preston Gates] and he has
approved the subcontractor arrangement'' and instructed Reed to
``get me invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to
get us checks asap.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (Bates number 7029) (April 6,
1999) (Ralph Reed document production).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Abramoff believed he could not get money quickly
enough to Reed, Abramoff suggested that the Choctaw pay Reed
directly: ``Ralph, I am not sure that I can get this wire
moving fast enough today. Give me your wire info and I'll do
what I can.'' \71\ Abramoff then asked, ``Any chance that a
wire from Choctaw directly would be OK?'' \72\ Reed's response
is unknown; however, the Committee has seen no evidence that
the Choctaw paid Reed or his firms directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111977) (April 9,
1999).
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By mid-April, things were moving. In an e-mail entitled
``Disbursement on behalf of Choctaw Indians,'' Abramoff assured
Reed that the money was on its way.\73\ Using the Choctaw's
money, Reed paid for grassroots activities including,
telemarketing (patch-through, tape-recorded messages and call-
to-action phone calls), targeted mail, legislative counsel and
local management, rallies, petitions, ``voter contact,
television and radio production, the remainder of phones, the
statewide fly-around, the pastor's and activist rally, the
church bulletin inserts, and other items.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000111974) (April 12,
1999).
\74\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000112006) (April 21, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed also claimed that he was leveraging his contacts
within the Christian community for the Choctaw's benefit. Reed
reported to Abramoff that there would be ``a saturation
statewide radio buy with a new ad by Jim Dobson that he will
record tomorrow.'' \75\ Reed assured Abramoff, ``We are opening
the bomb bay doors and holding nothing back. If victory is
possible, we will achieve it,'' \76\ and, one day later, again
promised, ``All systems are go on our end and nothing is being
held back.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Id.
\76\ Id.
\77\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000112006) (April 22, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By May 10, 1999, the Choctaw had paid Reed $1,300,000
through Preston Gates, with another $50,000 outstanding.\78\
For reasons unclear to the Committee, in late 1999 the Tribe
discontinued paying Reed through Preston Gates. Rogers recalled
that there came a time when either Reed or Preston Gates (or
both) became uneasy about money being passed through Preston
Gates to Reed.\79\ Abramoff thus searched for another conduit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Email from [REDACTED] to Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis &
Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E00018933) (May 10, 1999).
\79\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff turned to his long-time friend Norquist to have
his group ATR serve as a conduit for the Choctaw money.\80\
Earlier, on May 20, 1999, Norquist had asked Abramoff, ``What
is the status of the Choctaw stuff. I have a $75K hole in my
budget from last year. ouch [sic].'' \81\ Thus, in the fall of
1999, Abramoff reminded himself to ``call Ralph re Grover doing
pass through.'' \82\ When Abramoff suggested the Choctaw start
using ATR as a conduit, the Tribe agreed.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to himself (GTG-E000079255) (September 24, 1999).
\81\ Email from Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform, to Jack
Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000114915) (May
20, 1999).
\82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to himself (GTG-E000079255) (September 24, 1999).
\83\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late 1999, the Choctaw paid ATR $325,000.\84\ In a 2005
interview with The Boston Globe, Norquist said that ATR had
sent $300,000 of that $325,000 to Citizens Against Legalized
Lottery (``CALL'').\85\ Norquist explained that he sent the
money to CALL because the Tribe wanted to block gambling
competition in Alabama.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Id.
\85\ Michael Kranish, Antitax Activist Says He got $1.5M from
Tribes, The Boston Globe, May 13, 2005.
\86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the Choctaw's $325,000, ATR apparently kept $25,000
for its services. According to Rogers, Norquist demanded that
he receive a management fee for letting ATR be used as a
conduit:

But I remember when we discussed needing a vehicle for
doing the pass-through to Century Strategies that Jack
had told me that Grover would want a management fee.
And we agreed to that, frankly didn't know any other
way to do it at that time.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).

On a similar project in early 2000, Reed and Abramoff
discussed using four groups instead of one as conduits to pay
Reed: NCPPR, ATR, Toward Tradition and one unidentified
group.\88\ Abramoff later advised Reed that ``Rabbi Lapin [head
of Toward Tradition] does not have a c4'' \89\ and asked Reed
for ``the name of the c4 you want to use (include address) and
we'll divide it among the three groups.'' \90\ Within days,
Abramoff advised Reed that Amy Ridenour, president of NCPPR,
``does not have a c4, only a c3, so we are back to ATR only.''
\91\ Abramoff asked Reed, ``Let me know if it will work just to
do this through ATR until we can find another group.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack
Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000020203)
(January 27, 2000) (listing the names of the heads of the groups they
contemplated using as conduits).
\89\ Abramoff's designation of groups as a c4 or c3 group
apparently refers to their tax exempt status under either subsection
(c)(3) or (c)(4) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code.
\90\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020287) (January 28,
2000).
\91\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (Bates number 7096) (February
2, 2000) (Ralph Reed document production).
\92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though Reed did not respond, on February 2, 2000, Abramoff
informed Reed, ``We'll have $300K for Monday and more shortly
thereafter.'' \93\ This project apparently was centered on
opposing a video poker initiative.\94\ The Choctaw made the
first of three $300,000 payments to ATR on February 7, 2000.
Abramoff warned Reed, however, that ``I need to give Grover
something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit
lighter.'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020517) (February 3,
2000).
\94\ See Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack
Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-E000020467)
(February 17, 2000); see also Michael Kranish, Antitax Activist Says He
got $1.5M from Tribes, The Boston Globe, May 13, 2005.
\95\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020508) (February 7,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this time, Abramoff advised Reed that the Choctaw
might be limited in the amount of money it could devote to his
activities.\96\ In response, Reed assured Abramoff that he was
also seeking money from ``national anti-gambling groups,
Christian CEOs, and national pro-family groups.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See Email between Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis &
Rouvelas Meeds, and Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (Bates number 7096)
(February 2, 2000) (Ralph Reed document production).
\97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribe was nevertheless able to continue funding Reed's
efforts. On February 17, 2000, Abramoff advised Reed that ``ATR
will be sending a second $300K today.'' \98\ This money, too,
came from the Choctaw.\99\ Norquist kept another $25,000 from
the second transfer, which apparently surprised Abramoff.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000020467) (February 17,
2000).
\99\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\100\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to himself (GTG-E000078903) (February 22, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 2, 2000, Abramoff told Rogers he needed ``more
money asap'' for Reed, and requested ``a check for $300K for
Americans for Tax Reform asap.'' \101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Nell Rogers, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (GTG-
E000110996) (March 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff's executive assistant Susan Ralston asked him,
``Once ATR gets their check, should the entire $300K be sent to
the Alabama Christian Coalition again?'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Email between Susan Ralston, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, and Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds (GTG-
E000110996) (March 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``Yes, but last time they sent $275K, so
I want to make sure that before we send it to ATR I speak with
Grover to confirm.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers did not speak with anyone at ATR about using ATR as
a conduit.\104\ As far as Rogers knew, ATR was not involved and
was not considering getting involved in any of the efforts the
Choctaw ultimately paid Reed and others to oppose.\105\ Based
on everything Rogers knew, ATR simply served as a conduit to
disguise the source of the Choctaw money ultimately paid to
grassroots groups and Reed.\106\ Rogers told Committee staff
that she understood from Abramoff that ATR was willing to serve
as a conduit, provided it received a fee.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\105\ Id.
\106\ Id. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
\107\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (June 16, 2005). Interview of
Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in
Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Choctaw's intent and understanding was that the money
would pass through ATR and ultimately reach either Reed or a
grassroots organization engaging in anti-gaming
activities.\108\ It was never intended as a contribution to
support ATR's general anti-tax work.\109\ As far as Rogers was
concerned, ATR was serving as a conduit on a project that had
nothing to do with taxes and that was designed to oppose
gaming.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\109\ Id.
\110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point, Rogers recalled that Norquist apparently
began getting nervous about his role as a pass-through.\111\
Rogers thought that part of Norquist's discomfort derived from
press accounts reporting that ATR was one of the largest
contributors to an organization that was fighting against the
expansion of gaming.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Id.
\112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question arises why the Choctaw paid money to Reed
through various conduits, such as Preston Gates and ATR, rather
than directly. Rogers told Committee staff, ``I always assumed
it's because Ralph was more comfortable with that.'' \113\
Rogers understood from Abramoff that ``Ralph Reed did not want
to be paid directly by a tribe with gaming interests. It was
our understanding that the structure was recommended by Jack
Abramoff to accommodate Mr. Reed's political concerns.'' \114\
Nevertheless, the work Reed and his company Century Strategies
performed and for which they were paid through Preston Gates
and ATR was on the Tribe's behalf and for its benefit.\115\ The
Tribe has no complaints about the quality of work Reed
undertook on its behalf.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Id.
\114\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (June 16, 2005).
\115\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\116\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once ATR ceased serving as a conduit, Abramoff and Reed
looked for other conduits for the Tribe to route money to
Reed's Century Strategies. After he left Preston Gates for
Greenberg Traurig in 2001, Abramoff suggested the Tribe pay
into entities owned or controlled by Michael Scanlon. In 2001,
the Choctaw paid money into American International Center
(``AIC''), which Abramoff described as vehicle for passing
money through to Reed.\117\ By the Committee's accounting, the
Tribe paid AIC $1,485,656 in 2001, and $1,170,000 in 2002.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Id.
\118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. ABRAMOFF BRINGS SCANLON TO THE CHOCTAW

In late 2001, the Choctaw were again looking for a
grassroots specialist to help with certain state issues.\119\
Because of the Tribe's and Rogers' relationship with and trust
in Abramoff, they asked him to recommend a grassroots
specialist.\120\ This time, Abramoff did not turn to Reed; he
instead introduced the Tribe to Scanlon.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Id.
\120\ Id.
\121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon traveled together to Mississippi to
meet with the Choctaw.\122\ Abramoff introduced Scanlon as an
independent consultant and an expert in grassroots
operations.\123\ Abramoff claimed that Scanlon worked with the
Christian community in grassroots campaigns, get out the vote
campaigns and public relations campaigns.\124\ He also said
Scanlon was Congressman Tom DeLay's former staffer and later
described him as ``DeLay's dirty tricks guy.'' \125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Id.
\123\ Id.
\124\ Id. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
\125\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff recommended that the Tribe hire Scanlon.\126\
Abramoff did not recommend anyone else.\127\ Trusting in and
relying on Abramoff, the Tribe did so.\128\ From the outset,
the Tribe understood that Scanlon would hire vendors to perform
much of the work, and that Scanlon and his company Capitol
Campaign Strategies would provide the strategy, hire and
coordinate the vendors, and make the contacts.\129\ Although
the Tribe expected Scanlon would take a reasonable fee for his
work, it intended that most of its payments to Scanlon would be
used for grassroots activities such as polling, surveying,
media, and analysis.\130\ The Choctaw never intended that any
of the money it paid Scanlon would go to Abramoff.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Id.
\127\ Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
\128\ Id. Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\129\ Id.
\130\ Id.
\131\ Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribe, and in particular Chief Martin, were always
concerned about how high Scanlon's fees were.\132\ Rogers
sometimes asked Scanlon for a reduced budget.\133\ To justify
Scanlon's charges, both Abramoff and Scanlon explained that the
cost of Scanlon's work was consistent with the cost of the work
Reed had done for the Choctaw.\134\ They also explained that it
was ``the cost of operating under the radar.'' \135\ In some
instances, Scanlon did reduce his original, proposed budget,
but not often.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\133\ Id.
\134\ Id.
\135\ Id.
\136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to combating market threats, Scanlon promised
to turn the Choctaw into a political powerhouse at the state
level. And so, on October 16, 2001, Abramoff asked Scanlon,
``By the way, even with this [project] done, don't we have a
large longer term project to do for them there? Remember we
promised when we had dinner with the Chief that we would make
them the most powerful folks in the state.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 1131592) (October
16, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon was referring to a grandiose plan he called
Operation Orange. The Tribe did not agree to Operation Orange
in its entirety, but instead directed Scanlon to pursue
discreet parts of it aimed at threats to its casino's market
share.\138\ Contemporaneously, the Tribe saw evidence that
Scanlon was carrying out parts of Operation Orange it had
commissioned.\139\ The Tribe paid roughly $4,500,000 over two
years for Scanlon's efforts related to Operation Orange.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\139\ Id.
\140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the same two years, the Tribe also paid Scanlon
another $1,000,000 for a separate project.\141\ Rogers
understood that Scanlon and his companies were conducting
polls, performing research, including opposition research,
directly lobbying opinion makers, using third parties, and
engaging in letter campaigns.\142\ Scanlon told the Choctaw he
was mobilizing Christian grassroots groups, such as Global
Christian Outreach Network and Concerned Citizens Against
Gaming Expansion.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Id.
\142\ Id.
\143\ See Id. Unknown to the Choctaw was that these organizations
were bogus. A full explanation about how Scanlon apparently used such
bogus organizations as a part of his and Abramoff's ``gimme five''
scheme is set forth below in Part 2, Chapter 1, ``Capitol Campaign
Strategies'' section, Page 3, ``CCS' Use of Fictitious Grassroots
Organizations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In earlier grassroots efforts to protect its market share,
the Tribe had grown accustomed to sending payments through
conduits at Abramoff's direction. Abramoff and Scanlon
continued the practice of directing the Tribe to route money
through conduits. Abramoff and Scanlon identified the following
as pass-through vehicles for the Choctaw: American
International Center, Capital Athletic Foundation, Scanlon-
Gould Public Affairs, and, National Center for Public Policy
Research.\144\ Common among all of them was that they were all
entities over which Abramoff or Scanlon exercised considerable
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the Choctaw paid approximately $17,500,000 to
companies owned or controlled by Scanlon. Unknown to the
Choctaw, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff about
$6,364,000--about 50% of his total profit from the Tribe.
Additionally, at Abramoff and Scanlon's direction, the Tribe
paid another $2,000,000 to non-profit organizations where
Abramoff was a director.\145\ The payments from the Tribe to
Abramoff and Scanlon-related entities is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on
an entity-by-entity basis, is contained in Part 2 of the this Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments by Choctaw to Abramoff/Scanlon Entities

Payments by Tribe to Capitol Campaign Strategies (CCS)

06/29/01................................................ $200,000
07/18/01................................................ $43,650
07/31/01................................................ $50,000
08/29/01................................................ $1,500,000
09/27/01................................................ $1,000,000
10/18/01................................................ $207,000
11/02/01................................................ $1,670,000
11/13/01................................................ $2,350,000
12/31/01................................................ $250,000
02/22/02................................................ $1,600,000
10/15/02................................................ $800,000
12/11/02................................................ $330,000
12/11/02................................................ $600,000
09/03/03................................................ $48,333
09/03/03................................................ $48,334
09/03/03................................................ $48,333
09/11/03................................................ $500,000
10/16/03................................................ $450,000
10/16/03................................................ $300,000
11/18/03................................................ $300,000
11/18/03................................................ $150,000
12/10/03................................................ $300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $12,745,650

Payments by Tribe to Scanlon Gould Public Affairs (SGPA)

04/29/02................................................ $1,000,000
10/15/02................................................ $1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $2,000,000

Payments by Tribe to American International Center (AIC)

02/27/01................................................ $200,000
04/09/01................................................ $150,000
05/02/01................................................ $175,000
05/11/01................................................ $960,654
02/22/02................................................ $1,000,000
12/11/02................................................ $170,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $2,655,654

Payments by Tribe to Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF)

01/03/02................................................ $500,000
08/05/02................................................ $500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $1,000,000

Payments by Tribe to National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR)

10/15/02................................................ $1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $1,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total..................................... $19,401,304

The Tribe would not discover, until after this Committee
started its investigation, the scam that Abramoff and Scanlon
were running on it.

F. ABRAMOFF HAS THE CHOCTAW FUND HIS PET PROJECTS

1. 2000 Scotland Golf Trip

In 2000, Abramoff had the Choctaw pay twice to the NCPPR:
$25,000 on May 19 and $40,000 on June 27.\146\ It has been
widely reported that the NCPPR used those funds to finance
partially a golf trip to Scotland for Abramoff, Congressman
DeLay and his staff, and others.\147\ The Tribe never intended
for those funds to be used to finance a trip for any member of
Congress; rather, it was intended as a donation for some anti-
tax and anti-NACS [National Association of Convenience Stores]
work.\148\ Any use of the funds to finance that Scotland trip
was done without the Choctaw's knowledge or authorization.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\147\ Id.
\148\ Id. Interview of Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005).
\149\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Sports Suites

For three years, the Choctaw paid into what Abramoff
labeled the ``Sports Suites'' program: $170,374 in 1999,
$233,679 in 2000, and $223,679 in 2001.\150\ Rogers understood
that ``Sports Suites company to be a company basically that was
a Jack Abramoff company but that several tribes paid shares
into so that the suites could be used for fundraisers or
similar kinds of events.'' \151\ Abramoff told Rogers that he
would represent the tribal participants as the owners of the
Sports Suites.\152\ Rogers said she would find it objectionable
if Abramoff used the Sports Suites boxes for the benefit of
other clients or his family, unless they paid for their use of
the Sports Suites.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Id.
\151\ Id.
\152\ Id.
\153\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers believed that Choctaw derived benefit from
participating in the Sports Suites program:

In some regards I do [believe the Tribe derived a
benefit] because the box had copies of the Choctaw
Revolution.\154\ It had the tribal profile. It had
information about manufacturing opportunities or
economic development opportunities on the reservation.
And we actually had calls or ran into people who had
picked up information about the tribe and who had
contacted the tribe because of that. And there were
fundraisers held for members of Congress there,
including some in our delegation as well as other
members who had interest in Indian issues or who had
responsibility for Indian issues. So in that regard, I
think that the tribe did have some benefit.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ The Choctaw Revolution: Lessons for Federal Indian Policy was
a book written about the success of the Choctaw in 1998 by Peter
Ferrara and published by ATR. The Choctaw reportedly paid Ferrara for
his work on the book. Eamon Javers, ``Op-Eds for Sale,'' BusinessWeek
Online (December 16, 2005).
\155\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Liberty Consulting Services, LLC

On January 30, 2002, Abramoff instructed his assistant
Illisa Gertner to send an invoice for Liberty Consulting
Services (``Liberty'') in the amount of $5,000 for ``Consulting
Services.'' \156\ Abramoff instructed Gertner to include a
cover sheet saying, ``Per my email about Alexander Strategy
Group, attached please find the invoice for Liberty.'' \157\
Abramoff told the Tribe that Liberty ``was another lobbying
group that was going to oppose NACS [National Association of
Convenience Stores]. ...'' \158\ The Choctaw paid Liberty
Consulting a total of $25,000 in 2002.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Illisa
Gertner, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107717-18) (January 30, 2002)
(attaching Liberty Consulting Services invoice).
\157\ Id.
\158\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown to the Choctaw, Liberty was actually a company set
up by Tony Rudy, while he was serving on Congressman DeLay's
staff, as his Deputy Chief of Staff.\160\ When Rudy pled guilty
to committing conspiracy on March 31, 2006, he admitted, among
other things, that Liberty performed no services to justify
receipt of the payments from the Choctaw:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 7, U.S.
v. Tony C. Rudy (Dist. D.C., March 31, 2006) (CR-06-082).

From February 2002 through July 2002, Abramoff, with
Rudy's knowledge and consent, arranged for payments
totaling $25,000 to be made to Liberty Consulting by
one of Firm B's [Greenberg Traurig] clients, a Native
American Tribe in Mississippi [Choctaw]. The payments
were made in five monthly installments, which were
usually sent by mail. Rudy knew that no additional
services were being provided to the client for
payments.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. CONCLUSION

All the money that Scanlon and Abramoff bilked from the
Choctaw had very significant consequences for the Tribe. During
her interview, Rogers identified numerous unmet needs of the
Tribe, where the lost money would have been critical:
``[s]cholarships; health care, in particular; education;
courts; police.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, after the first few The Washington Post
articles ran, Abramoff attempted to have the Choctaw dissuade
the Committee from investigating. Rogers said Abramoff ``asked
me if I would ask the Chief to approach Senator McCain and
suggest that each of the tribes, since they had their own
police departments and courts, conduct their own internal
investigations.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even as details of his and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme
began to emerge, Abramoff attempted to conceal his and
Scanlon's wrongdoing from the Tribe. In a telephone
conversation with Rogers, Abramoff claimed that he used his
school as a conduit to pass Choctaw money to grassroots
organizations. According to Rogers:

He [Jack] said that he--he said, ``Well, Nell, I have
to tell you, I took some of the money Mike had''--yeah.
He said, ``I took some of the money that Mike had and I
gave it to the school and they passed the money
through. And the people they passed it to will never
tell.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Id.
CHAPTER II

COUSHATTA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

Abramoff: Can you let me know how much more (than the
current +/- 660K) we would each score should Coushatta
come through for this phase, and Choctaw continue to
make the transfers. I need to assess where I am at for
the school's sake.
Scanlon: Coushatta is an absolute cake walk. Your cut
on the project as proposed is at least 800k ... Total
[:] 1.5. mil on top of the 660. For a toal [sic] of
2.1. Not bad :) :) [sic]
Abramoff: How can I say this strongly enough: YOU IZ DA
MAN.
Scanlon: Ill [sic] take the man title for now--but not
tomorrow, you return to being the man at midnight!
Let's grow that 2.1 to 5!!! We need the true give me
five!
Abramoff: Amen!!

Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, September
10, 2001

Abramoff: I'm actually in a bad cash position ... I
need [the expected payment from the Agua Caliente]
badly. Other than [that Tribe], what next on the money
train? [The Choctaw] coming through soon?
Scanlon: The next big money we have coming our way is
Coushatta, and that will be in early January--the exact
amounts I'm still hammering out.

Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, December
17, 2002

A. INTRODUCTION

By February 22, 2004, when The Washington Post published
its article entitled, ``A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes;
Lobbying, PR Firms Paid $45 Million Over 3 Years,'' Abramoff
and Scanlon's scheme to defraud several Native American tribes
out of tens of millions of dollars was beginning to unravel.
Soon after the article's publication, former Abramoff
associate Kevin Ring emailed a colleague, ``I know more than
[the] article and the truth is worse.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email between Kevin Ring, Greenberg Traurig, and Matt DeMazza
(GTG-E000257509) (February 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ring continued, ``Now what do you think of my partner Jack?
Not too shady, eh?'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referring to how much the Tribes covered in the article
reportedly paid Abramoff and Scanlon, Ring's colleague could
only reply, ``that's a lot of cake.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among all of Abramoff's Tribal clients, the Coushatta Tribe
of Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta'') paid Scanlon the most.
Between 2001 and 2003, Abramoff and Scanlon successfully had
the Tribe pay them (or entities owned or controlled by them)
about $32,000,000: about $27,000,000 to Capitol Campaign
Strategies (``CCS''); another $3,600,000 to the American
International Center (``AIC''); $1,000,000 to the Capital
Athletic Foundation (``CAF'') through the firm of Greenberg
Traurig; and another $950,000 through a Scanlon-controlled
entity called Atlantic Research & Analysis (``ARA''). Of the
$27,000,000 the Tribe paid to CCS, Scanlon appears to have
kicked back roughly a third to Abramoff in ``referral fees.''
This constituted about one-half of Scanlon's net profit. In
addition, of the $3,600,000 the Tribe paid to AIC, Scanlon
diverted almost $1,000,000 to an entity called Kaygold, which
Abramoff privately described to his tax advisor as ``really
me.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000012336) (December 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of their three-year business relationship
with the Tribe, Abramoff and Scanlon were indifferent to the
trust that the Louisiana Coushatta put in them as its paid
representatives and advocates. At no time did they ever tell
the Tribe that Abramoff had a financial interest in CCS or that
Abramoff received a hefty percentage of the millions of dollars
that the Tribe paid CCS or AIC.\5\ Similarly, the Tribe never
knew that the cost of services charged by Scanlon was
dramatically inflated so that Abramoff could get a big piece of
a big pie.\6\ The Tribe likewise never knew most of the money
it paid Scanlon actually went to finance Scanlon's private
investments and to float Abramoff's business ventures.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14,
2005).
\6\ See Id.
\7\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, at no time was the Tribe ever told that any of
the money it paid Scanlon would be diverted to Abramoff's
private charity--for distribution mostly to Abramoff's Jewish
boys' school.\8\ The Tribe was also never told that any of its
payments to Scanlon would actually be used to conduct public
relations activities for other Tribes, on matters wholly
unrelated to the Louisiana Coushatta.\9\ Abramoff and Scanlon
also concealed from the Tribe their representation of the
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''), whose interests the
Louisiana Coushatta hired Abramoff and Scanlon to oppose.\10\
Abramoff or Scanlon also deceived the Tribe into making a
sizeable ``contribution'' to an obscure environmental advocacy
group.\11\ Regrettably, there was much the Tribe did not know
about the activities of Abramoff and Scanlon--its ``trusted''
advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Id.
\9\ See Id.
\10\ See Id.
\11\ A fuller discussion of this transaction is contained in Part
III, Chapter 1, Section A, entitled, ``Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy: Background.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Chapter will, drawing from evidence that the Committee
has already released to date and new information that the
Committee is now releasing in conjunction with this Report,
attempt to explicate the foregoing activities.

B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

The Louisiana Coushatta's traditional homelands are in
Alabama; however, in the late 18th Century a group of
approximately 100 Coushatta led by a tribal leader named Red
Shoes moved to Louisiana around the Red River.\12\ Since then,
its population has grown to over 850 enrolled members.\13\
Traditionally, the Louisiana Coushatta belonged to the southern
section of the Creek Confederacy, a loose association of
Muskogee family tribes occupying and controlling a vast area
across the South.\14\ The Tribe is composed of seven large
clans and several more smaller clans, which form the foundation
of its society.\15\ As members of the Creek Confederacy, the
Coushatta lived in an agriculturally based economy.\16\ It grew
corn, peas, beans, squash, potatoes, and rice.\17\
Sophisticated trade networks were developed covering thousands
of miles.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Early Records Show Coushatta Living in Northern Alabama,
(visited March 20, 2006) (discussing the early history of the
Coushatta); A History of the Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana, (visited March 19, 2006), http://www.coushattatribe.org/
history.html>.
\13\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 11 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of
Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
\14\ Id. at 10.
\15\ The Culture of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, (visited
March 20, 2006)
(describing the culture and social organization of the Louisiana
Coushatta).
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1898, the Federal Government took land into trust for
the Tribe.\19\ In 1953, during the Termination Era, during
which the government terminated its trust relationship with
certain tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'') ended
its trusteeship with, and discontinued its services to, the
Louisiana Coushatta.\20\ However, after twenty years of
struggle, the Louisiana Coushatta's federal recognition as a
tribe was restored in 1973 and it held its first elections in
1985.\21\ In 1980, the current reservation near Elton,
Louisiana was formally established.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 10 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of
Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
\20\ Id. at 10-11.
\21\ Id. at 11.
\22\ The Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana,
(visited March 20, 2006) (providing a chronology of Louisiana Coushatta
history).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past twenty years, the Tribe has increased its
reservation land base from the original 35 acres of land to 154
acres.\23\ This land is used for Tribal housing, economic
development projects such as crawfish farming and cattle-
raising, and to house its numerous governmental programs and
services.\24\ The Louisiana Coushatta have established a Tribal
police department; community, health and learning centers; and
other social programs.\25\ The Tribe has enjoyed economic
prosperity largely due to the success of its Grand Casino in
Kinder, Louisiana, which opened in 1995.\26\ The Louisiana
Coushatta currently employs 2,800 people, with a total annual
payroll in the range of $80 million.\27\ In addition, they
contribute approximately $7 million per year to state and local
governments.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The Government of the Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe
of Louisiana, (visited March. 20, 2006) (describing the governing
structure of the Louisiana Coushatta).
\24\ The Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana,
(visited March 20, 2006) (providing a chronology of Louisiana Coushatta
history).
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 10-11 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of
Kevin Sickey, Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
\28\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON GET THE LOUISIANA COUSHATTA'S BUSINESS

By the Spring of 2001, the Louisiana Coushatta was set to
renegotiate its gaming compact with the State of Louisiana,
which it needed to continue operating its casino in the State
legally.\29\ Its compact was due to expire later that summer
and the Tribe wanted to get a 25-year compact with the State as
the Cherokees had obtained in North Carolina, to avoid having
to renegotiate with the Governor's office every seven
years.\30\ But, with 2001 being a gubernatorial election year,
the Tribe was concerned about its prospects for success with
then-Governor Mike Foster.\31\ The Tribe was expecting a ``very
vigorous fight'' \32\ and had doubts about whether its
lobbyists at the time were aggressive enough to get the best
deal.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005). See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005)
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana).
\30\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\31\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\32\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of
William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
\33\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometime during this same period, two members of the
Louisiana Coushatta's Tribal Council, William Worfel and
Bertney Langley, called Kathryn Van Hoof, the Louisiana
Coushatta's outside counsel, from a meeting of the United South
and Eastern Tribes (``USET'').\34\ They told her that they had
just spoken with Terry Martin, a representative of the
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (``Chitimacha'').\35\ Martin
recommended to Worfel and Langley that they contact a prominent
Washington, D.C. lobbyist and a public relations consultant his
Tribe had used and with whom they were very satisfied.\36\
Their names: Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon.\37\ Martin
suggested that they might be able to help with the Tribe's
compact.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
\35\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\36\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005). Worfel
understood that Martin and Abramoff were ``tight.'' Id. He recalls that
``[Abramoff and Scanlon] would talk about Terry [Martin] a lot to me''
and Martin ``promoted [Abramoff and Scanlon] a lot.'' Id. See also
``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of William
Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
\37\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\38\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Worfel and Langley asked Van Hoof to meet with Martin
in Marksville, Louisiana that day.\39\ At that meeting, Martin
told Van Hoof about Abramoff's history with his Tribe.\40\ He
also discussed Abramoff's successful representation of the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'') on several
funding issues and noted how happy that Tribe was with
Abramoff's representation.\41\ He told Van Hoof that Abramoff
was well-connected and a friend of former Congressman Tom
DeLay.\42\ Martin discussed the possibility that Abramoff could
help the Louisiana Coushatta with its compact
renegotiations.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005). See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005)
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
\40\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\41\ Id.
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van Hoof returned to the Louisiana Coushatta Tribal
Council, which was then comprised of not only Worfel and
Langley but also Chairman Lovelin Poncho and councilmen Leonard
Battise and Harold John, and conducted some basic due diligence
on Abramoff.\44\ She then delivered an oral report to the
Tribal Council on her meeting with Martin about Abramoff.\45\
Van Hoof described how hiring Abramoff could help the Tribe
implement a strategy to convey, in particular to the Governor
and the State legislature, that it had political ``stroke'' in
Washington.\46\ After Van Hoof's presentation, the Tribal
Council asked Van Hoof to invite Abramoff to meet with the
council about possibly representing the Louisiana Coushatta as
its lobbyist in Washington, D.C.\47\ Van Hoof complied.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
\47\ Id.
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In anticipation of his meeting with the Tribal Council,
Abramoff spoke with Van Hoof more fully about the Louisiana
Coushatta's lobbying interests.\49\ He was preparing a formal
plan and budget proposal for the Tribal Council.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id.
\50\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About a week or two after Van Hoof's presentation to the
Tribal Council, probably in March 2001, Abramoff and Scanlon
went to Louisiana to meet with the Tribal Council at the
Tribe's administration building.\51\ During the meeting,
Abramoff described his background, political connections, and
capabilities.\52\ In particular, he mentioned that he ``knew
federal Indian law,'' ``federal legislation,'' and ``how to get
things passed through the legislature.'' \53\ Referring to
appropriations earmarks, Abramoff said that his team could get
``line items' for the Tribe.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id.; Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005) (recalling only Abramoff's attendance). Also present was
administrative assistant, Michelle ``Missy'' Litteral; Interview of
William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005). At this meeting, it was
suggested that Abramoff and Scanlon would talk more openly if the
council turned off its recorder. See id.
\52\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id. Worfel testified that ``[he] heard [reference to earmarks]
so much.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He also mentioned that he ``worked with people'' in the
Department of Interior and with Members of Congress.\55\
Abramoff specifically mentioned his relationship with
Congressman DeLay and former DeLay associate Scanlon.\56\
Abramoff described how Scanlon's background as a media
consultant and in public relations could help make it appear
that the Louisiana Coushatta had connections in Washington.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\56\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\57\ Id.; see also Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-
Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September
13-14, 2005) (Worfel describing how Scanlon said he could do ``media
blitzes,'' ``phone calls,'' ``phone banks,'' ``advertising on
television,'' etc.); ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005)
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff also cited his success with the Choctaw.\58\ That
impressed Worfel and the Tribal Council; the Tribe had been
trying to model itself and its casino operations on the
economic development strategy that Chief Phillip Martin used to
make the Choctaw among the most respected tribes in Indian
Country.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\59\ Id. Months later, Abramoff and Scanlon would cite their
association with the Choctaw in furtherance of their scheme to defraud
the Tribe: When Abramoff pitched Scanlon in connection with a plan to
elect Louisiana officials calculated to be supportive of the Tribe's
gaming interests, called the ``Louisiana Political Program,'' Abramoff
told Worfel that Chief Phillip Martin had spent $13 million ``to get
the governor of Alabama elected to keep gaming out of Alabama so it
wouldn't hurt ... his market in Mississippi.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff proposed a plan for establishing relationships
with Members of Congress and participating in various campaign-
related activities and events to help the Tribe convey to
others that it had influence in Washington, D.C.\60\ For
example, Abramoff provided the Tribe with information about a
DeLay golf tournament, saying that participating would convey
the impression that it had some real ``stroke'' in Washington
and would also build some good will with DeLay.\61\
Participation in events such as these and payments on ``lists
of suggested contributions'' would, Abramoff suggested, provide
name recognition and access.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\61\ Id.
\62\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In pitching himself to the Tribal Council, Scanlon
represented that CCS could organize direct mail and telephone
campaigns that would urge public officials to support issues
important to CCS's clients.\63\ At the council meeting, Scanlon
described himself as a ``bulldog''--``the one who puts fires
out'' and ``[who] did the groundwork, like on the ads, the
radio blitz, the phone banks, and all that.'' \64\ Scanlon
represented that CCS ``could provide effective advice about
strategies focusing on specific public officials in order to
obtain official support for, or neutralize opposition to, the
interests of CCS' clients.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v.
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411).
\64\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\65\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v.
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main operational feature of Scanlon's proposal was an
elaborate political database.\66\ To support that database,
Scanlon said that he would provide a range of ``electronic-
related services.'' \67\ Polling would identify the likes and
dislikes of those who may be inclined to support the Louisiana
Coushatta's casino.\68\ He would also ``need to [get] a list of
[the Tribe's] vendors and ... associates, ... tribal members,
everybody that does business with the casino and the tribe, and
try to get them to start making phone calls, letter-writing
campaigns....'' \69\ Having identified the universe of
individuals whose preferences were consistent with the
interests of the Tribe, Scanlon promised to use this
``customized'' database to mobilize them.\70\ Scanlon said that
this would, for example, ``have them flood the offices of
policy makers with calls.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\67\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v.
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411).
\68\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\69\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\70\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\71\ Id. There were at least two other meetings between the Tribal
Council and Abramoff and Scanlon--another one in the Spring of 2001
(about two or three weeks after the first) and one in February 2004.
Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005) (during which
compact renegotiation, Texas threats, Delta Downs and Pinnacle were
discussed). Worfel and Poncho met with Abramoff at least one other time
early in 2004 at Abramoff's office in Greenberg Traurig. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on representations Abramoff and Scanlon made to the
Tribal Council at this meeting, Van Hoof understood that
Scanlon had ``vast experience'' in public relations and that
Scanlon was ``part of the package'' with Abramoff's
representation of the Louisiana Coushatta.\72\ Worfel came to
believe that Scanlon's company was a branch of Greenberg
Traurig.\73\ When Abramoff first met with the Tribal Council,
Abramoff said that Scanlon worked for him, and Van Hoof always
referred to ``Jack and his guys.'' \74\ But, Van Hoof and
Worfel agree, Abramoff never told the Council that he would
personally collect a share of those proceeds that the Tribe
paid Scanlon.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\73\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\74\ Id.
\75\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressed with their proposals, the Tribal Council hired
Abramoff and Scanlon as their federal lobbyist and grassroots
political/media consultant, respectively.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their tasks were to ``assist [the Tribe] with the renewal
of its compact with the State of Louisiana, regional gaming
issues, and obtaining its public policy goals in Washington,
D.C.'' \77\ Under an agreement executed on March 20, 2001, the
Tribe was to pay Greenberg Traurig, the firm with which
Abramoff was associated, $125,000 per month plus reasonable
expenses.\78\ The Tribe was willing to pay this high retainer
because it reflected, according to Van Hoof, ``a concentrated
effort within a short period of time'' or ``a short-term
blitz'' while the Tribe was renegotiating its compact.\79\ Van
Hoof assumed that the retainer amount would decrease after the
compact period.\80\ In fact, she was surprised to learn, after
she was no longer with the Tribe, that the Tribe had continued
to pay Greenberg Traurig a retainer at the original amount.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005); Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\78\ Letter from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001189-91) (March
16, 2001).
\79\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\80\ Id.
\81\ Id. Despite a provision in its agreement with Greenberg
Traurig to the contrary, the firm's expenses (which were not itemized
in its bills to the Tribe) were deducted from the retainer. Id. Van
Hoof could not explain why the Tribe agreed to this arrangement. While
Van Hoof served as outside counsel to the Louisiana Coushatta, she was
never advised of what expenses Abramoff and his team at the firm
incurred. Id. Typically, those expenses amounted to about $15,000 to
$18,000 per month. Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former
associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
Occasionally, Leger questioned some of those expenses, including an
anomalous charge for the charter of a helicopter. See id. But,
inevitably the response would be ``That's the way Jack wants it to
be.'' Id. Also, according to Short, two of Abramoff's associates, Shana
Tesler and Samuel Hook, did not work all those hours for which
Greenberg Traurig billed its clients. See id. She recalled, ``[T]owards
the end, [Tesler] and Sam [Hook] were not at Greenberg, physically,
often at all.'' Id. ``It was common knowledge within our group that
they weren't there, but hours were on our bills.'' Id. However, where
the Louisiana Coushatta and other Tribes who were so charged for these
hours paid a retainer, i.e., were not billed hourly, they were not
injured by those billings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately, the Tribe was to pay CCS, Scanlon's company,
for grassroots activities related to the compact
renegotiations--``the ground effort.'' \82\ Referring to this
ground effort, on April 12, 2001, Abramoff told Van Hoof that
``Mike [Scanlon] believes we can't wait any longer for [it].''
\83\ The asking price, $534,500.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001632-33) (April
12, 2001).
\83\ Id. Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn
Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001632-33)
(April 12, 2001).
\84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With those agreements, the Tribe placed their trust in
Abramoff and Scanlon. As Worfel testified, ``You trust them
because they worked for Greenberg. It's supposed to be one of
the most prestigious law firms in D.C. and America, and these
people worked for these guys.'' \85\ Worfel trusted Abramoff,
in particular, because it had been reported that he was one of
the best lobbyists in Washington, D.C.; the Tribe was paying
him a lot of money to represent its interests in D.C. and in
the states; and (as described below) he and Scanlon originally
``got good results.'' \86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In her interview, Short recalled that Worfel told her that
the Tribe wanted to be the ``Choctaw of Louisiana.'' \87\
According to Short, the Louisiana Coushatta were ``in awe of
the Mississippi Choctaw ... because Chief Martin has done an
amazing job with his tribe. ...'' \88\ ``And so I think,''
Leger continued, ``Chief Martin trusted Jack, and had Jack
doing all these things for them. I think that gave him
automatic credibility with William [Worfel]. And then meeting
with him, I think, just sealed the deal.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate,
Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
\88\ Id.
\89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Tribe hired Abramoff and Scanlon, the Tribal
Council asked Van Hoof to liaise between the Tribe, on the one
hand, and Abramoff and Scanlon, on the other.\90\ From the
Spring through the Fall of 2001, she did so.\91\ During the
Fall of 2001 onward, Worfel replaced Van Hoof as the Tribe's
point of contact with Abramoff and Scanlon.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\91\ Id.
\92\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. SCANLON'S GRASSROOTS PROJECTS FOR THE TRIBE

As described above, initially Scanlon was hired to help the
Tribe on its renegotiations with the State of Louisiana
regarding its gaming compact. Scanlon promised to develop and
implement a media blitz, a letter writing campaign to the
governor and local officials, phone banks, and opposition
research.\93\ That would be accomplished by Scanlon's
``political database.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\94\ Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Louisiana
Political Budget Outline'' (October 23, 2001) (``we need to modify your
political database into a statewide format'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A draft of a program budget outlines what Scanlon proposed
to do for the Tribe regarding the compact renegotiations. Using
language very similar to what he used with other Tribes,
Scanlon proposed a five-point plan focused around the
development and use of an elaborate political database.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Louisiana Coushatta document production (no Bates number)
(June 26, 2001) (`` `The Coushatta Political Program,' by Michael
Scanlon'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, Abramoff and Scanlon split the fees that the
Louisiana Coushatta paid for CCS' work on the compact
renegotiations: on April 12, 2001, and April 18, 2001, Abramoff
and Scanlon each urged Van Hoof that the Tribe come up with
$200,000 for an ``organizational phase'' of this political
program.\96\ On or about April 26, 2001, the Tribe paid CCS
$200,000, as requested. Soon thereafter, on or about April 30,
2001, CCS paid Abramoff $75,000--itemized in CCS' accounting
ledger as a ``referral expense.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn
Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001632-33)
(April 12, 2001) (``I still do not have the budget for the complete
effort, but Mike believes we cannot wait any longer for the on ground
effort, so I need to get this to you for approval. ... Please let me
know if I can give Mike the go ahead.''); Email from Michael Scanlon,
Capitol Campaign Strategies, to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana, ``Re: Political Program funding'' (COUSH-MiscFin-0000368)
(April 18, 2001) (``The total for the program is $539,000. In order to
get started the tribe will need to pay $200k up front to cover the
organizational program. ... If there [sic] is any way to get the
initial money out today it would be great!'').
\97\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worfel did see evidence that Scanlon's strategy was
implemented.\98\ In July 2001, Governor Foster signed the
compact.\99\ Most of the Tribal Council, and Van Hoof, were
satisfied with the work that Scanlon conducted on the compact
renegotiations.\100\ But, afterwards, the scope of work
dramatically increased.\101\ Soon after his first meeting with
the Tribal Council, Abramoff raised with the Tribe the idea of
fighting the expansion of gaming in Texas and dockside gaming
projects elsewhere in Louisiana.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\99\ Id.
\100\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\101\ Id.
\102\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, Abramoff and Scanlon, on whom the Tribe relied as
experts, persuaded the Tribal Council that threats to the
Tribe's gaming interests were everywhere--state-sponsored
gambling, slot machines at horse tracks, the possibility of
Texas legalizing gaming, and competing casinos possibly being
built by other tribes.\103\ According to Worfel, ``It was
always one crisis after another. There were real threats and
some not so real, looking back with hindsight.'' \104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005). See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (November 2, 2005)
(testimony of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman).
\104\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worfel continued:

Texas gaming was one of those oversold threats. In
2001, we were told by Abramoff that Texas was one vote
away from allowing casino gambling. I have since
learned that legalized casino gambling was far from
being approved by the Texas Legislature. In addition,
we have learned that Jack and Mike were working for
other tribes in Texas that were trying to get gaming,
when they were supposed to be watching out for us.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worfel asked rhetorically:

What should you spend to save a $300-million a year
business when the lawyers who work for you tell you
that it could all be gone if we do not act now? Our
tribe has one and only one business. We made tough
decisions and we acted always in the best interests of
our tribe.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Id.

Thus, the Tribe hired Scanlon to implement a number of
grassroots activities on behalf of the Louisiana Coushatta to
battle the numerous threats--both real and imagined--that the
Tribe faced. Over the following three years, separate from its
payments to Greenberg Traurig, the Louisiana Coushatta paid
entities owned or controlled by Abramoff or Scanlon about
$32,000,000. Those payments are set forth below.

Payments by Louisiana Coushatta to Abramoff/Scanlon Entities

Payments by Tribe to Capitol Campaign Strategies (CCS)

4/26/01............................................. $200,000
5/30/01............................................. 283,500
6/29/01............................................. 850,000
7/13/01............................................. 200,000
7/26/01............................................. 102,000
7/26/01............................................. 292,500
7/26/01............................................. 97,500
10/5/01............................................. 940,000
10/31/01............................................ 700,000
10/31/01............................................ 2,170,000
1/18/02............................................. 1,000,000
1/18/02............................................. 1,500,000
1/18/02............................................. 1,505,000
1/24/02............................................. 800,000
2/6/02.............................................. 1,200,000
3/15/02............................................. 3,405,000
4/3/02.............................................. 2,100,000
8/2/02.............................................. 2,100,000
10/16/02............................................ 950,000
2/14/03............................................. 5,000,000
4/22/03--Coushatta/AIC.............................. 1,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 26,695,500
========================================================
____________________________________________________

Payments by Tribe to American International Center (AIC)

3/16/01--Southern Underwriters...................... 400,000
3/21/01............................................. 258,000
3/30/01............................................. 298,000
4/27/01............................................. 397,200
4/9/03.............................................. 2,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 3,653,200
========================================================
____________________________________________________

Payments by Tribe to Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF)

11/13/01--Greenberg Traurig......................... 1,000,000
5/8/03--Atlantic Research & Analysis................ 950,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 1,950,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total................................... 32,298,700

As the foregoing indicates, during the first quarter of
2002 alone, the Tribe made continuous payments to Abramoff and
Scanlon, totaling over $9,000,000. But, on June 2, 2002,
Abramoff wrote Scanlon, ``[The Louisiana Coushatta] are ripe
for more pickings. We have to figure out how.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252622) (June 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In furtherance of the grassroots strategy devised for the
Tribe, Abramoff and Scanlon persuaded the Tribal Council to
financially support other groups opposed to gaming expansion,
namely Christian evangelical conservatives, to help the Tribe
protect its share of the regional gaming market.\108\ Abramoff
specifically proposed that the Tribe work with former Christian
Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed.\109\ According to Van
Hoof, Abramoff understood that gaming opponents, like Christian
conservatives, would of course eschew direct contributions from
the Tribe.\110\ Worfel recalled that Van Hoof ``came back and
told us that [sic] a guy named Ralph Reed. She was real careful
about a Ralph Reed person. It can't get out. He's Christian
Coalition. It wouldn't look good if they're receiving money
from a casino-operating tribe to oppose gaming. It would be
kind of like hypocritical.'' \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\109\ Id.
\110\ Id.
\111\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005). From
2001 through 2004, most, if not all, of the Louisiana Coushatta's
revenue came from its casino profits. Id. See also id. ( ``[Reed's name
could not be mentioned,] I guess because he would be judged as a
hypocrite.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worfel testified that, on the Tribe's behalf, Abramoff
hired Reed to help prevent the expansion of gaming in
Louisiana.\112\ In that capacity, Worfel understood, Reed was
supposed to mobilize ``the Christian Coalition'' to engage on
several legislative initiatives relating to gaming, including,
opposing bills providing for dockside gaming and supporting an
amendment that raised taxes on the river boats.\113\
Furthermore, Worfel recalled, Van Hoof told him that Reed would
``supposedly get a lot of pastors or preachers or ministers ...
together.'' \114\ But, once again, Worfel recalled Van Hoof
cautioning him that Reed ``did not want his name being
revealed.'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Id.
\113\ Id.
\114\ Id.
\115\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Against that backdrop, Abramoff asked whether the Tribe had
any business through which payments to Reed could be made.\116\
In a meeting that included Louisiana businessman Aubrey Temple,
Temple volunteered the use of one of his businesses as a
conduit.\117\ It was an apparently moribund insurance company
called Southern Underwriters.\118\ So, on or about March 16,
2001, the Tribe paid $400,000 to AIC, a Scanlon-controlled
entity, through Southern Underwriters.\119\ From Abramoff, Van
Hoof understood that AIC was an entity that supported anti-
gaming efforts, which the Tribe could support.\120\ She also
understood that the Tribe's money that went through AIC was to
go to Reed, for coalition-building against gaming initiatives
that would have competed with the Tribe.\121\ She also
understood that, by paying Reed through AIC, the Tribe's
identity as the original source of those funds would be
disguised.\122\ When the Tribe paid AIC in March 2001, it did
not know that Abramoff and Scanlon would later extract secretly
millions in ``gimme five'' proceeds from Tribal payments routed
through that entity. How Abramoff and Scanlon did so is fully
explained in Part 2, Chapter 2, Section E, of this Report,
entitled, ``American International Center: AIC as a ``Gimme
Five Entity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
\117\ Id.
\118\ Id.
\119\ Id.
\120\ Id.
\121\ Id.; Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14,
2005).
\122\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former outside counsel,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. CONCLUSION

Specifically citing the work he had done for the Choctaw,
Abramoff subsequently secured contracts for himself and Scanlon
from the Louisiana Coushatta. Of all the Tribes that hired
Scanlon, the Louisiana Coushatta ended up paying Scanlon the
most. Initially, the Tribe hired Scanlon to help with its
compact renegotiations with the State of Louisiana. But, after
having successfully assisted the Tribe, Scanlon dramatically
expanded his scope of work, which ranged from squelching
supposedly ubiquitous threats to the Tribal casino's customer
market share, to supposedly getting the ``right'' candidates
elected to the Louisiana State Legislature.
To its detriment, the Tribe trusted Abramoff and Scanlon's
expertise in Indian gaming and were captured by their lure of
making the Louisiana Coushatta ``the Choctaw of Louisiana.''
Accordingly, it deferred to Abramoff and Scanlon's judgment
when they recommended that it fund very expensive grassroots
campaigns.
Ultimately, having collected about $30,000,000 from the
Louisiana Coushatta during the relevant period, Scanlon
secretly kicked back to Abramoff about $11,450,000--about 50
percent of his total profit from the Tribe. This includes a
payment of $1,000,000 that Abramoff and Scanlon manipulated the
Tribe into paying to CAF, Abramoff's private charity.
Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the
Tribe, on an entity-by-entity basis, is contained below in Part
2 of this Report.
CHAPTER III

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF MICHIGAN

Don't forget to get to [Saginaw Chippewa Sub-Chief
David] Otto and set up a meeting asap. We need that
moolah. We have to hit $50M this year (our cut!).

Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, January 16,
2002

Understanding tribal politics, and keeping our people
in power, is the priority of client management.

Email from Jack Abramoff to associate Todd Boulanger, May
30, 2002

We do a recall, election and take over. Let's discuss.

Email from Jack Abramoff to associate Jon van Horne,
February 14, 2002

A. INTRODUCTION

Among the documents obtained by the Committee is an email,
dated February 9, 2004, in which Abramoff authorized his
associate, Shana Tesler, to pay the legislative director of the
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa''),
Christopher Petras, $2500 of Abramoff's own money to help the
former Chief of that Tribe with a recall effort there.\1\ This
exchange reflects the end of Abramoff and Scanlon's aggressive
campaign to keep the Saginaw Chippewa as a client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shana Tesler,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000028361) (February 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their approach was to insinuate themselves into internal
tribal matters by influencing tribal elections to secure
lucrative contracts from the Tribe--a strategy that most
observers who have discussed the matter with the Committee
agree is egregious.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 23 (September 29, 2004)
(testimony of Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon successfully secured tribal business
in this way from not only the Saginaw Chippewa but also the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente'').\3\
There are also fragments of information that suggest that they
might have done so with the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
(``Louisiana Coushatta'').\4\ But Abramoff and Scanlon's
representation of the Saginaw Chippewa presents what may be the
most compelling case of how they did so to further their
``gimme five'' scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A full discussion as to how Abramoff and Scanlon did so with
regard to the Agua Caliente is contained infra in Part 1, Chapter 4,
``Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.''
\4\ See e.g., Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and
Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (April
17, 2001) (produced by Capitol Campaign Strategies). Here, Abramoff
advises Scanlon, ``It is critical that you run the [Louisiana
Coushatta] chairman's campaign, and that he wins! We're charging these
guys up the wazoo, so this will be the key deliverable. Make sure you
bill your hours like a demon. Almost no one else is billing this client
yet, so there is plenty of room. You should be able to qualify for a
hefty bonus just on this one ...'' Id. And, Scanlon replies, ``I will
bill away! I need that bonus to by [sic] me a brand new cadillac!'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

The Saginaw Chippewa's traditional homelands comprise all
of Michigan and parts of Canada.\5\ Their current reservation,
Isabella Reservation, was established under the Treaty of
October 18, 1864, and is adjacent to the city of Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan.\6\ The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe traces its roots
to three bands of Ojibwa Anishnabek known as the Saginaw, Swan
Creek, and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians.\7\ According
to the 2000 census, the tribal population is 3,102.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ojibwe History (visited March 20, 2006) (detailing the history of the Ojibwe
peoples).
\6\ The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (visited March 16, 2006)
(discussing the history
of the Saginaw Chippewa).
\7\ Brief History of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Culture
(visited March 20, 2006)
(providing the history of the Saginaw Chippewa); The Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe of Michigan (visited March 16, 2006) (discussing the history of the Saginaw
Chippewa).
\8\ U.S. Census Bureau Profile of General Demographic
Characteristic of the Saginaw Chippewa (visited March 20, 2006)
(listing the population of people claiming Saginaw Chippewa heritage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chippewa are a classical Woodlands culture and their
language stems from the Algonquian family; therefore, they were
hunter-gathers and practiced horticulture. Traditionally, they
grew rice and made sugar, hunted and fished, and later became
adept fur traders.\9\ There are approximately fifteen to twenty
clans traced through paternal lineage that make up the tribal
social network.\10\ Although the Saginaw Chippewa share a
common dialect, culture, tradition, and spiritual practices
with other Michigan Chippewa, they are a distinct social
group.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Ojibwe History (visited March 20, 2006) (detailing the history of the Ojibwe
peoples).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1937, the Tribe, reorganized under the Indian
Reorganization Act, created the current Tribal government.\12\
The Tribal Council consists of twelve members elected from
three electoral districts and includes the chief, sub-chief,
treasurer, and secretary.\13\ In 1993, the Tribe signed a
gaming compact with the State of Michigan.\14\ Soon thereafter,
it opened the Soaring Eagle Resort and Casino.\15\ The Tribe
added and opened its 512 room hotel and entertainment complex
in 1997.\16\ The Soaring Eagle Resort and Casino is one of the
biggest Indian casinos in the nation with estimated revenue of
approximately $400 million per year.\17\ The Tribe currently
employs over 4,000 people.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Brief History of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Culture
(visited March 20, 2006)
(providing the history of the Saginaw Chippewa); Where You Live:
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (visited March 21, 2006) (providing a brief
history of the Saginaw Chippewa).
\13\ The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (visited March 16,
2006) (discussing the
history of the Saginaw Chippewa).
\14\ Id.
\15\ Soaring Eagle Casino Has Soared Over $3 Billion Since Opening
in 1998 (visited March 20, 2006) (discussing the
success of the Soaring Eagle Casino).
\16\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004). See also
Michigan's Tribal Gaming Industry Continues to Grow (visited March 20,
2006) (discussing the growth of the Soaring
Eagle Casino); Tribal quality of life boosted by casino revenues
(visited March 20, 2006) (discussing the expansion of the Soaring
Eagle Casino).
\17\ Casino rivals step up efforts to lure gamblers (visited March
20, 2006)
(estimating Soaring Eagle Casino's revenue); Tribe, region benefit from
casino revenues (visited March 20, 2006) (providing an estimate of
Soaring Eagle Casino's revenue).
\18\ Soaring Eagle Casino Has Soared Over $3 Billion Since Opening
in 1998 (visited March 20, 2006) (discussing the
success of the Soaring Eagle Casino).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CHRISTOPHER PETRAS--ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON'S ACCESS TO THE TRIBE

Sometime during 1998, Christopher Petras was approached at
a concert at the Soaring Eagle Resort about submitting an
application to the Tribe's newly created Legislative Affairs
Department.\19\ At the time, Petras, who is not a tribal
member, ``had been teaching political science and was familiar
with Government processes to some extent.'' \20\ In December
1999, Petras was hired by the Tribe as a policy research
analyst for five years and later served as the Tribe's director
of legislative affairs.\21\ According to Petras, his
responsibilities were ``[t]o basically work with the Tribal
Council on policy issues [and] conduct research.'' \22\ Whereas
Tribal legislative assistant Kim Sawmick covered state issues
for the Tribe, Petras focused on federal legislative matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 39 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe).
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id. at 38.
\22\ Id. at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Petras, in 2000, Sawmick told him that the
Tribal Council was interested in looking for representation in
Washington, D.C. to work with its other lobbyist Larry
Rosenthal, who was then one of Abramoff's keenest
competitors.\23\ In 1999, the Tribe had hired Rosenthal to
serve as its Democratic lobbyist; the Tribe was now looking for
a new Republican counterpart.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See id. at 39.
\24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petras went on the Internet and typed in ``cue words,
basically `tribes' and `lobbyist.' '' \25\ Of the names that
came up, he contacted three firms and traveled with Sawmick to
D.C. to meet with them.\26\ Around May 2000, they met Abramoff,
who was then at Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.\27\
During that meeting, Abramoff brought in Scanlon.\28\ In his
interview with staff, then-Sub-Chief David Otto recalled that
Abramoff gave an ``impressive'' presentation to the Tribal
Council.\29\ According to Petras, after that meeting, Sawmick
recommended that the Tribe bring Abramoff in for an interview,
which led to a decision by the Tribal Council to hire
Abramoff.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
\29\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\30\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 39 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, Otto and current Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague
recalled differently. Otto remembered that Petras actually
recommended Abramoff as his choice for the job.\31\ And,
Sprague told staff, in his interview, that Petras ``brought
in'' Abramoff.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\32\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004). Sprague also
recalled that sometime after June 2002 Petras told him that Abramoff
``was working with [then-House Whip] Tom DeLay''; ``was good friends
with Tom DeLay''; and ``had good relations with Tom DeLay.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By January 2001, with the Tribe having already hired
Abramoff, members of the Tribal Council discussed retaining
Rosenthal as its Washington representative.\33\ Abramoff
complained to his colleagues at Greenberg Traurig, ``I had a
discussion with [the Tribe's legislative director] Christopher
Petras today. [Competitor] Larry Rosenthal has been bad
mouthing us non-stop and it is getting increasingly difficult
for Chris to maintain our position. Larry is going to be hired
and he offered me a chance for us to bid on getting them money
for a school.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Ronald Platt
and Shawn Vasell, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027597) (January 22,
2001).
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff continued: ``I told him we were not interested in
this arrangement, that we have serious tribal clients who
understand the value of our efforts and that if members of his
council are insisting that they plight their trough [sic] with
Larry, he should do so and I wish him luck.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Abramoff predicted that the Tribe would be back:
``Frankly, given the animus of our Hill and new Administration
friends ... we need not get anywhere near this problem. After
the Saginaws are told by our friends how dead they are, and
after their appropriations are zeroed out, they'll be back.''
\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, the Tribe discontinued using Abramoff as its
lobbyist. Likely having realized that the only way he could
resume representing the Tribe (and getting the Tribe to hire
Scanlon) was through a change in Tribal leadership, Abramoff
came up with an idea.

D. THE ``SLATE OF EIGHT''--ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON'S TROJAN HORSE

On or about October 4, 2001, Abramoff had a meeting with
Petras, during which they discussed the Tribe's upcoming
election.\37\ Later that night, Abramoff brought Scanlon up-to-
speed: ``I had dinner tonight with Chris Petras of Sag Chip. He
was salivating at the $4-5 million program I described to him
(is that enough? Probably not).'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028079) (October 4,
2001).
\38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff laid out his plan: ``They have their primary for
tribal council on Tuesday, which should determine if they are
going to take over (general elections in November). I told him
that you are the greatest campaign expert since ... (actually,
I told him that there was no one like you in history!). He is
going to come in after the primary with the guy who will be
chief if they win (a big fan of ours already) and we are going
to help him win.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a phrase the two coined to describe their financial
relationship, Abramoff concluded, ``If he wins, they take over
in January, and we have millions. I told him that you are
already in national demand and we need to secure you for them.
He is very excited. GIMME FIVE lives.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon replied enthusiastically, ``THE PRICE HAS JUST GONE
UP TO 10 MIL! Sounds good on the strategy--We should be wrapped
up with the other camapigns [sic] soon, so I could run his
general election to make sure we get or [sic] give me five!''
\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently resolved to help Abramoff and Scanlon oust the
incumbent Tribal Council, Petras recommended to a group
(comprised of, among others, Maynard Kahgegab and Robert Pego)
that they meet with Scanlon about their election campaign.\42\
That group became known as the ``Slate of Eight.'' \43\ Otto
believes that Petras came up with the ``Slate of Eight''
concept and remembers Petras telling him that this was how the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians ran its elections.\44\ In
fact, Otto recalled, Petras said that Scanlon helped on that
Tribe's elections.\45\ Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague believes
that Petras was only there to work for Kahgegab and,
originally, Otto (who was running for the position of Sub-
Chief).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\43\ See Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); see also
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number)
(October 26, 2001) (Draft Flier, ``Tribal Council Members Otto and
Kahgegab Announce Formation of New Slate of Candidates to run [sic] in
Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Elections--Slate of 8 Will Run on Platform of
Reform''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (November 15, 2001) (another Draft Flier, entitled ``Slate of
8''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number)
(April 7, 2002) (Draft Press Release, entitled ``Chief Maynard
Kahgegab, Jr. and Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council Host Second Community
Meeting''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (April 7, 2002) (Draft Talking Points for Chief Maynard
Kahgegab, Jr.); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no
Bates number) (August 26, 2002) (Draft Community Meeting Agenda);
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number)
(October 30, 2002) (Draft Press Release, entitled ``Zogby Poll says
Michigan Voters Trust Tribes, Oppose More Gaming''); Capitol Campaign
Strategies document production (no Bates number) (undated) (Draft
Flier, from ``David Otto, Slate of 8 Member,'' entitled ``Slate of
8''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number)
(undated) (another Draft Press Release, ``Tribal Council Members Otto
and Kahgegab Announce Formation of New Slate of Candidates to run [sic]
in Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Elections--Slate of 8 Will Run on Platform
of Reform''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (undated) (Draft Mailer from Chief Maynard Kahgegab to Mr. John
Doe); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates number)
(undated) (Draft Mailer conveying ``brief update'' by Chief Kahgegab to
Tribal Members).
\44\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\45\ Id.
\46\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days after his meeting with Petras and a telephone
call from Otto, Abramoff reached out to Scanlon: ``MIKE, CALL
ME AT HOME ASAP. THIS IS ON SAGINAW CHIPPEWA. TIME FOR
BUCKS!!!'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028054) (October 11,
2001) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately three weeks before the general election for
the Tribal Council, sometime in July or August 2001, Scanlon
met with Petras as well as Otto and some of the other
candidates, in Michigan for a ``strategy meeting.'' \48\
Petras, who set up the meeting, told Otto that Scanlon could
help show them how to get elected.\49\ The purpose of the
meeting, which was held at a Bob Evans restaurant, was to help
them craft a campaign for that race.\50\ During that meeting,
the idea of the Slate of Eight was hatched--Petras made up the
slate concept and Scanlon made up the name.\51\ Petras, Scanlon
and Otto discussed the upcoming elections, election strategy,
how to get their names out, and issue mailers.\52\ Both Scanlon
and Petras gave advice at that meeting.\53\ Afterwards, Otto
reported to the other members of the Slate of Eight who were
not in attendance, on his meeting with Petras and Scanlon.\54\
At that follow-up meeting, they discussed how Scanlon could
help them get elected.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004). See also
Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\49\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
\50\ Id.
\51\ Id.
\52\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id.
\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otto did not recall whether there was an express quid pro
quo between Scanlon and the Slate of Eight during the strategy
meeting.\56\ It was certainly generally understood that Scanlon
would help Otto and the other members of the Slate of Eight in
the election.\57\ In addition, he conceded, there was a ``non-
verbal understanding that Scanlon would like a chance to work
for the Tribe.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least two batches of mailings were sent out on behalf of
the Slate of Eight.\59\ Among the documents obtained by the
Committee from Scanlon's company, Capitol Campaign Strategies
(CCS), is an undated draft mailer, apparently drafted for the
Slate of Eight. It notes that ``[t]he upcoming election may be
the only chance for the disenfranchised, [sic] and beaten down
members of this tribe to voice their disapproval with the way
people on the council like XXXX [sic] Jackson have run our
tribal government.'' \60\ Likewise, an October 26, 2001, press
release, also apparently drafted by CCS, announced that the
``Slate of 8 Will Run on Platform of Reform.'' \61\ According
to that release, ``The Slate of 8 represents honesty, integrity
and vision--something that the Committee for Responsible
Government unfortunately completely lacks.'' \62\ It also
stated falsely that ``[w]e organized the Slate of 8 ourselves
and are asking the tribal members to vote for us so that we can
put the scandal plagued [sic] politics of this tribe [sic] in
the past.'' \63\ In laying the groundwork for the Tribe to
ultimately hire Abramoff and Scanlon, the release also
described, as an issue on the Slate of Eight's platform,
``developing stronger ties in Washington D.C. [sic] and at the
state and local level to advance tribal concerns.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id.
\60\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``State of 8'') (undated).
\61\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Tribal Council Members Otto and Kahgegab Announce
Formation of New Slate of Candidates to run in Saginaw Chippewa Tribal
Elections'') (October 26, 2001).
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id.
\64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the Slate of Eight campaign, then-
Scanlon associate, Brian Mann, served as a liaison between
Petras and Scanlon.\65\ In his deposition, Mann recalled
``being in contact with Chris Petras, creating fliers or
letters that we would mail back to Chris on Maynard's behalf.''
\66\ There can be no doubt that Petras was leading this effort.
Mann ``was employed ... [t]o catch up with Petras and help
facilitate whatever it was that he wanted to be done.'' \67\
Apparently, Scanlon provided Mann with between three and five
designs for mailers, which Mann faxed to Petras for his
approval.\68\ Because Scanlon's company did not have an in-
house graphic design capability, those designs that had
graphics were likely generated by an outside vendor.\69\
According to Mann, ``[A] couple of times [Petras] didn't like
the wording for something. He wanted something darker or
something bigger, just kind of, you know, trying to tweak
whatever it was.'' \70\ There were about three to five such
exchanges before Petras finally approved the designs.\71\ At
some point, a box of mailers arrived at Kahgegab's house--
mailers for the election that the Slate of Eight never paid
for.\72\ All Otto had to do was to put addressed stickers on
the mailers.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
\66\ Id.
\67\ Id.
\68\ Id.
\69\ Id.
\70\ Id.
\71\ Id.
\72\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only did CCS draft mailers and fliers, it put together
a call list; devised a campaign strategy, calendars, and time-
lines; helped organize at least one event--a ``candidates
night''; and apparently recorded a radio ad.\74\ Other than
$200 that some members of the Slate of Eight paid for a
``candidates night,'' CCS paid for all out-of-pocket
expenses.\75\ While the value of those expenses is unclear, the
Tribe has seen some estimates as high as $100,000.\76\
Responding to the Tribe for Scanlon, Scanlon's lawyer, Stephen
Braga, explained that ``[t]his $100,000 number was a value
reflected estimate that included the time value of individuals
working on the campaign'' and that ``actual dollars would be
less.'' \77\ He however agreed that, while ``there is no way to
tell exactly how much was spent,'' CCS was never reimbursed for
its costs.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate,
Capital Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004);
Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006).
\75\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\76\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe). Interview of David
Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington,
D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\77\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006).
\78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the election at the Saginaw Chippewa neared, Abramoff
asked Scanlon for a status update: ``When exactly is their
election? Do you have a guy up there?'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012235) (October 30,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing Abramoff with a document entitled ``Slate of
Eight Political Calendar,'' Scanlon replied: ``Election is next
Tuesday--I have a guy on the ground, 2 more heading up for the
final push on Friday, and 4 mail pieces including personalized
letters from the candidates hitting between tomorrow and
election day. Attached is our campaign calendar.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon was optimistic about success: ``If we don't win
after all this--we never had a chance!'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seemingly pleased, Abramoff replied: ``Looks like you have
it well in hand. I smell victory! I smell gimme five!!!'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``guy on the ground'' that Scanlon referred to above
was his top assistant, Christopher Cathcart. Scanlon apparently
sent Cathcart to Michigan to do some ``hand holding,''
specifically, helping the Tribe with any needs and requests and
to provide additional guidance.\83\ Otto understood that CCS
was ``handling the Slate of Eight'' like a major election.\84\
On election night, Cathcart joined Otto and the Slate of Eight
at a local Bennigans restaurant.\85\ According to Otto,
Cathcart met and drove around with him and Kahgegab that
evening.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\84\ Id.
\85\ Id.
\86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCS associate Amy Biederman was assigned to write speeches
for Slate of Eight member Maynard Kahgegab.\87\ Additionally,
according to invoices from the Weber Company, an issues-
management and grassroots lobbying firm that Scanlon sub-
contracted, Joe Weber, from that firm was involved in the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribal election and was actually there on
October 25, 26, 30, and 31, 2001.\88\ However, exactly what
services the Weber Company provided Scanlon's company in
connection with the Slate of Eight's campaign, is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See Interview of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 3, 2006); Interview of
Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capital Campaign Strategies, in
Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004). See Capitol Campaign Strategies
document production (no Bates number) (undated) (Draft Power Point
Slides, ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, ``Chief's
Report''); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (Draft Speech, entitled ``7:00 p.m.--Chief's Report'')
(undated).
\88\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (November 8, 2001) (entitled ``Invoice from Weber Company, to
Scanlon Gould Public Affairs for $3,278.65 of expenses'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days later, Abramoff reminded Scanlon: ``don't
forget!!! Ballot security at Saginaw!!!!'' \89\ Abramoff was
concerned, because he could not ``handle losing two elections
in the space of 4 days!'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012251) (November 2,
2001).
\90\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (November 5, 2001) (GTG-
E000012287). What the other election was, is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2001, all but one member of the Slate of
Eight prevailed.\91\ A draft mailer, apparently prepared by
CCS, dated November 15, 2001, announced the victory: ``The
election on November 6 was an historic event for the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe. It was the day the people of this tribe swept
away the politics of the past, and started a new era of
positive and responsible government.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview of
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\92\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Slate of 8'') (November 15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the evening of the election, Scanlon emailed his
employees, congratulating them for their participation in the
campaign: ``Well team ... Last night was amazing--The slate of
8 kicked ass, and I want to thank all of you for helping out--
and watching the bottom line.'' \93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Robin Axline, Christopher Cathcart, Aaron Stetter and Patrick Gould,
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002297) (November 7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He heaped more praise: ``We had less than three weeks to
take 8 guys we never met before and get them [sic] elected. It
was a great plan, and great execution by a great team. Just to
recap, we elected 7 out of our slate of 8--and the last guy--
Ray Davis missed it by ONE vote. We did get another one of our
allies elected in District 2, and we now control 9 out of the
12 seats on the council.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alluding to his and Abramoff's original plan, Scanlon
concluded, ``Maynard [Kahgegab] will be elected Chief at the
organizational meeting on December 4th, and hopefully we will
be doing some more work for the tribe in the near future. THIS
MAKES US 2-0 in tribal elections this year!'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He concluded, ``Great work again--and by the way the last
time I saw Chris he was doing Tequila shots with Dave Otto at
the Bennigans in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan--If anyone hears from
him--tell him to get back to the office--we have a referendum
to win in Louisiana!'' \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having been forwarded this email string from Scanlon,
Abramoff enthusiastically replied, ``I love it!'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the day of the election, Abramoff reported to his
colleagues at Greenberg Traurig: ``I just got off the phone
with Chris Petras, government affairs head for the Saginaw
Chippewa. Today they had their election.'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Fred Baggett,
Todd Boulanger, Rodney Lane, Stephanie Leger, Ronald Platt, Kevin Ring,
Tony Rudy, Alan Slomowitz, Shawn Vasell and Michael Williams, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000028114/GTG-E000028115) (November 6, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He openly stated, ``We had Scanlon up there running our
slate.'' \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He concluded, ``We won 7 of the 8 slate positions and now
control the council! Our guys will be Chief and Sub-Chief.
Chris will head the 1 month transition and we will be on board
as soon as they are in. I figure the representation will be
$100-$150k/month.'' \100\ During his interview with Committee
staff, the head of Greenberg Traurig's national lobbying
practice, who among others received that email, could not
recall having read it.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Id.
\101\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the ``Slate of Eight,'' the evidence described
above supports the following conclusion: there was at least a
mutual understanding, if not an agreement, that the Slate of
Eight would hire Scanlon in exchange for, or because of, the
work that CCS did on its election to the Tribal Council--
possibly valued at as much as $100,000. This scenario has given
rise to ethical concerns within the Tribe. In his interview
with staff, Otto noted that Petras, who was not a member of the
Tribe, was not part of its public relations department and, as
an employee of the Tribe answerable to the Tribal Council, was
not supposed to get involved in internal leadership
disputes.\102\ The involvement of non-Indians in tribal
elections is, as another Council Member said, ``unheard of.''
\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\103\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matter,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 53 (September 29, 2004) (prepared
statement of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. THE TRIBE HIRES ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON

About two days after the seven successful members of the
Slate of Eight were sworn in, on December 6, 2001, the Saginaw
Chippewa hired Greenberg Traurig as its lobbyist in Washington
for a monthly retainer of $150,000.\104\ Rosenthal was out. For
reasons not clear to the Committee, about a year later, the
Tribal Council voted to increase that retainer to $180,000 per
month.\105\ But, there was a delay in the Tribe's hiring
Scanlon, who made a full presentation to the Tribal Council in
late 2001. According to Abramoff, then-Sub-Chief Otto became
concerned about how much the Tribe was spending on lobbying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Saginaw Chippewa document production (no Bates number)
(Engagement Letter from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Chief
Maynard Kahgegab, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Council) (December 6,
2001).
\105\ Saginaw Chippewa document production (no Bates number)
(Engagement Letter from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Chief
Maynard Kahgegab, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Council) (December 4,
2002); Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview of
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).

Just spoke with Petras. He spoke with Otto (can't
believe this guy is getting off the rails). Otto is
coming to DC on the 29th for two days with us (Petras
will come too, but wants to stay in the background).
Otto is bringing his father in law who is from [another
tribe]. Otto is concerned about them being so far out
on the line financially without anything to show first.
He said that Otto wants to see some approps come
through first. I told him--and he, Petras, agrees--that
waiting is ridiculous because it will be 9 months
before we know about approps, and in the meantime they
would have blown an incredible opportunity. Anyway, we
have to get Otto back on board when he is here. Can you
do the Wizards game with us on the night of the 29th?
\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000024627) (January 14,
2002).

Scanlon expressed irritation about the Tribe's failure to
hire him immediately: ``I can't believe that I spilled blood
getting those guys elected, and I got stiffed. How incredibly
ungrateful. Can they at the very least sign me to some kind of
deal? I can't believe they laid a goose-egg.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, always optimistic about their partnership
prospects, Abramoff offered encouragement: ``We'll get it!''
\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after the new Tribal Council was installed, it was
rumored that the ousted Council intended to attempt a take-
over: ``[A Member's] office just called Chris and told him that
the group that got ousted is planning a take-over in the next
couple of weeks and that the police may not get involved ... so
they may need federal help. This is all rumor right now, but
chris [sic] seemed concerned.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000024701) (January 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff planned to use this rumor as an opportunity to
have the Tribe hire Scanlon: ``Tell Chris they have to get
their political operations on the ground moving and fast. They
need Scanlon in there to get them organized. We'll handle the
federal side.'' \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the run-up to the Tribe's hiring Scanlon, Sprague
recalled in his interview with Committee staff, he specifically
asked Abramoff about his relationship with Scanlon.\111\ In
response, Sprague remembered, Abramoff only said he knew him
and that Scanlon was a professional.\112\ Ultimately, the Tribe
executed a contract with CCS in February 2002 for $4,000,000,
primarily for the development of a political ``database'' and,
according to Otto, another $3.9 million to use it.\113\ Over
the next two years, the Tribe would pay CCS about $10,000,000.
The Tribe's payments to CCS are set forth below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\112\ Id.
\113\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview of
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).

2/19/02............................................. $1,857,000
4/1/02.............................................. 1,200,000
4/17/02............................................. 1,050,000
6/27/02............................................. 1,900,000
8/14/02............................................. 500,000
6/19/03............................................. 500,000
7/18/03............................................. 500,000
8/12/03............................................. 500,000
10/03............................................... 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 10,007,000

Throughout the relevant period, Abramoff and Scanlon
represented that these payments were supposed to fund programs
designed to protect the Tribe's share of Michigan's gaming
market and protect its sovereignty from external threats.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with all the Tribes, CCS' grassroots and public
relations strategy centered on the development and use of a
political database. In the case of the Saginaw Chippewa, this
strategy was called ``Operation Redwing.'' According to a draft
of the proposal that was likely presented to the Tribe,
entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for Making the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe the Most Dominant Political Entity in
Michigan,'' the first step to developing a successful political
strategy ``is to tap into your natural political resources and
integrate them into a custom-built political database.'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for making the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe the most dominant political entity in
Michigan'') (December 6, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It elaborated on a ``Grassroots Database'':

We will gather lists of your vendors, employees, tribal
members etc. (if you approve, customer lists), and we
will import those lists into your new database. Our
computer program will match the individuals or
businesses with addresses, phone numbers, political
registrations and e-mail addresses, and then sort them
by election districts. The districts run from U.S.
Senator down to school board and once completed, you
can tap into this database and mobilize your supporters
in ANY election, or on any issue of your choosing.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Id. (emphasis added).

The proposal separately described a ``Qualitative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(opposition) Research Database'':

This custom built database acts as the information
center of Operation Redwing. Over the next six weeks,
our team will gather qualitative information on any
entity who can be classified as opposition and enter it
into this database. The research will include nearly
every piece of information on the opposition you can
imagine. Once gathered, it is then sorted by subject
matter and made retrievable by a phrase search. The
information can then be instantly disseminated to any
audience we choose such as our universe of supporters,
the press, third party [sic] interest groups or other
interested parties.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Id.

According to the proposal, at the end of the day, ``the
tribe will have built a grassroots army of over 50,000 real
voters that it can call on for offensive or defensive political
efforts.'' \118\ The total cost of Operation Redwing,
$4,207,000.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Id.
\119\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCS also proposed a ``Market Infringement and Political
Analysis'' that identified ``several serious threats ...
throughout the [S]tate of Michigan'' which could threaten the
Tribe's primary business, the Soaring Eagle Casino and
Resort.\120\ Those threats included the land-into-trust
applications of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and the
Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians; the prospect that the Gun
Lake Band of Potawatomi Indians may get a state compact; and
various non-gaming expansion initiatives.\121\ According to the
``Overview'' of a ``Market Share Infringement and Political
Analysis,'' dated May 18, 2002, that CCS prepared for the
Tribe, ``[T]he tribe could lose over $100 million annually if
two of the four facilities become operational.'' \122\ And,
``[i]f all 4 entities become operational the financial impact
will be devastating, so much so that we can not even measure
its impact.'' \123\ By contrast, in its ``Conclusion,'' the
document states that ``placing a figure on such a scenario is
extremely difficult to do, but we can say without a shadow of a
doubt, that if all four of the facilities ... become
operational, at the very least the tribe will loose [sic] $200
million dollars annually.'' \124\ The bases of these apparently
irreconcilable conclusions are unclear. The cost of this
program, an additional $3,455,000.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Market Share Infringement and Political Analysis'')
(May 18, 2002).
\121\ Id.
\122\ Id.
\123\ Id.
\124\ Id.
\125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his interview with staff, Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie
Sprague disagreed with CCS' analysis. He said that ``[e]veryone
knew there are three southern [t]ribes that will eventually
open casinos'' and that ``[they] are in different stages of
development.'' \126\ According to Sprague, when they open, they
will only affect a small percentage of the Saginaw's market,
between 10 and 17 percent.\127\ He noted that the Tribe
ultimately executed four contracts with CCS, which related to
(1) building the CCS database; (2) opposing ``racino'' \128\
proposals; (3) opposing pending land-into-trust applications
filed by competing tribes; and (4) supporting a statewide
smoking ban that would theoretically drive smokers into the
Tribe's casino.\129\ However, Sprague recalled that because the
Council received only vague updates from Petras about the
progress of CCS' work, he and other critics of the lobbying
contracts were limited in their ability to object.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\127\ Id.
\128\ The term ``racino'' refers to a combined race track and
casino. In some cases, gaming available in racinos is limited to slot
machines. However, some locations include table games such as
blackjack, poker, and roulette. Saginaw Chippewa Sub-Chief Bernie
Sprague noted that there were no meaningful efforts by CCS to stop
racinos in Michigan. See Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief,
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (June 13, 2006).
\129\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\130\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In furtherance of each ``campaign'' to oppose gaming
competition, CCS pledged to ``execute the following tactics'':
grassroots mobilization of environmental and anti-gaming
activists; patch-through phone calls to governmental
environmental protection agencies; local advertising
highlighting any project deficiencies; direct mail; opposition
research; mobilization of environmental and ``citizen groups'';
federal lobbying efforts on the competitions' land-into-trust
application deficiencies; Michigan state lobbying efforts; and
polling on each facility.\131\ Analysis as to how most of the
money that the Tribes paid Scanlon was diverted for unintended
purposes is discussed below in Part 2, Chapter 3, ``Capitol
Campaign Strategies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Market Share Infringement and Political Analysis'')
(May 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. ABRAMOFF ON TRIBAL CLIENT MANAGEMENT--``KEEPING OUR PEOPLE IN
POWER''

Apparently, Abramoff was not content simply to have Tribal
members supportive of his representation of the Tribe elected
to the Tribal Council. As he told one of his senior associates,
``[u]nderstanding tribal politics, and keeping our people in
power, is the priority of client management.'' \132\ Evidence
in the Committee's possession indicates that Abramoff attempted
to interfere in internal tribal politics to assure that the
Tribe would remain supportive. Abramoff did so primarily by
manipulating Petras and Petras' apparent influence over then-
Chief Maynard Kahgegab and other members of the Slate of Eight.
According to Abramoff, Petras was his ``one secure ally'' at
the Tribe.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026398) (May 30, 2002).
\133\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026141) (February 21, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff's machinations began almost immediately. In
January 2002, when Petras requested that Abramoff's team set up
meetings with Members of Congress for then Sub-Chief David
Otto, one of Abramoff's colleagues inquired whether there was a
problem with the representation. Abramoff explained, ``[Petras]
wants an excuse to get Otto to town to make sure he is OK with
us. Otto and Maynard are starting to be at contretemps.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Todd
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000000327) (January 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Abramoff associates asked, ``I thought Otto was one
of our guys?'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff answered, ``He is, but there is an ego thing going
on there. He is not mad at us, but he has been nervous about
our getting such a big contract, figuring correctly that their
enemies at the tribe would be upset. That's why deliverables
are the key.'' \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He explained, ``He and Maynard are at odds a bit. The
original deal was that whoever got the most votes would be
chief and the next guy would be subchief, as between the two of
them. Maynard beat him out.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Abramoff noted, ``Problem is that Maynard's
style needs some work: too much `me' and `I' and not enough
`we'. David just needs to hold our hands again so he is calm on
the lobbying front.'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Tribe's casino operations serving as a premium
revenue source for his secret partnership with Scanlon and even
though he had co-opted the Tribe's trusted legislative
director, Abramoff was keen on shoring up his supporters on the
Tribal Council. He told Scanlon, ``Regarding Sagchip, we need
to present a plan to resolidify these guys politically.'' \139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000024827) (February 6,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, he intended to travel to the Tribe to do precisely
that: ``I am going there tomorrow by the way, on the way back
from Nevada. Meeting with our slate on the council, chief,
subchief, et al [sic], to make sure they start doing the local
political work they need to do to stay in power.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000025064) (February 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Slate of Eight keenly interested in assuring its
incumbency, CCS appears to have served as an extension of
Abramoff's interest in ``keeping [his] people in power.'' A CCS
document, entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
Public Relations Plan,'' dated April 5, 2002, identifies its
objective as ``provid[ing] the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council
with the tools and resources necessary to successfully and
proactively promote their agenda and improve their image among
tribal members, the media and legislators.'' \141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Public
Relations Plan'') (April 5, 2002) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the document states, ``The goal is to make
this Tribal Council the most powerful and effective
Administration in the history of the Saginaw Chippewa Indians
of Michigan and secure their reelection.'' \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did CCS intend to do this? CCS' strategy was ``to arm
the Tribal Council with an effective message and the resources
needed to communicate that message in a clear, accurate and
concise fashion ... Each action and activity is conceived to
maximize the Tribal Council's visibility and bolster its
political capital.'' \143\ In particular, CCS intended to
``identify opportunities to promote the Tribal Council's agenda
through targeted media and Saginaw Chippewa-sponsored events
and activities.'' \144\ With ``CCS ... propos[ing], stag[ing]
and help execut[ing] all intra-tribe communications as directed
by the council,'' intra-tribe relations would ``focus on
establishing dialogue between the Tribal Council and tribal
members, ultimately building a trust that leads to voter
capital.'' \145\ Rather cryptically, the plan proposed to have
``CCS ... collaborate with the Tribal Council to develop a
response system for the notification of an incident/emergency,
as it relates politically.'' \146\ In conclusion, the public
relations plan noted that the ``internal and external
strategies outlined above will enable the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribal Council to effectively communicate their agenda,
resulting in a successful and highly regarded Administration.''
\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Id.
\144\ Id.
\145\ Id.
\146\ Id.
\147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an update memorandum from CCS associate Christopher
Cathcart to Otto and Petras, dated April 19, 2002, Cathcart
described CCS' efforts to date:

Our public relations team parachuted in to manage your
community meeting April 1. As you know, we produced and
delivered a ``save the date'' mailer that was mailed
the week prior to the meeting. Additionally, we were
able to produce a press release for your internal press
person to distribute. While in Mt. Pleasant, the CCS
team prepared Sub-Chief Otto's and your remarks to the
membership and also developed a comprehensive timeline
for the entire meeting.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Memorandum'') (April 19, 2002).

As internal strife began emerging among the Slate of
Eight--specifically between Chief Kahgegab and Sub-Chief Otto--
Abramoff and Scanlon focused on securing their allies on the
Council: ``Maynard and David are totally going at it. David has
turned on Chris and possibly us (or at least is stupid and is
the one who has been giving out our memos to the council). This
could be a good thing ultimately if we can get Maynard secured
in power, because he is now focused on needing us.'' \149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001168) (May 17 and 19,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One tactic the Slate of Eight apparently employed to
neutralize its opponents on the Tribal Council was to deny them
access to important information and meetings. They did so, if
not on the advice of, then with the encouragement of, Abramoff.
For example, when Petras reported that ``another Council member
or two could be joining'' a Tribal Council meeting, Abramoff
became alarmed: ``This is a potential problem! Who might be
joining? They have to be totally part of the family. We cannot
risk that they are in the opposing camp. Please let me know
what you have in mind as soon as possible. thanks. [sic]''
\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Chris Petras,
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000024973) (February 11, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, when Abramoff attempted to convince the Saginaw
Chippewa to participate in his program to have tribes
underwrite his use of sky boxes at D.C.-area sporting venues,
he and Petras discussed limiting information that would be seen
by the full Tribal Council. Preparing to present that program
to the Tribal Council, Petras advised Abramoff:

When I brought up the issue previously, the response
was it was too soon to ask. However, I just talked to
the Chief and he said bring the materials over. I have
the materials but need to know if all can see the
documents or if there is another document that needs to
be typed outlining the program and payment costs?
Something that says basically here is the program, here
is what the Tribes use the program for, here is what it
will cost total and with quarterly payments. I need a
document that everyone who would be utilized throughout
the process can see. Thanks.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Email between Christopher Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001142) (February
19, 2002).

Abramoff advised shutting out the opposition to the
greatest extent possible: ``Can you hand out the invoice (but
only to the slate [sic] of 8) and just read them the memo? The
opposition should just hear this at the table orally and get
nothing in writing. Will that work?'' \152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff even attempted to control the Tribe's external
relations with other tribes. For example, when the Saginaw
Chippewa's leadership prepared to meet with the leadership from
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff attempted to
manipulate the meetings between the chiefs:

Chris told me this morning that Cheryl is setting up
the SagChips [sic] to visit the Choctaws, which is
great. it [sic] is important that they see how things
are done right. There is one thing I wanted to mention
though. I was told that Cheryl might be working to set
up a separate meeting for Chief Maynard with Chief
Martin. Based on the dynamic in the room during our
meeting last week, I think you could tell that there
are some jealousies among the group, particularly Sub-
Chief Otto and the others feeling that Chief Maynard
might not be including them in stuff. Therefore, I
think we should be careful about setting up separate
meetings and, ideally, keep everyone together for
everything for now. Let me know if you agree on this.
Thanks Bryant.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to C. Bryant
Rogers, Roth, Van Amberg, Rogers, Ortiz & Yepa (GTG-E000001146)
(February 18, 2002).

A draft of CCS' ``Communications Program'' for the Tribe,
dated 2003, ``briefly recap[s] what CCS, in its public
relations role, accomplished [for the Tribe] in 2002.'' \154\
According to this document, ``CCS planned, staged and produced
Community Meetings held by the Council''; ``[w]rote speeches
for the Chief and other Tribal Members as needed''; ``[p]repped
the Chief and other Tribal Council members and fine-tuned
speeches.'' \155\ Documents reflecting the work that CCS did
for the Tribal Council is attached to the end of this Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
Communications Program 2003'') (2003).
\155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2003, the Saginaw Chippewa held new
elections.\156\ As a result of those elections, Maynard
Kahgegab and the other members of the Slate of Eight allies
lost their grip on the Tribal Council and a new chief and sub-
chief were elected.\157\ The newly elected Tribal Council
decided not to retain Abramoff and Scanlon as their lobbyist
and public relations specialist, respectively.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\157\ Id.
\158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newly elected Tribal Chief Audrey Falcon informed Scanlon
of the Tribe's decision on January 23, 2004, citing CCS's
failure to provide reports and work product regarding a state-
wide smoking ban initiative.\159\ On February 6, 2004, one of
Scanlon's lawyers, Robert Tompkins of the Washington firm of
Patton Boggs, demanded payment of $2,755,000 in connection with
the agreement relating to the initiative.\160\ Just days after
the election, Petras had also repeatedly tried to get the new
Tribal Council to pay Scanlon.\161\ But, on March 5, 2004,
shortly after the Committee announced its investigation,
another of Scanlon's lawyers, Stephen Braga of Baker Botts,
withdrew Scanlon's demand, indicating that ``[CCS] has no
desire to try to force this contractual relationship forward
with an unwilling party.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Letter from Chief Audrey Falcon, Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe, to Michael Scanlon, Capital Campaign Strategies (January 23,
2004).
\160\ Letter from Robert K. Tompkins, counsel to Capitol Campaign
Strategies, Patton Boggs, to Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (February 6,
2004).
\161\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (June 13, 2006).
\162\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition to the new ruling bloc in the Tribal Council
began circulating ``hit pieces'' around the Tribe, attacking
newly elected Chief Audrey Falcon, Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague,
and others.\163\ While who authored those pieces is unclear to
the Committee, the Committee understands that, as a result of
its own internal investigation, the Tribe has attributed them
to Petras.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\164\ From its internal investigation, the Tribe has found that
Petras wrote these pieces. Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief,
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (June 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an attempt to regain power, former Chief Maynard
Kahgegab and former Sub-Chief Robert Pego sought to have the
new council recalled.\165\ Information obtained by the
Committee suggests that Abramoff and Petras were involved in
the recall effort. Apparently, on several occasions, they
approached Scanlon about helping with that effort.\166\ An
email from Boulanger to other members of Abramoff's lobbying
team, in February 2004, describes Abramoff's work with the
ousted leadership against the duly elected members of the
Tribe:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\166\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).

As of Friday, Maynard had just under 200 signatures for
the recall petition (250 is required). They are going
to get 300 just to be sure. This was completed in less
than one week, which is highly unusual because the
Saginaw are a very slow moving tribe. Diana, who was
originally on Maynard's team and then switched to
Bernie has finally come back into the fold. Her family
was planning on signing the petition this weekend.
Also, two of Bernie's guys on the council are scared
and trying to get in Maynard's good graces ... they
don't know that they are also on the recall list. Once
the recall is completed, we are going to have to get a
letter to BIA asking that they send monitors, etc, to
the special election date ... if Robert Pego wins the
special election on the 11th for the vacant seat, we
may actually have a majority and can at a minimum get
Rosenthal fired. This is confidential, obviously.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Email from Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack
Abramoff, Michael Smith, Kevin Ring and Michael Williams, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000028359) (February 9, 2004).

With Petras serving as Abramoff's point man on the recall
effort, Abramoff was prepared to help fund it.\168\ In a status
report later that day, Boulanger reported: ``They are less than
50 signatures short of the recall. Maynard has been pounding
them with mailings ... which to be honest with you, aren't that
bad.'' \169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ See Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
\169\ Email from Todd Boulanger to Jack Abramoff, Michael Smith,
Kevin Ring, Shawn Vasell and Michael Williams, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000028361) (February 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He continued, ``They are running out of money for copying,
stamps, etc. Petras asked if we could come up with $2500 to
help them out.'' \170\ Kahgegab and Pego's efforts, apparently
with assistance from Petras and Abramoff, to have the newly
elected council recalled failed.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Id.
\171\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff was prepared to contribute, instructing associate
Shana Tesler to get Petras money from one of his accounts,
which Boulanger carefully specified should be ``cash.'' Two
days later, Boulanger reported that Kahgegab would have 300
signatures within the next few days.\172\ The foregoing
describes Abramoff and Scanlon's elaborate, albeit
unsuccessful, attempts to assure, by further interfering in
internal tribal matters, that the Tribe would keep them on as
its paid representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd
Boulanger, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028364) (February 11,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. CHRISTOPHER PETRAS' HEARING TESTIMONY IS NOT CREDIBLE

On September 29, 2004, former Saginaw Chippewa legislative
director Christopher Petras testified before the Committee. The
Committee is concerned about the veracity of his testimony. It
appears that, with his testimony, Petras intended to obscure
his contemporaneous relationship with Abramoff and Scanlon and
the assistance he gave them in maximizing their interests at
the Tribe's considerable expense.

1. Petras' Relationship With Abramoff and Scanlon

Serving as Abramoff and Scanlon's primary point of contact
with the Tribe, Petras proved to be their key to access to the
Saginaw Chippewa.\173\ Abramoff and Scanlon apparently obtained
Petras' help by assisting in the election of a slate of
candidates supportive of his promotion to legislative director
(and the considerable increase in his salary). Apparently, they
also did so by lavishing him with attention and favors during
his visits to Washington, D.C., including sky box tickets for
sporting events and concerts at area stadiums.\174\ On one such
visit, Petras had his photograph taken with, separately,
President George W. Bush and his chief political advisor Karl
Rove.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ See Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004); Interview
of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\174\ Id. (conveying concern about gratuities).
\175\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearing before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 45 (September 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those trips, during which Petras was driven around town in
a private car and for which his meals and entertainment were
expensed back to the Tribe, seem to have been frequent.\176\ In
his interview with staff, tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague
stated that Petras traveled to Washington about every two
weeks.\177\ Sprague regarded the purpose of those trips as
dubious.\178\ Former Abramoff associate Stephanie Leger Short
agreed that Petras was ``around a lot''--at least once a month,
if not more.'' \179\ In her interview, Short described Petras'
visits as ``high maintenance'' and noted that ``[the Greenberg
Traurig's associates] were running out of people [for Petras]
to meet with, because they had pretty much met with everybody
at that point.'' \180\ After a while, the meetings were being
set up as ``dog-and-pony shows,'' she said.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\177\ Id.
\178\ Id.
\179\ Interview of Stephen Leger Short, former associate, Greenberg
Taurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
\180\ Id.
\181\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, Petras' trips were so frequent and so demanding on
Abramoff's staff, he was regarded as something of a nuisance.
This is reflected in, for example, a March 22, 2002, email
between Abramoff senior associate Todd Boulanger. It begins
with Petras informing Boulanger of his itinerary of an upcoming
trip to Washington:

Todd, I am scheduled to arrive in D.C. on April 9 and
returning on the 12th... I have asked Members of the
Council to join me and will await their response.
However, please schedule meetings, [i]ncluding lunch
and dinner meetings at Signature's [sic]. Jack had
mentioned a possible lunch or dinner with Mr. Norquist
on one of the days if he is available. If Signature's
[sic] is serving breakfast maybe you can schedule a
meeting then. Also, I will probably be returning April
15-18th.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000078656) (March 22, 2002).

Boulanger was not pleased, writing Abramoff, ``How am I
going to schedule six days [of] meetings. This is fucking
ridiculous. There is no way I can basically take 2 weeks to
shuttle him around. This has to be dealt with.'' \183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff offered some consolation, ``I will set up the
Grover meeting. What a loser.'' \184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on July 2, 2002, during another visit to
Washington, Petras suggested, ``Perhaps on the next visit, you
and I can host an official for dinner at Signature's [sic].''
\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Email from Christopher Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe,
to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000078774) (July 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff wrote Boulanger, ``Host an official for dinner at
Signatures? What the hell is this?'' \186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Todd
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000078773-74) (July 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulanger answered, ``U 100 percent need to tell him he
can't come back until post August [sic]. Approps staff are
getting mad at us.'' \187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From information obtained by the Committee, it appears that
the foregoing was not atypical of Petras' trips to Washington.
During the Committee's hearing, then-Vice-Chairman Inouye
probed what gifts Petras may have received from Abramoff or
Scanlon while he served as the Tribe's legislative director:

Vice-Chairman Inouye: Did you receive any gift or
remuneration or compensation from these two men from
Washington?
Mr. Petras: All I can recall receiving was a video
camera-digital camera, a leather travel document holder
and some type of slide projection desktop screen.
Vice-Chairman Inouye: Did you feel that it was proper
or improper?
Mr. Petras: It was at Christmas. [Laughter] \188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 41 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe).

Among the gratuities that Petras did not disclose was the
$2500 he solicited in 2004 from Abramoff to support a recall
campaign against the incumbent Tribal Council.\189\ Documents
in the Committee's possession also indicate that, Maynard
Kahgegab, whose campaign for Tribal Chief Petras (and CCS)
helped with, also received gifts from Abramoff. On July 21,
2003, Abramoff discussed with one of his assistants a
``television gift'' for Chief Kahgegab: ``We bought him one for
Christmas, right? Can you show me what we got him? [H]e
complained tonight that it was too small. We might have to get
him another one. [W]hat joy!'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shana
Tesler, Greenberg Trauirg (GTG-E000028361) (February 9, 2004).
\190\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Holly Bowers,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000000008) (July 21, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Problems With Petras' Testimony

During its September 29, 2004, hearing, the Committee posed
several questions to Petras about his involvement in tribal
elections--both the campaign of the Slate of Eight for seats on
the Tribal Council and subsequent efforts to keep the then-
incumbent members of the slate on the Tribal Council. In
response, Petras relied on a chronic failure of recollection.
In particular, he testified that he could not recall ``at any
time having anything to do with [Tribal Council] elections.''
\191\ He also stated that he did ``not recall any discussion
regarding bringing in Mr. Scanlon to run any type of
campaign.'' \192\ In response to a specific question from the
Committee about the strategy meeting with Scanlon and Otto at
the Bob Evans restaurant, Petras testified that he could not
recall ``discussing any strategy for a [S]late of [E]ight.''
\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 42 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe).
\192\ Id. at 40 (emphasis added).
\193\ Id. at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this Report has presented testimony and documents
that indicate that Petras not only came up with the ``Slate of
Eight'' concept but also was heavily involved in helping
Scanlon implement a plan to help elect the Slate of Eight to
the Tribal Council. Given the volume of that evidence,
discussed above, the Committee finds Petras' failure of
recollection on this point misleading.
Despite his alleged failure to remember having had anything
to do with Tribal elections, documents indicate that Petras
actually persisted in trying to get CCS to help on the re-
election of incumbent members of the Tribal Council. For
example, an October 1, 2003, memorandum from then-CCS associate
Christopher Cathcart to the file, entitled ``MI Elections,''
reflects that Scanlon had ``repeated and contentious
discussions with Petras' about his attempts to have CCS work on
individual election efforts of Tribal Council members.\194\ To
Cathcart, this ``looked fishy and smelled fishy.'' \195\
According to the memorandum, Cathcart ``repeatedly advised ...
Chris Petras ... that we as a firm can do no work [on such
efforts].'' \196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08552)
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, to file, `MI Elections' '') (October 1, 2003).
\195\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capital
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\196\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08552)
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, to file, `MI Elections' '') (October 1, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days later, Petras apparently ``came to [CCS'] offices
today asking again that we help in the council elections
scheduled for next Tuesday, October 14th.'' \197\ According to
a memorandum reflecting this discussion, Cathcart ``again
expressed [his] opinion that since [CCS is] contracted with the
tribe, [CCS] cannot be involved with the elections.'' \198\ In
this document, Cathcart memorialized that ``[Petras] was very
upset by this line of discussion ...'' \199\ On October 7,
2003, in another note to the file, Cathcart memorialized that
``[Scanlon] expressed that he would discuss the matter with
Chris Petras and express to [him] that that [sic] was our
position.'' \200\ Memorializing ``the behavior of Chris Petras,
our sole contact at Saginaw Chippewa[,] to be inappropriate
with regard to [CCS'] relationship with the tribe,'' Scanlon
drafted his own note to the file that ``[Petras] has repeatedly
pressed his and the chiefs [sic] political concerns into our
business relationship with the tribe.'' \201\ He also
memorialized that he and Cathcart ``have continually told
[Petras] that we (CCS) can not [sic] use tribal funds to
conduct campaign activity ...''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08547)
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, to file, `MI Elections' '') (October 6, 2003).
\198\ Id.
\199\ Id.
\200\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08551)
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, to file, `Tribal Council Election in Michigan' '') (October
7, 2003).
\201\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/SC 08549)
(entitled ``Memorandum, from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, to file, `Saginaw Chippewa/Chris Petras' '') (October 9,
2003) (carbon-copying Cathcart).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, the Committee has received information
indicating that Petras was heavily involved in the 2004 recall
effort. Apparently, at one point, Petras and Abramoff were on a
speaker phone yelling at Scanlon because Scanlon would not help
with that effort.\202\ The Committee has also received
information indicating that Petras asked Scanlon to write a
negative letter about a Tribal Member associated with the
effort--perhaps Bernie Sprague.\203\ Petras apparently provided
Scanlon with negative personal information about that
member.\204\ About three weeks before Sprague was elected to
the Tribal Council, an anonymous letter conveying disturbing
allegations was mailed out to members of the Tribe.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ Email from Steven Braga, Esq., Baker Botts, to Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe (no Bates number) (March 30, 2006) (conveying
responses from Scanlon to questions posed by Tribe).
\203\ Id.
\204\ Id.
\205\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only did Petras claim to not recall what he did to
support the re-election efforts of particular Tribal Council
members, he allegedly could not recall anything about
Abramoff's involvement in assisting in the recall of the other
members of the Tribal Council, who were elected after the Slate
of Eight left office.\206\ However, given the evidence
described above that indicate that Petras knew a great deal
about Abramoff's involvement here, the Committee finds Petras'
chronic failure to recall matters about this issue, and other
issues, disingenuous. Of additional interest to the Committee
is Petras' inability to recall all of the gifts or remuneration
he may have received from Abramoff or Scanlon, also discussed
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 40 (September 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On areas apparently unaffected by his chronic failure of
recollection, Petras made statements that are inconsistent with
the testimony of other, more credible, witnesses. Two areas
that the Committee probed with Petras during the hearing were
his role in the Tribe's hiring of Abramoff and his role in
getting the Tribe to pay on Abramoff's requests for political
and charitable contributions. During the hearing, Petras
described his role in the Tribe's hiring of Abramoff as merely
passing information on to the Tribal Council as to who it
should hire as an outside counsel or lobbyist and that
legislative assistant Kim Sawmick actually made the
recommendation.\207\ Inasmuch as Petras covered federal
legislative matters for the Tribe, the Tribal Council likely
would have given substantial deference to Petras as to who the
Tribe should hire as its federal lobbyist. Indeed, former
Tribal Sub-Chief David Otto stated that Petras actually
recommended Abramoff as his choice for the job.\208\ Likewise,
Tribal Sub-Chief Bernie Sprague told staff that Petras
``brought in Abramoff.'' \209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ Id. at 42-44, 48.
\208\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\209\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petras likewise testified that ``[t]here were no efforts on
my behalf to try to push either way any type of political
contribution.'' \210\ This was offered in response to a
question from the Committee as to whether Petras ``encourage[d]
or assist[ed] Mr. Abramoff in encouraging the tribes to donate
to [the] so-called charities that he promoted.'' \211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 39 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe).
\211\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Otto's testimony rebuts Petras' recollection. In
particular, Otto recalled Petras' telling him that the Council
of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA'') was a
group with which Interior Secretary Gale Norton was
``involved.'' \212\ According to Otto, Petras also said that
supporting a project the Secretary was involved with would
``look good for the Tribe.'' \213\ Otto also recalled that he
was told that doing so would ``help [the Tribe] with
appropriations for their school, drug abuse center, senior
center, and etc.'' \214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\213\ Id.
\214\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents indicating that Abramoff told Petras that the
Secretary supported CREA help corroborate Otto's account. In an
email, dated September 19, 2001, from Abramoff to Petras,
Abramoff tried to persuade the Tribe to make a sizeable
contribution to CREA.\215\ In connection with a CREA fund-
raiser at a private Washington, D.C. home, Abramoff falsely
pitched CREA as ``hav[ing] been incredibly helpful on certain
specific tribal issues' and misrepresented CREA as
``[Secretary] Norton's main group outside the department.''
\216\ After having told Petras about the Secretary's connection
to CREA, on January 31, 2002, Abramoff directed his assistant
make the following change to a requested contribution list
going to the Saginaw Chippewa: ``add in $50,000 for CREA and
put a note in the candidate column as follows: Sec. Norton.''
\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000105233-34) (September
19, 2001).
\216\ Id.
\217\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107697) (January 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From its due diligence, the Tribe estimates that ``[t]he
Saginaw Chippewas were taken by Mr. Petras and Mr. Scanlon and
Mr. Abramoff over a 2-year period of approximately $1 million
in contributions ... Campaign contributions to people we never
heard of, people we knew nothing about, organizations,
different things of this nature.'' \218\ Given the foregoing,
the Committee is concerned about the accuracy of Petras'
testimony to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matter,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 29 (September 29, 2004) (prepared
statement of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON PRIVATELY EXPRESS CONTEMPT FOR THE TRIBE

While Abramoff and Scanlon worked closely with the Tribe
for their own purposes, they expressed an unsettling contempt
for their clients. Evidence of their contempt can be traced to
the beginning of their representation of the Saginaw Chippewa.
For example, on December 17, 2001, shortly after the Tribal
Council elections, Abramoff and Scanlon awaited the new
Council's vote on a project proposed by Scanlon's CCS: ``Just
spoke with Chris. Did you get Maynard? Chris said they are
voting on the project today!! Can you smell money?!?!?!'' \219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Mike Scanlon,
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002363) (December 17, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the new Council failed to vote on the project,
Abramoff was unreserved in his contempt: ``The f 'ing
troglodytes didn't vote on you today. Dammit.'' \220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Mike Scanlon,
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002365) (December 17, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon asked, ``What's a troglodyte?'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000002365) (December 17,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``What am I a dictionary? :) It's a
lower form of existence basically.'' \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing their exchange, Abramoff explained the Saginaw
Chippewa's failure to vote on one of Scanlon's proposals:
``They spent the whole time discussing the firings of late. I
like these guys, and truly believe they are going to do the
program, but they are plain stupid. They should have had you on
board first and then done the firings. Morons.'' \223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000002363) (December 18,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, on March 13, 2002, Mr. Abramoff simply referred
to the Tribe, in the subject line of an email to Scanlon, as
``those
f 'ing SagChips.'' \224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000026246) (March 13, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that e-mail, Abramoff expressed concern that the Tribe
was not going to participate in his Sports Suites program,
because the Tribe was already spending too much money and was
not seeing results from Scanlon.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon retorted that the tribe ``are just friggin cheap--
and losers ...'' \226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, in an e-mail bearing the subject line
``SagChip idiots'', Abramoff wrote:

Someone leaked out the Operation Red Wing memo to the
enemy up there. Petras told me this tonight. The PR
guy, Joe?, is the enemy and--I did not know this--is a
Sagchip, and is now going to run for council!! These
mofos are the stupidest idiots in the land for sure.
\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000026311) (April 11, 2002).

In discussing a trip to the Tribe in June 2002, Scanlon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote:

Also, we need to figure something out on the trip to
sag--I can travel two weekd [sic] in [a] row and you
know that petras is always dramtic [sic]. It would
really be better for me--and us[,] I believe[,] to just
do the whole swing. I really think a trip out to those
fools solo is not worth it regardless, because we will
not come back with cash or a firn [sic] commitiment
[sic], but when you throw in the pain in the ass factor
and the petras bullshit factor, its [sic] a really bad
idea.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001175) (June 5, 2002).

As the foregoing suggests, Christopher Petras, Abramoff and
Scanlon's champion within the Tribe, did not escape their
contempt. Apparently from the outset, Abramoff disparaged
Petras as a ``dork.'' \229\ When Petras attempted to get
concert tickets for a Michigan state representative running for
Congress, Abramoff wrote to a colleague, ``Neither rain, nor
snow [sic], nor the heat of day will keep him from his
appointed idiocy.'' \230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Rodney Lane
(GTG-E000024633) (May 24, 2001).
\230\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Todd
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027857) (February 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically, Abramoff and Scanlon ridiculed Petras privately
for talking about people behind their backs. In an email with
the subject line ``Just Talked to Petras,'' Scanlon wrote, ``No
worries--Im [sic] sorry I felw [sic] off the handle--that guy
drives me nuts sometimes--especially the way he back stabs and
talks about everybody behind thier [sic] backs.'' \231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-000024691) (December 12,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``That's why he has a mullet.'' \232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Months later, Abramoff had a similar exchange with his
senior lobbying associate Todd Boulanger: ``What are you doing?
Petras is coming to town this week'' I'm gonna schedule ...
Some Jack--Petras time everyday ...'' \233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027698) (March 16, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He continued, ``Have you noticed that he's wearing better
ties and shirts ... [?] I've got him to spend some cash on it.
He's into it. Ahahahahhahahhaahhaha. If he would [sic] only cut
that hair.'' \234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``Then he wouldn't look like an Indian,
though.'' \235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When, at its September 29, 2004, hearing the Committee
asked Petras for his reaction to various communications in
which Abramoff and his associates disparaged him, his loyalty
to Abramoff stood fast--he asked for their context.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 41-42 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of
Christopher Petras, former legislative director, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. CONCLUSION

Abramoff and Scanlon's efforts to sign on the Saginaw
Chippewa as clients is particularly notable. As they had done
with the Agua Caliente, Abramoff and Scanlon insinuated
themselves in Tribal Council elections to maximize their chance
of getting hired afterwards. In particular, they provided,
among other things, strategic advice and logistic support to
some of the candidates. Those who ran in the Saginaw Chippewa
election called themselves the ``Slate of 8.'' While Scanlon
came up with the name of this slate of candidates, the concept
was apparently created by a non-Tribal member--Tribal
legislative director, Christopher Petras.
While his motivation for helping Abramoff and Scanlon oust
the incumbent Tribal Council remains unclear, evidence
indicates that, over the course of (originally) Abramoff's and
(later) Scanlon's representation of the Saginaw Chippewa,
Petras was given things of value. In fact, Petras traveled to
Washington, D.C. so often and (with private cars, tickets to
sporting events and concerts, meals at posh restaurants, and
``meetings'' with prominent political personalities) his trips
became so demanding on Abramoff's staff that one former
Abramoff associate described what they did for and with Petras
as ``dog and pony shows.''
The weight of evidence obtained by the Committee indicates
that (1) Petras' assistance was key to Abramoff and Scanlon's
success in getting contracts with the Saginaw Chippewa and (2)
those candidates who were elected to the council with Abramoff
and Scanlon's assistance ultimately supported Abramoff and
Scanlon's contract proposals because of, or in exchange for,
the assistance that Abramoff and Scanlon provided them.
From June 2002 through October 2003, the Saginaw Chippewa
paid Scanlon about $3,500,000 for grassroots activities and
political consulting. Of those proceeds, Scanlon secretly
kicked back to Abramoff about $540,000--about 50% of his total
profit from the Tribe during this period. Discussion and
analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon successfully perpetrated
their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on an entity-by-
entity basis, is contained infra in Part 2 of this Report.
CHAPTER IV

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

Can you smell money?

Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, June 14, 2002

I think the key thing to remember with all these
clients is that they are annoying, but that the
annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind
of money and part with it so quickly.

Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, March 5, 2003

A. INTRODUCTION

During her February 2004, interview of Jack Abramoff, The
Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt queried him about
allegations that he and Michael Scanlon may have interfered
with Tribal elections to get lobbying contracts. Specifically,
Schmidt asked, ``You know, isn't there some, you know concern
about outside people getting involved in tribal elections and
isn't that frowned upon by the regulators here in Washington?''
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email from Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010608) (February 3, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff pushed back a little: ``I'm sorry I don't
understand, tribal elections?'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt explained, ``Getting involved in tribal elections
[--] outside firms[;] outside influences[;] bringing money or
expertise or whatever[;] getting involved in tribal
elections[;] getting people ousted[;] getting people elected[;]
getting people re-elected using tribal funds for that
purpose.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff asked, ``Well I don't know, I'm not sure I
understand the question, do you mean with the Sac and Fox in
Iowa, or our getting involved?'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt pressed, ``No, I was actually thinking of the Agua
Caliente[:] some people running for election getting dominance
on the tribal council and then bringing you guys in and you
guys bringing in Scanlon, in sort of unfolding. ...'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff obfuscated, ``With Agua Caliente, I, you can
check, but I don't think the tribal council makeup has changed
much over the years, I'm not certain.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding Abramoff's evasive answers to Schmidt's
questions, Abramoff and Scanlon did, in fact, insinuate
themselves into the elections at the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''). In 2002, one of their
allies prevailed and paved the way for the lucrative contracts
that the Tribe ultimately awarded to Abramoff and Scanlon.

B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

The Agua Caliente's traditional homelands are in the Palm
Springs, California area.\7\ In 1876, the Federal Government
deeded into trust 32,000 acres of the Tribe's ancestral
homeland as the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 51 (September 29, 2004) (Prepared
statement of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians).
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally, a Cahuilla village consisted of
approximately 100 to 200 inhabitants with several villages
combining together to compose a larger political and
territorial unit called a tribelet or sib.\9\ The villages were
permanent; however, groups would leave periodically to hunt,
gather, or trade, setting up temporary camps for several weeks
at a time.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Cultural History (visited Mar. 22, 2006) (describing the cultural
history of the Cahuilla).
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cahuillas belong to the Shoshonean division of the Uto-
Aztecan linguistic family, which ranges from the Aztecs of
Mexico to the Hopi in Arizona.\11\ Cahuilla society was divided
into exactly two descent groups or moieties, the Wildcat and
the Coyote.\12\ The Cahuilla were adept at farming and grew
crops such as melons, squash, beans, and corn.\13\ They
irrigated their crops with water from nearby streams.\14\ They
also gathered other food items such as acorns, seeds, wild
fruit, agave, and yucca.\15\ In addition, they participated in
extensive trade routes with neighboring tribes where food,
shells, animals, and mineral products were traded.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Homepage (visited Mar. 22, 2006) (providing a brief introduction to Cahuilla
history).
\14\ Cultural History (visited Mar. 22, 2006) (describing the cultural
history of the Cahuilla).
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agua Caliente adopted its constitution and by-laws in
1955.\17\ The Agua Caliente Tribal Council consists of five
members: chairman, vice chairman, secretary, and two
members.\18\ The chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary serve
2-year terms and members serve a 1-year term.\19\ Under the
Tribe's constitution, action is taken by a majority vote of the
Tribal Council.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 51 (September 29, 2004) (Prepared
statement of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians).
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1989, the Tribe formed the Agua Caliente Development
Authority, a subsidiary of the Tribe, which handles decisions
on economic development.\21\ The Tribe operates two casinos.
One, opened in 1995, is located on the hot springs for which
the Tribe was named.\22\ The other casino opened in 2001.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Political History (visited March 22, 2006) (describing the political
history of the Cahuilla).
\22\ Miller & Schroeder Completes $70 Million Debt Financing for
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (visited March 22, 2006) (discussing
the financial history of the Cahuilla casinos).
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON OFFER THE PROMISED LAND

In early 2002, Abramoff was on his way to Palm Springs,
California for a meeting with members of the Agua Caliente.\24\
Michael Chapman, an enrolled member of the Menominee Indian
Tribe of Wisconsin, had arranged the introduction.\25\ Chapman
had claimed to be ``very good friends'' with Candace Patencio
(``C. Patencio'') and Virginia Siva, members and Tribal leaders
\26\ of the Agua Caliente.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael Smith,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059107) (January 7, 2002).
\25\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000059081) (January 22, 2002); Email between Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael Chapman (GTG-E000056764)
(January 22, 2002).
\26\ Although she was not on the Tribal Council at the time, C.
Patencio had been involved in tribal politics and had served on the
Tribal Council previously, from 1996-2001, losing her bid in 2001 for
the vice chairman's seat by one vote. Interview of Candace Patencio,
former council member, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by
telephone (April 25, 2006).
\27\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000056764) (January 22, 2002); see also Email from Michael
Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059086) (January
22, 2002) (``I am dear friends with both and we have vacationed
together in Utah and Hawaii--under the guise of Indian business.'').
During his interview with Committee staff, Chapman said that while he
considers Siva a friend, he only feels he is close friends with C.
Patencio. Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff had become acquainted with Chapman through Michael
Smith, then a lobbyist in Greenberg Traurig's Washington, D.C.
governmental affairs practice.\28\ Smith and Chapman initially
met by phone through a mutual friend, and later met face-to-
face in Chicago over Christmas vacation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Email from Michael Smith, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059106-07) (January 7, 2002).
\29\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapman proved a useful resource. Before Abramoff's meeting
in Palm Springs, Chapman provided Abramoff with information
about the Tribe, its key players, and internal dynamics. More
specifically, he provided background on C. Patencio and Siva
and their involvement in Tribal politics:

[Virginia] has held her At-Large seat for several
years. She is contemplating running for Chairman,
pending a preliminary polling of key families. What is
remarkable about her is the At-Large seats are up for
election each year, so she has a consistent power base
in the tribe that is loyal to her.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000056764) (January 22, 2002).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On C. Patencio, Chapman provided the following information:

Candace comes from the Petencio [sic] family which is
one of the largest families at Agua Caliente--both of
her parents have served on council in the past and her
father was once Tribal Chairman. She has served on
council for several years as an At-Large Councilor.
Last year she ran for Vice-Chairman of the tribe and
lost by one vote. This year she is seeking her old
seat. Candace has an MBA.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.; see also Interview of Candace Patencio, former council
member, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25,
2006) (explaining she received a degree in Business Administration from
University of San Diego and an MBA from University of Phoenix in San
Diego, and confirming her one-vote loss for Vice Chairman in 2001).

Chapman also identified the consequences of a successful
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
election for C. Patencio and Siva:

They [C. Patencio and Siva] are also related to the
Tribe's Treasurer [Moraino Patencio]--so if they
prevail in their election pursuits in March--they will
have controlling interest on the Tribal Council.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000056764) (January 22, 2002). In her interview, C. Patencio
confirmed that she, Moraino Patencio, and Siva are related. Interview
of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).

Once in Palm Springs, Abramoff dined with C. Patencio,
Siva, and Moraino Patencio (``M. Patencio'') at the Canyon
Bistro restaurant.\33\ During her interview with Committee
staff, C. Patencio admitted that she and Siva were dissatisfied
with Pace-Capstone, the Tribe's lobbyists at the time.\34\
Indeed, C. Patencio said that if she assumed control of the
Tribal Council at the time, she would have definitely ended
that lobbying firm's contract.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006); see
also Emails between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ilisa
Gertner, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056766) (January 22, 2002).
\34\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, she claimed that before her meeting with Abramoff, she
did not know he was a lobbyist, and there was no purpose to the
meeting.\36\ She simply met with him because Chapman had
suggested she do so.\37\ According to C. Patencio, she only
knew that Abramoff was a movie producer who had produced ``red
something.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
\38\ Id. C. Patencio was likely referring to Abramoff's production
of the movie ``Red Scorpion,'' an action film starring actor Dolph
Lundgren.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapman recalled the genesis of the meeting much
differently. Chapman told the Committee that he had recommended
C. Patencio meet with Abramoff because she and Siva were
dissatisfied with the Tribe's lobbyists at the time.\39\
Indeed, after speaking with C. Patencio about arranging the
meeting, Chapman reported to Abramoff that they are ``eager to
hear what you think.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
\40\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000059086) (January 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of Chapman's statement to the Committee and his
contemporaneous email to Abramoff, the Committee has
considerable difficulty with C. Patencio's claim that she did
not know that Abramoff was a lobbyist or the purpose of the
meeting. Ms. Patencio holds a business administration degree
and a Masters of Business Administration.\41\ Her family has
been heavily involved in Tribal politics: both her father and
mother served on the Tribal Council, and her father was once
chairman.\42\ C. Patencio served on the Tribal Council for five
years.\43\ The Committee has difficulty believing that a woman
with C. Patencio's educational and political background would
not have known the purpose of the meeting and Abramoff's
profession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\42\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000056764) (January, 22, 2002).
\43\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Patencio told Committee staff that during their dinner,
Abramoff boasted that he was part of the lobbying team that had
secured self-regulation of Class III gaming under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians (``Choctaw'').\44\ That, according to C. Patencio, was
why she became so interested in having the Tribe hire
Abramoff.\45\ In addition to her dissatisfaction with Pace-
Capstone, C. Patencio was at odds with the Tribe's Chairman and
Vice Chairman.\46\ Although she had just met Abramoff, C.
Patencio shared this information with him.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id. Provided certain conditions are met, the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (``IGRA'') allows for self-regulation by Indian tribes
of Class II gaming (e.g., bingo and games similar to it, pull tabs, and
non-house banked card games). IGRA does not allow for self-regulation
of Class III gaming. In 1999, the Choctaw successfully secured self-
regulation for Class III gaming in an omnibus appropriations bill.
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Patencio could recall little else about that
meeting.\48\ C. Patencio did not recall Abramoff mentioning any
other clients aside from Choctaw, or discussing Michael
Scanlon.\49\ She also did not remember discussing the upcoming
2002 Tribal elections with Abramoff at that dinner.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Id.
\49\ Id.
\50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following month, in Washington, D.C., Abramoff met
again with C. Patencio, M. Patencio, and Siva.\51\ The three
Tribal members were attending meetings of the National Congress
of American Indians and the National Indian Gaming
Association.\52\ Before the trio arrived in Washington, D.C.,
Chapman advised Smith that ``a dinner and sporting event would
go a long way with Virginia et al [sic] (especially dinner at
your [Abramoff's] place).'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id.
\52\ Email from Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057210) (February
18, 2002); See also Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056873) (February 16, 2002) (``Candace and
Virginia are both going to be in Washington the week of February 24th--
initially for NCAI's Executive Council meeting and then NIGA
business.'').
\53\ Email from Michael Smith, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056872) (February 16, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapman also revealed: ``I assisted them [C. Patencio and
Siva] with their candidacy statements and will fly out the
weekend before the election to see what we can shore-up. The
actual election is March 19th.'' \54\ The very next day,
Chapman wrote that ``[o]n the election front, Agua voters must
register weeks in advance in order to participate in the
election--so now is the time they need to shore up their
support!'' \55\ Abramoff forwarded Chapman's email to Scanlon,
noting ``[l]et's discuss this.'' \56\ It thus appears that
Chapman, intentionally or unintentionally, gave Abramoff the
idea to insinuate himself and Scanlon into the Agua Caliente
elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000056872) (February 16, 2002).
\55\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000056867) (February 17, 2002).
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff followed Chapman's advice, and on February 17,
invited C. Patencio:

Michael tells me that Virginia and you are going to be
in Washington, DC [sic] next week. I would love to get
together with you if possible. Coincidentally, that is
the week that we open Signatures, a high end fine
dining restaurant which I own. We have a special
reception there Wednesday night for Senator Tim
Hutchinson (I'd love to introduce you to him--and then
we could all have dinner).\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Candace
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057166)
(February 17, 2002).

Abramoff continued, ``Thursday night is the grand opening,
and you are certainly invited to attend that one as well. There
should be quite a few Members and Senators there. Anyway, I'll
call you this week to see if you can make it and if we can get
together.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Are you guys basketball fans? If so, the Wizards (Michael
Jordan) are playing and I'd love to have you join us for that
too,'' Abramoff added \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Patencio confirmed that, ``Yes, Virginia, Moraino and I
will be in DC from 2/24-3/31. The full Tribal Council along
with the proxies will be attending the NCAI & NIGA meetings.''
\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Email between Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057210)
(February 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
She continued, ``Spoke with Virginia [and] she said she
would like to go to dinner but neither of us are basketball
fans (As you can tell fine dining is something we enjoy).''
\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Abramoff told her he would call her the next
day to make plans.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Patencio recalled two meetings with Abramoff during her
visit.\63\ Contemporaneous emails suggest there might have been
three. Abramoff apparently first met with the trio on February
26. That day, Chapman advised Abramoff, ``Just a short note to
say that once again my Agua crew enjoyed the pleasure of your
company! They're looking forward to seeing you tomorrow! I hope
Virginia prevails--it could be a great relationship/client!''
\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\64\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000059253) (February 26, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff assured Chapman, ``Mike Scanlon and I are going to
do everything we can to help them.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately, Abramoff forwarded Chapman's email to Scanlon
and suggested, ``You should call them for tomorrow and get
together to discuss strategy.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon (GTG-E000059252) (February 26, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff met again with C. Patencio and her companions on
February 27. At that point, Abramoff apparently began to scheme
on how he could use political contributions from the Agua
Caliente to further his lobbying practice. Before his meeting
with the Tribal members, Abramoff told his assistant Ilisa
Gertner:

Please let the Hutchinson guys know that they are
coming (Candace, Virginia Siva, and a third fellow--
can't remember his name). tell [sic] them that they are
not currently going to be able to contribute, but that
they will in March be in a position where they control
their tribe and will be able to be helpful on a Choctaw
level.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Ilisa Gertner,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057185) (February 27, 2002).

While at Signatures, Abramoff, C. Patencio, M. Patencio and
Siva discussed Abramoff possibly representing the Tribe.\68\
They also apparently discussed Scanlon helping out C. Patencio
and Siva on their 2002 elections, because, after the meeting,
Abramoff immediately reported to Scanlon: ``I saw them tonight.
They really can't wait for you to lead them to the promised
land! Tomorrow night, after the reception at Sigs, let's take
them to dinner and lock up the deal.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006). See
also Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael Scanlon,
Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057184) (February 27, 2002).
\69\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057184) (February 27,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later during her trip, C. Patencio met alone with Abramoff
and Scanlon at another restaurant in Washington, D.C.\70\ There
she learned that Scanlon was in public relations.\71\ She
believed that Scanlon worked for Abramoff, that he was a member
of ``Jack's team.'' \72\ C. Patencio believed that they
discussed the 2002 Agua Caliente Tribal Council elections,
although she said she did not ask Scanlon for help with her
election.\73\ In fact, C. Patencio denied that Abramoff and
Scanlon offered to help in her election; instead, she claimed,
``things kinda fell in place.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\71\ Id.
\72\ Id.
\73\ Id.
\74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. SCANLON WORKS ON C. PATENCIO AND SIVA'S ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

Before the Agua Caliente Tribal Council elections, Scanlon
asked Abramoff, ``Hey--How much do you want me to spend on the
AC race--I gotta get a team out there ASAP--Like 3 people--Then
rotate a new team in after that--So travel is goanna [sic] run
about 20k and materials like 5-10k. Should we go for it?'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057254) (March 5, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff instructed Scanlon, ``Yes, go for it big time.''
\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, so Scanlon did. He sat down with his team and said,
``We're going to California to work on the election.'' \77\
Scanlon and his team performed the same type of work as they
had for the Slate of Eight during the 2001 elections at the
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.\78\ From March 6 through 10,
2002, Scanlon's team drafted candidate letters and fliers, paid
for the envelopes and postage, secured a site and catering for
a community meeting, assisted in door-to-door campaigning, and
prepared the candidates for the community meeting.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\78\ Id.
\79\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Tribal Chairman and Council Election
GOTV Timeline'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon's objective was ensuring that
``friendly'' tribal members who would support contracts with
them were elected and, conversely, potentially unsupportive
members were defeated. Richard Milanovich, Chairman of the
Tribe and Siva's opponent in the 2002 elections, was targeted
by Abramoff as ``our enemy.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057241-51) (February 17,
2002); see also Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to
Mohunwit@[REDACTED] (GTG-E000057216-22) (February 28, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Abramoff asked C. Patencio, ``how are we
doing?'' \81\ When C. Patencio shared Siva's apprehension and
reluctance about the campaign, he urged, ``Keep pushing her.
We're near the finish line and can't slow down now. I know you
know this more than anyone! Let me know if there is more we can
do to help.'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig and Candace
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057252)
(March 6, 2002).
\82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Agua Caliente Tribal Council election, Scanlon
and C. Patencio spoke over the telephone about what she needed
to do to win her election.\83\ C. Patencio confirmed that
Scanlon either developed, or had a hand in developing, the
themes of her election campaign.\84\ From the records uncovered
by the Committee, those themes were ``honesty, effectiveness,
and experience.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\84\ Id.
\85\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Dear Friend'') (undated); Capitol Campaign
Strategies document production (no Bates number) (entitled ``Candace
Patencio MEET CANDACE PATENCIO!!'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has not obtained evidence establishing that
Scanlon had similar conversations with Siva. Among the computer
files from Scanlon's companies, however, the Committee
discovered a talking points memorandum for Siva, containing
``key message points'' and general pointers on answering
questions from voters.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC 005407-
12) (entitled ``Virginia Siva Talking Points Community Meeting'')
(March 10, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early March, Scanlon's team drafted three seminal
documents governing their assistance in the Agua Caliente
elections. The first document is entitled, ``Agua Caliente
Tribal Chairman and Council Election GOTV Timeline.'' \87\ The
document appears to be a checklist for Scanlon and his
employees for the Agua Caliente 2002 election. According to the
document, by March 6, 2002, Scanlon and his team were to have
completed a number of tasks, including but not limited to,
drafting talking points for Siva; drafting candidate letters
and fliers; creating invitations for a community meeting;
securing a location for candidates' meeting; and, contacting
candidates.\88\ It also identified two days over which
Scanlon's team would assist C. Patencio and Siva in door-to-
door campaigning.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Tribal Chairman and Council Election
GOTV Timeline'') (undated).
\88\ Id.
\89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second document, entitled ``Candidates' Timeline,''
established deadlines by which Scanlon and his team would
complete or help C. Patencio and Siva complete mailers, phone
calls, door-to-door campaigning, and a community meeting.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Candidate's Timeline'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third document was entitled, ``Tribal Election 2002
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.'' \91\ Scanlon and his
team envisioned a specific message for C. Patencio and Siva to
convey to their fellow Tribal members: ``We will communicate
that this election is about direct leadership by people who are
in touch with the tribe. You are the new leaders, the leaders
who will take the tribe into the future. Not the old leaders
who are only looking out for number one.'' \92\ The campaign
was purportedly designed to put the candidates ``in contact
with every voter at least five times over the next 7 days.''
\93\ Scanlon and his team divided potential voters into three
tiers, and supposedly tailored their candidates' messages to
each tier.\94\ The campaign plan consisted of four general
components: (1) mail; (2) door-to-door; (3) phones; and, (4) a
candidates meeting.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Tribal Election 2002 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians'') (undated).
\92\ Id.
\93\ Id.
\94\ Id.
\95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Mail

The strategy memorandum claimed to ``have developed three
separate mail pieces'' to articulate the candidates'
message.\96\ The first was ``a personalized letter from you,
explaining why you are a superior candidate for your
position.'' \97\ The second was ``a comparison piece that draws
distinctions between you and your opponents.'' \98\ The third
piece was a ``traditional Get Out The Vote piece (GOTV) that
asks for their support and reminds them to mail in their
ballot.'' \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id.
\98\ Id.
\99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the documents discovered by the Committee is a draft
letter from C. Patencio regarding the 2002 election.\100\ The
letter stressed the importance of the upcoming election, and
twice emphasized the themes of honesty, effectiveness, and
experience, the very themes that Scanlon had developed.\101\
The Committee found essentially the same text on letterhead
reading ``Candace Patencio Candidate for Member of the Tribal
Council.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Dear Friend'') (undated).
\101\ Id.
\102\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``draft letter from Candace Patencio'') (March 8,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Committee found another draft letter, for
Siva, on her bid for Tribal Chairman.\103\ It focused on the
theme of fresh leadership: ``Our tribe needs a leader who
understands your concerns and is in tune with your needs ... It
is time that our tribe has a leader who is dedicated to working
for you.'' \104\ This draft letter, too, was apparently in
final form on letterhead reading ``Virginia Siva Sincere
Leadership Inspired Results.'' \105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Dear Friend'') (undated).
\104\ Id.
\105\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Virginia Siva Sincere Leadership Inspired Results)
(March 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Scanlon's action plan called for three letters,
the Committee only found evidence of two. C. Patencio believed
that Scanlon and his team did no more than two mailers, since
the Tribe's election ordinance limited election mailings to
two.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Door-to-Door

Scanlon's plan called for C. Patencio and Siva to go door-
to-door making personal contact with potential voters, which
Scanlon believed would ``go miles making yourselves visible to
the voters.'' \107\ Scanlon claimed, ``This is your chance to
prove that you are the candidates who are truly working for the
tribal members.'' \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Tribal Election 2002 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians'') (undated).
\108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To effect this part of the plan, Scanlon had one of his
employees drive C. Patencio around in a car rented by Scanlon
specifically for C. Patencio's personal visits with Tribal
members. C. Patencio could not recall who that person was.\109\
Christopher Cathcart, Scanlon's right-hand man, told Committee
staff he was the one who drove C. Patencio around for the door-
to-door meetings.\110\ In furtherance of the strategy, Scanlon
also put together a walking map with voters and a document
entitled ``Palm Springs and Cathedral City Walk List''
containing the names of tribal members and their addresses. C.
Patencio, however, claimed the map was inaccurate and,
therefore, unhelpful.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\110\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\111\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Telephone

The Committee has seen no evidence that either C. Patencio
or Siva made the type of telephone calls outlined in Scanlon's
plan. C. Patencio did not recall making such telephone
calls.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Candidates' Meeting

On March 10, 2002, Scanlon hosted a candidate's night for
C. Patencio and Siva at the Wyndham Palm Springs Hotel.\113\
Among the documents reviewed by the Committee were a catering
menu and a credit card authorization form from the Wyndham Palm
Springs Hotel.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Id.
\114\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Menu and Credit Card Authorization Form'')
(undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the meeting, Scanlon's team prepared separate two-
sided color brochures for C. Patencio and Siva, which provided
details of the ``Meet the Candidates' Meeting.\115\ For C.
Patencio, the flyer once again stressed the campaign themes of
``honesty, effectiveness, and experience'' that Scanlon had
developed.\116\ Likewise, Siva's flyer emphasized ``Sincere
Leadership'' and ``Inspired Results.'' \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Candace Patencio MEET CANDACE PATENCIO!!)
(undated); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Virginia Siva MEET VIRGINIA SIVA!!'') (undated).
\116\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Candace Patencio MEET CANDACE PATENCIO!!'')
(undated).
\117\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Virginia Siva MEET VIRGINIA SIVA!!'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon's team also drafted C. Patencio's and Siva's
talking points for the March 10, 2002, community meeting.\118\
C. Patencio told Committee staff that fewer than 20 people
attended the meeting, most of whom were her family
members.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC
005407-12) (March 10, 2002).
\119\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elections were held on March 18, 2002; while Patencio
won her race, Siva did not.\120\ In response to an email from
his colleague Mike Smith, Abramoff attributed Siva's loss to
her failure to listen to Scanlon's advice and work hard
enough.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Email between Michael Smith, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059267) (March 19, 2002).
\121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. C. PATENCIO AND M. PATENCIO PAVE THE WAY FOR ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON

Despite Siva's loss, Abramoff pressed forward. On April 1,
2002, Abramoff asked C. Patencio when he and Scanlon could
visit the Tribal Council to pitch their services.\122\
Throughout his correspondence, Abramoff promised power, not
just for the Tribe, but for her: ``I think what we have in mind
is helping the tribe set up the kind of political strength we
have done for others, but doing it very carefully so that you
are the ultimate controller of the political power.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Candace
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057264)
(April 1-2, 2002).
\123\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff continued: ``To do this, unfortunately, we'll have
to get the approval of the current regime, I guess. I leave it
to you to guide us on how to get in there. Again, Mike and I
see the mission here as getting in, getting you guys organized
so we can get the slot cap off and other things the tribe
needs, and getting you into a position where the next time an
election comes, we will win all the offices (and install you as
Chairperson!!!).'' \124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Patencio sought Abramoff's guidance on how to introduce
him: ``I'm not sure if an introductory letter from you [sic]
firm searching for work is the best way or if the Tribe seeks
you out through Moraino and I. What are your thoughts??? If the
opportunity occurs I will push to seek for a qualified firm
(YOU). I will see if in today's meeting I can lay the
foundation.'' \125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In guiding C. Patencio on how to best introduce him and
Scanlon to the Tribal Council, Abramoff suggested invoking the
names of his other clients: ``Tell them that you have heard
from the Choctaws and Coushattas that their political folks are
the best and that you think it is a prudent thing for the tribe
to invite us in to have a discussion as to what they can do for
the tribe.'' \126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Candace
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057623)
(April 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff did not want his pre-existing relationship with C.
Patencio to be known and so counseled: ``if the others on the
tribal council perceive that we are your guys (which we are!)
it might make it difficult.'' \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of Abramoff's email to C. Patencio, the Tribe
had a conflict-of-interest ordinance in place.\128\ When asked
whether Abramoff's intentions to help her secure the Chairman's
position once he and Scanlon were hired raised any red flags
requiring her to disclose her relationship with Abramoff and
Scanlon to the Tribal Council, C. Patencio responded ``no''--
she took Abramoff's words with a grain of salt'' and thought
Abramoff was simply ``blowing smoke.'' \129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\129\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Patencio first brought up Abramoff at a meeting or study
session.\130\ Meanwhile, he and C. Patencio purportedly laid
the groundwork with the swing vote on the Tribal Council by
attempting to have her meet with Abramoff.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Interview of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
\131\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Candace
Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (GTG-E000057279) (May
8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While part of Abramoff's plan involved promises of power,
the other part apparently involved fear. On June 12, 2002, in
an email entitled ``great call with Candace,'' Abramoff advised
Scanlon: ``Told her that Barona was courting us and she is now
moving as fast as possible. moolah!!!'' \132\ Two days later,
Abramoff wrote an email to Scanlon with the subject line, ``can
you smell money?'' \133\ In it, Abramoff reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057298) (June 12, 2002).
\133\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057295) (June 14, 2002).

I just spoke with Candace. The tribe is calling us
Monday to schedule our coming out for a pitch on the
whole shooting match. They want Choctaw/Coushatta
power. They think that if they don't hire us Barona is
going to do so. They are scared about that one! call
[sic] me Saturday night or Sunday so we can plan our
pitch. We need to go out there with a full blown
plan.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Id.

When Scanlon advised Abramoff that he wanted to depart
early from Palm Springs, Abramoff replied: ``The whole thing
here is being pitched as a rush since we are ``about to take on
the Barona tribe--''.\135\ During her interview, C. Patencio
confirmed that she was concerned that the Barona Tribe was
allegedly seeking Abramoff's services, since she did not want
that tribe to have the power.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000059357) (June 19, 2002).
\136\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before he and Scanlon met with the Agua Caliente, Abramoff
apparently received advice and guidance on their presentation
from Chapman and C. Patencio. Just two days before the meeting,
Chapman wrote Abramoff, ``Glad to learn you're going out to
Agua Caliente--I hope it proves to be fruitful! I am sure
Candace will coach you.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000057379) (June 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapman gave his own advice, ``[R]emember their Post Office
land exchange ordeal ... In addition, they have a great land
management agreement with BLM [Bureau of Land Management] over
joint management of their canyons-so some mention of DOI
contacts, beyond BIA, may be useful!'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff confirmed, ``Candace is being the usual wonderful
help ...'' \139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff made arrangements for himself and Scanlon to
travel by private jet to Palm Springs for their meeting with
the Tribal Council.\140\ After the June 26, meeting with the
Tribal Council, Abramoff reported to his colleagues, ``I
pitched them [the Agua Caliente] this morning on a $150K/month
representation and they basically agreed (subject to formal
approval of the same council--5 members--who just approved--
next week). This is going to be a biggie!'' \141\ Abramoff
wrote separately to his colleague Michael Smith, who had
introduced him to Chapman: ``Looks like we got 'em! They vote
next week, but after 4 trips here, tons of work and all sorts
of political activities, I think we're there.'' \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ilisa
Gertner, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059370) (June 17, 2002).
\141\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to DCCon (GTG-
E000059329) (June 26, 2002).
\142\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Smith, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059332) (June 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, on June 27, Abramoff instructed his assistant Allison
Bozniak to send a retainer agreement to M. Patencio.\143\ The
retainer agreement called for a flat fee of ``$150,000.00 per
month plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.'' \144\ The
agreement also provided that the ``firm undertakes to not
represent any other tribal government located within the
geographical borders of the State of California during the
duration of our representation of the Tribe.'' \145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057922-23) (June 27, 2002).
\144\ Id.
\145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deal was not as done as Abramoff believed, however. On
July 2, Abramoff advised Scanlon, ``[T]hings are not as hunky
dorey as we thought out there. I just got off the phone with
Candace. I have to be out there to meet them on Sunday.'' \146\
When Scanlon asked whether they would get paid, Abramoff
assured him, ``We're going to get paid. We have the votes. We
can ram it through, but Moraino and Candace want to get the
others on board. They have 3 votes, though.'' \147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000059428) (July 2, 2002).
\147\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057397) (July 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the meeting, Abramoff asked Scanlon to forward him a
copy of Scanlon's proposal to the Tribe, so that he could ``be
aware of where we are going on this, and push it[.]'' \148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057339) (July 5, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the meeting, Scanlon prepared a document he called
``Agua Caliente Global Political Strategy.'' \149\ Scanlon laid
out a comprehensive political strategy ``[t]o support and
secure all federal objectives of the council'' and ``[t]o
successfully negotiate an unlimited slot position compact for
the tribe.'' \150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Global Political Strategy'') (July 8,
2002) (prepared by Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\150\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the other Tribes, CCS's strategy supposedly
centered heavily on the use of customized databases. According
to Scanlon, ``The true key to any successful political effort
is its organizational design. For the compact negotiation
campaign we have developed a two-tiered system.'' \151\ Scanlon
described the first tier as ``compil[ing], classify[ing] and
organiz[ing] the tribe's existing natural resources into a
national political network.'' \152\ Scanlon described the
second part as ``identify[ing], classify[ing], and organiz[ing]
allies of the tribe.'' \153\ According to Scanlon, ``[b]oth
will be imported into your new custom built political
databases.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Id.
\152\ Id.
\153\ Id.
\154\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the document, Scanlon elaborated on the ``new custom
built databases.'' The first, the ``Grassroots Database'',
Scanlon described as follows:

We gather lists of your vendors, employees, tribal
members[,] etc. and we import those lists into your new
database. Our computer program will match the
individuals or businesses with addresses, phone
numbers, political registration and e-mail addresses
(when available), and then sort them by FEDERAL
election districts nationwide. The district breakdown
in your database will from [sic] U.S. Senator down to
State Representative. Once completed, we will be able
to tap into this database and mobilize supporters in
ANY election of your choosing nationwide in a matter of
moments. At this point you will have a national
political network. \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Id.

Scanlon boasted that with this customized database, he
could ``reach out and mobilize tens of thousands of voters
almost instantaneously.'' \156\ Scanlon represented that
``[t]his is an extremely powerful tool that is absolutely
necessary if we are to be successful.'' \157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Id.
\157\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Scanlon's proposal described an entirely separate
``Qualitative Research Database'':

This custom built database acts as the information
center of our efforts. Over the next three weeks, our
team will gather qualitative information on the allies
and opponents related to our campaign and we store this
information into this database. The research will
include nearly every piece of information on the
targets that is [sic] relevant to our campaign. In
addition we will be waging a simultaneous effort to
gather qualitative research on the key opponents of our
position. This research can be classified as
unfriendly, and is solely intended to give us the
ammunition to fight on an even playing field if the
battle turns nasty. Rest assured, if it does turn
nasty, we will be far better positioned than our
opponents. Once the research is gathered, it is then
sorted by subject matter and made retrievable by a
phrase search. This [sic] purpose of this is so that
information can then be instantly disseminated to any
audience we choose such as our universe of supporters,
the press, third party interest groups or other
interested parties.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ Id.

The total cost of Scanlon's proposal: $5.4 million, with
another $2 million, should an ``advertising fight'' occur.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 7, Abramoff and Scanlon departed by private jet for
Palms Springs for their meetings with the Agua Caliente Tribal
Council, and a presentation to the Council and membership.\160\
Before Abramoff and Scanlon made their pitch at the membership
meeting, Abramoff finally met Chapman in person.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059380) (July 5, 2002).
\161\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Chapman (GTG-E000059404) (July 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon met with the Tribal Council on July 8,
and the Tribal membership on July 9.\162\ Although Abramoff
represented that Scanlon ``work[ed] very closely with our firm
[Greenberg Traurig],'' at no point in the presentation did
either disclose their financial relationship.\163\ Nor did they
disclose the behind-the-scenes conversations they had been
having with C. Patencio and M. Patencio, or the election
assistance they had rendered to C. Patencio and Siva.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059380) (July 5, 2002).
\163\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\164\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006). See
also Interview of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff built-up Scanlon, calling him ``one of the top
political and grass roots public affairs people in the United
States''.\165\ As he had before, Abramoff traded on the name of
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'').\166\
Abramoff also boasted about the efforts he and Scanlon had
undertaken for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana
Coushatta'') and the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana on their
compact re-negotiations with the State of Louisiana.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled
``Verbatim Excerpt--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'')
(July 9, 2002) (excerpt only).
\166\ Id.
\167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Abramoff and Scanlon were representing the Ysleta
del Sur Pueblo of El Paso (``Tigua''), in direct conflict with
the interests of the Louisiana Coushatta, Abramoff nevertheless
claimed that ``we certainly don't engage in the situation where
we have two tribes that might have differing interests `cause
unfortunately obviously tribes who are nearby to each other
sometimes have the same interests or same market share ...''
\168\ Abramoff later continued: ``If we work together with you
we would not work for any other Tribe in California. That would
be our approach.'' \169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Id.
\169\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff spoke, too, about political contributions:

Each of the tribes we work with we recommend that they
exercise their right to make political contributions.
However, we generally are very targeted and with the
contribution recommendations we make ... we do strongly
recommend and all of our tribes do give a lot of money
politically. It's very targeted and when it's all
basically added up we sort of like have a little ledger
so to speak informally, see the money they spent
politically and the money they spent contributions and
the money they spent lobbying wise compared to what
they get back so to speak, not only benefits that can't
be monetarized but also the actual appropriations. ...
So we will recommend to the tribe or any of our clients
that they contribute to certain specific Members that
may have to them nothing do with what they're doing,
but we know that that Member will be able to control or
influence a bill, that kind of thing.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Id.

Scanlon picked up on the presentation. Scanlon claimed that
his ``firm is in a strategic alliance with Jack and Greenberg
meaning we only provide services to the clients of Greenberg
Traurig.'' \171\ Scanlon described his operations as the
``ground army for what Jack does.'' \172\ More specifically,
Scanlon said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ Id. Of course, that was true only by default. According to
Fred Baggett, the national chairman of Greenberg Traurig's public
policy practice, Scanlon was free to work for other clients; indeed,
Greenberg Traurig did not hire Scanlon precisely because he wanted to
work on his own clients. Interview of Fred Baggett, chair, National
Governmental Affairs Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington D.C.
(September 29, 2005).
\172\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled
``Verbatim Excerpt--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'')
(July 9, 2002) (excerpt only).

A force, a grassroots army of people of employees, of
business owners, of people who live on your lands and
anybody who's made a buck off of you over the last ten
to fifteen years and has a vested interest in seeing
your future be better. Our job is to go out and find
those people, educate those people on the issues that
are important to the Tribe and objectives of Tribe as
identified. Most importantly, it is to mobilize those
people to ensure that the politicians get the message
that the people are behind the position of the
Tribe.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Id.

Scanlon characterized his work as ``technical,'' ``labor
intensive'' and ``expensive''.\174\ The cornerstone of this
program was a ``custom-built database,'' which Scanlon claimed
he designed.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Id.
\175\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Abramoff and Scanlon's presentation, the Tribal
Council met to vote. C. Patencio admitted that she did not
disclose her relationship with Abramoff or Scanlon, or the help
they had given her on her election campaign, before the
vote.\176\ She also admitted that she did not pay for any of
the work that Scanlon and his team performed for her election
bid.\177\ She said that Scanlon never asked to be paid for his
services, and she never discussed how Scanlon would benefit
from helping her election campaign.\178\ C. Patencio also
claimed that people offer her free things all the time, and she
did not find Abramoff and Scanlon's supposed generosity
odd.\179\ According to C. Patencio, she simply believed
Abramoff and Scanlon helped her because they liked her.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\177\ Id.
\178\ Id.
\179\ Id.
\180\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has considerable difficulty reconciling C.
Patencio's statements with the body of evidence before it. Even
if, as C. Patencio claimed, she had not expressly agreed to
help Abramoff and Scanlon secure contracts with the Tribe in
exchange for their campaign assistance, a reasonable person
with C. Patencio's business education and political experience
would have realized that Abramoff and Scanlon were providing
her assistance as gratitude or because of C. Patencio's
intention to help them secure contracts with the Tribe.
On July 2, 2002, the Tribal Council voted 3-0 to accept the
contract with Greenberg Traurig. On July 11, 2002, Chairman
Milanovich signed a retainer agreement with Greenberg
Traurig.\181\ According to the contract, the Tribe retained
Greenberg Traurig,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Agua Caliente document production (AC 0276-78) (July 9,
2002).

[T]o assist the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
(``the Tribe'') with all political activities related
to obtaining a satisfactory outcome to gaming compact
renegotiations, environmental matters and other policy
and political goals in California. In addition, at the
Tribe's discretion, the Firm shall assist the Tribe
with federal issues, including but not limited to
matters concerning federal appropriations, specific
needs of the tribe related to the U.S. Postal service
and tax matters, general Washington, D.C. and selected
national public relations activities, federal-Tribal
relations and promotion of sovereignty.'' \182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost: ``$150,000.00 per month plus reasonable out-
of-pocket expenses.''\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Id.

Similarly, on July 23, the Tribal Council voted 3-2 to
accept Scanlon's contract. C. Patencio, M. Patencio, and
Jeannette Prieto-Dodd voted for the contract; Chairman
Milanovich and Vice Chairman Gonzales Lyons voted against it.
Before the Tribal Council voted, however, Chairman Milanovich
argued against hiring Scanlon. According to Scanlon, Chairman
Milanovich was ``trying to sink it [Scanlon's contract]--he has
a whole bunch of Suncruz articles he is handing out at the
meeting.'' \184\ Meanwhile, C. Patencio called to report to
Abramoff on what was happening.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059386) (July 16, 2002).
\185\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 24, 2002, Scanlon apparently submitted a letter
agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and the
Tribe.\186\ According to the agreement, ``the primary goal of
Scanlon Gould is to execute public affairs and political
strategies to ensure successful re-negotiation of the Tribe's
gaming compact.'' \187\ The letter agreement described the
scope of the activities by reference to Scanlon Gould's July 8,
2002 proposal.\188\ Unlike his written agreements with other
Tribes, Scanlon specifically reserved Scanlon Gould's right to
use external firms: ``Scanlon Gould will execute its duties by
employing its internal political team (full time employees) and
reserves the right to sub-contract with external firms when
necessary.'' \189\ The Tribe agreed to pay Scanlon Gould
$5,400,000 and agreed ``to budget an additional $2,000,000.00
for advocacy efforts should the compact renewal campaign become
intensive.'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Agua Caliente document production (AC 0287-89) (July 24,
2002).
\187\ Id.
\188\ Id.
\189\ Id.
\190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON SEEK ADDITIONAL MONEY FROM THE TRIBE

Once Abramoff and Scanlon locked up their contracts with
the Agua Caliente, Abramoff began to seek more funding for his
pet projects, as well as those of others, ostensibly designed
to increase his and the Tribe's standing in the eyes of
Congressmen and Senators. In September 2002, Abramoff told his
associate Duane Gibson that they needed ``to move on Agua
contributions asap.'' \191\ Abramoff and his team used the
Tribe's contributions to get ``credit for delivering checks to
certain members.'' \192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Duane Gibson,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057541) (September 18, 2002).
\192\ Email from Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, to Neil Volz, et
al., Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057613) (October 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff also sought money from the Tribe to cover the
costs of his Sports Suites program. A master lobbying plan that
Abramoff presented to the Agua Caliente laid out his rationale
for why the Tribe should participate.

Sporting and Event Tickets--Goal: provide Members and
staff with courtesy tickets to sport games and other
events, which help to create the relationships needed
to advance issues important to the Tribe. Many of our
Tribal clients participate in ownership of Executive
Suites and Boxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and
Camden Yards (Baltimore), in order to get the tools for
relationship building to advance your issues. The Tribe
should evaluate pooling its resources with other tribes
so that it can utilize these effective assets as
well.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ Email from Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057000) (December 5, 2002) (attaching
``DRAFT Agua Caliente Plan for the 108th Congress'') (last page only).

The Tribal Council approved the Tribe's participation in
the sports suites program in December 2002, \194\ and paid
$300,000 into the program.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Email from Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, to Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057785) (January
10, 2003).
\195\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 29 (September 29, 2004) (testimony of
Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to his agreement with the Tribe, Scanlon sought
additional money under the Scanlon Gould contract. When it came
time to solicit additional funds, Scanlon decided to leave
little to chance. Scanlon and Abramoff manipulated the schedule
so that Scanlon would make his presentation for more money in
the absence of the two Tribal Council members who opposed the
program. On December 10, Scanlon wrote:

Well we got paid 5--and had in our contract that we may
need an additional 2--but that we would have to come
before the council to get it. So I did up a
presentation--and we are asking for 1.785 on Thursday--
The reason we are doing git [sic] Thursday is that
Richard and Barbara are out of town. I could ask for
the whole 2--but I though [sic] that would look
strange--I could bump it up to 1.875? Whatta think?
\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000056773) (December 10,
2002).

Abramoff responded, ``Absolutely!'' \197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In less than two years, the Tribe paid Greenberg Traurig
$3,079,816 in fees and expenses.\198\ Similarly, Scanlon
collected $7,195,000 from the Agua Caliente during the relevant
period and appears to have secretly split about 50% of his
total profit from the Tribe with Abramoff.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ These figures do not include political, charitable, and other
contributions the Agua Caliente made at Abramoff's request.
\199\ Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on
an entity-by-entity basis, is contained in Part 2 of the this Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These substantial sums purchased no loyalty from Abramoff
and Scanlon. When Scanlon complained about his dealings with C.
Patencio, Abramoff counseled: ``I think the key thing to
remember with all these clients is that they are annoying, but
that the annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind
of money and part with it so quickly.'' \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057878) (March 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON'S WORK FOR THE TRIBE

The Agua Caliente hired Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig ``to
assist the tribe with all political and lobbying activities
relating to a wide range of public policy issues.'' \201\ The
Tribe hired Scanlon ``to help the tribe with respect to pending
gaming compact issues in California.'' \202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 21 (September 29, 2004) (statement of
Richard Milanovich, chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians).
\202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From July 2002 to March 2004, Abramoff and his team
represented the Agua Caliente in Washington, D.C. The Tribe has
not complained to the Committee about the level or quality of
the services that Abramoff and his team at Greenberg Traurig
provided the Tribe.
Scanlon hired a number of subcontractors to renegotiate the
Tribe's compact with the State of California.\203\ Scanlon
subcontracted lobbyists and attorneys.\204\ Per his agreement,
he operated as a turnkey operation.\205\ Scanlon and his team
provided regular updates to the Tribe on its efforts.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\204\ Interview of Chris Cathcart, associate, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\205\ Agua Caliente document production (AC 0287-89) (July 24,
2002).
\206\ See, e.g., Capitol Campaign Strategies document production
(BB/AC04990-92) (January 29, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies
document production (BB/AC04993) (February 6, 2003); Capitol Campaign
Strategies document production (March 12, 2003) (BB/AC04995); Capitol
Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC04996-98) (March 17,
2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05000);
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05002-04) (March
26, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05010)
(April 2, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/
AC05012-15) (April 24, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document
production (BB/AC05004-48) (May 14, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies
document production (BB/AC05050-54); Capitol Campaign Strategies
document production (BB/AC05068-69) (July 10, 2003); Capitol Campaign
Strategies document production (BB/AC05070) (July 22, 2003); Capitol
Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05072-73) (July 24,
2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05074-75)
(August 4, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/
AC05076-77) (August 14, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document
production (BB/AC05078-80) (August 26, 2003); Capitol Campaign
Strategies document production (BB/AC05081) (September 8, 2003);
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05082) (October
15, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05083)
(November 17, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production
(no Bates number-BB/AC05084) (November 24, 2003); Capitol Campaign
Strategies document production (BB/AC05085-86) (December 3, 2003);
Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/AC05087-88)
(December 4, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document production
(BB/AC05089) (December 16, 2003); Capitol Campaign Strategies document
production (BB/AC05090) (December 26, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the work that Scanlon Gould performed, was a letter-
writing campaign. Scanlon's team set up tables with laptop
computers and blank letters at the Tribe's casino.\207\ As
employees would come to the tables, Scanlon's employees would
brief them and ask them to sign letters to the Governor.\208\
Scanlon also had opinionmaker letters written to the
Governor.\209\ That work was subcontracted out to Lunde
Burger.\210\ After examining Scanlon's work, the Tribe does not
believe that Scanlon actually performed the work he had
proposed when he pitched his contract to the Tribe.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\208\ Id.
\209\ Id.
\210\ Id.
\211\ Interview of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. 2003 TRIBAL ELECTIONS

Even after the Agua Caliente hired Abramoff and Scanlon,
the two continued to conspire about how to increase their
influence over the Tribal Council. In October 2002, Scanlon
wrote to Abramoff:

I am working on setting them up right now for their
elections next year. We are looking at Candice [sic]
for Vice Chairman--which we are looking good on. We are
also looking good at getting Virginia Elected [sic]
under one scenario and Moreno is a lock.
The most Likely [sic] scenario right now is Barbara
become [sic] chairman, with Candice [sic] as Vice
Chair, Moreno, Janette and Virginia on the council--
which would give us 4 out of 5 all the time--and
possibly 5 out of 5 if we play it the right way.
This will be very very good for us.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057616) (October 24, 2002).

Later, C. Patencio emailed Abramoff asking for a time they
could ``talk strategy for the up and coming election.'' \213\
Abramoff and Scanlon's goal was to ensure that C. Patencio
would win in an effort to oust their only opposition within the
Tribe, Chairman Milanovich and Vice Chairman Gonzales-
Lyons.\214\ When C. Patencio advised Abramoff that she and M.
Patencio planned ``to set [the Agua Caliente Vice Chairman]
up'', Abramoff offered his help: ``let me know what we can
do.'' \215\ Separately, he told Scanlon ``We need to make sure
Candace wins and bye bye Barbara and Richard.'' \216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ Email from Candace Patencio, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057834) (January
14, 2003).
\214\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057847-49) (January 29,
2003).
\215\ Id.
\216\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Scanlon and Cathcart discussed how to impact C.
Patencio's election: ``[w]ant to touch base re the aguas too,
i[sic] told candace we would help with her letter of intent,
and of course, i[sic] assume we'll be helping with the
campaign.'' \217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Email from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
to Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (January 21, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 9, 2003, Chapman urged Abramoff and Scanlon to
assist their allies on the Tribal Council: ``We definitely need
to devise a strategy to help Candace--it is now or never! Since
there are so few tribal members we should be able to do a
breakdown of each potential vote to be cast.'' \218\ In
response, Scanlon maintained that he had ``been all over this
for weeks'' and already had ``a pretty good plan in place.''
\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000057842-43) (February 9, 2003).
\219\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057842) (February 10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the Committee finds that Scanlon devoted
nowhere near the time and resources to C. Patencio's election
bid in 2003 as he had in 2002. Scanlon Gould wrote C.
Patencio's platform statement and may have made door signs or
mail pieces for her.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2003 elections, C. Patencio lost her race. Within
months, the Committee would start its investigation, and the
Tribe would learn the truth about Abramoff and Scanlon's
assistance to C. Patencio and Siva in their elections. It would
also learn about their secret partnership.

I. CHAPMAN AND SIERRA DOMINION CONSULTING

On November 12, 2002, Abramoff's associate Duane Gibson,
who was the client manager for the Agua Caliente account,
discovered charges on the account with which he was unfamiliar.
Gibson inquired of Abramoff:

[O]n the Agua bill, there are two items--$10K for
consulting from Michael Chapman and $5K for consulting
for Sierra Dominion Financial Resources. These were
part of the itemized expenses on the draft bill that I
am reviewing. I do not know what the arrangements are
for work by these people, and want to make sure that
they are authorized. These items constitute $15K of the
$25 K [sic] in expenses. Is this ok? \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Email between Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057623) (November 12, 2002).

Abramoff replied, ``One is the finders [sic] fee for
Chapman and the other is one I will tell you about. they [sic]
come out of our retainer, and should not be listed to the
client ever. Please make sure they are never on the bill which
goes to them.'' \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Gibson alerted Abramoff to the possibility that
Chapman's fees might have appeared on the previous bill,
Abramoff panicked: ``This is a disaster!!!!!!'' \223\ Gibson
subsequently allayed Abramoff's fears by assuring him Chapman's
fees had only appeared on the draft bill.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Id.
\224\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just what was the nature of the payments to Chapman and
Sierra Dominion, and why was Abramoff determined for them not
to appear on the Agua Caliente's bill? The rest of this Chapter
attempts to answer these questions.

1. Payments to Chapman

Shortly after the 2002 Agua Caliente election, Chapman
inquired: ``What are you thinking the terms of a consultancy
might be? Curious, and want to know what the incentives might
be in assisting you in landing new clients--especially, since I
may be able to pitch your services later tonight!'' \225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Email between Michael Chapman and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000057342) (July 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded:

I think we can organize $10/month on a Agua Caliente
sized representation (the firm's profit on that kind of
representation is around 20$, which is $30k/month, and
I can probably get them to give up \1/3\ of that). On
the grassroots budget, it is a little trickier, because
the margin is very tight (Mike gets his fee from the
Greenberg side), and most of that is spend [sic] as
direct costs.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Id.

After the Agua Caliente approved Greenberg Traurig's
contract, Abramoff wrote to Scanlon: ``We should give this guy
[Chapman] a small tip out of the gimme five money too. I want
him to have mega incentive to scan the nation and hook us up
with all his friends.'' \227\ Chapman told the Committee during
his interview that Abramoff told him that ``he would take care
of me'' once Abramoff secured Agua Caliente as a client.\228\
Chapman claimed that Abramoff did not make this offer, until
after Abramoff and Scanlon had secured contracts with the
Tribe.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057372) (July 9, 2002).
\228\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
\229\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly thereafter, Chapman once again inquired into the
``consulting'' arrangement: ``I am eager to learn what the
final dynamics of a consultancy might be with Greenberg, while
also hearing what might be a practical consideration for the
political organizing contract.'' \230\ Abramoff immediately
wrote to Scanlon: ``This guy delivered for us. he [sic] wants
to know what he can get from the pot. I will give him $10k/
month from GT, but we should give him a tip from the grass
roots. I think we should do $100k, but not from the first
traunche. I told him that you budget this stuff very, very
tightly, but might be able to eek out something. I don't want
to waste money, but he clearly has a lot of contacts and could
get us a ton of biz.'' \231\ That same day, Abramoff reverted
to Chapman, and committed to giving him ``additional funds on
the effort at Agua'' that would ``run the life of the
representation of Agua.'' \232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000059446) (July 24, 2002).
\231\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000059446) (July 24, 2002).
\232\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Chapman (GTG-E000059444) (July 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapman confirmed to Committee staff that Abramoff had
Greenberg Traurig pay him $10,000/month.\233\ Beginning in
September 2002 and ending in March 2004, Chapman submitted
invoices to Greenberg Traurig for payment. The invoices
requested payment of a $10,000 retainer, which was purportedly
``associated with work on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians' account.'' \234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
\234\ See Michael Chapman document production (no Bates number)
(September 2002 through March 2004) (Invoices from Michael Chapman to
Jack Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Abramoff and Gibson's instructions, Greenberg Traurig
paid Chapman a total of $171,482.48 \235\ over the course of
the Agua Caliente retainer. The payments are detailed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG 005390-ACCT-AC)
(undated) (Greenberg Traurig Vendor Payments Report for Michael
Chapman; Fifteen Greenberg Traurig checks to Michael Chapman, dated
September 13, 2002 to March 3, 2004; Invoices from Michael Chapman to
Greenberg Traurig, dated September 3, 2002 through March 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments from Greenberg Traurig to Michael Chapman

09/13/02................................................ $10,489.81
10/10/02................................................ $10,000.00
11/25/02................................................ $10,000.00
02/04/03................................................ $10,000.00
03/11/03................................................ $10,000.00
03/17/03................................................ $10,000.00
04/11/03................................................ $10,000.00
07/08/03................................................ $10,000.00
08/06/03................................................ $20,992.67
08/11/03................................................ $10,000.00
09/22/03................................................ $10,000.00
10/31/03................................................ $10,000.00
12/19/03................................................ $20,000.00
01/26/04................................................ $10,000.00
03/03/04................................................ $10,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $171,482.48

Except one request for expense reimbursement, \236\ the
invoices from Chapman to Greenberg Traurig listed the purpose
of the payment request as ``Retainer which is associated with
work on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians' account.''
\237\ According to Chapman, Abramoff told him how to
characterize and phrase the invoices to Greenberg Traurig.\238\
On internal Greenberg Traurig accounting forms, Abramoff
described the payment as a consulting fee.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ Michael Chapman document production (no Bates number)
(entitled ``Invoice from Michael Chapman to Greenberg Traurig'')
(September 3, 2002 ).
\237\ Michael Chapman document production (no Bates number)
(entitled ``Invoices from Michael Chapman to Greenberg Traurig'')
(September 3, 2002 through February 2004).
\238\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
See Interview of Duane Gibson, former associate, Greenberg Traurig, in
Washington, D.C. (September 12, 2002).
\239\ See Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-005416-ACCT-
AC) (April 10, 2003) (Check Requests, signed by Jack Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During its interview of Duane Gibson, Committee staff
inquired into the nature of the services Chapman provided.
Gibson, who was the Agua Caliente client manager, said that
Chapman provided consulting services on the Agua Caliente
account.\240\ He said he had substantive conversations with
Chapman about issues affecting the Tribe before Congress.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ Interview of Duane Gibson, former associate, Greenberg
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (March 17, 2006).
\241\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his interview with Committee staff, however, Chapman
was unequivocal: the $10,000 was not a consulting fee and he
did not provide substantive advice on issues facing the Agua
Caliente or otherwise work on the Agua Caliente account.\242\
Chapman was clear that the money he received was a finder's fee
or referral fee, for helping Abramoff and Scanlon secure the
Agua Caliente account and to help them secure other tribal
business.\243\ Chapman said he would also give Abramoff or
Gibson a ``heads up'' whenever C. Patencio was getting
frustrated because she could not reach them on the
telephone.\244\ Chapman did say he spoke with Gibson about once
every other week, and did exchange e-mails with him.\245\
Chapman said that Gibson was interested in expanding Greenberg
Traurig's tribal business, and solicited Chapman for his
suggestions for other, potential accounts.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
\243\ Id.
\244\ Id.
\245\ Id.
\246\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around this time, Chapman said he told C. Patencio about
his finder's fee from Abramoff.\247\ C. Patencio likewise told
the Committee that after the Agua Caliente had hired Abramoff,
Chapman told her that Abramoff had put him on a retainer to
help Abramoff land other tribal accounts.\248\ C. Patencio,
however, did not know the amount, or that Abramoff was paying
Chapman from the Tribe's retainer.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ Interview of Michael Chapman, by telephone (March 31, 2006).
\248\ Interview of Candace Patencio, former council member, Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (April 25, 2006).
\249\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Chapman submitted invoices ostensibly for work
related to the Agua Caliente account, it appears from internal
Greenberg Traurig billing records that Abramoff did not bill
the payments to Chapman as expenses to the Tribe. Greenberg
Traurig instead paid Chapman out of the monthly retainer funds
it received as fees from the Tribe.\250\ It thus appears the
Tribe was probably not injured in any meaningful way by this,
if at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Email between Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000034178) (September 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapman also received money from Scanlon's Capitol Campaign
Strategies (``CCS''), but not right away. After Scanlon secured
the Agua Caliente representation, months passed and Chapman did
not receive any payment from Scanlon. He then sent the
following email to Abramoff: ``I never received any inquiry at
all from Scanlan [sic]--which I thought was a little strange,
since he was `sitting pretty' because of my intervention! ...
In fact, I was going to ask you to ask him for a campaign
contribution, over and beyond the payment, since his firm seems
to have benefitted the most from my Agua intervention!'' \251\
Chapman continued, ``I rely on your instincts and sense of
necessity to guide my motivations!'' \252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ Email from Michael Chapman to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000059566) (September 24, 2002) (emphasis added).
\252\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 8, 2002, Scanlon had CCS pay Chapman $100,000.
Chapman, however, sought more. Just one day later, Chapman
wrote Scanlon:

When Jack first broached the terms of a finder's fee--
we discussed this initial payment as the fee for the
first $4 million and then if [sic] was necessary for
you to go into the second phase and expend another $4
million that another comparable fee would be
forthcoming. Is this how you understand it? I know the
tribe has approved $8 million in their budget in
anticipation of a Phase II--let me know if we're on the
same page! \253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ Email from Michael Chapman to Michael Scanlon, Capitol
Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057596) (October 9, 2002).

The Committee finds no evidence establishing that Chapman
received further payments from Scanlon or his companies.

2. Payments to Sierra Dominion

Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, Inc. (``Sierra
Dominion'') is a company located in Oakton, VA, and headed by
Julie Doolittle.\254\ Over the course of the Agua Caliente
retainer, Greenberg Traurig paid Sierra Dominion $66,690.42 as
detailed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ See, e.g. Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG005518-
ACCT-AC) (January 2, 2003). Julie Doolittle's husband is Congressman
John T. Doolittle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments from Greenberg Traurig to Sierra Dominion

09/20/02................................................ $6,612.90
10/10/02................................................ $5,000.00
11/25/02................................................ $5,000.00
01/13/03................................................ $10,077.52
07/02/03................................................ $5,000.00
07/22/03................................................ $5,000.00
08/06/03................................................ $5,000.00
09/25/03................................................ $5,000.00
11/25/03................................................ $5,000.00
12/29/03................................................ $5,000.00
01/26/04................................................ $5,000.00
02/19/04................................................ $5,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $66,690.42

While Sierra Dominion apparently provided no services to or
for the benefit of Agua Caliente, almost all of the money paid
to Sierra Dominion came out of the monthly retainer that the
Agua Caliente paid to Greenberg Traurig.\255\ So the Tribe was
probably not injured in any material way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Allison
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000034178) (September 12, 2002); Email
from Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig (GTG-E000057489) (September 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One payment of $5,000 to Sierra Dominion, however, was
billed to the Agua Caliente as an expense in September 2002,
and the Tribe, in fact, paid the expense in October 2002. This
gives rise to concerns that Abramoff defrauded the Tribe,
because the payments were not used for the benefit of the Agua
Caliente; rather, Abramoff apparently hired Doolittle to work
on an event, ``The Spy Game'' at the Spy Museum in Washington,
D.C., which Abramoff wanted as a fundraiser for his personal
charity, the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF'').
The event was originally scheduled for March 26, 2003.\256\
The event was supposed to honor Jim Kimsey, AOL Founding CEO
and Chairman, with CAF's ``Lifetime Achievement Award.'' \257\
The CAF advertised that participants would ``win up to $50,000
in prizes.'' \258\ Prizes included airline vouchers, portable
DVD players, digital cameras, and tickets for Wizards
[basketball], Caps [hockey], and Redskins [football]
games.\259\ Abramoff also considered a trip to Scotland as a
prize.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Email from Joe Reeder, Greenberg Traurig, to Rudy DeLeon
(GTG-E000121933) (March 7, 2003).
\257\ Id.
\258\ Id.
\259\ Email between Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000121929) (March 7-9, 2003).
\260\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Allison
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000121929) (March 8, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spy Museum event never happened. According to a CAF
notice listing Doolittle as the Director of Community Relations
for the CAF, the event was postponed due to the United States'
commencement of military operations in Iraq.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ See ``The Capital Athletic Foundation's ``The Spy Game''
Important Event Update'' (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no evidence that Doolittle knowingly participated
in Abramoff's funding arrangement. To the contrary, the
Committee possesses evidence that Abramoff attempted to conceal
his funding source from Doolittle. In June 2003, Doolittle
inquired about the status of her retainer.\262\ Abramoff's
assistant Linsey Crisler responded, ``Accounting tells me that
your check in [sic] processed, but we are waiting for the
client to pay their bill before we can distribute any funds. As
soon as we have their money wired to us, your check will be
cleared for payment.'' \263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ Email between Julie Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial
Solutions, and Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069554) (June
30, 2003).
\263\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although true, Abramoff scolded Crisler, ``This is not OK
with me. I want her paid asap. She [sic] should not be told
that her payments are dependent on anything. Who told you
that?'' \264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Linsey
Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069554) (July 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crisler explained, ``I was told by Accounting that we
couldn't pay any bills to outside consultants if there wasn't
money in the retainer.'' \265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ Email from Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069550) (July 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``Thanks. just [sic] make sure she is not
unpaid at any point or told that her payment is dependent on
anything.'' \266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Linsey
Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069550) (July 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Doolittle told Crisler, that she ``was not aware that
my retainer was dependent on the payment from a client,'' \267\
Abramoff assured her, ``It is absolutely not dependent.'' \268\
He then assured Doolittle, ``I will speak with Linsey to get
this moving.'' \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ Email from Julie Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial
Solutions, to Linsey Crisler, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000069555) (July
6, 2003).
\268\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Julie
Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions (GTG-E000069555) (July
6, 2003).
\269\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Julie
Doolittle, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions (GTG-E000069551) (July
7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. CONCLUSION

Following The Washington Post article, in February 2004,
Agua Caliente Chairman Milanovich met with Scanlon in
Washington, D.C.\270\ At the meeting, Milanovich recalled,
Scanlon described the article as an attack piece, and asked the
Tribe to write a letter to The Post to help Scanlon and
Abramoff.\271\ The Tribe declined to do so.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ Interview of Richard Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians, by telephone (September 16, 2004).
\271\ Id.
\272\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, during a telephone conversation with Duane
Gibson, Milanovich recalled Gibson also asking the Tribe to
send a similar letter to The Post in support of Abramoff.\273\
Indeed, Milanovich told Committee staff, Gibson said he hoped
the Tribe would not cooperate with this Committee's
investigation.\274\ When asked, Gibson did not recall ever
expressing a preference on whether the Tribe should cooperate
with the Committee's investigation.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ Id.
\274\ Id.
\275\ Interview of Duane Gibson, former associate, Greenberg
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (March 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the beginning of April, the Tribe suspended its
contracts with Greenberg Traurig and Scanlon Gould.\276\
Concerning attempts to manipulate the Tribal elections, the
Tribe suspended certain individuals from any appointed role in
Tribal government.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 52 (September 29, 2004) (Prepared
statement of Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians).
\277\ Id.
CHAPTER V

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO (TIGUA)

Abramoff: Fire up the jet baby, we're going to El
Paso!!
Scanlon: I want all their MONEY!!!

Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, February
6, 2002

I wish those moronic Tiguas were smarter in their
political contributions. I'd love us to get our mitts
on that moolah!! Oh well, stupid folks get wiped out.

Email from Jack Abramoff to Ralph Reed, February 11, 2002

A rattlesnake will warn you before it strikes. We had
no warning. They did everything behind our back.

Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo,
commenting on Abramoff and Scanlon, November 17, 2004

A. INTRODUCTION

``Is life great or what!!!'' exclaimed Jack Abramoff to his
friend and business partner Michael Scanlon on February 19,
2002.\1\ Few would have quibbled with Abramoff at the time. The
two men enjoyed a secret partnership, their self-styled ``gimme
five'' scheme. In less than one year, it had yielded $6 million
in ill-gotten gains. Over the next couple years, it would
generate almost $36 million more. In February 2002, the money
flowed; life was indeed great for Jack Abramoff and Michael
Scanlon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001141) (February 19,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, life was not so good for the Ysleta del
Sur Pueblo Indian Tribe of El Paso, Texas (``Tigua'').\2\ The
Tribe was fighting for its financial life in the Texas courts
and legislature, trying to keep open the doors to its Speaking
Rock Casino. Indeed, Abramoff penned his ``Is life great or
what'' email in reaction to a front-page El Paso Times article
reporting that the Tigua had just terminated 450 casino
employees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ From the pamphlet The Tiguas People of the Sun, obtained from
the Tigua Indian Cultural Center: ``Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is the
historical and legal name of the American Indian tribe commonly known
in the El Paso, Texas area as the ``Tiguas' or ``Tigua Indians''.
``Tigua'' or ``Tihua'', an even older spelling, is the Spanish phonetic
spelling of the term ``Tiwa'' and is the name of the Indian language
spoken by this tribe.''
\3\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001141) (February 19,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the beginning of 2002, little did the Tigua know that
Abramoff and Scanlon had played a role in thwarting the Tribe's
efforts to keep open its casino. Little could the Tribe know
that it would soon become another victim of the duo's ``gimme
five'' scheme.

B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

The Tigua are the only Pueblo tribe still residing in
Texas.\4\ Although there are several versions of their
migration to Texas, most believe that the Tigua were once
inhabitants of Pueblo Gran Quivera, south of modern-day
Albuquerque, New Mexico.\5\ In 1680 the Pueblo Indians revolted
against the Spanish and drove them out of New Mexico.\6\ Some
Ysleta Pueblo Indians either by force or by choice left with
the Spanish and joined the first migration of Tigua from Gran
Quivera in El Paso.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Tigua Indians of Texas (visited March 23, 2006) (providing a basic history of the
Tigua).
\5\ Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006) (detailing
the history of the Tigua); Thomas A. Green, Folk History and Cultural
Reorganization: A Tigua Example, The Journal of American Folklore v.
89, no. 353, pp. 310-18 (1976).
\6\ The Tigua Indians of Texas (visited March 23, 2006) (providing a basic history of the
Tigua).
\7\ Id.; Clayhound Web (visited March 23, 2006) (describing the history of the
Tigua).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tigua follow a typical Pueblo governing organization
with a cacique or religious leader appointed by the tribal
council, a governor, lieutenant governor, war captain, and
tribal council working together to run the government.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006) (detailing
the history of the Tigua).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1751 the King of Spain granted the Tigua thirty-six
square miles of land upon which they built their Pueblo and a
mission, which is now the oldest mission in Texas.\9\ Through
extreme poverty and deceit by land hungry speculators, the
Tigua lost all of this land.\10\ However, in 1967 the State of
Texas finally recognized the Tigua as a tribe.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Tigua Indians of Texas (visited March 23, 2006) (providing a basic history of the
Tigua); Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006) (detailing
the history of the Tigua).
\10\ Tigua Indians (visited March 23, 2006) (detailing
the history of the Tigua).
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1968, the Federal Government recognized the Tigua as an
Indian tribe but simultaneously transferred responsibility for
the Tribe to the State of Texas.\12\ Texas administered the
Tribe's affairs, which included holding the Tribe's 100-acre
reservation in trust and providing economic development funds
to the Tribe.\13\ In 1983, however, Texas became concerned that
its trust relationship with the Tribe violated state
constitutional law.\14\ Consequently, the United States and the
Tribe began the process of granting the Tribe federal trust
status.\15\ The culmination of those efforts came in the form
of the 1987 Restoration Act, which established a trust
relationship between the Federal Government and the Tribe.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Texas v. del Sur Pueblo, 220 F.Supp.2d 668, 673 (W.D. Tex.
2001).
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, the Tigua opened its Speaking Rock Casino near El
Paso, Texas.\17\ This casino offered bingo games and Las Vegas-
style gaming activities, and was a significant source of
revenue for the Tribe.\18\ In 1999, however, based on an
interpretation of the Tribe's 1987 Restoration Act, the State
of Texas brought a legal action challenging the Tribe's ability
to operate the casino.\19\ The Restoration Act provides that
``[a]ll gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of
the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and
on lands of the tribe.'' \20\ The State of Texas argued that
this provision prohibited the Tiguas from operating any type of
gaming that was not allowed under Texas law, and that the
gaming activities offered at the casino were prohibited by
Texas law. The Fifth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion,
affirmed a decision by the Texas district court agreeing with
the State's argument thereby forcing the Tribe to close its
casino in 2002.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ 25 U.S.C.S. Sec. 1300g-6 (2001).
\21\ Fifth Circuit Rules Against Tribe in State of Texas v. Ysleta
Del Sur Pueblo (visited Mar. 23, 2006) http://www.indiangaming.org/
info/pr/press-releases-2002/texas-v-ysleta.shtml (describing the Tigua
casino, Speaking Rock Casino); Texas v. del Sur Pueblo, 220 F.Supp.2d
668 (W.D. Tex. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ABRAMOFF, SCANLON, AND REED WORK AGAINST THE TIGUA

The Committee has seen no evidence suggesting that Jack
Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, or Ralph Reed had any influence over
the State of Texas' decision to file suit against the Tigua in
1999. In fact, it was not until 2001, after the suit was well
under way, that Abramoff and Scanlon took an interest in the
Tigua and its fight with Texas.
Abramoff and Scanlon's mutual client the Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta'') long understood that
legalized gaming in Texas would erode its casino's customer
base and revenue.\22\ The majority of the Louisiana Coushatta
casino's customers are from Texas, particularly the Houston
area.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 113 (November 2, 2005) (prepared
statement of David Sickey, Councilman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the State of Texas was pursuing its case to close the
Tigua's Speaking Rock Casino,\24\ press reports indicated that
another tribe, the Alabama-Coushatta, was considering opening
its own casino in eastern Texas.\25\ Abramoff and Scanlon were
insistent with the Louisiana Coushatta Tribal Council that
Texas was on the verge of legalizing gaming.\26\ Abramoff and
Scanlon said that if the Tigua succeeded in its efforts to keep
open its casino, the State of Texas would have no choice but to
allow the Alabama Coushatta to have a casino.\27\ The Tribe
therefore authorized Abramoff and Scanlon to pursue anti-gaming
efforts in Texas against the Tigua and the Alabama
Coushatta.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Indians Bet on casino bills/Texas Legislature May Settle Legal
Dispute Targeting Tribe's Casino Plans, Houston Chronicle, March 25,
2001; Email from Wilson Padgett to DCChoctaw (SENCREA 10/04 000001)
(March 26, 2001) (attaching James Kimberly's text).
\25\ Email from Brian Mann, American International Center, to
Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000000626) (November
22, 2001) (attaching Gary Susswein, Two More Tribes Are Ready To Join
Casino Battle, Austin American Statesman, November 22, 2001).
\26\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 113 (November 2, 2005) (prepared
statement of David Sickey, Councilman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
Accord ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 19 (November 2, 2005) (statement of
William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).
\27\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To pursue a grassroots effort against the Tigua, Abramoff
turned once again to his long-time friend and business
associate Ralph Reed. On November 12, 2001, Abramoff wrote to
Reed: ``Remember I mentioned the NIGC [National Indian Gaming
Commission] today? We are going to get them on the Alabama
Coushattas and I told our guy to get them on the Tiguas as
well. Cornyn \29\ needs to get Indians to lead the way. Let us
help with that.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Cornyn is U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who was then the
Attorney General for the State of Texas.
\30\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000023259-61) (November 12, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed replied, ``great work. Get me details so I can alert
cornyn and let him know what we are doing to help him.'' \31\
Reed claimed he was already working with Ed Young, pastor of
the Second Baptist Church of Houston, Texas, to mobilize the
top pastors in Houston to provide cover for the State's anti-
gambling efforts.\32\ According to Reed, ``[W]e have over 50
pastors mobilized, with a total membership in those churches of
over 40,000--that includes second baptist, which has 12,000
members.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000023274) (November 12, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to sway public opinion, the Tigua had earlier
embarked upon a public relations campaign. Earlier that day,
the Tigua had run articles in newspapers in Austin, Houston,
Dallas, San Antonio and Fort Worth, imploring people to contact
then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn and ``beg him to save
our families.'' \34\ The Tigua also ran a similar full-page ad
in The Washington Post, in the form of a letter to the
President.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E00023240-41) (November 13, 2001)
(attaching Gary Scharrer, Tiguas seek support with state, DC ads, El
Paso Times, November 13, 2001).
\35\ Id. Later that day, Abramoff forwarded an email from Isidro
Garza to Reed. See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to
Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000023257) (November 12, 2001).
Abramoff apparently believed that the Kickapoo nation would help them
on Tigua. Id. To date, the Committee has not learned what, if any,
assistance the Kickapoo nation rendered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reading about the Tigua's public relations campaign,
Reed advised Abramoff, ``i [sic] strongly suggest we start
doing patch-throughs to perry and cornyn. [W]e're getting
killed on the phones.'' \36\ Apparently, Scanlon had already
started.\37\ Reed again claimed he had already mobilized 50
pastors to provide ``moral support'' to then-Texas Attorney
General Cornyn.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Email between Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000023240) (November 13-14, 2001).
\37\ Id.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2001, Isidro Garza, Chairman of the
Kickapoo Tribe informed Abramoff that then-Texas Attorney
General Cornyn was ``fixing to get hammered in El Paso'' and
asked ``are we prepared to have Ralph Reed move in?'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Email between Isidro Garza, Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of
Texas, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000023504) (November
15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``Absolutely. Ralph and I spoke last
night. Cornyn is supposed to call Ralph as soon as he can make
it to a phone after El Paso. We should be in good shape.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id. Other than Abramoff's email, the Committee has seen no
evidence that such a call occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By December 2001, Reed apparently was not achieving
satisfactory results. With respect to the Alabama Coushatta's
new casino, Abramoff wrote, ``We are going to lose this client
[Louisiana Coushatta] if we can't get this thing closed. What
can we do? What are they waiting for?'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000023491-93) (December 5, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed reported on everything he was doing to ensure the
casino would be shut down, and added, ``Let's talk today about
what else we might do. But if the client loses us in the
meantime, they will not get anyone better to advance their
cause.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2002, Reed reported on his discussions with
the Attorney General's Office, adding ``[h]ope these
developments help with client''.\43\ Reed also reminded
Abramoff that the information he had earlier passed on turned
out to be true, and confirmed that he had gotten pastors riled
up the week before to call the Attorney General's office.\44\
Reed purportedly continued to supply Abramoff with information
from the Attorney General's office, claiming he was having
direct conversations with the Texas Attorney General
himself.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010854) (January 7, 2002).
\44\ Id.
\45\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076007) (January 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the trio worked to support the State's legal efforts,
evidence also suggests that Abramoff, Scanlon, and Reed worked
behind the scenes in Texas to quash the Tigua's attempts at a
legislative solution. In 2003, Abramoff boasted to a colleague:

A bill is moving (HB809) in the Texas state house which
will enable the Indians in Texas to have totally
unregulated casinos. It passed out of the house
Criminal Jurisprudence Committee by a 6-2 vote.
The current Republican Speaker Tom Craddick is a strong
supporter. Last year we stopped this bill after it
passed the house using the Lt. Governor (Bill ratcliff)
[sic] to prevent it from being scheduled in the state
senate.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shawn Vasell,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076245) (February 27, 2003).

In fact, former Texas Lt. Governor Ratliff did refuse to
schedule the legislation for a floor vote in the previous
session, the state's legal efforts succeeded, and the Tigua
officially closed its casino on February 12, 2002.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a low point for the Tigua. According to Tribal
representatives, the revenue generated by the Speaking Rock
Casino had helped the Tribe lift its members out of poverty,
had enabled the Tribe to provide education for its children and
health care for its elders.\48\ It created hope where there was
none. Into their desperation and despair entered Abramoff and
Scanlon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON SEEK THE TRIBE'S MONEY

At the same time Abramoff and Scanlon were working to have
the Tigua's casino in El Paso closed, they began actively
soliciting the Tigua for money to re-open its casino. According
to an internal memorandum from Norman J. Gordon to Tom Diamond,
both of whom were outside counsel for the Tigua:

I had a telephone conversation this afternoon with
Bryant Rogers, a lawyer in Santa Fe, who represents a
number of Indian Tribes. He advises me that he was
asked by Mr. Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist in Washington,
D.C. whether the Tiguas were attempting a solution to
the order that may be outside the courts. According to
Mr. Rogers, Mr. Abramoff is with a firm that is well
connected to the Bush Administration (Greenberg
Trauring [sic] Firm in Washington, D.C. which
represented the Bush Campaign in the Florida dispute-
lobbying arm) and has been effective in the past in
efforts for other tribes. He is willing to come to El
Paso and meet with the Council at no cost to discuss
whether he can be of assistance. His phone number is
[REDACTION].\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (February
4, 2002) (Memorandum from Norman J. Gordon, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon
& Jackson, to Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon & Jackson).

Meanwhile, Reed forwarded to Abramoff an email from one of
Reed's Texas operatives reporting that the operative ``[j]ust
spoke with a source close to the Attorney General who tells me
they anticipate either February 8 (this Friday) or February
11th--next Monday--will be the date Judge Eisele shuts down the
Tigua casino. His order would dispatch federal marshals to the
facility to close it.'' \50\ In forwarding Reed's email to
Scanlon, Abramoff was clear about his lack of care and concern
for the Tigua's plight: ``Whining idiot. Close the f'ing thing
already!!'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006970-JA) (February 5, 2002).
\51\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E006970-JA) (February 5,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite his disdain, the very next day, Abramoff was
quickly on the telephone with Tigua public relations
representative Marc Schwartz seeking the Tigua's business.\52\
During their first telephone conversation, Abramoff lamented
over the Tigua's plight, and offered to visit the Tribe in El
Paso to discuss a solution to the Tigua's problem.\53\
According to Schwartz, Abramoff ``expressed his indignation
over what had occurred with the tribe and specifically referred
to the need to right the terrible injustice that had been
brought upon the tribe.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\53\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\54\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Schwartz, Abramoff appeared to have the right
credentials. Abramoff claimed to be a close friend of
Congressman Tom DeLay.\55\ He also discussed his friendship
with Reed, recounting some of their history together at College
Republicans.\56\ When Schwartz observed that Reed was an
ideologue, Schwartz recalled that Abramoff laughingly replied
``as far as the cash goes.'' \57\ Abramoff also mentioned his
representation of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(``Choctaw'') and his ability to get appropriations for
them.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff ``offered the service of both himself and his firm
at no charge.'' \59\ He later expressed a hope that the Tribe
would hire him, if he succeeded in achieving a Federal
legislative fix.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After his call with Schwartz, Abramoff told Scanlon, ``Fire
up the jet baby, we're going to El Paso!!'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0075991) (February 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon replied, ``I want all their MONEY!!!'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later that day, Reed sent Abramoff the Saturday copy of an
El Paso Times-News article reporting that the Tigua had filed
for a stay of the closing of its casino while the Tribe's
appeal was pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
with the note ``here's the latest move, just as we predicted.''
\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Email from Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006969-JA) (February 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 2002, Schwartz reported to Tigua Governor
Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and the Tribal
Council that he ``spoke with Mr. Abramoff this morning and he
would like to make a short presentation to the Council next
week. He could be in El Paso for a meeting on Tuesday.'' \64\
Schwartz scheduled the meeting with Abramoff and the Tigua
leadership for Tuesday, February 12, 2002, at the Tribal
Council offices for Abramoff to make ``a short presentation on
his capabilities.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (February
7, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, to Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and
Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\65\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (February
8, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council,
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo); see also Marc Schwartz document production (no
Bates number) (February 10, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz,
Partners Group Consultants, to Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor
Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before meeting with Abramoff, the Tigua undertook some due
diligence, reviewing stories about Abramoff in The New York
Times and The Wall Street Journal.\66\ The articles described
Abramoff as an ``uber lobbyist.'' \67\ The Tigua also reviewed
information about the law firm Greenberg Traurig, which the
Tribe determined was one of the top law firms, and concluded
that Abramoff's ``credentials appeared to be extremely
legitimate.'' \68\ At a Tribal Council meeting, the Tribe
considered Abramoff's credentials: he was a topnotch lobbyist;
he represented the Choctaw, widely known and respected in
Indian country; and, his firm had represented President Bush in
the 2000 presidential election dispute.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 235 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\67\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\68\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 235 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\69\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Abramoff and Scanlon continued to monitor the
Tigua's fight. On Saturday, February 9, 2002, the El Paso
Times-News reported that, following the Fifth Circuit Court's
denial of the Tigua's application for a stay pending appeal,
the Tigua intended to file an emergency request to the United
States Supreme Court.\70\ Concerned by the Tigua's latest
actions, Scanlon wrote to Abramoff: ``Uh oh?'' and Abramoff
responded, ``We have to strategize on this one.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000000353) (February 9,
2002).
\71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A day or so before Abramoff's meeting with the Tribe,
Abramoff called Schwartz to inform the Tribe that he was
bringing Michael Scanlon, whom he called an associate.\72\
Abramoff said that Scanlon was Congressman DeLay's former
spokesman.\73\ Abramoff called Scanlon one of his best friends;
said they worked together all the time; and, claimed that
Scanlon was one of the pre-eminent political strategists in the
nation.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 239 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\73\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During their conversation, Abramoff never called Scanlon
his business partner.\75\ According to Schwartz, Abramoff was
always very careful to make it clear to the Tigua that ``you're
hiring Scanlon independently. I use him because he's the best.
He has his own company.'' \76\ Abramoff never disclosed that he
and Scanlon were partners; never said he would receive money
from Scanlon that the Tigua paid; and, never mentioned any
referral fee from Scanlon.\77\ To the contrary, when Schwartz
asked whether Scanlon Gould was connected to Abramoff, Abramoff
replied ``no.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Id.
\76\ Id.
\77\ Id.
\78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The day he was supposed to meet with the Tigua leadership,
Abramoff's disdain for the Tribe again surfaced. Reed had
reported that the Tigua was prepared to close its casino.\79\
Reed highlighted for Abramoff ``major victory ... but note they
plan a legislative battle now that they have lost in the
courts.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Email between Ralph Reed, Century Strategies, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006967-JA) (February 11-12, 2002).
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``I wish those moronic Tiguas were
smarter in their political contributions. I'd love us to get
our mitts on that moolah!! Oh well, stupid folks get wiped
out.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon met with the Tigua Tribal Council on
February 12, 2002.\82\ Ironically, it was the same day that the
Tigua's casino was going to close.\83\ The meeting occurred at
the Tribal Administration Building, and lasted forty-five (45)
minutes.\84\ Attendees at the meeting included the Tribe's
then-Governor Albert Alvidrez, Schwartz, and Tribal attorney
Tom Diamond.\85\ As Lt. Governor Hisa later learned, at that
meeting, Abramoff made a proposal for a lobbying effort led by
himself and Scanlon's firm to gain a federal legislative fix to
the Tigua's problem.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\83\ Id. at 239.
\84\ Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon &
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas
(October 28, 2004).
\85\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 231 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribe had no idea that Abramoff, Scanlon, and Reed had
just worked to ensure the closure of its casino.\87\ According
to Hisa, Alvidrez said that Abramoff disclosed his friendship
with Reed, but Abramoff said that Reed was ``crazy, like other
folks in the Christian Coalition.'' \88\ According to Tom
Diamond, counsel to the Tigua, Abramoff also claimed that as
Reed was leading the anti-gambling efforts among Christian
conservatives, Reed was supplying Abramoff with information
about the effort and, therefore, Abramoff knew their
strategy.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228, 239 (November 17, 2004) (statement
of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\88\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
\89\ Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon &
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas
(October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff also disclosed his representation of the Louisiana
Coushatta, but said the Louisiana Coushatta did not have any
problem with the Tigua.\90\ Abramoff bragged about getting the
Choctaw millions of dollars in appropriations.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Committee's hearing, Schwartz testified that
Abramoff introduced Scanlon as ``the preeminent expert in
grassroots politics and that with his experience with
Representative Tom DeLay had developed a reputation as `the go-
to guy for the most difficult campaigns'.'' \92\ According to
Schwartz, Abramoff further described Scanlon as a ``bulldog'',
``tenacious'', ``people were afraid of him'', he was ``DeLay's
attack dog,'' and was one of the reasons that Congressman DeLay
was so successful.\93\ According to Lt. Governor Hisa, Scanlon
claimed he would try to convince Representative DeLay to work
for the Tigua's benefit and try to use Representative DeLay's
credibility to convince other representatives to support the
Tigua.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\93\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\94\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 242 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff said that Scanlon did the groundwork on his
projects.\95\ When Schwartz asked whether Abramoff used Scanlon
exclusively, Abramoff said that he liked to use Scanlon for the
tough fights: ``He always gets results'', recalled
Schwartz.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At that first meeting, Scanlon said he worked in public
affairs and direct response.\97\ Scanlon explained grassroots
campaigns, and how he could get thousands of telephone calls to
flood a senator's office, or even the President's office.\98\
Scanlon claimed he was ``DeLay's guy'' and had an ongoing
relationship with Congressman DeLay.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Id.
\98\ Id.
\99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon proposed a nationwide political
campaign for the Tigua.\100\ The duo brought a laptop with an
example of the database they were proposing to construct for
the Tigua.\101\ Abramoff told the Tribe that his plan was to
have a friendly lawmaker sneak some fairly innocuous language
into a federal bill permitting the Tigua to re-open the
Speaking Rock Casino.\102\ But the Tribe would have to make
contributions to grease the process: ``You have to have some
friends,'' Schwartz recalled Abramoff saying.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Id.
\101\ Id.
\102\ Id.; Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta
del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
\103\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwartz further recalled Abramoff saying ``my part is
easy; the hard part is keeping this from being undone. Once the
law is printed, someone's going to know it and that's where
Mike comes in.'' \104\ Abramoff described Scanlon's role as a
submarine: once the bill passed, opponents would try to strip
it or repeal it.\105\ Abramoff said that Scanlon's operation
would then surface, blanketing members' offices with letters
and phone calls, to ``bring them in line.'' \106\ Scanlon would
implement this ``submarine strategy'' through the database he
was supposedly going to construct for the Tribe.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Id.
\105\ Id.; Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon &
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas
(October 28, 2004) (recalling Abramoff said that Scanlon would ``bring
them [opponents] in line'').
\106\ Id.; Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\107\ Interview of Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon &
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas
(October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff also said that he and Greenberg Traurig would
represent the Tribe pro bono until the casino was up and
running, but then wanted to represent the Tigua for $150,000
per month.\108\ Abramoff said he had done this arrangement
before: he would work pro bono, but Scanlon had to be
paid.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking about the grassroots efforts, Scanlon said there
was a necessity of money.\110\ Scanlon was going to write a
proposal for the Tigua.\111\ Schwartz recalled Abramoff saying
``you won't pay me, you'll pay him a lot'', indicating
Scanlon.\112\ According to Schwartz, Abramoff said two or three
times ``I'm the only guy who's gonna work for you and get
results first and you pay second.'' \113\ Abramoff said his
efforts ``couldn't exist without Scanlon.'' \114\ At the
meeting, Abramoff and Scanlon suggested a ballpark figure of
$5,000,000 for the plan, in addition to $1,000,000 in political
contributions.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id.
\111\ Id.
\112\ Id.
\113\ Id.
\114\ Id.
\115\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During that same meeting, Scanlon represented that his part
in the campaign ``would be expensive, essential and
exclusive.'' \116\ The Tribe had no understanding that Scanlon
would pay Abramoff out of the funds paid to him by the
Tribe.\117\ The Tribe never paid Abramoff any money.\118\ In
discussing the project, Abramoff conveyed a sense of
urgency.\119\ At the meeting, Abramoff again insisted the
proposal was critical, that it needed to be done, the Tribe
needed this defense, and Scanlon had done this before.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 228 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\117\ Id. at 242 (testimony of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor,
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\118\ Id.
\119\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\120\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At that meeting, neither Abramoff nor Scanlon disclosed
that they were partners; that Abramoff had any type of
financial interest in Scanlon's operations; or, that Scanlon
would pay Abramoff any part of what the Tribe paid
Scanlon.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Abramoff met with the Tigua leadership, Schwartz sent
an email to Abramoff: ``Certainly enjoyed your visit and
efforts to help our client. I look forward to receiving your
proposal and we will do everything possible to make it come to
fruition.'' \122\ Forwarding Schwartz's email to Scanlon,
Abramoff commented, ``This guy NEEDS us to save his ass!!''
\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Email from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E006968-JA) (February 13, 2002).
\123\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E006968-JA) (February 13,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Abramoff and Scanlon's trip to El Paso, Abramoff
pushed the Tigua to decide on Scanlon.\124\ Abramoff said that
``bills were moving, timing is critical, he needed Scanlon
ASAP.'' \125\ Abramoff insisted that if a bill moved quickly,
he needed Scanlon in place working on the database along with
some other elements of the strategy.\126\ At this point,
Abramoff did not specify which lawmakers would help, or where
the contributions would go.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\125\ Id.
\126\ Id.
\127\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon was responsible for drafting the Tigua strategy. On
February 16, 2002, Scanlon reported to Abramoff that he was
``still working--I'll have it done befoer [sic] noon tomorrow
so you can get it deon [sic] to schartz [sic].'' \128\ The next
day, Abramoff responded: ``Dawg, we're going to miss the
meeting on Tuesday at this rate. Let's not blow this one
because we don't get them a proposal. Get me something asap!''
\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010895) (February 16-17,
2002).
\129\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon receiving the proposal, Abramoff sent Schwartz an
email on February 18, 2002, reiterating that his and Greenberg
Traurig's services were free:

As we discussed, until we are able to achieve the
Federal legislative fix, we at Greenberg Traurig will
not be engaged by the tribe for services officially.
All our work will be done on a pro bono basis. Once the
legislation is signed by the President, we would
anticipate the tribe engaging us to represent it at the
Federal level and assist with efforts to obtain a class
III compact. Our normal rate in our tribal government
practice is between $125,000 and $175,000 per
month.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-000076141)
(February 18, 2002).

Abramoff attached to his email to Schwartz a proposal
entitled ``Operation Open Doors''. According to the document,
the ``singular objective of our strategy is to open the doors
of the Speaking Rock Casino within the next 4 months.'' \131\
The document continued,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Id.

Our objective is clear, and in the following pages we
are going to tell you exactly how we intend to reach
our objective. Operation Open Doors is a massive
undertaking fueled by a nation-wide political
operation. This political operation will result in a
Majority of both federal chambers either becoming close
friends of the tribe or fearing the tribe in a very
short period of time.
The network we our [sic] are building for you will give
you the political clout needed to end around the
obstacles you face in your own back yard. Simply put,
you need 218 friends in the U.S. House and 51 Senators
on your side very quickly, and we will do that through
both love and fear.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Id.

The document represented that ``they'' had ``waged similar
strategies in the past that have been successful and we will
wage many more in the years to come.'' \133\ Although the
document cautioned that the strategy was not ``full proof'', it
also emphasized that ``under no circumstances do we believe it
could be classified as high risk either.'' \134\ According to
the document: ``As we presented in our initial meeting, we
firmly believe that if you execute this strategy in its
entirety, your doors will be open and gaming will return in the
immediate future.'' \135\ Scanlon requested a total amount of
$5.4 million to execute his strategy.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Id.
\134\ Id.
\135\ Id.
\136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 19, 2002, the El Paso Times reported that 450
people received their final termination notice and 60-day
severance packages one week after Tigua Tribal officials
complied with a federal court order to shut down their Speaking
Rock Casino.\137\ Scanlon forwarded the story to Abramoff with
the preface ``This is on the front page of todays [sic] while
they will be voting on our plan!'' \138\ Abramoff could hardly
contain his excitement: ``Is life great or what!!!'' \139\ Mere
minutes later, Abramoff sent another email to Scanlon: ``1 hour
45 minutes and counting my friend.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Email from Brian Mann, American International Center, to
Michael Scanlon, et. al., Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001141)
(February 19, 2002).
\138\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001141) (February 19,
2002).
\139\ Id.
\140\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000001140) (February 19,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before voting on Operation Open Doors, the Tribe asked
Abramoff and Scanlon to return. Abramoff therefore met with
Tigua leadership again in El Paso on February 22, 2002.\141\
Abramoff was alone; Scanlon supposedly had health problems and
was unable to attend.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 232 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\142\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At that second meeting, Abramoff made a proposal on the
legislative strategy, including Operation Open Doors and the
database to be developed by Scanlon Gould.\143\ Later that day,
through Schwartz, the Tribal Council requested that the cost of
Operation Open Doors be reduced to $4.2 million.\144\ Abramoff
accepted the Tribe's counter-offer on Scanlon Gould's
behalf.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 232 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\144\ Id.
\145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2002, the Tribe executed a contract with
Scanlon Gould for the implementation of Operation Open
Doors.\146\ In less than a month, the Tribe paid Scanlon
$4,200,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Contract between Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Scanlon Gould
Public Affairs (March 5, 2002) (no Bates number).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments by Tigua to Scanlon Gould

03/05/02................................................ $2,100,000
03/06/02................................................ $817,000
03/26/02................................................ $1,283,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $4,200,000
Having collected about $4,200,000 from the Tigua during the
relevant period, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff about
$1,850,000--about 50% of his total profit from the Tribe.\147\
The Tribe never knew that Scanlon would pay Abramoff with the
Tribe's money, \148\ and had no way of knowing of the scam the
duo was running.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Discussion and analysis of how Abramoff and Scanlon
successfully perpetrated their ``gimme five'' scheme on the Tribe, on
an entity-by-entity basis, is contained in Part 2 of this Report.
\148\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 242 (November 17, 2004) (testimony of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\149\ Id. at 238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. SECRECY AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Secrecy was a key element of Abramoff and Scanlon's
program. According to Schwartz, Abramoff claimed, ``Nobody can
know I'm working on this deal. Stealth is the key.'' \150\
Abramoff repeatedly emphasized that his involvement in the
effort needed to be kept secret.\151\ Neither Abramoff nor any
other lobbyist on his team registered with the Clerk of the
House or the Secretary of the Senate as lobbyists for the
Tigua. Abramoff claimed that part of the reason for
representing the Tigua pro bono was to avoid filing the
required lobbying disclosure forms.\152\ According to Schwartz,
Abramoff explained that the lawmakers who would advance the
legislative measure required secrecy.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\151\ Id.
\152\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
\153\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Schwartz sent a number of Tigua-related articles to a
list of people--including Abramoff--Abramoff forwarded the
articles to Scanlon with the note: ``That fucking idiot put my
name on an email list! What a fucking moron. He may have blown
our cover!! Dammit. We are moving forward anyway and taking
their fucking money.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000053576) (February 25,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another key component of the program, so Abramoff claimed,
were the political contributions that Abramoff directed the
Tigua to make.\155\ Abramoff gave the Tribe a list of
contributions at the moment he made his second
presentation.\156\ According to Schwartz, ``Those checks were
required by Mr. Abramoff, directed that the Tribe do those
immediately.'' \157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\156\ Id. at 237.
\157\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During four or five conversations that Schwartz had with
Abramoff between March 1-5, 2002, Abramoff said that political
contributions were critical to the Tribe's language going
through.\158\ Abramoff told Schwartz that the Tribe needed to
make the contributions to have lawmakers carry the Tribe's
water.\159\ Schwartz recalled Abramoff plainly saying that
unless the Tribe made contributions, ``it will not work'' and
``they will not vote for us.'' \160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, by telephone (November 14, 2004).
\159\ Id.
\160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Abramoff did not tell the Tribe was that he was going
to use its contributions to achieve legislative results for
other clients. On February 24, 2002, Abramoff's associate Todd
Boulanger wrote about the ``Tigua Contribution Budget
Proposal'':

I'm compiling this information now. How soon will be
[sic] get this money ... [sic] since we are going to
use this to leverage our friends for this year's
approps requests, prior to March 20th is best, since
March 22nd is the general deadline. We're looking
strong on the school for the Sagchips. $4.5 million in
da-bank. call [sic] me at the office if you get this
soon ...\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Email from Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076355) (February 24, 2002).

The Tribe contributed approximately $300,000 at Abramoff's
direction.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 236 (November 17, 2004) (testimony of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. ABRAMOFF AND HIS COLLEAGUES SET THE PLAN IN MOTION IN THE HOUSE

On March 18, 2002, Tony Rudy, an Abramoff colleague and
former Deputy Chief of Staff to Congressman Tom DeLay, told
Abramoff, ``We need to meet with ney [sic]. I think you should
be in on it.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Email between Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089648) (March 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``I agree. when [sic] can we see him?
We need to show him the list of those to whom they [the Tribe]
gave. Was he on it? if [sic] not, find out the name of his PAC
and his personal committee with addresses and we'll get checks
right now.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two days later, Abramoff exclaimed to Scanlon, ``Just met
with Ney!!! We're f'ing gold!!!! He's going to do Tigua.''
\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000076443) (March 20, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the hearing before the Committee, Schwartz testified
that Abramoff reported in March 2002 that he and his staff had
spoken to Representative Bob Ney, who allegedly agreed to carry
the Tigua provision by placing it in the Election Reform
Bill.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants). The actual name
of the bill was the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Public Law 107-252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Ney had a different recollection of events.
According to Congressman Ney, Abramoff told him that Senator
Dodd wanted to insert a provision into the Election Reform Bill
that would benefit a gaming tribe in Connecticut.\167\
Congressman Ney said there was never any mention of any Tribe
in El Paso, Texas and no reference to any Tigua Indian
tribe.\168\ As of the date of his interview with Committee
staff, Congressman Ney said he was not at all familiar with the
Tigua.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
\168\ Id.
\169\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To effect his legislative strategy, Abramoff enlisted other
lobbyists at Greenberg Traurig, including Neil Volz, Jon van
Horne, and Shawn Vasell.\170\ In particular, Volz was the
former chief of staff to Congressman Ney and staff director for
the House Committee on Administration, which Congressman Ney
chaired at the time.\171\ Volz went to work for Team Abramoff
at Greenberg Traurig on February 19, 2002.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\171\ Email from Mayra Zilio, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000089431) (February 8, 2002).
\172\ Email from Neil Volz, Greenberg Traurig, to himself (GTG-
E000089433) (February 6, 2002). He was therefore subject to the one-
year lobbying ban prohibiting him from lobbying both Congressman Ney
and his office, as well as the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Schwartz, Volz was supposedly working on the
Tigua issue on the House side.\173\ Abramoff told Schwartz that
Volz, as Congressman Ney's former chief of staff, was important
to the process.\174\ Schwartz remembered Abramoff saying that
``Volz was Ney's guy and was working it for Ney.'' \175\ Volz
was on the Hill to get information and to influence the
Conference Committee.\176\ According to Abramoff, Volz was
talking to Congressman Ney about the Tigua.\177\ Abramoff said
that Volz had convinced Congressman Ney that supporting the
effort was the right thing to do.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\174\ Id.
\175\ Id.
\176\ Id.
\177\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, by telephone (November 14, 2004).
\178\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwartz met Volz twice while working on the Tigua
issue.\179\ He also spoke to him in conference calls with
Abramoff.\180\ According to Schwartz, Volz told him that
Congressman Ney got involved in the Tigua project because of
Volz.\181\ Volz was supposedly talking with Congressman Ney or
his staff daily, Schwartz told Committee staff in his
interview.\182\ Volz told Schwartz that he was working with
Congressman Ney's Chief of Staff and knew him by name.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\180\ Id.
\181\ Id.
\182\ Id.
\183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Ney contradicted Volz's representations to
Schwartz. During his interview with Committee staff,
Congressman Ney said that, aside from Abramoff, no one--
including Volz--approached him about the provision that
Abramoff had brought to his attention.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, House of
Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, on or about March 26, 2002, Abramoff called
Schwartz and said that Congressman Ney had set up a new
political action committee (``PAC'') called American
Liberty.\185\ Abramoff said it was imperative that the Tribe
send checks that day.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, by telephone (February 22, 2005).
\186\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Schwartz had another conversation about the
contributions.\187\ Volz was present during this conversation,
Schwartz recalled.\188\ During the conversation, Volz chimed in
that the checks needed to be delivered quickly.\189\ According
to Schwartz, Abramoff said that the political contributions
were necessary, often saying ``this has to be done'', ``this is
not optional'', and went as far as to say that ``in order to
make this thing work, he [Ney] needs the money in his PAC so he
can make contributions to members of his Committee to make it
glide through.'' \190\ ``This is not what I think you should
do; this is what Bob needs to be done'', Schwartz remembered
Abramoff saying.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Id.
\188\ Id.
\189\ Id.
\190\ Id.
\191\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Schwartz's conference call with Abramoff and Volz,
Abramoff's assistant Allison Bozniak sent Schwartz an email
with information for donations to American Liberty PAC and Bob
Ney for Congress.\192\ On March 27, 2002, the Tribe made the
following contributions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ Email from Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (no Bates number) (March 26,
2002).

$2,000 to Bob Ney for Congress
$5,000 to American Liberty PAC Hard Money Account
$25,000 to American Liberty PAC Soft Money Account
\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ Tigua document production (no Bates number) (check from Tigua
to ``Bob Ney For Congress'') (March 27, 2002); Tigua document
production (no Bates number) (check from Tigua to ``American Liberty
PAC Hard Money Account'') (March 27, 2002); Tigua document production
(no Bates number) (check from Tigua to ``American Liberty PAC Soft
Money Account'') (March 27, 2002).

On April 12, 2002, Abramoff again informed Schwartz that
the Tigua language would be included in the Election Reform
Bill.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, by telephone (February 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. SCANLON PURPORTEDLY SETS THE PLAN IN MOTION IN THE SENATE

While Abramoff was lobbying the House, Scanlon was
apparently responsible for supervising the lobbying of the
Senate. To that end, he was supposedly hiring two Democratic
operatives: Harold Ickes and Lottie Shackelford. On March 30,
2002, Abramoff instructed Scanlon, ``Ickes has to move now.
They might go to conference as soon as they get back. let [sic]
me know when he is ready. Ney is ready to approach Dodd, but is
waiting to hear back from us first.'' \195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000089650) (March 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon assured Abramoff, ``Will do onthis [sic]. Ill [sic]
give udatelater [sic].'' \196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089670) (April 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There apparently was some problem on Scanlon's end, but he
assured Abramoff, ``OK--Im [sic] back in the driver seat--We
got Dodds [sic] Finacne [sic] comitte [sic] chairman on board
and we have the vice Char [sic] of the DNC--the one who
actually sponsored the resolution now on the team.'' \197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089681) (April 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 2002 Abramoff reported to Volz that ``Dodd is
ready.'' \198\ He explained, ``We need to get to Ney to give
him the green light to raise it with Dodd whenever he wants.''
\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Neil
Volz, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089698) (April 18, 2002).
\199\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volz responded, ``Ney is in Florida this weekend, I talked
with him yesterday and will talk with [then-House
Administration Committee staff director] Paul [Vinovich] on
Sunday to get teed up to get ready to implement.'' \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next day, Rudy urged Abramoff, ``We better get folks to
talk to dodd [sic].'' \201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ Email between Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089701) (April 19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff assured Rudy, ``We're all set. he [sic] is ready
and Ney knows to chat with him now.'' \202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy also asked, ``Is vinovich on board the tiquas [sic]?''
\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ Email between Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Neil Volz (GTG-E000089703-04) (April
19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including Volz in the exchange, Abramoff replied, ``I think
so. Ney told Neil he was going to tell him, right Neil?'' \204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volz reported that ``Ney told vinovich last night and I
will talk through with Paul on the golf course Sunday.'' \205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears, however, that Scanlon had not paved the way in
the Senate, as he had said. The Committee has seen no evidence
suggesting, much less establishing, that Scanlon had hired
Ickes. In fact, in a January 9, 2003 memorandum from Scanlon to
Schwartz on the political campaign Scanlon supposedly waged on
the Tigua's behalf, nowhere does Scanlon mention Ickes.\206\
According to Scanlon,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ See Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/TI
000824-25) (January 9, 2003).

We began to target Senator Dodd using a system of
repeated contact from influential members of his
political family. At the cornerstone of the project was
the vice chairperson of the DNC and a member of his
finance committee, Lottie Shackelford. Her support and
access was critical for our ongoing efforts to
influence the Senator. We directed her to make personal
contact with the Senator throughout the campaign
starting in April and lasting through the passage of
the legislation in October.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ See id.

Even Scanlon's summary was not true. Brian Lunde, whom
Scanlon used ``as a silent sub[contractor] in letter-writing,
legislative-monitoring, and other projects for his Tribal
clients,'' told Committee staff that Scanlon approached him in
2002 about the Tigua.\208\ Scanlon told Lunde that he was going
to have an amendment inserted into the House version of
Election Reform, and wanted to know whether the provision had
any chance in the Senate.\209\ Lunde told Scanlon that the
Democratic National Committee (``DNC'') had issued a resolution
supporting the Tigua's sovereignty.\210\ Lunde identified
Senator Dodd as the key Senator on this issue; the question was
if the provision was in the House version, would Senator Dodd
support it.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Interview of Brian Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by
telephone (November 16, 2004).
\209\ Id.
\210\ Id.
\211\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon asked Lunde who knew Senator Dodd and could get the
DNC's position to him.\212\ Lunde identified Lottie
Shackelford.\213\ Since Scanlon did not know Shackelford, he
asked Lunde to have her advise Dodd's office on the DNC's
position.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Id.
\213\ Id.
\214\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lunde apparently called Shackelford about this in the fall
of 2002.\215\ In their interviews with Committee staff,
Shackelford and Lunde similarly recalled Shackelford's role.
Shackelford was supposed to do two things: (1) make sure
Senator Dodd's office was aware of the DNC's resolution on the
Tigua; and, (2) monitor the Election Reform Bill in the
Senate.\216\ Lunde never discussed with Scanlon having
Shackelford lobby Senator Dodd's office for inclusion of the
Tigua provision in the Senate version of Election Reform.\217\
Lunde, therefore, never asked Shackelford to lobby Senator Dodd
or his office for inclusion of the Tigua language in the
Senate's version of Election Reform bill.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004). Lunde could not
recall when he first reached out to Shackelford. Interview of Brian
Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by telephone (November 16, 2004).
\216\ Id.; Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
\217\ Interview of Brian Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by
telephone (November 16, 2004).
\218\ Id.; Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After speaking with Lunde, Shackelford called Sheryl Cohen,
Senator Dodd's Chief of Staff, to make her aware of the DNC
resolution.\219\ Shackelford recalled telling Cohen that ``we''
are hearing that an amendment may be attached to the House
election Reform Bill to restore the Tribe's sovereignty and
told her the DNC supported the Tribe's sovereignty rights.\220\
There was no discussion of the Tribe's casino or the language
that would allow the Tribe to re-open its casino.\221\
Shackelford told Committee staff she never spoke to Senator
Dodd directly about the Tigua.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ Id.
\220\ Id.
\221\ Id.
\222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen did not recall specifics of her conversations with
Shackelford about the Tigua.\223\ Nevertheless, Cohen was clear
she would have deemed any rider about the Tigua a ``non-
starter'', because it was not relevant to the bill.\224\
Consistent with Cohen's recollection, Shackelford told
Committee staff that Cohen told her that Senator Dodd did not
want Election Reform bogged down by non-germane
provisions.\225\ Indeed, when the bill went to conference,
Lunde recalled telling Scanlon that Dodd's chief of staff told
Shackelford that no new provisions were going to make it into
the legislation.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Interview of Sheryl Cohen, chief of staff, Senator
Christopher J. Dodd, in Washington, D.C. (November 16, 2004).
\224\ Id.
\225\ Interview of Lottie Shackelford, Democratic political
consultant, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
\226\ Interview of Brian Lunde, formerly, Lunde & Burger, by
telephone (November 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. THINGS BEGIN TO UNRAVEL

On June 5, 2002, Schwartz provided the Tigua Governor, Lt.
Governor, and Tribal Council with an update on Abramoff and
Scanlon's efforts in Washington, D.C., saying, ``the conference
committee staffs [were] meeting everyday to negotiate the
issues in the bill.'' \227\ Schwartz further advised, ``Our
portion is still agreed to and as you can see from the
[Abramoff's] e-mail, there is no problem with our part being
kept on the bill.'' \228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (June 5,
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council,
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\228\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Abramoff instructed Volz to give him regular
updates on Election Reform.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Neil
Volz, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089758) (June 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volz reported, ``I talked to Paul yesterday and keep
hearing the same thing'', and assured Abramoff ``I am keeping
in daily contact with Paul and Chet in Ney's office on this.''
\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following month, however, Volz reported to Abramoff and
Rudy, ``Election Reform negotiations have slowed. Ney, Paul,
and Chet all think it is possible to finish negotiations before
August, but now not likely until later.'' \231\ Furthermore,
according to Volz, ``With that being said, Ney and Paul have
said things are moving and would like to get all our specifics
in line, so I am working to get a meeting with Tony and Paul
and Bob this week to exchange specifics--since Paul was not in
original meeting.'' \232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ Email from Neil Volz, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig, and Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089523)
(July 10, 2002).
\232\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next day, Volz reported to Abramoff and Rudy:

I just talked with Ney, [sic] He is all set to meet you
Tony at 2:00 at 1309 Longworth HOB today. He said he
would meet with you first and then bring Paul
[Vinovich] in for the meeting. ... The question is,
should Tony bring in the Tigua and the Alabama
Coushatta language or just the specific Tigua language.
... Please do not forward this, but you need to know I
get the sense Bob is still a little jumpy on letting
Paul in on the entire situation here, but knows he is
the guy to place this language in the bill ...\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ Email from Neil Volz, Greenberg Traurig, to Tony Rudy,
Greenberg Traurig, copied to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000206101) (July 11, 2002).

Abramoff continued his reports to the Tribe, as reflected
in contemporaneous memoranda prepared by Schwartz. In mid-July,
Schwartz reported that the conference report on the election
reform legislation had been reported and was ``eligible for
consideration'': ``The two Chairmen (Congressman Ney and
Senator Dodd) have requested floor time [for the bill] from
their respective bodies for this week.'' \234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 18,
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late July, Congressman Ney apparently approached Senator
Dodd about the Tigua provision. Scanlon's failure to get a
commitment from Senator Dodd then became evident. On July 25,
2002, Abramoff sent Scanlon an urgent email:

I just spoke with Ney who met today with Dodd on the
bill and raised our provision. Dodd looked at him like
a ``deer in headlights'' and said he has never made
such a commitment and that, with the problems of new
casinos in Connecticut, it is a problem!!! Mike, please
call me immediately to tell me how we wired this, or
were supposed to wire it. Ney feels we left him out to
dry. Please call me!!! \235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000076719) (July 25, 2001).

Neither Scanlon nor Abramoff ever advised the Tigua about
the problems they were having in the Senate. To the contrary,
Abramoff and Scanlon both said that it was moving along
well.\236\ Indeed, the day after Abramoff's urgent e-mail to
Scanlon, Abramoff reported that ``Senate Democrats and House
Republicans are at odds over one issue that cropped up. The
issue is whether the Justice Department (Democrats favor) or
individual state's Election Departments (Republicans favor)
will have jurisdiction over precinct approval, ballot design,
etc.'' \237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (February 22, 2005).
\237\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 26,
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and Tribal Council,
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwartz reported that ``it doesn't appear that the
conference report will make it to the floor before recess.''
\238\ Consequently, Abramoff sought a meeting between the Tigua
and Congressman Ney.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ Id.
\239\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. ABRAMOFF ASKS THE TIGUA TO FINANCE A GOLFING JUNKET TO SCOTLAND

Although Abramoff and Scanlon's efforts on the Tigua's
behalf were failing, it apparently did not stop Abramoff from
soliciting funds from Tigua for a golfing junket to Scotland.
On May 15, 2002, Abramoff advised his close friend Ralph
Reed that ``[t]he package on the ground is $4K per person. that
[sic] covers rooms, tee times and ground transportation. One
idea is that we could use one of my foundations for the trip--
Capital Athletic Foundation--and get and make contributions so
this is easier. OK?'' \240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000019854) (May 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed responded, ``OK but we need to discuss. It is an
election year.'' \241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About a week later, Rudy informed Abramoff that ``Ney may
want to do Scotland.'' \242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ Email from Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089721) (May 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost two weeks later, as details of the trip were coming
together, Abramoff told Rudy, ``We need to lock. Try to nail 2
stars to go with us: ney [sic] for sure!'' \243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Tony Rudy,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000089736-37) (June 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Rudy confirmed that he was trying, Abramoff asked him
to ``stay on this feverishly.'' \244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff asked the Tigua to finance the trip. In an email
to Schwartz entitled ``our friend'', Abramoff wrote:

asked if we could help (as in cover) a Scotland golf
trip for him and some staff (his committee chief of
staff) and members for August. The trip will be quite
expensive (we did this for another member--you know
who) 2 years ago. I anticipate that the total cost--if
he brings 3-4 members and wives--would be around $100K
or more. I can probably get another one of my tribes to
cover some of it. let [sic] me know if you guys could
do $50K and I'll get them to do the other $50K, though
I'll have to get him to bring someone who has relevance
to their matters--our friend does not as you can
imagine. They would probably do the trip through the
Capital Athletic Foundation as an educational mission.
I have to start planning this now to make sure they can
get tee times. Can you let me know if this would be OK,
and possibly start to process it as a donation to
Capital Athletic Foundation? Thanks.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000076582) (June 7, 2001).

Schwartz testified before the Committee that he spoke with
Abramoff about his request. During a telephone conversation
before Abramoff sent the email, Abramoff told Schwartz that
``our friend'' referred to Congressman Bob Ney.\246\ Based on
that same conversation, Schwartz understood that Representative
Tom DeLay was the ``you know who'' who attended a trip two
years before to Scotland.\247\ Abramoff never mentioned that
CAF was a private charity or that he was involved in CAF.\248\
Abramoff described CAF as a group that arranged educational
trips, junkets, and further described CAF as ``a group that
paid for golf outings.'' \249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 240 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\247\ Id.
\248\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\249\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a July 10, 2002 memorandum to Hisa, Schwartz wrote about
Abramoff's request:

The Chairman of the committee handling our issue, and
several of his Congressional colleagues have had an
opportunity presented to travel to Scotland for a fact-
finding mission during the August recess. You will
recall that he and his colleagues have committed
themselves to a solution to the dilemma faced by the
Tigua Tribe and Alabama-Coushatta Tribe.
Toward this end, I have determined that the cost of the
delegation, their wives, and senior staff will be
$100,000. Neither the Tiguas nor the Alabama-Coushattas
has been solicited to underwrite this educational trip
abroad, but I would strongly recommend that both Tribes
consider a donation towards this effort.
The chairman is the one person who has taken on our
issue and has single-handedly carried the effort to
this point. I believe it would be a very powerful vote
of confidence if this contribution were made. There is
an educational foundation that will actually be sending
the delegation abroad and if you and the Alabama-
Coushatta Tribe were to divide this cost, it would send
a very strong message to a very powerful member of the
Congressional leadership team.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 10,
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).

Schwartz successfully convinced the Alabama-Coushatta to
donate to the trip. Thanking the Alabama-Coushatta for their
donation, Schwartz wrote: ``Thanks to you and your Council for
agreeing to assist in the effort. Your $50,000 check should be
made payable to the Capital Athletic Foundation.'' \251\
Because language favorably affecting the Alabama-Coushatta was
supposed to be included along with the Tigua's provision, the
Alabama Coushatta donated $50,000 to the Capital Athletic
Foundation, a private foundation established and operated by
Jack Abramoff.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (July 18,
2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Chairman Kevin Battise, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas).
\252\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Return of Private
Foundations Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The check was not forthcoming, however. Abramoff asked
Schwartz about the status of the CAF money on August 2 and
again on September 12.\253\ That Abramoff knew that his and
Scanlon's efforts on Election Reform were essentially dead in
the water did not stop Abramoff from soliciting and accepting
the money for the golf trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000076845) (August 2, 2002);
Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc Schwartz, Partners
Group Consultants (GTG-E000076899) (September 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview with Committee staff, Congressman Ney said
he never requested Abramoff to ask the Tigua to finance his
trip to Scotland.\254\ Of the trip, Congressman Ney said the
CAF sponsored it, and that Abramoff did not tell him CAF was
his private foundation.\255\ Congressman Ney said the purpose
of the trip was to raise money for underprivileged kids in
Scotland and Washington, D.C.\256\ The itinerary consisted of
golfing, meeting two parliamentarians, and watching the Marine
Band.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
\255\ Id.
\256\ Id.
\257\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. THE TRIBE MEETS WITH CONGRESSMAN NEY

At the Committee's November 17, 2004, hearing, Schwartz
testified, ``As the election reform measure languished
throughout the summer, Abramoff and Scanlon continued to report
on substantial progress and a virtual guarantee of success.
During that time, I requested a meeting between tribal
representatives and Congressman Ney.'' \258\ Abramoff set up
the meeting for early August 2002.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\259\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Schwartz, Abramoff claimed that ``Congressman
Ney did not want his trip to Scotland brought up, as he would
show his appreciation for the Tribe later.'' \260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 14, 2002, representatives of the Tigua and
Alabama-Coushatta met with Congressman Ney in Washington,
D.C.\261\ Both Schwartz and Hisa recalled that the meeting
lasted approximately one-and-a-half hours.\262\ In testimony
before the Committee, Schwartz described Congressman Ney as
``extremely animated about Mr. Abramoff and his ability as a
representative lobbyist in the city.'' \263\ According to
Schwartz, Congressman Ney spoke about his district, the Tigua's
plight, the political ramifications for Republicans of the
Tigua casino closing, and the federal legislative process,
especially the process by which committee reports are
done.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number) (August
2, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Chairman Kevin Battise, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas).
\262\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 240-41 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants); Id. at 231
(statement of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\263\ Id. at 241 (statement of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners
Group Consultants).
\264\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwartz also told the Committee that Congressman Ney gave
them assurances that he was working to help the Tigua.\265\
Thereafter, Schwartz recalled Congressman Ney giving Lt.
Governor Hisa and another tribal council member a tour of his
hearing room.\266\ According to Lt. Governor Hisa, at that
meeting (which was attended by not only Hisa but also Schwartz,
Tribal Council Member Raul Gutierrez, Abramoff and Congressman
Ney) Congressman Ney said that ``everyone who needs to be
involved, is on board.'' \267\ Congressman Ney said that he and
Senator Dodd were committed to getting the language in the bill
and that he did not foresee any problem with the Tigua-related
provision, Hisa recalled.\268\ Hisa also remembered that, about
Abramoff, Congressman Ney said that he was a ``good friend'';
``you're working with the right guy''; and ``this is the man to
work with for changes in Washington.'' \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ Id.
\266\ Id.
\267\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004). Schwartz recalled that
Congressman Ney's chief of staff was also present but stayed for ten
minutes. Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\268\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
\269\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Schwartz, Congressman Ney's chief of staff
gave Abramoff a huge bear hug.\270\ Schwartz recalled that
Congressman Ney went out of his way to say he would take care
of the Tigua's problems and kept calling the Tigua
``deserving.'' \271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his interview with Committee staff, Congressman Ney
said he was not familiar with the Tigua.\272\ He could not
recall ever meeting with any member of the Tigua.\273\ When
asked about a possible two-hour meeting, Congressman Ney said
he ``wouldn't even meet with the President for two hours.''
\274\ After the interview, counsel to Congressman Ney, who was
present during the interview, indicated that, according to an
internal email describing Congressman Ney's calendar for the
relevant period, a meeting was scheduled in Congressman Ney's
office with the ``Taqua,'' from 11:00-11:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
\273\ Id.
\274\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. ELECTION REFORM PASSES WITHOUT THE TIGUA PROVISION

From August through October, Abramoff and Scanlon continued
to report that the Senate would not be a problem, because
Senator Dodd had allegedly agreed to include the Tigua language
through his side.\275\ According to Senator Dodd and his staff,
although Congressman Ney's staff and Lottie Shackleford
approached Senator Dodd's office about including a provision
that Senator Dodd termed ``recognition,'' Senator Dodd never
agreed to include the Tigua provision in the Election Reform
bill.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 229 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\276\ Id. at 252 (prepared statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
U.S. Senator from Connecticut).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little over one month later, Schwartz reported to the
Tribal Council on another conversation that he had with
Abramoff.\277\ Schwartz was under the impression that ``our
language is in the report. We were asked by Chairman Ney to
step up the support for the measure and, as I reported on
Tuesday, Scanlon/Gould has achieved that.'' \278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Marc Schwartz document production (no Bates number)
(September 19, 2002) (Memorandum from Marc Schwartz, Partners Group
Consultants, to Governor Albert Alvidrez, Lt. Governor Carlos Hisa, and
Tribal Council, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\278\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weeks later, however, the Tigua's efforts were dead in the
water. The Tigua language was not included in the final
Election Reform legislation or accompanying report. Abramoff
told Schwartz that ``Congressman Ney had reported Senator Dodd
had gone back on his word and stripped the measure from the
committee report.'' \279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 230 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, there was never any language helping the Tigua in
any draft that came across the desk of Senator Dodd's
staff.\280\ Congressman Ney confirmed that no such language was
ever inserted.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ Interview of Sheryl Cohen, chief of staff, Senator
Christopher J. Dodd, in Washington, D.C. (November 16, 2004).
\281\ Interview of Honorable Robert W. Ney, Member, United States
House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Maher, who worked for Senator Dodd during the
relevant period, recalled that in the waning hours of the
conference on election reform, Congressman Ney's staff
approached him about getting the Tigua fix into the report
accompanying the bill.\282\ Maher said Paul Vinovich, former
Staff Director to the House Committee on Administration, raised
the issue, describing it as ``a fix'' to help a Southwestern
tribe's gaming.\283\ Maher recalled telling Vinovich that
``that was not where his boss was.'' \284\ According to Maher,
Vinovich did not press the issue further.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ Interview of Shawn Maher, legislative director, Senator
Christopher J. Dodd, in Washington, D.C. (November 16, 2004).
\283\ Id.
\284\ Id.
\285\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the waning moments of election reform, Schwartz wrote to
Abramoff: ``Jack: Ney's phone call tomorrow? Did we have a
miracle and get back on? What's next?'' \286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ Email between Marc Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (October 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded: ``We did not get back on. We are
strategizing on the Hill with Ney's guys and other friends
(recipients of contributions from the tribe included) at 1 PM
today. Call is on for tomorrow, but I don't have the precise
time yet. I'll get it to you shortly.'' \287\ Later that day,
Abramoff wrote ``Bob Ney will be available at 11 am East Coast
time tomorrow, Tuesday. We will use our conference call
facility.'' \288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ Id.
\288\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwartz told Committee staff that on October 8, the Tribe
had a conference call with Congressman Ney that lasted 20-30
minutes.\289\ During that teleconference, Congressman Ney
blamed Senator Dodd for the demise of the Tigua's
provision.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\290\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 8, the Tigua Tribal Council had a conference
call with Congressman Ney, Jack Abramoff, Tom Diamond and Marc
Schwartz.\291\ During that telephone conference, Schwartz
testified, Congressman Ney expressed ``disbelief that Senator
Dodd had gone back on his word'' and ``further reported that he
would continue to work on the issue and believed that the tribe
was entitled to their gaming operation.'' \292\ During the
call, according to Schwartz, Congressman Ney apologized for the
Tigua provision not making it in the bill.\293\ Schwartz also
recalled that Congressman Ney complained about Senator Dodd and
expressed outrage over his alleged last-minute withdrawal of
support.\294\ Congressman Ney said he would not give up and he
would work to get the Tigua language on other measures in 2003,
Schwartz recollected.\295\ And, according to Schwartz, he also
thanked the Tribe for its support and contributions.\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ Id. See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 230 (November 17, 2004)
(Statement of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\292\ Id.
\293\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\294\ Id.
\295\ Id.
\296\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. THE ELDER LEGACY PROJECT

After the failed effort on Election Reform, Abramoff
continued hounding the Tigua for more money. He proposed that
the Tribe take out life insurance policies on its elders, with
the proceeds to be paid to the Eshkol Academy, the all boys
Jewish school that Abramoff had established. Abramoff intended
the program, which he called the Elder Legacy Program, to
generate lobbying funds to pay for Abramoff's continued
representation of the Tribe and provide funding for
Eshkol.\297\ When Duane Gibson, an Abramoff associate at
Greenberg Traurig working on the Project, reminded Abramoff
that he could not use the insurance proceeds to lobby,
Abramoff's solution was to have the school use other funds to
pay the lobbying fees.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (no Bates number) (March 26,
2003).
\298\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson told the Committee that the Elder Legacy Program was
trying to leverage funds for Indian tribes, but mostly
charities, by acquiring life insurance policies for the tribe
or charity.\299\ The original pool of insureds were Indian
tribes, Alaskan Natives, and black church elders.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ Interview of Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington,
D.C. (March 17, 2006).
\300\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff told Gibson that Ralph Reed was going to be the
entree for the black churches, because Reed ``knows the
Southern Black Christian community.'' \301\ Apparently,
Abramoff pitched the idea to Reed, who thought it was
viable.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ Id.
\302\ Id.; see also Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig,
and Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000018092-93) (July 22, 2003)
(wherein Reed writes ``yes, it looks interesting. I assume you'll set
up a meeting in DC as a next step, or whatever we should do next, let
me know.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Gibson, Abramoff said that the Tigua were
``indebted to him because I [Abramoff] saved their asses and
they want to do this for me.'' \303\ Gibson believed ``the
whole Tigua thing was a perversion of the original purpose.''
\304\ Although he was scheduled to meet with Schwartz in El
Paso about the program, the meeting never took place.\305\ The
reason: after initially, internally approving the idea, the
Tribal Council decided not to move forward on it.\306\ Lt.
Governor Hisa met with the Tribal elders, who rejected it.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ Interview of Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington,
D.C. (March 17, 2006).
\304\ Id.
\305\ Id.
\306\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 235 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo).
\307\ Id. at 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION

When The Washington Post articles about Abramoff and
Scanlon were published in February 2004, Abramoff tried to
downplay them: ``The piece was the usual hit bullshit, but
what's new. Funny part (for me, not Mike) was that 60% of the
over 300 emails I got thought it was a puff piece. Thank G-D
for ADD!'' \308\ In a telephone call, Abramoff assured Schwartz
``that there was nothing to the articles, that it was certainly
more of a witch hunt that a reporter had done.'' \309\ Of the
Committee's proposed hearings, Abramoff said they ``were
nothing more than political payback.'' \310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000075963) (February 23,
2004).
\309\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 236 (November 17, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\310\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the second article ran in The Washington Post about
the relationship between Abramoff and Scanlon, Abramoff called
Schwartz to say that the Tribe did not have to cooperate in the
Committee's investigation.\311\ In the event that Committee
counsel or investigators called the Tribe, Abramoff wanted the
Tribe to speak with his lawyers first.\312\ Abramoff said that
the Tribe had tribal sovereignty and that the Tribe did not
need to cooperate with the Committee.\313\ Abramoff said that
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians were not cooperating
with the investigation, and suggested that the Tigua not
cooperate as well.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 247 (November 17, 2004); see also
Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants, in
Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\312\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 247 (November 17, 2004).
\313\ Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\314\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. CONCLUSION

The $4.2 million that the Tribe regrettably paid Scanlon
could have lasted the Tribe for another year.\315\ At a
minimum, some of that money could have been used to hire
lobbyists who could have represented the Tribe better in the
legislative process.\316\ The Tribe would have dedicated much
of the money to education and health care.\317\ As a result of
the $4.2 million payout to Scanlon, and the casino's closure,
key programs, namely an insurance program for the Tribal
members, had to be cut back or eliminated.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\315\ Interview of Carlos Hisa, Lieutenant Governor, Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas (October 28, 2004).
\316\ Id.
\317\ Id.
\318\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Committee's November 17, 2004, hearing, when
asked how he felt upon learning that the Tribe had paid for a
golf outing for the man who had worked to shut down the Tigua
casino, Lt. Governor Hisa replied, ``A rattlesnake will warn
you before it strikes. We had no warning. They did everything
behind our back.'' \319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\319\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 244 (November 17, 2004).
CHAPTER VI

PUEBLO OF SANDIA OF NEW MEXICO

A. INTRODUCTION

The experience of the Pueblo of Sandia with Jack Abramoff
and his partner Michael Scanlon is a microcosm of the larger
scandal that has been exposed by the Committee during its
investigation of lobbying activities associated with six Indian
Tribes. The characters and the elements of deception are much
the same. However, the financial loss to the Pueblo of Sandia
and the subsequent financial gain to Abramoff and Scanlon were,
relatively speaking, on a scale considerably smaller than what
the other Tribes experienced. This fact was not lost on
Abramoff and Scanlon early in their relationship with the
Pueblo of Sandia, as evidenced by the following email exchange
on March 7, 2002, that was titled ``Sandia'':

Scanlon: ``[$]2.75 [million] is chump change!!! What
[t]he hell were we thinking?''
Abramoff: ``No kidding. [then-Abramoff associate Kevin]
Ring brought us down! Next time one of these guys
brings us something we are not going to listen to their
fucking whining.''
Scanlon: ``Hey--its still a W--[sic] and I will take
the W [sic] any way we can--now a [$]4.5 [million] W
[sic] would be nicer--but wait till Thursday when
[Coushatta] comes to town!'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000003033) (March 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. BACKGROUND ON THE TRIBE

In February 2002, the Pueblo of Sandia, a Tribe located on
the northern boundary of Albuquerque, was facing perhaps the
most significant legal challenge of its 700-year existence in
New Mexico.\2\ In the late 1980s, with development beginning to
encroach on the sacred Sandia Mountain, the Tribe appealed to
the Department of the Interior to correct a survey conducted in
1859.\3\ The correction would designate the main ridge of the
Sandia Mountain as the Pueblo's eastern boundary.\4\ Years of
litigation ensued that involved the Pueblo of Sandia,
government agencies, and area residents, culminating in a
settlement agreement on April 4, 2000 that, by its terms,
required Congressional ratification by November 15, 2002.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim, (visited May 11, 2006) ; Interview of Stuwart
Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\3\ Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim, (visited May 11, 2006) .
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.; Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-E000002775-76)
(undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement was of monumental importance to
the Tribe.\6\ Having the Sandia Mountain as its boundary
signified more than a property settlement.\7\ The Mountain's
significance is described on the Tribe's web site:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim, (visited May 11, 2006) .
\7\ Id.

For centuries, the people of Sandia Pueblo have lived
in the shadow of the mountain. The mountain has served
as our church and our spiritual sustenance for hundreds
of years. The mountain is the highest priority of the
people of Sandia Pueblo, a sacred responsibility of
every generation. This is not a question of ownership
for the Pueblo, it is a question of preservation and
protection of the mountain, and the ability to practice
religious and culture traditions unrestricted by
government edict.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Why is the Mountain So Important to the People of Sandia?
(visited May 11, 2006) .

According to the former Governor of the Tribe, Stuart
Paisano, the Pueblo of Sandia have 481 enrolled members.\9\
They have a traditional government structure in which their
religious leaders play an important role in selecting the
Tribe's governor and other leadership positions.\10\ The Tribe
has 23,000 acres and their native language is Tigua.\11\ Their
economy has transitioned in the last thirty years from mining
and federal assistance to Class III gaming.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. THE SEARCH FOR A NEW LOBBYIST

The Pueblo of Sandia had considerable experience with legal
counsel through their years of litigation and retained a local
law firm that was trusted by the Tribe.\13\ They were also not
unsophisticated in the ways of the lobbying world and had, over
time, retained several firms in Washington, D.C. to help them
on various matters.\14\ However, securing Congressional
approval of a major lands settlement thrust them into a
different political sphere, particularly at a time when the
federal political landscape had changed considerably. There was
a new Republican administration and a new set of political
appointees at the Department of the Interior. The Pueblo of
Sandia were uncertain about whether the New Mexico Delegation
would support ratification of the settlement.\15\ The stakes
were high and the clock was ticking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
\14\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\15\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was against this backdrop of urgency that David Mielke,
a longtime and trusted counsel to the Pueblo of Sandia,
suggested that the Tribe consider hiring a lobbyist with
Republican connections.
Late in 2001, Governor Paisano, Lieutenant Governor Alex
Lujan, and Tribal council member Frank Chaves and Lawrence
Avila were tasked with vetting several firms for the job.\16\
Ultimately, the search team interviewed several top Washington
lobbyists that Mielke identified for the Tribe, including the
firm of Quinn Gillespie & Associates and former Senator Bob
Dole.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
\17\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the Washington lobbyists who was of particular
interest to the Tribe was Kevin Ring.\18\ Several of Mielke's
partners were familiar and impressed with Ring's work for other
Tribes.\19\ In February 2002, arrangements were made for the
Tribal leaders to meet with Ring who was accompanied by his
boss, Jack Abramoff. Michael Scanlon was an unexpected
participant at the meeting.\20\ In pitching his services,
Abramoff stressed his Republican connections, going back to his
days working on grassroots activities for President Reagan.\21\
Scanlon was described as DeLay's former communications director
and someone who helped with elections in competitive
Congressional districts.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.; Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\21\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon's price tag for the task was $2,875,000, most of
which, he said, would be the cost of a database to conduct the
grassroots effort.\23\ In an interview with Committee staff,
Mielke recalled that while this amount seemed high, Abramoff
said that almost the entire price was costs and that the
profits were actually less than 10% of the total proposed
price.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mielke also recalled that, during these sessions, Scanlon
pitched the database as ``a key component'' of the program.\25\
Mielke said that Scanlon specifically characterized ``the
software [as] the army, which would mean 10,000 soldiers who
could be counted on.'' \26\ Paisano remembered Scanlon
describing the database as ``customized'' and necessary ``to
effectively do public relations [for the proposed project].''
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff was intent on having the Tribe sign Scanlon as
part of the arrangement, according to both Mielke and Governor
Paisano, Abramoff insisted that Scanlon was a sine qua non of
the federal lobbying efforts Abramoff intended to undertake on
the Tribe's behalf. He characterized Scanlon as ``part of the
package'' and an indispensable part of his proposal, if he was
to achieve success.\28\ Abramoff also offered to halve
Greenberg Traurig's $125,000 per month retainer if the Tribe
hired Scanlon. And, finally, he proposed, on Scanlon's behalf,
a ``slight'' reduction from how much Scanlon originally wanted
to charge the Tribe, plus a success fee. But, Abramoff
cautioned, he could not go lower because Scanlon's ``10% profit
margin is locked [into that reduced figure].'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\29\ Id.; Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006). The
evidence set forth in Part 2, Chapter 1, entitled ``Capitol Campaign
Strategies,'' of this Report reflects Abramoff's admission in the plea
agreement in his criminal case that Scanlon's profit margin on his
contracts with the Tribes was closer to 80%. See Plea Agreement,
Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 22, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist.
D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001); see also Email between Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign
Strategies (GTG-E000003054) (March 20-21, 2002) (``I told [Ring] that
he would split the profit (what I told him was 10%) with you 50-50.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Paisano recalled in his interview with Committee
staff that Abramoff impressed the Tribal leaders with his
aggressive approach, specifically recalling Abramoff
``talk[ing] about breaking bones and busting kneecaps.'' \30\
Paisano said he was left with the impression that Scanlon
worked for Greenberg Traurig.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pueblo of Sandia and their counsel chafed at the cost
of the Scanlon proposal, but they wanted Abramoff and,
particularly, Ring on their side.\32\ According to Mielke, the
Tribe's view was that adequate representation was the most
important issue for the Tribe and that cost should not be an
issue.\33\ The Tribe considered which prospective lobbyist gave
it the greatest assurances: ``That was a question: `can you
guarantee this?' '' \34\ ``Abramoff and Scanlon had the most
bravado and said that while they couldn't guarantee that,
they've never lost,'' Mielke observed.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\33\ Id.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, after several rounds of interviews, Tribal leaders were
nearly unanimous in thier decision to hire Greenberg Traurig,
with only Governor Paisano and Council Member Frank Chaves
expressing some concerns.\36\ Ultimately, the Tribe selected
Abramoff and Ring at Greenberg Traurig, and entered into a
separate contract with Scanlon to conduct the grassroots
effort.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\37\ Id.; Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Pueblo of
Sandia document production (SP-S 00046-48) (March 14, 2002) (letter of
agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and Pueblo of Sandia of
New Mexico for $2,750,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

On March 19, 2002, Governor Paisano signed a letter of
agreement with Scanlon in which the Tribe committed to pay
$2,750,000 for public affairs services.\38\ The total payment
was due ten days later.\39\ As described more thoroughly in
Part 2, Chapter 1, of this Report, these funds were wired to an
account controlled by Capitol Campaign Strategies, one of
Scanlon's companies, from which countless withdrawals were
subsequently made to Abramoff (or entities owned or controlled
by him). It is notable that, given that part of Scanlon's
proposal was to conduct several letter writing campaigns, the
letter of agreement, which he drafted, included numerous
typographical errors and misspellings.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Pueblo of Sandia document production (SP-S 00046-48) (March
14, 2002) (letter of agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and
Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico for $2,750,000).
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ring's activities focused on the federal legislative
effort. On March 20-21, within a few days of the contract being
signed, Scanlon and Abramoff had occasion to reflect on their
arrangement with him:

Scanlon: [Ring] asked if we got the wire yet in an
email. I have no problem telling him yes--what do we
owe him again? 10% of profit?
Abramoff: No, 5% of gross. I told him that he would
split the profit (which I told him was 10%) with you
50-50.
Scanlon: So we owe him 135k?
Abramoff: Damn I guess so. [sic] Shit, that sucks.
Scanlon: I forgot to tie that amoun tin [sic] to the
sandia [sic] figures--so our numbers are going to come
down a little bit.
Abramoff: Finders [sic] fee I guess. ...\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000003054) (March 20-21,
2002).

Ring's ``finder's fee'' was apparently in violation of an
outside income policy at his firm Greenberg Traurig.\42\ In
testimony before the Committee on November 2, 2005, Fred
Baggett, Managing Shareholder and Chairman of the National
Government Affairs Practice at Greenberg Traurig, said that the
firm's internal investigation ``has found, and as we have
informed Federal authorities and I believe this committee, we
found a number of other instances where members of Mr.
Abramoff's team had received compensation outside of the
firm.'' \43\ One of those Baggett named was Kevin Ring.\44\ Of
course, the most egregious offender of the policy was Abramoff
who had plotted with Scanlon to split the Pueblo of Sandia
profit as part of their ``gimme five'' scheme. It should also
be noted that Kevin Ring, who the Tribe trusted and respected,
did not disclose his financial arrangement with Scanlon to the
Tribe until 2004, months after the publication of the
Washington Post article that initially exposed the Abramoff and
Scanlon lobbying scandal.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 23 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of Fred
Baggett, Chair, National Governmental Affairs Practice, Greenberg
Traurig).
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After spending at least a month hiring their lobbying and
grassroots team, the Tribe was eager to start seeing some
results. They quickly realized that there was a disconnect
between the bravado of the pitch they had received and the
quality of Scanlon's work of what was done. As Mielke explained
to Committee staff:

Their pitch is that things are sliding quickly. Hire us
soon or we are not going to do it. ... The Tribe acted
quickly, [and] wired the money to Scanlon. A couple of
weeks lapsed and Scanlon sends out three people to New
Mexico. They sent me draft letters that were poorly
written. It was Chris Cathcart, [CCS associate,] a
fairly young woman who turned out to be Scanlon's
sister, and another woman. ... These people weren't
high dollar, high quality folks. I took the Governor to
dinner to express concerns. It didn't take long to
question the value of Scanlon. Once these letters
started coming in, they were obviously form letters
with small variations. One letter went to the
Albuquerque Journal. Someone from the paper called me
and asked what were we [sic] doing. Word circulated.
There was no variation in who they would send the
letters to, including typos in letters. The Tribe was
happy with Ring[;] he would get back to them[,] seemed
on top of things. Abramoff and Scanlon dropped off as
soon as the deal was signed. Even the polls I saw
weren't works of art.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. THE DATABASE

As with other Tribal clients, Scanlon's sales pitch
centered on the customized database, which he said would be the
heart of the grassroots effort. Mielke, in his interview with
Committee staff, recalled the following:

... [a] big part of the fee was the software and time
and personnel that they would spend in compiling this
database ... they said it was going to cost between $2
and $3 million for the whole effort and that the
database would be a big part. This was just Scanlon.
... Scanlon had a staff of 16 people, talking about
10,000 FedEx packages. This was going to be a sprint,
[sic] this money was going to go out immediately for
vendors and software.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id.

In fact, in the contract between Scanlon and the Tribe,
$1,857,000 is specifically identified for ``Building of
National Political Organization.'' \48\ The scope of work
``include[d] acquisition and design of hardware and software,
data matching, grassroots development, online applications and
political modifications.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Pueblo of Sandia document production (SP-S 00046) (March 14,
2002) (letter of agreement between Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and
Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico).
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, according to Mielke and Paisano, the database was
significantly less than what had been promised.\50\ It appeared
to be a simplistic regurgitation of the data that the Tribe had
provided to Scanlon.\51\ Paisano described the database as
``pathetic'' and Mielke said it was the ``same info that the
Tribe gave them; no magic in it.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\51\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\52\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As more fully discussed in Part 2, Chapter 1, of this
Report, it appears that Scanlon copied (in violation of
licensing agreements to which he was a party) elements of a
database created by Democracy Data Communications (``DDC'').
Scanlon had originally subcontracted DDC to build political
databases for other Tribes. The actual cost of a database
developed for the Tribe by another vendor, which was apparently
designed to mimic DDC's far more functional database, was
nowhere near the $1,875,000 that the Tribe was charged by
Scanlon.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the urgency of the situation and
acknowledging the fact that Scanlon's grassroots campaign was a
failure and an embarrassment--``amateurish'' in Mielke's
words--Mielke and the Tribe began their own grassroots effort,
independent of Scanlon's.\54\ The Tribe also hired a local
public relations firm to assist in their efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mielke and Paisano continued to express concern and
criticism of Scanlon's work product.\55\ As an indication of
how out of touch he appeared to be, Scanlon actually
entertained the idea of asking the Tribe for more money, as
evidenced in the following June 25, 2002, email exchange with
Kevin Ring and Jack Abramoff:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).

Scanlon: Hey--I have a few thoughts--1) The land
exchange concept was a huge tactical blunder that is
going to haunt the tribe for years to come. 2) We need
another 3 mil to win this thing now. 3) They should
Take [sic] Bingaman and be happy. Wow [,] we are in a
pickle now.
Ring: Are you on drugs?
Scanlon: Really good ones!
Abramoff: Tell him to recommend some for us to take!
Ring: I know. All kidding aside, if he even thinks of
asking for more money, they are going to hunt him down
and kill him. And then come after us.
Abramoff: Ha ha ha
Scanlon: I'm gonna go for it--Im [sic] gonna schedule a
conference cal [sic] and ask for 2 more mil!
Abramoff: I love it!!!!! \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, Kevin Ring,
Greenberg Traurig, and Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies
(GTG-E000003258-59) (June 25, 2002).

Several months later, when the Tribe was renegotiating its
contract with Greenberg Traurig, the lighthearted mood was
noticeably absent, as evidenced by the following March 4, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
email exchange between Ring and Abramoff:

Ring: ... Once again for Sandia, the issue was Scanlon.
They said we did a great lobbying job, but since we
insisted that they hire him, we bore responsibility for
his lack of performance ...
Abramoff: Kevin, this excuse about Scanlon from them is
bullshit. I don't care how much they hate him, they
paid for a result and they got it. whether [sic] he did
what they wanted or not, they got their fucking
mountain. And for them to be telling you they won't
rehire us because of him is also fucking bullshit. I
know that not getting them will be a big hit on you and
I am sorry about that, and I support whatever you want
to do on this, but I think they're already gone and
they are using that Scanlon excuse because they are
cheap mother fuckers who don't want to pay our fees. I
say fuck them and let's go get you a different tribe
which appreciates hard work.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Kevin
Ring, Greenberg Traurig, (GTG-E000003763) (March 4, 2003).

As it turned out, the Pueblo of Sandia extended their
contract, at a reduced rate, with Greenberg Traurig until the
revelations of the Washington Post were published in 2004.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia
of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. A HAPPY ENDING, IN SPITE OF ...

The Committee finds that deception was a consistent theme
in the Pueblo of Sandia's relationship with Abramoff and
Scanlon: the exorbitant fee for a ``pathetic'' database; the
secret financial arrangement between Abramoff and Scanlon; the
undisclosed ``finder's fee'' to Kevin Ring; and the
overwhelming incompetency of the grassroots effort.
The Tribe's experience with Scanlon gave new meaning to the
phrase ``take the money and run.'' Mielke and Governor Paisano
agreed that the Tribe received little of the intended benefit
of the millions that the Tribe paid Scanlon.\59\ They also felt
that the Tribe was aggrieved by Abramoff and Scanlon's failure
to disclose their financial arrangement.\60\ And, they were
frustrated by the poor quality of Scanlon's grassroots
activities and felt that Scanlon's status reports were
inadequate.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\60\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\61\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the concerns of local citizens were addressed and
neutralized by the Tribe and its counsel, the uncertainty about
how some members of the New Mexico Delegation felt about the
settlement began to fade. The settlement legislation was
considered favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
In the end, the combination of support from the New Mexico
Delegation and a homegrown grassroots effort was the key to
Congressional approval. Success was achieved, but for reasons
wholly unrelated to the extraordinarily expensive pretensions
of Abramoff and Scanlon.
PART TWO--``GIMME FIVE''--ANALYSIS BY ENTITY

INTRODUCTION

[W]e really need mo money. but [sic] you and I must
meet and work out a strategy to get things moving. We
are missing the boat. There are a ton of potential
opportunities out there. there [sic] are 27 tribes
which make over $100M a year ... can you have your guys
do the research and find out which tribes these may be?
We need to get moving on them ...

Email from Jack Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, December 7,
2002

Scanlon: Hey--good day all around--we wrapped up the
Sag Chip crap--We hit Coush--I think for 3 mil--and we
are working [on] Acaliente [sic] presentation--should
be tight.
Abramoff: Thanks so much! You are a great partner. What
I love about our partnership is that, when one of us is
down, the other is there. We're gonna make $ for years
together!
Scanlon: Amen! You got it boss--we have many years
ahead!

Email between Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff, June 20,
2002

The Committee held its first hearing on allegations of
misconduct made by several Indian Tribes against Jack Abramoff
and Michael Scanlon on September 29, 2004. At that hearing, the
Committee preliminarily concluded that Scanlon collected about
$66 million from six tribes over a three-year period, and
secretly paid about one-third of that amount to Abramoff.\1\
Since then, the Committee has held a series of hearings and
released scores of documents that describe how Abramoff and
Scanlon executed their scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 5-9 (September 29, 2004) (opening
Statement of Ranking Majority Member John McCain).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of its hearings, the Committee laid out how
Abramoff and Scanlon agreed that Abramoff would work to ensure
that these Tribes would hire a grassroots/public relations
specialist to support Abramoff's lobbying activities. In
furtherance of their scheme, Abramoff pushed for Scanlon as
that specialist.
Having violated these Tribes' trust by not disclosing the
resulting conflict of interest, Abramoff secretly collected
from Scanlon about 50 percent of Scanlon's net proceeds--from
contracts that Scanlon or Abramoff promoted to the Tribes.
The prices that Scanlon charged for his services (well in
excess of his costs) were set deliberately high so as to allow
him to pay Abramoff about 50 percent of his net proceeds from
those Tribes--with much of the money paid by the Tribes not
going for purposes the Tribes intended.
Admitting to the foregoing, on November 11, 2005, and
January 3, 2006, respectively, Scanlon and Abramoff pled guilty
in federal court to, among other things, defrauding some of
their Tribal clients.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Michael P.S.
Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea Agreement,
Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January
3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a small scale, Abramoff and Scanlon apparently set their
scheme in motion in April 2001, when they urged the Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta'') to pay $200,000
for a grassroots program regarding its gaming compact.\3\ On or
about April 26, 2001, the Tribe paid a Scanlon-controlled
entity called Capitol Campaign Strategies (``CCS'') $200,000,
as requested.\4\ But, soon thereafter, CCS paid Abramoff
$75,000--itemized in the company's accounting ledger on April
30, 2001, as a ``referral expense.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Coushatta political program''
(COUSH-MiscFin-0000371) (April 12, 2001) (``I still do not have the
budget for the complete effort, but Mike believes we cannot wait any
longer for the ground effort, so I need to get this to you for
approval. ... Please let me know if I can give Mike the go ahead.'');
Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to Kathryn Van
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Re: Political Program funding''
(COUSH-MiscFin-0000368) (April 18, 2001) (``The total for the program
is $539,000. In order to get started the tribe will need to pay $200k
up front to cover the organizational program. ... If thre [sic] is any
way to get the initial money out today it would be great!'').
\4\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\5\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon's secret fee-splitting arrangement is
likewise reflected in a May 2, 2001, email, where they agreed
to split proceeds from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(``Choctaw'') that were intended to be passed through a
Scanlon-controlled entity called the American International
Center (``AIC'') to former Christian Coalition executive
director Ralph Reed for grassroots activities. According to
Abramoff, ``I am going to try to get us $175K. $100 to Ralph;
$25K to contributions ($5K immediately to Conservative Caucus);
rest gimme five.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0001321307) (May 2, 2001).
Abramoff and Scanlon, both of whom were apparently avid golfers, even
came up with a name for their new business arrangement: ``Gimme [or
give me] five.'' The Committee speculates that ``gimme five'' is a
double entendre for the golf term ``gimme,'' which refers to a putt
that is certain to be made on the next shot, which will most likely be
conceded by an opponent. Where Abramoff valued his interest in CCS, at
``$5M revenue/year,'' see Email between Jack Abramoff and Rodney Lane,
``FW: Personal financial statement'' (GTG-E000011577) (March 15, 2002),
the term also appears to reflect Abramoff and Scanlon's original
agreement to acquire at least $5 million each per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scheme would soon soar to new heights. On June 18,
2001, Scanlon suggested to Abramoff, ``A few weeks ago you
mentioned something to me--I took the concept and have put
together a plan that will make serious money. We also talked
briefly about it in the beginning of the year but I think we
can really move it now.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, and
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011945) (June 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon continued: ``I have been making contacts with some
larger Public Affairs companies in town for a few months. I
have two solid relationships that will seriously consider
acquiring Capitol Campaign Strategies. The problem is that
there is not much in CCS right now.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``However,'' he observed, ``if we build up Capitol Campaign
Strategies enough I can get it acquired by a large firm by the
end of next year at 3x the firm revenue. Bottom line: If you
help me get CCS a client base of $3 million a year, I will get
the clients served, and the firm acquired at $9 million. We can
then split the [sic] up the profits. What do you think?'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff's response was brief: ``Sounds like a plan, but
let's discuss when we are together.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff apparently agreed. Just a few days later,
referring to a ``project [that Abramoff] need[ed] to run
trhough [sic] [a Scanlon company],'' Abramoff wrote Scanlon,
``Apparently it's a huge project. ... It'll give us $500K to
start to pass through CCS and as much as $4 million over the
year. This should really help us get the sales price up.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011951) (June 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus began Abramoff and Scanlon's now-infamous financial
relationship--a relationship that would enable the two to
wrongfully extract tens of millions of dollars from tribes
around the country over the next two years.
By August 2001, what started as a seemingly innocuous
partnership soon degenerated into an all-out frenzy for money--
money at any cost. In response to Scanlon's informing him that
``[the Choctaw] really liked [a particular] plan ... [and]
asked if I could do a quick poll for them on the [REDACTED]
overall political issues they face,'' Abramoff reminded
Scanlon, ``Don't forget the gimme five aspects!'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, ``RE: Nell'' (Bates number
1109861) (August 16, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 2, 2001, Scanlon was ecstatic about how they
were doing so far: ``I'm having a great time running the give
me fives!'' \13\ There was good reason for Scanlon's elation.
Later that month, he reportedly bought, likely with the Tribes'
money, two houses in Washington, D.C. for $1.2 million.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, ``RE: [REDACTED]'' (1118666)
(September 2, 2001).
\14\ Brody Mullins, Breakup of Ex-Aides Shook Group Tied to
Abramoff--The Prosecutors Move In; Ms. Miller's Tearful Apology, Wall
Street Journal, March 31, 2006 at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With his share of those proceeds, Abramoff apparently
intended to float his private Jewish boys' school. On September
10, 2001, he asked Scanlon, ``Can you let me know how much more
(than the current +/- 660K) we would each score should
Coushatta come through for this phase, and Choctaw continue to
make the transfers. I need to assess where I am at for the
school's sake.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113995) (September 10,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, Scanlon reported that Abramoff would get ``a
total of 2.1 [million].'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E0000113847) (September 10,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff heaped praise on his partner, ``How can I say this
strongly enough: YOU IZ DA MAN.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113847) (September 10,
2001) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not content with the $2.1 million, Scanlon exhorted,
``[L]et's grow that 2.1 to 5!! We need the true give me five!''
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff conveyed enthusiasm about their arrangement on
October 16, 2001: ``I love life!! We need to get you down there
to get [the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians] moving on the
political phase. How about if we both try to go soon.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, ``RE: [REDACTED]'' (Bates numbers
1131487-88) (October 17, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon agreed, ``Any time--any time--any time!!! We
usually come back from these trips rich men!'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From late 2001 through 2003, ``running [their] give me
fives'' was Abramoff and Scanlon's top priority. In a January
16, 2002, email from Abramoff to Scanlon, entitled
``sagchips,'' Abramoff wrote, ``Don't forget to get to [Saginaw
Chippewa Sub-Chief David] Otto and set up a meeting asap. We
need that moolah. We have to hit $50M this year (our cut!).''
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000024563) (January 16,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of their ``gimme five'' scheme, Abramoff and
Scanlon collected about $66 million from six tribes from 2001
through 2003. By the Committee's reckoning, each Tribe paid
Scanlon as follows: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(``Choctaw''), $14,745,650; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
(``Louisiana Coushatta''), $26,695,500; the Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe of Michigan (``Saginaw Chippewa''), $10,007,000;
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''),
$7,200,000; the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''),
$4,200,000; and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (``Pueblo of
Sandia''), $2,750,000.
Also by the Committee's accounting, Abramoff or entities
owned or controlled by Abramoff, including Kaygold and the
Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), received payments
totaling about $24,524,421 from Scanlon or entities owned or
controlled by Scanlon, including Capitol Campaign Strategies
(``CCS'') (which also did business as Scanlon Gould Public
Affairs and Scanlon Public Affairs), the American International
Center (``AIC''), and Atlantic Research and Analysis
(``ARA'').\22\ That seems to constitute about half of Scanlon's
total profit from the Tribes. The following lays out the basis
for the Committee's finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In Abramoff's plea agreement, the total figure is $23,109,695,
which includes not only indirect payments by Tribes to Abramoff or
Abramoff-controlled entities through entities controlled by Scanlon but
also direct payments by several companies, including Foxcom Wireless,
S.P.I. Spirits, and Tyco International, to entities controlled by
Abramoff, including Grassroots Interactive. See Plea Agreement, Factual
Basis for Plea at para 1-31, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C.,
January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001). In Scanlon's plea agreement, the figure
is $19,698,644, which captures about 50% of the net profit Scanlon
received from at least four tribes that had already hired Abramoff ``to
provide professional services to develop programs to limit market
competition or to assist in opening casinos that were vital to the
profitability of [the] clients.'' See Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for
Plea at para. 8, U.S. v. Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11,
2005) (CR 05-411). In other words, it appears to exclude payments made
by the Agua Caliente, which had not hired Abramoff before hiring
Scanlon.

``GIMME FIVE'' PROCEEDS TO ABRAMOFF AND ABRAMOFF-CONTROLLED ENTITIES 2001-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Payee Amount Payor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/30/01.................................. Abramoff................... $75,000 CCS
5/20/01.................................. CAF........................ 182,000 CCS
6/10/01.................................. Abramoff................... 50,000 CCS
10/4/01.................................. Abramoff................... 100,000 CCS
10/25/01................................. Abramoff................... 428,000 CCS
11/7/01.................................. CAF........................ 1,000,000 Coushatta through Greenberg
Traurig
12/19/01................................. Abramoff................... 300,000 CCS
12/31/01................................. Abramoff................... 1,718,125 CCS
1/1/02................................... CAF........................ 500,000 Choctaw
2/22//02................................. Kaygold.................... 2,779,925 CCS
3/21/02.................................. Abramoff................... 4,080,997 CCS
4/8/02................................... Kaygold.................... 2,138,025 CCS
5/30/02.................................. Abramoff................... 16,397 CCS
6/12/02.................................. Kaygold.................... 150,000 CCS
7/12/02.................................. Kaygold.................... 800,000 CCS
7/12/02.................................. Kaygold.................... 20,000 CCS
7/12/02.................................. Kaygold.................... 44,000 CCS
8/6/02................................... CAF........................ 500,000 Choctaw
9/16/02.................................. Kaygold.................... 2,266,250 CCS
10/17/02................................. CAF & Nurnberger........... 500,000 Choctaw through NCPPR
11/11/02................................. Kaygold.................... 1,078,649 CCS
12/03/02................................. Kaygold.................... 87,907 CCS
12/31/02................................. Kaygold.................... 1,000,146 CCS
12/31/02................................. Kaygold.................... 53,000 CCS
2/19/03.................................. Kaygold.................... 1,965,000 CCS
4/13/03.................................. Kaygold.................... 991,000 AIC
5/7/03................................... CAF........................ 950,000 Atlantic Research &
Analysis
10/27/03................................. Kaygold.................... 750,000 CCS
-------------
Total $24,524,421 ...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the sections that follow, this Report will discuss how
Abramoff and Scanlon ran their ``gimme five'' scheme on six of
their tribal clients: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(``Choctaw''), the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana
Coushatta''), the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
(``Saginaw Chippewa''), the Agua Caliente Tribe of the Cauhilla
Indians (``Agua Caliente''), the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas
(``Tigua'') and the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (``Pueblo of
Sandia'') (collectively, ``the Tribes'' and individually, ``the
Tribe''). Although this Report will mention other vehicles
owned or controlled by Abramoff or Scanlon, this Section will
focus on how they did so by using primarily three: Capitol
Campaign Strategies (``CCS''), the American International
Center (``AIC''), and the Capital Athletic Foundation
(``CAF'').

CHAPTER I

CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES

[W]e should not reveal [valuing my share in Capitol
Campaign Strategies (``CCS'') at $5 million per year]
to anyone but [my tax advisor], though, since no one
knows the CCS stuff.

Email from Jack Abramoff to business associate Rodney Lane,
March 15, 2002

Abramoff: Thanks so much! You are a great partner. What
I love about our partnership is that, when one of us is
down, the other is there. [w]e're gonna make $ for
years together!''
Scanlon: Amen! You got it boss--we have many years
ahead!

Email between Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, June 20,
2002

Schmidt: Do you have an ownership stake in Capitol
Campaign Strategies or Scanlon Gould or any of Mike
Scanlon's ventures?
Abramoff: No. No, I don't.

Exchange between Jack Abramoff and Washington Post reporter
Susan Schmidt, on February 4, 2004, as transcribed in a
Greenberg Traurig email

A. BACKGROUND

Of all the entities that Michael Scanlon owned or
controlled, the one that he and Jack Abramoff used most
extensively in carrying out their ``gimme five'' scheme was
Capitol Campaign Strategies (``CCS''), which also did business
as Scanlon Gould Public Affairs and Scanlon Public Affairs.\23\
CCS was first started up ``to help Scanlon collect [consulting]
fees.'' \24\ During the first quarter of 2001, CCS' only client
appears to have been SunCruz Casinos, a Florida-based casino
cruise-ship company that Abramoff and a former business
partner, Adam Kidan, have admitted to defrauding.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The Committee finds and, in court filings Scanlon has
admitted, that Scanlon Gould Public Affairs was largely used to receive
funds in the performance of business activities of CCS. See Plea
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 2, U.S. v. Michael P.S.
Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR 05-411). Therefore, this
Report will refer to CCS, Scanlon Gould Public Affairs, and Scanlon
Public Affairs interchangeably as ``CCS'' or ``Scanlon.''
\24\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\25\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para.1, U.S. v. Jack
A. Abramoff (S.D. Fla. January 4, 2006) (CR 05-60204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2001 through 2003, CCS secretly paid Abramoff, and
entities owned or controlled by Abramoff, including an entity
called Kaygold, about $20,083,421. In total, those payments,
set forth below, constitute about half of Scanlon's net profit
from the Tribes.

SECRET PAYMENTS BY CCS TO ABRAMOFF FROM 2001-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/30/01............................ Abramoff.............. $75,000
5/20/01............................ CAF................... 182,000
6/10/01............................ Abramoff.............. 50,000
10/4/01............................ Abramoff.............. 100,000
10/25/01........................... Abramoff.............. 428,000
12/19/01........................... Abramoff.............. 300,000
12/31/01........................... Abramoff.............. 1,718,125
2/22/02............................ Kaygold............... 2,779,925
3/21/02............................ Abramoff.............. 4,080,997
4/8/02............................. Kaygold............... 2,138,025
5/30/02............................ Abramoff.............. 16,397
6/12/02............................ Kaygold............... 150,000
7/12/02............................ Kaygold............... 800,000
7/12/02............................ Kaygold............... 20,000
7/12/02............................ Kaygold............... 44,000
9/16/02............................ Kaygold............... 2,266,250
11/11/02........................... Kaygold............... 1,078,649
12/03/02........................... Kaygold............... 87,907
12/31/02........................... Kaygold............... 1,000,146
12/31/02........................... Kaygold............... 53,000
2/19/03............................ Kaygold............... 1,965,000
10/27/03........................... Kaygold............... 750,000
------------
Total.......................... ...................... 20,083,421
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the sections that follow, this Chapter will describe how
Abramoff and Scanlon used CCS to further their ``gimme five''
scheme. In particular, it will describe how most of the money
that the Tribes paid Scanlon was used for purposes unintended
by the Tribes and how, in most cases, the Tribes received
little of the intended benefit for the vast sums that they paid
CCS.

B. ABRAMOFF CONCEALS HIS FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SCANLON

For Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme to
succeed, secrecy was key. In furtherance of that ``gimme five''
scheme, Abramoff and Scanlon agreed that Scanlon's payments to
Abramoff would not be disclosed to Abramoff and Scanlon's
Tribal clients.\26\ They understood that disclosing their
arrangement to those clients would likely jeopardize the
contracts for services, CCS' profit margin, or both.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 9, U.S. v.
Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee staff asked Saginaw Chippewa tribal Sub-Chief
Bernie Sprague what, if anything, the Tribe knew about Abramoff
and Scanlon's financial arrangement. In response, Sprague
recalled that, as the Tribe was considering in December 2003
whether to retain Abramoff, he specifically asked Abramoff
about his relationship with Scanlon.\28\ Sprague remembered
that Abramoff only answered that he knew him and his
relationship with Scanlon was professional.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe of Michigan, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004).
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, in testimony before the Committee, Tigua tribal
representative Marc Schwartz recalled that a couple of days or
so before Abramoff and Scanlon's presentation to that Tribe, he
specifically asked Abramoff whether Scanlon was connected to
Abramoff.\30\ Schwartz recalled that Abramoff answered ``no.''
\31\ In fact, telling Schwartz that Scanlon had ``his own''
company, Abramoff referred to Scanlon as merely ``an
associate.'' \32\ Schwartz also recalled asking Abramoff
whether he used Scanlon exclusively.\33\ Without bringing up
his financial arrangement with Scanlon, Abramoff answered non-
responsively: he liked to use Scanlon for the tough fights
because ``[h]e always [got] results.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\31\ Id.
\32\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. at 239 (September 29, 2004) (statement of
Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants).
\33\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, when Abramoff and Scanlon gave their
presentation at the Agua Caliente Tribal Council, Abramoff only
represented that Scanlon ``work[ed] very closely with our firm
[Greenberg Traurig].'' And, when Abramoff originally
recommended Scanlon to the Choctaw, he introduced Scanlon as an
independent consultant.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is unclear whether Abramoff or Scanlon similarly
misled the remaining Tribes, the Committee finds the following:
no Tribe that ultimately hired Abramoff and Scanlon during the
relevant period knew about their financial relationship.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Interview of Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe of Michigan, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004);
Interview of Chairman Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahullia Indians, in Washington, D.C. (September 16, 2004); Interview
of Lieutenant Governor Carlos Hisa, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso,
Texas (October 28, 2004); Interview of Marc Schwartz, president,
Partners Group Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004);
Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,
in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005); Interview of Chief Phillip
Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (May
17, 2005); Interview of William Worfel, former tribal council-member,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005);
Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of Sandia of New
Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his deposition with Committee staff, the head of the
Greenberg Traurig's national lobbying practice Fred Baggett
testified that, until Abramoff's meeting with the firm's
partners about the seminal The Washington Post article in
February 2004, Abramoff never disclosed that he was receiving
payments from Scanlon out of money that the Tribes were paying
Scanlon.\37\ In fact, during a meeting about a tribal
newsletter in 2003, Abramoff denied that he had any financial
relationship with Scanlon and tried to explain the article away
as politically driven by competitors of the firm.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
\38\ Id. But see James Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt, The Fast Rise
and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff, Washington Post, December 29, 2005
(reporting that Greenberg Traurig discovered Abramoff's outside sources
of income earlier when it examined his tax records in connection with
the SunCruz bankruptcy matter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Abramoff first discussed hiring Scanlon with Baggett,
Abramoff merely described Scanlon as ``the best as far as
public relations and grassroots ... that he had ever dealt
with'' who provided ``value added'' in helping the his clients
with ``Washington media and public relations efforts as well.''
\39\ In that context, Abramoff indicated, Scanlon had been
``extremely helpful to [him] and his clients.'' \40\ Baggett
also remembered that Abramoff indicated ``[h]ow valuable
[Scanlon] was, that he was essential to being able to provide
services to his clients.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id. Despite these plaudits, Greenberg Traurig decided not to
hire Scanlon full-time because he ``wanted to pursue other outside
engagements on his own, and we ... weren't going to have somebody who
could do that.'' Id. Ultimately, the firm brought in Scanlon as a
consultant. Id. That engagement, for which Scanlon was paid $10,000 per
month from Abramoff's overhead, lasted for only about a year. Id. Other
than having decided that ``we didn't have use for him,'' Baggett does
not know why the firm stopped paying Scanlon. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In what appears to be an effort to ensure that his Tribal
clients did not know about his financial arrangement with
Scanlon, Abramoff demanded secrecy of his business associates
and advisors. For example, in a March 15, 2002, email, Abramoff
directed Rodney Lane, apparently a partner in his restaurant
ventures, to value his share in his partnership with Scanlon at
$5 million per year, ``valued as $30M (multiple of 6
[years]).'' \42\ In so doing, he also directed that ``we should
not reveal this to anyone but [my tax advisor], though, since
no one knows the CCS stuff.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Rodney Lane
(GTG-E000011577) (March 15, 2002).
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in a February 19 and 20, 2003, email, in which
Abramoff's tax advisor, Gail Halpern, suggested to Abramoff how
he could minimize Scanlon's withholding money from CCS'
payments to Abramoff. Halpern recommended, ``[m]aybe you should
work thinks [sic] so that the folks you are cutting these
business deals with pay Mike [Scanlon's] LLC called CCS $x
dollars, and pay your LLC called KayGold $y dollars. then [sic]
DC doesn't get a chunk of your take.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012116) (February 19, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
She elaborated, ``[g]etting your own check from the client
would resolve that over the long run would save big bucks.''
\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``It's just not going to happen.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000012115) (February 20, 2003). Whether Halpern
came to know or should have known that Abramoff was Scanlon's partner
and, with that knowledge, furthered their scheme to bilk their tribal
clients is a question beyond the scope of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ABRAMOFF INDUCES THE TRIBES INTO HIRING AND PAYING SCANLON

Having concealed his financial arrangement with Scanlon
from his Tribal clients, Abramoff urged them to hire a
grassroots political consultant.\47\ Then, Abramoff convinced
them into hiring Scanlon as that consultant. According to
Scanlon's highly compensated right-hand man, Christopher
Cathcart, Scanlon said that ``the larger fee [that CCS paid
Abramoff] keeps ... Abramoff remembering CCS when he meets
clients around the country.'' \48\ Likewise, in support of the
proposition that ``the truth is worse'' than the facts set
forth in the February 2004 Post article, former Abramoff
associate Kevin Ring disclosed to a colleague that Abramoff
``talk[ed] tribes into hiring Scanlon.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A.
Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001). See Interview of
Bernie Sprague, Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2004); Interview of Chairman Richard
Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians, in Washington, D.C.
(September 16, 2004); Interview of Lieutenant Governor Carlos Hisa,
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (October 28, 2004); Interview of Marc
Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants, in Washington, D.C.
(November 10, 2004); Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005);
Interview of Chief Phillip Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,
in Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005); Interview of William Worfel, former
Vice-President, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C.
(September 13, 2005); Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor,
Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\48\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2004).
\49\ Email from Kevin Ring, Greenberg Traurig, to Matt DeMazza
(GTG-E000257509) (February 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 2001, Abramoff told Scanlon how he ran this
part of the scheme on the legislative director of the Saginaw
Chippewa:

I had dinner tonight with Chris Petras of Sag Chip. He
was salivating at the $4-5 million program I described
to him (is that enough? Probably not). They have their
primary for tribal council on Tuesday, which should
determine if they are going to take over (general
elections in November). I told him that you are the
greatest campaign expert since ... (actually, I told
him that there was no one like you in history!). He is
going to come in after the primary with the guy who
will be chief if they win (a big fan of ours already)
and we are going to help him win. If he wins, they take
over in January, and we have millions. I told him that
you are already in national demand and we need to
secure you for them. He is very excited. GIMME FIVE
lives.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000028079) (October 5,
2001). (emphasis in original).

Scanlon responded, ``THE PRICE HAS JUST GONE UP TO 10MIL!!
Sounds good on the strategy--We should be wrapped up with the
other camapaigns [sic] soon, so I could run his general
election to make sure we get or [sic] give me five!!'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff concurred, ``Great.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents suggest that Abramoff and Scanlon ran this part
of the scheme on the Saginaw Chippewa well into 2003. On
February 28, 2003, Scanlon complained to Abramoff that ``[o]ur
shop is not under contract with [the Saginaw Chippewa] for PR--
we have done it for them as part of programs in the past--but
we aren't doing any work for them--and we will not until they
hire us as their PR firm of Record.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011983) (February 28,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He noted, ``To tell you the truth--we would rather not work
for them any more--but if we get the retainer gig--that wil
[sic] do. NO CASH--NO INK BABY!'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``I am not sure this is the right
strategy here ... I think we might be able to get some more big
sums from these guys.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He explained, ``[T]he trick right now should be to get
their shit work done as quickly and painlessly as we can and
set up a plan right now for future efforts. That way we know
there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that context, Abramoff informed Scanlon that he ``told
[Saginaw Chippewa legislative director Chris Petras] that this
was the only way to get you involved because you have just too
many other clients putting $10M deals in front of you. he [sic]
said they would do this.'' \57\ The Committee has seen no
evidence that any other clients were putting $10 million deals
before Scanlon previously or at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about July 9, 2002, Abramoff promoted Scanlon to the
Agua Caliente, describing Scanlon as ``[formerly] with the U.S.
Congress, a communications director for the leadership of the
House of Representatives and subsequently has gone on to become
one of the top political and grassroots public affairs people
in the United States.'' For his part, Scanlon said at the
meeting, ``My firm is in strategic alliance with Jack and
Greenberg [Traurig,] meaning we only provide services to the
clients of Greenberg Traurig. No other law or lobbying firms in
Washington, DC. We work exclusively for his clients and provide
our services to Jack exclusively.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number)
(``Verbatim Transcript--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9,
2002'') (July 20, 2004) (excerpt only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Louisiana Coushatta councilman William Worfel
recalled in his interview with staff that Abramoff continuously
pressed his Tribe to pay Scanlon the millions he charged,
quickly and completely. In particular, Worfel remembered that,
according to Abramoff, the need to pay Scanlon was ``always a
crisis, ASAP'': ``[I]t was just 100 miles per hour, boom, boom,
boom, boom. Oh, yes. But, I ain't never seen this.'' \59\
Worfel elaborated, ``[Scanlon would always say,] `We got to
have it, man.' `We're getting hammered.' `We need it.' `We've
got to turn the phone banks on.' `We've got to get the blitz
going.' It was always a crisis.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-President, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005).
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff's approach with the Tigua was equally aggressive.
A tribal representative observed that Abramoff pushed Scanlon
``hotly.'' \61\ With that Tribe, Abramoff said that he and
Greenberg Traurig would provide representation on a pro bono
basis--at least until the Tribe's casino was up and
running.\62\ But, he insisted that the Tribe hire Scanlon as
their political consultant.\63\ In that context, he described
Scanlon as ``tenacious'' and a ``bulldog.'' \64\ He also noted
that Scanlon was ``DeLay's attack dog ... one of the reasons
that Delay was so successful'' and that ``people [were] afraid
of him.'' \65\ Abramoff promoted Scanlon as the person who did
the groundwork on his projects and that, on tough fights
especially, ``[h]e always gets results.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Interview with Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon &
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas
(October 28, 2004).
\62\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\63\ Id. Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 6, U.S. v.
Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001); Plea
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at 2, U.S. v. Michael P.S. Scanlon
(Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR 05-411).
\64\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\65\ Id.
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having told the Tigua how he planned anonymously to slip
language into a legislative vehicle that would allow the Tigua
to reopen its casino, Abramoff stressed ``once the law is
printed, someone's going to know it and that's where Mike
[Scanlon] comes in.'' \67\ In particular, Abramoff laid out a
strategic concept whereby Scanlon would serve as ``a
submarine''--rising from under the radar and blanketing the
telephones of offices of Members of Congress that have
discovered the remedial language that Abramoff had sneaked into
his legislative vehicle.\68\ Abramoff noted, ``you better have
the best, because they will come after you.'' \69\ And,
referring to Scanlon and his political database, Abramoff
insisted, ``If you are going to do this, you need this guy.''
\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id.
\68\ Interview with Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon &
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas, in El Paso,
Texas (October 28, 2004).
\69\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff's interest in having the Pueblo of Sandia hire
Scanlon was particularly keen. Both then-Tribal Governor
Stuwart Paisano and Tribal lawyer David Mielke recalled that,
during a meeting with Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig in February
2002, Abramoff characterized Scanlon as indispensable to his
federal lobbying practice and a sine qua non for success on the
Tribe's project.\71\ In laying out to the tribal
representatives his plan to ``break bones'' and ``bust
kneecaps,'' Abramoff told them that he would only represent the
Tribe if it hired Scanlon.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\72\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So intent was Abramoff in having the Pueblo of Sandia hire
Scanlon that he negotiated with the Tribe on Scanlon's behalf
and, in fact, offered several inducements to have the Tribe
hire Scanlon. According to Paisano and Mielke, in the face of
an unusually high contract price to hire Scanlon, Abramoff
offered to further reduce Greenberg Traurig's monthly retainer
in exchange for or in contemplation of the Tribe's hiring
Scanlon.\73\ Mielke also recalled that Abramoff offered to
reduce Scanlon's asking price to $2,750,000, but said that he
could not go further because the lower amount had ``Scanlon's
10% profit margin locked in.'' \74\ Likewise, when the Choctaw
were experiencing cash flow problems and budget shortfalls,
Abramoff offered to defer payments to Greenberg Traurig to
ensure that the Tribe could pay Scanlon in full.\75\ Also, when
the Choctaw were late in paying Scanlon, more often than not
Abramoff inquired about the status of the payments to
Scanlon.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id.; Interview of David Mielke, outside counsel, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\74\ Id. As described above, Scanlon deliberately set his prices to
accommodate his secret payments to Abramoff. That required Scanlon to
maintain a profit margin closer to 80 percent. See Transcript of Plea
Agreement at 22, U.S. v. Jack Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006)
(CR-06-001).
\75\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way that Abramoff appears to have had some of the
Tribes hire Scanlon for further projects was through alarming
them, perhaps falsely, about threats to their sovereignty or
gaming interests. For example, on or about February 11, 2002,
Abramoff approved a ``draft [Conservative Action Team's] letter
to the president [sic] and [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton
saying `no more Indian gaming expansion' ... [sic] [and] light
a fire under [Deputy Interior Secretary Steven] Griles's ass.''
\77\ Abramoff observed that ``[t]his will help us get [then-
Louisiana Coushatta Tribal Council member] William [Worfel]
scared about Blue Lake [in California], hopefully increasing
our budget.'' \78\ During this period, the Louisiana Coushatta
were interested in doing business there.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Email from Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000025046) (February 14, 2002).
\78\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000025046) (February 14,
2002).
\79\ See Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman,
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on October 10, 2002, Scanlon conveyed to
Abramoff: ``Lawmakers may consider a package of bills that
would allow horse tracks to better compete with the casinos
that have cut into their business the past several years.
Tracks could be allowed to have video lottery terminals, card
rooms, satellite betting sites and possibly other gambling to
renew interest in attending horse races.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001244) (October 10,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``Here we go! This could kill Saginaw!
[Saginaw Chippewa legislative director] Chris [Petras] thinks
this is not going anywhere. Can you call him and scare him?''
\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, on December 2, 2002, Abramoff discussed the
prospect of racinos in Michigan with Petras.\82\ In that email,
on which he apparently blind-copied Scanlon, Abramoff noted the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000010716) (December 2,
2002). A ``racino'' is a racetrack that also offers casino gaming.

Chris, I am getting worried about this. Last night we
opened Stacks and there were some WH guys there (who
are also Michigan guys--worked for Spence). They told
me that there is a hearing coming up on this
immediately, and that they have heard that this is
going to happen!!! The enemy is moving fast and we are
not on the field. where [sic] is Scanlon on this? What
is he doing? Have you guys pushed the button? We need
to get him firing missiles. How do we move it faster?
Please get the council focused on this as soon as you
can. Every day [sic] we lose now is going to hurt.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Id.

A few minutes later, Scanlon chimed in, ``I love you.''
\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010716) (December 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, Abramoff replied, ``I'll follow up with him in a
day.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Captiol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000010716) (December 2,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once Abramoff succeeded in having the Tribes hire Scanlon,
having kept his financial arrangement with Scanlon secret from
the Tribes, Scanlon (for the benefit of Abramoff and himself)
charged the Tribes a massive premium for his services. In
total, the Tribes paid Scanlon about $66 million from 2001
through 2003. But, what really happened to the Tribes' money?
The following section attempts to shed light on this question.

D. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY THAT THE TRIBES PAID SCANLON?

1. Snapshots of CCS' Representation of the Tribes

In connection with its first hearing on these matters, the
Committee established that about \1/3\ of Scanlon's net
proceeds went to Scanlon; about another \1/3\ went to Abramoff;
and the remaining \1/3\ went to the underlying grassroots
efforts Scanlon promised the Tribes. However, only an in-depth
explication of this issue can allow one to apprehend the true
extent and brazen nature of Abramoff and Scanlon's deception of
the Tribes.
While a forensic analysis of what happened to the Tribes'
money lies well beyond the scope of the Committee's
investigation, the overwhelming weight of evidence that the
Committee has obtained, as described below, indicates that, in
most cases, the Tribes did not receive the intended benefit of
the millions of dollars that they paid Scanlon. What follows
are descriptions of certain representative transactions that
the Committee was able to reconstruct that best support that
proposition.
a. Transaction #1 (Miscellaneous)--Huge Profit Margins
In their plea agreements, Abramoff and Scanlon admitted to
charging the Tribes grossly inflated prices for CCS' services--
prices that incorporated the undisclosed fees that Scanlon paid
Abramoff.\86\ As noted throughout, those fees constituted about
50% of CCS' net profit.\87\ Examples of how this worked,
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 6, U.S. v.
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff at para. 8-
9 (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
\87\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 6, U.S. v.
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 11, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea
Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff at para. 8-
9 (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR 06-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the documents that the Committee discovered is what
appears to be the draft of a letter or other communication from
Scanlon to Nell Rogers, the planner of the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw''). Although the Committee has been
unable to determine whether this record, probably drafted late
in 2001, was actually transmitted, the representations
contained within it are compelling. In that document, Scanlon
said, ``I think the following is the best way to prioritize our
efforts [this year] and make them budget friendly ...''
He explained, ``[A] good chunk ... for [Project A] wont
[sic] be needed until the general election is in full swing
later in the year. That said: the overall figures are 4,850,000
for [Project A], and 1,750,000 for [Project B], for a total of
6.6.'' But, he added, ``We will need the 1.75 for [Project B]
and 1.85 for [Project A] ASAP.'' Scanlon concluded: ``On
[Project A] we will need another 1m in about 45 days or so--and
the balance we can defer till October 2nd to meet your FY
issues ... Does this help?''
A second document, also recently discovered by the
Committee, describes Scanlon's expected margins on those, and
other, projects.\88\ According to that document, entitled ``02
CCS Project Break Down,'' on the $4,850,000 Scanlon sought on
``Project A,'' he projected actual costs to come in at about
$850,000--for a projected net profit for him and Abramoff of
$4,000,000.\89\ Likewise, on the $1,750,000 Scanlon sought on
``Project B,'' he projected costs at only $100,000--for a
projected net profit for him and Abramoff of $1,650,000.\90\
The other projects, undertaken for Choctaw and other Tribes,
are broken out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``02 CCS Project Break Downs'') (undated).
\89\ Id.
\90\ Id.

02 CCS PROJECT BREAK DOWNS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Project Total expenditures Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Downs..................... $3,300,000 $300,000 $3,000,000
Jena Band....................... 1,505,000 100,000 1,405,000
[PROJECT A]..................... 4,850,000 850,000 4,000,000
[PROJECT B]..................... 1,750,000 100,000 1,650,000
---------------------------------------
Totals...................... 11,405,000 1,350,000 10,055,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aggregating the costs and profits for all the projects
listed above, the foregoing describes an expected net profit of
about 88 percent.\91\ Other breakdowns, attached in the
appendix of this Report, suggest that CCS' actual net return
consistently hovered at about 70-80 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of CCS' representation of the Tigua, the
margins were equally lucrative. According to a document
entitled ``2002 GMF Breakdowns,'' Scanlon projected that the
``total campaign cost'' of the Tigua's project, for which he
and his secret partner Abramoff received $4.2 million, would be
only $400,000.\92\ This document also suggests that Scanlon
originally projected his ``partner dollar share'' here to be
$2,400,000.\93\ In his plea agreement, Abramoff ultimately
admitted to collecting from Scanlon $1,850,000, about 50
percent of CCS' actual net profit on this project.\94\
Likewise, according to a document referring to ``Saginaw Wave
Two,'' Scanlon apparently intended to set aside only $50,000
for the program--a program for which he apparently obtained
$500,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa.\95\ With CCS' netting
$450,000 on that project, Abramoff's cut was $225,000.\96\
Finally, according to another document, entitled ``02 CCS
Project Break Downs'' Scanlon projected that his pre-tax share
of the $10,055,000 net from all the projects listed there,
would equal $5,027,000.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``2002 GMF Breakdowns'') (undated).
\93\ Id.
\94\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for Plea at para. 20, U.S. v.
Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
\95\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Saginaw Wave Two'') (undated)
\96\ Id.
\97\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``02 CCS Project Break Downs'') (undated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened above is typical of scores of other
transactions that the Committee has reviewed, where Scanlon or
Abramoff dramatically overcharged the Tribes for grassroots
activities; paid themselves a percentage of what the Tribes
paid at a grossly inflated rate wholly unrelated to the actual
cost of services provided; and used the remaining fraction to
reimburse scores of vendors that could help them maintain vis-
a-vis the Tribes a continuing appearance of competence. It is
almost inconceivable that Scanlon believed that the most
ambitious of his programs, like the Louisiana Political Program
(with which Scanlon claimed that he could ``control both houses
and the governor's mansion''), could be accomplished
successfully for the amount he apparently intended to allocate
for their completion.
b. Transaction #2 (August 2002)--Louisiana Coushatta and
Agua Caliente pay CCS a total of $5,000,000
An example of such a program relates to the payment of
almost $5,000,000 by the Louisiana Coushatta and, for an
unrelated matter, the Agua Caliente to CCS in August 2002.
Weeks before, on July 26, 2002, Scanlon asked then-Louisiana
Coushatta councilman William Worfel for authorization to
execute a program that he said would ``eliminate the Jena
threat ... to ensure that the Jena go away for good, and ...
permanently eliminate them as a threat to the tribe.'' \98\ He
described what he would do with this additional money as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 007285)
(July 26, 2002).

We would like to continue the effort against the Jena
tribe and launch a new effort against the governor as
payback. On the Jena front we would like to go to each
possible town where they could conceivably land a
casino and destroy that option politically. Simply
put--we want them out of the state and out of the
gaming business all together [sic]. We would like to go
from town to town and systematically wipe out all
possible locations. Our recommendation is to finish
them off now ... We believe that this campaign will run
about 8 weeks, and we would like to start immediately
while the iron is hot. We will need a budget of roughly
$2,100,000 to execute this properly.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Id.

On or about August 1, 2002, the Louisiana Coushatta paid
CCS $2,100,000, as Scanlon requested.\100\ And, on or about
August 27, 2002, the Agua Caliente paid CCS $2,720,000 (and
another $935,000 on or about September 17, 2002), for a
similarly ambitious project apparently related to the Tribe's
compact renegotiations with the State of California.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\101\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, CCS' ledger reflects no expenditures commensurate
with Scanlon's ambitious representations. During an eight-week
period, which began and closed with a balance at just under
$1,000,000, the ledger reflects payments totaling about $40,700
to the Weber Company and almost $290,000 to Lunde & Berger for
``professional campaign services'' for several tribes; payments
totaling about $14,700 to Matthew Stetter for work on an
``environmental impact statement'' and a total of about $1,270
to Anton Design for ``professional campaign services''--both of
which are probably attributable to the Saginaw Chippewa;
payments of $14,000 and about $1,500 to Democracy Data and
Communications for ``databases'' and ``telematch services,''
respectively; a payment of $7,803 to Baum Communications for
``Cali ID''; and a payment of $2,890 to Harold Grosh for work
by ``subcontractors'' apparently attributable to the Louisiana
Coushatta.\102\ All of those expenditures, which capture vendor
expenses that are either $25,000 or more or traceable to a
grassroots campaigns conducted for any tribe, amounted to a
mere $370,000.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Id.
\103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this period, the ledger also reflects a few
incidental payments that probably provided little value to the
Louisiana Coushatta or the Agua Caliente, for example, a
payment of $250,000 to the Republican Governors Association; a
payment of $100,000 to an individual named Michael Chapman,
likely for referring the Agua Caliente to Abramoff and Scanlon;
a $60,000 donation to the ``Scanlon Foundation for Kids'' for
``backpacks''; and a number of payments apparently made to
contractors for work on some of Scanlon's properties.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than the foregoing, the ledger reflects no vendor
expenses that are either $25,000 or more or traceable to
grassroots campaigns conducted for any Tribe. However, with a
total of $4,820,000 having been paid by the Louisiana Coushatta
and the Agua Caliente near the beginning of this period, the
ledger does show Scanlon's paying Abramoff a ``referral
expense'' of $2,266,250 on or about September 16, 2002, and
Scanlon's paying himself $2,200,000 on or about October 10,
2002.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newly discovered evidence suggests what Scanlon intended to
do with these Tribes' money from the start. According to a
recently discovered financial record, Scanlon apparently
intended to set aside no more than $350,000 for the Jena-
related program--a program for which he sought and obtained
$2,100,000 from the Louisiana Coushatta.\106\ According to that
same document, Scanlon projected a net $1,732,000 on that
project and estimated Abramoff's cut at $866,250.\107\
Similarly, according to another document referring to ``AC Wave
One,'' Scanlon apparently intended to set aside only $400,000
for that program--a program for which he sought and received
$2,700,000 from the Agua Caliente Tribe.\108\ With CCS'
projecting to net $2,235,000 on that project, he estimated
Abramoff's cut here at $1,117,500.\109\ It is unlikely that
Scanlon believed that he could ``finish [the Jena] off now''
for only $350,000. The foregoing reflects that the Louisiana
Coushatta received little of the intended benefit for the
$2,100,000 it paid CCS, and that the $2,700,000 that Scanlon
charged the Agua Caliente for ``AC Wave One'' was wholly
unrelated to his actual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (undated) (entitled ``JA Nets-Coush Jena Aug'').
\107\ Id.
\108\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (undated) (entitled ``AC Wave One''). Scanlon also set aside
another $38,000 as a ``plane expense.'' See Id.
\109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Transaction #3 (October 2001-January 2002)--Louisiana
Coushatta pays CCS $2,170,000
By August 27, 2001, Scanlon had successfully helped the
Louisiana Coushatta with its compact renegotiations with the
State of Louisiana. In furtherance of his new partnership with
Abramoff, which the two kept secret from the Louisiana
Coushatta, Scanlon was now prepared to proceed with a much
broader scope of work. In that context, Scanlon put forward a
``comprehensive political program,'' which he described as
``much larger than the one we developed for the compact fight[,
but] includes many of the same tactics and follows the same
development process.'' \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Coushatta
Political Program'' (August 27, 2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an August 27, 2001, memorandum to Kathryn Van Hoof,
outside counsel for the Louisiana Coushatta, which Scanlon
carbon-copied to his new partner Abramoff, Scanlon described
this program as designed to ``make sure that under no
circumstances would the tribe find itself behind the political
eight ball ever again'' and ``make [the Tribe] a politician's
best friend--or worse [sic] political nightmare.'' \111\
Scanlon continued, ``[This strategy is] built to put you in a
position to impose your political will on virtually any issue
or candidate, and not just in SW Louisiana, but statewide, and
across stateliness [sic] as well.'' \112\ Scanlon offered, ``In
my opinion if you execute this program, you will be in position
to achieve all of your political objectives.'' \113\
Accordingly, Scanlon laid out his Louisiana and Texas
``political program.'' \114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Id.
\112\ Id.
\113\ Id.
\114\ See generally id.; Capitol Campaign Strategies document
production (BB/LC 017923) (October 23, 2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the Tribe did not know at the time was that much of
the money that Scanlon proposed that it pay for this political
program would go directly to Abramoff. On the day after Scanlon
apparently sent the foregoing memo to Van Hoof, Abramoff wrote
his tax advisor about where he intended his share of the
Louisiana Coushatta's money to go: ``A company called Capital
Campaign Services [sic] has several hundred thousand which they
are going to put into the restaurant for me (they owe me money,
though there is no written arrangement--they have already
transferred the money to [Livsar Enterprises, which owned one
of Abramoff's restaurants] so the trust issue is not a
problem).'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000011965) (August 28, 2001). Intent on funneling
his share of the Louisiana Coushatta's money to his restaurant without
it being taxed as personal income, Abramoff asked Halpern, ``I was
wondering if we could structure this transaction the following way:
Livsar invoices CCS for services in the amount they are transferring.
The services can be of any nature ... CCS is a political, lobbying,
campaign company, certainly one which uses fine dining etc. Livsar
would take that money as income and spend it in the course of business,
on the restaurant. If at the end of the year Livsar has expended that
money, is there a tax event?'' Id. See also Email from Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard (GTG-E000011965)
(August 28, 2001) (Abramoff describing Livsar Enterprises).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 2001, having been assured that money from
the Tribe was on the way, Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``Can you let
me know how much more (than the current +/- 660K) we would each
score should Coushatta come through for this phase, and Choctaw
continue to make the transfers. I need to assess where I am at
for the school's sake.'' \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113995) (September 10,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon replied, ``Coushatta is an absolute cake walk. Your
cut on the project as proposed is at least 800k.'' \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, Scanlon reported that Abramoff would get at
that time ``1.5. mil on top of the 660. For a toal [sic] of
2.1.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff heaped praise on his partner, ``How can I say this
strongly enough: YOU IZ DA MAN.'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0000113847) (September 10,
2001) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not content with the $2.1 million and using the phrase the
two had coined to describe their secret partnership, Scanlon
exhorted, ``Let's grow that 2.1 to 5!!! We need the true give
me five!'' \120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 2001, Scanlon picked up that email stream to
revisit the issue with Abramoff: ``800k was your cut of the
combined [Louisiana] and [Texas] projects. But they did not go
for the [Louisiana] project so your cut shrunk to 400K from
texas [sic] alone.'' \121\ However, Scanlon assured Abramoff:
``But we came in way under budget bumping your total on the
texas [sic] project up to 600k.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E0000113927) (October 5, 2001).
\122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He continued, ``If they go for the [Louisiana] project,
tack another 400 onto your end ... Long story short, you made
an additional 200k on the texas [sic] project.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``We have to get that [Louisiana]
project moving. Let's discuss how to make that happen.'' \124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, on or about October 23, 2001, the Tribal
Council apparently approved a modified version of the political
program that Scanlon proposed to fight a couple of Louisiana
gaming expansion initiatives. Cumulatively, it was called the
``Battleground Program.'' \125\ In a memorandum outlining the
program's costs, Scanlon wrote, ``[W]e have already begun our
operations on all fronts. As we expressed to the council two
battles, plus implementing the already proposed program would
be costly.'' \126\ The total cost, $3,170,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana,
``Louisiana Political Budget Outline'' (BB/LC 017923) (October 23,
2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
\126\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to CCS' accounting ledger, on October 31, 2001,
the Louisiana Coushatta ultimately paid CCS $2,170,000 in one
lump sum.\127\ But, how did CCS spend this money? CCS' own
records indicate that a small part was paid to outside vendors
for actual work.\128\ For example, on or about November 8,
2001, CCS paid Capitol Media, a company owned or controlled by
Ralph Reed, $100,000 for work on the Texas component of the
program.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies). In an apparent scheme to
fraudulently induce the Tribe to ``donate'' to Abramoff's private
charity, the Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), Scanlon directed
the Tribe to send the remaining $1,000,000 for the Program to Greenberg
Traurig; and, at Abramoff's direction, the firm sent this $1,000,000 to
the CAF, on November 13, 2001. For a full explication of this
transaction, refer infra to Part 2, Chapter 3, ``Capital Athletic
Foundation,'' Section D, ``Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Tribal
Funds for CAF Seed Money in 2001.''
\128\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\129\ Id. Weeks before, on October 8, 2001, Reed had agreed to help
Scanlon and Abramoff ``block the Alabama Coushatta tribe [sic] from
securing a gaming facility by proactively pushing a political or
legislative vehicle making approval of Indian gaming in Texas next to
impossible'', for $100,000. Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000023050-51) (October 5, 2001). On October 5, 2001, Scanlon explained
to Abramoff, ``We have drafts of the language, But [sic] we are still
batting around the final documents. What we need now is for the Gov
[sic], Lt Gov [sic] and AG to issue the vehicle and publicly support
it. Here are our ideas, and if Ralph can slam it home it would be
great.'' Id. After Abramoff referred Reed to Scanlon to ``get it
moving,'' Abramoff reached out to Scanlon, apparently elated at the
prospect of minimizing costs, ``Call Ralph and get him moving. He'll do
it for the $100K. we'z in the money!!!'' Email from Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig, to Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies
(GTG-E000023050) (October 8, 2001). Later that month, Scanlon wrote
Abramoff, ``Once [the Tribe] pay[s] we let Ralph loose, and bring Texas
home.'' Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P (GTG-E000012181) (October 15,
2001). Abramoff responded, ``U da[ ] man!'' Email from Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig and Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies
(GTG-E000012181) (October 15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Scanlon was paying vendors only a modest fraction of
what the Tribe paid CCS, it seems that he put much of the
balance to personal use. On November 2, 2001, he took $1.4
million as a shareholder draw.\130\ That month, Scanlon
reportedly bought a $1.6 million beach house in Rehoboth Beach,
which he completely renovated.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\131\ Brody Mullins, Breakup of Ex-Aides Shook Group Tied to
Abramoff--The Prosecutors Move In; Ms. Miller's Tearful Apology, Wall
Street Journal, March 31, 2006 at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later entries in the CCS ledger reflect very significant
draws going to Scanlon's wedding, which never occurred.
Ultimately, after additional payments came in from the Choctaw,
Scanlon paid Abramoff about $2,000,000. These payments are set
forth below: \132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ The entries in the following tables, and similar tables
throughout this Report, are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the
Committee for verification. To determine whether the Tribes received
fair value for what they paid CCS, wholly incidental expenses were
excluded from the source ledger, and presented here. Of all vendor
transactions reflected in the source ledger, only those greater than or
equal to $25,000 or traceable to any Tribe have been included here and
other similar spreadsheets presented in this Report.

In a November 6, 2001, email, Scanlon provides Abramoff
with ``a breakdown (Political Nets) of where you are currently
-and [sic] [a] distribution [s]chedule for 2001 that shows what
you made or directed to other parties--Not bad!!!!!!'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012278) (November 7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With only a fraction of what the Tribe paid CCS going to
the intended effort, it appears that the Louisiana Coushatta
received little of the intended benefit for the money it paid
CCS during this period. Unfortunately, this would not be the
only time the Tribe would be short-changed by Abramoff and
Scanlon.
d. Transaction #4 (January-April 2002)--Several Tribes Pay
CCS Over $22,000,000
As described in the Chapter of this Report addressing
Abramoff and Scanlon's representation of the Tigua, late in
2001, the State of Texas filed suit seeking to shut down the
casino of the Alabama Coushatta Tribe. Operating near Houston,
in Livingston, Texas, that casino ostensibly presented
competition to the Louisiana Coushatta's facility, across the
state line. As reflected above, Scanlon used only a fraction of
the Louisiana Coushatta's payments to CCS late in the year to
fund Ralph Reed's anti-gaming grassroots activities in Texas,
which Reed ran through his firm Capitol Media. However, with
the casino's closure imminent, Scanlon was quick to take
credit. On January 6, 2002, he wrote Louisiana Coushatta Tribal
Councilman William Worfel, carbon-copying Abramoff, ``Victory
is ours. As a result of our political pressure, the Texas
Attorney General filed a lawsuit in federal court on Friday to
shut down the Alabama Coushatta's `entertainment center' in
Livingston.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC
015391) (January 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2002, Scanlon wrote Worfel again, ``It looks
as though the Jena [Jena Band of Choctaw Indians] are
attempting again to put a facility in Mississippi at the same
time they are continuing their efforts in Louisiana.'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC
015410) (January 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He continued, ``On that note--I would like to speak with
you tomorrow about our conversation on Friday regarding Patrick
Martin and the Jena [Band of Choctaw Indians]. I think it's
imperative that we make a large statement with our efforts
given what has unfolded.'' \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, he asked for ``a larger budget to deal with
the Jena and make our muscle felt ... a significant increase
(an additional 1.2 mil to make our point).'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the next day, Abramoff forwarded an article to Scanlon,
which had been provided to him by Reed, about the Tigua's
casino in Texas, and wrote, ``Get this to William [Worfel].
War.'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000075999) (January 28,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to CCS' accounting records, this began a
particularly active payment period, during which the Louisiana
Coushatta in particular made a series of very substantial
payments to CCS' operating account. In January 2002, which
began this period, the starting balance in this account was
about $500,000. By April 2002, after considerable payment
activity, the balance went back down to about $500,000. In the
interim, the Louisiana Coushatta paid CCS $11,510,000.
Additionally, substantial payments were made by several other
tribes: Saginaw Chippewa, $3,069,831; Choctaw, $1,605,000;
Tigua Tribe of El Paso, $2,122,680; and the Sandia Pueblo,
$2,750,000. So, during this period, all of these Tribes paid
CCS a total of $21,057,561.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ According to CCS's accounting ledger, an unspecified
client(s) paid CCS $3,102,750 during this period. Diehl & Company
document production (D00411-512) (undated) (General Ledger, Capitol
Campaign Strategies). This figure is not included in this tally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did Scanlon do with these Tribes' money during this
period? According to information obtained by the Committee,
Scanlon paid only $826,452.79 to vendors for expenses greater
than or equal to $25,000 or discernable as funding for work
done for any Tribe and about $155,000 to Abramoff lobbying
associates Jon van Horne and Kevin Ring.\140\ By contrast,
Scanlon withdrew $15,078,108.94 as ``shareholder draws'' and
paid Abramoff, or his corporate alter ego Kaygold,
$8,998,947.60 as ``referral expenses.'' \141\ The relevant
portion of CCS' ledger, which reflects this activity, is set
out below.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\141\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\142\ The entries in the following tables, and similar tables
throughout this Report, are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the
Committee for verification. To determine whether the Tribes received
fair value for what they paid CCS, wholly incidental expenses were
excluded from the source ledger, and presented here. Of all vendor
transactions reflected in the source ledger, only those greater than or
equal to $25,000 or traceable to any Tribe have been included here and
other similar spreadsheets presented in this Report.

CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Description To/from Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/2/2002........ Balance........... ................. $362,804.86
1/7/2002........ Balance........... ................. 505,356.94
1/18/2002....... Consulting Fees... Coushatta........ 1,505,000.00
1/18/2002....... Consulting Fees... Coushatta........ 1,500,000.00
1/18/2002....... Consulting Fees... Coushatta........ 1,000,000.00
1/24/2002....... Professional Lunde & Berger... (25,000.00)
Campaign; LA;
1452.
1/30/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. ................. (1,000,000.00)
1/30/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. ................. (950,000.00)
2/1/2002........ Balance........... ................. 3,207,343.96
2/7/2002........ Legal/ Jon Van Horne.... (20,000.00)
Professional;
Legal Work; 1476.
2/12/2002....... Professional Lunde & Berger... (30,000.00)
Campaign; LA-
Jena; 1489.
2/14/2002....... Professional Alexander (120,000.00)
Campaign. Strategies.
2/19/2002....... Consulting Fees... Saginaw Chippewa. 1,869,831.00
2/19/2002....... Professional Capitol Media.... (51,679.00)
Campaign; 1492.
2/20/2002....... Professional Glover Associates (34,291.16)
Campaign; Final
Payment; 1494.
2/21/2002....... Professional Lunde & Berger... (75,000.00)
Campaign; LA;
1495.
2/22/2002....... Transfer.......... Money Market..... (2,000,000.00)
2/22/2002....... Referral Expense; Kaygold.......... (2,779,925.60)
1496.
2/22/2002....... Balance........... ................. 1,075,164.69
2/25/2002....... Professional Capitol Media.... (60,000.00)
Campaign; Radio
Buy; LA; 1498.
2/25/2002....... Professional Capitol Media.... (100,000.00)
Campaign; LA
Project; 1499.
2/28/2002....... Consulting Fees... Choctaw.......... 1,605,000.00
2/28/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. ................. (50,000.00)
3/1/2002........ Balance........... ................. 4,343,157.00
3/1/2002........ Professional Lunde & Berger... (50,000.00)
Campaign; MS
Bonus; 1526.
3/4/2002........ Consulting Fees; ................. 1,002,750.00
Deposit.
3/5/2002........ Deposit........... Money Market..... 2,000,000.00
3/5/2002........ Consulting Fees; ................. 2,100,000.00
Deposit.
3/5/2002........ Shareholder Draw.. Michael Scanlon.. (4,753,108.94)
3/14/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. ................. (150,000.00)
3/15/2002....... Consulting Fees... Coushatta........ 3,405,000.00
3/15/2002....... Consulting Fees... Sandia Pueblo.... 1,875,000.00
3/21/2002....... Referral Expense; Jack Abramoff.... (4,080,997.00)
1557.
3/21/2002....... Referral Expense; Kevin Ring....... (67,500.00)
1558.
3/22/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. Michael Scanlon.. (1,000,000.00)
3/25/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. Michael Scanlon.. (300,000.00)
3/25/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. Michael Scanlon.. (25,000.00)
3/27/2002....... Professional Red Sea.......... (33,600.00)
Campaign; Media.
3/28/2002....... Professional Red Sea.......... (116,680.00)
Campaign; Media.
4/1/2002........ Consulting Fees... Saginaw Chippewa. 1,200,000.00
4/1/2002........ Balance........... ................. 5,730,488.93
4/2/2002........ Shareholder Draw; Michael Scanlon.. (4,350,000.00)
1573.
4/2/2002........ Shareholder Draw; Michael Scanlon.. (500,000.00)
1574.
4/4/2002........ Consulting Fees... Tigua............ 1,293,180.00
4/4/2002........ Consulting Fees... Coushatta........ 2,100,000.00
4/8/2002........ Referral Expense; Kaygold.......... (2,138,025.00)
1580.
4/10/2002....... Consulting Fees... Sandia Pueblo.... 875,000.00
4/10/2002....... Professional Frabrizio and (10,000.00)
Campaign; NM Poll McLaughlin.
2; 1586.
4/11/2002....... Professional Weber Company.... (41,634.96)
Campaign; Prof
Services; 1593.
4/11/2002....... Professional Basswood Research (28,567.67)
Campaign; LA
Survey; 1597.
4/15/2002....... Professional Lunde & Berger... (50,000.00)
Campaign; Tigua;
1615.
4/15/2002....... Referral Expense; Kevin Ring....... (67,500.00)
1616.
4/16/2002....... Shareholder Draw.. Michael Scanlon.. (2,000,000.00)
4/16/2002....... Balance........... ................. 471,009.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Near the beginning of the period captured by this snapshot,
after the State of Texas filed suit to shut down the Alabama
Coushatta's casino, Scanlon observed, ``Yeah baby! The timing
couldn't be better!'' \143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010889) (January 6,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, Abramoff responded, ``Wez [sic] gonna be
rich!'' \144\ And, about a week-and-a-half later, the Louisiana
Coushatta, on whose behalf Abramoff and Scanlon opposed the
Alabama Coushatta, paid CCS more than $4,000,000.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Id.
\145\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks later, on March 8, 2002, CCS received an
additional $1,869,831 from the Saginaw Chippewa and $1,605,000
from the Choctaw.\146\ Writing Scanlon, Abramoff celebrated,
``We're gonna be rich. What am I saying?! We ARE rich!!!''
\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Id.
\147\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011535) (March 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did Scanlon do with his share? In March 2002, Scanlon
reportedly paid $4.7 million in cash for a house for himself
and then-fiancee, Emily Miller.\148\ This beachfront mansion
reportedly had a weight room, sauna and a three-bedroom guest
house.\149\ Scanlon mounted lights on the deck so he could hold
parties on the beach at night, his surfing friends have
reportedly said.\150\ He also bought vacation homes on the
Caribbean island of St. Barts, including one villa he
reportedly rented out for $50,000 a week.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Brody Mullins, Breakup of Ex-Aides Shook Group Tied to
Abramoff--The Prosecutors Move In; Ms. Miller's Tearful Apology, Wall
Street Journal, March 31, 2006 at A1.
\149\ Id.
\150\ Id.
\151\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that was not enough. In reacting to a proposal by
Scanlon to fight attempts by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians
to open a casino in Louisiana, on March 12, 2002, Abramoff
admonished his partner, ``It's great, but don't give the option
of shaving costs. Of course they should do them all at once,
and there are no savings!!! Otherwise, we'll sacrifice $2M that
they would otherwise gladly pay. OK?'' \152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011588) (March 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referring to the Louisiana Coushatta, on April 8, 2002,
Abramoff observed, ``They are ripe for more pickings. We have
to figure out how.'' \153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252622-23) (April 8,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an email, dated March 13, 2002, entitled ``those f--ing
SagChips,'' Abramoff and Scanlon discussed the Saginaw
Chippewa's participation of an Abramoff venture to have them
help underwrite the cost of maintaining sky boxes at premium
sporting venues in the DC area: ``[then-Saginaw Chippewa Sub-
Chief] Dave Otto just told me that they are not going to do the
sports suites. He said they are under fire and are worried that
they are spending too much money. I really am worried that they
are not seeing results from us up there, so they are starting
to rethink doing stuff with us. can [sic] you PLEASE get
someone up there asap?'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000026246) (March 13, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon responded, ``Jack--the fact that they are not doing
sports suites has nothing to do with them not seeing [sic]
results on my end--they are just friggin cheap--and losers--I
very seriously doubt we will ever see another penny from them--
and there was no chance that they were ever going to do the
sports suites. We really have to watch these guys.'' \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied:

Let's chat about these guys. I agree about the sports
suites, but we need to energize this. we [sic] spent
the time and won the [Tribal Council] election, and now
have a great contract with them. they [sic] are not
happy with the service they are getting. We need to
step up and save this (a lot less work to turn this
into a winner than to find another rich tribe and bring
them to this point). they are apparently unhappy that
you are not there. I am seeing [Saginaw Chippewa
legislative director] Chris Petras tomorrow and will
get a temperature and we'll find a way to fix it. we
[sic] need a beautiful girl to send up there to do our
work. I am really not kidding. This deal is a big part
of our financial life and we cannot let it slip
away.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Id.

On June 18, 2002, Scanlon described an agreement to
Abramoff with the ``Saginaw's lawyers'' whereby the tribe will
``pay 1.9 up front then 500k and 500k ... We should have the
cash by the end of the week.'' \157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011737) (June 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Abramoff instructed Scanlon to direct his CCS
income to his purported charity, the Capital Athletic
Foundation (``CAF''), ``Great. can [sic] you get to [REDACTED]
and get that $ for CAF? I really need it. also, [sic] might
need you to direct one of the $500K's coming to CAF. can [sic]
you do that?'' \158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the next day, Scanlon updated Abramoff, ``Hey--good day
all around--we wrapped up the Sag Chip crap--We hit Coush--I
think for 3 mil--and we are working gon [sic] Acaliente [sic]
presentation--should be tight.'' \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000057329) (June 20, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff answered, ``Thanks so much! You are a great
partner. What I love about our partnership is that, when one of
us is down, the other is there. We're gonna make $ for years
together!'' \160\ Scanlon replied, ``Amen! You got it boss--we
have many years ahead!'' \161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Id.
\161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about July 9, 2002, the two discussed the payment of
$1,900,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa, Scanlon assuring
Abramoff, ``800 for you[,] 800 for me[,] 250 for the effort the
other 50 went to the plane and misc expenses. We both have an
additional 500 coming when they pay the next phasesm [sic].''
\162\ Indeed, on July 12, 2002, after that payment arrived, CCS
made three payments to Kaygold, of $800,000; $20,000; and
$44,000.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011746) (July 9, 2002).
\163\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Transaction #5 (October 16, 2002)--Louisiana Coushatta
Pays $950,000 and the Agua Caliente Pays $1,745,000
to CCS
In its brazenness, what apparently happened with a payment
of $950,000 by the Louisiana Coushatta, and $1,745,000 by the
Agua Caliente, to CCS is notable. On October 9, 2002, carbon-
copying Abramoff, Scanlon wrote Worfel, ``[R]ecently the [Jena]
have received an enormous amount of funding to back there [sic]
political/on the ground [sic] operations and in addition [sic]
have beefed up their lobbying team in D.C. as well.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC
007288) (October 9, 2002) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon continued, ``Given these facts I strongly believe
that we need more budget authority to achieve our objectives. I
would like an addition [sic] $950,000.00 to beef up our field
team for the petition drives, add more staff to our opposition
research team, and to increase the level of letters and call
[sic] we generate to Secretary Norton over the next few
weeks.'' \165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon underscored, ``In all of our time working together
we have never come back to you with a request for additional
budgeting, so please know that we would not being [sic] making
this request unless it were absolutely necessary.'' \166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon concluded, ``We believe that we will have the
campaign wrapped up within three weeks, and these additional
funds will contribute greatly to our success.'' \167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened subsequently is best reflected in CCS'
general ledger. According to this document, on or about October
15, 2002, the starting balance in CCS' operating account was
about $2,000,000.\168\ About a day later, the Louisiana
Coushatta paid CCS $950,000, as Scanlon requested.\169\ And, at
about that same time, the Agua Caliente made another payment of
$1,745,000.\170\ The original $2,000,000 balance was restored
in that account on or about October 25, 2002.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
\169\ See id.
\170\ Id.
\171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, in the interim, what happened to the Tribes' money?
Accounting records show that very little of the Tribe's money
was used for purposes intended by the Tribe. Between October
15th and October 25th, 2002, CCS' general ledger fails to
reflect any payments for ``beef[ing] up [a] field team for ...
petition drives'' or the ``add[ition of] more staff to [an]
opposition research team.'' Quite the contrary, during this
period, the general ledger indicates, CCS made only one payment
to any vendor for work traceable to any Tribe--$50,000 to
Ayers, McHenry & Associates, Inc. for ``professional campaign
services.'' \172\ It also reflects a payment of $250,000 to the
Republican Governors Association and several payments on credit
card bills and charter airfare.\173\ Otherwise, the only
notable activity that is reflected on the ledger during this
period are three ``shareholder draws'' taken by Scanlon,
totaling $2,200,000.\174\ After Scanlon made those withdrawals,
he allowed the account to be drawn down until early-December
2002--at which point the Choctaw made several payments.\175\ In
other words, apparently Scanlon never replenished the account
with the Louisiana Coushatta's and the Agua Caliente's money,
after he took it out in the first instance. The foregoing
allows the Committee to find that those Tribes never received
the intended benefit for the money that they paid CCS on or
about October 15, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Id.
\173\ Id.
\174\ Id.
\175\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unclear whether Scanlon told Abramoff about these
payments when they first arrived. On December 17, 2002,
Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``can you get me the check for the
money which came from the Agua asap? I'm actually in a bad cash
position.'' \176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000056775) (December 17,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon answered, ``No money in yet--still waiting on the
wire--ill [sic] send it over as sson [sic] as it comes in--Its
cool--all approved and everything--just not been executed
yet.'' \177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``Other than the AC, what [sic] next on
the money train?'' \178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon answered, ``The next big money we have coming our
way is Coushatta, and that will be in early January--the exact
amounts I'm still hammering out.'' \179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recently discovered financial record suggests what
Scanlon did with the money that he absconded from the Tribes in
2002. This document, which apparently sets forth Scanlon's net
worth for the year ending 2002, reflects that for his own
benefit Scanlon put most of the money he received from the
Tribes into real estate and investment accounts.\180\ According
to this document, entitled ``Scanlon NW 02,'' those investments
were valued at about $5,460,000, and $7,520,000 in expected
retainers, returns on investments, and net returns on
outstanding projects ``on board.'' \181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (undated) (entitled ``Scanlon NW 02'').
\181\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Transaction #6 (January-March 2003)--Louisiana Coushatta
Pays CCS $5,000,000
The Louisiana Coushatta's payment to CCS of $5,000,000 on
or about February 12, 2003, also reflects Abramoff and
Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme. In an email, dated January 21,
2003, and entitled ``Coushatta,'' Abramoff wrote Scanlon,
``Give me a call asap. I have some thoughts in this which I
need to share. It means more $$$$ for us!'' \182\ Exactly what
Abramoff had in mind here is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252878) (January 21,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 17, 2003, Abramoff reached out to Scanlon
``when are we getting Coushatta $?'' \183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252882) (February 17,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon responded, ``Was supposed to be in Friday--but did
not come through ...'' \184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``Let me know as soon as it gets in, you
fucking beach bum! :) [sic]'' \185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the next day, Scanlon reported, ``Coush Cash is in. Ill
[sic] process ASAP.'' \186\ The Louisiana Coushatta paid CCS
$5,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027864) (February 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon thereafter, on February 19, 2003, Scanlon paid
Abramoff's alter ego Kaygold $1,965,000 as a ``referral
expense.'' \187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff described what he intended to do with this money:
``I am actually at rock bottom and have a payroll to meet on
Thursday for the restaurant. Can you get this to me today or
tomorrow?'' \188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000027864) (February 18,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After he did not immediately get his share of the Louisiana
Coushatta payment, Abramoff implored Scanlon: ``Mike!!! I need
the money TODAY! I AM BOUNCING CHECKS!!!'' \189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012123) (February 19,
2003) (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff later apologized, ``Sorry I got nuts, but it's a
little crazy for me right now. I am not kidding that I was
literally on the verge of collapse. I hate all the shit I'm
into. I need to be on the Carribean with you!'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2003, Abramoff explained to his tax
advisor, ``I think I understand what he did. We received $5M
into CCS ... He divided the $5M into three piles: $1M for
actual expense, and $2M for each of us.'' \191\ The payment to
Abramoff, made to his entity Kaygold, and a series of
substantial ``shareholder draws'' taken out by Scanlon, are
reflected in the portion of CCS' ledger set forth below.\192\
It appears that those draws funded purely personal expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Bernhard (GTG-E000012115) (February 20, 2003).
\192\ The entries in the following tables, and similar tables
throughout this Report, are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the
Committee for verification. To determine whether the Tribes received
fair value for what they paid CCS, wholly incidental expenses were
excluded from the source ledger, and presented here. Of all vendor
transactions reflected in the source ledger, only those greater than or
equal to $25,000 or traceable to any Tribe have been included here and
other similar spreadsheets presented in this Report.

To add insult to injury, according to at least one
contemporaneous email, some of the money that the Agua Caliente
and the Louisiana Coushatta paid CCS was actually used for
conducting public relations activities for other Tribes, on
matters wholly unrelated to either. Complaining that CCS was
not under contract with the Saginaw Chippewa for public
relations, on February 28, 2003, Scanlon admitted, ``For the
past 4 months we have spent out of pocket to cover their PR--or
used agua [sic] or Coushatta money to cover the cost of every
little thing that comes down their pike, [sic] We sent them a
letter saying we will do no more PR work until we establish a
retainer arrangement in late December.'' \193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011983) (February 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon's requests for payments by, for
example, the Louisiana Coushatta to CCS (as reflected above)
appear to have related more to the exigencies of their personal
business interests than to that Tribe's grassroots needs. This
is evidenced in, for example, an email from Abramoff to his tax
advisor, dated March 28, 2003, in which he wrote, ``I have $1M
coming in (I hope directly to CAF or Eshkol) probably next
week, and $1M due within the next 2 weeks to Kaygold. Both from
CCS. How long will this money last both for the school and the
restaurants?'' \194\ Given the foregoing, it appears that the
Louisiana Coushatta received little of the intended benefit for
the money it paid CCS during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Bernhard (GTG-000012166) (March 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The ``Database''

The fact that most of the Tribes received little of the
intended benefit for the millions they paid CCS is perhaps best
illustrated by the political databases that Scanlon promised
them. As described below, the Tribes received something far
less than the customized, state-of-the-art databases that
Abramoff and Scanlon told them Scanlon would design, build, and
use for them as part of their grassroots campaigns.
a. The Pitch
In pitching Scanlon's program to the Agua Caliente Tribal
Council, Abramoff described what Scanlon allegedly did for the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw''):

So we decided ... to implement a system that Mike
[Scanlon] developed[,] which we successfully
implemented a couple of other times and it's actually
what we're here in part to talk [to] you about today.
To organize the tribe so that even though the Choctaws
were politically powerful in the sense of their local
area[,] we decided to implement a program to make them
the most powerful political machine in the State of
Mississippi[,] so that if a threat did come up ... they
would be in a position to respond to it.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled
``Verbatim Excerpt-Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'')
(July 20, 2004) (excerpt only).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He continued:

And in fact that threat did come up. And what we did
was organize their assets, their political assets. They
had a bunch of vendors and a bunch of customers, they
had eight thousand members of the tribe ... and we
organized them all. We developed a, a, Mike did, a
certain matrix, a certain way to do it so that we could
have instant access to people who were directly
impacted by the business of the tribe.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Id.

In an October 2001, memorandum to the Louisiana Coushatta's
outside counsel Kathryn Van Hoof, Scanlon described the
database this way: ``[W]e are taking what you built for the
compact fight and extend[ing] its reach even further. Our
ultimate political objective is to control both houses of the
state legislature and the governor's mansion.'' \197\
Originally, Abramoff had assured the Tribe that the database
that it first paid CCS for in connection with its compact
renegotiations with the State of Louisiana ``can be used for
any political effort deemed appropriate by the tribal decision
makers.'' \198\ But, now, Scanlon maintained that ``[i]n order
[for the Tribe to achieve its political goals], we need to
modify your political database into a statewide format.'' \199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC
017923) (October 23, 2001) (carbon-copying Abramoff).
\198\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (COUSH-MiscFin-0000371) (April 12,
2001).
\199\ Memorandum from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
to Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, ``Louisiana
Political Budget Outline'' (October 23, 2001) (carbon-copying
Abramoff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his interview with Committee staff, then-Louisiana
Coushatta Vice-Chairman William Worfel recalled having
discussed this database with Scanlon and Cathcart during a
meeting at Scanlon's office in Washington, D.C., well after the
date of that memorandum.\200\ During that meeting in 2003,
Scanlon and Cathcart showed Worfel a list of vendors and their
contact information, which the Tribe had provided to
Scanlon.\201\ According to Worfel, Scanlon and Cathcart said
that the database also contained information about other
companies with which these vendors did business; those
companies' political connections, in particular, ``whether they
were Republican or Democrat''; and information about the
vendors' ``friends'' in various state legislatures.\202\ Worfel
also recalled that the two said that, with respect to the
vendors' employees, the databases contained contact, voter
registration, and political affiliation information.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 14, 2005).
\201\ Id.
\202\ Id.
\203\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worfel also testified that Scanlon and Cathcart said that
the database included data regarding past State races: each
candidate's name, district, party affiliation, results of
previous races, and the length of service in the State
legislature.\204\ Yet, the only information that they showed
him was the election results in the district.\205\ Worfel also
remembers that Scanlon and Cathcart told him that they could
pull up opposition research data, but didn't do so.\206\ Having
presented their database to Worfel, Scanlon said he could beat
any candidate with ``anybody.'' \207\ Worfel testified that
both Scanlon and Cathcart told him that, with this database,
``you can control the destiny of the Coushatta Tribe and
politics in Louisiana.'' \208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ Id.
\205\ Id.
\206\ Id.
\207\ Id.
\208\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon's proposed use of elaborate databases was also
prominent in political programs that he proposed to the Saginaw
Chippewa, called ``Operation Redwing.'' According to drafts of
this proposal that he likely presented to the Tribe, ``Our
first step [to developing a successful political strategy] is
to tap into your natural political resources and integrate them
into a custom-built political database.'' \209\ The proposal
went on to describe a ``grassroots database'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for making the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe the most dominant political entity in
Michigan'') (December 6, 2001).

[CCS] will gather lists of your vendors, employees,
tribal members etc. (if you approve, customer lists),
and we will import those lists into your new database.
Our computer program will match the individuals or
businesses with addresses, phone numbers, political
registrations and e-mail addresses, and then sort them
by election districts. The districts run from U.S.
Senator down to school board and once completed, you
can tap into this database and mobilize your supporters
in ANY election, or on any issue of your choosing.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Id. (emphasis in original).

Regarding a ``Qualitative [that is, opposition] Research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Database,'' the proposal stated the following:

This custom built database acts as the information
center of Operation Red Wing. [sic] Over the next six
weeks, our team will gather qualitative information on
any entity who can be classified as opposition and
enter it into this database. The research will include
nearly every piece of information on the opposition as
you can imagine. Once gathered, it is then sorted by
subject matter and made retrievable by a phrase search.
The information can then be instantly disseminated to
any audience we choose such as our universe of
supporters, the press, third party [sic] interest
groups or other interested parties.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ Id.

According to the ``Operation Redwing'' proposal, ``the
[Saginaw Chippewa] tribe will have built a grassroots army of
over 50,000 real voters that it can call on for offensive or
defensive political efforts.'' \212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language regarding the database set forth in a Scanlon
proposal called ``Operation Open Doors,'' which he and Scanlon
presented to the Tigua, is almost identical to what was
proposed in ``Operation Redwing'' for the Saginaw
Chippewa.\213\ Scanlon's asking price for ``Operation Redwing''
was $4,207,000 \214\ and for ``Operation Open Doors,''
$5,400,000.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ A full description of relevant events relating to the Tigua
is contained supra in Part 1, Chapter 5, ``Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.''
\214\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Operation Redwing--A Strategy for making the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe the most dominant political entity in
Michigan'') (December 6, 2001).
\215\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Marc
Schwartz, Partners Group Consultants (GTG-E000076138-150) (February 18,
2002) (attaching ``Operation Open Doors'' proposal); Capitol Campaign
Strategies document production (no Bates number) (undated) (entitled
``Tigua Action Plan--Cost Breakout--Talking Points'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foregoing accords with the recollection of former
Saginaw Chippewa Sub-Chief David Otto, who told staff that
Scanlon pitched that Tribe on his database about a week after
the election of the Slate of Eight.\216\ Otto recalled that
Abramoff was also in attendance.\217\ During his interview with
staff, Otto recalled that Scanlon similarly insisted that the
Tribe needed his database to assert influence on the state
level, conduct writing campaigns, and to oppose
competitors.\218\ Otto also remembered Scanlon's saying that
the database was ``customized'' and that the software would
specifically be built for the Tribe.\219\ Additionally, Otto
stated that Scanlon cited the need to do mass mailings to write
to members of Congress to prevent gaming competition in the
area.\220\ According to Otto, Scanlon represented that his
company created and maintained the database.\221\ On or about
January 4, 2002, the Tribal Council voted to hire Scanlon to
create the database for about $1.85 million.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004). As described supra
in Part 1, Chapter 3, ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe,'' Section D,
``Slate of Eight--Abramoff and Scanlon's Trojan Horse,'' the Slate of
Eight was a slate of candidates whose campaigns for the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribal Council Scanlon and Abramoff supported, in
contemplation of, or in exchange for, future business with the Tribe.
\217\ Interview of David Otto, former Sub-Chief, Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\218\ Id.
\219\ Id.
\220\ Id.
\221\ Id.
\222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otto recalled working with Cathcart at CCS, to build up the
database with lists of the Tribe's employees and members.\223\
This was part of an ``organizational phase,'' for which all of
the subject Tribes paid CCS millions. When Scanlon finally
showed the program to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council, he
said it would start a massive campaign.\224\ All of the people
on the lists provided by the Tribe would be contacted and told
to write specific lawmakers, telling them they opposed
legislation hostile to the Tribe's interests.\225\ Otto recalls
Scanlon saying that this database would generate massive phone
call and letter campaigns.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Id.
\224\ Id.
\225\ Id.
\226\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a subsequent meeting, Otto was shown the database.\227\
Otto recalled that Cathcart did some talking, as did another
CCS associate, David Flaherty.\228\ He remembered that another
CCS associate named Amy Biederman was also in attendance but
did not speak much during the meeting.\229\ When Otto saw the
database, which was presented on a laptop, he thought ``we
spent millions of dollars for something a college kid could
do.'' \230\ He did not think it was worth millions of
dollars.\231\ Otto assumed that the Tribe had immediate access
to the database.\232\ But, he later learned the Tribe needed to
pay more money to CCS.\233\ In fact, Otto believes that the
Tribe ultimately spent about $4.1 million to build the database
and another $3.5 million or so to use it.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ Id.
\228\ Id.
\229\ Id.
\230\ Id.
\231\ Id.
\232\ Id.
\233\ Id.
\234\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, when Abramoff and Scanlon first met with the
Tigua, Scanlon explained grassroots campaigns and, in
particular, how he could get thousands of telephone calls to
flood ``a senator's office, or even the President's office.''
\235\ Against that backdrop, he and Abramoff proposed a
nationwide political campaign for the Tribe.\236\ To
demonstrate what they had in mind, they brought a laptop with a
database similar to what they were proposing to build for the
Tigua.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\236\ Id.
\237\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff noted, ``my part is easy; the hard part is keeping
this from being undone.'' \238\ He then explained how once the
law (with the Tigua-related provision) is printed, ``someone's
going to know it and that's where Mike comes in.'' \239\ In
that context, Abramoff described Scanlon's role as a
``submarine'': once the bill passed, Scanlon's ``submarine''
would emerge and ``fire missiles'' at opponents, who try to
repeal the Tigua provision.\240\ With Abramoff having
characterized Scanlon as ``expensive but worth it,'' \241\
Scanlon explained that he would implement this ``submarine
strategy'' through the database that he was supposedly going to
build for the tribe.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ Id.
\239\ Id.
\240\ Id.
\241\ Id.
\242\ Interview with Tom Diamond, Esq., Diamond, Rash, Gordon &
Jackson, outside counsel, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas, in El Paso,
Texas (October 28, 2004); Interview with Marc Schwartz, president,
Partners Group Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon apparently designated his ``right-hand man,''
Christopher Cathcart, to serve as his point of contract with
the Tribe.\243\ Working with Cathcart on the Tribe's behalf was
Tribal spokesperson Marc Schwartz.\244\ Schwartz believed that
he may have had as many as 20 to 25 conversations with
Cathcart.\245\ In his interview with Committee staff, Schwartz
recalled Cathcart had described the database as ``very
customized.'' \246\ He also recalled that Cathcart had said
that Scanlon had ``six people working day and night to get the
system up and running'' and a ``stable'' of graphic
artists.\247\ Schwartz also remembered asking Cathcart how many
people were working for Scanlon's company.\248\ In response,
Schwartz recalled, Cathcart said ``dozens'' and described
Scanlon's company to Schwartz as ``absolute studs.'' \249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ See Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, in Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004).
\244\ Id.
\245\ Id.
\246\ Id.
\247\ Id.
\248\ Id.
\249\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Cathcart's presentation, which probably occurred
sometime in Spring 2002, Schwartz came away thinking that
Scanlon's organization was huge and that his company had done a
number of these types of behind-the-scenes projects
before.\250\ According to Schwartz, Cathcart never mentioned
that Scanlon had, or planned to use, outside vendors.\251\
Given Abramoff's ``absolute, categorical'' insistence on
secrecy with the Tigua, Schwartz would have been very concerned
about Scanlon's using outside vendors on the database
project.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Id.
\251\ Id.
\252\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In hindsight, Schwartz believes that Cathcart lied about
the following: (1) the database was not customized; (2) Scanlon
did not have ``dozens'' of employees working on the database;
and (3) Scanlon did not have a ``stable'' of graphic
artists.\253\ Schwartz also believes that various
representations that Cathcart made about the database's
functionality were false.\254\ After having seen the database
subsequently, Schwartz considered it ``extremely
unremarkable.'' \255\ In his view, there was ``no way'' that
the database required ``six people working day-and-night'' or
that ``the database was worth millions.'' \256\ But, the Tribe
had already paid CCS $4,200,000.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ Id.
\254\ Id.
\255\ Id.
\256\ Id.
\257\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2002, the Pueblo of Sandia met with Cathcart at
CCS' Washington office to view its database and was equally
unimpressed: not only by the database's functionality but also
the fact that it appeared to capture only the employee and
vendor lists that the Tribe provided CCS.\258\ The database was
not, in the view of the tribal representatives who reviewed it
at the time, worth anything close to the almost $2 million that
the Tribe had paid for it.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\259\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral representations made by Scanlon that he apparently
made to Tribal representatives, in particular, Schwartz, Otto
and Worfel, about having ``built'' the database is reflected in
a document entitled ``The Coushatta Political Program,'' dated
June 26, 2001.\260\ In a section entitled, ``What We Have
Built,'' Scanlon stated, ``We have constructed a state-of-the-
art political database containing roughly 20,000 individuals
who will take action on behalf of the Tribe.'' \261\ It is also
reflected in the minutes of an Agua Caliente Tribal Council
meeting during which Scanlon and Abramoff pitched the
database.\262\ There, Scanlon further stated, ``Then my job is
to have there [sic] voices ... heard[.] How do we do that[?]
Several different ways[.] [O]ne [is to] start with [a] custom[-
]built database which I designed myself[.] [W]hat this database
does[--]it is a political database and takes raw data such as
employees--takes raw data and we insert that data into our
system soon to become your system if we work together ...''
\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ Louisiana Coushatta document production (no Bates number)
(June 26, 2001) (entitled, ``The Coushatta Political Program,'' by
Michael Scanlon).
\261\ Id.
\262\ Agua Caliente document production (no Bates number) (entitled
``Verbatim Excerpt--Tribal Council Meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 2002'')
(July 20, 2004) (excerpt only).
\263\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon also described the grassroots database as ``custom
built'' in a draft of the ``Agua Caliente Global Political
Strategy,'' dated July 8, 2002.\264\ In fact, in that document,
Scanlon told the Tribe that ``[CCS] will immediately begin
acquiring the computer hardware, software and design the
computer that houses your database.'' \265\ To ``organize'' and
implement this strategy, Scanlon sought from the Agua Caliente
$5,400,000 and an additional set-aside of $2,000,000.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Agua Caliente Global Political Strategy'')
(undated).
\265\ Id.
\266\ Id. See Letter from Michael Scanlon, Scanlon Gould Public
Affairs, to the Honorable Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians (July 9, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The Facts
In truth, Scanlon's company neither built nor designed
these databases.\267\ In fact, Scanlon merely licensed a
database actually created by a vendor named Democracy Data &
Communications (``DDC'').\268\ In instances where CCS charged
Tribes for DDC's databases, DDC developed them to help CCS
conduct grassroots campaigns on the Tribes' behalf.\269\ In
these cases, CCS supplied DDC with information, such as
membership rosters and vendor information, that CCS obtained
from its Tribal clients.\270\ Then, using its own proprietary
software and network design, DDC helped CCS use that
information for grassroots purposes--to create mass emails,
letters, faxes, etc.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\268\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\269\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\270\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\271\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, DDC, rather than CCS, built, updated and
maintained those databases, for which CCS charged its tribal
clients millions of dollars.\272\ Typically, Scanlon charged
each of the Tribes at least $1,000,000 just for putting the
database together; this was called the ``organizational
phase.'' \273\ But, in truth, all the work that DDC did on each
of the databases it developed, cost Scanlon a fraction of that
amount. For example, all the work that DDC did for the
Louisiana Coushatta's database (from May 2001 through December
2003) cost CCS only $104,000.\274\ Notably, in his interview
with Committee staff on the Tigua, Scanlon's right-hand man,
Christopher Cathcart, admitted that the Tribe ``got nowhere
near [the] $1.8 million [it paid] for the organizational
phase.'' \275\ He also conceded that the Tigua's database was
not customized.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\273\ See, e.g., Agua Caliente document production (AC 0287) (July
24, 2002) (Letter from Michael P. Scanlon, Scanlon Gould Public
Affairs, to Chairman Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Band of Cauhilla
Indians, July 24, 2002) (describing organizational phase as
``[i]nclud[ing] acquisition and design of hardware and software on
behalf of the Tribe, data matching, grassroots development, online
applications and political modifications''). For this, Scanlon charged
the Agua Caliente $1,875,000. Id. See also Email from Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig, to Marc Schwartz, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas
(GTG-E000076138-150) (February 18, 2002) (attaching ``Operation Open
Doors'' and describing organizational phase similarly). For this,
Scanlon charged the Tigua $1,875,000. Id.
\274\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\275\ Interview with Christopher Cathcart, former associate,
Capitol Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (November 4, 2004).
\276\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDC President B.R. McConnon testified that, when compared
with DDC's other clients paying similar prices and using
similar services, there was actually ``a very low level of
activity'' on the CCS account that were maintained for CCS'
tribal clients.\277\ Generally, McConnon observed, customers
who have such a low level of usage tend to shut off the
account.\278\ McConnon recalled that CCS used DDC's services so
sparingly, ``it got to be a running joke in the office.'' \279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\278\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\279\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases not involving DDC databases, it appears that CCS
took DDC's proprietary network design; provided that design to
another vendor, Visual Impact Productions (``VIP''); and
directed VIP to develop databases designed to mimic DDC's
product. And, in those cases, it appears that CCS charged those
Tribes millions of dollars for the development, maintenance,
and use of those databases.
One of those databases was used by CCS for the Pueblo of
Sandia. Apparently, a version of this database was also used by
CCS for the Louisiana Coushatta after December 2003. When shown
these databases during his deposition, McConnon testified that
CCS violated the terms of its licensing agreement when it took
the design of the database that his company originally created
for the Louisiana Coushatta and used it to develop another
system that was meant to look like his company's database.\280\
McConnon is correct: an email between VIP employee Charles
Trout and CCS' Cathcart, dated August 27, 2003, reflects that
Trout ``reviewed the Democracy Direct software'' and analyzed
the ``Democracy Direct application.'' \281\ Having done so,
Trout told Cathcart, ``[F]or ease of use I have attempted to
mimic the interface of the desktop app with the online app. For
the most part, they will be the same so the user will be able
to use both without re-learning the interface.'' \282\ Trout
noted, ``I remember that your goal was to buy a laptop and have
us install the application on it before delivery to the
client.'' \283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\281\ Email between Charles Trout, Visual Impact Productions, and
Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies, ``democracy direct
feates [sic]/functionality'' (no Bates number) (August 27, 2003).
\282\ Id.
\283\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having examined VIP's database, McConnon opined that it was
far less capable than his company's.\284\ In particular,
McConnon noted that the quality of the data contained in the
VIP system seemed inferior to DDC's; its searching capability
was far less extensive than DDC's; its presentation of
information was very limited; it seemed not to contain as much
information as DDC's, which is important to implement a more
targeted, efficient grassroots program; and the quality of the
keypunching seemed very inferior.\285\ McConnon agreed that
someone at CCS apparently showed the other vendor the ``access
page'' of his company's database.\286\ McConnon confirmed that
this would be a violation of the licensing agreement that
Scanlon executed with DDC.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\285\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\286\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\287\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a version of this database, the Pueblo of Sandia paid
Scanlon $1,857,000.\288\ That amount corresponds to elements of
a proposal drafted by Scanlon for the Tribe relating to
``acquisition and design of hardware and software, data
matching, grassroots development, online applications and
political modifications.'' \289\ However, in actuality, Scanlon
never provided those services. In the ordinary course of
business, those services would have been provided--at a far
lesser cost--by one of Scanlon's vendors. In this case,
McConnon opined that this database, apparently produced by VIP,
was worth nothing near $1,857,000; it was probably worth, at
the very most, about $20,000.\290\ Whether the database came
from DDC or VIP, it appears that the representation that CCS
``constructed'' a database was false.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Interview of Stuwart Paisano, former Governor, Pueblo of
Sandia of New Mexico, in Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006); Interview
of David Mielke, counsel, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, in
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2006).
\289\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (March 14, 2002) (Draft Letter from Michael Scanlon, Scanlon
Gould, to Governor Stuwart Paisano, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico).
\290\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
\291\ Some may assert that the reference to a ``database'' referred
to in, for example, the ``The Coushatta Political Program'' document
described above, refers to lists derived from communications programs
that CCS implemented for the Louisiana Coushatta. Nonetheless, if so,
the document's reference to that database as ``state-of-the-art'' would
be false. And, if it refers to the database provided by DDC (or VIP),
the statement would be false, where as of that particular document's
date, DDC had not yet provided CCS with a political database. Interview
of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of B.R. McConnon,
president, Democracy Data & Communications, in Washington, D.C.
(September 28, 2005). As of the date of the document, on the Louisiana
Coushatta account, DDC only warehoused data, that is, provide a very
basic list-management program. Interview of B.R. McConnon, president,
Democracy Data & Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004);
Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications,
in Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The draft document goes further: ``We have compiled a
state-of-the-art qualitative research database, which can
identify allies and adversaries by `quote.' '' \292\ However,
the Committee has seen no evidence that DDC, or any other
vendor for that matter, ever provided CCS with such a database.
Nor has the Committee seen any evidence that CCS developed such
a database internally. Therefore, that statement too appears to
be false.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ Letter from Michael Scanlon, Scanlon Gould, to Governor
Stuwart Paisano, Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico (March 14, 2002)
(draft).
\293\ Interview of B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data &
Communications, in Washington, D.C. (August 26, 2004); Interview of
B.R. McConnon, president, Democracy Data & Communications, in
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CCS' Use of Fictitious Grassroots Organizations

Among the things that CCS promised to do for its Tribal
Clients was to mobilize, in particular, Christian conservatives
and environmental activists to oppose the expansion of gaming
in areas that would infringe on their market share. Several
documents describe exactly what Scanlon had in mind. In a
document entitled ``Louisiana Political Budget Outline,'' dated
October 23, 2001, Scanlon told a representative of the
Louisiana Coushatta, ``We plan to use three forms of
communications to mobilize and win these battles. Phones, mail
and Christian radio.'' \294\ He continued, ``Our mission is to
get specifically selected groups of individuals to the polls to
speak out AGAINST something.'' \295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC
017923) (October 23, 2001).
\295\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Scanlon, ``To that end, your money is best
spent finding them and communicating with them on using the
modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put we
want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make
sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past
them. The wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian
right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone
trees.'' \296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to other documents in the Committee's possession,
Scanlon likewise promised the Saginaw Chippewa that it would
repel threats to its market share by ``execut[ing] the
following tactics'': grassroots mobilization of environmental
activities; mobilization of anti-gaming activists; patch-
through phone calls to state and federal environmental
protection agencies; direct mail; as well as mobilization of
environmental and ``citizen groups.'' \297\ As described above,
only a fraction of what the Tribes paid CCS went to the
grassroots efforts promised by CCS. So, the question arises
what did CCS in fact do to mobilize grassroots supporters?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this regard, it appears that Scanlon and his partner
Abramoff originally relied on the efforts of Ralph Reed and
other vendors to conduct these grassroots activities.\298\
However, at some point, it appears that Scanlon and Abramoff
chose not to rely on Reed's efforts or pushed him out entirely,
ostensibly to maximize their ``gimme five'' income. In fact, in
a few cases, Scanlon used fictitious organizations to
manipulate grassroots support among Christian conservatives and
environmentally-minded voters. Accordingly, for a fraction of
the cost associated with bona fide grassroots activities,
Scanlon was able to convey to his clients the appearance that
he was coalition-building or mobilizing support, when he was
actually not doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ A full discussion of these activities, and the degree to
which Abramoff relied on them in support of their Tribal clients, is
set forth above in Part 1, Chapter 1, ``Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians,'' and below in Part 2, Chapter 2, ``American International
Center.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Aaron Stetter, a former associate at CCS, on
several occasions Scanlon used fictitious grassroots
organizations for the Saginaw Chippewa, in particular.\299\
During his deposition, Stetter remarked that the names of such
organizations such as ``Concerned Citizens Against Gaming
Expansion (``CCAGE''),'' ``Global Christian Outreach Network
(``GCON''),'' and ``Michigan Environmental Group'' were ``just
a title'' and to his knowledge not bona fide
organizations.\300\ During her interview with staff, Abramoff
and Scanlon's liaison with the Choctaw, Nell Rogers, stated
that she believed that CCAGE and GCON were actual grassroots
organizations working on the Tribe's projects.\301\ That was
not the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
\300\ Id.
\301\ See Interview with Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Washington, D.C. (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stetter told Committee staff that he was required to create
phone scripts that CCS would use for patch-through phone
calls.\302\ When he prepared these scripts he ``would leave the
line blank and then [the name of the organization] would either
be added by [Cathcart or Scanlon] during the drafting process''
or he would receive an email ``saying, plug this word in.''
\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\302\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
\303\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pretensions that Scanlon used in mobilizing opposition
to gaming initiatives that threatened his clients' market share
is reflected in talking points that purport to describe the
CCAGE.\304\ This document falsely describes the CCAGE as ``a
watchdog for illegal gaming efforts in the United States.''
\305\ Furthermore, according to the document, ``[a]t the
grassroots level, CCAGE draws attention to such efforts while
educating the public on the dangers of gambling to families and
communities.'' \306\ The document deceptively explains that the
CCAGE targeted Louisiana because ``[Louisiana] is an affordable
media market--our dollars stretch further and we felt we have a
better shot at being effective, really making a difference.''
\307\ In fact, the document misleadingly states, ``We ... are
not representing their competitors like Harrahs or Isle of
Capri''; ``[we get] [n]o money from Harrahs, Isle of Capri or
any other casinos''; and ``CCAGE is by no means bogus.'' \308\
Needless to say, these talking points do not mention that the
CCAGE operated for the benefit of a gaming tribe. It is unclear
what these talking points were used for. However, inasmuch as
Scanlon may have used them to mobilize unwitting activists and
voters as part of his grassroots strategy for the Louisiana
Coushatta, they give rise to concern.
Stetter also acknowledged that pursuant to instructions
from Scanlon and/or Cathcart he set up several cell phones with
area codes in states in which CCS was operating for its tribal
clients.\309\ He then handed the phones over to Amy Biederman,
another CCS associate.\310\ She kept a box of phones in her
office with the name of each organization taped to the back of
the respective phone, and depending on which phone rang, she
answered with ``Concerned Citizens Against Gaming Expansion,''
or with the name of one of the other fictitious
organizations.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``CCAGE talking points'') (undated).
\305\ Id.
\306\ Id.
\307\ Id.
\308\ Id.
\309\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
\310\ See id.
\311\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to using these bogus organizations for phone
banking, Scanlon issued fliers under their names. Stetter
recalled that early in his career with CCS he was directed by
Scanlon to deliver a flier entitled ``GCON, Issue Focus 2002''
to ``each Member of the [Mississippi State] House and ...
Senate.'' \312\ Stetter recalled that he stuffed these fliers
in, among other places, the mailboxes of each state
senator.\313\ One such flier listed the address at a Post
Office in Flowwood, Mississippi. Stetter admitted that this too
was bogus: ``[my] first order of business on this trip was to,
one, set up a post office box somewhere in Mississippi ... and
to activate a cell phone'' to delude the fliers' recipients
that these were bona fide grassroots organizations.\314\ In
fact, Stetter noted that he chose Flowwood simply because it
was close to the airport where he arrived.\315\ Scanlon
insisted that P.O. Boxes be set up in the states where CCS was
operating.\316\ That flier listed Amy Biederman as the national
director for the GCON. In his deposition, Stetter confirmed
that Biederman was in fact not the national director for the
GCON but merely another associate at CCS.\317\ Scanlon's right-
hand man, Christopher Cathcart, maintained in a Committee staff
interview that this effort was merely intended to find out what
opinion leaders thought of gaming.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ Id.
\313\ Id.
\314\ Id.
\315\ Id.
\316\ See Interview of Christopher Cathcart, associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
\317\ Deposition of Aaron Stetter, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 26, 2005).
\318\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capital
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his interview with Committee staff, the head of
Greenberg Traurig's national lobbying practice observed that
using fictitious grassroots entities ``for cover'' is not
uncommon.\319\ Specifically, he reflected, ``When the trial
lawyers want to pass their constitutional amendment to, to
ratchet down the doctors, they create a Coalition for Fairness
in Medical Practice, and there's nothing--you can go into a
state, in Topeka, Florida, and I can give you all the 527s and
CCEs and the not-for-profits, and most of them we can tell you
who funded which one of them ... because you know where the
money is coming from.'' \320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\319\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
\320\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He continued, ``You know, the effort to save the greyhounds
in Florida is an anti, is actually primarily funded by Disney
and Universal to keep casinos out ...'' \321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While using bogus groups in furtherance of grassroots
strategies may be common, Scanlon and Abramoff's use of them is
distinguishable in that they were employed as part of Abramoff
and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme. In an interview with
Committee staff, former CCS associate Brian Mann said that he
thought that, for example, the letter-writing and signature-
gathering campaigns, many of which he helped lead or otherwise
conduct in the name of such bogus organizations, were
``fraudulent.'' \322\ He described them as ``flashes in the pan
[that were designed] to appease [CCS'] clients.'' \323\ He
regarded them as exercises that ``created face time'' and
``scuttlebutt'' by ``send[ing] a few people out there to show
them that we exist.'' \324\ With CCS associates collecting
signatures ``on K-Mart or Walmart parking lots,'' Mann felt
that those activities ``didn't amount to very much.'' \325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ Interview of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 3, 2006).
\323\ Id.
\324\ Id.
\325\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding sections of this Chapter set forth Abramoff
and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme, as it related to CCS, and
describe how Abramoff and Scanlon furthered that scheme by
promoting Scanlon's grassroots business--only after concealing
their financial relationship from the Tribes. This Chapter has
also set forth the basis of the Committee's conclusion that
those Tribes received little of the intended benefit for the
$66 million that they paid CCS from 2001 through 2003.

E. CONCLUSION

As a general proposition, Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme
five'' scheme involved getting each of the Tribes to hire
Scanlon as their grassroots specialist; dramatically
overcharging them for grassroots and related activities;
setting aside for themselves a percentage of what the Tribes
paid at a grossly inflated rate--a rate wholly unrelated to the
actual cost of services provided; and using the remaining
fraction to reimburse scores of vendors that could help them
maintain vis-a-vis the Tribes a continuing appearance of
competence.
In all cases, secrecy was key. Only by keeping their
financial arrangement secret could they execute the strategies
that they devised to secure the Tribes as clients. In some
cases, they did so by insinuating themselves in tribal council
elections and assisting with the campaigns of candidates who
were calculated to support their proposals. In other cases,
Abramoff and Scanlon were even more aggressive. In one example,
they helped shut down the casino of one particularly
underprivileged Tribe, only to pitch their services
afterwards--for a multimillion dollar premium--to help that
same Tribe, made desperate by their efforts, reopen it.
Typically, the most expensive element of Scanlon's
proposals to the Tribes related to an elaborate political
database. But, in all cases, it appears that the degree to
which Scanlon marked-up his actual costs was unconscionable.
For example, while Scanlon told the Louisiana Coushatta that
their ``political'' database would cost $1,345,000, he ended up
paying the vendor that actually developed, operated and
maintained that database about $104,560. The dramatic mark-ups
were intended to accommodate Scanlon's secret 50/50 split with
Abramoff.
In total, six tribes paid CCS at least $66 million over the
three-year period. By the Committee's reckoning, each Tribe
paid CCS as follows: the Choctaw, $14,745,650; the Louisiana
Coushatta, $26,695,500; the Saginaw Chippewa, $10,007,000; the
Agua Caliente, $7,200,000; the Tigua, $4,200,000; and the
Pueblo of Sandia, $2,750,000. Of that $66 million, Abramoff
secretly collected from Scanlon, through (among other entities)
an entity called Kaygold, about $24 million. This constituted
about one-half of Scanlon's total profit from the Tribes.
As described above in detail, most of the money that the
Tribes paid Scanlon appears to have been used by Scanlon and
Abramoff for purely personal purposes--purposes unintended by
the Tribes. Generally, Abramoff seems to have used his share of
the proceeds he received from Scanlon to float his restaurant
ventures and, through the CAF, operate his Jewish boys' school
in Maryland. Likewise, Scanlon seems to have used his share to
purchase real estate and other investments. Given the
foregoing, the Committee finds that most of the Tribes received
little of the intended benefit for the significant sums they
paid to Scanlon.
CHAPTER II

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER

Ben, I need to set up a web site for the American
International Center, which should have all sorts of
goodies to make it look real ... Can you create
something?

Email from Jack Abramoff to Benjamin Mackler, Mack Design,
January 19, 2002

Committee Chairman McCain and former Rehoboth Beach lifeguard
David Grosh, Committee Hearing, June 22, 2005

A. INTRODUCTION

In the course of its hearings over the last two years, the
Committee preliminarily found that the American International
Center (``AIC''), a supposed think tank based in Rehoboth
Beach, Delaware, and headed by two of Scanlon's beach buddies,
was not what it purported to be. In actuality, AIC was one of
several entities owned or controlled by Michael Scanlon or Jack
Abramoff that they used as part of their ``gimme five''
scheme--their secret scheme to wrongfully divert millions of
dollars in fees paid by their Tribal clients for purely
personal use. However, from 2001 through 2003, AIC was itself
Abramoff's ninth biggest lobbying client, reportedly paying him
and his employer about $1.7 million in lobbying fees.\1\ In
2002 alone, AIC reportedly paid Greenberg Traurig $840,000,
making it the Firm's fifth largest client that year.\2\ Until
the Committee's hearings, the nature and business of AIC
remained elusive: one industry observer described it at the
time as ``a client with interests that are hard to decipher.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brody Mullins, Abramoff Shops Himself on K Street, Roll Call,
March 23, 2004.
\2\ Shawn Zeller, Lobbying & Law--K Street Cooled Off in 2002,
National Journal, April 19, 2003.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In court filings associated with their federal criminal
pleas, Abramoff and Scanlon admitted that they used AIC (and
other Scanlon-controlled entities) to receive funds for work
done by another Scanlon entity, called Capitol Campaign
Strategies (``CCS'').\4\ Moreover, recently appearing before
the Committee, a representative of Greenberg Traurig described
AIC more plainly as ``a sham'' and merely ``a front for Mr.
Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon to collect money.'' \5\ Given the
information the Committee has obtained during its
investigation, the Committee shares that conclusion. Below, the
Committee explains why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 2, U.S. v.
Michael P.S. Scanlon (Dist. D.C., November 17, 2005) (CR-05-411); Plea
Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea at para. 4, U.S. v. Jack A.
Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
\5\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 22 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of Fred
Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs Practice, Greenberg
Traurig).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After providing background on how AIC was started and how
it was used as a conduit to further the Tribes' grassroots
strategies, this Chapter will describe how Abramoff and Scanlon
used AIC to further their ``gimme five'' scheme, secretly
splitting fees paid by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
(``Louisiana Coushatta'') and, to a lesser extent, the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'').

B. A DAY AT THE BEACH--HOW AIC WAS STARTED

AIC was apparently started in early 2001.\6\ In an
interview with Committee staff, Christopher Cathcart, who
ultimately served as Scanlon's most senior and highest-paid
assistant, described AIC as ``a joint project'' between Scanlon
and Abramoff.\7\ Otherwise, Cathcart claims, he did not know
what role Abramoff had in AIC.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early in 2001, Scanlon called his long-time friend and
fellow lifeguard David Grosh and asked him whether he wanted to
serve as a director of an ``international corporation.'' \9\
Grosh, who knew quite well that his background was unsuited for
such a position, thought that this was a joke but finally
agreed: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\10\ Id.

Chairman McCain: [Scanlon] approached you in some way?
Mr. Grosh: A phone call.
Chairman McCain: And said?
Mr. Grosh: Do you want to be head of an international
corporation. [Laughter] It is a hard one to turn down.
[Laughter].\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 35 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of David
Grosh, former director, American International Center).

Scanlon then offered Grosh $500 per month to serve as a
director of AIC.\12\ At some point, Grosh asked Scanlon why he
selected him.\13\ According to Grosh, Scanlon answered,
``because you are a political unknown.'' \14\ When Grosh asked
Scanlon what AIC would do, Grosh recalled, Scanlon said that it
``would have research done by subcontractors in support of a
particular political objective and would deliver the research
to different groups and people.'' \15\ Notably, Grosh also
recalled Scanlon mentioning that he had experience ``running
campaigns'' in countries in Asia and Central America.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grosh served as a director of AIC from February through
September 2001.\17\ In his interview with Committee staff, he
readily conceded that his professional and educational
background were completely unrelated to the purported mission
of AIC of ``enhancing the methods of empowerment for
territories, commonwealths and sovereign nations in the
possession of and within the United States.'' \18\ He also
conceded that his background did not qualify him to serve on
the board of ``an international think tank.'' \19\ Throughout
the time that Grosh served as a director of AIC, he thought
that ``this was some silly game that Scanlon was playing.''
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\18\ Id.; American International Center (no longer available)
(setting forth AIC mission
statement).
\19\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between February and July 2001, ``AIC had no office; AIC's
business address was the beach house that [Grosh] and [yoga
instructor Brian Mann] rented'' in Rehoboth Beach.\21\ In
response to a question posed during a Committee hearing about
what AIC did, Grosh responded that during the four or five
months when he was ``involved'' with AIC, ``we only rented the
first floor of a house and installed some computers''.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. At least one other entity owned or controlled by Scanlon,
called the Scanlon Foundation for Kids, was later run out of this
office. Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005). According
to Mann, Scanlon intended the Foundation, which had no employees or
physical assets but may have received outside contributions, for only
two things: (1) buy books and school supplies for unprivileged children
from a particular school and (2) buy, in conjunction with the YMCA,
Christmas presents for a local ``economically deprived'' community. Id.
\22\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 35 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of David
Grosh, former director, American International Center). At some point,
Scanlon had a telephone installed that he instructed Grosh never to
answer. See Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late in 2001 or early in 2002, Scanlon started talking to
Mann about possibly working for him.\23\ Mann was Grosh's
house-mate at the time.\24\ In his deposition, Mann recalls
that Scanlon was looking for office space, so Mann set him up
with his landlord regarding empty space below where he
lived.\25\ After Mann started working for Scanlon, he came to
learn that Scanlon did public relations work for Indian
casinos.\26\ In particular, Scanlon claimed he conducted
projects intended to help those Tribes with their market
share.\27\ In furtherance of these projects, Mann began to
research, and distribute to other Scanlon employees, articles
regarding Scanlon's Tribal clients.\28\ In fact, according to
Mann, ``researching articles is all [he] was doing for AIC or
CCS.'' \29\ He was also given the authority to sign checks on
behalf of AIC.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview
of David Grosh, former director, American International Center, in
Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\24\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview
of David Grosh, former director, American International Center, in
Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\25\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grosh recalled that Scanlon enticed Mann and him to work
for AIC by promising, among other things, that AIC would pay
for both to go surfing at the island of St. Barts.\31\ Grosh
never took that trip.\32\ But, Scanlon paid for Mann to fly to
St. Barts about four times.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\32\ Id.
\33\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grosh and Mann, who served as AIC's only directors,
recalled that AIC had fewer than five meetings of its board--
all of which occurred in 2001.\34\ Grosh recalled that Scanlon
characterized those meetings as ``a paperwork formality''.\35\
Grosh did not recall what, if any, business was discussed at
those meetings: ``There was nothing to discuss ... As far as I
knew, AIC had no business to discuss.'' \36\ Referring to AIC's
being held out as an international think tank, Grosh quipped,
``If AIC was a think tank, I sure don't know what we were
thinking about.'' \37\ Mann could only recall discussing
Scanlon's acquiring, and his own cleaning, office space for
AIC, and Grosh's departure from the organization.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005); See also
Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American International
Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
\35\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
\38\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records obtained by the Committee indicate that AIC held
only two board meetings--on September 30 and October 30,
2001.\39\ Apparently, the ``business'' they discussed included
Grosh's ``relinquish[ing] his position'' with AIC and
installing Mann as the ``Director of day to day [sic]
operations of AIC'', for which he was to receive $1500 a
month.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/CCS
023748-49) (September 30, 2001); Capitol Campaign Strategies document
production (BB/AIC 000634) (October 30, 2001).
\40\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/CCS
023748) (September 30, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By September 2001, Grosh concluded that ``something was not
quite right'': Scanlon had bought two houses in Rehoboth--both
of which costs millions of dollars.\41\ Grosh recalls,
``Scanlon was always throwing around money; no one makes that
much money over such a short period of time.'' \42\ Grosh was
also uncomfortable with the aspect of Scanlon's business that
related to Indian gaming.\43\ Therefore, Grosh decided to
leave.\44\ For his ``services,'' Grosh was compensated in total
$2,500 to $3,000.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005).
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Grosh left AIC, Mann was, as far as he knew, its only
employee.\46\ In fact, according to Mann, no one other than
Grosh and himself was ever paid by AIC as an employee.\47\
Moreover, the only time Mann recalled Grosh ``ever doing
anything was helping me literally put a desk together.'' \48\
Otherwise, he had ``no idea'' what Grosh did.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
\47\ Id.
\48\ Id.
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mann, who Scanlon also publicly held out as a director of
AIC, was (and remains) unsure about exactly what AIC did.\50\
Mann testified that ``[a]ll [he] knew was that [he] was
providing newspaper clips,'' as instructed.\51\ Mann readily
conceded that his professional and educational background, like
Grosh's, were completely unrelated to the purported mission of
AIC.\52\ Mann was at AIC until late 2002--at which time he
started working for CCS and, subsequently, for other Scanlon-
controlled entities including Scanlon Venture Capital (``SVC'')
and Scanlon Capital Management (``SCM'').\53\ Convinced that
Scanlon was ``a fraud,'' Mann stopped working for SCM in
October 2005.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Id.
\51\ Id.
\52\ Id.
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cathcart, who served as Scanlon's top assistant
and was therefore in a position to opine about AIC with
authority, said he considered AIC an alter ego of Scanlon.\55\
Mann agreed that, although he was getting paid by AIC, he was
in fact working for Scanlon.\56\ In his mind, the two were the
same.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
\56\ Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005).
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. MAKING IT LOOK REAL--ABRAMOFF HAS AIC POST A WEBSITE

Despite Cathcart's professed understanding of the nature of
AIC, he and Abramoff worked together to, among other things,
develop its website, apparently to make AIC look like a
legitimate, established organization. Early in 2002, Scanlon
asked Cathcart and Amy Biederman, another CCS associate, to
help develop a website for AIC.\58\ While Cathcart and
Biederman worked on the website's content, Abramoff had an
outside contractor program and design it.\59\ Indeed, it
appears that Abramoff may have come up with the idea for the
website--reaching out to a contractor named Benjamin Mackler of
MackDesign Studios about the prospect of developing it, on
January 19, 2002:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
\59\ Id.

Ben, I need to set up a web site for the American
International Center, which should have all sorts of
goodies to make it look real. It should have links to
various other think tanks, including ISIS in Malaysia,
the statehood movement in Puerto Rico, Heritage,
Americans for Tax Reform, National Center for Public
Policy Research, Cato Institute, Toward Tradition. Can
you create something? What would the budget be? We'd
need a section about ``who we are'', ``contact us'',
our leadership, etc.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ben
Mackler, Mack Design (no Bates number) (January 19, 2002) (emphasis
added).

In response to a proposal from Mackler to develop a website
for $2,750, Abramoff asked, ``[C]an you get things moving? Can
you see what kind of domain name you can get: AIC.org, or
AmericanInternationalCenter.org?'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mackler returned with a request to register a domain name
for AIC and questions about the website's design. In response,
Abramoff answered, ``Yes to all.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, he instructed Mackler to call Scanlon, who in
turn told Mackler to contact Cathcart. Mackler turned again to
Abramoff, saying that Scanlon chose a more expensive option for
the website.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff replied, ``The 3500 option is fine with me. let's
[sic] do it.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathcart testified that ultimately he and Biederman spent
only about an hour working on the website.\65\ Cathcart
recalled that Scanlon provided him with some information that
he used for the website, including that it was ``an
international company'' with ``international clients''--namely
Malaysia and Puerto Rico \66\. Cathcart believed that he may
have been given some written material for the website.\67\ If
so, he believed that it would have included the articles of
incorporation, the bylaws, and other organizational
documents.\68\ Cathcart likewise recalled not drafting a
mission statement, which he said would have been provided to
him.\69\ Otherwise, according to Cathcart, he and Biederman
``didn't have much to go on.'' \70\ Cathcart noted that they
gave Scanlon the text that they developed for final
approval.\71\ On or about January 21, 2002, Abramoff apparently
reached out to Cathcart about the website, with Cathcart
responding, ``10-4. Should have most of the content tomorrow.''
\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
\66\ Id.
\67\ Id.
\68\ Id.
\69\ Id.
\70\ Id.
\71\ Id.
\72\ Email between Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number)
(January 31-February 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a request from either Scanlon or Abramoff, on February
4, 2002, Cathcart forwarded a final copy of the text to
Abramoff for comments and edits. Abramoff congratulated
Cathcart, ``Thanks, Chris. I have seen it. great [sic] work.
Did Mike [Scanlon] give you the list of items the firm wants
regarding AIC?'' \73\ On February 13, 2002, Abramoff followed-
up with Cathcart to make sure that Mackler got paid.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (February 4,
2002).
\74\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (February 13,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final form, the website set forth AIC's mission
statement. It described AIC as ``a Delaware-based corporation
with the global minded purpose of enhancing the methods of
empowerment for territories, commonwealths, and sovereign
nations in possession of and within the United States.'' \75\
In each of their depositions and interviews with Committee
staff, Grosh, Mann and Cathcart said they had no idea what this
meant.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ American International Center (no longer available) .
\76\ See Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005);
Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American International
Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview of Christopher
Cathcart, former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies, in Washington,
D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website also touted AIC as (1) ``a premiere
international think tank''; (2) ``determined to influence
global paradigms in an increasingly complex world.''; (3) a
``public policy foundation''; (4) founded ``under the high
powered directorship of David A. Grosh and Brian J. Mann''; (5)
``[w]hile only recently incorporated ... striving to advance
the cause of greater international empowerment for many
years''; (6) ``using 21st century technology and decades of
experience to make the world a smaller place''; (7) ``bringing
great minds together from all over the globe''; (8) ``seek[ing]
to expand the parameters of international discourse in an
effort to leverage the combined power of world intellect:'';
and (9) comprised of an ``expert team.'' \77\ To the extent
that Grosh, Mann and Cathcart could speak to the truth of each
of those representations, each agreed that they were false.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ American International Center (no longer available) .
\78\ See Interview of David Grosh, former director, American
International Center, in Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2005);
Deposition of Brian Mann, former director, American International
Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview of Christopher
Cathcart, former associate, Capitol Campaign Strategies, in Washington,
D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his interview with Committee staff, Cathcart, who
described his role at CCS through this period as a ``go-fer''
and doing ``research and stuff,'' \79\ admitted to being
embarrassed about writing AIC's web page but noted that
Biederman ``developed the puffery.'' \80\ Cathcart never
thought a client would see AIC's website, although he never
explained how the website would otherwise be used.\81\
According to Cathcart, ``[e]veryone who worked with AIC knew it
was the same thing as Mike [Scanlon].'' \82\ In his interview
with Committee staff, Cathcart claimed that he did not even
know why Scanlon wanted a website.\83\ Cathcart claimed that he
thought Scanlon wanted a website ``like he wanted the Range
Rover.'' \84\ As described below, those Tribes that Abramoff
and Scanlon directed to pay to and through AIC, did so to their
detriment. Therefore, any role that Cathcart may have had in
helping to facilitate payments by the Tribe to AIC, or to any
other ``gimme five'' entity for that matter, may be an area
ripe for further inquiry.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (November 5, 2004). Supposed
AIC director Brian Mann and former Abramoff associate Stephanie Leger
Short maintained in their deposition and interview, respectively, that
Cathcart was by no means a ``go-fer.'' Deposition of Brian Mann, former
director, American International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31,
2005); Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate, Greenberg
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005). In fact, separately,
both described Cathcart as Scanlon's ``right-hand man.'' Deposition of
Brian Mann, former director, American International Center, in
Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005); Interview of Stephanie Leger Short,
former associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18,
2005) (limiting ``right hand man'' observation to CCS' work for
Louisiana Coushatta). Mann also described Cathcart as ``the manager of
the D.C. office'' and CCS' ``director of operations.'' Deposition of
Brian Mann, former director, American International Center, in
Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2005). Tigua representative Marc Schwartz,
who directly interacted with Cathcart on the Tribe's behalf, described
Cathcart as Scanlon's ``gotta-make-what-Scanlon-sold, work'' guy.
Interview with Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group Consultants, in
Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2004). Mann insisted that Cathcart
``hired and fired'' and ``managed whatever client situations we had at
the time--managed the D.C. office.'' Deposition of Brian Mann, former
director, American International Center, in Washington, D.C. (March 31,
2005). Moreover, Mann remembered Cathcart ``being the manager, being in
charge of the office when Scanlon wasn't there, or even when Scanlon
was there, I guess, directing the different folks to do what they
needed to do.'' Id. Mann also recalled that Cathcart did ``a lot of
client management, like he interacted with the Tribes directly, either
through whatever contact people the Tribes had or the chiefs or whoever
... that person may have been.'' Id. From his first-hand experience,
Mann also ``assum[ed] [Cathcart had] a hand with Scanlon in coming up
with [grassroots campaign] strategies and execution of those
strategies.'' Id. Cathcart also provided Mann instruction and guidance
on what he should be researching. Id. Mann agreed that ``when Scanlon
wasn't around, [Cathcart] was The Man.'' Id. Mann's account is
corroborated by, among other things, Cathcart's robust role in
assisting the Slate of Eight's successful campaign for the Tribal
Council of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, discussed in Part 1,
Chapter 3, Section of this Report, entitled ``Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of
Michigan: `Slate of Eight'--Abramoff and Scanlon's Trojan Horse.''
Dramatic growth in Cathcart's responsibilities under Scanlon is
reflected in the considerable increase in his compensation: in April
2001, when Cathcart apparently started working with Scanlon, he drew a
salary of $44,540 plus an additional $35,000 in bonus. Letter from
Charles Leeper, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, to Pablo E. Carrillo,
Chief Investigative Counsel, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
(November 12, 2004). But, by December 2003, when Cathcart left CCS, he
received a salary of $105,000, plus a bonus approximating $390,000. Id.
During his employment with Scanlon, Cathcart received a total of about
$740,000 in compensation. See id.
\80\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former associate, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
\81\ Id.
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
\84\ Id.
\85\ Other examples of such activities include Cathcart's providing
the database ``access page'' that Democracy Data & Communications
(``DDC'') designed for Capitol Campaign Strategies, to another vendor.
As described above, that vendor apparently used that information, which
was proprietary to DDC, to develop a far less functional database
designed to mimic DDC's considerably more capable product. Scanlon
``sold'' the less functional version to at least one of the Tribes for
millions. Also, on May 1, 2003, as Abramoff and Scanlon's financial
relationship was apparently waning, they schemed to deceive the
Louisiana Coushatta into paying them a total of $2,000,000. In
furtherance of that scheme, which they executed successfully, Scanlon
had the Tribe pay an entity he controlled called Atlantic Research and
Analysis (``ARA''). This transaction is discussed more fully in Part 2,
Chapter 3, Section F, entitled ``Capital Athletic Foundation: In 2003
Abramoff Funnels Tribal Money Through Conduits to CAF.'' Whether
Cathcart knew, or should have known, that some of his activities were
helping Abramoff and Scanlon further their ``gimme five'' scheme on the
Tribes remains unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On at least one occasion, Abramoff's employer, Greenberg
Traurig, apparently tried to get information about AIC.
Sometime in 2002, the director of the firm's national lobbying
practice, Fred Baggett, first heard about AIC.\86\ According to
Baggett, Greenberg Traurig was ``to jointly represent [it] with
a gentleman named Khaled Saffuri'' on ``Malaysian-related
interests and issues.'' \87\ At that time, Baggett was unaware
of who owned the company; Abramoff represented to him that AIC
was ``an established Washington area-based think tank like ...
the Heritage Center or any other number of think tanks.'' \88\
Abramoff also told Baggett that AIC ``had a number of interests
and were involved in a broad range of issues. One of the issues
that they were involved in and for which we were retained to
assist them with were enhancing business, economic development
opportunities in Malaysia, and that they were receiving funds
from Malaysian business interests to further their and advance
their, their efforts with the U.S. Government, and that's what,
we were hired by AIC to assist them in that.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
\87\ Id.
\88\ Id. (reflecting that Abramoff informed Baggett about AIC).
\89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point, Greenberg Traurig ``asked Jack to explain
[the] AIC and the nature of the relationship'' to ``ensure that
we [did] not have a problem [with the Foreign Agents
Registrations Act (FARA)].'' \90\ In that context, it appears
that Scanlon withheld important information regarding AIC from
the firm. In fact, in a response to queries from Greenberg
Traurig to AIC, on February 7, 2002, Scanlon directed Cathcart
to ``[i]nsertr [sic] somewhere'': ``While Mr. Abnramoof [sic]
and His [sic] team have been an unbeleivebal [sic] assest [sic]
tou [sic] our organization, we feel that if as a vendor of ours
if we are presented with such an unexplicalbe [sic] line of
questioning again, we will unfortuantley [sic] review and vote
on your continuing representation at our next board meeting.''
\91\ The letter that was apparently sent back to Greenberg
Traurig was drafted under the signature of one of AIC's
supposed directors, Brian J. Mann. Noticeably absent from the
letter was any indication that Scanlon in fact owned or
controlled the company; that the firm's Tribal clients were
making payments directly to AIC; or that Abramoff would receive
a share of those proceeds that the Tribes paid to AIC. This
Report explicates each of those issues below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Id.
\91\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number)
(February 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. HOW ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON USED CONDUITS TO REPRESENT THE TRIBES

Just as Abramoff and Scanlon used CCS and the Capital
Athletic Foundation (``CAF'') to wrongfully extract ``gimme
five'' proceeds from the Tribes so, too, did they use AIC. The
Choctaw and, more significantly, the Louisiana Coushatta were
injured by Abramoff and Scanlon's use of AIC as a ``gimme
five'' vehicle. Understanding how Abramoff and Scanlon were
able to do so requires understanding, among other things, how
historically Abramoff and Scanlon had those Tribes use conduits
to implement their grassroots strategies.
As described more fully in those sections of this Report
addressing the Choctaw and the Louisiana Coushatta, from 1998
through 2001, Abramoff and Scanlon had each Tribe use conduits
to implement their grassroots campaigns. Over time, those
Tribes became accustomed to (1) paying substantial fees for
their grassroots activities and (2) paying those fees to or
through conduits.
As those sections indicate, the vendor that Abramoff and
Scanlon used, and relied on, the most to implement those
campaigns was former Christian Coalition Executive Director and
political strategist Ralph Reed.\92\ While working with
Abramoff from 1999 through 2001, Reed conducted a variety of
grassroots activities in support of the interests of Abramoff
gaming clients, including, telemarketing (patch-through, tape-
recorded messages and call-to-action phone calls), targeted
mail, legislative counsel and local management, as well as
rallies and petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ A detailed description of Abramoff's business relationship
with Reed vis-a-vis the Tribes and, in particular, how Abramoff relied
on Reed to conduct grassroots activities on behalf of his Tribal gaming
clients, is set forth in Part 1, Chapter 1, Section D, of this Report,
entitled ``Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians: Substantial Fees and
Conduit Organizations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A May 10, 1999, email between Abramoff and one of his
assistants indicates that Preston Gates sent payments to Reed
totaling $1,303,903, apparently from Abramoff's clients.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to [REDACTED] (GTG-E000018933) (May 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, by 2001, Abramoff or Scanlon had the Tribes using
conduits which they owned or controlled, most notably AIC. As
the following reflects, from 2001 through 2003, Abramoff or
Scanlon directed both the Choctaw and the Louisiana Coushatta
to pay AIC a total of $6,308,854.

Payments From Louisiana Coushatta and Choctaw to AIC

Choctaw Payments to AIC

1. 2/27/01............................................. $200,000
2. 4/9/01.............................................. 150,000
3. 5/2/01.............................................. 175,000
4. 5/11/01............................................. 960,654
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
1,485,654
========================================================
____________________________________________________
1. 2/22/02............................................. 1,000,000
2. 12/11/02............................................ 170,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
1,170,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 2,655,654
========================================================
____________________________________________________

Louisiana Coushatta Payments to AIC

1. 3/16/01............................................. 400,000
2. 3/21/01............................................. 258,000
3. 3/30/01............................................. 298,000
4. 4/27/01............................................. 397,200
5. 4/9/03.............................................. 2,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 3,653,200
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grand Total of Payments from Louisiana Coushatta
and Choctaw to AIC............................ 6,308,854
========================================================
____________________________________________________

The following \94\ suggests that in 2001 and early 2002
much of that money ultimately went to entities owned or
controlled by Reed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ The Louisiana Coushatta made this payment through Southern
Underwriters, an apparently moribund insurance firm owned or controlled
by former Louisiana Coushatta casino CEO Aubrey Temple. A discussion of
this transaction is contained infra in Part 1, Chapter 2, entitled
``Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payments by Scanlon-Controlled Entities to Reed-Controlled Entities

Payments from AIC to Reed-Controlled Entities

3/16/01........................... Century Strategies.. $45,000
3/16/01........................... Century Strategies.. 350,000
3/16/01........................... Century Strategies.. 50,000
3/16/01........................... Century Strategies.. 100,000
3/22/01........................... Century Strategies.. 200,000
4/03/01........................... Century Strategies.. 198,000
4/20/01........................... Century Strategies.. 100,000
4/30/01........................... Century Strategies.. 398,000
5/02/01........................... Century Strategies.. 100,000
5/10/01........................... Century Strategies.. 750,000
---------------
Total......................... .................... $2,291,000
===============
===============
Payments from CCS to Reed-Controlled Entities

6/29/01........................... Century Strategies.. 100,000
7/01/01........................... Capitol Media....... 618,000
7/16/01........................... Century Strategies.. 46,350
8/1/01............................ Century Strategies.. 47,000
11/08/01.......................... Capitol Media....... 100,000
11/09/01.......................... Capitol Media....... 350,000
12/31/01.......................... Century Strategies.. 250,000
2/19/02........................... Capitol Media....... 51,679
2/25/02........................... Capitol Media....... 60,000
2/25/02........................... Capitol Media....... 100,000
---------------
Total......................... .................... $1,723,029
===============
Grand Total of all Payments by Scanlon-Controlled Entities to Reed-
Controlled Entities

Grand Total................... .................... $4,014,029
===============

As the foregoing indicates, from March through May 2001,
AIC paid one of Reed's companies, called Century Strategies,
$2,291,000. And, from June 2001 to February 2002, another
Scanlon-controlled entity, CCS paid Century Strategies and
another company owned by Reed called Capitol Media $1,723,029,
for a total of $4,014,029.
But, as early as November 2001, things had begun to change.
With a history of successful grassroots projects behind them
and Abramoff or Scanlon having had the Tribes pay to or through
entities that they owned or controlled, they apparently began
to squeeze Reed out and started to keep most of the money paid
by the Tribes for themselves.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See, e.g., Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (Bates number
001139446) (November 25, 2001). This email indicates that Scanlon at
least proposed to conduct many of the grassroots activities that Reed
first provided for Abramoff's Tribal lobbying clients. In describing
what he intended to do for the Choctaw on a particular grassroots
project, Scanlon told Abramoff: ``[H]ere are the broad strokes of what
I am going to do. I am putting our own field operation in [REDACTED] to
cover all three sites. I am turinimg [sic] on phones hitting reps and
dems [sic], I am launching a negative ad campaign against [REDACTED]
and [REDACTED], and others. This will be big, and now that the slots
are in, its gonna take some time to be effective.'' On December 10,
2001, Abramoff expressed concern about the budget requests Reed wanted
him to submit to his Tribal clients: ``Ralph, they are going to faint
when they see these numbers. They will want to know why we have not
built up any residual strength for the tons of money we have already
spent. Give me some ammo on that and I'll do my best.'' Email from Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Ralph Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-
E000019059) (December 10, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By December 18, 2001, Abramoff appeared resolved to pushing
Reed out, writing to Scanlon, ``Next year, we need to give
[Reed] a pittance and we need to keep most of this ourselves.''
\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000023792) (December 18,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 4, 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon expressed concerns
about work that Reed did for one of their Tribal clients. About
that project, Scanlon asked, ``Did Ralph spend all them [sic]
money he was given to fight this--or does he have some left?''
\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E00001817) (January 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``That's a silly question! He ``spent''
it all the moment it arrived in his account. He would NEVER
admit he has money left over. Would we?'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon replied, ``No--but Id [sic] like to know what the
hell he spent it on--he didn't even know the dam [sic] thing
was there--and didn't do shit to shit [sic] to shut it down!''
\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff decreed, ``I agree. He is a bad version of us! no
[sic] more money for him.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days later, on January 8, 2002, while reviewing their
``gimme five'' income for January 2002, Abramoff had an idea as
to how he and Scanlon could dramatically reduce their overhead.
His suggestion intended to completely cut out Reed: ``[W]e are
spending over $10M with other people! We have to buy mail
house, phone house, etc. so we get part of that one too!!''
\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 305641) (January 8,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon agreed, ``[Y]our [sic] right--we have to move fast
to lock in phones and--mail. I think we can cut 5mil [sic]
right off the top of our outgoing expenses that way just to
start.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff concurred, ``Let's do it fast so we can stop
throwing away money.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By early 2002, Abramoff's business arrangement with Reed
vis-a-vis his Tribal clients seemed to have run its course.
Regarding a $50,000 payment to Reed for work supporting the
Choctaw, on February 7, 2002, Abramoff admonished Scanlon to
``go ahead and pay him so I can get him off my back.'' \104\
Documents in the Committee's possession reflect that the last
payment Abramoff made to Reed, through any entity owned or
controlled by Scanlon, regarding any of Abramoff's Tribal
clients, was on or about February 25, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000018505) (February 7,
2002). On July 23, 2002, Reed provided Abramoff with information that
suggested the need to launch a grassroots campaign to squelch support
for a casino in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana. Seeing a business opportunity
for himself and Scanlon, Abramoff told Scanlon, ``Forget Ralph, but
this poll is very interesting. Can you get to [Louisiana Coushatta
Tribal Council member] William [Worfel] and get us some $ so we can
fight this?'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000020112) (July 23, 2002).
Similarly, on July 24, 2002, with a Texas federal judge having shut
down the Alabama-Coushatta's casino in Livingston, Reed provided
Abramoff with information about the possibility that the Alabama-
Coushatta might launch a legislative initiative to have its casino
reopened. Seeing a potential business opportunity, Abramoff immediately
forwarded the information to Scanlon: ``Forget about Ralph, but you
should call [Louisiana Coushatta Chairman] Lovelin [Poncho] and [Tribal
Council member] William [Worfel] ... and claim victory on this one, but
warn that the [Alabama-Coushatta] are not going away ... we need more
$$$$.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000020107) (July 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the original paradigm, most of the money these Tribes
paid (at Abramoff or Scanlon's request) to or through conduits
seemed to have gone to grassroots activities conducted or
coordinated by Reed--with a percentage taken by Reed as a
``management fee'' or similar charge.\105\ But after February
2002, without the Tribes' knowledge or consent, most of the
money that they paid to or through those entities went into
Abramoff's and Scanlon's pockets--with only a fraction going to
the underlying grassroots effort. Having been accustomed to
paying high fees for grassroots work in the past, the Tribes
were not suspicious.\106\ How Abramoff and Scanlon succeeded in
using AIC in furtherance of their ``gimme five'' scheme is
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Documents, however, indicate that at least with respect to
one project, Reed received more than simply the management fee he
itemized on his invoices: apparently, he and an individual named Neal
Rhoades shared additional commissions derived from profits that were
built into costs charged by vendors (associated with Reed) to Preston
Gates, which were likely expensed to the Tribes. Ralph Reed document
production (no Bates number) (undated) (``Preston Gates--[REDACTED]
Gambling Project Reconciliation as of June 13, 1999''). Those vendors
apparently included, among others, National Media and Millennium
Marketing. Id.
\106\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. AIC AS A ``GIMME FIVE'' ENTITY

As early as May 2001, Abramoff and Scanlon were extracting
``gimme five'' income from payments made by the Choctaw through
AIC. Abramoff informed Scanlon then, ``[REDACTED] is active
again. I am going to try to get us $175K. $100K to Ralph; $25K
to contributions ($5K immediately to Conservative Caucus); rest
gimme five.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E0001321307) (May 2, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, the Tribe that would be most injured as a result of
its payments to AIC would be the Louisiana Coushatta. With his
businesses and private charity apparently facing financial
difficulty, on March 30, 2003, Abramoff told his tax advisor
Gail Halpern that he expected some money to come in: ``I have
$1M coming in (I hope directly to CAF or Eshkol) probably next
week, and $1M due within the next 2 weeks to Kaygold. Both from
CCS. How long will this money last both for the school and the
restaurants?'' \108\ Needless to say, all this would be Tribal
money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Barnhard, P.C. (GTG-000012166) (March 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, Abramoff decided not to use CCS; they elected
to use AIC. And, to induce the Louisiana Coushatta into paying
AIC, Scanlon wrote then-Tribal Councilman William Worfel in a
Strategy Memorandum, on or about April 18, 2003, ``We sent you
and [sic] Invoice [sic] from the AIC which is merely an entity
I direct which was used to conduct public relations activities
for various clients. As we discussed, the AIC will pay for
operations conducted by CCS (myself and my team) and Jack or
others vendors and staff.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC
007325) (April 18, 2003). The request in this memorandum (4/18) appears
to have resulted in the Louisiana Coushatta's payment of $2,300,000 to
AIC (on or about 4/9). So, the date of this document relative to the
date of the resulting payments suggests that the date on the memorandum
is probably a typographical error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, on or about April 9, 2003, the Louisiana Coushatta paid
AIC $2,300,000. But, the Tribe was never told that payments
made by the Tribe to AIC would go to Scanlon and Abramoff.\110\
Quite the contrary, from Abramoff, Louisiana Coushatta Tribal
representatives understood that AIC was an entity that
supported anti-gaming efforts, which the Tribe could
support.\111\ The Tribe was misled: on April 13, 2003, AIC paid
Abramoff $991,000, through his alter ego, Kaygold.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Interview with Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 21, 2005).
\111\ Id.
\112\ Diehl & Company document production (D00411-512) (undated)
(General Ledger, Capitol Campaign Strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an April 18, 2003, strategy memorandum, Scanlon also
told Worfel, ``[o]n the financial side, the lion's share of
your effort this year is for database build up, and voter
targeting, and staff time. We currently have seven staff
members working on this project including myself. Most of the
staff will be exclusively working on your program for the rest
of the year. Jack is also involved heavily on a daily/weekly
basis.'' Scanlon's suggestion to Worfel about where the
``lion's share'' of the Tribe's money would go was also
misleading: on April 22, 2003, Scanlon routed the $1,300,000
left over from the Tribe's $2,300,000 payment to AIC, to
CCS.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Id.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Description To/From Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/1/2003........ Balance......... ................ $14,900.13
4/9/2003........ Wire Transfer... Coushatta....... 2,300,000.00
4/13/2003....... Check 1103...... Kaygold......... (991,000.00)
4/18/2003....... Check 1113...... Scanlon......... (15,000.00)
4/22/2003....... Wire Transfer... CCS............. (1,300,000.00)
4/29/2003....... Closing Balance. ................ 1,083.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

From there, between May 1, 2003, and May 5, 2003, Scanlon
executed a series of shareholder draws for apparently purely
personal expenses that completely extinguished the Tribe's
payment to AIC. Those transactions are explicated below.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ These entries are taken from CCS' accounting ledger and
cross-referenced with other information in the possession of the
Committee. Of all vendor transactions reflected in the ledger, only
vendor transactions greater than or equal to $25,000 or traceable to
any Tribe are included.

CAPITOL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Description To/From Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/1/2003........ Balance......... ................ $1,062,845.58
4/14/2003....... Taxes Payable... DC.............. (214,018.00)
4/21/2003....... Shareholder Draw Scanlon......... (100,000.00)
4/22/2003....... Wire Transfer... Coushatta/AIC... 1,300,000.00
4/22/2003....... Prof. Campaign; Basswood (15,600.00)
LA. Research.
5/1/2003........ Balance......... ................ 1,844,678.59
5/1/2003........ Shareholder Tony Beto, Inc.. (21,594.00)
Draw;.
25 Tidewater;
2310.
5/1/2003........ Shareholder Dockety Design.. (88,724.00)
Draw; 2311.
5/2/2003........ Shareholder Lin Sang (150,000.00)
Draw; 2312. Logistics.
5/5/2003........ Shareholder Draw Michael Scanlon. (150,000.00)
5/5/2003........ Shareholder Draw Michael Scanlon. (991,000.00)
5/5/2003........ Balance......... ................ 427,174.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the foregoing indicates, there were five such
``shareholder draws'': May 1, 2003, to Tony Beto, Inc. for
$21,594; May 1, 2003, to Dockety Design for $88,724; May 2,
2003, to Lin Sang Logistics for $150,000; and two payments,
dated May 5, 2003, to Michael Scanlon for $150,000 and
$991,000.
The Committee has been able to locate a Tony Beto in Lewes,
Delaware. Apparently an architect, Beto has been described as
having knowledge and experience with zoning procedures,
particularly in Sussex County, Delaware, where Scanlon made
some major real estate purchases.\115\ Likewise, the Committee
found a company called Dockety Design Construction, a single-
family housing contractor located in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
Apparently, it specializes in home remodeling and new home
building.\116\ Finally, the Committee located a company called
Linsang Logistics LLC in Silver Spring, MD. Apparently Linsang
creates technology-based companies ``that expand global access
to information'' and charters its private jet.\117\ Given that
the foregoing charges are likely unrelated to any work done for
the Louisiana Coushatta, they are likely purely personal in
nature. With the original $2,300,000 that the Louisiana
Coushatta paid AIC just about entirely extinguished, the
Committee has seen no evidence that the Tribe received the
intended benefit for this very large payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See Brian Reynolds-Hughes, Proposed $35M amphitheater coming
to Sussex?, Cape Gazette, December 31, 2002, http://www.beachpaper.com/
storiesmorgue/arts/2003arts/amphitheater121302.html; Chris Barrish,
Abramhoff cohort spent millions on Sussex homes, The News Journal, May
14, 2006, .
\116\ Planetblueprints.com `Custom Homes For a More Beautiful
Planet' (visited February 14, 2006) ; Rehoboth Beach business directory (visited Feb. 14,
2006) .
\117\ Offsetting Expenses with Aircraft Management, Executive Flyer
Magazine, Spring 2003, .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to media reports, Scanlon and Abramoff may have
used AIC for other illicit purposes, including circumventing
requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act
(``FARA''), particularly with respect to the Embassy of
Malaysia.\118\ However, those activities are unrelated to the
Tribes' allegations of misconduct. Accordingly, while the
Committee has information corroborative of some of those media
reports, \119\ the Committee has arrived at no definitive
conclusions regarding those activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Peter H. Stone, K Street Stumble, National Journal, March 27,
2004, at 958-63.
\119\ During her interview with Committee staff, former Abramoff
associate Stephanie Leger Short testified, ``[T]he public line was that
the [AIC] was a think tank; the real line was that that's how Jack did
work for Malaysia and Eritrea.'' Interview of Stephanie Leger Short,
former associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18,
2005). Looking back, Leger opined that Abramoff did work for Malaysia
and Eritrea through AIC to avoid registering under FARA. Id. According
to documents and financial records in the Committee's possession, the
Embassy of Malaysia made four payments of $300,000 each to AIC, on June
29, 2001, October 5, 2001, January 3, 2002, and March 13, 2002. Almost
immediately afterwards, AIC made payments to an individual named Khaled
Saffuri in the amount of $90,000, $45,000, and $45,000 on October 8,
2001, January 3, 2002, and March 20, 2002 respectively, apparently for
``salary/consulting'' purposes regarding Malaysia. Soon thereafter,
each one of those payments was followed by an additional disbursement
of $100,000, $210,000, $245,000, and $255,000 to Greenberg Traurig on
July 5, 2001, October 8, 2001, February 22, 2002, and February 26,
2002, respectively.
Saffuri appears to have been a lobbyist at an Abramoff owned or
controlled entity called the Lexington Group. At one time, Saffuri was
reportedly the Assistant Executive Director of the American Muslim
Council (``AMC''), where he apparently served as a lobbyist. See
Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG007370-JA-P) (March 27,
2001). The AMC was apparently founded in 1990 by Abdurahman Mohamed
Alamoudi, an open supporter of Palestinian terror organization Hamas.
Id. A few years ago, Alamoudi was implicated in a plot to assassinate
the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. See Department of Justice (visited
October 15, 2004) (describing Abdurahman Alamoudi's sentencing in a
Terrorism Financing Case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. CONCLUSION

Among the more interesting of Abramoff and Scanlon's
``gimme five'' entities, that is, entities owned or controlled
by Abramoff or Scanlon that they used in their kickback scheme,
is the putative international think tank, AIC. With two of
Scanlon's beach buddies sitting on its board, AIC's purpose was
actually to collect fees associated with activities conducted
by others and, in some cases, divert those fees to entities
owned or controlled by Scanlon or Abramoff. In other words, AIC
was a sham. From 2001 through 2003, the Choctaw and the
Louisiana Coushatta collectively paid AIC about $6,308,854.
While much of this money went to vendors who actually conducted
grassroots activities for the Tribes, such as Ralph Reed, as
the Tribes had intended, millions were not used for that
purpose.
CHAPTER III

CAPITAL ATHLETIC FOUNDATION

Abramoff: The package on the ground is $4K per person.
that [sic] covers rooms, tee times and ground
transportation. One idea is that we could use one of my
foundations for the trip--Capital Athletic Foundation--
and get and make contributions so this is easier. OK?
Reed: OK but we need to discuss. It is an election
year.

Email between Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed concerning
golfing junket to Scotland, May 15, 2002

Rudy: Jack wants this.
Boulanger: What is it? I've never heard of it.
Rudy: It is something our friends are raising money
for.
Boulanger: I'm sensing shadiness. I'll stop asking.

Email between Todd Boulanger and Tony Rudy concerning
suggested Tribal contributions to CAF, June 20, 2002

Bozniak: He [CAF funds recipient Shmuel Ben Svi] did
suggest that he could write some kind of letter with
his Sniper Workshop Logo and letter head. It is an
``educational'' entity of sorts.
Abramoff: no [sic] I don't want a sniper letterhead.

Email between Jack Abramoff and Allison Bozniak, September
19, 2002

A. INTRODUCTION

At its hearings over the past two years, the Committee
disclosed and discussed evidence that Jack Abramoff might have
used Capital Athletic Foundation (``CAF''), his private
charitable foundation, in ways grossly inconsistent with its
tax exempt status and mission. Based on multiple interviews and
records, the Committee conclusively finds that (1) CAF was
simply another vehicle in Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five''
scheme; (2) Indian tribes paid CAF, directly and indirectly,
knowingly and unknowingly, approximately $3,657,000; and, (3)
Abramoff treated CAF as his own personal slush fund, apparently
using it to evade taxes, finance lobbying activities such as a
golfing trip to Scotland, purchase paramilitary equipment, and
for other purposes inconsistent with CAF's tax exempt status
and stated mission.
In fact, in court filings associated with Abramoff's guilty
plea in January 2006, Abramoff pled guilty to, among other
things, misusing CAF ``to receive income and make expenditures
for his own personal benefit'' and ``to conceal this income
from the Internal Revenue Service and others.'' \1\ In his plea
agreement, Abramoff further admitted that he ``knew that these
activities constituted a misuse of these tax exempt entities.''
\2\ For example, Abramoff confessed that he solicited money
from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (``Saginaw
Chippewa'') and a distilled beverages company, SPI Spirits,
``to partially pay for a golfing trip to Scotland for himself,
public officials, members of his staff and others.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 37, U.S.
v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id. at para. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Chapter will examine the nature and structure of CAF.
For all years in which CAF received, directly or indirectly,
Tribal funds, this Chapter will examine the circumstances
surrounding the payments, and then review how Abramoff spent
CAF's funds.

B. GENERAL BACKGROUND ON CAF

Abramoff registered CAF with the Internal Revenue Service
as a 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation.\4\ At all relevant
times, Abramoff and his wife were the only managing members of
CAF.\5\ CAF reported on its 2001 and 2002 federal tax forms
that four (4) Native American Tribes donated a total of
$2,075,000: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Return of
Private Foundations Form 990PF; and Internal Revenue Service (visited
May 25, 2004) (excerpt of exempt organization
search). Interestingly, on March 2, 2000, CAF changed its name to
National Institute of Torah, but, on August 17, 2000, changed its name
back to CAF.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Other Abramoff and/or Greenberg Traurig clients apparently
donated during those years. In 2001, Foxcom Wireless allegedly donated
$50,000. In 2002, SPI Spirits (Cyprus) allegedly donated $25,000.

REPORTED PAYMENTS BY TRIBES TO CAPITAL ATHLETIC FOUNDATION (CAF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001..................... Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. $1,000,000
2002..................... Mississippi Band of Choctaw $1,000,000
Indians.
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe $25,000
Alabama Coushatta $50,000
Entertainment Center.
---------------
Total................ ........................... $2,075,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the general public, CAF described itself as a youth
charity in Washington, D.C.\7\ According to its website, no
longer extant, CAF purportedly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Capital Athletic Foundation (visited June 7, 2004) .

promotes the ideals of sportsmanship by recognizing
individuals and organizations across the economic
spectrum that exemplify the highest values of
honorable, civil and ethical behavior in their
endeavors. The Foundation awards grants to support
needy and deserving programs and activities that
develop sportsmanship, and designates appropriate
individuals as national Ambassadors of Sportsmanship.
The Foundation also awards grants that specifically
support sportsmanship programs and activities which
serve disadvantaged youth.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. (emphasis added).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website continued:

[t]he mission of the Capital Athletic Foundation is to
foster character development by promoting the American
ideals of sportsmanship in all endeavors. These ideals
include integrity, honor, brotherhood, morality,
leadership and good citizenship. Sportsmanship is
ethical behavior both on and off the playing field;
both in athletics and in business; both as a youth and
as an adult.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. (emphasis added).

Abramoff similarly described CAF to his colleagues. Fred
Baggett, a managing shareholder of Greenberg Traurig and
chairman of its national governmental affairs practice,
recalled that the ``CAF Foundation was something that Jack
referred to a number of occasions that he and his wife were
very much involved in to support inner-city children in sports
ventures and sports opportunities.'' \10\ Although Abramoff
disclosed that he and his wife were CAF's founders, he gave the
impression to Baggett that it ``had grown into a credible,
respectable charitable foundation.'' \11\ What Abramoff did not
disclose, however, was how he was actually funding and
operating CAF.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005);
see also Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate,
Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
\11\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
Stephanie Leger, a former Greenberg Traurig employee, told the
Committee that it was well known around the office that CAF was
Abramoff's personal charity. Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former
associate, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
\12\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005);
Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate, Greenberg
Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ABRAMOFF ATTEMPTS TO SECURE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CAF, AND FAILS

In 2000, it appears that Abramoff initially sought to
capitalize CAF with a $5,000,000 federal earmark.\13\ In
attempting to enlist the aid of then-U.S. Representative Connie
Morella, Abramoff told one Jim Kaplan \14\ that ``the DeLay
guys want to put this grant through for the Capital Education
and Athletic Foundation [CEAF],\15\ which will be a grantor
organization to help build the Yeshiva in Kemp Mill.'' \16\
Abramoff apparently believed the earmark could be included in
the Labor-HHS Appropriations Conference Report or the VA-HUD
Appropriations Conference Report.\17\ Abramoff confessed that
Congressman DeLay might not know about it, but that ``Tony
[Rudy] [Delay's then-Deputy Chief of Staff] and the staff are
working it through for them.'' \18\ Abramoff even sent an email
to a representative of Congresswoman Morella and claimed that
the CEAF ``is a worthy cause, and not a client.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to James Kaplan (GTG-E000087920-21) (October 23, 2000).
\14\ The Committee has not determined who James Kaplan was, and
what his relationship was with Congresswoman Morella and Jack Abramoff.
\15\ Apparently, the name Abramoff originally contemplated for the
charity was the Capital Education and Athletic Foundation.
\16\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to James Kaplan (GTG-E000087920) (October 23, 2000).
\17\ Id.
\18\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to James Kaplan (GTG-E000087924) (October 23, 2000). The
Committee has seen no evidence that Congressman DeLay knew or
authorized what Abramoff and Rudy were attempting.
\19\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to [email protected] (GTG-E000087929) (October 23, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After speaking with a Morella representative, Abramoff
advised Tony Rudy: ``Tony, I spoke with her guy today and they
are going to try to get us a letter. Please let me know what we
do next.'' \20\ However, after reviewing CAF's bank,
accounting, and tax records, the Committee concludes that CAF
never received a federal grant of any amount. Furthermore, the
Committee has seen no evidence establishing that Representative
Morella supported Abramoff in any way on this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas
Meeds, to Tony Rudy, Office of Congressman Tom DeLay (GTG-E000087925)
(October 23, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unable to obtain his earmark, Abramoff would turn to other
means to finance CAF.

D. ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON MISAPPROPRIATE TRIBAL FUNDS FOR CAF SEED MONEY
IN 2001

1. Abramoff and Scanlon Divert Louisiana Coushatta Money to CAF

In 2001, the single largest contributor by far listed on
CAF's federal tax return was the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
(``Louisiana Coushatta'') for $1,000,000.\21\ The Committee
finds, however, that the Tribe never intended to make a
charitable contribution to CAF. Rather, Abramoff and Scanlon
deceived the Louisiana Coushatta into making that payment as
part of their ``gimme five'' scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001 Return of Private
Foundations Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon set the scam in motion with an October 23, 2001,
memorandum to Louisiana Coushatta counsel Kathryn Van Hoof, in
which he proposed three political programs, which he
collectively dubbed the ``Battleground Program.'' \22\ The
program was purportedly designed to stop potential competitors,
such as ``Delta Downs and Pinnacle'' from infringing on the
Louisiana Coushatta casino's market share \23\ According to
Scanlon, the Tribe's money would be used for everything from
polling to opposition research to phone banking and Get Out The
Vote efforts.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (BB/LC 017923-
26) (October 23, 2001).
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon claimed the money was necessary to manipulate
Christian conservatives. In Scanlon's words: ``Simply put we
want to bring out the wackos to vote against something. ... The
wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian right,
Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees.'' \25\
In fact, Scanlon advised using nearly half the proposed budget
to influence and mobilize ``Christian conservatives and
minority religious outlets.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id. (emphasis in original).
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Scanlon had other designs for the money. One
day after Scanlon's memorandum to Van Hoof, Abramoff told
Scanlon: ``I want to see if we can pump up our LDA [reporting
requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act] for the second
half to make sure we don't fall out of the top ten [lobbying
firms]. I can achieve this if I can run some of the money for
the Coushattas through the firm and then get it to CCS.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000012245) (October 24,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned, Scanlon asked: ``Are u [sic] sure Baggett will
let you rip it back out?'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``If not, it'll be a cold day in hell
that they get this check from my grubby hands!'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To convince the Tribe to pay $1,000,000 into Greenberg
Traurig, Scanlon explained to Van Hoof, ``We broke this into
two invoices--one to be paid to Greenberg Traurig for 1m, and
one paid to Capitol Campaign Strategies--[Greenberg Traurig's]
public affairs entity for the balance. We usually just invoice
you through Capitol Campaign Strategies so the Lawyers at the
firm rest easy while we are out burning the country side.''
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Kathryn Van Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (GTG-E000011383)
(October 25, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He continued, ``In this instance however we plan to do some
things through the law firm umbrella due to their highly
sensitive nature and confidentiality reasons. I hate hiding
behind lawyers--but we are going to do some crazy stuff on this
one--so I guess its ok:) :) [sic]'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In furtherance of the ``gimme five'' scheme, Scanlon
apparently fabricated and submitted to the Louisiana Coushatta
an invoice in Greenberg Traurig's name. The invoice identified
the purpose of the payment as ``Public Affairs Services.'' \32\
Contrary to Scanlon's representations, Capitol Campaign
Strategies (``CCS'') was not Greenberg Traurig's public affairs
entity.\33\ Nor was Scanlon authorized to prepare or send an
invoice on Greenberg Traurig's behalf.\34\ At the November 2,
2005 hearing before the Committee, Baggett testified:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG-E000011384)
(undated).
\33\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
\34\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 37 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of Fred
Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs Practice, Greenberg
Traurig).

The Chairman: Was Mr. Scanlon authorized to send an
invoice on Greenberg Traurig's behalf?
Mr. Baggett: No, sir; he was not.
...
Mr. Baggett: --the invoice exhibit 99 purporting to be
from Greenberg Traurig, ``Greenberg'' is misspelled.
The Chairman: Okay. That is an important point. Thank
you for bringing it up, Mr. Baggett. [Laughter.]
Mr. Baggett: I doubt we would be issuing an invoice
with our name misspelled.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id.

Despite the lack of authorization, the Committee finds that
Scanlon sent, or caused to be sent, the fabricated invoice to
the Louisiana Coushatta for payment.
Based on Scanlon's representations, the Tribe understood
the $1,000,000 payment to Greenberg Traurig would be used for
the Tribe's political activities, and certainly never intended
for it to be a charitable contribution:

The Chairman: Ms. Van Hoof, was it your understanding
that the $1 million was going to be used for political
activities benefitting the tribe?
Ms. Van Hoof: Yes.
The Chairman: Did the tribe authorize anyone to use
that $1 million as a charitable contribution to the
Capital Athletic Foundation?
Ms. Van Hoof: No.
The Chairman: Did the tribe ever intend to make a $1
million contribution to Jack Abramoff's personal
charity?
Ms. Van Hoof: No.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 37 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of
Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana).

William Worfel, former Vice Chairman of the Tribe,
similarly told the Committee that the Tribal Council had never
authorized that $1,000,000 to be used as a charitable
contribution--to CAF or any other entity.\37\ Indeed, neither
Van Hoof nor Worfel had any contemporaneous knowledge of
CAF.\38\ At no point did Scanlon or Abramoff tell the Louisiana
Coushatta that its money would be used for anything other than
the Tribe's political activities.\39\ In fact, until the
Committee's investigation, the Louisiana Coushatta did not even
know it was listed as a $1,000,000 donor to CAF.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\38\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta Tribe
of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 23, 2005); Interview of
William Worfel, former Vice Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\39\ Interview of Kathryn Van Hoof, former counsel, Coushatta Tribe
of Louisiana, in Lecompte, Louisiana (September 23, 2005); Interview of
William Worfel, former Vice Chairman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, in
Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Scanlon's misrepresentations, on October 30, 2001,
the Louisiana Coushatta executed a check for $1,000,000 to
Greenberg Traurig.\41\ On November 2, 2001, Greenberg Traurig
received the $1,000,000 check, which it deposited into its
trust account.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG023510-ACCT)
(October 30, 2001).
\42\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next phase of the scheme required Abramoff to deceive
his former employer, Greenberg Traurig. To extract the money
from Greenberg Traurig's trust account, Abramoff told the firm
that the Louisiana Coushatta knew about the payment to CAF and
had authorized it.\43\ On November 5, 2001, Abramoff sent an
email to Baggett entitled ``Coushatta million dollar check,''
and noted, ``It is burning a hole in my pocket. Please let's
chat about this today to get it worked out.'' \44\ Sometime
around that email, Abramoff called Baggett in Tallahassee, ``to
talk about a contribution that a tribe, the Coushatta, that a
tribe wanted to make to Capital Athletic Foundation, that they
had given us a check for a million dollars and wanted to put it
in a trust account so we could give it to Capital Athletic
Foundation.'' \45\ Per Abramoff's direction, Greenberg Traurig
paid the Louisiana Coushatta's $1,000,000 to CAF.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Id.
\44\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Fred Baggett,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000252969) (November 5, 2001).
\45\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee finds that the Louisiana Coushatta's
$1,000,000 never went to the Tribe's political activities. It
instead padded the coffers of CAF for Abramoff's discretionary
use. Notably, Abramoff did include the $1,000,000 on the
Lobbying Disclosure Act filing for the Louisiana Coushatta in
2001.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee harbors no doubt that the $1,000,000 was a
payment obtained as part of the duo's ``gimme five'' scheme. In
a November 7, 2001, email entitled ``Give me five,'' Scanlon
listed Abramoff's take from their scheme:

The overall numbers in the amounts I owe you are
exactly $1 million smaller that [sic] what we projected
last month because your section of the Louisiana
Battleground program was paid directly to [Greenberg
Traurig]--so I took the whole thing of [sic] the chart.
I did leave it on the distribution chart so you can see
what the ``value'' of your share to date--approximately
5.4 mill. [sic] has gone to your [sic] or third party
entities at your direction.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000012276) (November 7, 2001).

2. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2001

Despite receiving $1,248,741 in purported contributions,
CAF distributed very little in the form of grants to other
entities in 2001--only $50,510.\49\ From the relevant bank
records, it appears that Abramoff segregated most of the Tribal
money into its own account and reserved it for use in the
following year. From another account, into which others such as
Foxcom Wireless had paid, CAF made a number of expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001 Return of Private
Foundations Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest outlay for CAF in 2001 appears to be for
operating and administrative expenses:

$102,510 for ``home school program which combines
academic and athletic programs for the students.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Id. There appears to be a discrepancy in the tax return.
Statement 5 to the return cites $115,930 as the expenses spent on home
school program expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$50,510 for log and web design and newspaper
advertising for the benefit of the Eshkol Academy.\51\ The
Eshkol Academy was an all boys Jewish orthodox prep school that
Abramoff founded in 2001, but closed in 2003.\52\ Abramoff's
relationship with Eshkol was intimate: he was the president and
his wife was the vice president, secretary, and treasurer.\53\
Media reports also claim that some of Abramoff's children
attended Eshkol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id.
\52\ See Peter Stone, Tribes Gave To Abramoff Foundation, National
Journal, March 12, 2004, at 1866; Michael S. Gerber and Albert Eisele,
Republican power broker Jack Abramoff on lobbying in the Bush II era,
The Hill, March 26, 2003; see also Email from Gail Halpern, May &
Barnhard, to Susan Baker (MB-002124) (September 27, 2002).
\53\ See Eshkol, Inc., 2001 Form 990. Eshkol's tax return is signed
by Sam Hook as executive director for the school. Hook is a former
contract employee at Greenberg Traurig, the husband of Shana Tesler,
and owner and president of two other Abramoff-controlled entities,
Grassroots Interactive, LLC and Federal Program Services, LLC.
According to Tesler, Abramoff hired Hook to serve as interim executive
director of Eshkol Academy in November 2002. She stated that Hook was
paid $20,000 for serving as the interim director, and the payments may
have come from the Capital Athletic Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3,411.32 for ``Eshkol and Lexington Group work.''
CAF's ledger identifies the purpose of the payment as brochures
and business cards. The Lexington Group was a for-profit
venture that Abramoff undertook with a lobbyist named Khaled
Saffuri and has no apparent role in CAF or its purported
charitable mission.
Almost $99,000 on consulting fees, \54\ which, on
information and belief, related to Abramoff's efforts to
establish Eshkol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-002063-65) (December
31, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$26,060 for a school van. The records do not
indicate whether the van was actually used for personal or
charitable purposes.
$10,000 payment to Sports Suites as a deposit.\55\
The Sports Suites was a limited liability company that Abramoff
owned and operated and through which he leased various club
boxes at several sporting venues around the region, including
FedEx Field, MCI Center, and Camden Yards. Abramoff used the
boxes extensively in his lobbying practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Id.

Curiously, listed on CAF's 2001 tax form is an $18,057
expenditure for a thermal imager.\56\ CAF's tax and accounting
records do not indicate what possible relation a thermal imager
would have to the charitable mission of CAF, or to whom it was
given. Abramoff's emails, however, illuminate the purpose and
beneficiary of Abramoff's largesse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2001 Return of Private
Foundations 990PF; see also May & Barnhard document production (MB-
002063-65) (December 31, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For two days in 2001, Abramoff exchanged emails with a
person the Committee has determined is Shmuel Ben Zvi.\57\ Ben
Zvi and Abramoff were classmates at Beverly Hills in
California.\58\ Apparently, Ben-Zvi later moved to the Israeli
West Bank. The Committee does not know how Ben Zvi and Abramoff
re-established ties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000089141-44) (October 18-19,
2001).
\58\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel Ben
Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000080536-37) (July 15-16, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, in 2001, Abramoff and Ben Zvi tried to find a
source for a thermal imager.\59\ Abramoff and Ben Zvi
apparently intended the thermal imager for paramilitary
application, because Ben Zvi told Abramoff that ``[t]he
paratroop officer in charge of the area, that you see in the
photo with me that I sent you is very happy that we'll have the
thermal imager.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000089141-44) (October 18-19,
2001).
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Zvi added, ``[I]f it looks like it will take a long
time to get the Russian model, then we can actually use our
army address to buy the U.S. made thermal imager and have a
colonel or higher sign for it. ...'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next day, trying to find a way to obtain the imager,
Ben Zvi suggested that he could fax a letter ``stating that I
am purchasing this equipment for the IDF [Israeli Defense
Force], and at the same time get a signed letter from the
commander of Paratroop bragade [sic]. ...'' \62\ Although CAF's
tax return indicates that Abramoff apparently purchased the
thermal imager, the Committee has no further details about the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. IN 2002, ABRAMOFF AND SCANLON SCAM OTHER TRIBES INTO PAYING INTO CAF

In 2002, reported contributions to CAF climbed to
$2,569,934. CAF listed a number of substantial contributors for
that year:

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe--$25,000
Alabama-Coushatta Entertainment Center--
$50,000
National Center for Public Policy Research--
$450,000
Jack Abramoff--$991,749
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians-$1,000,000
\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Return of Private
Foundations, Form 990PF.

The Committee finds that most of those alleged
contributions--even those not in the name of an Indian Tribe--
are the fruits of Abramoff and Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme.

1. Abramoff Deceives the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Into Partially
Funding a Golfing Trip to Scotland--June Through November 2002

In 2002, CAF claimed $234,319 in expenses for travel,
conferences, and meetings on its tax return.\64\ Yet, according
to that same tax filing, Abramoff and his wife, the only two
co-managing members, devoted ``minimal'' time each week to
their positions.\65\ CAF's tax, accounting, and bank records,
suggest that $166,634.26 of that $234,319 were costs incurred
for a golfing trip to Scotland.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Id.
\65\ Id.
\66\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-002063-65) (December
31, 2001); May & Barnhard document production (MB-001940-41) (January-
December 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about May 15, 2002, Abramoff and his old friend and
business associate Ralph Reed began planning the trip. In an
email entitled ``Scotland,'' Abramoff wrote to Reed:

The package on the ground is $4K per person. that [sic]
covers rooms, tee times and ground transportation. One
idea is that we could use one of my foundations for the
trip--Capital Athletic Foundation--and get and make
contributions so this is easier.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Ralph
Reed, Century Strategies (GTG-E000019854) (May 15, 2002).

Reed replied, ``OK but we need to discuss. It is an
election year.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon thereafter, Abramoff began seeking financing for the
golfing trip. Abramoff asked his colleague Tony Rudy,
Congressman DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, ``Hi Tony.
Did you get the message from the guys that Tom wants us to
raise some bucks from Capital Athletic Foundation? I have six
clients in for $25K. I recommend we hit everyone who cares
about Tom's requests.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Tony Rudy,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026455) (June 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff then asked Rudy to ``email [Christopher] Petras on
the Sag chip request (it'll look better coming from you as a
former DeLay COS). We'z gonna make a bundle here.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy subsequently requested Petras' email address.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Email from Tony Rudy, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026450) (June 7, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later that month, Abramoff again asked Rudy, ``Please hit
them both [Stoli and Sag Chip] to get checks for the Capital
Athletic Foundation asap. we [sic] need to get this cash in
hand. I am pushing Tigua and Choctaw. We are still short of
full cost coverage (which is around $115K).'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Tony Rudy,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000076673) (June 17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy responded, ``Please give me [the] address.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff and Rudy soon began seeking money for the Scotland
golfing trip in earnest.\74\ In an email entitled ``Capitol
Athletic Foundation,'' Rudy asked Todd Boulanger, another
Abramoff associate and the manager of the Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa'') lobbying account at
Greenberg Traurig, ``Can you ask [C]hris [Petras] whether they
can make a contribution. We asked for 25k.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Tony
Rudy, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000254778-79) (June 20, 2002).
\75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently unfamiliar with CAF, Boulanger inquired: ``What
is this? I can put this on your Coushatta request list that I'm
putting together during the July 4th recess ... or I can split
it up \1/2\ to Coushatta and \1/2\ to Choctaw so it doesn't
dilute your other requests. Sag may kick in ... 25K is steep
for them. I bet they'd do $5k, however. We'll get it.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy cryptically responded, ``Jack wants this.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulanger inquired further, ``What is it? I've never heard
of it.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy was again vague: ``It is something our friends are
raising money for.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulanger finally desisted: ``I'm sensing shadiness. I'll
stop asking.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy confirmed Boulanger's suspicions, ``Your senses are
good. If you have to say Leadership is asking, please do. I
already have.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon thereafter, Abramoff began hounding the Tribe for the
payment.\82\ Examples include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026791) (September
30, 2002); Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000057439) (August 12,
2002).

On July 31, 2002, Abramoff reminded Petras
``about getting the Capital Athletic Foundation to me
asap per the delay request.'' \83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026653) (July 31,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2002 he asked Petras to ``get
me that $25K to Capital Athletic Foundation for the
DeLay thing.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000057439) (August 12,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 23, 2002, Abramoff asked Petras
``any progress on the Capital Athletic Foundation?''
\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026714) (August 23,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 4, 2002, Abramoff asked Petras:
``any progress.'' \86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026766) (September
4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 12, 2002, Abramoff asked Petras
about CAF, ``Please keep me informed on this one.''
\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026784) (September
12, 2002).

Throughout the process, Abramoff continued misrepresenting
CAF as an independent entity. In a September 18, 2002 email
entitled ``where are we on the Capital Athletic Foundation,''
Abramoff advised Petras, ``I saw the CAF guys this morning and
we are getting into a bit of an embarrassing situation.'' \88\
Again, on September 30, 2002, Abramoff told Petras that ``I am
getting serious pressure on the Capital Athletic Foundation.
Please let me know if this is going to happen, and if not, I
need to try and find a replacement. I am really out of time on
this and am getting called daily.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026805) (September
18, 2002).
\89\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (GTG-E000026791) (September
30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In procuring the money from the Tribe, Abramoff apparently
misrepresented the nature of CAF and how it would use the
funds. According to internal Saginaw Chippewa documents,
Abramoff represented that CAF ``creates programs that teach
leadership skills to disadvantaged youth in the DC area in an
effort to keep them off the streets and enhance their
educational opportunities.'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan document production
(no Bates number) (entitled ``Minutes of the Tribal Council Special
Session'') (August 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, on November 13, 2002, the Saginaw Chippewa wrote a
check to CAF in the amount of $25,000.\91\ On November 14,
2002, Abramoff received the Saginaw Chippewa check for CAF.\92\
Abramoff had the check deposited on November 18, 2002.\93\
Abramoff apparently concealed from the Saginaw Chippewa that
CAF was his personal charity. After the Saginaw Chippewa
donated $25,000 to CAF, Abramoff instructed Maury Litwack, a
legislative assistant at Greenberg Traurig, to draft a thank
you letter to the Tribe, and to sign it as the Program
Director.\94\ The Committee has not been able to verify whether
the letter was actually sent and received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Capital Athletic Foundation document production (SEN-CAF
000681) (November 13, 2002).
\92\ Email between Christopher Petras, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of
Michigan, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig; Holly Bowers, Greenberg
Traurig; and Jennifer Boice, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000027002)
(November 14, 2002).
\93\ Capital Athletic Foundation document production (SEN-CAF
000681) (November 13, 2002).
\94\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Maury
Litwack, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000001280-81) (November 19-20, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff used the $25,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa and
another $50,000 from the Alabama Coushatta, to partially
finance a widely publicized golfing trip to Scotland. Regarding
these donations, both Abramoff and Rudy pled guilty to
defrauding the Saginaw Chippewa. According to Abramoff's plea
agreement:

From June 2002 to November 2002, Abramoff and a former
lobbying colleague, who was also a former congressional
staffer (``Staffer A'') successfully solicited the
Michigan Tribe for a $25,000 payment to CAF. Instead of
using the funds for CAF, Abramoff used this money for
his personal and professional benefit to partially pay
for a golfing trip to Scotland for himself, public
officials, members of his staff, and others.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 7, U.S.
v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy pled similarly:

In June 2002, Rudy, at Abramoff's direction, solicited
one of Firm B's clients, a Native American Tribe in
Michigan, for a $25,000 contribution to CAF made by
check ... by falsely claiming that a public official
requested them to solicit funds for the charity from
their clients. Abramoff and Rudy intended to use this
money for their personal and professional benefit to
partially pay for a golfing trip to Scotland for
Abramoff, Rudy, Representative #1, members of his staff
and others, which Rudy ultimately did not attend.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 17, U.S.
v. Tony C. Rudy (Dist. D.C., March 31, 2006) (CR-06-082)

Notably, Rudy admitted in his plea agreement that he
solicited money from the Saginaw Chippewa ``by falsely claiming
that a public official [DeLay] requested them to solicit funds
for the charity from their clients.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Abramoff and Scanlon Deceive the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Into Sending $1,000,000 to CAF--January and August 2002

CAF's 2002 Form 990PF listed the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw'') as its biggest contributor--at
$1,000,000.\98\ According to CAF's accounting ledger, the Tribe
made two payments: (1) $500,000 on January 3, 2002; and, (2)
$500,000 on August 6, 2002.\99\ The Committee finds, however,
that Abramoff and Scanlon deceived the Tribe into paying that
$1,000,000 into CAF for uses the Tribe never intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990PF.
\99\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001948) (December 31,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2001, Scanlon sent the Choctaw an invoice
purportedly from CAF for $500,000 for ``Professional Services
Rendered.'' Barely one week later, Abramoff was looking for the
money. He asked Laura Lippy and Rodney Lane, two of his
associates, ``[d]id we ever get the [sic] $500K for Cap
Athletic from Choctaw per Scanlon?'' \100\ The payment actually
arrived a few days after the New Year.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Laura Lippy,
Greenberg Traurig, and Rodney Lane Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000114360)
(December 27, 2001).
\101\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000010719) (January 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within two months, Abramoff and Scanlon began chasing the
Choctaw for their next score for CAF. On March 3, 2002,
Abramoff instructed Scanlon: ``See if you can get [Nell Rogers]
to send my share to Capital Athletic Foundation. She liked
using that entity anyway. This is for the next payment, not the
last one.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110037) (March 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon continued to be the prime actor, while Abramoff
skulked in the shadows. Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``Can you have
one of the upcoming payments from Choctaw (or one of the
others) made to ``Capital Athletic Foundation'' up to $500K? I
need to get more money in there.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110065) (March 13, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon agreed, ``I will do it.'' \104\ And, he offered to
go even further, ``there is another payment coming due--I can
get 1 mil in there in about two weeks--IS [sic] that ok?''
\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Id.
\105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff, however, replied that ``$500k is enough'' for
CAF.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As time passed, and the Choctaw's money did not arrive,
Abramoff again asked Scanlon to get it done, and this time for
more money. In an email entitled ``Capital Athletic
Foundation'', Abramoff reminded Scanlon ``Please don't forget
this one. $1M in there would be good if that's the amount you
can get Nell [Rogers] to send.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E00010056) (March 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon assured Abramoff, ``I'll approach her on this
today.'' \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000110088) (April 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly two months later, the money had still not arrived.
Consequently, over the next few weeks, Abramoff badgered
Scanlon to have the Tribe make the payment:

On May 23, Abramoff asked Scanlon to ``find
out what's up with the Choctaw's payment to CAF''.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110224) (May 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, Abramoff asked Scanlon, ``Where
are we on this? I did not get the CAF check.'' \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110212) (May 29-30,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 30, Abramoff again asked, ``Anything
happen with this yet?'' \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Id.

Abramoff became desperate, suggesting to Scanlon that he
``call Nell [Rogers] today and push her on the $500K for CAF''
and instructing Scanlon ``to tell her that they [CAF] spent the
money already with the trust that they'd get it, and that they
are all over you now.'' \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 1735978) (June 12,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff apparently grew increasingly frustrated by
Scanlon's failure to secure the money for him. In an email
entitled ``Choctaw CAF!'', Abramoff implored Scanlon, ``Mike,
what do we have to do to get this money in?'' \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110378) (July 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the money had still not arrived, Abramoff suggested to
Scanlon that he tell Nell Rogers at Choctaw that they were
``going to lose the ability to use this group [CAF] as a front
if we don't get this current.'' \114\ Scanlon agreed to do
so.\115\ Abramoff followed up a few days later, asking Scanlon
``Can you call her again today?'' \116\ Finally, on August 6,
2002, a $500,000 check for CAF arrived from the Choctaw.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000057339-40) (July 5,
2002).
\115\ Id.
\116\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000110378) (July 10, 2002).
\117\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Laura
Lippy, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000110548) (August 6, 2002); see also May & Barnhard document
production (MB-001948) (December 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite being listed as CAF's largest donor, the Choctaw
never intended to make a charitable contribution to CAF. During
the June 2005 hearing before the Committee, Rogers, who dealt
with Abramoff and Scanlon, testified:

The Chairman: Ms. Rogers, in 2002 the Capital Athletic
Foundation, Mr. Abramoff's private charitable
foundation, reported on its tax forms that the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was far and away
the single biggest contributor ... Michael Scanlon and
Jack Abramoff directed the tribe to make these
contributions?
Ms. Rogers: These were not intended as contributions,
Senator. They were intended to be pass-throughs to
other groups doing grassroots public advocacy work for
the tribe.
The Chairman: In other words, the tribe did not know
that 70 percent of these moneys were going to----
Ms. Rogers: Not at all. They were never intended to be
contributions.
The Chairman: Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon never
told you that the Capital Athletic Foundation was Mr.
Abramoff's private charity?
Ms. Rogers: No.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 17 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Nell
Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).

At all relevant times, the Tribe intended that the payments
to CAF would pass through to grassroots organizations working
to oppose the expansion of gaming in the Choctaw casino's
customer market.\119\ At no time did Abramoff or Scanlon advise
the Choctaw that CAF would keep any part of the money, as a
charitable contribution or otherwise.\120\ Rogers was disgusted
that Abramoff would not only abuse the Tribe's trust, but also
use a charity to do it.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Philadelphia, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\120\ Id.
\121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither Abramoff nor Scanlon ever told the Tribe that CAF
was a charitable organization.\122\ The Tribe was led to
believe that CAF ``was another one of Mike's entities that was
a vehicle to be used as a pass-through to grassroots groups.''
\123\ Rogers understood that CAF was ``something conveniently
set up to use for pass-through activities.'' \124\ Before the
Committee's investigation, the Tribe had no idea that Abramoff
was using CAF to finance the Eshkol Academy.\125\ Based on its
review of CAF's Form 990PFs, accounting ledger, profit and loss
statements, and other accounting records, the Committee finds
that CAF paid none of the Choctaw's funds to grassroots
organizations and vendors as the Tribe had intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Id.
\123\ Id.
\124\ Id.
\125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Abramoff and Scanlon Misappropriate Another $1,000,000 From the
Choctaw--October 2002

Abramoff and Scanlon's diversion of Choctaw funds, intended
by the Tribe for political purposes, did not end there. In
October 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon successfully deceived the
Tribe into paying another $1,000,000, nearly half of which went
to CAF. To accomplish this, Abramoff betrayed not just the
Tribe, but also two long-time friends, and violated his
fiduciary duty to a non-profit organization on whose board he
sat.
According to its president, Amy Ridenour, the National
Center for Public Policy Research (``NCPPR'') is ``a 23-year-
old conservative free market non-profit institution.'' \126\
Abramoff joined the NCPPR's board in 1997.\127\ Ridenour told
the Committee that ``[a]t that time, I had known Jack for
nearly 17 years. He was a dedicated conservative, a successful
lobbyist and businessman, and his managerial skills it seemed
to me at the time exceeded my own.'' \128\ Abramoff introduced
Ridenour and NCPPR to Chief Martin and the Choctaw in
1997.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 29-30 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Amy
Ridenour, president, National Center for Public Policy Research).
\127\ Id.
\128\ Id.
\129\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five years later, in October 2002, Abramoff used his
position as an NCPPR director to further carry out his and
Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme. Abramoff apparently sowed the
seeds months earlier at lunch with Ridenour and her husband at
Abramoff's restaurant Signatures.\130\ Ridenour testified
before the Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Id.

Jack shared with us details of his work doing what he
called ``a new kind of lobbying.'' He said he and his
colleagues working with the Mississippi Choctaws had
noted that for-profit non-Indian gaming establishments
were pushing to establish themselves in areas of the
Country not noted for their admiration of gaming. They
believed that a public backlash against gaming was
brewing and that before things came to a head, perhaps
4 to 5 years down the road, they would educate the
public about the Choctaw success story.
I was very interested in what I was hearing. I noted
that his new kind of lobbying was not lobbying at all,
but educational work and I expressed an interest in the
National Center sponsoring it. Jack seemed mildly
agreeable, but noncommittal. I did not press the
matter, assuming the Choctaws were financing the
project and would have to approve our involvement.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Id.

Nothing happened for four months.\132\ Then, on October 1,
Abramoff told Scanlon, ``Amy Ridenour has asked if we can run
any funds through them to pump up their non email donations
(they will give us back 100%). Let's run some of the non-caf
Choctaw money through them to the camans [sic].'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Id.
\133\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (Bates number 1636313) (October 1,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To induce the Tribe into making the payment, Abramoff told
them that the money would be used for their grassroots
activities. In her interview with Committee staff, Rogers said
that the Tribe paid $1,000,000 to the NCPPR at Abramoff's
direction.\134\ The Tribe intended and understood that the
money would pass-through the NCPPR to grassroots organizations
and vendors trying to defeat the expansion of gaming into the
Choctaw casino's customer market.\135\ Ralph Reed's firm
Century Strategies was among the firms that, Abramoff assured
Rogers, would ultimately receive part of the $ 1,000,000.\136\
The Tribe never intended any part of that $1,000,000 to go to
CAF, Abramoff, Scanlon, or any other entity owned or controlled
by Abramoff or Scanlon.\137\ Until the Committee's
investigation, the Tribe did not know that Abramoff and Scanlon
had diverted the $1,000,000 for their own personal use and
benefit.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, in Philadelphia, Mississippi (April 27-29, 2005).
\135\ Id.
\136\ Id.
\137\ Id.
\138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, on October 10, 2002, at Abramoff's direction, NCPPR
drew up a $1,000,000 invoice.\139\ The invoice Ridenour
prepared listed as its purpose ``contribution to the National
Center for educational and research programs and activities.''
\140\ Ridenour sent the invoice to Abramoff by email.\141\ That
was not the invoice that the Choctaw received, however.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 30 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Amy
Ridenour, president, National Center for Public Policy Research).
\140\ Greenberg Traurig document production (Bates number 1640098)
(October 10, 2002).
\141\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Amy
Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research (Bates number
1640097) (October 10, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff forwarded NCPPR's original invoice to
Scanlon.\142\ Someone at Scanlon's companies apparently
fabricated another invoice purportedly from the ``National
Center for Public Policy Research'' for ``Professional
Services.'' \143\ That was the invoice the Tribe ultimately saw
and paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Id.
\143\ Greenberg Traurig document production (Bates number 1640097-
99) (October 10, 2002). The Committee observes that this invoice is
similar in form and content to the invoices Scanlon sent on his
companies' behalf, usually just identifying ``Professional Services' as
the reason for the payment request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To NCPPR's Ridenour, Abramoff explained that part of the
money was a donation ultimately destined for CAF, and the rest
was intended for a huge educational effort the Tribe was
undertaking to educate the public on the benefits of Indian
gaming, and the distinction between Indian and non-Indian
gaming. According to Ridenour's testimony before the Committee:

When the funds arrived, he [Abramoff] told me how they
should be disbursed: $450,000 to the Capital Athletic
Foundation as a grant; $500,000 to Capitol Campaign
Strategies; and; and $50,000 to a company called
Nurnberger and Associates.
I believe Capitol Campaign Strategies was to be paid
for educational program services, while Ralph
Nurnberger was going to help coordinate the project.
Jack referred to his receiving ``instructions'' for the
disbursements, which I took to mean recommendations
from the donor, which was consistent with my belief
that the Mississippi Choctaws were actively
involved.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 30-31 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of Amy
Ridenour, president, National Center for Public Policy Research).

Abramoff repeatedly assured Ridenour that influencing
legislation was not part of the effort.\145\ Abramoff explained
that the payment to CCS ``was to be used for educational
program services, particularly polling and telephone banks, but
not necessarily exclusively; research, potentially paid
advertising; I was told later petition drives, that sort of
thing, but 100 percent educational program services.'' \146\
Abramoff told Ridenour that Nurnberger & Associates would
coordinate the effort.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Id. at 37.
\146\ Id.
\147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2002, Ridenour confirmed for Abramoff
NCPPR's receipt of the $1,000,000 dollar wire transfer from the
Choctaw.\148\ Two days later, Abramoff instructed Ridenour to
send $450,000 to CAF and $50,000 to Nurnberger &
Associates.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Email from Amy Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy
Research, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number)
(October 17, 2002).
\149\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Amy Ridenour,
National Center for Public Policy Research (no Bates number) (October
19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In dividing their ``gimme five'' spoils, Scanlon reminded
Abramoff to have NCPPR send Abramoff's share directly to CAF to
avoid a taxable event.\150\ When Ridenour requested invoices
from CAF and Nurnberger, Abramoff directed his assistant to
``make up two invoices.'' \151\ Abramoff further instructed
that the ``invoices should be generic as follows: 1. From
Capital Athletic Foundation for `Sports and Politics' project
for $450K 2. Nurnberger and Associates (use Ralph Nurnberger's
home address) for `research grant' for $50K.'' \152\ Abramoff
similarly instructed Christopher Cathcart, Scanlon's right-hand
man at CCS, to prepare an invoice from CCS ``for polling
services or something like that.'' \153\ When Cathcart
forwarded the invoice to him, Abramoff asked him to ``change
this to $500K and find out from Amy is [sic] this suffices.''
\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, (GTG-E000034219) (October 21, 2002).
\151\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000034220) (October 21, 2002).
\152\ Id.
\153\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E00011851) (October 21,
2002).
\154\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000011848) (October 22,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCPPR paid according to the invoices submitted by Abramoff
and Scanlon. From a review of CAF's internal business and
financial records, the Committee finds that CAF performed no
services benefitting the Choctaw. Similarly, from a review of
CCS's records, the Committee finds it performed no services for
the $500,000 it received through NCPPR. Cathcart told the
Committee that, contrary to the invoice he prepared, CCS did
not provide polling or any other services to NCPPR.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Interview of Christopher Cathcart, former employee, Capitol
Campaign Strategies, in Washington, D.C. (May 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee finds that Abramoff fabricated the invoice
from Nurnberger & Associates. During his interview with
Committee staff, Nurnberger reviewed the invoice purportedly
sent by his firm, Nurnberger & Associates, dated October 2002,
for a ``Research Grant.'' Nurnberger said that he had never
seen the invoice, and was certain that neither he nor his firm
had ever invoiced the NCPPR for this $50,000 payment.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Interview of Ralph Nurnberger, president, Nurnberger &
Associates, in Washington, D.C. (June 21, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nurnberger also told the Committee that at no time did he
or his firm provide any service to the NCPPR requiring
remuneration.\157\ The payment, according to Nurnberger, was in
fact repayment of a $50,000 loan that Nurnberger had made to
Abramoff many years earlier for the production of the movie
``Red Scorpion.'' \158\ After reading articles lauding Abramoff
and his success in 2002, Nurnberger approached Abramoff about
repayment.\159\ Abramoff claimed he was not liquid; however,
Abramoff explained that the NCPPR, of which Abramoff admitted
he was a director, owed him money, and he would arrange for
payment to go instead directly to Nurnberger.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Id.
\158\ Id.
\159\ Id.
\160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the Tribe never intended to donate any of that
money to Abramoff's personal charity, to Nurnberger, or to CCS.
Donald Kilgore, the Attorney General for the Choctaw, testified
before the Committee that Abramoff told the Tribe that the
entire $1,000,000 would be passed through to grassroots
organizations working on issues important to the Tribe.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee On
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 15, 18 (June 22, 2005) (testimony of
Donald Kilgore, Attorney General, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Abramoff's Misuse of CAF Funds in 2002

Based on its review of the records, the Committee finds
that Abramoff never passed the Choctaw's money through CAF to
grassroots groups or vendors working for the Tribe's benefit as
the Choctaw had intended. Nor did CAF perform the work itself.
Abramoff instead diverted the funds to his own personal causes
and concerns.
In 2002, CAF doled out $2,331,656 to various organizations.
Before Abramoff shut it down, CAF's website identified the
following organizations as representative grant recipients:

The Alexandria Police Youth Camp Foundation
American Youth Soccer Organization
Bethesda Chevy Chase Baseball
Belize Youth Soccer
Boy Scouts of America
Columbia Heights Youth Club
Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital
Howard County Youth Program
JCC of Greater Washington
Joy of Sports Foundation
Metropolitan Police Boys and Girls Club
Washington DC Scores
Washington Tennis Education Foundation
YMCA of Metropolitan Washington \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Capital Athletic Foundation (visited June 7, 2004) .

Despite millions of dollars in ``grants'' that year, these
organizations received a mere $500 each. Cumulatively, the
organizations received $7,000, which is only 0.3% of the
purported grants made that year by CAF.
Individuals and organizations Abramoff did not tout
publicly were, in fact, the major beneficiaries of Abramoff's
share of the ``gimme five'' scheme. According to CAF's 2002
Form 990PF, the ten top recipients were:

Eshkol Academy--$1,857,704
P'tach--$300,000
Kollel Ohel Tiferet--$97,000
Chabad Lubavitch--$20,000
GIFT School--$14,500
Toward Tradition--$10,000
The Waldorf School of Atlanta--$6,000
Jewish Federation of Greater Washington--
$5,000
Washington Redskins Leadership Council--$4,000
The Voice Behind--$2,500 \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990PF.

Despite receiving $2,254,704--nearly all of the $2,331,656
that Abramoff had CAF dole out in ``grants'' in 2002--neither
Eshkol Academy, P'tach, nor Kollel Ohel Tiferet were listed
among the recent recipients identified on CAF's website. In
fact, of the top ten recipients of CAF funds, only the Waldorf
School and the Voice Behind were listed.\164\ Similarly, in
promotional literature distributed to the public for ``The Spy
Game,'' an event scheduled at the Spy Museum for March 26, 2003
but which apparently did not occur, the Eshkol Academy, Kollel
Ohel Tiferet, and P'tach are conspicuously absent from the list
of recent grant recipients.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ See Capital Athletic Foundation (visited June 7, 2004)
.
\165\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the top ten recipients of CAF largesse in 2002 had
close ties to Abramoff:

The single largest beneficiary of money was
the Eshkol Academy, the middle school and high school
for Orthodox Jews founded in 2001 by Abramoff. He and
his wife were the only members of the board of
directors.\166\ The money allegedly was used for
teaching facilities, instructors, and an ice rink.\167\
In concealing his use of CAF to fund Eshkol, Abramoff
told Greenberg Traurig's Baggett that he was personally
funding the Eshkol Academy.\168\ Abramoff's school,
Eshkol Academy, received nearly 80% of the funds
Abramoff had CAF distribute as ``grants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Mimi Stansbury
(MB-002043) (November 7, 2002).
\167\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990PF.
\168\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toward Tradition is ``a non-profit
(501.c.3), educational organization working to advance
our nation toward the traditional Judeo-Christian
values that defined America's creation and became the
blueprint for her greatness.'' \169\ During 2002,
Abramoff sat on the Board of Directors of Toward
Tradition.\170\ Toward Tradition is headed by Rabbi
Daniel Lapin, a long-term Abramoff friend.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Toward Tradition: Mission Statement (visited June 13, 2006)
.
\170\ Id.
\171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbi David Lapin received $60,529 from CAF
for ``consulting'' services.\172\ According to news
reports, Rabbi David Lapin is Daniel Lapin's brother,
and another long-time Abramoff friend.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2002 Form 990.
\173\ See Rick Anderson, Meet the Lapin Brothers, Seattle Weekly,
May 11, 2005 at 11. According to Seattle Weekly, Daniel Lapin allegedly
received a $1.2 million no-bid government contract with the Northern
Marianas, an Abramoff client during his days at the law and lobbying
firm of Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington
describes itself as ``the voice of the Jewish community
in and around the nation's capital since 1925.'' \174\
The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington is the
``operating agency'' of the Torah School of Greater
Washington, which is located at 12721 Goodhill Road in
Silver Spring, Maryland.\175\ Records filed with the
Maryland Secretary of State show that Abramoff was/is
the registered agent for the Torah School of Greater
Washington.\176\ The Torah School of Greater Washington
is a Jewish school for kindergarten through sixth
grade.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington: About Us,
(visited June 7, 2006)
(explanatory parenthetical needed).
\175\ The Jewish Information and Referral Service, (visited June 7,
2006) (explanatory parenthetical needed).
\176\ Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation.
\177\ Torah School of Greater Washington, (visited June 7, 2006)
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, the Voice Behind claimed to be ``a
faith-based, 501c3 [sic] non-profit creative
organization dedicated to creating, commissioning, and
celebrating transcendent works of art and media.''
\178\ Its vision was a ``creative renaissance that
illumines the good, the true, and the beautiful through
excellence and artistry for the glory of God, the
service of neighbor, and the renewal of culture.''
\179\ According to a press release, The Voice Behind,
in collaboration with Abramoff, the Capital Athletic
Foundation, and others hosted the premier of ``the Best
of the Damah Film Festival: Spiritual Experiences in
Film'' in Washington, D.C.\180\ The Committee has not
been able to confirm whether this event actually
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ The Voice Behind, (visited June 28, 2004) .
\179\ Id.
\180\ Id.

The second largest recipient, P'tach, is a school in
Brooklyn, New York for Jewish children with learning
disabilities.\181\ Among CAF's donations to P'tach were
$275,500 for P'tach to purchase a new facility for its GIFT
High School, Gutmann Institute for Child Development, and for
administrative offices, and $47,500 for a deposit on a proposed
campus in Marriottsville, Maryland.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ P'tach: About P'tach, (visited June 13, 2006) .
\182\ Letter from Brian Caplan, P'tach, to Capital Athletic
Foundation, c/o Mr. And Mrs. Jack Abramoff (GTG001764-JA-P) (March 12,
2002) (concerning $14,500 gift); Letter from Brian Caplan, P'tach, to
Capital Athletic Foundation, c/o Mr. And Mrs. Jack Abramoff (GTG001762-
JA-P) (July 11, 2002) (concerning $47,500 gift); Letter from Brian
Caplan, P'tach, to Capital Athletic Foundation, c/o Mr. And Mrs. Jack
Abramoff (GTG001761-JA-P) (August 14, 2002) (concerning $275,500
donation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third largest recipient, Kollel Ohel Tiferet, is a
purported educational institution in Israel; according to CAF's
2002 990 Tax Return, the grant was supposedly used for
education, athletics, and security. Based on its review of the
documents, the Committee finds that the Kollel Ohel Tiferet was
nothing more than an entity established on paper to conceal the
ultimate recipient of CAF grants: Shmuel Ben Zvi.
As noted above, in 2001 CAF apparently purchased a thermal
imager for one Shmuel Ben Zvi for paramilitary use in the
Israeli West Bank. In 2002, CAF sent money to Ben Zvi in
Israel, simply listing it as a transfer.\183\ Additional
entries reflect that the payments were for a ``new Jeep.''
\184\ Gail Halpern, Abramoff's tax advisor, labeled the
purchases for Ben Zvi as ``spy equipment.'' \185\ According to
one former Abramoff friend, Abramoff allegedly procured ``rifle
scopes for settlers'' in Israel.\186\ The Committee thus finds
that in 2002, Abramoff was making jeep payments for Ben Zvi and
paying him a stipend from CAF funds.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001952) (December 31,
2002).
\184\ Id.
\185\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E00001186) (November 5, 2002).
\186\ Email from Don Feder to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig
(GTG-E000020082) (July 2, 2002).
\187\ See May & Barnhard document production (MB-001952) (December
31, 2002); see also Email from Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard
(GTG-E00008858) (September 19, 2002) (referring to payments used for
jeep); Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000011885) (November 5, 2002) (requesting
Abramoff cut ``Shmuel spy equipment and his monthly stipend ($3560)
...''); Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000088619-21) (December 24, 2002) (``I cannot cut
him off from the stipend and the jeep payment.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point, Abramoff began getting pressure to ``clean
up'' the books of CAF to conform, at least on paper, CAF's
expenditures with some legitimate charitable purpose. When
Abramoff proposed changing how the payments were made, Allison
Bozniak, one of Abramoff's former assistants at Greenberg
Traurig, reported to Abramoff:

I spoke with Shmuel [Ben Zvi] and he is a little afraid
to begin changing things with the bank since they set
up the loan for the jeep based on the 2K payments each
month for the last year. They regarded the 2k as a sign
that the transfers were stable and felt that these
consistent payments, plus the letter from Jack made the
loan a good risk.
He studies half a day at a place called ``Kollel'' but
he doesn't think that they even have a bank account as
it really doesn't pay it's [sic] members. He also has
no way to set this up with a Yeshiva at the
moment.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Email between Allison Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard (GTG-
E000088582) (September 19, 2002).

Bozniak proposed a solution, ``He did suggest that he could
write some kind of letter with his Sniper Workshop Logo and
letter head. It is an `educational' entity of sorts.'' \189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff could only respond, ``No, don't do that. I don't
want a sniper letterhead.'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff's use of CAF continued to raise alarm among his
tax advisors. On November 11, 2002, Halpern wrote specifically
about the payments to Ben Zvi:

[W]e need to work this into the tax exempt purpose of
the Foundation. More to come on this subject in an
email tomorrow or so. [The accounting firm of May and
Barnhard] is finishing the 2001 return and read me the
riot act on some of the stuff that we are doing. We
need to ``fix'' the holes.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088599) (November 11, 2002).

Abramoff's solution was not to cease the questionable
activity; rather, he chose to conceal it with a paper
transaction. Abramoff advised Ben Zvi, ``The other thing is
that, if possible, it would be easier for me to get you funds
through a kollel over there or something like that. my [sic]
accountant is very unhappy with the way we have done this,
through our foundation which was not set up for these kinds of
activities.'' \192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088186) (December 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Zvi advised Abramoff, ``Anyone can have a Kollel here.
If I set up the account name in the name of a Kollel and send
you papers with a Kollel stationary would that work?'' \193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088183) (December 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Abramoff shared Ben Zvi's hardship with his tax
planner Gail Halpern, Halpern suggested ways to make the
transaction pass muster on paper, although she knew the
ultimate recipient and use of the payments.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly one month later, Abramoff asked Ben Zvi to ``set up
an account for a kollel and get me the info so we can send the
$ [sic] there from now on.'' \195\ Later that same day, Halpern
advised Abramoff on the need to route the money through another
institution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Shmuel Ben
Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088623) (December 24, 2002).

[B]ut let's try to figure it out in a way where we
don't screw up the foundation. we [sic] need to get the
money to a 501c3 [sic] or an educational institution,
not directly to him. can [sic] you ask him if he can
work something out w/the kollel so the money goes from
the kollel to him? \196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088619) (December 24, 2002).

When Ben Zvi reported to Abramoff that the bank from which
he had obtained the loan for the jeep insisted the money
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
continue to go through Ben Zvi's account, Abramoff responded:

They are being ridiculous. tell [sic] them that all the
money will come into the Kollel account, which can be
in their bank. Same amount of money, but CAF cannot
make the payments directly to you. must [sic] be to the
kollel.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Shmuel
Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet (GTG-E000088618) (December 26, 2002).

Ben Zvi soon succeeded. On December 27, 2002, in an email
entitled ``CAF/Shmuel payments,'' he sent wiring information to
Abramoff for the ``KOLLEL OHEL TIFERET (For: Shmuel Ben Zvi).''
\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ Email from Shmuel Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet, to Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088616) (December 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Abramoff advised Halpern that Ben Zvi would do the
kollel, Halpern instructed, ``[H]e needs to give us the name
and bank account info. and [sic] can the jeep payments go to
the kollel as well, as well as all the other military expenses
that don't look good on the Foundation's books?'' \199\ Halpern
further suggested that ``at the end of the year, he'll need to
write us a letter on Kollel stationary thanking the Foundation
for the money to promote their educational purpose.'' \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ Email from Gail Halpern, May & Barnhard, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000088619) (December 24, 2002) (emphasis
added).
\200\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the nearly $100,000 booked on CAF's ledger as
contributions to Kollel Ohel Tiferet, not all were payments to
Ben Zvi either directly or through the Kollel account. Listed
under the Kollel entry of CAF's ledgers are sizable
reimbursements of a number of Greenberg Traurig employees:
Allison Bozniak, Hillel Broder, Holly Bowers, and Laura
Lippy.\201\ The reimbursements appear to be for the purchase of
``books,'' ``videos,'' ``supplies,'' ``camera,'' ``light/photon
supplies,'' ``custom suit expense'' and ``lights and alarms,''
apparently intended for paramilitary use.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001952) (December 31,
2002).
\202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``custom suit expense'' on CAF's books is curious. The
``custom suit'' is a ghili suit, that is, camouflage apparel,
typically used by snipers. According to one email from Ben Zvi
to Hillel Broder, apparently a former Greenberg Traurig
employee:

Hillel, I want to order a GHILLI SUIT [sic]. from [sic]
this company so that we have a basic structure to copy
from.
These are made well and will help us to no end.
I want to get the FULL MILITARY GHILI SUIT [sic] in
(light) BROWN DICIDOUS [sic] colors just like the one
display in the photo on their site.
The sizes go by BDU (battle dress uniform) So [sic] the
bottom should be XXX long and the top should be XXXX
long.
Now the order form on their site gives a buba misa
about these suits needing a special state department
licence and blah, blah, blah.
These suits are used by goyim who do alot [sic] of
hunting. PLEASE [sic] don't get freaked out about this
warning, suits of similar design can be bought from any
of the hunting supply catalogs.
Anyway when you box it up and send it to me, send it as
THE GRANDMOTHER TREE COSTUME [sic] for the play
POCAHONTAS [sic].\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ Email from Shmuel Ben Zvi, Kollel Ohel Tieferet, to Hillel
Broder, Greenberg Traurig (GTG008442-JA-P) (July 29, 2002).

Ben Zvi further advised that should Broder need ``to call
them and they ask you what you need it for just tell them that
it is a present for a relative who goes DEER HUNTING [sic].''
\204\ Scribbled upon the return email is one word: ``Orderd''
[sic].\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ Id.
\205\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broder also apparently ordered other sniper paraphernalia
for Ben Zvi, for which he was reimbursed by CAF. According to
invoices from Blackhawk Industries, Inc., Broder purchased
tactical hydration tubes, web gear, shooters mats, sniper mats,
and sniper cleaning kits.\206\ Holly Bowers, Abramoff's
assistant, apparently paid for some of the items Broder ordered
for Ben Zvi. On July 23, 2002, Bowers listed in her daily wrap-
up list on item 12: ``Gave Hillel my credit card number to
order the anti-terrorism literature for your friend in
Israel.'' \207\ Bowers similarly included in her August 12,
2002 list in item 14: ``Gave Hillel my credit card to order
things for Shmuel.'' \208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Greenberg Traurig document production (GTG008438-JA-P/
GTG008439-JA-P) (entitled ``Packing List from Blackhawk Industries,
Inc. to Hillel Broder'') (August 6, 2002).
\207\ Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000059454) (July 23, 2002).
\208\ Email from Holly Bowers, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000026750-51) (August 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other, curious expenditures are on CAF's accounting ledger.
To name a few,

Abramoff spent another $10,000 on The
Lexington Group in April and May 2002.\209\ On its
website, The Lexington Group claimed to practice ``in
all areas of legislative representation.'' \210\
Abramoff described it as ``just something i have set up
with a guy who gt [Greenberg Traurig] would not hire
but who will do a lot of business.'' \211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001946) (December 31,
2002).
\210\ See The Lexington Group (visited July 8, 2004) (The website also claimed that The Lexington
Group was partnered with Greenberg Traurig).
\211\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000011514) (February 26, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff spent $50,000 on an ice rink for
Eshkol.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001946) (December 31,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, CAF spent $67,685 on a Spy Museum
Fundraiser.\213\ Despite the large expenditures, the
fundraiser apparently never occurred.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-001940) (January-
December 2002).
\214\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAF funds were apparently paid to Livsar,
the company that owned and operated Abramoff's
Signatures restaurant. On January 3, 2002, Rodney Lane,
Abramoff's former assistant who left Greenberg Traurig
to set up the restaurant, advised Abramoff of a ``5
minute transfer from CAF to Livsar.'' \215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ Email from Rodney Lane, Greenberg Traurig, to Jack Abramoff,
Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107574) (January 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. IN 2003, ABRAMOFF FUNNELS TRIBAL MONEY THROUGH CONDUITS TO CAF

CAF's 2003 Form 990PF does not list any Tribe as a
donor.\216\ The major donors listed on CAF's 2003 Form 990PF
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ See Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990PF.

Kaygold, LLC--$47,891
IIA--$500,000
National Center for Public Policy Research--
$250,000
Atlantic Research & Analysis--$950,000
Sony Electronics, Inc.--$6,000
Jack Abramoff--$400,000 \217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990PF.

Nevertheless, the Committee has found substantial evidence
establishing that the alleged contributions from Kaygold and
Atlantic Research & Analysis (``ARA'') were actually funds from
Indian Tribes.

1. Kaygold Sends Tribal Funds to CAF

According to Kaygold's bank statements, Kaygold's primary
source of income was Scanlon's companies. Thus, the $47,891
``contribution'' was actually fruits of the ``gimme five''
scheme.

2. Abramoff and Scanlon Use ARA as a Conduit To Funnel Louisiana
Coushatta Funds to CAF

From its review of banking and accounting records, the
Committee finds that the money allegedly from ARA is actually
money from the Louisiana Coushatta. Scanlon's right-hand man,
Christopher Cathcart, apparently set up ARA solely to run
through payments from the Louisiana Coushatta.
As he had in 2001, Scanlon started this scam with another
memorandum. According to a January 21, 2003, memorandum
prepared by Scanlon for then-Tribal Vice-Chairman William
Worfel on the Louisiana Political Program, ARA was allegedly
established as a front entity to provide cover to Worfel and
then-Chief Poncho politically by concealing that the Louisiana
Coushatta was still paying Scanlon.\218\ Scanlon attached
invoices to the memorandum ``that direct the funds to several
different entities that will play different roles in this
campaign along with a letter from Me/CCS informing the tribe
that I will no longer be providing the political services to
the tribe as I have in the past.'' \219\ Regarding ARA
specifically, Scanlon wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Louisiana 2002[sic] Political Program'') (undated)
(erroneously date stamped ``9/21/2005'').
\219\ Id.

ARA will be the entity to conduct all the market
analysis, polling, district research, opposition
research and general strategy. ARA will also be that
primary funding entity for the campaign; Meaning that
this is where the lions share of the money will go, and
then ARA can sub-contract or hire CCS to conduct
strategic functions for the campaign.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Id.

On January 21, 2003, the same day as his memorandum to
Worfel, Scanlon asked Cathcart, ``Can you get A [sic] DBA on
the Scanlon CM account that is Atlantic Research and
Analysis.'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Email between Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
and Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number)
(January 21-22, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next day, Cathcart informed Scanlon: ``[I] am going to
have JD [Scanlon's accountant Jeremy Diehl] set up a new llc
[sic] for ara [sic] ... reason is that ScM has its own unique
tax status as a commercial real estate lessor. [S]o, added
liability protection and smarter for tax reasoins [sic] to keep
separate. [W]ill not impact our ability to collect the dough
from coush [Coushatta].'' \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two hours later, Scanlon authorized Cathcart to establish
the new entity.\223\ The Committee has found no corporate
registration or other filing for ARA in Maryland, Delaware, or
the District of Columbia establishing that ARA was ever
incorporated. The Committee has determined that ARA opened a
bank account on or about April 1, 2003.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Id.
\224\ See Wachovia document production (D00519-20) (April 1, 2003-
April 30, 2003) (bank account statement for Atlantic Research &
Analysis, which is the first such statement for ARA and shows a $0.00
opening balance on 04/01/03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Abramoff and Scanlon were on the move. In an
apparent effort to avoid taxes on his take, Abramoff wanted
Scanlon to have the Coushatta send his share of the ``gimme
five'' funds directly to CAF. Abramoff told Halpern, his tax
adviser, that he would soon have $1,000,000 for CAF ``directly
from Coushatta.'' \225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Gail Halpern,
May & Barnhard (GTG-E000012166) (March 30, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff directed Scanlon: ``Please make sure the next $1M
from Coushatta for me goes to Eshkol Academy directly. Please
tell them that we are `using the school as our conduit for some
activities.' If that won't fly with them, use CAF, or National
Center for Public Policy Research.'' \226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000034571) (February 20,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following month, Abramoff asked Scanlon ``did we get
the Coushatta money?'' and implored Scanlon, ``Can you please
please please get it written to Eshkol Academy?'' \227\
Abramoff again suggested that Scanlon ``[t]ell them that's our
front group to cover some of this.'' \228\ Scanlon agreed to do
so.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000252852) (March 18, 2003).
\228\ Id.
\229\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about April 15, 2003, Scanlon submitted a $2,000,000
invoice to the Louisiana Coushatta in the name of ARA, along
with invoices from his other groups.\230\ The address listed on
the invoice for ARA--53 Baltimore Avenue, Rehoboth Beach, DE
19971--was the clapboard house from which another Scanlon
entity, the American International Center, operated.\231\
Worfel, the Louisiana Coushatta's Vice-Chairman at the time,
was led to believe that ARA was ``just another entity of
Greenberg ... that they operate under.'' \232\ Worfel
understood ARA was one of many front-groups that Abramoff and
Scanlon used so the Tribe's political opposition would not know
what they were doing.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Capitol Campaign Strategies document production (no Bates
number) (entitled ``Atlantic Research and Analysis INVOICE'') (April
15, 2003).
\231\ See Chris Barrish, Abramoff Cohort Spent Millions on Sussex
Homes, The New Journal, May 16, 2006.
\232\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\233\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff still wanted Scanlon to have the Tribe send his
part of the ``gimme five'' payments to CAF.\234\ While Scanlon
awaited arrival of the funds, Abramoff told Scanlon, ``I really
need to get those funds into Eshkol asap.'' \235\ Scanlon
advised Abramoff that he could not guarantee the payment would
go to CAF, and was certain the money would not be routed
directly to Eshkol because he could not find ``any invoices on
the school.'' \236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (April 16,
2003).
\235\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (April 28,
2003).
\236\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (April 28, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 1, 2003, ARA received a $2,000,000 wire transfer
from the Louisiana Coushatta.\237\ Scanlon advised Abramoff in
a May 5 email entitled ``Coush!'': ``Hey FYI--Coushatta has
paid for the Louisiana 2003 program in full now. If it's ok--I
think it would be wise to hold back a bit for a rainy day (100
or so to cover operations), other than that please tell me
where to send the funds.'' \238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ Wachovia document production (D00521-22) (May 1, 2003-May 30,
2003).
\238\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (May 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff instructed Scanlon to send it to CAF.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (May 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Abramoff did not receive the money, he asked Scanlon
on May 6, ``Did we get this money yet? I am in urgent need of
funds.'' \240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanlon assured Abramoff that he would ``have a check
tomorrow at your office via courier!'' \241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (no Bates number) (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
True to his word, on May 7, 2003, Scanlon instructed
Cathcart to ``cut a check to Capital Athletic Foundation for
950k.'' \242\ Cathcart responded, ``950? Wow. It will come from
atlantic research [sic]. I will pay Ccs [sic] out of the
rest.'' \243\ According to ARA's bank records, ARA executed a
check for $950,000.\244\ Abramoff deposited the $950,000 into
CAF's bank account on May 8, 2003.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ Email from Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies, to
Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number)
(May 7, 2003).
\243\ Email from Christopher Cathcart, Capitol Campaign Strategies,
to Michael Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (no Bates number) (May
7, 2003).
\244\ Wachovia document production (D00521-22) (May 1, 2003-May 30,
2003).
\245\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-000252) (December 31,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Abramoff's Use of CAF Funds in 2003

In 2003, Abramoff used CAF as he had before. According to
the 2003 Form 990PF, Abramoff directed CAF to pay:

Eshkol Academy.......................................... $2,366,512
Beis Avrohom Chaim...................................... $251,242
Kollel Ohel Tiferet..................................... $44,220
American Friends of Lubavitch........................... $10,000
The DeLay Foundation for Kids........................... $25,000
Bais Yaakov Brooklyn.................................... $20,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $2,716,974

Abramoff's Eshkol Academy was again the biggest
beneficiary, receiving 87% of CAF's grants. Kollel Ohel
Tiferet, the paper entity established by Abramoff's friend in
Israel, received another $44,000.
Beis Avrohom Chaim is another Abramoff entity that received
CAF funding. According to the articles of incorporation, Beis
Avrohom Chaim was incorporated in June 2003 under Maryland law
as a religious corporation.\246\ The trustees were Jack
Abramoff and his wife; Shana Tesler, a former Greenberg Traurig
employee who worked closely with Abramoff; and, her husband Sam
Hook.\247\ The principal place of worship listed in its
articles of incorporation is Abramoff's home address.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ Beis Avrohom Chaim, Articles of Incorporation.
\247\ Id. For reasons unknown to the Committee, Rodney Lane,
Abramoff's former executive assistant who was instrumental in setting
up the Signatures restaurant, subsequently replaced Abramoff's wife as
a trustee. See Articles of Amendment for a Religious Corporation, for
Beis Avrohom Chaim.
\248\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Beis Avrohom Chaim's General Ledger, total
contributions from CAF totaled $251,242 in 2003.\249\ Two
payments made on July 10, 2003, for $241,250 are described as
contributions from CAF.\250\ Another payment on August 5, 2003,
for $2,500 is described as payment by CAF for professional
services.\251\ A final payment of $7,492 on August 8, 2003 is
described as mortgage recordation fees related to a mortgage
closing.\252\ The total listed on Beis Avrohom Chaim's general
ledger--$251,242--matches the amount of donations listed on
CAF's Form 990.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-00255) (December 31,
2003).
\250\ Id.
\251\ Id.
\252\ Id.
\253\ Compare May & Barnhard document production (MB-00255)
(December 31, 2003), with Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporated as a religious corporation, Beis Avrohom Chaim
appears to be a holding company for real estate. According to a
deed filed in Montgomery County, Maryland, on July 10, 2003,
Beis Avrohom Chaim purchased property at 800 Edelblut Drive,
Silver Spring Maryland (close to Abramoff's home) for
$845,000.\254\ On CAF's 2003 Form 990, Abramoff described Beis
Avrohom Chaim as a ``religious organization, [that] provides
religious services for the congregation and housing for the
Eshkol Academy student athletes.'' \255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ Deed, July 10, 2003 between Benjamin L. Allen, PR and Marie-
Louise Allen Kempe, PR of the Estate of Marie Louise Allen, Estate no.
W-37905 as to \1/2\ interest and Marie Louise Allen and James S. Allen,
by Benjamin L. Allen, his Attorney-in-fact, as to \1/2\ interest, as
tenants in common as to the whole to Beis Avrohom Chaim. The property
is apparently down the street from Abramoff's home.
\255\ Capital Athletic Foundation, 2003 Form 990PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it had for 2002, for 2003 CAF also listed substantial
expenses associated with travel, conferences, and meeting:
$251,163.\256\ Abramoff used approximately $150,000 of CAF's
funds to finance another trip to Scotland.\257\ Abramoff also
spent over $100,000 on the Spy Museum Event that apparently did
not take place.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Id.
\257\ May & Barnhard document production (MB-000250) (January-
December 2003).
\258\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. CONCLUSION

Despite the self-serving statements about ``ethical
conduct'' and helping ``disadvantaged youth'' on CAF's website,
the Committee finds that Abramoff used CAF as his personal
slush fund. In pleading guilty to tax evasion, Abramoff
admitted that he ``misrepresented the receipt of diverted funds
[from the Tribes] as charitable donations and mischaracterized
personal and business expenditures as being used for a tax
exempt purpose.'' \259\ He further confessed that he ``engaged
in similar evasive conduct for the tax years 2001 and 2003. Due
to this and other evasive conduct, Abramoff attempted to evade
approximately $1,724,054 in individual income taxes for the
2001 through 2003 tax years.'' \260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ Plea Agreement, Factual Basis for the Plea, at para. 39, U.S.
v. Jack A. Abramoff (Dist. D.C., January 3, 2006) (CR-06-001).
\260\ Id. at para. 41.
PART THREE--OTHER

CHAPTER I

COUNCIL OF REPUBLICANS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY

Who writes $50,000 checks to people they don't know if
it wasn't what Jack--Jack said these people have a lot
of money, they want to give to Republicans, they're
taking my advice, and they really just don't want to be
bothered with executive directors [like me]. Fine, and
then they sent their checks in. And then what did these
disappointed people think they were going to get, and
you tell me who's committing fraud ... I mean it all
fit ...

Deposition testimony of CREA president Italia Federici to
Committee staff, October 7, 2005

You are an environmental organization. You come into a
lot of money from Indian tribes. My guess is that that
money had nothing to do with generosity, or had very
little to do with energy or the environment but had a
lot to do with Mr. Abramoff saying to his contacts in
these tribes, ``I want you to stick money into Ms.
Federici's organization,'' and they did.

Comments from Committee Vice-Chairman Byron Dorgan to CREA
president Italia Federici during Committee hearing, November
17, 2005

A. BACKGROUND

Among the issues investigated by the Committee is whether
monies paid by the Tribes at Jack Abramoff or Michael Scanlon's
direction, to or through particular entities, were used for
purposes intended by the Tribes. In that context, the Committee
is concerned about ``contributions'' that some of the Tribes
made at Abramoff's direction to an organization called the
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (``CREA'')
and, in particular, the circumstances under which they made
those contributions.
CREA was created in 1997 by Italia Federici.\1\ In her
deposition with Committee staff, Federici stated that she
originally formed the organization in the memory of her
mother.\2\ According to Federici, her mother passed away two
weeks before former Interior Secretary Gale Norton's 1996
campaign for the U.S. Senate ended.\3\ (Federici testified that
she worked on Norton's failed Senate campaign ``from the day
that it started to the day that it ended.'' \4\) Federici
stated that her mother ``liked the notion, my idea of a
Republican environmental organization, so I decided to kind of
honor her memory by creating CREA in 1997.'' \5\ Subsequently,
Norton and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist came on board as
CREA's honorary national co-chairmen.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005).
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id. During her deposition, Federici recalled first working with
Norton on her race for Colorado attorney general, after a volunteer
stint on the 1994 Jeb Bush for Governor campaign. Id.
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id. In her deposition, Federici could not recall having drawn a
salary from CREA from 1997-2000. Id. In 2001, she believed that ``her
income tax return said that [she] made like $25,000.'' Id. And, in
2002, she believed that she ``might have made like 56 [thousand
dollars]'' and $85,000 in 2003. Id. It is noteworthy that Federici's
salary from CREA appears to have spiked during the period that
Abramoff's Tribal clients contributed to CREA.
\6\ Id. Federici described, in her deposition with Committee staff,
that Norquist was instrumental to CREA by including CREA in his
Wednesday policy meetings and introducing CREA to Newt Gingrich, who
served as CREA's ``first kickoff speaker ever, which was huge.'' Id.
She further described Norquist as ``[j]ust always helpful, [providing]
good advice.'' Id. According to an email dated January 8, 1999,
Federici met Abramoff ``at a football game with ... Norquist.'' Email
between Susan Ralston, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig, ``Call from'' (GTG-E000079149) (January 8, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Federici, CREA later closed ``because we
reorganized when we moved out here [to Washington, D.C.] in
1999 and [prominent Republican lawyer] Ben Ginsburg became our
general counsel and he said, I want to reincorporate you guys
in the District [of Columbia].'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It did so.\8\ After having been registered as a 527
political fund-raising entity, it reorganized as a 501(c)(4)
non-profit organization.\9\ According to CREA's website, its
mission is ``to foster environmental protection by promoting
fair, community[-]based solutions to environmental challenges,
highlighting Republican environmental accomplishments and
building on our Republican tradition of conservation.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
\9\ Originally called the Coalition of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, in mid-2000, CREA was renamed the Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy and registered as both a 527
political fund-raising entity and as a D.C.-based 501(c)(4), a
nonprofit organization that may engage in some lobbying activities.
Josephine Hearn, DOJ Subpoenas GOP Group, The Hill, March 1, 2005.
However, last year, CREA reportedly edited a reference on its website
referring to it as a 501(c)(4), replacing the text with more vague
language. Id.
\10\ Website, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy,
``Mission Statement,'' http://www.crea-online.org/2222-20.html (last
visited, June 3, 2006). Since its inception, CREA has met skepticism
from other environmental groups. See Josephine Hearn, DOJ Subpoenas GOP
Group, The Hill, March 1, 2005. For example, Republicans for
Environmental Protection called the group a ``greenscam'' in 1998 after
it was revealed that the group received significant funding from the
mining, logging, chemical and coal industries. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Abramoff Has His Tribal Clients Pay CREA
In testimony before the Committee, Federici revealed that,
from 2001 through 2003, Abramoff or his clients ``contributed''
in total about $500,000 to CREA.\11\ Evidence obtained by the
Committee indicates that Abramoff directed some of his Tribal
clients to ``contribute'' to CREA, occasionally under false
pretenses. For example, to induce the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of
Texas (``Tigua'') into giving $25,000 to CREA in 2002, Abramoff
told a Tribal representative that CREA was ``a DeLay
organization.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 38-40 (November 17, 2005).
\12\ See Interview of Marc Schwartz, president, Partners Group
Consultants, by telephone (February 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2002, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(``Choctaw'') contributed $50,000 to CREA.\13\ In soliciting
the Tribe for that contribution, Abramoff told that Tribe that
CREA did work ``in terms of liberalizing environmental rules
and that was an activity the Tribe wanted to support.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27, 2005).
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana
Coushatta'') gave $50,000 and $100,000 in 2002.\15\ Of the
$50,000 that the Tribe paid CREA in 2001, it paid at least
$25,000 in connection with a private fund-raiser, held on
September 24, 2001.\16\ During that dinner, then-Tribal Chief
Lovelin Poncho met Norton and other senior Administration
officials.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his interview, former Louisiana Coushatta Vice-Chairman
William Worfel testified that the $25,000 that the Tribe paid
to CREA was actually intended to support a ``national park
research study'' that Interior was supposedly conducting--a
``pet project.'' \18\ He was told that the Choctaw had
contributed, or intended to contribute, $25,000 to CREA in
support of the study \19\ and that ``Interior then would look
and always consider you [that is, the Tribe] friends because
you went out on a limb, you went out, reached in your pockets
and helped a pet project of the U.S. Department of the Interior
when they was [sic] strapped for funds.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id. See ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 45 (November 2, 2005).
\19\ Id. See Interview of Nell Rogers, planner, Mississippi Band of
Choctaw, in Choctaw, Mississippi (April 27, 2005).
\20\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13-14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has seen no evidence that this study was ever
conducted. Worfel never saw this study and does not know
whether such a study was actually conducted.\21\ Former
Interior Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles testified at a
Committee hearing that he too is unaware of such a study and is
highly skeptical about whether one was ever conducted.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 50-53 (November 2, 2005).
\22\ See id. at 107 (``I do not have any recollection of that today
at all. At some point in my background, somebody may have told me
something, but I was not at Interior, and I cannot imagine conducting a
poll for Interior, Senator.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, Abramoff used a different pretext to induce the
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa'') to
contribute at least $50,000 to CREA. In his interview with
Committee staff, former Tribal Council member David Otto
recalled that former Tribal legislative director Christopher
Petras told him that CREA was a group with which then-Interior
Secretary Norton was ``involved.'' \23\ Petras said that
supporting a project the Secretary was involved with would
``look good'' for the Tribe, according to Otto.\24\ Otto also
recalled that he was told that doing so would help them with
appropriations for their school, drug abuse center, senior
center, and other facilities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Interview of David Otto, former council member, Sagniaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe, in Washington, D.C. (August 27, 2004).
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents reflect that after Norton became Secretary,
Abramoff told Petras (and members of his own lobbying team)
that Norton supported CREA. In an attempt to get the Tribe to
financially support the September 2001 CREA fund-raiser,
Abramoff pitched CREA to Petras as ``hav[ing] been incredibly
helpful on certain specific tribal issues.'' \26\ He also
identified CREA as ``[Secretary] Norton's main group outside
the department.'' \27\ Having sold CREA on Petras (who was to
approach the Tribal Council for a contribution), Abramoff
directed his assistant to amend a requested contribution list
he was sending to the Saginaw Chippewa to ``add in $50,000 for
CREA and put a note in the candidate column as follows: Sec.
Norton.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Christopher
Petras, Sagniaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (GTG-E000105234) (September 20,
2001).
\27\ Id.
\28\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Allison
Bozniak, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107697) (January 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has seen no evidence that Abramoff's
representations about Norton's interest in CREA are true. Nor
has the Committee seen any evidence to suggest that Norton knew
of, much less sanctioned, Abramoff or anyone else using her
name in seeking fees and donations from Native Americans.\29\
However, it is clear that, at some point, Abramoff came to
believe that CREA president Italia Federici had special access
at Interior and that she was willing to use it for his or his
clients' benefit. That is reflected in numerous documents,
described in this Chapter, illustrating how Abramoff repeatedly
went to Federici urgently asking for her help with Interior on
pending matters affecting his much-valued Tribal clients. It is
also reflected in how much he had these same clients ``donate''
to CREA. It is further corroborated by a number of internal
business communications between Abramoff and his team members
that reflect his belief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Federici, Griles and Norton's former counselor at Interior,
Michael Rossetti, have testified that Norton had no relationship with
CREA after Norton became Interior Secretary. Deposition of Italia
Federici, president, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy,
in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 2005); Interview of J. Steven Griles,
former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, in
Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005); Interview of Michael Rossetti,
former counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, in
Washington, D.C. (October 28, 2005). In addition, Federici testified
that she never had any conversations with Norton between 2001 and 2004
about any of Abramoff's Tribal clients. Deposition of Italia Federici,
president, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in
Washington, D.C. (October 7, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A notable example of such a communication is an email,
dated January 3, 2002, entitled ``Italia Meeting,'' from
Abramoff to members of his team. In this document, Todd
Boulanger, a senior member of Abramoff's team asked, ``Can
[Italia] get shit in the President's budget to [C]ongress?''
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Email between Todd Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig, and Jack
Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000107575) (January 3, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``I don't think she has juice beyond
[I]nterior.'' \31\ Another example is an email between Abramoff
and Boulanger, dated February 12, 2002, entitled ``Political
Contribution Requests.'' In that email, the two discussed
including CREA in a political contribution request list they
were submitting to the Saginaw Chippewa.\32\ Abramoff wrote
Boulanger, ``Todd, did we not request money for CREA from them?
That's our access to Norton. We need $ for them more than many
of these others.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
\32\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Todd
Boulanger, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-E000025072) (February 12, 2002).
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still another example is an email from Abramoff to business
associate and Signatures partner Rodney Lane, entitled ``CREA--
Freshman Reception.'' There, the two discussed ``comping'' a
CREA function.\34\ Ultimately, Abramoff replied, referring to
Federici, ``[u]nfortunately, she is critical to me.'' \35\ This
email is typical of others, such as an email dated June 27,
2002, that describes Abramoff's reluctantly ``comping'' CREA
functions--at least some of which appear to have been attended
by Members of Congress, senior Administration officials, or
their senior staff.\36\ The Committee finds that only one
person could have induced Abramoff so convincingly into
believing that Federici had stroke at Interior that he directed
his Tribal clients to provide substantial contributions to what
she herself described as a ``mom and pop non-profit'' \37\--
Italia Federici. What she said or did to so induce him into
this belief is one question, among others, that this Chapter
attempts to answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Rodney
Lane (GTG-E000105191) (March 4, 2003).
\35\ Id.
\36\ See, e.g., Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to
Rodney Lane (GTG-E000105140) (June 27, 2002).
\37\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Federici Promises To Help Abramoff in Exchange for, or Because of,
CREA Contributions

When she testified before the Committee, Federici attempted
to explain the Tribes' largesse to her organization by saying
that Abramoff told her that his Tribal clients were concerned
that over the decades, Democrats became dominant in electoral
politics.\38\ So, according to Federici, Abramoff told her that
those Tribes had become used to giving very ``heavily to one
political party and ... wanted to diversify.'' \39\ They wanted
to make sure that they were giving ``more evenhandedly.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id.
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an explanation for why Abramoff's clients gave so much
to CREA within such a short period of time, this is
unconvincing.\41\ There is no doubt that Abramoff directed his
Tribal clients to contribute to CREA. The question is why? Why
would Abramoff have had his much-valued Tribal clients (whom he
relied on as a significant source of sizeable federal campaign
contributions as well as millions in federal lobbying revenue
to Greenberg Traurig, secret ``gimme five'' partnership income
with Scanlon, contributions to run his Jewish boys' school in
Maryland; and capital to float his restaurants) pay so much to
this obscure organization? Documents in the Committee's
possession suggest that Abramoff did so because of, or in
exchange for, special favors that Federici had promised to do
for him or his Tribal clients at Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ In somewhat surprising testimony, it seems that Federici too
found this rationale implausible. While discussing Abramoff's
explanation as to why his Tribal clients were willing to make sizeable
contributions to CREA without directly discussing with her CREA's
mission or work, the following exchange occurred during Federici's
deposition. ``FEDERICI: Who writes $50,000 checks to people they don't
know if it wasn't what Jack--Jack said these people have a lot of
money, they want to give to Republicans, they're taking my advice, and
they really just don't want to be bothered with executive directors
[like me]. Fine, and then they sent their checks in. And then what did
these disappointed people think they were going to get, and you tell me
who's committing fraud ... I mean it all fit. ... STAFF: [Mr. Abramoff]
told you that? FEDERICI: Yes. ...'' Id. Why, given her concerns,
Federici continued to accept these contributions remains unclear. The
Committee defers to law enforcement authorities to determine (1)
whether, in connection with their contributions to CREA, the Tribes
were in fact defrauded and, (2) if they were defrauded, who did so or
conspired to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. ABRAMOFF AND FEDERICI START WORKING TOGETHER

In her deposition with Committee staff, Federici recalled
first reaching out to Abramoff, on the advice of friends, to
try to persuade him to participate in a real estate investment
deal.\42\ In the course of discussing that deal, they first
discussed CREA.\43\ On January 30, 2001, it appears that
Federici held herself out to Abramoff as having access to the
political appointment process being undertaken by the incoming
Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See id.
\43\ See id.

I very much appreciate your generous offers regarding
CREA and I've been working on the document you
requested regarding grassroots and strategy. I look
forward to sharing it with you when you return.
According to the folks I've talked with, Gale is
expected to be confirmed with about 80 votes. ...
Jeanne Adkins (my friend from [Colorado]) has been
offered the CFO position. She and I are talking later
about other positions and she will continue to discuss
resumes with appropriate contacts ...\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105164) (January 30, 2001) (emphasis added). Federici construed
these ``generous offers' from Abramoff to mean ``[in] general, let's
get you funded, let's get some support for you guys, this looks like a
really good idea.'' Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council
of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October
7, 2005).

Abramoff got the hint. After having offered to help raise
money for CREA, \45\ he responded, ``Thanks so much Italia.
Please let me know what I can do to help Dennis Stevens, Mark
Zachares (Office of Insular Affairs) and Tim Martin (Bureau of
Indian Affairs) be placed. Look forward to hearing form [sic]
you regarding CREA.'' \46\ Apparently, these were individuals
who Abramoff, for his own reasons, wanted placed in the
Administration.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See id.
\46\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105164) (January 30, 2001).
\47\ During Federici's deposition with Committee staff, staff
specifically asked her, ``Did you ever help Mr. Abramoff in getting any
particular person into the U.S. Department of the Interior at
transition in 2000 after the election? '' Deposition of Italia
Federici, president, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy,
in Washington, D.C. (October 7, 2005). She responded, ``No. Like
everyone else in Washington, Jack was forwarding me names of people he
thought [then-Interior Secretary] Gale [Norton] would love ...
[Abramoff would ask] Hey it would be great if she could interview this
person or that person.'' Id. Documents in the Committee's possession
suggest what Abramoff had in mind. For example, in a contemporaneous
email from Abramoff to former Christian Coalition Executive Director
Ralph Reed, Abramoff asked Reed for help placing him on the Interior
transition team, noting, ``this [sic] would be really key for future
clients for both of us. Let's discuss.'' Email from Jack Abramoff,
Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, to Ralph Reed, Century
Strategies, ``Interior Dept [sic] transition team'' (GTG-E000022954)
(October 24, 2000). Reed responded, ``ok.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an email dated March 1, 2001--just seven days
before the President nominated Griles for the second highest
position at Interior, Abramoff met with Griles.\48\ Apparently,
Federici was present--later reporting to Abramoff that
``[a]fter I retrieved my coat I ended up sharing a cab with
Steve [Griles]. He really enjoyed meeting you and was grateful
for the strategic advice on BIA and Insular Affairs. You
definitely made another friend.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, ``Thanks
from me and Steve and Invitation'' (GTG-E000037865) (March 1, 2001).
\49\ Id. While Griles vaguely recalls having met Abramoff
``sometime before becoming Deputy Secretary,'' he specifically recalls
first meeting him at the September 2001 private dinner for CREA. See
Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005). Griles could
not remember what he talked with Abramoff about--only that he ``spoke
and said hello to everyone who was there.'' Id. A few weeks after that
dinner, Abramoff prepared a letter to Griles, thanking him for
``calling me today'' and expressing appreciation for ``your help with
the [Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (``CNMI'')]
governor's race and ensuring that the President does NOT endorse anyone
in that race, in particular the liberal ``Republican'' Juan Babuata,
who is running against the Speaker and former chairman of the Bush
campaign there, Ben Fitial.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg
Traurig, to J. Steven Griles, U.S. Department of the Interior; to Laura
Lippy, Greenberg Traurig, ``FW: Letter'' (GTG-E000105260) (October 18,
2001) (emphasis in original). At his deposition, Griles had no
recollection of having had any conversations with Abramoff about the
CNMI, Fitial or ``anything like that with the White House.'' Interview
of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005). Furthermore, Griles
insisted that ``if [he] would have done something on that, [he] would
think that [he] would recall it today.'' Id. In his draft letter to
Griles, Abramoff went further, writing, ``I also appreciate anything
you can do to prod things forward to get Mark Zachares into position at
OIA.'' Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to J. Steven
Griles, U.S. Department of the Interior; to Laura Lippy, Greenberg
Traurig, ``FW: Letter'' (GTG-E000105260) (October 18, 2001). The
Committee has seen no evidence that this letter was ever sent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, in part: ``Thank you so much for
everything. I am so glad we are working together.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, ``Thanks
from me and Steve and Invitation'' (GTG-E000037865) (March 1, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to records recently released by the Secret
Service, Abramoff visited the White House on March 6, 2001--two
days before Griles' nomination.\51\ After Griles was nominated
but before he was confirmed, documents suggest, Abramoff tried
to approach Griles about tribal issues, in particular, about
the BIA's tribal insurance policy.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Press Release, Judicial Watch, U.S. Secret Service Releases to
Judicial Watch White House Logs Detailing Abramoff Visits--Logs Appear
to be Incomplete, Show 2 Documented Visits Available on Judicial
Watch's Internet Site, www.judicialwatch.org, http://
www.judicialwatch.org/abramoff-docs.shtml May 10, 2006 (linking to
``Abramoff Secret Service Logs'').
\52\ See e.g., Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to
Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy,
``Subject: urgent tribal issue'' (SENCREA 00018) (March 20, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in this interim, Abramoff worked with Federici on some
special projects. For example, according to an email dated
April 10, 2001, entitled ``Ben Fitial seeing Secretary
Norton,'' Federici tried to help Abramoff get a photo
opportunity for Ben Fitial with Secretary Norton.\53\ Fitial
had successfully run for governor of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marinas Islands (``CNMI'') and reportedly pressured
senior CNMI officials to hire Abramoff. In this email, Federici
and Abramoff discussed that the Secretary was not doing
``photo-ops' with anyone.\54\ In that context, Federici
promised Abramoff that she would ``try to figure out what
exactly is going on over there.'' \55\ Interestingly, Federici
also offered to cover Fitial's travel expenses to Washington,
D.C. in the future and ``schedule [a] meeting with Gale.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105287) (April 10, 2001).
\54\ Id.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, in an email dated May 7, 2001, entitled,
``[former Louisiana Coushatta Chairman] Chief Poncho,''
Federici asked Abramoff, ``[i]s there something that I can do
to say thank you for [Chief Poncho's] support for CREA--besides
the time with Sec. Norton [?].'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Email from Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105174) (May 7, 2001). This is similar to an email dated a few
months later, January 26, 2002, entitled ``Hi Italia.'' There, Abramoff
asked Federici whether she had ``any word on getting the Chief a
meeting with Gale?'' Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig,
and Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy
(SENCREA 10/04 000018) (January 26, 2002). In response, Federici
offered, ``I meet with folks tomorrow and I will call you tomorrow in
the early evening.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 2001, less than a week after Griles arrived in
office, \58\ Abramoff wrote former Louisiana Coushatta counsel
Kathryn Van Hoof and an associate covering the Tribe:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Senate confirmed Griles as Deputy Secretary of the U.S.
Interior Department on July 12, 2001.

I have a call into our guy Steve Griles, the Deputy
Secretary and his assistant has a memo on the situation
... Just so I am clear when he and I do hook up, what
is our full wish list at this point other than to
inform him of the situation on the ground and the need,
possibly, to get some positive signals from Norton to
the Governor? \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kathryn Van
Hoof, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and Shawn Vasell, Greenberg
Traurig, ``Status'' (COUSH-MiscKVH-0001529) (July 18, 2001).

He concluded, ``Just want to make sure I make all the asks
we need.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afterwards, with Abramoff apparently having induced at
least one of his Tribal clients into contributing to CREA in
connection with the September 2001 private dinner, Federici
wanted to help with Abramoff's book of business. In an email
dated January 2, 2002, entitled ``dates for another dinner
[sic],'' Federici proposed to Abramoff another CREA dinner at a
private residence.\61\ According to this email, Federici
offered to ``target'' intergovernmental relations officials
from agencies that Abramoff ``need[ed] to work with on CNMI and
Indian issues.'' \62\ Abramoff was amenable to the idea.\63\ In
a similar email, Federici held out the possibility that she
could get Abramoff together with Griles and former Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs Neil McCaleb for a small lunch or
dinner.\64\ Abramoff responded, ``A small lunch with Steve
would be huge for us, since we really need to get to know
him.'' \65\ There can be no doubt that a ``CREA dinner'' that
focused on Abramoff's lobbying needs and ``target[ed]''
agencies that Abramoff ``need[s] to work with on CNMI and
Indian issues'' \66\ had little to do with CREA's tax exempt
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000253568) (January 2, 2002).
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id.
\64\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105067) (January 3, 2002).
\65\ Id. The Committee notes the apparent inconsistency between
Abramoff's statement in this email and other older emails (some of
which the Committee has cited to above) in which Abramoff professes to
have a close relationship with Griles.
\66\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000253568) (January 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR ACCESS?

A number of records indicate that Federici promised to help
Abramoff's clients in contemplation of continued contributions
from Abramoff's clients to CREA. Among those records is a
January 9, 2003, email between Federici and Abramoff, entitled
``help??!!,'' in which Federici asked Abramoff, ``I hate to
bother you with this right now, but I was hoping to ask about a
possible contribution for CREA ... [we] have started out the
new year with practically nada. I thought I'd see if there was
any way you could help us reach out to some of your folks who
were so generous last year?'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (GTG-
E000105202) (January 9, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abramoff responded, ``Absolutely. We'll get that moving
asap. [REDACTED] are coming to DC [REDACTED] so I'll hit them
immediately.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, he continued, ``By the way[,] Gov Foster ... just sent
Gale another letter pushing a new compact he signed for [J]ena.
Can you make sure Steve [Griles] knows about this and puts the
kibosh on it? Thanks.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federici promised, ``I will tell him where they are now--
and with whom. Thanks Jack!'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Email from Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, to Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (SENCREA
10/04 000057) (January 9, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, in an email from Abramoff to Federici, dated
January 21, 2003, entitled ``Intel from Dept of Int/BIA,''
Abramoff asked Federici if she could help him get inside
information on BIA action on a pending matter affecting the
Louisiana Coushatta, one of Abramoff's clients and a major
contributor to CREA.\71\ In the very next sentence, he told
Federici that a contribution from one of his clients was on the
way: ``I'll have it in a week or so. I'm still working on the
rest.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000062) (January 21, 2003).
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Federici wrote, ``Thanks Jack! I will ask
about the timing and content and call you.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in an April 3, 2003, email entitled, ``urgent
alert--DOI Proposes Policy Changes in Compact Review Process,''
Abramoff attached a memo on this issue to an email to Federici
and wrote, ``If this attached memo is correct, someone over at
BIA is doing some really odd things. Any way to see if this is
something coming from the top? All of our tribes are very
agitated about this one.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 [illegible]) (April 3, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Federici wrote, ``I will definitely see what I
can find out. I hate to bug you, but is there any news about a
possible contribution from [REDACTED]?'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in an email from Abramoff to Federici, dated
April 10, 2003, Federici discussed the costs associated with a
CREA program. In response, Abramoff wrote, ``I met last night
with [a client]. They offered [REDACTED] but I felt badly
asking them since they are not getting any cooperation yet.
Perhaps once the court case clears in a few weeks Steve
[Griles] might be able to grab control of this. [T]hey are
great folks.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000094) (April 10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example is contained in two emails from Abramoff to
Federici, dated May 1, 2003. There, referring to a matter
pending before Interior, Abramoff told Federici that the BIA is
``about to screw the Coushattas, and the other tribes there as
well'' and asked ``[c]an you bring this to [Steve Griles']
attention? We MUST get this stopped.'' \77\ About an hour
later, Abramoff reported to Federici that one of his clients
was going to send over a contribution to CREA the following
week.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000100) (May 1, 2003) (emphasis in original).
\78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an email dated August 2, 2003, and entitled ``Saginaw
Cost Share,'' Federici responded to an email from Abramoff
regarding an apparently unrelated tribal issue pending before
Interior.\79\ There, Federici invited Abramoff to call her ``if
there is an urgent matter'' and said that she will ``try to
talk to someone about this first thing.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Email between Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, and Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig (SENCREA
10/04 000110) (August 2, 2003).
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still another example can be seen in the email between
Abramoff and Federici, dated January 26, 2002, entitled, ``Hi
Italia.'' There, Abramoff asked Federici for an update on
getting the chief of one of his Tribal clients a meeting with
then-Secretary Norton.\81\ In the very next sentence, he gave
Federici an update on a contribution to CREA from one of his
clients.\82\ In the same email stream, he insisted that
Federici needed to get information related to the Jena Band's
efforts to get a compact, to Griles ``immediately.'' \83\ A few
weeks later, in an email, dated February 15, 2002, between
Abramoff and Scanlon, entitled ``shit,'' Abramoff described a
phone call he received from Federici about information she
obtained from Griles about the Jena deal.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000018) (January 26-27, 2002).
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
\84\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000010914) (February 15,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In testimony before the Committee, Federici attempted to
explain away her solicitousness for Abramoff's practice as
generosity or, in her words, ``to be nice''--acts of kindness
in the face of complaints by Abramoff, ``consistent ... over
the course of years,'' that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(``BIA'') was ``in the back pocket of people who didn't like
him'' and that his work-product and clients were not being
treated fairly by Interior.\85\ Federici maintained that she
was sympathetic to Abramoff's concerns about not being able to
get a meeting on a timely basis or get answers to basic
questions.\86\ And, she insisted, with her friend Griles
serving as the chief operating officer at Interior, she was
happy to help a friend.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005). According to Federici, Abramoff elaborated that ``his work
product and his clients were being mistreated and not treated
equitably, not treated the way other lobbyists' clients were being
treated.'' Id.
\86\ Id.
\87\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federici's explanation is unconvincing. The documents
described above suggest that Federici promised to help Abramoff
with Interior because of, or in exchange for, Abramoff's
directing his clients to contribute to CREA.\88\ Indeed,
contributions from Abramoff's Tribal clients were critical to
CREA. During a Committee hearing, Federici admitted that
Abramoff and his clients contributed about $500,000 over the
relevant period. Also, during his deposition, Griles told
Committee staff that one evening Federici called him very upset
after money from Abramoff's clients stopped coming in.\89\
Griles recalled that Federici complained that because ``Jack is
not giving us funds anymore,'' she had to ``go back and find
more money in order to keep [CREA's] activities going.'' \90\
Griles recalled simply telling Federici that she had to go back
to contributors who helped her in the past.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ It is notable that, during her deposition, Federici admitted
that she never mentioned Abramoff's concerns about BIA being ``in the
back pocket'' of others, to Griles. Id.
\89\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005).
\90\ Id.
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federici's explanation that she was motivated strictly by
friendship and generosity is also belied by at least one
occasion when Federici apparently lied to Abramoff about a
promise to communicate with Griles. In an email, dated
September 24, 2002, Abramoff asked Federici for a favor: to ask
Griles to mention him to a Tribe with which Griles was
meeting.\92\ To this request, Federici responded, ``I will
remind him about that and I'm sure he'd love to mention your
help.'' \93\ However, in her deposition, Federici dismissed the
email, saying that she did not approach Griles about this
because she actually thought Abramoff's request was ``cheesy.''
\94\ But, she never told Abramoff that she decided not to do as
she had originally promised.\95\ Why not? Likely to ensure that
Abramoff would continue directing his clients to make
significant contributions to CREA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005). See also Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and
Italia Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy
(GTG-E000105153) (September 24, 2002).
\93\ Id.
\94\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005).
\95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chairman Dorgan summarized Federici's testimony, and
the Committee's skepticism of her testimony, at a recent
hearing: ``You are an environmental organization. You come into
a lot of money from Indian tribes. My guess is that that money
had nothing to do with generosity, or had very little to do
with energy or the environment, but had a lot to do with Mr.
Abramoff saying to his contacts in these tribes, `I want you to
stick money into Ms. Federici's organization,' and they did.''
\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 31 (November 17, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same hearing, the Vice Chairman succinctly described
the Committee's belief of why Abramoff's clients contributed so
much to CREA, as follows:

I am just telling you that our records are full of
these things. It is full of references to the duties
that you were performing [or promised to perform] for
Mr. Abramoff. Those duties had to do with the term
`juice' that also exists in our set of records. You had
`juice.' You got paid for that `juice' by having Mr.
Abramoff direct funds to your organization, and you
spent a lot of time in your correspondence back and
forth with Mr. Abramoff about what you are doing; not
about the environment; not about energy; [but about]
all of these issues that have to do with Mr. Abramoff.
It looks to me like you were working for Mr. Abramoff
and you were getting money from Indian tribes to do it.
That's what it looks like to me.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Id. at 32.

He also observed, ``The way you describe it in this
testimony is the Indian tribes are generous; Jack is generous;
everybody is generous. That is unbelievable to me.'' \98\ It is
unbelievable to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Id. at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. WHAT DID FEDERICI DO FOR ABRAMOFF AT INTERIOR?

In her deposition with Committee staff, Federici said that
she could only remember talking to Abramoff about three
issues--a ``school cost-share'' issue, relating to the Saginaw
Chippewa; the Gun Lake Tribe's land-into-trust application; and
the Jena Band's attempts at getting land-into-trust and a
compact in Louisiana.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Saginaw Chippewa, Abramoff asked Federici to help
him with former Interior Deputy Secretary Griles on a ``school
cost share program.'' \100\ This was one context that,
according to Federici, Abramoff told her that the BIA was in
the back-pocket of people who did not like him and that his
clients were not being treated fairly. Consequently, Federici
testified, she felt bad for Abramoff and thought she could help
with Griles.\101\ But, when Abramoff sometimes asked her to get
Griles to ``kill'' this or ``put the kibosh'' on that, she
never told him that she would not do any of it or ever correct
him, she said.\102\ She wasn't ``going to correct a 50-year
old, male, conservative activist leader, [and] you know,
donor.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000110) (August 21, 2003).
\101\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005).
\102\ Id.
\103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the ``school cost share'' program, Federici denied
having had a substantive conversation with Griles.\104\
According to Federici, she merely mentioned to Griles, ``Is
anybody paying attention to what's going on with the school
cost share [?]'' \105\ Otherwise, she recalled only having
repeated Abramoff's ``line'' that excluding the Saginaw was
``unfair''; that his ``[clients] [weren't] being treated
adequately''; and that ``[M]embers of Congress are worked into
a frenzy.'' \106\ Regarding her interaction with Griles on
these and similar issues, Federici insisted, ``[T]hese were not
conversations. These were mentions and sort of heads-up ...''
\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Id.
\105\ Id.
\106\ Id.
\107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gun Lake Tribe's application for land-into-trust also
had the potential to negatively affect the Saginaw Chippewa.
Federici could only recall that Abramoff told her that Interior
was ``directly going against what Steve wanted.'' \108\
However, Federici has no recollection of having talked with
Griles about that issue.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Id.
\109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding the Jena Band's efforts to get a compact
and land-into-trust, which would have harmed the Louisiana
Coushatta, Federici testified that Abramoff told her that key
conservatives, including James Dobson and Ralph Reed, were
writing in opposition.\110\ As a result, Federici recalls, she
just made sure that Griles knew that ``conservatives were
upset'' and were calling into Interior in droves.\111\
According to Federici, the foregoing reflects her memory about
her discussions with Abramoff about matters affecting his
clients and her communications with Griles about those
issues.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id.
\111\ Id.
\112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, documents indicate that Federici at least promised
Abramoff that she would liaise with Griles more extensively
than she has admitted to the Committee. For example, according
to a September 24, 2002, email, Abramoff asked Federici to talk
to Griles about a ``Tigua water issue.'' \113\ Federici
responded, ``I am calling right now.'' \114\ Similarly, in an
email dated December 4, 2002, entitled ``[G]un [L]ake [I]ndian
[T]ribe [C]asino,'' Abramoff complained to Federici about
developments relating to this Tribe and conveyed to Federici a
strategy, regarding that Tribe's environmental impact report,
to shut down its land-into-trust application.\115\ Federici
responded, ``I will call [Steve Griles] asap.'' \116\ Also, in
another email dated December 6, 2002, entitled ``Gun Lake: New
Hope For Gun Lake Casino,'' Abramoff urged Federici, ``[T]his
is what we have to stop.'' \117\ Federici responded, ``seeing
him at 4pm today.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 035) (September 24, 2002).
\114\ Id.
\115\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (GTG-
E000024441) (December 4, 2002).
\116\ Id.
\117\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000041) (December 6, 2002).
\118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a related email dated March 6, 2003, and entitled
``Saginaw Chippewa Tribe--School Cost Share,'' Abramoff asked
Federici ``if [she] can call Steve on this.'' \119\ She
responded, ``got it.'' \120\ Additionally, in an email from
Abramoff to Federici, dated December 2, 2002, entitled ``Jena
Band: Panel, Logansport asked to speak on proposed casino-
Shreveport Times,'' Abramoff wrote, ``It seems that the Jena
are on the march again. [I]f you can, can you make sure Steve
squelches this again?'' \121\ Federici responded, ``Thanks for
the update. I'll bring it up asap!'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (GTG-
E000027919) (March 6, 2003).
\120\ Id.
\121\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000039) (December 2, 2002).
\122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, in an email from Abramoff to Scanlon, dated
February 15, 2002, entitled ``shit,'' Abramoff wrote that he
``just got a call from [Federici].'' \123\ According to that
email, Federici apparently provided Abramoff with then-
nonpublic information she indicated that she had gotten from
Griles that ``as of now, Norton is going to sign the Jena
deal.'' \124\ Similarly, in an email dated January 21, 2003,
entitled ``Intel from dept of Int/BIA,'' Abramoff asked
Federici if there is ``any way to find out'' when and how the
BIA will respond to a letter from Governor Foster about a new
Jena casino.\125\ Federici responded, ``Thanks, Jack! I will
ask about the timing and content and call you. ...'' \126\
Abramoff also reached out to Federici about the Jena Band's
casino proposal in another email, dated March 9, 2003, entitled
``Jena Choctaw Update.'' \127\ Then, Federici responded, ``I
will call you on Monday with whatever I can find out.'' \128\
These emails stand for a modest, but important, proposition:
that Abramoff repeatedly asked Federici to contact Griles on
issues important to his clients--the same clients that
contributed to CREA--and that Federici promised to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Michael
Scanlon, Capitol Campaign Strategies (GTG-E000010914) (February 15,
2002).
\124\ Id.
\125\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000062) (January 21, 2003).
\126\ Id.
\127\ Email between Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, and Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (SENCREA
10/04 000075) (March 9, 2003).
\128\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In attempting to explain away those emails, Federici
suggested that she did not necessarily follow-through on
Abramoff's requests.\129\ She explained that after she received
such ``hair-on-fire'' emails from Abramoff requesting that she
talk to Griles, she would say ``I'll call'' or ``something like
that.'' \130\ But, Federici testified, ``[a]nd if I said yes,
I'll try to call Steve, and I couldn't reach Steve, it's not
like anybody was, you know, necessarily--it could just
completely drop off his plate until the next hair-on-fire
email, you know. I just figured Jack was throwing stuff against
the wall. Maybe somebody else sorted it out.'' \131\ Federici
elaborated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005).
\130\ Id.
\131\ Id.

I would say, I'll call. But the gist of the email. If
he would say--Jack, I think some of them are almost
comical. It's like his hair is on fire: Oh my God, this
is happening and that's happening. By the way, great to
see you tonight. It's like, you know, you go back and
you read some of these. So, if he said, you know, I'm
having a problem, this problem with the Saginaw thing,
again with the school cost share, this Saginaw thing,
this Saginaw thing, can you--or the Jena, you know. ...
I mean, I would just take that information and digest
it down into what it, the components that it actually
was, which is Jack's worried about Jena. And ... if I
said I would call Steve I would try to reach him. But
if he was traveling or giving a speech or something and
a few days passed, I wouldn't try to take it back up
again. I mean, again it's something I was just doing to
be polite to Jack. It's not my job, and I was actually
doing CREA work.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Id.

Federici underscored that while she originally helped
Abramoff with his Tribal clients vis-a-vis Griles ``to be nice,
... after the Saginaw thing it was just, it was way too
stressful and, frankly, not my job.'' \133\ But, having
repeatedly promised Abramoff that she would speak with Griles
on matters at Interior affecting his Tribal clients, she was
all too willing to continue accepting significant tribal
``contributions'' from Abramoff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Id. Federici elaborated, ``The whole cost share, just the
whole like--you know, to the best of my recollection it was like oh my
God, Senator this and Senator that, the Senate's leaving in a half an
hour and this is going to expire, and why are they doing this, that,
and the other thing. And it was just like, you know--I think my initial
response to that was, I don't care. And then, you know: But you have to
care; it's about money for school for poor kids and it's $3 million,
this is terrible. I mean, it was just way over the top. It was too much
pressure on me.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, GRILES DID FOR ABRAMOFF'S CLIENTS IS UNCLEAR

Griles repeatedly testified that Abramoff had no special
access to him.\134\ In his deposition, Griles agreed that
``[Abramoff] was another lobbyist with whom he did business.
Just as [he] did business with many others in town.'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 89 (November 2, 2005). See, e.g.,
``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 89 (November 2, 2005) (testimony of J. Steven
Griles, former Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior); Letter
from Barry M. Hartman, Esq., counsel to J. Steven Griles, Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart Nicholson Graham, to Pablo E. Carrillo, Esq, Chief
Investigative Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, January
3, 2006; Letter from Barry M. Hartman, Esq., counsel to J. Steven
Griles, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, to the Honorable John
McCain, U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, April 6, 2006.
\135\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005)
(``That was my vision, and there was nothing unique about it.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, some evidence suggesting that Griles may have
assisted Abramoff gives rise to concern. Former Louisiana
Coushatta Tribal councilman William Worfel testified that
Abramoff told him that he would approach Griles about stopping
the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians' attempt to get a compact in
Louisiana.\136\ Worfel recalls that Abramoff ultimately told
him that Griles helped kill, or helped convince the Secretary
to reject, the Jena compact.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005).
\137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his interview, Worfel also told staff that
Abramoff's lobbying associate Stephanie Leger Short told him
that Griles was also supposed to help the Tribe with economic
development grants.\138\ In her interview, Short, who formerly
managed the Louisiana Coushatta account for Abramoff, testified
that Abramoff described Griles as ``[his] guy'' and was always
``going to call Griles'' and ``get on Griles.'' \139\ Based on
Abramoff's comments, Short understood that Abramoff and Griles
were ``close'': ``When things got hairy with Coushatta, it was
always [that Abramoff] was going to call Griles and see what he
could do.'' \140\ Regarding the Louisiana Coushatta, Griles'
name came up mostly during the Jena Band's efforts in
Logansport and Vinton, Louisiana.\141\ It also came up,
according to Short, on an Agua Caliente tax issue and an issue
regarding the Choctaw.\142\ According to Worfel, Abramoff said
that Griles was willing to help the Tribe because of its
``contribution'' to CREA, which made the Tribe ``a friend of
Interior.'' \143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Id.
\139\ Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former associate,
Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (August 18, 2005).
\140\ Id.
\141\ Id.
\142\ Id.
\143\ Interview of William Worfel, former Vice-Chairman, Coushatta
Tribe of Louisiana, in Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worfel also stated that Abramoff told him that he
interviewed Griles for his position at Interior and, in fact,
helped him get his job there.\144\ He also recalled that
Abramoff mentioned Griles' name many times and said that they
were ``close.'' \145\ From his conversations with Abramoff,
Worfel thought of Griles as Abramoff's ``point man'' or
``inside man'' at Interior: ``[t]hat was his person. Boom, he
could pick up the phone and Griles--it was like Griles worked
for him.'' \146\ At his interview, Worfel told Committee
investigators, ``The only thing I can tell you is I've said
Steve Griles' name about 20 times since we started this
[interview]. [In the context of getting help for the Tribe,]
Jack Abramoff said Steve Griles' name maybe 200 times.'' \147\
Worfel's recollection about what Abramoff told him about how
Griles could help his Tribe is consistent with the accounts of
other Tribal representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Id.
\145\ Id.
\146\ Id.
\147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the testimony and documents described
above, Griles could recall only one or two conversations with
Federici concerning Abramoff's Tribal clients.\148\ In that
conversation, Griles remembered Federici saying only something
to the effect of ``I was talking [to] Jack Abramoff, he really
would like for you to give him a call.'' \149\ Griles said he
believed that this communication may have been related to ``an
Indian insurrection question.'' \150\ Nor does Griles recall
Federici's asking him to help Abramoff's clients.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005).
\149\ Id.
\150\ Id.
\151\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Griles denied talking with Federici about matters that,
according to documents, Abramoff asked her to discuss with him.
In his interview, Griles stated, ``I don't recall Ms. Federici
ever mentioning Gun Lake to me.'' \152\ Similarly, Griles held
that he did not ``recall ever having a discussion on a Tigua
tribe or a water issue with anyone.'' \153\ Griles also stated
that he did not ``recall receiving any information from Ms.
Federici on Bay Hills [sic].'' \154\ Likewise, when asked about
Abramoff or Federici asking him to pull [BIA personnel] from
the Choctaw elections, Griles asserted ``I don't recall ever
hearing of the issue.'' \155\ Griles' recollection failed him
again when he stated ``I don't recall any discussion with
[Abramoff] about Mashpee. I didn't do tribal recognitions.''
\156\ Correspondingly, Griles did not ``recall a conversation
with [Federici] either'' regarding the Mashpee
recognition.\157\ Griles later declared, ``I don't recall today
having any discussions with [Federici] about [the Jena Band
compact].'' \158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Id.
\153\ Id.
\154\ Id.
\155\ Id.
\156\ Id.
\157\ Id.
\158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee staff tried to explore the precise nature of
Griles' relationship with Abramoff and whether Griles did
anything to further the interests of Abramoff's clients on
matters pending at Interior. To that end, a discussion about a
binder ensued. During his interview, Griles stated that one day
he returned to his office to find a mysterious binder with no
name on his desk.\159\ After inquiring where the binder came
from, his secretary told him that it had been delivered to the
front desk, and he decided to ``just [flip] through it.'' \160\
Skimming the documents he discovered that the notebook was
actually a packet of information about the Jena Band and
``looked like it had letters--congressional letters, it had
studies or something in it.'' \161\ Accordingly, Griles
remembered asking Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Counselor to the
Interior Secretary, what to do with the notebook and was
informed that it was now a federal record and that he had ``no
option except to give it to Interior lawyer Michael Rossetti.''
\162\ Griles maintained that he gave the notebook to Rossetti
and ``didn't endorse its contents.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Id.
\160\ Id.
\161\ Id.
\162\ Id.
\163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rossetti, however, has a different recollection of those
events. Rossetti recalled that only after ``some time'' and ``a
series of questions that took much longer to get to that answer
than I would have thought was necessary,'' Griles actually told
him where the binder came from: from a member of Congress by
way of a chief of staff by way of a lobbyist ``who turned out
to be Mr. Abramoff.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 91 (November 2, 2005) (Rossetti's
testimony).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Griles strenuously disagreed: ``I did not say it came from
Mr. Abramoff. I did not say it came from Congress. I speculated
that it could have come from any of those sources. I did not
know and I do not know today where it came from.'' \165\ Griles
testified that the conversation concluded with his advising
Rossetti ``to please make sure the Secretary knew that there
were all sides of this issue, and please brief her on that.''
\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Id. at 92 (Griles' testimony). In an interview with Committee
staff, former Abramoff associate Stephanie Leger Short indicated that
she prepared the binder. Interview of Stephanie Leger Short, former
associate, Greenberg Traurig, by telephone (June 16, 2006). She
explained that in the binder, which was actually one of about 15 or so,
she inserted letters opposing the Jena Band's land-into-trust
application, applicable sections of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(``IGRA''), and other related documents. Id. She also noted that, while
some copies went to members of the Louisiana delegation, she was ``99
percent sure'' that Abramoff was supposed to get a copy to the U.S.
Department of the Interior. Id. But, she had no recollection of
Abramoff's mentioning Griles at the time. Id.
\166\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 92 (November 2, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the charge that Griles tried to insinuate
himself in matters pending at Interior affecting Abramoff's
Tribal clients, Rossetti's account is again fundamentally
different from Griles. Rossetti recalls that Griles became
involved with the Jena's land-into-trust application issue the
second time it was brought up at Interior.\167\ Rossetti
testified that Griles had several discussions with him during
which Griles requested to be involved in his meetings with
career employees and the Secretary about a possible decision on
the Tribe's application.\168\ Rossetti said that those
discussions took place twice in a hallway and in Rossetti's
office and that he thought that it was unusual that Griles was
so concerned about those meetings.\169\ He speculated that
Griles was worried that some secret discussion might be taking
place.\170\ Rossetti stated that he assured Griles that Griles
would be there at the meeting.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Id. at 99.
\168\ Id.
\169\ Id.
\170\ Id.
\171\ Interview of Michael Rossetti, former counselor to the
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C.
(October 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rossetti testified that Griles' attendance at a meeting
regarding Abramoff's clients came up again.\172\ At that time,
Rossetti asked Griles, ``[w]hy is this issue so important to
you?'' \173\ According to Rossetti, Griles simply replied, ``I
just want to be at the meeting.'' \174\ On a third occasion,
Rossetti asked Griles, ``[w]hat's your deal? What do I need to
know? Are there any outside voices that I need to know about?''
\175\ At that point, according to Rossetti, Griles ``turned
purple'' and immediately left.\176\ Ultimately, Rossetti said,
Griles told him that he did not have to be at that meeting and
did not attend.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Id.
\173\ Id.
\174\ Id.
\175\ Id.
\176\ Id.
\177\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to understanding the full extent of Griles'
relationship with Abramoff are any communications that Griles
may have had with Abramoff about possibly working at Greenberg
Traurig. According to a July 17, 2003, email from Abramoff to
Federici, whatever direct line of communication Abramoff had
with Griles was disrupted:

Hi there. Are you around for a chat? I am in a most
difficult situation regarding Interior and need your
advice. Steve [Griles] is nothing but a gentleman and
great guy to me, but he can't (or at least won't)
discuss any of my clients with me. the [sic] problem is
that, since he won't do so, and since you are not able
to chat with him now, I am left in a real dilemma. I
can't deliver anything from Interior for my clients. It
is as if the Clinton guys are back in power. I don't
know what to do. I have a few clients that need
answers, basic answers, from Interior, and I have no
one to chat with. What should I do? \178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Italia
Federici, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, ``FW:
Griles' (SENCREA 10/04 000108) (July 17, 2003). While Federici's answer
to this email is unknown, she recalled this email during her
deposition. Deposition of Italia Federici, president, Council of
Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, in Washington, D.C. (October 7,
2005). She testified that she never asked Abramoff or Griles about why
Griles was not ``discussing [Abramoff's] clients with [him]'': ``I
didn't ask Jack because I didn't want to pry and I didn't raise it with
Steve [Griles] because I knew better.'' Id. She elaborated, ``I [knew]
that if Steve's not going to talk with somebody he's not going to talk
with them ...'' Id.

But, subsequently, on September 9, 2003, Abramoff wrote to
some of his associates: ``This cannot be shared with anyone not
on the distribution list. I met with [Griles] tonight. He is
ready to leave Interior and will most likely be coming to join
us ... I expect that he will be with us in 90-120 days.'' \179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to Kevin Ring;
Todd Boulanger; Michael Williams; and Duane Gibson, Greenberg Traurig;
``Griles' (Bates number 56340) (September 9, 2003). Exactly when and
where this conversation occurred, much less what was discussed, remains
unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, on or about January 12, 2004, Griles and
Abramoff met with Greenberg Traurig lobbying practice head Fred
Baggett.\180\ In testifying before the Committee, Griles stated
that ``[a]t the end of [the meeting], they said, we would like
for you to join our firm.'' \181\ Griles insisted that he
merely ``politely listened'' and replied, ``I'm not leaving the
Federal Government.'' \182\ Griles testified that he had made
the determination that he was going to serve through ``the 4
years of the President before [he] left.'' \183\ According to
Griles, he then returned to Interior and spoke with the agency
ethics officer and the deputy ethics officer at Interior about
the discussion.\184\ Griles remembered that these ethics
officials told him that this meeting triggered no waiver or
recusal obligations--he did not have to do anything.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ See Event Reminder from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to
self, ``Steve Griles and Fred Baggett--Sigs' (Bates number 100878)
(undated) (indicating that meeting was to occur on ``Mon 1/12/2004
[from 5:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.]''). Griles best recollection is that this
meeting might have occurred sometime in 2003. See Interview of J.
Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005).
\181\ ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005). But see
Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005) (attributing
statement to ``[e]ither [Abramoff or Baggett] or both'').
\182\ Id. See also ``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005).
\183\ Id.
\184\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005);
``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005).
\185\ Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2005);
``Tribal Lobbying Matters'' Hearings before the Committee on Indian
Affairs, 109th Cong. at 104 (November 2, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to Griles' recollection that ``they,'' that is,
Abramoff and Baggett, told him that ``we would like for you to
join our firm,'' in his interview with Committee staff, Baggett
described the meeting as merely ``introductory'' and maintained
that he never talked to Griles about coming to work at
Greenberg Traurig.\186\ Baggett also indicated that he had no
knowledge about Abramoff (or anyone else at Greenberg Traurig)
having had employment discussions with Griles.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Interview of Fred Baggett, Chair, National Government Affairs
Practice, Greenberg Traurig, in Washington, D.C. (September 29, 2005).
\187\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days after the meeting at Signatures, on February 3, 2004,
Abramoff followed-up with his associates about the prospect of
Griles' joining Greenberg Traurig, writing simply, ``Has
decided he cannot leave the administration before the
election.'' \188\ Griles categorically denied having had any
other conversations with Abramoff about possibly working at
Greenberg Traurig, other than this meeting.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Email from Jack Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, to DCCasino,
Greenberg Traurig, ``Griles'' (Tracking Number 3707795) (February 3,
2004).
\189\ See Interview of J. Steven Griles, former Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C. (October 20,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information in its possession, the Committee
cannot definitively conclude what, if anything, Griles did to
assist Abramoff's clients on matters then pending at Interior.
In its totality, the information described above supports
relatively modest propositions, namely, that Abramoff believed
that he had influence over Griles, either directly or through
Federici; that Abramoff told others that he had a robust
relationship with Griles or had some influence over decision-
making at Interior; and that it was likely on that basis that
he may have directed his Tribal clients to ``contribute'' to
CREA. However, it must be carefully said that, without more
evidence, it is plausible that, in fact relying on his
relationship with Federici, Abramoff may have simply
exaggerated his access to Griles to his clients.
In any event, given the paucity of evidence in the
Committee's possession, the Committee is unable to arrive at
any definitive conclusions as to the veracity of Griles'
testimony on his relationship, and interaction, with Abramoff
during all times relevant. And, without a good faith basis for
concern that Griles may have been untruthful with the
Committee, further exploration is beyond the scope of the
investigation. However, it should be noted that the Committee
is troubled by the marked inconsistency between Griles' and
Rossetti's testimonies on the narrow issue of whether Griles
tried to insinuate himself in decision-making processes
affecting any of Abramoff's Tribal clients. It is also
concerned about the implications of some of the fragmentary
evidence discussed above.

F. CONCLUSION

Over the last two years, the Committee's investigation has
sought to determine, among other things, whether monies paid by
the Tribes at Abramoff or Scanlon's direction to or through
various entities were ultimately used for purposes intended by
those Tribes. In the case of CREA, by Federici's own admission,
Abramoff and/or his clients contributed about $500,000 to the
organization between 2001 and 2003.
From the evidence discussed above, it appears that some of
the Tribes were induced into paying CREA because Abramoff told
them, among other things, that those payments would get them
favorable treatment at Interior. The evidence also suggests
that Federici may have led Abramoff into believing that she had
pull at Interior and that she would use it in exchange for, or
because of, contributions by Abramoff's Tribal clients to CREA.
Unfortunately, the extent to which Federici actually sought to
influence Interior on pending matters affecting Abramoff's
clients remains unclear. Also unclear is what, if anything,
Griles (who Abramoff believed was Federici's contact at
Interior) might have done on behalf of Abramoff's clients at
Interior and (if Griles did anything) what his motives for
doing so might have been.
Against that backdrop, the Committee is concerned about the
veracity of Federici's testimony on several important areas,
discussed above.\190\ Additional inquiry into those areas by
the appropriate authorities appears warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ A part of Federici's testimony that concerns the Committee
relates to the nature of CREA. When Federici appeared before the
Committee on November 17, 2005, a Member asked her whether any of
monies paid to CREA as contributions were ultimately used for purely
personal purposes. ``Tribal Lobbying Matters,'' Hearings before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong. at 49 (November 17, 2005). In
response, Federici said, ``No; not to the best of my recollection.''
Id. at 38-40. Elsewhere in the hearing, Federici responded to a similar
question, stating, ``No. I mean if money from CREA goes to me, it is
salary or reimbursement.'' Id. at 49. Therefore, an outstanding fact
question is whether any of those expenses, for which Federici sought
and received reimbursement, were purely personal in nature. Elsewhere,
Federici testified, ``But Senator, I was not abusing non-profit
resources, okay?'' Id. at 40.
PART FOUR--RECOMMENDATIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

Over the past two years, the Committee on Indian Affairs
(the ``Committee'') has developed a robust legislative record
on the facts and circumstances surrounding Jack Abramoff and
Michael Scanlon's relationship with and representation of the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (``Choctaw''), the
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (``Louisiana Coushatta''), the
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (``Saginaw Chippewa''), the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (``Agua Caliente''), the
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (``Tigua''), and the Pueblo of
Sandia (collectively, ``Tribes''). After careful consideration
of that record, the Committee makes the following observations
and recommendations.

B. CONTRACTING FOR LEGAL, LOBBYING AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

1. No New or Revised Federal Legislation Needed
The Committee has exhaustively examined Abramoff and
Scanlon's ``gimme five'' scheme, by which the two bilked the
Tribes out of tens of millions of dollars. Without doubt, the
depth and breadth of their misconduct was astonishing.
Nevertheless, with respect solely to the kickbacks from Scanlon
to Abramoff, the Committee concludes that existing federal
criminal statutes are sufficient to deter and punish such
misconduct.
Indeed, there is no better support for the Committee's
conclusion than Abramoff's and Scanlon's guilty pleas. On
November 17, 2005, Scanlon pled guilty to, among other things,
conspiracy (1) to defraud some of the Tribes under 18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1341 and 1343; and, (2) to defraud and deprive some
of the Tribes of Abramoff's honest services under 18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1341, 1343, and 1346. On January 3, 2006, Abramoff
pled guilty to, among other things, (1) conspiracy to commit
mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1341 and 1343;
(2) conspiracy to commit honest services wire and mail fraud,
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1341, 1343, and 1346; (3) honest
services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1341 and 1346.
That Abramoff and Scanlon perpetrated their kickback scheme
against Indian tribes does not change the applicability or
effectiveness of those statutes as tools to deter and punish
such misconduct. The Committee sees no basis for treating
Indian tribes differently than other similarly aggrieved
parties in this respect. The Committee thus finds no reason or
basis to carve out or create a special category for fraud
against Indian tribes under federal law.
2. Best Practices Recommendations
Although the Committee does not believe that additional
federal legislation is required to address Abramoff and
Scanlon's misconduct, it does recommend that tribes consider
adopting their own laws to help prevent a similar tragedy. Over
many years and innumerable scandals, the federal and state
governments learned difficult lessons regarding appropriate
decision-making processes when contracting for services. From
these lessons a consensus has developed around core good
governance principles. These principles embody a philosophy
that focuses on providing sufficient information to
constituents regarding the basis for decisions made by
government officials, thereby fostering trust and confidence
that governmental decisions are being made based on the best
interests of the government and not of the individual
decisionmakers. Accordingly, the federal and state governments
have enacted laws and regulations addressing issues relating to
contracting for services and conflicts of interests.
Some Indian tribes have already adopted laws and
regulations addressing some or all of these matters, while a
significant number have not. The Committee strongly encourages
those tribes that have not adopted such laws and regulations to
enact laws and regulations that embrace the principles
contained in the following recommendations. The Committee
notes, however, that it is not recommending that Congress enact
legislation mandating tribes to enact laws dealing with these
subjects, but that the tribal governments themselves consider
the following recommendations and determine for themselves
whether enacting such laws might benefit the tribe and its
members. Tribal governments, as the government closest and most
responsive to tribal members, are best able to develop laws and
regulations that appropriately take into account the unique
history, cultural and legal authorities of a particular tribe.
a. Contracting for legal, lobbying and other services
should follow a specific, open and competitive
process
Tribal governments should consider adopting laws applicable
to contracting for legal, lobbying or other professional
services, at least when the cost of the services will exceed,
or has the potential of exceeding, a certain threshold amount.
Contracting for these services should not be an ad hoc decision
of the tribal council or a tribal official but instead should
follow a process that requires decision-makers to assess what
it is that the tribe needs; determine the kinds of skills,
experience and expertise the contractor must have in order to
meet those needs; solicit contracting proposals from the
applicable community of contractors or providers, based on a
clearly articulated set of requirements; evaluate the
responsive proposals in light of the stated requirements;
perform appropriate background checks on responding contractors
and providers; and document the contracting decision in
writing.
b. Contracting rules should be structured to prevent
conflicts of interest
Even a fair and open contracting process can be abused.
Accordingly, contracting rules should include provisions
calculated to prevent improper considerations in the
contracting process--such as prohibitions against contracting
decision-makers from receiving anything of value from persons
or firms seeking to obtain or renew contracts with the tribe;
requirements that tribal campaign contributions (including
contributions of services or assistance) at or above a certain
threshold dollar amount be publicly disclosed; or rules
prohibiting tribal council members from voting on any measure
relating to a contract where the contractor has contributed to
his or her campaign for office. Tribes should consider
examining whether, under any circumstances, a firm that
provides legal, lobbying or other professional services to the
tribe should ever be allowed to contribute money, services or
anything of value to the campaign of anyone running for tribal
office, or to provide professional services to a tribal
official in his or her personal capacity apart from the
services being provided to the tribe or to the official in his
or her official capacity.
c. Contracting and conflict of interests rules should
include appropriate sanctions
To ensure an adequate level of compliance with contracting
and conflict of interests rules, there should be appropriate
sanctions in place for violations of the rules. Apart from laws
criminalizing the receipt of kickbacks and fraud (which many,
if not most, tribes have already enacted), tribes should
consider enacting laws that would render professional contracts
awarded in violation of the contracting or conflict of
interests rules to be void or voidable; subject a contractor
found to have violated the rules to a contracting bar period or
for egregious violations even a permanent bar; and make
violation of the conflict of interests rules by a tribal
official grounds for civil sanctions such a fines, suspension
or even removal from office.
d. Tribes should consider working with tribal organizations
and educational institutions to develop model codes
and education programs addressing contracting and
conflicts of interests
Tribes should consider working with their regional or
national tribal organizations or with universities, colleges
and law schools to develop model codes or laws to address
contracting and conflict of interests issues, as well as ``good
government'' education programs for elected and non-elected
tribal officials designed to improve decision-making and avoid
conflicts of interests in general but in the contracting
process in particular.

C. INTEGRITY OF TRIBAL ELECTIONS

In its investigation, the Committee determined that certain
non-tribal members insinuated themselves into and influenced
tribal governmental elections. These non-tribal members did so
with the intent or understanding that should their allies
prevail, they would receive lucrative lobbying contracts from
the respective tribe. Examples of these egregious actions
include recruiting candidates for tribal governmental
positions, organizing and funding comprehensive electioneering
efforts, and providing monetary and other assistance to recall
successful candidates who were unfavorable to the non-tribal
members.
Tribal elections are internal tribal governmental matters
that are governed by the laws of each tribe. The Committee,
however, is concerned that the economic success of certain
tribes and the increasing number of contracts tribes enter into
with outside entities may lead to an increase in the efforts of
non-tribal members to interfere with or influence tribal
elections.
Based on these concerns, the Committee recommends that
tribal governments should consider adopting or revising laws
applicable to their elections that govern the scope of
involvement by non-tribal members and entities. Tribal
governments should consider adopting laws that address the
following issues:

Whether, and to what extent, non-members may
contribute to campaigns for tribal office.
Whether, and to what extent, non-members may
provide non-monetary support in campaigns for tribal
office.
Limitations on the amount of monetary
contributions any person or entity can make to a tribal
campaign.
Reporting requirements for donors and
recipients of monetary contributions in tribal
elections.
Prohibiting persons or entities that make
monetary contributions to candidates in tribal
elections from entering into contracts with the tribe
for a specific period of time after the election.

The Committee is aware that some tribes already have
comprehensive election laws that address these issues,
including prohibiting non-tribal members from making monetary
contributions to tribal elections. The Committee commends these
efforts as further examples of strong tribal governance and
encourages tribes that have not yet adopted laws governing
tribal elections to do so.

D. TRIBAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Integral to Jack Abramoff's lobbying practice were the
substantial political contributions that he requested or
directed his Tribal clients to make, and for which he and his
team members attempted to take credit. Whenever he pitched his
services, he would discuss the need for the Tribe to make
substantial political contributions.
Whether following Abramoff's advice or not, Abramoff's
tribal clients made substantial political contributions during
the time he represented them. The sizeable aggregate campaign
contributions by some of Abramoff's tribal clients has focused
attention on the treatment of Indian tribes under campaign
finance law. This has resulted in calls to restrict tribal
campaign contributions. Proposals to limit contributions range
from treating Indian tribes like ``individuals'' for purposes
of imposing aggregate caps on their contributions from tribal
funds, to treating tribes like corporations, which cannot use
treasury funds for contributions but can instead establish
separate segregated funds, also known as political action
committees (``PACs''), to receive limited voluntary
contributions.
Many tribes object to these proposed restrictions on their
political contributions, arguing that they are truly unique
entities that should not be equated to individuals or
corporations. They further argue that they are particularly
impacted by Congressional actions, and must be afforded the
opportunity to participate in the political process by using
tribal funds for political contributions.
On February 8, 2006, the Committee held an Oversight
Hearing on Indian Tribes and the Federal Election Campaign Act
to examine this issue. The Federal Election Commission
(``FEC'') testified at this hearing that Indian tribes are
subject to the same contribution limitations and prohibitions
in the federal campaign law as are other unincorporated
associations. In instances where a tribe is acting through a
corporation or federal government contractor, those tribal
entities are governed by the same rules generally applicable to
corporations and federal government contractors. Additionally,
the FEC informed the Committee that political committees,
including candidate and general party committees, must report
contributions from Indian tribes.
Concerns were raised by many of the witnesses testifying
before the Committee about difficulties in researching and
monitoring tribal political contributions. These difficulties
do not appear to be unique to Indian tribes, but also exist
with respect to researching and monitoring contributions from
individual donors and other entities.
The Committee believes that it is prudent to increase the
level of transparency with regards to all political
contributions, including those from Indian tribes. Thus, after
considering the record before it, the Committee recommends, at
a minimum, the following either be implemented by rule by the
Federal Election Commission or law enacted by Congress.

Tribes should be required to register with the
FEC, which will assign each tribe a unique identifier,
for the purpose of better tracking tribal campaign
contributions.
Contributions should be made only in the
tribe's name as it appears on its registration on file
with the FEC.
The contributions must be reported by the
recipient in the Tribe's name.

In the opinion of the Committee, based on the extensive
legislative record and the February 8, 2006, hearing, these
public disclosure recommendations adequately protect the public
trust and confidence in the Federal election system, without
unduly excluding Indian tribes from participating in that
system.

E. REFERRALS TO OTHER COMMITTEES

1. Possible Misuse of Tax Exempt Organizations
In the course of its investigation, this Committee
uncovered numerous instances of nonprofit organizations that
appeared to be involved in activities unrelated to their
mission as described to the Internal Revenue Service. In
addition, the Committee observed that a number of nonprofit
organizations were used as instruments to channel money from
one entity to another in an effort to obscure the source of
funds, the eventual use of funds, and to evade tax liability on
funds. Finally, the Committee also observed tax exempt
organizations apparently serving as or being used as extensions
of for-profit lobbying operations.
Recognizing that oversight of nonprofit organizations under
the Internal Revenue Code is not within the jurisdiction of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Committee, at the
request of the Senate Committee on Finance, transmitted a
number of relevant documents pertaining to this issue to the
Senate Committee on Finance on February 9, 2006. Those
documents are included in this Report in the supporting
documents following the text of the Report.
The Committee believes that the evidence it uncovered
raises serious issues involving nonprofit organizations, not
only with regard to compliance with existing federal revenue
laws, but also with regard to whether existing federal revenue
laws should be altered to prevent or discourage such activity.
The Committee therefore recommends that the Senate Committee on
Finance investigate, hold hearings, and report to the Senate on
its findings and recommendations on these issues.

PART FIVE--VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Introduction

In the Recommendations section of the Report, ``Gimme
Five''--Investigation of Tribal Lobbying Matters, the Committee
discusses tribal political contributions and provides a
proposed policy concept that it recommends be implemented
either by rule by the Federal Election Commission or law
enacted by Congress. I concur that more transparency is needed,
however, I would clarify that the proposal should also apply to
unincorporated associations. Although unincorporated
associations are not within the jurisdiction of the Committee
or this report, I would broaden this recommendation to ensure
that unincorporated associations are included.

Discussion

As the Report accurately notes, the Committee held an
Oversight Hearing on Indian Tribes and the Federal Election
Campaign Act and received testimony from various witnesses,
including the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and others. The
Report notes that the FEC testified that Indian tribes are
subject to the same contribution limitations and prohibitions
in the Federal Election Campaign Act as are other
unincorporated associations. Further, the report noted that
many witnesses testified about the difficulty in researching
and monitoring tribal political contributions from Indian
tribes, individual donors and other entities. Consequently, the
Committee put forth a policy recommendation for either the FEC
or Congress.
Although I agree with the Committee that this issue may
need to be addressed, I must provide additional views to this
particular recommendation as it could imply that the policy
recommendation only applies to Indian tribes. Despite the
Committee's statement that the level of transparency with
regards to all political contributions should be increased, the
Report could be read to unfairly single out Indian tribes by
proposing a recommendation that only addresses contributions by
Indian tribes.
In lieu of the Committee's recommendation regarding tribal
campaign contributions, I would propose a broader
recommendation of the issue identified by the FEC and other
witnesses--that this issue affects Indian tribes and other
entities. Since the FEC noted that Indian tribes are subject to
the same contribution limitations and prohibitions as other
unincorporated associations, I believe that the recommendation
should continue this similar treatment, without unfairly
singling out Indian tribes, by suggesting the following:
Each unincorporated association that intends
to make a federal campaign contribution should be
required to obtain a unique identifier for the purpose
of better tracking campaign contributions from
unincorporated associations.
For purposes of this policy only, Indian
tribes shall be considered unincorporated associations.
All federal campaign contributions from
unincorporated associations shall include the unique
identifier.
The contributions must be reported by the
recipient by the unique identifier as well as the name
of the unincorporated association.
While donations from individual donors are subject to the
same confusion, my suggestion makes no attempt to address this
issue because of the burden and confusion that it would likely
impose on individual donors as well as the burden on the FEC to
enforce such a provision. I am willing, however, to consider
other suggestions on how to increase the transparency of these
contributions.