In late 2010 OpenCdA put up a series of posts about two Prince George’s County, Maryland, public officials, Jack Johnson and his wife Leslie,  who had been arrested by the FBI on numerous charges of public corruption.   Prior to his arrest, Jack Johnson had been the P.G. County Prosecuting Attorney and most recently the county’s Administrator.  Johnson’s  wife Leslie was a P.G. County Councilwoman.

Both Johnsons are scheduled to be sentenced in December.  Here is a link to the 76-page sentencing memorandum prepared by the US Attorney for the District of Maryland.  It reveals just how corrupt these trusted, well-respected, highly-regarded members of the Prince George’s County community were.  It reveals how Jack and Leslie Johnson betrayed the trust and confidence of their constituents and their friends.  It is a primer explaining how public officials can develop a sense of entitlement, omnipotence, and  arrogant disdain for their constituents and trusting friends.

Here are some of the points from the sentencing memorandum:

Jack Johnson’s venality adversely affected everyone who lived, worked and tried to do business in Prince George’s County (“the County”). During his eight year tenure as the County’s leader, Jack Johnson criminally and shamelessly flouted the public trust and abused his lawful authority. ln exchange for bribe payments, Jack Johnson steered millions of dollars in federal and local funds to favored developers; disseminated non-public County information; obtained and facilitated state and local approvals and permits; arranged County jobs for undeserving applicants; awarded management rights for County bond funds; assisted with legislation and regulations regarding liquor store hours; influenced County officials to approve private businesses seeking government work; and secured County commitments to lease property from developers.  In exchange, as detailed in his plea agreement and incorporated in the PSR [pre-sentence report], Jack Johnson accepted between $400,000 and $1,000,000 in bribes.

The federal investigation proved that the rumors were true: under Jack Johnson’s leadership, government in Prince George’s County literally was for sale.

When the Defendant now asks this Court to credit his history of public service, he ignores the fact that he was convicted of corrupting the very public office for which he now claims credit. Indeed, the Government submits that the Defendant’s pervasive corruption discouraged competition and transparency in business, and encouraged graft and back-room dealing, which deprived the County of countless and significant economic benefits. The Defendants assertion that some good things were achieved during his tenure does not counterbalance his brazen and overarching extortion, bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice.  [emphasis added]

Bribery, by its very secretive nature, is a difficult crime to detect, and occurs only between consenting parties, who both have a strong interest in concealing their conduct. Indeed, uncovering a singular instance of bribery poses significant impediments to the investigative work of law enforcement. The pervasive and repeated bribery perpetrated by the Defendant and his co-conspirators highlights the unusual nature of his admitted crimes. As a former prosecutor and elected State’s Attorney, the Defendant well understood that the criminal scheme which he orchestrated was not only illegal but had a devastating impact on the County. As one sentencing court observed, democratic form of government depends upon the consent of the governed. That consent will not last if those who serve in government betray the trust that is given them. No such government can survive if those entrusted with the authority to exercise governmental power are not honest in carrying out their duties. The Defendant’s betrayal of the County’s citizens, through systematic and pervasive corruption of his high office, illustrates how the Defendant’s abuse of public office not only financially harmed the County but harmed the very democratic ideal all citizens have a right to expect from their elected officials. The Defendant’s crimes were serious and purposeful, and they directly harmed the County. [emphasis added]

The sentencing memo points out the fallacy of the “But he’s done so much good for the community” rationalization that is often used to excuse corruption by public officials:

With respect to his public service, the Defendant seeks to offset his criminal conduct by citing his history of public service and taking credit for economic growth in the County. Although the Defendant may take credit for a portion of some of the economic activity that occurred in the County during his tenure as County Executive, the Court must also consider that even more money and opportunity potentially would have been available for the County’s benefit had the Defendant not extorted bribes from developers and others seeking to conduct business with the County. Indeed, the Defendant’s corruption no doubt caused economic harm to the County by alienating businesses seeking to do business with the County but who refused to engage in the Defendant’s pay-to-play brand of governance, and thereby diminished the quality and range of businesses seeking to work and develop in the County.  [emphasis added]

Closely related to the “he’s done so much good for the community” rationalization is the “so what’s the harm if he takes a little under the table” rationalization.  The US Attorney for Maryland addresses that as well:

As the Court Weighs the relevant factors under l8 U.S.C. 3553(a) in reaching a reasonable sentence, Jack Johnson is not entitled to special credit for his work on behalf of the County, because that is what he was elected and paid to do. This case does not involve a defendant whose service to the community is entirely divorced form his position and therefore could be considered exemplary. Rather, whatever legitimate service the Defendant service provided to the County was exactly what was expected of him as County Executive. When being sentenced for corrupting that office, it is of no moment whether the County under his administration made progress toward any civic goals. Whatever beneficial service he may have rendered during his tenure in public office does not mitigate the harm the Defendant inflicted on the County by his crimes. On the contrary, the Defendant viewed public office as a steady stream of income rather than a sacred trust.  [emphasis added]

The sentencing memo details how Jack Johnson sought to nullify the votes county voters who might vote for his wife Leslie’s opponent in a coming election.

For example, on August 5, 2010, Jack Johnson called a family member and told them to meet up with a certain County official and to spend the evening removing campaign signs belonging to Leslie Johnson’s competitors in her race for County Council. Here, the sitting County Executive is directing his family to work with another County official to destroy campaign signs of Leslie Johnson’s competitors.

Similarly, on August 7, 2010, Jack Johnson called another individual and directed them to remove additional signs belonging to Leslie Johnson’s competitors for County Council ….  Johnson further advised that they would pick-up about 40 signs and take them to the dump.

Jack Johnson not only sought to obstruct other candidates right to campaign for elected office in the County, he knew that what he was doing was wrong and sought to ensure silence by directing his co-conspirators to keep his role in the corruption scheme quiet – “You haven’t talked to ine about this,” CD l. In this case, the truth is as compelling as any fictional account of official corruption.

Continuing his efforts to disenfranchise County voters, on August 15, 2010, in a recorded call, the Defendant’s family member asked Jack Johnson if they should take down additional signs of competitors for Leslie Johnson’s campaign. Johnson responded, “Yeah, if you can do some tonight it’d be fine. We should rent a pick-up truck one night right’?” The family member agreed. Johnson told them to rent the truck, and Johnson would give them cash to pay for the rental. Johnson then suggested two individuals to help take down the signs. The family member then described how they planned to dress, where they would park, and the time they would go to take down the signs.

Arguing for a lengthy federal prison sentence, the US Attorney’s Office explained

The Defendant’s audacious criminal behavior understandably captured the public’s attention and harmed the reputation of Maryland’s second-largest county and its 850,000 residents. ln this context, the deterrent message and effect of the sentence imposed by the Court in this case will resonate significantly with other public officials tempted to engage in similar conduct. A term of imprisonment is necessary to demonstrate to others that fraud of this kind and corrupt payments to public officials will not go unpunished.  A very significant sentence of imprisonment is necessary to protect the public, to deter the Defendant from future criminal conduct, and, most importantly, to ensure that powerful and influential local public officials who make multi-million dollar decisions to approve or reject development projects or provide public subsidies understand that they do not operate “under the radar screen.” A message must be sent that if you engage in, assist or facilitate the “pay~to~play” culture, you will not avoid scrutiny by law enforcement, and you will receive a significant prison term. This factor weighs heavily in favor of a very significant term of imprisonment.  [emphasis added]

In the conclusion to the sentencing memorandum, the US Attorney said

No public official is above the law, and as a consequence of participating in public corruption and abusing his positions of public trust, the Defendant loses his liberty. The Defendant’s crimes have injured the County and Maryland, and a meaningful term of imprisonment is needed to demonstrate that public officials in Maryland are held accountable for their misdeeds.

After balancing all of the Section 355 3(a) factors, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the findings of the PSR and impose a sentence that resonates loudly, the “pay-to-play” culture in Prince George’s County is at an end.