Contact
Subscribe
AG declined to investigate bribery allegations
Attorney General Gary King (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
After reviewing a complaint from the N.M. Corrections Department, Attorney General Gary King’s office declined last year to investigate a former corrections official accused of bribery.
“After a review of the information provided, it does not appear that a possible criminal violation has been identified,” Investigations Division Director Earl Holmes wrote in a Sept. 3 letter to the Corrections Department’s general counsel.
The FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office, however, believe they have found significant criminal activity. A federal investigation proceeded, and last week Laurie Chapman was indicted by a federal grand jury on 30 felony counts of bribery. Chapman is accused of soliciting and accepting $237,080 in bribes to steer Corrections Department construction contracts to a particular roofing company.
“Corruption of this nature strikes at the heart of good government and erodes public confidence,” U.S. Attorney Kenneth J. Gonzales said last week. “… This kind of betrayal of the public’s trust cannot and will not be tolerated.”
That’s not the answer the Corrections Department got when it went to King’s office.
“We are concerned with the allegation of criminal activity within the state government,” Holmes wrote to Corrections General Counsel James R. Brewster. “However, without additional information we cannot pursue this issue.”
“If in the future you do find new information concerning this matter, please feel free to contact our office,” Holmes wrote.
Questions for the AG
Friday morning, NMPolitics.net sent these questions about the situation to AG spokesman Phil Sisneros:
- Can you say anything about what information the AG reviewed before determining that there was no identified criminal violation?
- Does the AG’s Office stand by its decision in this case?
- Any additional comment?
Monday morning, NMPolitics.net had not heard back and sent Sisneros a follow-up e-mail, and received this response:
“I am working on this…waiting to hear back from some folks. As soon as I can I will give you a comment.”
NMPolitics.net has received nothing since. When Sisneros provides comment, NMPolitics.net will publish it.
Update, 5:40 p.m.
Sisneros wrote in an e-mail that the request from Brewster to investigate “did not set out facts sufficient to constitute probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed.” He said the Sept. 3 letter detailed in this article “properly reflects that without additional information the AGO could not pursue the issue.”
He also noted that the state auditor is conducting an audit of the situation – an audit that could be referred to the AG if possible criminal violations are found. That audit is not yet complete and has not been sent to the AG’s office for consideration.
The AG doesn’t normally talk about “pending criminal matters” such as this federal case, Sisneros pointed out, but he said “certain comments are allowed to counter the potential for undue prejudice to the adjudicative process caused by the statements of others.”
Specifically, he said he could make comments on this case “in light of the indictment of Ms. Chapman and the disclosure of the 9/3/2010 letter to Mr. Brewster.”
Update, 5:55 p.m.
State Auditor Hector Balderas has been working with the feds on their case against Chapman, auditor spokeswoman Caroline Buerkle said.
“The state auditor has been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the Chapman case since last summer,” Buerkle said. “He has also been providing them special audit documentation to assist them with their case.”
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
10 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mr. Salazar… DITTO. I hope the state remembers this next time we have an election for the attorney general’s office. We need a prosecutor in this state, not a career politician or a chemist.
Is anyone really surprised by Gary King’s inaction on this matter??? He has disguised himself as a “prosecutor,” particularly with his “tough on crime” arm-crossing posing during last year’s election. This year, he wrestled away an apellate case from his appeals division in order to “argue” the matter to the United States Supreme Court. He has not a single clue of what it takes to even investigate a case, much less prosecute one. However, there he remains trying to pad his resume in the hopes of one day be elected to yet another office.
Gary would not know a criminal offense if it was under his nose. We all know that he is just dying to become governor like his daddy before him and that he has no qualifications to be the chief prosecutor for our state. It is a shame that many good cases have gone ignored by him and his cronies, all in the name of protecting his political power and family name for future use.
What I don’t get is this: if the AG was waiting for an audit report, then how could the AG conclude “it does not appear that a possible violation has been identified?” What was THAT determination based on? Why didn’t the AG just say it was waiting for the audit report to be completed? And why did the Feds reach a different conclusion from that of the AG? The article points out the following:
“After a review of the information provided, it does not appear that a possible criminal violation has been identified,” Investigations Division Director Earl Holmes wrote in a Sept. 3 letter to the Corrections Department’s general counsel.
Then later in the article you have a different AG rep now saying, “the state auditor is conducting an audit of the situation – an audit that could be referred to the AG if possible criminal violations are found. That audit is not yet complete and has not been sent to the AG’s office for consideration.”
Well if that is the case then…again, so why didn’t the AG wait for the audit report to be completed BEFORE concluding “it does not appear that a possible criminal violation has been identified?” Doesn’t make sense.
That One:
Usually the sufficient basis comes from the audit – I mean, unless you want the AG to habitually waste resources and taxpayer money by jumping the gun and trying to prosecute incomplete cases.
That being said, in this case, there appears to be plenty of evidence to at least merit an investigation by the AG, who has been remarkably irresponsible – to say nothing of politically foolish – in this case. I was merely pointing out that ghoti’s attack on the Auditor was based upon a false premise.
Since when does law enforcement have to wait for an audit to be completed before it takes action? If sufficient basis exists to conclude criminal activity has occurred, you take action. Simple as that!
ghoti:
“That audit is not yet complete…”
That is a direct quote from the article above. Audits also need not be forwarded to the AG if they find no legal wrong-doing, though this will likely not be the case here. In your desire to attack someone, you forgot that facts matter.
Was Auditor Balderas ever going to comply with the Audit Act and refer his findings to the DA’s office? Or simply complain that no one in the state was taking any action?
It will probably be another two years (at least) before we have a judicial decision on this case….
One would have thought King would have looked into all the pay-to-play allegations when Richardson was governor, but he didn’t. Someone else needs to occupy that position who will represent the people against fraud and corruption.
Whether the AG has a legitimate reason for not investigating these allegations or not, he already has an inherent talent for damaging his own reputation; this begs another question: Why on Earth does he keep employing Sisneros, who always manages to exponentially compound the detrimental effects of whatever political error AG King has made that week?