Thursday, Sept. 9, 2004 | 11:17 a.m.
Las Vegas City Councilwoman Janet Moncrief pleaded not guilty this morning to charges of falsifying campaign finance reports. Then she left the courtroom with her lawyer, Richard Wright, who stopped outside the Clark County Courthouse and began her public defense.
"There appears to me to be mistakes made in every (campaign) report," Wright said of his initial review of the case. "Was this a willful, deliberate effort to hide (the amount spent)? The answer is no."
The issue of whether the violations were "willful," meaning Moncrief intentionally falsified the reports to hide her true funding, is but one of the layers of defense.
Possibly more significant is Wright's questioning of the indictment itself, and an associated issue of whether Moncrief is being singled out for what he called "selective prosecution."
Wright said that he plans to file a writ of habeas corpus, which he called the "equivalent of a motion to dismiss," possibly within the next six weeks. The trial was scheduled by District Judge Nancy Saitta for Feb. 7.
Wright said the grand jury that indicted Moncrief was the second to hear the case. He is seeking transcripts from the first grand jury. Among his questions are whether they heard the same witnesses, whether the testimony was consistent, and whether members of the first grand jury were part of the second grand jury, which indicted Moncrief.
He also said that the state law under which Moncrief has been indicted -- a statute that forbids filing false documents with a public office -- is a rarely used relic that hearkens to the state's past and "has to do with filing false mining claims." He questioned why that criminal statute was being applied to Moncrief, instead of the civil rules outlined in state campaign laws.
Wright pointed to other cases -- for example, the fine levied against Assemblyman Chad Christensen, R-Las Vegas, in April for failing to report campaign donations or an ethics complaint against Comptroller Kathy Augustine alleging she used state staff workers on her campaign -- and said Moncrief was being singled out for criminal prosecution.
"Why? I don't know the answer. But when I see dissimilar treatment I want to know why," Wright said. Senior Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen said releasing transcripts of the previous grand jury is a "question that's still up in the air. If (the judge rules) he's entitled to it, of course we'll provide it."
He said his office was not involved in selective prosecution. "The statute clearly says if a person files a false claim with a public office, it's a criminal complaint," Hafen said. "There is no favoritism from the attorney general's office. This has nothing to do with a political agenda."
Moncrief, who appeared in court with her daughter Kara by her side, said she would speak out forcefully against the charges and the campaign under way to recall her. "I'm accessible, I want to serve and I want to continue serving," she said. Moncrief was indicted Aug. 5 on four counts of filing false campaign expense reports and one count of perjury. The charges include allegations that Moncrief did not report the value of work performed by teenagers who canvassed neighborhoods for her, the contributions and/or expenses of political operatives Steve Miller and Tony Dane, the in-kind contribution represented by use of a van, and the cost of producing and distributing attack fliers. If convicted, Moncrief faces one to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine on each of the four counts of filing false campaign expense reports, and from one to four years i n prison and a $5,000 fine on the perjury charge. Jim Ferrence, who ran incumbent Michael McDonald's campaign, asked for an! investigation into Moncrief's campaign spending after reports didn't seem to add up. Some of Moncrief's campaign workers turned against her after the election and backed up the claims. Consultant Dane told the grand jury that former casino owner Bob Stupak paid him in cash and casino chips. Dane also testified that Moncrief was involved in creating fliers that were meant to look like they were from McDonald in an attempt to gain sympathy from voters.
Another flier that was sent to Democratic voters purported to come from McDonald and falsely touted his Republican sympathies and opposition to unions. According to the grand jury testimony, Moncrief's campaign spent more than $78,000 with Zignature International, a Las Vegas printing and mailing company, but only reported spending $20,875. Dane said he spent $8,795 on fliers, and that was not reported and that he billed Moncrief for $100,000 in expenses but settled for less. Campaign finance reports show only $7,545 in payments to Dane. Miller, a former Las Vegas councilman, told the grand jury that he was brought into the campaign at the request of Stupak and was promised $25,000 and a job as a key staff member by Moncrief. He said he never received the money or the job. Betty Schulte, who previously worked for Stupak and worked for Moncrief briefly at C ity Hall, testified that Moncrief kept track of the donations. In addition, Schulte testified that she signed some campaign! reports in Moncrief's name. In addition to the indictment, Moncrief is facing two recall efforts. The proponents of the recall said the indictment was the last straw, but complained that the real problem was she was an ineffective and inaccessible council member. Moncrief fired back this week, with a telephone message timed to reach people who were heading to the polls Tuesday, where recall group members were waiting with petitions. One of the groups -- which was not at polling places Tuesday -- is based in the neighborhood along Buffalo Drive, where council members approved a rezoning to allow a Social Security building over Moncrief's angry objection. By law, the signatures from the two separate recall efforts cannot be combined. Each group must collect about 2,100 signatures, equal to a quarter of the votes cast in the ward in the last election, to tri gger a recall.
archive
