I found this on www.fight4spellissy.com. This motion was filed on Friday. Looks like the court is caught in a mistake?
12. The Court found "When a search warrant affidavit contains, as Calvert's affidavit does, intentional misrepresentations and statements made in reckless disregard for the truth, and omits material facts critical to probable cause, the question is whether, after deleting the misstatements and including the material omissions, the affidavit is sufficient to establish probable cause. Franks v. Delaware
, 438 U.S. 154; US v. Kirk, 781 F.2d 1498, 1502 (11th Cir. 1986). Excluding the false and reckless statements discussed, probable cause for a 5 207(a)(2) violation remains on the face of the affidavit. Section 207 prohibits a former officer, for two years after termination of service, regardless of the officer's title or authority, from representing a contractor before the Department of Defense with respect to a particular matter which the officer knows or should know was pending before the officer during the last year of his service, which involved a specific party. Based on the facts in Calvert's affidavit, there was probable cause to believe that when Spellissy represented NAMMO during the meeting concerning the 70mm rocket warhead with the government in Norway, he had reason to know that the 70 mm rocket warhead listed in Dr. Uhler's procurement letter was a NAMMO product and that it had been a matter under his official responsibility as PEO-SP during May 2004, contrary to the prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 207(a). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion to Suppress Results of Search (Dkt. 21) is DENIED (Dkt 44-1, page 12-13).
Witness has come forward
13. Mr. James Rooney, the former President of Nordic Ammunition Company, Inc USA (NAMMO Inc) and President of Rooney Group International, Inc (RGI) has submitted an affidavit pertaining to the 70mm meeting between Mr. Jones and the Program Manager of NAMMO, Norway. Mr. Rooney was in Norway and attended the 70mm program meeting. Defendants were a consultant to Rooney Group International, Inc. Mr. Rooney clearly states that Defendant Spellissy was
not present for the 70mm program meeting because of conflicts of interest issues. He also states that Special Agent Calvert nor the Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Robert O’Neill never contacted him to discuss the 70mm program meeting in Norway. See Exhibit A, Rooney Affidavit.
Argument
14. Mr. Rooney’s affidavit is the final piece of information that unequivocally proves that there was no probable cause for Special Agent Calvert to search Defendant Spellissy’s residence for a Title 18, U.S.C. § 207 (a) and (b) or § 208 (a) violation. No one testified at the Franks hearing that Defendant Spellissy was actually present during the 70mm program meeting. The Court inferred from the testimony and Calvert’s affidavit that Defendant Spellissy was present at the meeting when NAMMO’s 70mm program warheads were discussed, when in fact he was not. The Court erred by failing to recognize this material fact and that error is clear error, therefore the Court can not substantiate its findings in paragraph 12 with the information provided by Mr. Rooney to the Court.
So let's get this straight. Michael Vick gets 23 months for killing dogs, backing gambling, etc.....with tons of direct evidence.etc. Spellissy gets 15 months and there is no direct evidence, a bad affidavit, two perjurers (Burke and Calvert) and has a record of saving American soldiers lives and helping out his community. Only in America! Vick is lucky that he didn't kill any dogs belonged to retired Generals.
The buzz around Clearwater is that Spellissy has a report date to prison on 27 Dec and he is not going to a Federal Camp; he is going to FDC Miami which is probably the worst Federal Prison facility in the United States. I think they are going to put pressure on him to see if he will turn on others. Should be interesting to see if they can break him. I bet they can't.
Spellissy should file suit against Burke for lying about his plea agreement. A civil suit would bring everything else out in the open and I would like to know what favors Burke was doing for contractors in Washington.
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You can create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum