Skip to main content

Former Department of Labor Chief of Staff Pleads Guilty for Failing to Report Gifts from Former Lobbyist Jack Abramoff

WASHINGTON—The former chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Employment Standards Administration pleaded guilty today to falsely certifying his Fiscal Year 2003 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division. Horace M. Cooper, 44, of Lorton, Va., pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle in the District of Columbia to a criminal information charging him with making and using a false certificate or writing.

According to court documents, Cooper was the chief of staff for the DOL’s Employment Standards Administration from December 2002 through August 2005. In that position, Cooper was required by federal regulations to complete annual Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Cooper admitted that in 2003 he solicited and accepted gifts from Jack A. Abramoff and Neil G. Volz, former Washington lobbyists who had a client with business before the DOL. Cooper admitted he concealed his receipt of these gifts from DOL ethics officials and his supervisors.

Cooper was required to report the gifts he received from Abramoff and Volz on his annual financial disclosure form because the value of these gifts exceeded the limits established by federal regulation. According to court documents, DOL ethics officials and his supervisors were deprived of critical information as a result of Cooper’s failure to report these gifts, which was necessary to determine whether Cooper had an actual or potential conflict of interest between his public responsibilities and his private interests and activities.

The charge to which Cooper pleaded guilty carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. According to court documents filed in connection with his guilty plea, Cooper agreed that the guidelines for his sentencing should be increased due to his admitted effort to obstruct the government’s investigation into his relationship with and his receipt of gifts from Abramoff and Volz. Specifically, Cooper admitted that the government could prove that he made materially false and misleading statements and representations to FBI agents about his solicitation and receipt of gifts from Abramoff and Volz, and that he later repeated those false and misleading statements and representations in his testimony before a grand jury investigating this matter. Sentencing is scheduled for July 1, 2010.

To date, 19 individuals, including lobbyists and public officials, have pleaded guilty, been convicted at trial, or are awaiting trial in connection with the ongoing investigation into the activities of Abramoff and his associates. Abramoff pleaded guilty in January 2006 to conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, honest services fraud and tax evasion. Abramoff was sentenced in September 2008 to 48 months in prison. Neil Volz pleaded guilty in May 2006 to conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and was sentenced in September 2007 to two years probation.

This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Armando O. Bonilla and Marc E. Levin of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. The case is being investigated by the FBI.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...