United States v. Bickers

• Decision Date: 17 September 2019
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL INDICTMENT. NO. 1:18-CR-98-SCJ-LTW
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MITZI BICKERS, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MITZI BICKERS, Defendant.

CRIMINAL INDICTMENT. NO. 1:18-CR-98-SCJ-LTW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

September 17, 2019

(First Superseding)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AND FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER CERTIFYING THIS CASE READY FOR TRIAL

This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant Mitzi Bicker's ("Defendant") Motion for Bill of Particulars and Motion to Strike Surplusage (Doc. 53), Motion to Dismiss Counts (Doc. 54), and Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Material and Early Identification of Government's Case-in-Chief Documents (Doc. 56). The Government has filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's motions. (Docs. 63, 64, and 65). For the reasons outlined below, Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars and her Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Material and Early Identification of Government's Case-in-Chief Documents are DENIED. (Docs. 53, 56). This Court also RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Strike Surplusage and her Motion to Dismiss Counts be DENIED.¹ (Docs. 53, 54).

BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2018, a grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia returned a twelve-count Superseding Indictment ("Indictment") charging Defendant with two counts of conspiracy to commit bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2); three counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 and Section 2; four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349; tampering with a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3); and filing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206. (Doc. 41). The Indictment also includes a forfeiture provision, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). Notably, the Indictment is very detailed, it has 95 paragraphs, and it is twenty-six pages. (Doc. 41).

In order to address Defendant's claim of entitlement to a bill of particulars and Defendant's motions to strike surplusage and to dismiss counts, the Court will provide some specific details about the Indictment's allegations. Count One, paragraph 1, of the Indictment, charges that Defendant from around 2010 to at leastabout May 22, 2013:

Knowingly and willfully conspired, agreed, and had a tacit understanding with Elvin R. Mitchell, Jr., Charles P. Richards, Jr. and others known and unknown to commit violations of the laws of the United States, that is - bribery involving a local government receiving federal funds, in that, [Defendant], an agent of the City of Atlanta, Georgia (a local government), corruptly solicited and demanded for her benefit and accepted and agreed to accept a thing of value from a person with the intent to be influenced and rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, and series of transactions of the City of Atlanta government, involving a thing of value of at least $5,000, in any one-year period where the City of Atlanta government received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program, involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance and other form, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B).

(Doc. 41).

Under the heading "Object of the Conspiracy," paragraph 2, of the Indictment alleges that the Defendant conspired to enrich herself and others by soliciting and accepting payments from Mitchell and Richards, in exchange for her agreement to represent their companies in obtaining lucrative City of Atlanta² contracts. (Id.). The Indictment also provides background information regarding Defendant, and Mitchell and Richards. Specifically, paragraphs 3 through 10, of the Indictment provide background on the City; information on three companies associated with Defendant (the Bickers Group, Chateau Land Company, and Pirouette Companies);details regarding Defendant's employment from February 2010 to May 22, 2013, as the Director of Human Services for the City and her salary during this time frame; information about companies owned by Mitchell and Richards; and describes the types of government contracts that Mitchell and Richards' businesses were awarded by the City between 2010 and 2015 in the amount of approximately $17 million. (Id.).

Under the heading "The City of Atlanta's Ethics and Procurement Codes," paragraphs 11 through 14, of the Indictment, reference certain sections of the City's Ethics Codes, while paragraphs 15 through 19 provide details about the City's Procurement Codes. (Id.). Specifically, paragraphs 11 through 14 present the purpose of the City's Ethics Code; explain that an official or employee's participation in contracts is prohibited; indicate that officials or employees are required to file statements disclosing any and all income and financial interests in excess of $5,000; and reveal that employees are forbidden from soliciting or accepting anything of value calculated to influence a vote, decision, or official authority involving the City. (Id.). Paragraphs 15 through 19, of the Indictment, reference certain sections of the City's Procurement Code describing the responsibility of the Department of Procurement; detailing the requirements of the City's officers and employees to disclose to the chief procurement officer any direct or indirect interests in a procurement; explaining that it is unethical for any person to offer or give anemployee or former employee or for any employee or former employee to solicit or accept from another person gratuities, offers of employment, and kickbacks; providing that it is unethical for a person to retain a person to solicit or secure a City contract for a contingent fee; and indicating that it is unethical for any City employee or former employee to use confidential information for actual or anticipated personal gain or to do so on behalf of another person. (Id.).

The Indictment further describes the "Manner and Means" of the conspiracy by alleging that Mitchell and Richards agreed to and did pay bribes to Defendant, while she was a City employee, to secure City contracts for their businesses. (Id.). In exchange for those payments, the Indictment alleges Defendant agreed to represent Mitchell and Richards and their companies on matters relating to the City's contracting, and that Defendant provided sensitive contracting information to Mitchell and Richards to assist them in submitting contract bids. (Id.). Paragraph 21 of the Indictment explains that in early 2013, Defendant's financial ties to the Pirouette Companies was exposed publicly resulting in Defendant amending her 2013 City Financial Disclosure Statement to reveal her relationship with the Pirouette Companies. (Id.). It is also noted that Defendant resigned from the City on or about May 22, 2013. (Id.).

Additionally, the Indictment sets forth in paragraphs 22 through 51 a numberof "Overt Acts" allegedly committed by Defendant and her alleged co-conspirator/s in furtherance of the conspiracy:

Under the City's Ethics Code and as part of her employment, Defendant was required to disclose annually all positions of employment she held for any portion of the year with any business, including the existence and nature of any business done by the employer entity with the City;

That in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, Defendant completed, signed, and submitted via the Internet, City financial disclosure statements knowing that some of those disclosure statements (financial disclosure statements submitted in 2012, 2013 (original), and 2014), contained false and fraudulent answers and representations in that she represented that she had not been employed outside the City, she had not received more than $5,000 in annual income from any other company, or she had not been paid for appearing on behalf of any person, client, or private interest before any city agency;

That between 2010 and 2015, Mitchell and Richards and their companies paid over $2 million in bribe payments to Defendant, the Bickers Group, Chateau Land Company, and the Pirouette Companies, in an attempt to get City contracts; and certain payments from Mitchell and Richards to Defendant and certain City contracts awarded to Mitchell and Richards, as well as certain purchases made by Defendant, are detailed.

(Id.). Count Two, of the Indictment alleges Defendant conspired with others to commit bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. (Id.). The "Object of the Conspiracy" is described as, after Defendant left her employment with the City on or about May 22, 2013, she solicited and accepted bribe payments from Mitchell, Richards, and their companies, in exchange for her agreement to represent their businesses to obtain lucrative City contracts through the bribery of at least one public official. (Id.).

Specifically, Count Two charges that from on or about May 22, 2013, to at least sometime in 2015, Defendant:

knowingly and willfully conspired, agreed, and had a tacit understanding with Elvin R. Mitchell, Jr., Charles P. Richards, Jr., and others known and unknown to commit violations of the laws of the United States, that is - bribery involving a local government receiving federal funds, in that Defendant corruptly gave, offered, and agreed to give a thing of value to a person with the intent to influence and reward an agent of the City (a local government), in connection with any business, transaction, and series of transactions of the City government, involving a thing of value of at least $5,000, in any one-year period where the City government received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program involving, a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance and other form, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2), all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

(Id.). Count Three, of the Indictment charges Defendant with bribery by attempting to obtain lucrative government contracts with the City of Jackson, Mississippi ("Jackson") through the provision of...