United States v. Burke

• Decision Date: 06 June 2022
• Docket Number: 19-cr-322
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALDERMAN EDWARD M. BURKE, PETER J. ANDREWS, and CHARLES CUI, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ALDERMAN EDWARD M. BURKE, PETER J. ANDREWS, and CHARLES CUI, Defendants.

No. 19-cr-322

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

June 6, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert M. Dow, Jr. Judge.

In 2019, a grand jury indicted Defendant Alderman Edward M. Burke on federal racketeering and bribery charges. The crux of the sprawling superseding indictment [30 (redacted), 31 (sealed)] is that Ald. Burke pressured real estate developers to hire his private law firm, Klafter & Burke, in exchange for Ald. Burke's assistance in securing official favors, including lucrative tax breaks and permits from the City of Chicago. In nineteen counts, the grand jury charges Ald. Burke with violations of federal laws prohibiting racketeering, federal program bribery, extortion, and the use of interstate facilities in furtherance of violating those and other laws. The indictment also names two co-Defendants, a staffer of Ald. Burke's named Peter J. Andrews, and a businessman named Charles Cui, both of whom were allegedly embroiled in Ald. Burke's deals.

All three co-Defendants filed hundreds of pages of pre-trial motions now before this Court [86, 88, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117, 121, 122]. Together these motions would have this Court dismiss almost every charge of the indictment against all Defendants. Most notable among those many motions, Ald. Burke and Andrews seek to suppress voluminous evidence gathered from a multi-month wiretap of Ald. Burke's phone. In Ald. Burke's

1

view, the Government's wiretap application not only lacked probable cause under the principles of McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), but also effectively pulled a fast one on the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois about the circumstances allegedly justifying the Government's surveillance.

The Court denies these motions in full. Among other reasons described in further detail below, in the Court's view, these motions largely go to the strength of the evidence, not the sufficiency of the indictment and wiretap application. It is a fact-finder's role to assess whether the Government has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, not this Court's at the pleadings stage. The Court also concludes that Ald. Burke and his co-Defendants attempt to extend the logic of McDonnell on the federal and Illinois anti-public corruption scheme beyond the outer reaches of that important decision.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the Court denies all of Defendants' pretrial motions [86, 88, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117], with the limited exception that the Court has granted Defendant Ald. Burke's and Andrews's respective motions to adopt [121, 122] for purposes of this opinion. The motions to sever are denied without prejudice, as the parties and the Court may reassess whether all three Defendants should be tried together at each later stage of the case.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The Government has filed a nineteen-count indictment against Alderman Edward Burke, the Alderman of the Fourteenth Ward in Chicago and former Chairman of the City of Chicago's Committee on Finance. [30 (Indictment) at Count 1, ¶ 1g]. Ald. Burke is the longest-serving member of Chicago's City Council with tenure dating back to 1969. He owned a private law firm

2

named Klafter & Burke at all relevant times. [Id. at ¶ 1h]. Klafter & Burke represented clients contesting and seeking reductions in the tax assessments made on their real property. [Id.]

The superseding indictment (“Indictment”) [30] alleges that Ald. Burke exploited the power he amassed as Alderman and Chairman of the Committee on Finance to solicit and receive bribes from real estate developers within his sphere of influence between at least 2016 through 2018. Specifically, the Indictment alleges that during those years, Ald. Burke sought fees from the retention of Klafter & Burke from several people and companies doing business before the City of Chicago or subject to his and a fellow Alderman's authority. [30 (Indictment) at Count 1, ¶ 4].

The Indictment highlights four episodes in which Ald. Burke allegedly solicited fees in exchange for his official acts: (1) the redevelopment of the Old Post Office in Chicago (referred to as the “Post Office Project”), (2) the remodeling of a fast-food restaurant in Ald. Burke's ward (the “Fast-Food Restaurant Remodeling”), (3) Cui's application for a pole-sign permit (the “PoleSign Permit”), and (4) a position at a museum located in Chicago (“Museum 1 Admission Fee Increase”). The Court will elaborate on these episodes and the specifics of the nineteen charges against Ald. Burke and his co-Defendants, Peter J. Andrews and Charles Cui, later in this opinion. For now, the Court will describe the events of 2016 through 2018 in relatively broad brushstrokes. The account that follows is not a finding of facts. Fact-finding is a job exclusively for a jury-or for this Court if the parties so choose-at a later stage of this case. Instead, the following account draws on the allegations of the Indictment to contextualize the motions up for resolution in today's opinion.

As noted above, the Indictment [30] alleges that Ald. Burke exploited his position to solicit and receive bribes. Three of the four episodes involve Ald. Burke's alleged attempt to solicit fees

3

for his law firm, Klafter & Burke, by leveraging his official authority and that of fellow Alderman Daniel Solis. During the period relevant here, Ald. Solis represented the Twenty-Fifth Ward in Chicago and served as Chairman of the City of Chicago Committee on Zoning, Landmarks & Building Standards. [30 (Indictment) at Count 1, ¶ 1j]. Unbeknownst to Ald. Burke, however, Ald. Solis was cooperating with law enforcement. [Id.]

1. Old Post Office Project

The first episode of the Indictment concerns Ald. Burke's and Ald. Solis's involvement with the Old Post Office, which was located in Ald. Solis's ward. [30 (Indictment) at Count 1, ¶¶ 5-32, ¶ 84(a) (RICO Act 1)]. A New York-based real estate company referred to in the Indictment as Company A undertook a renovation and redevelopment of the building. [Id. at ¶¶ 1i, 5].

Ald. Burke and Ald. Solis expected the massive redevelopment to present a window of opportunity. The Indictment alleges that Ald. Burke solicited Individual A-1, who was associated with Company A and oversaw and managed the Post Office project on Company A's behalf, as a prospective client for Klafter & Burke and further alleges that Ald. Burke agreed to accept property in exchange for Ald. Burke and Ald. Solis's official assistance with redeveloping and financing the renovation and redevelopment. [30 (Indictment) at Count 1, ¶¶ 5, 84(a)]. As Ald. Solis observed, Company A and its associates would require certain approvals and funding for the project. [Id. at ¶ 9].

The attempts to solicit the Old Post Office developers as clients of Ald. Burke's law firm stretch back at least to 2016. In August 2016, while discussing the redevelopment with Ald. Solis, Ald. Burke asked Ald. Solis to recommend Klafter & Burke to Individual A-1 for Company A's tax work. [30 (Indictment) at Count 1, ¶ 6]. He further suggested compensating Ald. Solis for his

4

assistance through a “marketing arrangement.” [Id.] In September 2016, Ald. Burke asked Ald. Solis to arrange a meeting between Individual A-1 and Ald. Burke to solicit tax business for Klafter & Burke. [Id. at ¶ 7]. The first meeting between Individual A-1 and Ald. Burke took place in Ald. Solis's City Hall office in October 2016 together with an employee of Company A, referred to here as Individual A-2. [Id. at ¶¶ 1i, 8]. During the meeting, Ald. Burke solicited tax work for his law firm. [Id.] Individual A-1 relayed obstacles facing the redevelopment project, which (as Ald. Burke's subsequent discussions with an Amtrak employee revealed) included accessing certain property owned by Amtrak below the Old Post Office building. [Id. at ¶¶ 8, 11]. Ald. Burke advised Individual A-1 that there were not “too many people around town that we don't know.” [Id. at ¶ 8]. Then, in December 2016 and at law enforcement's direction, Ald. Solis told Ald. Burke that if he and Ald. Solis assisted Company A's negotiations with Amtrak and helped with other permits, Individual A-1 would retain Ald. Burke's law firm. [Id. at ¶ 10]. Ald. Burke responded, “Okay great.” [Id.]

During the ensuing two years, a series of meetings and conversations revealed the ways in which the two aldermen could assist Company A and Individual A-1 and the aldermen's attempts to retain Company A and its associates for Klafter & Burke. As the Court will describe in detail below, that assistance included access to Amtrak property, approval from the Water Commissioner for a water line, and favorable tax designation (Class L designation) and funding (TIF financing).

Regarding Amtrak, to complete redevelopment work on the Old Post Office project, the redevelopers needed access to Amtrak property located near the Post Office. [30 (Indictment) at Count 1, ¶¶ 1k, 11]. Between December 2016 and June 2017, Ald. Burke took steps to address the Old Post Office's issues with Amtrak but repeated his reluctance to assist the redevelopers until he was hired by Company A. For example, after speaking to an Amtrak employee named

5

Individual A-3, Ald. Burke advised Ald. Solis that Individual A-3 could be “worked with, ” but to date Individual A-3 had no reason to do any favors for the Old Post Office developer. [Id. at ¶¶ 1k, 11]. Ald. Burke further noted that he had not yet been hired by Company A and that Company A had additional properties in Chicago. [Id.] On another occasion, on January 25, 2017, Ald. Burke informed Ald. Solis that he would not take any action benefitting Individual A-1 and...