United States
prosecutes VaxGen vp after Brian Deer's
investigation of AidsVax
Documents
obtained in 1999 by Brian Deer during his Sunday
Times investigation, The VaxGen
Experiment, of California Aids
vaccine company, VaxGen Inc, resulted in
federal prosection of Dr William Heyward,
who as HIV vaccine chief at the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
cheer-led for VaxGen's technology and
arranged federal grants whilst secretly
engaged to join the company. Below is the
2002 annual report from the US Office of
Government Ethics. Unrelated federal
prosecutions are grayed in the document.
On February 24 2003, it was announced
that the trial had failed to show
efficacy for AidsVax
October
17, 2002
DO-02-023
MEMORANDUM
TO: Designated
Agency Ethics Officials and Inspectors
General
FROM: Amy
L. Comstock
Director
SUBJECT: 2001
Conflict of Interest Prosecution Survey
This Office has
completed its annual survey of
prosecutions involving the conflict of
interest criminal statutes (18 U.S.C.
§§ 203, 205, 207, 208, 209) for
the period January 1, 2001, through
December 21, 2001. Information on five
new prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys
offices and the Public Integrity Section
of the Department of Justices
Criminal Division was provided to us with
the assistance of the Executive Office
for United States Attorneys in the
Department of Justice. Summaries of the
prosecutions reported to this Office can
be found on our web site at www. usoge.gov
under "Laws and Regulations."
___________________________________________________________________________________
2001
Conflict of Interest Prosecution Survey
1. United States v.
Jon D. Glassman -- While employed by the
Department of State, Glassman served as
the Deputy for International Coordination
of the Task Force for Military
Stabilization in the Balkans (Train and
Equip Program) until his retirement on
January 2, 1998. At all pertinent times,
Glassman was paid at the rate of level 5
of the Senior Executive Service pay
scale. The Train and Equip Program was
established to assist the Bosnian
Government in developing a stable
military environment. The Program was
funded by various countries including the
United States and oversaw funds
designated for the purchase of military
equipment and training. Glassmans
responsibilities were to secure
international funding, to advise the
Bosnian government on available funds and
equipment, and to monitor the integrity
of the funds disbursement and
negotiation activity.
On January 5,
1998, Glassman began work for Northrup
Grumman (Northrup) as the Vice-President
for International Business Development
for the Electronic Sensors and Systems
Division. On January 6, 1998, Glassman
contacted the United States Embassy in
Bosnia-Herzegovina to inform them that he
anticipated a trip to Bosnia with
representatives from his new employer to
discuss their agreements with Bosnia to
provide air traffic control and air
defense radar systems. Glassman then
requested a meeting for himself and his
colleagues with the American Ambassador
to Bosnia to brief the Ambassador on
Northrups efforts. Prior to the
trip, the Department of State requested
that Glassman provide a concept paper
describing the air traffic control and
air defense radar systems. Glassman
provided the concept paper, in which he
also mentioned the hope of securing
funding from Bosnia for the contracts and
Bosnian support with the United States
Government. A foreign company was the
only other competition for the contracts.
On April 22,
1998, Glassman and other Northrup Grumman
representatives met with the American
Ambassador and other Embassy personnel at
the Sarajevo Embassy. The Government has
evidence that during the meeting Glassman
expressed that he wanted the
Embassys support for the contract.
On July 18, 1998,
the Bosnian government entered into an
$11.3 million contract with Northrup
to initiate the first stage of the
project. On August 13, 1998, Glassman
received knowledge that a Department of
State official told Bosnian government
officials that the Northrup contract was
more than Bosnia needed and the foreign
competitor offered a more appropriate and
less costly package. Glassman contacted
personnel at the Sarajevo Embassy and the
Department of State to gain support for
United States contracts in Bosnia.
The Government
maintained that Glassmans conduct
violated 18 U.S.C. § 207(c), a
one-year post-employment restriction that
prohibits a former senior
employee from communicating to or
appearing before his former department or
agency, on behalf of another person or
entity other than the United States, with
the intent to influence official action.
Glassman denied the allegations. Pursuant
to a civil settlement agreement signed by
the parties, Glassman paid the Government
$10,000, and the Government released
Glassman from its claims under 18 U.S.C.
§ 207.
Prosecution
handled by the Public Integrity Section
of the Department of Justices
Criminal Division.
2. United States v. William L. Heyward --
Dr. Heyward was the HIV Vaccine
Coordinator for the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) until December 1999. While
employed by CDC, Dr. Heyward made
recommendations about, and participated
in the negotiations of, the terms of
CDCs collaboration with a private
company, VaxGen, Inc. At some point
during the negotiations, Dr. Heyward
began negotiating for post-retirement
employment with VaxGen. The Government
maintained that Dr. Heywards
conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 208 for
participating personally and
substantially as a Government employee in
a particular matter in which, to his
knowledge, an organization with whom he
was negotiating prospective employment
has a financial interest. Pursuant to a
settlement agreement dated February 5,
2001, Dr. Heyward paid the Government
$32,500, and the Government agreed not to
proceed criminally on the alleged
violations under 18 U.S.C.
§ 208.
Prosecution
handled by the Northern District of
Georgia.
3. United States v.
Lorenzo Humberto Lucero -- Lucero was a
Cattle Inspector for the Department of
Agriculture. His duties included
inspecting animals that would be brought
into the United States. When the owner of
two horses took the horses to Mexico for
a show, Lucero solicited and received
$500 for assisting the owner in crossing
the horses back into the United States.
Lucero was
charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §§
203, 205, 208 and/or 209. After the
United States filed a motion for summary
judgment, Lucero settled the case through
the entry of an Agreed Judgment in the
amount of $5,000 and resigned his
position.
Prosecution
handled by the Western District of Texas.
4. United States v. Charles Rives Sledge
-- Sledge worked at the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard as a GS-12 Asbestos Control
Project Manager. His duties included
ensuring compliance with all applicable
regulations concerning the abatement and
disposal of asbestos and other fibrous
materials. This required him to become
aware of the abatement plans and
practices of contractors. While employed
at the Shipyard, Sledge also worked as
the training director for the Asbestos
Analytical Associates, Inc. (AAA), a
business owned by Carol Holden that
monitored and tested airborne
concentrations of asbestos fibers. AAA
provided abatement training for C.E.
Holden, Inc. and K&K Contracting,
Inc., asbestos and lead abatement
contracting companies owned by Charles
and Carol Holden. These companies
performed asbestos abatement work at the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
The Government
alleged that Sledge provided Government
contract pricing information to C.E.
Holden, K&K, and AAA. In addition, it
alleged that Sledge allowed abatement
work by C.E. Holden, K&K, and
AAA to proceed when he knew the abatement
plans contained false and fraudulent
information, including training
certificates falsified by Sledge as the
training director for AAA.
The Government
maintained that Sledges conduct
violated 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) for
participating personally and
substantially as a Government employee in
a particular matter in which, to his
knowledge, he had a financial interest.
Sledge entered a guilty plea and was
sentenced to three years probation, fined
$5,000 and given 384 hours of community
service.
Prosecution
handled by the Eastern District of
Virginia.
5. United States v. Denice Patrick --
Patrick was a Senior Attorney at the
Social Security Administration when she
opened her own private practice in 1994.
In her practice, she represented Social
Security claimants against the Social
Security Administration while still
working at the agency. Some of the
outside cases were the same kind of cases
she defended for Social Security.
The U.S.
Attorneys Office for the Western
District of Washington began to pursue a
case against Patrick under 18 U.S.C. §
205, for acting as an attorney before a
Federal agency in connection with a
particular matter in which the United
States is a party. Ultimately, Patrick
admitted to several conflicts violations
at a Social Security administrative
debarment hearing. She entered into a
pre-filing settlement for $113,000 to be
paid in installments over the next 15
years.
Prosecution
handled by the Western District of
Washington.
|