“Wizard of Oz” Gets 30 Months

by Paul Bass | April 25, 2006 3:00 PM | | Comments (7)

A federal judge in New Haven Tuesday let Peter Ellef, the mastermind of the Rowland administration corruption scandal, off easy — because Ellef bombed innocent Cambodian villagers in an illegal war 35 years ago. Ellef is pictured at left on the courthouse steps beside his attorney, Hugh Keefe, who questioned the patriotism of government prosecutors like Nora Dannehy (pictured below).

Ellef, who’s 61, used to serve as co-chief of staff for disgraced former Gov. John Rowland. The feds say he was known as “Oz,” as in The Wiz, for his behind-the-scenes role between 1997 and 2002 orchestrating no-bid government contracts in return for bribes in the form of cash, vacations, limo rides, strip club visits, and illicit payments to family-run businesses.

Ellef pleaded guilty to federal bribery and tax-evasion charges in connection with his role in the scandals that led Gov. Rowland to resign and spend close to a year in jail. In a close to four-hour sentencing Monday in the federal courthouse across from the Green, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Dorsey sentenced Ellef to 30 months in a federal jail followed by three years of supervised release, a $15,000 fine, and 400 hours of community service. Dorsey gave the same sentence to William Tomasso, who paid the bribes in return for the contracts for his family-run companies. (Click here to read the statement Tomasso’s father gave in court Tuesday.)

Prosecutors asked Dorsey to put Ellef away for between 37 and 46 months under federal sentencing guidelines.

However, attorney Keefe appealed to Dorsey’s patriotism. Or at least what Keefe defined as patriotism.

Keefe attacked government prosecutors for not giving Ellef more credit for the combat missions he flew in southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. Keefe mentioned that some of the bombing runs were over Laos and Cambodia, whose rural villages the U.S. was bombing secretly and illegally. Ellef served in the Air Force from 1967-72, according to Keefe.

In their memo to the judge seeking the 37 to 46-month sentence, prosecutors cited Ellef’s “distinguished” military service as a mitigating factor. Keefe went on at length in court Monday about how the prosecutors should have used the word “outstanding” because it would have qualified Ellef for more leniency under sentencing guidelines.

“This shows a total lack of appreciation for military service,” Keefe charged. “I’d like to know if they ever had a military uniform on in their lives.”

Ellef (pictured) “flew 144 combat missions… at the height of the Vietnam War I know your honor has a military background unlike many people in this courtroom,” Keefe said.

Prosecutor Dannehy
said the government didn’t intend to cast aspersions on Ellef’s military record. She told the judge that his character wasn’t the relevant issue, anyway. His conduct in office was, “the way Mr. Ellef violated his position. It goes to the heart of what every citizen of Connecticut deserves — the honest and faithful services of” public officials like Ellef. “He used his position in a corrupt manner to fix contracts and to fix votes. He did not work honestly. He lined his pockets,” and those of his friends, at public expense.

Judge Dorsey agreed in part with both Keefe and Dannehy.

He agreed with Keefe that Ellef served exceptionally in the military and should receive less time in jail as a result. he told Keefe that he didn’t care about the distinction between “outstanding” and “distinguished” service. The judge said he “respects” the federal sentencing guidelines that take that distinction under consideration. But he pointed out that the guidelines are only voluntary — he doesn’t have to adhere strictly to them, especially on such questionable matters of semantics. “One hundred forty-four [missions] — is that ‘distinguished’ or ‘outstanding’?” Dorsey, a longtime critic of the guidelines, asked rhetorically. “What about 156? What about 125? One hundred twenty-five can be more honorable than 250.”

“Mr. Keefe is correct. Sentencing should be individualized,” not beholden to formulas, Dorsey said. “It therefore is appropriate to take into consideration” Ellef’s military and civic record.

On the other hand, Dorsey, who tends to prefer light prison sentences in white-collar case, said he felt it important to hand down a significant enough prison sentence to Ellef and Tomasso to “send a message” to the public that the system takes corruption seriously.

“I am afraid to say the public has [suffered] a very substantial loss of confidence and trust in the system” because of Connecticut’s corruption scandals, Dorsey said. He noted that “no more than 50 percent” of the population votes in elections, that citizens respond to cases like this one with comments like “What more would you expect? They’re all crooks.”

“If the public is not somewhat impressed with the fact that in a court of law people will be held accountable, there will be all the more a loss of a sense of confidence” in the system, Dorsey concluded. He said he hoped the 30-month sentence “will send a message that people in positions of authority will be held into account.”

After the verdict, prosecutor Dannehy said on the courthouse steps said she felt the judge indeed sent that message. “Judge Dorsey is an experienced and compassionate man,” she said. “The government is satisfied.”

So were Peter Ellef and Hugh Keefe, of course. Keefe said Ellef will not appeal his verdict. His jail term begins June 28.

Keefe claimed that he wasn’t questioning the patriotism of government prosecutors when he spoke of them not wearing military uniforms or appreciating the service of soldiers like Ellef. He noted that he used the word “unfair,” not “unpatriotic,” to characterize the government’s brief.

Besides, he said with his characteristic half-grin, while the prosecutors may have disagreed with him on that point, Judge Dorsey did. And that’s what counted.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: nfjanette [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2006 7:32 PM

because Ellef bombed innocent Cambodian villagers in an illegal war 35 years ago.

I would have thought that the reason we bombed Cambodia and Laos is because they were supporting the war effort of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese conventional forces with supply routes and base camps, which was causing the deaths of American and South Vietnamese soldiers.

In any case, Mr. Ellef and Mr. Tomasso have finally been brought to justice and will be punished. Perhaps at some time in the future the state DOT will no longer be known as the "Dept. of Tomasso", and merely known as the "Dept. of Tar" for their anemic efforts toward using trains for mass transit needs.

Posted by: ctkeith | April 25, 2006 10:41 PM

If the Sullivan/Zarella scandal proves anything it's that the referees are as crooked as all the players in this state. The only time a Fix would upset nutmeggers is if it happened in a basketball game.

Throw ALL the bums out.

Posted by: JJones | April 26, 2006 6:58 AM

Let's see . . . Ernie Newton gets five years for chump change bribery, while these guys get 2.5 years for stealing real money. Who says crime doesn't pay.

Posted by: nardis9 | April 26, 2006 10:04 AM

I nominate this story for the Best Lead Sentence of the Year Award.

Posted by: aaron goode | April 27, 2006 2:22 PM

Even the Nixon administration itself knew the bombing of Cambodia was illegal, which is why they lied about its existence for more than year. I can't fathom why anyone would want to justify a policy where up to 250,000 (according to some estimates) innocent people were killed, especially when it also means justifying an appalling level of government secrecy, denial, and every other kind of Nixonian make-believe.

Oh, did I mention the fact that the indiscriminate bombing of Cambodia helped drive thousands of hapless people into the ranks of the Khmer Rouge (a cult-like "people's movement" that arose in the vacuum of power created by the bombing), which in a few short years became responsible for one of the greatest massacres in human history?

Shame on Hugh Keefe for playing the "distinguished military service" card -- it's an outrage. And what a shame that the legal system in CT allows for such ridiculous loopholes!

Posted by: nfjanette [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2006 10:54 PM

Would Nixon's decision to allow the military to strike Cambodia be considered illegal today given the broad executive powers exercised by various presidents? The numbers offered are conjecture, and the thesis that it drove people into the ranks of the Khmer Rouge is debatable. Frankly, the politics of the various factions in that part of the world during those times make no rational sense.

The facts are: Viet Cong and North Vietnamese conventional forces were using Cambodia as a staging area for direct action against American and South Vietnamese forces. There should be no safe place for those that would strike against our military. The policy of fighting a "restricted war" against the enemy was a mistake and disaster that will never be repeated again by our country. You're either in a war and committed to whatever it takes to win or you're not - there's no half-way, which is a good reason to consider carefully the choice to engage in a war.

Posted by: dave in GA | May 6, 2006 11:16 AM

Thankfully the reporter indicated his persuasion early in his story, which allowed me to then consider how his portrayal of the "facts" would be influenced by his harboring of 40 year old biases against Richard Nixon and any vet who served his country when called. While I don't think veteran status of the defendant should be a consideration either way in this particular case I also totally disagree with the reporter's obvious insertion of his leanings regarding the Vietnam war, which are totally irrelevant to his presentation of the facts. It has turned the "news story" into an opinion column and affects how I read it and my translation of the "facts" as presented.
>
Theft is theft, whether done via a note to a teller, at gunpoint over a checkout counter or via cash-stuffed envelopes passed in the dark of night. A violation of public trust thru theft (or whatever cheery term you prefer) is as at the least as serious as presenting a demanding note to a teller and should get at least as severe a sentence regardless of veteran's status. He was trained to obey the orders of his superiors..... up to the point of illegality. An argument might be made for a more severe sentence as his presumed awareness of his responsibilities, whether as a military man or a civilian, should've included his responsibility to obey the law over political considerations.

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35