This is tragic.
A letter from Courtney Stadd:
My sentencing is set for Nov. 6 at 9:30 am. It is located at the Prettyman Courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Courtroom II, Wash, DC 20001 (presided over by The Hon. Rosemary Collyer).
Meanwhile, my aerospace business and family finances are devastated. A friend, a Palestinian who runs a cafe in Sterling, VA, offered me a job in his kitchen – washing dishes and such related duties. (It shows that Jews and Palestinians can indeed work together
!). I was brought up by Great Depression parents to believe that all honest work is noble and so I took it. The owner and his hard working family members, with whom I am honored to work, are great people and teach me everyday about grace and dignity. I spent 30 years in the space world. It was my passion and I miss it terribly – especially being able to participate in the ongoing policy debates. But I realize that that chapter of my life is now closed. My mentor, the late Dr. Steve Cheston, Associate Dean at Georgetown where I was a student, and who had a decisive influence on my interest in space (he introduced me to the late Gerard K. O’Neill), warned me that there might be times in life when space advocacy will be a vocation or an avocation. I guess it will now be a permanent avocation. (I still catch a glimpse of NASAWatch from time to time. And I got up early to watch NASA’s LCROSS mission. Old habits die hard!)
I have tried my whole life to live an ethical and law abiding life. Money and the acquisition of material things have meant little to me. I had a great role model. My late Father spent twenty years paying off debts left over when a business partner of his suddenly vanished. For him, bankruptcy and walking away from those debts was unthinkable. A man’s word is sacred. And, ironically, I was traumatized as a young child watching an equally innocent family friend become entrapped in a legal battle that led him to ultimately end his life. That trauma taught me to be as transparent as possible in all my actions. And I have some close friends and colleagues in NASA, the contractor and entrepreneurial space world that I love dearly. To think that there are those who would seek to associate me with any actions that would reflect negatively on the agency, its people and my meager efforts to give voice to helping our nation’s space program is very painful.
I will gladly devote a lifetime to thanking the many friends and colleagues (in and out of government) who have invested time in sending letters to the Judge about my character. A number of letters are from young people and their parents who described how I impacted their lives in various ways. It is humbling while also awkward and even embarrassing that people are having to take time to share some private anecdotes that I believe that people should do for one another because, well, it is the right thing to do. A handful of people have proven to be fair weather friends but the vast majority have reaffirmed my faith in the basic goodness of people.
Clearly, I made some serous political enemies who have fueled this nearly five year ordeal. (At the same time, I have been exposed to some good souls in the justice system — e.g., guards, court bailiffs, pre-trial services officers — who try, in their own small way, to preserve some sense of dignity for those of us who find ourselves in the defendant’s seat.)
Feel free to print the picture or whatever else you wish. Not much can be done to help me at this point (it certainly won’t hurt) but perhaps my situation will help others.
I have no idea what the future will bring. Surviving on minimal wage can only take one so far. But I have been reintroduced to my roots – the blue collar working class who are the invisible men and women of our society. (My mother was a former waitress and I worked as a youth on an assembly line.) Their work ethic and ability to get up everyday and deal with daily survival issues is pretty inspiring – especially in the face of today’s tough economic challenges. When they sometimes ask what I did in my previous life I find that invariably their eyes light up at the mention of NASA and the world of exploration. Not a few say that they hope that their sacrifices will lead their kids to pursue careers as engineers and scientists and perhaps be part of what many clearly view as uniquely American – pushing beyond the frontier.
God bless you… my former entrepreneurial space colleagues who continue to defy the naysayers, occasionally fail but pick themselves up and continue on to pursue the magnificent dreams associated with space exploration. Please know that I will be applauding from whatever “peanut gallery” I end up residing.
Anyone who knows Courtney and wants to help should send letters to the judge. I hope that we can get him back soon, and fight the good fight for our future in space once again.
I have met Courtney — but I can’t say I know him well. Or, for that matter, his partner, Paul Carliner who, when I first met him, was a staffer for Senator Barbara Mikulski. I do have generally favorable impressions of all three.
I wonder if it would help us all if Courtney did describe — from his viewpoint — what actually happened to him — including naming names. There is a good bit of ugly stuff going on in this country — alas, not all in the space field. And not all of it political, at least in the sense of governmental activity.
Chuck,
There is no way anyone can comment about a legal case publicly two weeks before sentencing.
However, if people want to express their views of Courtney’s contributions to humanity, they can do so to the judge at the above address.
– Jim Muncy
Jim,
I fully appreciate what you say — and I agree completely for now. My thought was aimed at the future. If someone can comment in detail about what happened, it might help us all.
Tonight I am attending the Maryland Space Business Roundtable Annual Gala. I might make some waves there about a different situation. One or two more won’t make any difference. Next week is a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon as well.
I’ve read, and re-read, the available articles about this case. I gotta be honest, I think Stadd’s major failing was involvement with GWB. I’m not finger pointing.
But reading the “facts” of the case, looks like bid’ness as usual with federal money to me. Perhaps Mr. Stadd should run for Congress and them he’ll get the same kind of hands off treatment any elected official would get, given similar circumstances.
Maybe he could get a house in the Caribbean, three rent controlled apts in NYC and then lie on his taxes.
It’s not merely tragic, it’s nauseatingly hypocritical. If Mississippi’s Senator writes in an amendment to a bill giving $3 million to Mississippi State — why, that’s just bringin’ home the bacon, everybody does it , what’s the big deal? But this fellow is supposed to at least pretend to be as disinterested as Caesar’s wife, or he gets sent to the Federal pen with folks who sell crack to teens or solicit capital murder.
I’m sorry, that doesn’t pass the smell test by me. If it’s a crime for a Federal employee to favor his own connections or home state, regardless of whether or not the favor is warranted — I haven’t seen any indication here that MSU is incompetent to fulfill the grant — then it should equally well be a crime when a Senator does it. The idea that there’s one rule for little people and quite another for big people is antirepublican in the worst way.
The other aspect of this that disgusts me is that everybody knows full well that connections matter in government grants. But it’s all supposed to be done with a cynical cover of plausible deniability. Indeed, the more honest you are, the less used you are to dissembling, the more likely you are to be trapped and destroyed. Blech.
If teh facts are as alleged in the indictment he did, in fact, violate the law both because he had a financial relationship with MSU and took ANY interest or action, no matter how oblique, in it’s receiving something of value from teh Federal government, and then for lying about it.
For 18 years, I ran the grants dept for a big recipient of USDOT grants in Chicago, and we were DAMN careful about not violating 18 USC 1001 in our grant applications and our frequent dealings with USDOT and USEPA staff. Furthermore, people who left our area who had ever had any dealings with us (including Sam Skinner, Chairman of teh Chicago area RTA until selected as Bush41’s DOT Secretary and later Chief of Staff) treated us as absolutely radioactive during the statutory recusal period.
If Stadd hit MSU for a raise after he left his temporary NASA assignment, that’s a real smoking gun.
I’m sure he’s a nice guy and I hope the judge doesn’t go overboard, but unless teh indictment is wrong on significant matters of fact, he violated teh law and NOT in just a trivial way.
Maybe he should have applied for a position in the Cabinet.
You forgot to link to this: “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/06/courtney-stadd-exnasa-off_n_172694.html”.
And here is the indictment (PDF): “http://www.folo.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/us-v-stadd-indictment.pdf”
OMG…that this guy has to go to jail for something that congress does every day is simply stunning.
When the hell are we going to elect politicians who will truly “drain the swamp?”
Matt and others–
Congress appropriates the funds and can be as detailed as they want in that regard. It comes down to either Congress directing the funds, or bureaucrats acting under political direction but hopefully within some legal limits. In the latter case, if the indictment is to be believed, Stadd violated those limits.
As a matter of policy I may think Congress goes too far with earmarks and such, but that’s a matter of policy, not law.
Nothing in common between the two situations.
I would be very interested to hear Stadd’s side of it, if the allegations are untrue.
Marty’s completely correct in both his comments. This seems like a sad case but the money and breach involved are very serious.
No, Marty and others have their heads squarely up their smug legalistic asses. The proposition that anything that squares with the law is Good and True, and anything that does not is wretched and deserves the full wrath of the public — jail, ruin — is the kind of nauseatingly amoral point of view one associates with lawyers and other bottom-feeding scum without any internal moral compass at all.
I don’t give a damn what the law says. If the law criminalizes behaviour X when a civil sevant does it, but blesses it benignantly when Senator Blowhard does it, then the law is itself immoral and wrong.
And I should add that I believe the Nuremberg principles: a citizen has no obligation to obey an unjust and immoral law, and indeed may have a positive duty to defy it. The tendency to replace individual conscience with a close parsing of the law is a sad diminuition of what it means to be a free man.
Marty,
that’s BS and semantics.
It IS the same. When Congress does this it’s THE LAW, when my State Legislators do it, it’s THE LAW. When my Mayor, County Commissioners, Dog Catchers do it, it’s THE LAW.
When a temporary NASA employee, that President BUSH chooses, does it, it’s AGAINST THE LAW!!
Aww…bull hockey.
I’ve been around state, federal and local government activities for years. My wife is currently a state employee. This kind of “hand shaking” and friends supporting friends with $$$ is the way it works everyday.
I repeat, Stadd’s “crime” was involvement with GWB.
Here’s a question I’ve not been able to find an answer to on Al Gores interweb.
If this whole transaction, payoff, money shuffle or whatever you want to call it, if it was illegal, did MSU give the money back? Who was Stadd’s “inside man” at MSU? Has anyone found that MSU was not up to the task?
This indictment and case looks like Swiss Cheese to me.
Funny thing: as US senator, Obama earmarked a couple of millions to his wife’s employer, the U of Chicago Hospital, who promptly gave the good wife a close to 300% raise. No violation there?!
MSU has a long and proud history of aerospace research. (Not affiliated, just grew up nearby.) From what little I’ve read, the case is utter BS and just another example of the perversion of justice I’ve come to expect. (I have to wonder if some senator wanted that money for another college.) I wish Mr. Stadd the best of luck and for what it’s worth I’ll have him and his family in my prayers.
I’ve had to start over in life and spent a while washing dishes at a Cracker Barrel, so I can relate in a personal way. My ‘fall’ at least was my own fault and not the result of an unjust prosecution and persecution. Please keep us posted, Rand.
He’s already been convicted so the question of legality seems moot. I would also like to know what happened to the money. If MSU kept it, the whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test.
Carl Pham–
so, you’re comparing a Federal employee who may have illegally steered a contract for financial gain, to the people who engineered World War 2 and the Holocaust, and saying they both would be equally correct in ignoring an unjust order or law? Really?
And as for legalistic, well, if you don’t like 18 USC make it a point to try and get it changed before you throwe the whoe idea of rule of law out the window.
Sharpen the Guillotines—
Yes, when a legislature appropriates funds an directs their use it is not at all the same as a bureaucrat playing sharp practice with directing funds that he is by law suppopsed to direct under striuct guidelines. I don’t like a lot of the earmarking that goes on but I express that by supporting people like Tom Coburn, NOT by trying to direct funds to my clients or friends ontrary to the requirements of the program.
I don’t know Courtney Stadd, for all I know he’s the greatest guy in the world. Based on this post he seems like a helluva guy and that makes me wish the allegations were unfounded. But, if they were true, he did wrong.
Yes, when a legislature appropriates funds an directs their use it is not at all the same as a bureaucrat playing sharp practice with directing funds that he is by law suppopsed to direct under striuct guidelines. I don’t like a lot of the earmarking that goes on but I express that by supporting people like Tom Coburn, NOT by trying to direct funds to my clients or friends ontrary to the requirements of the program.
The only requirements of the program was that they be directed to Mississippi, since it was an earmark by Senator Cochrane.
What Courtney seems to be guilty of was a) making sure that NASA followed the Senator’s direction (in defiance of useful expenditure of the taxpayers’ funds) per instructions from the administrator (his boss) and b) asking the University of Mississippi (his client) for some recognition of this in his consulting pay afterward. The biggest problem was that he wasn’t totally straight with investigators in the initial investigation. At least, that’s what I could ascertain from the trial transcripts that I saw.
Yes, he may have had a lapse in judgment, but his life (and that of his family) and career have been ruined for it. For him to go to jail for it in addition would be a travesty of justice, if not shocking the concience.
Rand,
I appreciate some sanity in support of Mr. Stadd.
IF (and I emphasize the IF) the allegations in the indictment are true, he violated the law. There are such things as prosecutorial discretion, tho, but you never want to put yourself in a prosecutor’s hands like that; his goals are likely the opposite of yours. Given that the indictment only came out last March, I assume Mr. Stadd copped a plea, not that that is terribly relevant.
His biggest mistake, imho, was when asked to come back to NASA he should have just said , “No.” If he really couldn’t sever all his consulting relationships and live with the statutory recusal period, that would have been the safe thing to do, and totally honorable. Obviously I don’t know if someone twisted his arm to come back and I’m certainly not sitting in judgment.
If he felt he had to go back to NASA, he should have cancelled all his consulting contracts and gotten a written legal opinion from NASA’s counsel laying out very specifically what he could and could not do with respect to any former clients. And, upon leaving NASA, a similar LO for what he could do with respect to any contracts or entities that he had dealings with, directly or indirectly, during his stint. Since he was at a very high level, that might have been VERY limiting as to his income prospects during the post-employment recusal period… all the more reason why he might have just said “No.”
He tried to straddle all this (I would say, “have it both ways,” but that has a bad conotation that I don’t feel appropriate) and that seems to be how he got into trouble. And from the indictment, he said some things that indicate he KNEW he was up to the line if not pushing it a bit.
He may have had legal advice that he didn’t have to cancel his consulting contracts, he could just put them in abeyance, but THAT would be a very legalistic interpretation and left him at risk of something bad happening, along the lines of the indictment. If he was producing good value for his clients, which I assume he was, he would be able to re-establish those relationships after leaving NASA and after the recusal period.
I’ve been in state and local govt at a fairly high level for 35+ years, and several billion dollars of grants have flowed through my control. It’s too late for Mr Stadd, but for any other readers, I would offer that you shouldn’t cut legal/legalistic corners. If you don’t want a call from your mother that one of her friends saw something awful about you in the paper, don’t do it… even if the “it” appears legal, but could be twisted or misinterpreted. There are no guarantees, but safety first.
Rand,
another thought—if the MS earmark was the issue, I suspect Mr Stadd would have been OK if he had just called Sen. Cochran’s staff with a heads-up. If the requirement was that the funds go to MS, Mr. Stadd put himself in a very bad situation by urging the money go to MSU, specifically; he then told someone he couldn’t do any more, that he had already done all he could do; and then after leaving NASA he hit up MSU for an increase in his contract (all per the indictment) Yes, it could all be innocent, but from the POV of a federal prosecutor he had put himself in a real bind, esp with that last bit.
Marty,
you ignored my questions about MSU, their ability and anyone there being prosecuted. Usually graft and extotion are two way streets. There have to be two sides to make it a viable criminal proceeding, right?
Otherwise, Stadd bestowed gifts of funds that were not his to give. That’s NOT what the indictment alleges.
Sharpen,
I’m not knowledgeable on whether MSU “gave the money back.” It’s a grant, I don’t even know if it’s spent or not, and I don’t know that MSU did anything wrong.
Don’t understand your reference to there having to be 2 sides… I dont think MSU violates anything by asking about a grant they’re hoping for, but Mr Stadd’s position prohibits him from doing anything in that regard and he shouldn’t have… he probably should have reported the initial email to cover his ass, tho I’m not sure he had an affirmative responsibility to do so. But he certainly should have shut that whole issue down and NOT acted on it.
I have no idea why the indictment didn’t name the “MSU official” in paragraph 14. Don’t know what difference it would make to Mr. Stadd’s case, tho; I suspect, none. Guy probably cooperated with the investigation as the indictment includes quotes from conversations he had with Mr. Stadd. Maybe he didn’t do anything wrong, maybe the Feds want to spare him any embarrassment, I don’t know, but that’s not the issue, anyway.
MSU being “up to the task” is completely irrelevant. Pols or people steering money will always say that the recipient is well-qualified, but in any case taht is no excuse for just steering the money. But the issue is whether Mr. Stadd used his position to benefit himself or others in violation of the laws and regulations (a) establishing how those grants should have been determined, and (b) covering his own interests.
All I can go by is the indictment; if it contains errors of fact, the whole case might look different. But, as written, Mr. Stadd clearly knew he had to avoid any dealings with MSU. But I look at the indictment and paragraphs 15 and later he had an ongoing dialog with the unnamed MSU official and on that person’s behalf talked to another NASA official (Cleave) about that grant program. Statements like “I wonder if we should meet off-campus given my relationship with MSU” are just going to make a prosecutor’s head explode, believe me. In para. 16 of the indictment he actually directed the allocation of funds, and in para. 17 he reported back to “an MSU official.” Para. 19 is really bizarre behavior, it sounds like someone who doesn’t understand the role of even the high-level bureaucrat. Item 21 is also damning and 22 is just over the top given what went before.
I could go on.
I have known people who got in trouble, one guy who got sent away for about 4 years for things a lot less egregious than this appears to be. A LOT less.
Hell, if the invoice in Para. 21 had been sent USPS instead of FedEx, Stadd would have also had a mail fraud count.
I don’t know Mr Stadd, I assume some of you do, and anyone with friends so loyal must have a lot to recommend him. But if the facts are as alleged, he was way wrong on this one.
This ain’t rocket science (sorry!) or brain surgery—he was recused from any business dealings with MSU and he talked to an MSU official about a matter of financial interest to MSU that was within his purview while he had a contract with MSU so he, too, had a financial interest; he DIRECTED a subordinate to allocate funds in a way that materially increased MSU’s chance of getting a large grant; he was paid for doing so; he said things that indicate he knew he was at or over the edge; and then he lied about it to federal officials. That’s what the indictment alleges, citing claimed facts. Unless those facts are untrue, it’s pretty straightforward.
ic–
You’re absolutely correct about the U of C Hospitals job for Michelle, but unless you can find a smoking gun there’s no violation of law, at mst a violation of Senate ethics and we all know how impartially and aggressively Congress punishes its own.
Some time I’ll explain to you the corrupt deal teh Obamas got on their house, courtesy of Tony Rezko, if you would like.
But none of that has anything to do with Mr. Stadd
Why is someone who doesn’t know Mr. Stadd (Marty) and is in a fairly high level position for 35+ years that has handled billions of dollars in grants interested in this issue? How in the world does such a busy person find the time to parce out and explain, at length, the details of the indictment, offer considerable analogous circumstances to the charges, claim absolutes and do all this with a seemingly unsullied rigtheous character? I will not say I am suspect of the intentions. I’m guessing this issue simply captured Marty’s eye and he took the time to thorughly study the case and make sure he “had the last word” in the blog list on the subject. I do know Courtney and I know of others who have suffered the bent of legalistic persecution. I can assure you, Marty, with 35+ years and billions in grants, you have a history that even an amateur sleuth could selectively find some violation. I bet you would even be startled to read the indictment. I have known no one with higher integrity than Mr. Stadd. I sought his friendship and counsel for that very fact and because of similar space interests. I know no one less focused on personal agrandizement and wealth accumulation than he. His selfless dedication to non revenue generating idealistic pursuits would embarrass many philanthropic icons. I, like you Marty, have spent many years with state and federal government operations dealing with grants, proposals and the like. I have also spent many years in the military and the private sector. I avoid manipulative characters with self interest appetites. Courtney avoids them also. That may have been his failing. In every discussion I have had with those that know Courtney and are aware of the circumstance he finds himself in today the reaction is the same, “stunned silence, disbelief, it must be a mistake.”
Dave,
At every point I made it clear that what I was writing was only based on the indictment and if the indictment was incorrect my thoughts would change.
I came here via Instapundit, the link just caught my eye, but with a background in grants it piqued my interests so I did a little digging. What I saw here was a fair number of commenters not saying that the indictment was wrong on the facts, about which I would have nothing to say, but that the law wasn’t what I know the law to be or there is something unjust about a law that prevents govt staff steering contracts, or not understanding the diff between a legislative appropriation process and an administrative discretionary grant. It seemed worthwhile to correct that. Again, I tried to make clear that I was not passing judgement on Mr Stadd as a person, and that my comments took the indictment at face value which I wouldn’t have said if I didn’t understand that indictments can be wrong or misleading, that prosecutors can have agendas, etc.
As for your disparaging comments about me, personally, well, I can live with that.
Oh, and the reason I felt it worth the time to comment at length was really and truly trying to help others who seemd to be well-meaning but had misconceptions that could place them at risk, to avoid stepping into a legal mess due to misunderstanding the law.
But, hey, whatever…