Brent "The Enigma" Wilkes Continues to Drain Taxpayers

Another Winning Hand for "The Enigma"

It’s been a long time since we heard from Brent “The Enigma” Wilkes. But the Enigma is back, baby!

Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Wilkes a new hearing in his case in San Diego federal court.

Wilkes, you may recall, was the sleazy defense contractor at the center of the Randy “Duke” Cunningham bribery trial. Cunningham steered defense contracts to Wilkes, who used the money to live high on the hog. He was poker buddies with Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, once the No. 3 guy at the CIA.

In 2008, Wilkes was convicted of bribing Cunningham with prostitutes and other goodies and sentenced to 12 years prison. By all rights, he should be there. But Wilkes, the master manipulator, continues to game the system.

The 9th Circuit allowed Wilkes to go free on bond pending his appeal. While Cunningham, Foggo and others do time, Wilkes runs around playing poker at San Diego casinos (where he goes by the nickname “The Enigma”). Meanwhile, his taxpayer-funded attorneys bombard federal prosecutors with reams of paper on his behalf. What a fucking waste.

Now it looks like the legal maneuvering by Team Enigma will drag into a fourth year. Your taxpayer dollars bought Wilkes more time because The Enigma’s lawyers argued successfully that the judge presided over Wilkes jury trial failed to read the minds of the judges 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The trial judge, Larry Burns, declined to grant immunity to one of the government’s witnesses that Wilkes wanted to call for his defense. According to the 9th Circuit, this was a no-no because Burns failed to apply the 9th Circuit’s holding in a separate, unrelated case that was decided after Burns made his ruling. Wow. Just wow.

All of Wilkes other arguments were brushed aside, including one that I found particularly interesting: Why was Cunningham never called to testify. According to prosecutors, “one of the reasons the Government did not call Cunningham at trial was because prosecutors did not trust him to refrain from fabricating testimony that he believed would help the prosecution (and thus enhance his chances for a reduced sentence).”

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s