– 287 –
Oral History of Henry F. Schuelke, III
Eighth Interview
March 21, 2013

This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society
of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewee is Henry F. Schuelke, III, Esquire, and the
interviewer is Louis R. Cohen, Esquire. The interview took place on March 21, 2013. This is
the eighth interview.
MR. COHEN: This is the eighth session in the oral history of Henry F. Schuelke, III. I’m
Lou Cohen, and let’s begin. This is being conducted on behalf of the Oral
History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia
Circuit. We ended last time with some discussion of your work for the
Board of Directors of Halliburton and I guess the first question; well
actually let me ask this question. How, what was your arrangement with
the Board? Can you sort of further describe your role in relation to the
projects you undertook?
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes. As I think I indicated when last we met, when from time to time the
company becomes the subject of an SEC or a Justice Department
investigation, most often in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act arena, the
company, that is management, retains outside counsel whose initial charter
is to conduct an internal investigation to ascertain the facts and, thereafter,
either to negotiate with the Government a possible resolution short of
litigation, or in theory at least, to litigate with the Government.
The independent directors of the Board, that is nonmanagement
members of the Board, owing both to their fiduciary responsibilities to the
shareholders and owing as well to the independent directors’ desire to
– 288 –
have the Board comport itself in exercising its fiduciary responsibilities so
as to eliminate or at least minimize the risk of potential shareholder
derivative liability, thought it appropriate and prudent to have counsel
separate from that which represented the management of the company.
And so, both with respect to Boston Scientific, which we had discussed,
and Halliburton, the independent directors of the Board engaged me to
serve that role. And so I would, in cooperation with counsel for
management keep myself informed of developments both throughout their
internal investigation and then with respect to their negotiations with the
Government so that the Board was kept informed by one who was
independent of management. Because after all ultimately it’s the Board
that’s got to make the decision whether to and on what terms to settle
matters with the Government. And so that’s essentially how that
arrangement has worked.
MR. COHEN: Were there privilege issues in that relationship? I mean can the counsel
for management who is conducting the matter directly communicate freely
with you as a lawyer for the independent directors?
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes. It’s the corporation which is the holder of the privilege, not
management as independent of the Board nor the Board as independent of
management, and so both outside counsel engaged by management and
counsel engaged by the Board serve the same client ultimately. I have
never seen this to occur but it’s conceivable that you could have an
interesting attorney-client privilege issue arise when you have a member
– 289 –
of senior management, or actually it wouldn’t even have to be senior
management, who engaged separate counsel with respect to the same
matter and while that counsel and counsel for management would have a
common interest or a joint defense relationship, which would preserve the
privileged character, it’s conceivable to me that you could have a situation
in which the Board, while it might enjoy a common interest, would not be
or want to be perceived to be in a joint defense in a situation with such an
individual officer or employee. I have not seen that arise but it’s
conceivable to me that it could.
MR. COHEN: Because there might be counsel for individual managers or individual
inside directors in some circumstances?
MR. COHEN: That would create further complications?
MR. SCHUELKE: It could. It could.
MR. COHEN: How many, roughly or exactly, of these Halliburton episodes have there
been, I mean, occasions when you have been called in?
MR. SCHUELKE: I have served the Board in this capacity since 2006, and in the ensuing
seven years I think there were four separate and distinct investigations, all
of them into allegations about Foreign Corrupt Practice Act violations.
I’ve also, on behalf of the Audit Committee of the Board, conducted an
investigation and made findings and recommendations to the Board on the
subject of internal finance and accounting issues that were raised by a
whistleblower within the company; and once I had concluded that work
– 290 –
and the Board made the judgment to waive the privilege, I shared my
findings and conclusions with the SEC, which was satisfied and closed the
investigation. With that one exception, they were all FCPA cases.
MR. COHEN: And the whistleblower then proceeded independently or…
MR. SCHUELKE: Made a claim against the company for discriminatory treatment,
constructive wrongful termination, because he was in fact not terminated.
I did not represent the company or the Board with respect to that. That
wasn’t a Board issue that was a management issue, and that was resolved
to the company’s satisfaction. So that’s essentially what the nature of that
work has been.
And as I believe I said earlier, I have particularly enjoyed this
work for two reasons: One, I have been very much impressed with the
Boards of both Boston Scientific and Halliburton. All fascinating, highly
experienced, insightful and serious-minded people to a person. A wide
range of personalities, to be sure, but they all fit that description. And
secondly, because as I think I may have observed earlier, I’ve had
occasion in my work for both of those Boards to have the pleasure of
collaborating, if you will, with three different law firms who served as
outside counsel for management and we operated in a completely open
and cooperative fashion and I was in the luxurious position in each of
these situations of being able to tell the Board when asked that the
company couldn’t be in better hands with their outside counsel, which is a
nice place to be.
– 291 –
Let me wrap this subject up with some general observations about
the Justice Department’s and the SEC’s emphasis on enforcement of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which has been a priority for each of them
for at least the last ten years. To be sure, where that statute has been
violated by assorted companies and individuals over the years, putting
aside for the moment what one might think about the social utility of that
statute and its enforcement, about which I have some reservations, and so
sure, there have been cases that were appropriately pursued and
prosecuted. There are many of them, most of them at least in my
experience, which provide the Government with an opportunity, in the
form of fines, to reap an enormous financial return far out of proportion to
the seriousness of the conduct involved. Company A gets a subpoena
from the Justice Department, the company engages outside counsel to
conduct an internal investigation as well as to obviously respond to the
demand in the subpoena. Because the operations of many of these
companies are far flung, I mean after all we’re talking about foreign,
alleged foreign corrupt practices, undertaking such an investigation is time
and labor intensive and it has been commonplace for a company to incur
tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to investigate such a matter. Fifty
million has not been unusual. Ultimately, when the Government comes to
the conclusion that it’s prepared to settle the case on some basis, the
companies more often than not, far more often than not, agree to negotiate
a resolution, which has resulted in the Department by its own account,
– 292 –
independent of the SEC, receiving on average several billions of dollars a
year in fines and penalties, and in the SEC receiving comparable numbers.
MR. COHEN: Really? It’s that high?
MR. SCHUELKE: Most of these corporations, even if in their judgment they had a triable
case are, for assorted economic reasons, not in the position to litigate with
the Government; most often that’s because of the draconian collateral
consequence of suspension and debarment from Government business
simply upon the return of an indictment. And so as a business proposition
it makes sense in most of these cases for the company to put the matter
behind it even though it costs them in addition to the fifty million dollars
or so they spent in legal fees another several hundred millions of dollars.
My view of this, as I step back from an advocate’s position on behalf of
any client; it just seems to me to be extortionate, and I don’t see that
changing any time soon. It’s been a huge boon for the Justice Department
and the SEC but it…both as a lawyer and as a citizen I find it distasteful.
MR. COHEN: I’ve heard it said that it has also been a boon for foreign multinational
corporations from countries that do not impose such restrictions. One
such country for many years was Germany which of course has companies
competing with U.S. companies in everything U.S. companies do
everywhere. Thoughts about that?
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes, I do. I share that view which is why I expressed reservations about
the social utility of the FCPA in the first place. You know, the Justice
Department has long taken the position, which I find to be patronizing,
– 293 –
that the real interest in the enforcement of that act is the financial
wellbeing of the citizens of a number of countries around the world whose
economies are suffering and you’ve got despots, dictators or otherwise
corrupt governments at the top of some of these countries. And according
to the Justice Department, if some American company pays a ten million
dollar bribe to a senior government official that somehow deprives the
people of that country of funds that would support government social
programs. Well, that’s never made any sense to me because whether the
minister of petroleum of Country A receives a ten million dollar bribe that
he deposits in a Swiss bank account or not, I don’t see what impact one
way or the other that has on the local economy and the working class of
the country. But that’s how the Justice Department proselytizes.
MR. COHEN: I would suppose that the issue was depriving the citizens of the foreign
country of the honest services of their leaders and governmental personnel
and that that could hurt them if, you know, some minister or general
awards a contract to one company rather than another based not on the
merits but on who’s paying him.
MR. SCHUELKE: No, I agree, and that’s a more sensible analysis in my view although I find
that sort of patronizing as well. You know, if an American corporation
pays such a bribe in order to compete on a level playing field with foreign
corporations who labor under no such constraints as the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, it seems to me that the onus is not on the American law
enforcement authorities to police whether or not there are losses of honest
– 294 –
services in some foreign country. Now, for many years the United States
was the only major commercial power which imposed any such
prohibitions on business practices. And so during that time the U.S.
business operated at a distinct competitive disadvantage. The Justice
Department has labored mightily over the last 15 years or so to encourage
other countries, Europe in particular, to (a) adopt and (b) enforce a similar
regime, and the OECD has indeed adopted comparable legislation. But its
enforcement is lax, and so U.S. corporations still operate at a significant
competitive disadvantage as a result. So that’s sort of my philosophical
take on…
MR. COHEN: Halliburton is of course a well-known and over the years has been a
controversial company in part because former Vice President Cheney, who
is associated with them, was a controversial guy. And I’m just wondering
whether there’s anything more you feel you can say about Halliburton and
its activities in particular, recognizing that we are making a public record
MR. SCHUELKE: Well, let me say only the following: It’s true that while Dick Cheney
served as the chairman of the company for a brief period of time,
Cheney’s subsequent unpopularity as a political figure proved to be a
problem for the company. Not in a substantive way because in fact,
certainly after he had left the company, Cheney had nothing whatever to
do with the business of the company. But you know one would read every
time there was some claim brought against the company, “Oh, this is Dick
– 295 –
Cheney’s company,” which got a lot of folks exercised. So I think the
company suffered ultimately from that relationship. It’s interesting to note
that one of the most publicly visible chapters in the Halliburton story
involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act involved the conduct of the
now former chairman of Halliburton what was then a Halliburton whollyowned subsidiary, KBR, Kellogg Brown and Root, and that one figured
prominently in the press because KBR had a series of very large contracts
to support and supply the troops in Iraq. And there were allegations, much
of them overblown and on which Halliburton eventually prevailed, that
KBR had bilked the Government in some of these contracts in Iraq. There
was also a substantial FCPA case involving oil services operations in
Nigeria. KBR prior to the resolution of that latter case was spun off and is
now a wholly independent corporation. But Halliburton the brand
suffered from that association as well. And the work of KBR at the time
of the allegations about the Government contracts in Iraq represented
about 1% of the annual revenues of the Halliburton Corporation. So given
the publicity attendant to that investigation and its resolution, it was
always portrayed as Halliburton is making all this money through its
fraudulent contracting practices with the U.S. Government. Simply not so.
MR. COHEN: Halliburton was also involved in the Macondo well, the Gulf oil spill.
MR. COHEN: I guess that remains unresolved?
– 296 –
MR. SCHUELKE: That’s correct. Halliburton was a subcontractor through BP and provided
the concrete slurry mix which was designed to seal off the well bore.
You’re right, that has not been resolved and they have unfortunately been
finger pointing at one another which I think is unfortunate because in truth
I think the two of them really have and ought to have a common adversary
and shouldn’t be pointing fingers at one another. I mean, my view of that,
and I’m not any longer involved in that, I did early on in the BP
investigation represent a senior BP executive whose involvement in that
matter has been resolved and that’s a closed matter. But I was close
enough to it to have formed a pretty strongly held opinion about the merits
of the Government’s claim that BP and/or Halliburton and/or Transocean
which owned the rig were criminally negligent. I think this is one of those
terribly unfortunate accidents that cost the lives of I think it was nine
individuals who had been on the rig and of course an enormous amount of
ecological damage to the Gulf Coast. But accidents do happen, and I think
that this is an example of the Government, the Justice Department getting
way out ahead of itself in publicly stating that there would be criminal
charges brought in this case before anybody knew what had happened, and
that wish has been father to the thought. For example, a dear friend of
mine, a lawyer in Houston, represents one of three individuals who’ve
been criminally charged in that case. His client and one other were both
on the rig at the time of the explosion. The third has been charged with
making false statements before the Congress about what the actual flow
– 297 –
rate of the spill was between the time of the explosion and the time that
the well was finally capped. But these two fellows who were on the rig
were sort of midlevel engineers; one of them who is represented by my
friend in Houston, was on that rig for the first time starting several days
before the explosion occurred. He himself, of course like everyone else on
the rig, was at personal lethal risk if indeed they were engaging in
negligent conduct. The issue was what’s been called a negative pressure
test and there were what the crew on the rig thought to be anomalous
results of this negative pressure test, and they couldn’t quite figure out
what it meant and they debated it among themselves for several hours.
They consulted with more senior engineers at BP back in Houston, and
they finally came to the conclusion that it did not pose a significant risk.
Well, in retrospect they were wrong. But analyzing such test results and
debating about its significance and consulting with senior engineers seems
to be the prudent thing to do, kind of the antithesis of negligence because
the negligence standard is not whether or not you proved to be right in the
last analysis, it’s whether or not you exercised ordinary care in the
process, which it seems to me they did. But, you know, the Government
wants a couple heads.
MR. COHEN: It occurs to me that there may be lots of people including perhaps even
some other oil companies that would rather have history’s resolution of
this be to blame the negligence or worse of individuals associated with BP
and the other companies, rather than, as you said, “accidents do happen,”
– 298 –
because if you start with accidents do happen you might say well that’s
why we shouldn’t be drilling in such sensitive areas in the first place.
MR. SCHUELKE: That’s an excellent point and I can understand why other oil companies
might have that view.
MR. COHEN: Did you get any sense; have you gotten any sense…
MR. COHEN: That that is what happened?
MR. SCHUELKE: No. No, and the Justice Department of course is not acting as a result of
that sort of motivation. But no, I’ve not seen or heard any indication that
competing oil companies would be happy to see the fault placed on a
couple of negligent individuals. So that’s a troubling one for me.
MR. COHEN: Let’s move to a completely new subject.
MR. SCHUELKE: All right.
MR. COHEN: The, it came to be known as the Abramoff investigation, in which you
were involved. Why don’t you start by describing what it was all about,
and then your role?
MR. SCHUELKE: Jack Abramoff was the senior Greenberg Traurig Washington lobbyist in
the firm’s lobbying practice. Greenberg Traurig is a Florida firm. It’s
headquartered in Miami. Its lobbying practice and the leadership of that
practice were actually in Tallahassee because most of their lobbying work
was with the Florida legislature. And as a result, because Abramoff
developed a quite substantial practice here in Washington, he was like the
800pound gorilla, who was in a position to pretty much run his practice as
– 299 –
he saw fit, with little effective oversight by the senior people in the group
who were in Florida. Abramoff had a significant number of clients who
were Native American tribes who had casino interests around the country,
and he lobbied on their behalf both with respect to federal legislation, with
respect to Bureau of Indian Affairs executive branch issues and with
respect to assorted state legislatures. The story broke with a series of
newspaper articles in Louisiana which reported that one of the Louisiana
tribes, the Coushatta tribe had spent tens of millions of dollars in fees with
Greenberg’s group; and a number of dissident internal tribe political
figures came to the view that they had wasted most of this money and got
very little as a result. That prompted both congressional and justice
department investigations.
MR. COHEN: This is all about 2006?
MR. SCHUELKE: 2000….no, I think it was 2004. Yeah, early in 2004. Greenberg Traurig
engaged me to conduct an internal investigation so that the firm would be
informed as to what transpired and would therefore be in a position to
make a judgment about whether or not the firm as a firm had appropriately
represented these clients, and to the extent that the firm concluded that it
had not, it would be in a position to negotiate such claims as the clients
might have against the firm. A further charter of mine was to cooperate
on the firm’s behalf with the Justice Department in its ongoing
investigation. It’s a very interesting and somewhat convoluted story. So
let me see if I can boil it down to its essentials. Abramoff approached a
– 300 –
number of the tribes, pitching them for business on the following terms. I
will represent you before whatever cognizant agency, whether it’s the
Congress or the Executive Branch, and I will do it for a flat fee of X
dollars per month (and the X dollars was fairly substantial). It was in the
neighborhood of a couple of million dollars a month. But, he told them,
you’re going to be flat wasting your money unless you also engage a firm
to do grassroots work and the best in the business whom I strongly
recommend is a firm called I can’t remember the name they used at the
moment, but it was a firm if you can call it that which was really a sole
proprietorship which was run by a guy who’d been a staffer for Tom
Delay when he was in the House and his business was run out of a
beachfront home in Rehoboth, Delaware. And so that, and so the tribes
would say well okay if you say that’s what we have to do, that’s what we
are going to do. And the grass roots guy would then make a proposal that
he would, he would perform these services for, in one case $2.75 million.
In the event, he probably devoted maybe $200,000 worth of effort to this
project which the tribe was paying $2.75 million for. And as ultimately
became apparent, he and Abramoff had a 50/50 profit sharing relationship.
So Abramoff, who had urged the tribe to hire this guy, got half of the
$2.75 million, and they repeated that gambit many times over with
different tribes.
MR. COHEN: So this was outside of the Greenberg firm?
– 301 –
MR. SCHUELKE: Oh yeah. Well some of Greenberg Traurig’s resources were devoted to
some of this. But, yeah, this grassroots was an independent outside
operation. We, after three maybe four months into our investigation, had
developed access in a searchable fashion to all of the Abramoff group’s
email, where what I just described to you was made abundantly clear and
expressed often times in some of the most insulting terms with respect to
their clients a bunch of dumb Indians, they’re not going to know any better
and so on. I on behalf of the firm shared the results of our investigation
with the Justice Department. The Justice Department of course conducted
its own sort of parallel investigation. But I think it’s fair to say that our
initial investigation and our review of the email traffic was the principal
source of evidence for the Justice Department, which ultimately brought a
case against Abramoff who also had a separate totally unrelated criminal
case in Florida, and he served I think what amounted to about four years.
One of the cases that received a fair amount of press attention was that of
one of his younger colleagues whose name is Kevin Ring, RING. There
were six or eight young lobbyists working for Abramoff who resolved
cases by disposition on fairly liberal terms probation, six months of home
confinement or three months of confinement. Ring went to trial twice.
The first trial ended in a mistrial owing to a deadlocked jury, and he was
found guilty in the second trial and was sentenced, by Ellen Huvelle
actually, to some… I think it…
MR. COHEN: … of the U.S. District Court here…
– 302 –
MR. SCHUELKE: District of Columbia. It was either three years or three and a half years,
and he is presently serving well, no wait a second. No, yeah he is. I think
the Circuit affirmed his conviction. And it was very interesting to me, and
I never quite understood this but the case against Ring was charged as a
conspiracy to violate the federal gratuity statute because in addition to
what I described about the methodology with respect to the tribal clients, it
was the practice of Abramoff’s group very aggressively to wine and dine
members of Congress and their staff, and Abramoff owned a restaurant on
Pennsylvania Avenue at the time.
MR. COHEN: What was it called?
MR. SCHUELKE: Signatures. Abramoff’s group hosted fairly elaborate dinners most nights
of the week, attended by members of Congress, senior members of
congressional staff, and there were tickets to concerts and athletic events
and so on. And so Ring was basically charged with this conspiracy to
violate the gratuities statute and a series of substantive gratuities counts.
What always mystified me was why they didn’t charge him with garden
variety fraud which seemed to me to be a far easier case for them to make
and really addressed the most significant conduct; because Ring, through a
contact he had, brought one of these tribal clients to Abramoff as a
potential client and Abramoff did his typical pitch to that tribe hire me,
pay me X but you have to hire the grassroots outfit and so on. And Ring
for his efforts was paid by Abramoff and the guy who ran the grass roots
operation several hundred thousand dollars as kind of a bonus for his
– 303 –
having brought this client in, and Ring knew very well where the money
came from and he knew ultimately from his client and he knew that there
were no meaningful services provided for that. But for whatever reason…
MR. COHEN: Was Ring an employee of Greenberg Traurig?
MR. SCHUELKE: He was a shareholder. That firm is a corporation and so the analog to the
typical law firm partner is a shareholder in the corporation. So, yeah, he
was a shareholder in the firm, and he was relatively young and aggressive
and learned how to do business from Abramoff. But it’s interesting that
given their relative positions in the hierarchy of that operation, he ends up
serving almost as much time as Abramoff did which makes very little
sense to me. So that was the Abramoff affair.
MR. COHEN: Did, was the firm ever charged with misconduct?
MR. COHEN: Was it ever sued by the tribes in connection with all this?
MR. SCHUELKE: The firm settled claims of a number of these tribes to their satisfaction. I
don’t remember but I don’t think that any of them actually filed suit
against the firm. I think they were claims, were entertained on a formal
basis and the firm settled. I may be mistaken. There may have been one
or two that actually filed suit, but they were all resolved in that fashion
because the firm from the very first took responsibility for Abramoff’s
MR. COHEN: Connecting this with our earlier discussion on the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, I can remember Stanley Sporkin, who of course was the
– 304 –
almost legendary Director of the Enforcement Division of the SEC, saying
“it sticks to the pipes” when you have corrupt practices. The people who
are engaging in them take their cuts as well. This is sort of an example of
MR. SCHUELKE: It surely is. It sure is – it’s a very good example of that. It was a sad story
for the firm to be sure. But I think the firm acquitted itself well and did
the right thing. And while theoretically the firm had exposure on a
respondeat superior basis, the Justice Department from the very beginning
until the end was of the view that the firm effectively cooperated, mostly
by making me available to the Justice Department, and had acted
responsibly, and the Department never expressed any interest in pursuing
the firm.
MR. COHEN: New subject?
MR. SCHUELKE: All right.
MR. COHEN: Stepping back, we had listed your representation of Carolyn Huber when
she was in the Clinton White House as something we were going to talk
about and I somehow let us pass that without our talking about it. But
why don’t we go back to that and describe the situation and what you did.
MR. SCHUELKE: Carolyn Huber had worked for a long time for the Clintons starting when
they were in the governor’s mansion in Arkansas, and served as a personal
secretary and bookkeeper for both Hillary and Bill Clinton. When he was
elected president, she came with them to the White House to serve a
similar role. She became a witness in the course of Ken Starr’s
– 305 –
investigation and also in the course of the Senate Banking Committee’s
investigation of the so-called Whitewater matter. As you may recall,
Hillary Clinton had worked as a partner in a Little Rock law firm while
Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, and there became a question
about work that she had done while in Arkansas for which the Rose Law
Firm, where she had been a partner, could not produce records. So that
became known as the Rose Law Firm records issue, and this was the quite
mysterious and quite publicly commented-upon gap.
MR. COHEN: They were described as billing records.
MR. SCHUELKE: They were billing records. And lo and behold, one day years later,
Carolyn Huber was in her East Wing office where on the floor she had
several boxes that had assorted junk in them including personal things and
a couple pairs of shoes and assorted papers and what not, and she was
sorting through that to clean up the mess at one point and came upon this
folder of the famous missing Rose Law Firm billing records. And she
testified before D’Amato’s Banking Committee and in the course of a
series of informal interviews with Ken Starr’s staff about the provenance
of these records as I just described it. She was simply a witness. She had
no personal exposure. But the abiding question was whether or not her
account of the discovery of these records was actually truthful or whether
in some fashion, Hillary Clinton, who as this theory has it, had been sitting
on these records for some time, arranged to have Carolyn discover them so
– 306 –
that they ultimately could be produced. The truth of the matter is
anybody’s guess.
MR. COHEN: How was the discovery of the records announced? I can’t quite
remember. Did Hillary say my staff or Carolyn Huber found these?
MR. SCHUELKE: No, no. The Clintons were represented by David Kendall of Williams &
Connolly. Carolyn reported this discovery to me. I alerted Kendall, and
Kendall produced them in response to the subpoena.
MR. COHEN: How did Carolyn come to you? Had you known her before?
MR. COHEN: Do you know who suggested you to her?
MR. SCHUELKE: I’m trying to recall. I think she was referred to me by Kendall at Williams
& Connolly at a point earlier than this discovery of the records. I’m pretty
sure that’s the way that came to pass.
MR. COHEN: Why would she have needed a lawyer at an earlier point?
MR. SCHUELKE: Because there were other personal records of the Clintons which she had
maintained which were the subject of a subpoena.
MR. COHEN: What’s Carolyn Huber doing now?
MR. SCHUELKE: I don’t know. I haven’t had an occasion to speak to her in quite some
time. She and her husband moved back to Arkansas, I know that. But
exactly what she’s doing, I think they are basically retired. Her husband
had been a long time federal government employee, retired, and they
moved back to Arkansas. So that’s that story.
– 307 –
MR. COHEN: Okay, we’ve covered a lot of your remarkable and remarkably interesting
career. Before we move on to personal stuff, is there anything else that
you are thinking of at the moment that we haven’t covered that…
MR. SCHUELKE: There’s one case from fairly early in my private practice career which I’ve
always found interesting and amusing which I don’t believe we’ve
discussed. I think it was 1982. So I’d been in private practice for two
years basically when I was engaged to represent a fairly small engineering
and mining company from Albany, Georgia, and they had been engaged in
turn by a prolific tax shelter promoter from the West Coast who had
conceived of a plan which he put in operation to mine placer deposits, that
is the gravel in river and stream beds and banks, for gold at a time when
the price of gold had spiked to like $450 an ounce. It sounds like a matter
of financial insignificance today given the price of gold, but it was
substantially more than gold had historically traded, making it
theoretically profitable not to mine actual gold veins in mountains, as they
did for years in Telluride for example, but rather to mine the gravel, sift
the gravel and you know if you managed after a month’s work to come up
with you know 200 ounces of gold or 500 or whatever it was, it was
potentially profitable.
MR. COHEN: As they presumably did down the river from Telluride in Placerville.
MR. SCHUELKE: Presumably so. The tax shelter scheme worked as follows. At the time,
this is prior to the Tax Reform Act in 1986, one who invested in mining
operations could realize a quadruple deduction from ordinary income
– 308 –
taxation for the value of the investment. So if you were a high income
individual and you invested a half a million dollars in this placer mining
operation, you could realize a two million dollar tax deduction. So
whether you ever made a nickel from the actual produce of the mine was
of no consequence. The trick to this, however, was that each investor was
required both under the tax laws and under the Securities and Exchange
Commission regulations to independently control and own the property
which was to be mined. Now this outfit commenced these placer mining
operations in two locations simultaneously. One, in the jungles of Panama
and two, in the jungle of French Guiana completely inaccessible until my
client built a so-called all-weather road through to the jungle and very
difficult and expensive to operate. So there’s no way for an individual
investor who is willing to spend a half a million dollars could have dreamt
about even commencing such an operation. So the tax shelter promoter,
whose name will come to me in a moment, conceived of this structure that
was created in an effort to comply with the applicable SEC regs whereby
you take a stretch like say a mile long of this given river in Panama or
French Guiana and survey it off in little squares of maybe 10,000 square
feet per, sell for the investor’s half a million dollars an individual sole
ownership interest in this 10,000 square foot little plot so that the mining
operation could sift the gravel all the way down this ten-mile stretch of the
river and in theory Lou Cohen owned this 10,000 square feet, Hank
Schuelke owned the adjacent one and we all independently of course hired
– 309 –
the same mining operator to do it and theoretically that was going to meet
MR. COHEN: Sounds like old SEC orange grove case.
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes, and the same guy had earlier done a similar tax shelter promotion for
film in Hollywood by selling individual frames of a film to investors.
MR. COHEN: The theory of this being that he therefore wasn’t selling securities.
MR. SCHUELKE: Correct. So I mean that was sort of you know interesting enough and the
SEC investigated it for several years, and my client , the mining company,
was ultimately exonerated and was never charged criminally whereas the
tax shelter promoter was and he’s still to my knowledge serving time now
25 years later.
MR. COHEN: For violations of the securities laws or the tax laws or both?
MR. SCHUELKE: Both, and he was also tried and convicted in state court in Indiana and got
15 years there and he’s serving this time back-to-back. But here’s the
interesting part of this to me. I made several trips both to Panama and to
French Guiana. The SEC, the individual principal lawyer from the
Enforcement Division whose name is Joe Goldstein, who became a good
friend of mine as a result of us having met on this case, was of the view
that there was no mining operation. He thought this whole thing was
made up out of whole cloth. Well that wasn’t true, and so first we, we
being Pierce O’Donnell. I don’t know if you know Pierce. Pierce had
been a Supreme Court clerk, went to work for Williams & Connolly right
out of his clerkship, led an associate insurrection because they were upset
– 310 –
about the fact that Paul Wolfe was not made a partner when he thought he
should have been or they thought he should’ve been. That was the end of
Pierce O’Donnell at Williams & Connolly. Pierce moved out to L.A.
First thing he did was run for Congress. He is an amazing character and
has had a very long and successful career as a litigator in Los Angeles. So
we hired a professional Hollywood film company. We flew them all
down to French Guiana to film the mining operation which we did. The
… you know French Guiana is actually a department of the Republic of
France. So you’re in France when you’re in French Guiana and there’s
lovely little capital city, Cayenne, and Air France flies in there. We flew
Air France from Los Angeles on that trip I think and then it’s about 20
miles north to the river which is the border between French Guiana and
Suriname where there’s a tiny, tiny little community whose principal
historic claim to fame is that they had a guillotine and many French
criminals were shipped from France to French Guiana to be executed.
(Well, why they bothered to do that, I don’t really know.) Then there was
a road that my client’s company had built through the jungle from there
about 30 miles inland into the jungle, which was a quite hazardous and
although they called it an all-weather road it was near impassible in any
number of points. And so the company had left behind bulldozers in
various spots. So if you drove in a four-wheel drive vehicle and you got
stuck in the mud, there was a bulldozer there that could winch you or haul
you out or push you out or whatever. There was also a small grass airstrip
– 311 –
at the mine, and I flew in there twice on a little single-engine Piper. But I
wanted to transit the road itself so I was personally in position to you
know represent what it was like. Well, Goldstein decided that he wanted
to see this himself and I felt…
MR. COHEN: This is all to show that the mining operations are real?
MR. SCHUELKE: Yeah, yeah. ‘Cause he, he, he basically believed that this was all bogus,
that the tax shelter promoter was raising… had raised all of this money
and he raised over a hundred million dollars. He claimed that he was the
Roger Maris of tax shelter promoters because he had set a new record over
a hundred million. And Goldstein was determined he was going to go
visit and he was going to bring a mining engineer that the SEC had hired
which he did. So I told him that I would be happy with the assistance of
my client to make the arrangements to get him to the mine, and initially,
he said, hmm, okay until he heard what the plan was. He was to go to the
Grand Hotel in Paramaribo which is the capital of Suriname right across
the river where at the appointed hour I would have a driver who would
take him to the river whereupon he’d be handed over to a paddler in a
dugout canoe who was going to take him across the river where he would
be met on the other side by somebody from our company who would take
him out this all-weather road to the mine site. Now, I had in fact arranged
this. I had actually on one of my trips, done this myself just to check it
out, and it would’ve worked just fine. Well, Goldstein heard about the
dugout canoe and “no thank you”. So somehow he made arrangements
– 312 –
and he got himself to Martinique and then from Martinique to Cayenne
and I met him there. And then we drove up, and I wanted him to
experience this road. I didn’t want to take him in on the plane. That was
much too easy. And so we took him to the mine. And he had his engineer
with him and I have pictures of Goldstein and me standing on this barge in
the middle of the river with this placer mining conveyor belt on it in this
sweltering heat. You know we’re in our shorts and what not and I, it’s a
great picture and I think he’s the current custodian for many years now. I
would have the picture in my office for a year or two and then I’d see him
at some occasion, I’d give it to him and he’d keep it for a couple years
hanging on his wall and I think he remains the current custodian. So that’s
the famous, as one of my partners referred to it, bowling for … mining for
tax dollars cause there used to be some show bowling for dollars …
MR. COHEN: That’s a great, that’s a great story.
MR. SCHUELKE: And it was great fun, great fun and we did the same if… Joe didn’t go to
Panama but, but I made the trip to Panama also and I remember in order to
get to this mine site in Panama at a point we could, you could no longer
drive, and we had to hike several miles including crossing a river (small
river, piranha infested so we were told) on a fallen tree. Its span was like a
creek. And so you had to balance yourself and walk across this which we
did. We also had, we had government, Panamanian government ‘cause
my client had these connections. We had a Panamanian Army helicopter
which flew us as close as they could get to the mine site and back. So,
– 313 –
yeah that was great fun. And this guy, I’ll think of his name in a minute,
the tax shelter promoter one of the smartest and most creative people
you’d ever meet if only his creative energies had been devoted to
something legitimate. Jerry … his, his operation was paying the legal fees
on behalf of my client. You know like a corporation would indemnify an
individual for his legal fees. And one day, a group of us were in Panama
City in connection with the trip to the mine. And at the time there were
numbered bank accounts available in Panama much as they were in
Switzerland. And in those days, they were impenetrable basically by U.S.
authorities. So, Rogers … Jerry Rogers. So we’re having a drink one
night before dinner…
MR. COHEN: And that’s the name of the tax shelter …
MR. SCHUELKE: Promoter.
MR. SCHUELKE: So Rogers took me aside and said to me I understand that Wayne, Wayne
Fowler was my client, I understand that Wayne owes you X. You know
you could open a numbered account here in Panama and I’ll arrange
simply to have it deposited and your partners won’t even know about it.
MR. SCHUELKE: That was Jerry Rogers. No thanks, Jerry. Great stuff.
MR. COHEN: So the accounts were impenetrable even though the United States has long
had considerable influence in Panama.
MR. SCHUELKE: Oh yes, but the banking laws, the bank secrecy in Panama, as was the case
until very recently in Switzerland, was pretty much impenetrable. So U.S.
– 314 –
tax authorities weren’t going to get access to the bank account records. So
that’s the famous mining for tax dollars case.
MR. COHEN: I once went across the Mekong River on a raft in Laos, which is the
closest I can come to a comparable adventure. Well should we talked
about your family?
MR. SCHUELKE: Sure. We did that at the outset I believe talking about my …
MR. COHEN: Your birth family, yes.
MR. SCHUELKE: I was married in 1968 while I was six months or so into my four-year
tenure as an Army JAG officer. I was married to a woman whose name is
Ginny Traina and we had two children. My daughter Ginna (Virginia)
Schuelke Neyens was born in October 1969. My son Hal who’s Henry F.
the Fourth, was born in ’73 – turned 40 years old today as a matter of fact.
Ginny and I were divorced in 1974. We have certainly while the kids
were minors had a very agreeable cooperative relationship in the interest
of the kids. They spent every weekend with me. She lived in Chevy
Chase so it was quite convenient. I lived in Georgetown for most of that
time, and we had a grand good time. I had as I may have told you, I had a
friend who moved to Telluride [Colorado] in the early ‘80s and I was
traveling back and forth to the West Coast on business quite frequently
and so I would stop to visit in Telluride which is how I became introduced
to Telluride. And then each Christmas for five or six years when the kids
were still young, we went to Telluride for a ski holiday over the Christmas
Holidays which is how the two of them got introduced to Telluride.
– 315 –
MR. SCHUELKE: When my daughter graduated from college at the University of Wisconsin
in Madison and was contemplating graduate school, she decided she
wanted to take the proverbial year off and be a ski bum. So she went to
Telluride. That was 1971. She remains in Telluride, now married, has
two little girls who are five and three years old and she and her husband,
Mark, are doing wonderfully well. They love life in Telluride and they’re
never leaving the mountains. My son…
MR. COHEN: What do they do for a living?
MR. SCHUELKE: He is an electrical contractor who has a terrific business which even
throughout the recession since 2008 has done reasonably well. As you
undoubtedly know as a part-time resident of Telluride, the construction of
mega homes has been extensive over the last 20 years, and it is pretty
much unabated. And so his company does all the electrical work for
these, you know, 15,000 square foot mansions that are being built up in
the mountain village and…
MR. COHEN: What’s the name of the company?…
MR. SCHUELKE: His name is Mark Neyens, NEYENS and the company is Pinnacle
Electric. And what…
MR. COHEN: I don’t have such home but I may need it.
MR. SCHUELKE: Well, he’d be he’d be happy to help. One of his clients is Jerry Seinfeld.
And not only did he do all the electrical work on these two homes he built
up outside of Telluride, but it’s like a lifetime sinecure because Seinfeld’s
wife wants to change everything like every two months.
– 316 –
MR. COHEN: I’ve been through there because actually the neighbors on both sides of
him are good friends of ours.
MR. SCHUELKE: Yeah, I understand it is on the market. My daughter who did, before she
was married, virtually everything a young person could do in a ski town,
waitress, bar tender, ski instructor, ski patrol and so on, works for
Telluride Property Management Company, one of several that do property
management maintenance for largely absentee homeowners because many
of them are there for a couple of months a year and the homes are rented.
MR. SCHUELKE: And that’s been great for her because she can, with the little children,
she’s able to do much of that from home. They did, until about a year ago,
they lived down in Rico, and Rico is about 27 or 28 miles from Telluride.
Actually, it’s probably 27 or 28 miles from what they call Society Turn.
And so that’s a long commute particularly in winter weather conditions
when Lizard Head Pass is closed and so now they’re in Telluride proper.
So she can take the kids to school and spend a couple of hours in the office
and so on so they’re doing great. My son, Hal, and his wife, Wight, a
good Atlanta, Georgia girl…
MR. COHEN: …Wight!…
MR. SCHUELKE: …Wight. It’s a family name, W I G H T. Sarah Wight. Her maiden
name was Sarah Wight Floyd and so, of course, a lot of people who
remember Pink Floyd have always referred to her as Wight Floyd. She
was in Telluride for a couple of years after college, was a good friend of
my daughter, Ginna. Hal, my son, went out to visit a couple of times, met
– 317 –
Wight and for a couple of years they had a long distance relationship. She
then relocated to Atlanta. He went to college at the University of Oregon,
and then they both decided to move back to Telluride. And so they moved
back to Telluride and spent about three years. And then he came back
East because he always wanted to pursue his lifelong interest in the
culinary arts, so he got a degree from Johnson & Wales in Charleston, and
they lived outside of Charleston on Sullivan’s Island while he was doing
that. And then he got an internship, which is a requirement of the last
semester at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, North Carolina, which is a
beautiful place.
MR. COHEN: That’s where they hold arts and crafts fairs.
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes, and they also have this elaborate Christmas time gingerbread house
national competition. I’ve stayed there many times since they have lived
in Asheville, and it’s a very nice place. When he finished his internship,
they offered him a job, he took the job, he worked as a sous chef for a
couple of years, got very tired of that, went to work for a very nice upscale
restaurant in Asheville, was a sous chef for another couple of years, had
intended one day to open his own restaurant. But once they decided to
raise a family, he decided no, he did not want to be at the restaurant until
2:00 o’clock in the morning every night. And so he went and got a
residential real estate license and he’s been selling real estate in Asheville
and doing, doing well. They have two boys, Henry Frederick V and I’m
doubly honored because they call him Hank, who’s now – he’ll be seven
– 318 –
in October. And his little brother, Hyde, which is another of Wight’s
family names. Thomas Hyde is his name and they call him Hyde and he’s
five. And they’re both terrific kids. They’re great fun. And as I told you
earlier, they went out to Telluride yesterday to celebrate Hal’s birthday
and so all the cousins are together and they had a great old time together.
MR. COHEN: I’ve told you I too have a seven-year old grandson Henry.
MR. SCHUELKE: You did.
MR. SCHUELKE: After Ginny and I were divorced, I was single for ten years. I met my
wife, Julie, through my partner, Larry Wechsler, actually. She had earlier
been married to a guy who is also a friend of mine. His name is John
McCarthy. And Wechsler and McCarthy went to GW Law School
together. And McCarthy and Julie were married while they were still –
while he was still in law school. So Larry had known her since they were
kids in law school. And one day in 1987 sometime, Julie was making a
career change and went into the commercial real estate business with the
Julien Studley Company here in Washington. And she was doing a little
marketing among potential law firm clients. So Larry buzzed me one
morning and said I’m going to have lunch today with Julie McCarthy; do
you want to join us. I said, “No no no, I’m too busy.” And then I
happened to be walking through the reception area of our office while she
was sitting there waiting for Larry and I said, mmm I think I have time.
And it was actually several months after that that we started dating. But
we did and we were married in October of ’88. And I had two years
– 319 –
earlier bought property south of Annapolis on the bay and moved from my
house in Georgetown and it’s two and a half acres on the water. The
house was an 1876 frame farm house which I loved and actually was a
quite charming little house. I told Julie when we were getting married that
living on the bay was nonnegotiable for me; she lived in northern Virginia
at the time. She said okay, but she always from the beginning had a plan
to do something about this house because while it was charming it was an
1876 structure with no closets to speak of and she’s quite the cook and the
kitchen wasn’t to her liking and so on. So we spent about ten years
actually looking for alternatives. We looked at a lot of property on the
Eastern Shore, which probably would have meant that we’d have to get a
place in town as well. And you know we’d find property that I liked and a
house she didn’t like, or we’d find a house she liked with a property I
didn’t like and never actu—we made offers on a couple of them that never
were consummated. And then finally, now eight years ago we decided,
because we liked the current property, to build a new house on that
property. And so we built a house which is to her liking. She basically
designed it, working with an architect, of course, on a different site from
the original house. We lived in the old house while the construction was
underway and after we moved to the new house we tore the old one down
and there we are.
MR. COHEN: An 1876 house and you tore it down?
– 320 –
MR. SCHUELKE: Yep. It was not protected by any kind of historic easements. We actually
did what’s called deconstruction of the house. We engaged a firm that
specializes and they—and they basically take the house apart to salvage
everything that can be donated to a 501(c)(3) like Habitat for Humanity.
So all the windows, doors, fixtures, hardwood floors, even some timbers
from the house all were donated and we had a substantial tax deduction
from the donation.
MR. COHEN: Hmmmm.
MR. SCHUELKE: And the cost of the deconstruction was also tax deductible. And so by the
time they finished, all that was left of this house was the foundation, a
couple of chimneys. And so we had another contractor came in and
leveled that and graded the area. So you would never know now that there
had been a house there.
MR. COHEN: Why’s the cost of the deconstruction deductible?
MR. SCHUELKE: Because that’s the cost of the donation.
MR. COHEN: Okay, good. Did you, did you buy the original house because you’re a
MR. SCHUELKE: I’m a power boater and a fisherman, and I had a boat which I kept down
there not too far from there while I lived in Georgetown. And that was
fine. But I became increasingly tired of living in the city. I lived only a
block from the Georgetown University campus; 35th and N, and parking
was impossible. I had the largest collection of parking tickets in history, I
think. I actually had two cars for a couple of years, which I had to park on
– 321 –
the street. And I had this lovely carriage house with a courtyard and every
Saturday and Sunday morning there’d be broken beer bottles in the
courtyard because the kids toss them in there and I just got sick of it and I
have always had the attraction to the water. I grew up in New Jersey and
spent most of my summers at the Jersey Shore and have been boating
since I was a little kid. And I had never really formulated much of a plan
to do this. But one weekend my parents were down visiting and I took
them out on the boat and I had never been up this particular creek before,
but we were just kind of cruising around. And I went up this creek, here’s
this house, for sale sign on the dock, and I thought, hmmm. And I went
back a week or so later, that was at the end of the summer, early fall, all
excited, I was going to buy this house. And I tied up at the dock, went up
to the house, very nice couple, they said no, no it’s under contract. So
much for that. But by that time I was convinced I wanted to do this so I
engaged the real estate broker down there to look for properties. And to
make a long story short I learned in the spring that their contract had fallen
through, and so I bought the place, did a fair amount of renovation to it,
which all went when it got torn down, of course. But Julie and I lived in
that house for, yeah, ten years. Ten? No, a little more than that. Twelve,
I guess, before we built the new one.
MR. COHEN: And you, to this day commute, essentially every day from there.
MR. SCHUELKE: I do, I do.
MR. COHEN: How long does that, does that take?
– 322 –
MR. SCHUELKE: An hour. You know, at off times you maybe you can do it in forty-five
minutes, at the worst time it can take you an hour and fifteen minutes. But
I came in this morning, left home about ten after nine, took an hour
MR. COHEN: But it’s this side of the bridge.
MR. SCHUELKE: It’s this side of the bridge. And I’ve been doing it so long that I’m
completely inured to it, you know it really doesn’t bother me.
MR. COHEN: Do you listen to books, or music?
MR. SCHUELKE: No, no. I am, I mostly listen to the news on NPR and some music, yeah.
So, and for many years, you know, Julie and I would always drive
separately because we wanted to have the flexibility not to have to wait for
the other, you know? And we’d spend most of the time driving home on
the phone, talking to one another all the way home.
MR. COHEN: So she continued to work in Washington in real estate?
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes, yes.
MR. COHEN: Does she still do that?
MR. SCHUELKE: She is mostly retired. She has one project she’s working on for a big firm
in town and she plans to retire completely when that’s concluded. So she
only comes into town now maybe once a week. So I don’t have her as my
chauffeur in my current crippled state. [At the time of this interview, HFS
was recovering from Achilles tendon surgery.]
MR. COHEN: What, what other adventures should we talk about? You are a
– 323 –
MR. SCHUELKE: Well, yes, my two recreational passions are boating, I have a forty foot
sport fishing boat, and I’ve done a lot of offshore fishing, billfishing.
MR. COHEN: Say that again, bill?
MR. SCHUELKE: Billfishing, it’s sailfish, marlin, and we belong to the Ocean Reef Club in
Key Largo, Florida which has a spectacular marina. And for ten years
Julie and I ran that boat down to Key Largo every fall and back in the
spring in the fond hope that we’d have the time to spend some meaningful
time down there during the winter, which never materialized. You know,
we’d go down for a week and I’d have some business crisis and I had to
come back. And actually that happened on most of the trips down and
back as well. And for me it became somewhat tiresome because I—there
wasn’t much of an adventure left in it because I’d done it so many times,
and I was tired of, you know, getting to Charleston and having to leave the
boat for two weeks because I had to be back here or in Houston or in some
place only to return a couple weeks later and make another leg of the trip.
So I tired of it and we haven’t done it now in three or four years, about
which Julie is not happy because she loved that trip. She’s a great, she’s a
pilot, her license is no longer current, but she has been a licensed airplane
pilot. And so she’s an accomplished navigator and she loves doing that on
the boat as well. And she loved getting away because she would sort of
pretend that she was unreachable by clients or what not, and so she really
enjoyed that. But I still have the boat right at home. It’s literally in my
back yard and, and we do some cruising on the bay. And you could spend
– 324 –
your life doing that. I mean there are so many interesting places on the
Chesapeake that I’ve yet to see. The shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay is
eight thousand miles and you could spend several lifetimes exploring it,
and I fish. And I particularly enjoy being able to do that without having to
devote an entire weekend to it. So I could get up on a Saturday morning
and decide I want to go fishing and go fishing for a couple hours and be
home at noon and do something else. I also as you mentioned have a
collection of motorcycles both vintage and modern. Although I’m
particularly interested in the vintage bikes and I’ve always been a bit of a
gearhead. I do my own work on them which I enjoy. It’s great mental
therapy. And Julie rides as well, and so we’ve had a number of fabulous
trips, we particularly like the Rockies and the far West. And most every
summer for the last five or six years we would do a ride out west. A
couple of times we took our own bikes, not, we didn’t ride them out
MR. COHEN: So I should picture you on separate bikes?
MR. SCHUELKE: Separate bikes, yes. Julie is the epitome of the independent woman. She’s
not riding behind.
MR. COHEN: Or in front?
MR. SCHUELKE: Or in front. Although she’d rather ride in front if I were the passenger, I
suppose. So a couple of times we trucked or trailered the bikes out west.
But that became sort of a waste of time. You know, it’d take you three
days to drive to Salt Lake City, for example, which we did once. And then
– 325 –
rode for two weeks in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and then you’re going
to drive back three days. So in the last ten years or so there are good,
reputable folks who rent motorcycles most every major city. So you can
fly, rent a bike. So that’s what we’ve been doing. So we’ve rented bikes
in Salt Lake, rode through southern Utah into southwest Colorado making
Telluride kind of a home base because my daughter was there. We’ve
done that from Grand Junction. We’ve done it from Denver, one…
MR. COHEN: Have you ever been to Gateway, where there’s the old car museum?
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes. It’s just barely east of the Utah border, along the Dolores River.
Fabulous ride from Telluride. I’ve done it many times. It’s owned by the
guy who was the founder of the Discovery Channel.
MR. COHEN: And it’s a beautiful place. And we’ve stayed there, it’s a beautiful hotel.
MR. SCHUELKE: Gateway. So we’ve done that a number of times. One trip for example
we went Denver, Leadville, Telluride, Moab, couple other stops in
southern Utah, visited a couple of National Parks, Arches, for example,
Sedona, and ultimately Phoenix, and turned the bikes in and flew home
from Phoenix. Great trip. Another trip we did L.A. to Bend, Oregon,
rented bikes in L.A., rode up the Pacific Coast Highway all the way to
Bend, flew back from there.
MR. SCHUELKE: But I love riding in southwest Colorado and southern Utah. The weather
in the summer, as you know, is fabulous. You rarely get any rain. It’s
maybe, in the high country, you know, it’s seventy, maybe seventy-five
– 326 –
degrees and some of the desert in southern Utah can be eighty-five or
ninety. But it’s dry and it’s pleasant. The roads are great and there is no
MR. COHEN: You ever spend any time in Grand Staircase Escalante?
MR. SCHUELKE: Yes, we have ridden…
MR. COHEN: Fabulous place.
MR. SCHUELKE: We’ve ridden through there. And so that’s a, that’s sort of what I do for,
for fun. I have a brother outlaw, I call him, my first wife’s brother who
has been a buddy of mine since we first met in 1968. Lives in northern
New Jersey. Also has a collection of vintage bikes. One of which is in
my garage where it’s been for five years since he bought it because I
arranged the purchase because the bike was down here. And he has been
meaning, of course, to get it back, but never has. So he comes every
month or so, and we tinker on the bikes, and we ride, and I live five miles
from pretty much undeveloped, minimally developed, rural countryside in
southern Anne Arundel county. So within five miles of my home I’m out
on this lovely two-lane black top country road with very little traffic, I
know every bend and every road in south Anne Arundel County. And so
we can go on a Saturday afternoon and ride for an hour and a half, stop
and have lunch somewhere, ride an hour and a half back, and it’s just
MR. COHEN: Terrific, good.
– 327 –
MR. SCHUELKE: And I’m looking forward to doing southwest Colorado again this summer,
and God willing I’ll be able to do that.
MR. COHEN: The cast that’s currently on your leg will be gone by then.
MR. SCHUELKE: It will be gone by then, and hopefully I will have completed my therapy
and I’ll be good to go.
MR. COHEN: Terrific. Well, why don’t we cut it off here.
MR. SCHUELKE: Well great. Well you’ve been very kind.
Oral History of Henry F. Schuelke, III
Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem, 78
Abele, John, 281
Abramoff, Jack, 298-303
Coushatta Native American tribe, 299
Greenberg Traurig lobbyist, 298
respondeat superior exposure, 304
Signatures restaurant, 302
Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, 229
Alaska, Girdwood, 204, 208
See also Stevens case
Ali, Mohammed, 85
Allen, Bill J., 209, 215, 21, 22, 23, 234
Assistant Attorney General
Kott and Kohring trials, 204
Altman, Bob, 141, 148, 168
Anderson, Dave, 221
Antonelli case, 77, 106, 111-112, 115, 120, 122, 143
Antonelli, Nick
bribery, 103-106
Madison National Bank Board of Directors, 102
PMI Parking Garage, 101, 115
See also Yeldell, Joseph
See also Williams, Edward Bennett
witness stand demeanor, 112
APD (Anchorage Police Department), 239
Armscor, 154, 158, 160
Arnold & Porter, 175
Assistant U.S. Attorney. See Cole, James; Lehr, Michael; Schools, Scott; Schuelke, Henry F. III.
Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Criminal Division. See Allen, Bill J., Friedrich, Matt.
Atlanta Journal Constitution, 45
Attorney General. See Holder, Eric
Autism Society, 161
aversive treatment, 162
BA (Bill Allen), 233
Baker, Howard, 173
Barry, Mayor Marion, 88
Baruch, Bernard, 25
BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), 147, 152
Beizer, Rick, 77, 101, 106, 107, 116
Benedictine monks, 9, 14
and sports, 7
Brown, Father
judo expert, 7
Bennett, Bob, 169, 175, 176, 182, 196
gregarious and jokes, 178
Berg, Terrence, 248
Berliner, Henry, 182
Blackburn, Dr. Brian, 74
Blank Rome, 229
Boehm, Joseph, 230, 236
Bonds, Barry, 271
Boston Scientific case, 288
Delaware law, 284
Boston Scientific Corporation, 199, 282, 283, 285, 290
Irish production line, 280
Israeli business connection, 279-280
medical device failures, 279
regulatory issues, 278
Bottini, Joe, 219, 220, 222-223, 225, 232-235, 237, 240, 243-244, 252
Boylan, Mary (great-grandmother), 1
BP (British Petroleum), 296, 297
Brady case, 218, 222, 223, 236, 237, 240, 241
disclosure, 211, 266
nondisclosure, 217
obligations, 87
violations, 70, 212
Braman, D. C. Superior Court Judge Leonard, 87, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99-100
counsel table rule of decorum, 94
Rule 29 motion, 83
Braman, Norman
Philadelphia Eagles owner, 90
Brightest Guys in the Room, The, 258
Bureau of Indian Affairs, 299
Bush, President George W., 67, 285
Bush Administration, 66
Calhoun, Georgia, 141
Carpenter case, 266-268
wire fraud and securities fraud, 266
Carter Administration, 66
Carton, Eleanor Ann (mother), 2
dietition St. James Hospital, 5
terminal illness, 6
St. Elizabeth’s College, 5
Carton, Washington Edward (grandfather), 2, 4
Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, 52
Cathrou, Margaret (grandmother), 1
Cayenne, French Guiana, 310, 312
Chadborne, Jim, 24
Charlottesville, Virginia, 39, 45
Cheney Vice President Richard, 285, 294
Chilovitz, Nick, 141, 142, 145
Christensen Brothers Builders, 205, 206, 221
Christian, William, 79
Church of Scientology, 76
Clark, John, 82, 85
Clemens, William R. (Roger)
mistrial, 272
trials, 271-272
HGH (human growth hormone), 273
Clifford & Warnke, 141
Clifford, Clark, 141, 145, 148, 168, 169
CM2H Hill
purchase of VECO, 210
Code of Judicial Conduct, 181, 184-185, 189
Cohen, Lou, 126, 131
Cole, Deputy Attorney General James (Jim), 251
Collins, Edward, 24
Congress. U.S.
Abramoff, Jack, 302
Military Justice Act of 1968, 35
Republican Senate majority, 169
wire fraud, 265
Connick, Harry, 70
Cooke, Jack Kent, 116
Corcoran, U. S. District Court Judge Howard, 175
Court of General Sessions. See D. C. Superior Court
Court of Military Appeals, 43
Court Reorganization Act, 57
Courts of Military Review, 43
Cozen O’Connor, 25
Craig, Greg, 120
CSI Miami, 133
Cubic Corporation, 140-141
Cunningham, John, 25
D.C. Bar, 179
D.C. Circuit. See U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
D.C. Court of Appeals. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), 76, 82, 86, 96, 124
Firearms Identifications Branch, 127
D.C. Superior Court. See Superior Court of the District of Columbia
D’Amato Senator Alphonse, 176, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 305
investigation, 150
D’Amato, Armand, 198
honest services fraud theory, 265
indictment and conviction, 277
Second Circuit reversal, 277
Daddy King (Martin Luther King, Sr.), 144
Delay, Tom, 300
Democratic Party, 66, 196
Denel SOC Ltd., 154, 158, 160
deposition taking, 196, 197, 223, 225, 228, 229, 275
Depression, 3-4
District of Columbia. See Washington, D.C.
District of Columbia Bar. See D.C. Bar
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 57
Kramer, Judge Noel, 191
District of Columbia Department of Human Services, 106
DMZ. See Viet Nam
Dodd, Senator Chris, 172
Double Muskie Restaurant, 208
DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
autism definition, 163
Dunnells Duvall Bennett & Porter, 175
Duvall, Dick, 175
Eckstein, John, 230, 233, 239
El Paso, Texas, 31
eminence grise, 168
Enron case, 257, 262
Bureau of Prison’s alcohol treatment program, 263
discovery, 262
Houston, 261
Southern District of Texas, 262
wire fraud, 265
Evans, John, 83, 84
evidence to the grand jury, 73
Exxon, 30
Falls Church, Virginia, 35
Farrakhan, Louis, 78, 80
Fastow, Andy, 258, 259
FBI, 82, 3O2, 216
Chicago, 89
FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), 152, 289, 290, 291, 292, 295, 303
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 225
Fifth Amendment, 71, 228
First American Bank, 147
Flannery, U. S. District Court Judge Thomas
nominated to the District Court, 56
U. S. Attorney, 56, 63
Floyd, Sarah Wight (daughter in law), 316
Ford Administration, 66
Foreign Relations Committee, 169
Fort Bliss, Texas, 31,32, 33, 45
Fowler, Wayne, 313
French Guiana, 308, 309
Friedman, U. S. District Court Judge Paul, 241
Friedrich, Matt, 228, 237
Gallaudet University, 134
Gesell, U. S. District Court Judge Gerhard, 77, 115- 118
Antonelli case, 105-106
Giglio v. United States, 217, 218, 236, 240
Giuliani, Rudy, 202
Glavin, Rita, 228, 237, 238
Glisan, Ben, 258, 259, 260
Goeke, 220, 222, 223, 225, 232
Goldstein, Joe, 309, 311
Gordon, Steve, 74
Gore, Vice President Al, 156, 157, 158
Greenberg Traurig, 298, 299, 301, 303
Griffin, John, 79, 86-87, 95, 98
acquitted, 90, 99
first, 83
second, 89
third, 90, 99
Griffin, Joe, 95
Grindler, Gary, 146
Guadalajara, Mexico, 27
Gupta case, 271, 274-275, 277
Habitat for Humanity, 320
Haig, Alexander, 168-171, 174
Hale & Dorr, 280, 285
Halleck v. Berliner case, 182, 185, 186
Code of Judicial Conduct, 181, 185
Halleck, D. C. Superior Court Judge Charles, 179, 180
reappointment, 182
Halliburton case, 152, 284, 285, 289, 290, 294, 295, 296
Audit Committee of the Board, 289
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 287
Macondo well oil spell, 295
oil services operations in Nigeria, 295
Hanafi case, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 86, 94, 95, 97, 99, 122, 139
Griffin, John, See Griffin, John
Muslim murder case, 70
Lysistrata version, 99
Harvey, Ronald, 79, 81, 83-85, 87, 95
Hayakawa, Senator Samuel, 173
“Heard on the Street,” 266
Heflin, Howell, 196
Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, 197
Heymann, Roger, 161
HGH. See human growth hormone
Hoffman, Dustin, 165
Hogan & Hartson, 175, 180
Holder, Attorney General Eric, 227
Holland & Knight, 74, 175
Home Rule Act, 179
homicide cases, 60, 72-74, 122, 127
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 251
Houston, Texas, 262
Hoyt, U. S. District Court Judge Kenneth, 263
Huber, Carolyn, 200, 201, 304, 305, 306
Hueys. See Viet Nam 50
Huvelle, U. S. District Court Judge Ellen, 301
Jaffe, 215, 226
JAG Corps (Judge Advocate General), 17, 23, 28-31, 34, 39, 44, 48, 51-52, 59, 314
courts martial, 32, 36
staff judge advocate’s office, 31
South Korea, 37
work load, 48
Janis, Dick, 140, 147, 149
Japan, 39
Jencks Act
Jencks material, 119, 239
Jesuits, 7, 14
rigorous education, 15
Johnson & Wales, 317
Jonas, Steve, 280
Jones, Diane P.
Antonelli juror, 114
Joy, Chad, 212, 213, 219, 222, 226
Judicial Tenure Commission, 183-195, 224
disciplinary function, 185
Julien Studley Company, 318
Keating Five, 176, 196
Keefe, Bob, 280
Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), 295
Kenai River Classic, 221
Kendall, David, 115, 120, 306
State Department, 121
White House counsel, 121
Kennedy Administration, 29
Kepner, Mary Beth, 213, 216, 226
Kessler, U. S. District Court Judge Gladys, 193
Key Largo, Florida, 323
Khalis, Amina, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 95, 97, 98
arrest, 96
mistrial, 98
Khalis, Bibi, 80, 81
Khalis, Hamaas, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100
antiSemite, 92
criticisms of Elijah Muhammad, 79
Khalis, Khadija, 82
Kiely, Margaret (grandmother), 2
King, D. C. Superior Court Judge Rufus, 191
Kirkland & Ellis, 215
Kleindienst, Richard, 65
Knorr, Lena (great-grandmother), 1
Kohring, Victor, 204, 231-235
Korea, 37, 39, 41, 45, 48
2nd Division, 49
7th Division headquarters, 46
housing, 45
spouses, 45
Kott, Peter, 204, 231-235
Kramer, D. C. Court of Appeals Judge Noel, 191
Lamberth, U. S. District Court Chief Judge Royce, 57
U. S. Justice Department’s Civil Division Chief, 58
Lance, Thomas Bertram (“Bert”), 142-146, 168
OMB director, 141
Rule 29 motion, 143
Lance, Labelle, 146, 147
JAG Corps, 34
military justice system, 42, 55, 58
salaries, 28
Tenure Commission complaints, 183
trial lawyers, 91, 118
unprepared, 184
U.S. Attorneys’ Office, 60, 65
Lay, Kenneth, 263
Leavenworth. See U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth
Lee, Bill, 280
Lehr, Michael
“no chair Lehr,” 108
Levi, Cyrus, 125, 126
Loucks, Michael, 280, 281, 282
Macondo well
negative pressure test, 297
Madigan, Mike, 173, 178
Madison National Bank, 102, 107
Mandela, Nelson, 154, 155
Mara, Al, 9
Marsh, Nicholas, 214-215, 220, 225, 232-234, 237, 240
Martin Luther King Sr.
Bert Lance trial, 144
Martinique, 312
Matthews, Art, 148
Mbeki, Thabo, 154, 156, 157
McCarthy, John, 318
McGee, Ernest Timothy, 78
McGwynn, Marty, 25
McNally case, 198, 265, 267
McNamee, Brian, 273
Merrill, Dina, 64
Minderbinder, Milo, 52
Moody, Theodore, 79, 81
Morgan Lewis, 25
Morris, Brenda, 225, 237
Public Integrity Section Deputy Chief, 214
Morris, Robert, 2-3
Morrison, Lexi, 267
Morrison, D. C. Superior Court Judge Tim, 129, 131
Mozambique, 158
Maputo (capital), 158
MPD. See Metropolitan Police Department
Muhammad, Elijah, 78
Murphy, D. C. Superior Court JudgeTim, 191
Napue v. Illinois case, 212
Nation of Islam, 85, see Black Muslims
National Bank of Georgia (NBG), 148
National Building Museum (formerly the U. S. Pension Bureau)
U. S. Attorney’s Office, 125
National Society for Children and Adults with Autism, 166
NBG (National Bank of Georgia), 148
Nettune, Bob, 25, 28
New Jersey
Convent Station, 5
Jersey City, 14, 16, 130
Maplewood, 13, 22
Newark, 1, 5, 12, 16
African-American community, 11
changing demographics, 11
International Airport, 2
Vailsburg section, 12
Rumson, 2
South Orange, 11
New York Times, 142
Neyens, Mark (son-in-law), 315
Nicholas, Pete, 281, 282, 283
Nixon, President Richard M., 85
Nixon Administration, 174
NYPD Blue, 133
Obama Administration, 121
O’Brien, Joe, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 96, 97, 122
O’Connor, Pat, 25
O’Brien, Paul, 215, 226
O’Donnell, Pierce, 309
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 294
Office of Professional Responsibility, , 226, 246, 247, 248, 250, 254, 256
Okinawa, 39
OPR. See Office of Professional Responsibility
Panama, 308, 309, 312, 313
Pell, Senator Claiborne, 169
Persons, Bob, 208, 211, 244
petekiae (petechiae), 138
Pettitte, Andy, 273
Pharaon, Ghaith, 148
Philadelphia Police Major Crimes Division, 82
Pinnacle Electric, 315
placer mining operations, 308
Placerville, 307
PMI (Parking Management, Inc.), 101, 115
PMRU. See Professional Misconduct Review Unit
Poindexter case, 241
Porter, Steve, 175
Powell, Colin, 175
Power, Tyrone, 64
PRAO (Professional Responsibility Advisory Office within the Justice Department), 232, 234
Public Defender Service, 130
Public Integrity Office, 203, 214, 215, 227, 232, 236, 237, 238, 248
Rajaratnam case, 274, 275, 277, 278
nunc pro tunc hearing, 276
Title 3 application for the wire intercept, 275
Rauh, Carl, 66, 175
U. S Attorney Principal Assistant, 76
Reagan President Ronald, 168, 174
Rico, Colorado, 316
Ring, Kevin, 301, 303
conspiracy to violate the federal gratuity statute, 302
Rockefeller Center, 30
Rogers, Jerry, 313
Rose Law Firm, 305
ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps), 28, 29
Rudman, Senator Warren, 194, 196, 197, 199, 202, 280, 282, 284
Board of the Boston Scientific Corporation, 278
Chairman of the Litigation Committee, 280
former Attorney General of New Hampshire, 282
Vice Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, 278
Ruff, Rex, 45-46
Rumpole of the Bailey, 33
Russell, Percy, 83, 84
Russo, Frank, 232, 233, 234, 236
Safavian case, 241
Sari, Les (brother-in-law), 29
OCS (Officer Candidate School), 20
Vietnam, 20, 21
Schools, Scott, 248-250
Schuelke, Virginia (Ginna) (daughter), 314
Schuelke, Henry F. Schuelke, III – Personal
active duty, 29-30
bar exam, 30
boyhood, 1-6
divorce, 314
draft deferment, 28
history, 1-3
father. See Schuelke, Henry F., Jr.
fisherman, 320
billfishing, 323
boyhood, 7,
high school, 7, 13, 16
JAG Corps, 16
Korea, 45-46
legal profession, 90, 100, 120, 121, 124, 130, 140, 152, 158, 168, 173, 175, 178,
191, 199, 238, 271, 296-297, 314, 316, 318
law school, 16, 22, 25
Standard Oil, 30
U. S. Attorneys’ Office, 16-17, 63-64
high school education
St. Benedict’s Prep, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16
Father Benedict, 9-10
legal career choice, 15
marriage ceremony, 100
mother. See Carton, Eleanor Ann.
motorcycles, 324
vintage, 326
Ocean Reef Club, 323
power boater, 320
recovering from Achilles tendon surgery, 322
Sacred Heart School, 13
sisters. See Schuelke, Kathleen; Schuelke, Margaret; Schuelke, Virginia
sports, 15-16
undergraduate education
English major, 14
Philosophy and French minor, 14
St. Peter’s College, 14, 16
Villanova Law School, 15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 318
civil procedure, 24
criminal law, 23
property, 24
contracts, 24
torts, 24
graduation, 30
memories, 5
Socratic Method, 23, 24
Schuelke, Henry F. Schuelke, III – Professional
Antonelli case, 77, 106, 111-112, 115, 120, 122, 143
Armed Forces Court of Appeals (previously Court of Military Appeals), 43
Assistant U. S. Attorney, 55
relations with judges, 69
Boston Scientific case, 288
Boston Scientific counsel, 288
Carpenter case, 266-268
Counsel to the Ethics Committee, 197
Enron case, 257, 261-265
Executive Assistant U. S Attorney, 57, 76, 77
“ghost who walks,” 71, 75 , 77
Halleck v. Berliner case, 181-186
Halliburton case, 288
Hanafi case, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 86, 94, 95, 97, 99, 122, 139
JAG. See JAG Corps.
Dick Janis and Larry Wechsler, 140, 147, 149-150, 152-153, 161, 175, 199, 229
military judge, 39, 40, 41, 45, 48
pro bono work, 161
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 168
Stevens case, 203-213, 225
subpoena power, 225
U. S. Attorneys’ Office
Grand Jury Section Chief, 70, 75
Williams & Connelly, 121
Schuelke, Henry F., Jr. (father), 1, 4
death, 197
Lackawanna Railroad, 4
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MET), 4
military, 4
personality, 6
Seton Hall University, 4, 22
“Siberia,” 8
St. Benedict’s Prep, 5, 11
war bond effort, 4
Schuelke, Henry F., Sr. (grandfather), 1
automobile dealer, 4
Schuelke, Henry F. IV (Hal) (son), 314
Schuelke, Henry F. V (grandson), 317
Schuelke, Julie (second wife), 318, 319, 321, 322, 323
Schuellke, Kathleen (Kathy) (sister), 18, 19
aneurysm, 3, 22
St. Elizabeth’s College, 20
Winston Salem, North Carolina, 21
Schuelke, Margaret Ellen (Margie) (sister), 3, 17, 21
dietitian, 18
HEW (Health, Education and Welfare), 18
nursing home compliance, 18
Veteran’s Hospital, 18
West Orange High School, 5
Schuelke, Marybeth (sister), 3, 19, 120
Georgetown University, 22
Schuelke, Thomas Hyde (grandson), 318
SeaTac Penitentiary, 234
SEC (U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission), 257, 283
orange grove case, 309
Seinfeld, Jerry, 315
Senate Banking Committee, 200
Senate Code of Ethics, 199
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
special counsel, 168
Senate Ethics Committee, 150, 176
Senate Judiciary Committee, 249, 251
senior status versus retirement, 188
Seoul, Korea, 45
Seton Hall had a prep school, 11
Seventh Division, 41
Seventh Infantry division, 38
SG’s Office, 270
Sharp, James, E. (Jim), 140, 150
Sharp Randolph & Janis, 140
Shields, Bill, 229
Shorter, John, 111, 119
See also Yeldell case
Shuker, Bob, 83, 84, 90, 271
Silbert, Earl, 63, 66, 108
Democratic Party, 66
U. S. Attorney, 76
Sippowitz, Detective Andy, 133
Sisters of Charity, 20
Skadden Arps, 121, 152, 175
Skilling, Jeffrey, 258, 263, 264, 265, 266
mail and wire fraud, 266
Smith, Ellsworth, 130
Sonn, Ambassador Franklin, 154, 157
South Africa Government, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160
Southern District of New York, 274
sovereign immunity, 47, 155, 156, 159
SPE. See special purpose entity
Special Court Martial, 42
Sporkin, U. S. District Court Judge Stanley
Director of SEC Enforcement Division, 303
St. Benedict’s Prep, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16
St. James Hospital in Newark, 3
St. Peter’s College, 14, 16
Standard Oil of New Jersey, 26, 30
Starr, Ken, 304
Stemmler, Patty, 214
Stevens, Catherine, 205, 222
Stevens, Senator Ted, 203, 222
reelection, 206
“Senator Pothole,” 201
Stevens, Senator Theodore (Ted)
Stevens case
aggravating and mitigating factors, 250
5K1 letter, 209-211
CM2H Hill, 210
“contest living,” 253
criminal contempt statute, 225
FBI 302 form, 222
indictment, 204
investigation, 70
Justice Department’s actions against the prosecutors, 246
misconduct in the withholding of exculpatory evidence, 246
“polar pen” investigation, 203
Stockenstrom, Christo, 158
Stuckwisch, Bill, 215, 226
Sullivan & Cromwell, 25
Sullivan, Brendan, 209, 211, 212, 217
Sullivan, Edward, 215, 225, 232, 240
Sullivan, U. S. District Court Judge Emmett G., 69, 203, 206, 214, 218, 220-227, 227, 240-242,
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 57, 58, 134
Felony I Calendar, 68
Felony II Calendar, 67
Braman, Judge Leonard, 87
Halleck, Judge Charles, 179, 180
reappointment, 182
King, Judge Rufus, 191
Morrison, Judge Tim, 129, 131
Murphy, Judge Tim, 191
Fifth Amendment grand jury requirements, 71
formerly Court of General Sessions, 61, 180
Supreme Court, U. S., 70
guidance on avoiding subjectivity in identification procedures, 86
Suriname, 310-311
Tax Reform Act, 307
Taylor, Elizabeth, 88
Telluride, 307, 314- 318, 325
Telluride Property Management Company, 316
Tenure Commission, 179, 181, 183
aging and disabilities, 188
Judge Gladys Kessler (Chairperson), 193
notice of proceeding, 186
senior status reappointments, 193
Thomas, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence, 189
Thompko, Ed, 144
Thompson, Fred, 173
Thornton, Dick, 126
Titus, Earl, 65
Titus, Harold, 64
Eisenhower family, 64
Tongduchon, Korea, 46
Torricelli, Senator Robert, 208
Torricelli note, 216
Traina, Ginny (first wife), 31
divorce, 314
Transocean Ltd., 296
Tyree, Bambi, 230, 233, 244
U. S. Attorneys’ Office, 16-17, 23, 32, 52, 56, 59-60, 62-72, 101, 122, 149, 168, 175, 180, 192,
203, 227, 234, 250, 267, 280
Appellate Division, 57-58
chairman of the hiring committee, 60
Felony Trial Divisions, 57, 67
Fraud Division, 57, 76, 77, 101, 107, 108
function, 71
Grand Jury Divisions, 57
Healthcare Fraud Unit, 280
Major Crimes Division, 57
Misdemeanor Trial Section, 57-58, 61, 67
political agendas, 63
rotation of assignment, 58, 67
training, 58
trial skills, 59-60
U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 57, 240
U. S. Department of Justice
appellate process, 227
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, 239
Criminal Division, 213, 227, 228, 239, 252, 248
decision framework, 247
Office of Professional Responsibility, 246
Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU), 248
Public Integrity Section, 203, 214, 215, 227, 232, 236, 237, 238, 248
U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 57, 206
Corcoran, Judge Howard, 175
Flannery, Judge Thomas, 56
Friedman, Judge Paul, 241
Gesell, Judge Gerhard, 77, 105, 106, 115-118
Huvelle, Judge Ellen, 301
Kessler, Judge Gladys, 193
Sporkin, Judge Stanley
Sullivan, Judge Emmett G., 69, 203, 206, 214, 218, 220, 224, 227, 240, 242, 256
Walton, Judge Reggie, 271, 273, 274
U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 262
Hoyt, Judge Kenneth, 263
U. S. Marshals, 97
U. S. Military
appellate process, 43
drug problems, 55
justice system
command influence, 37
offenses, 35
trial confession, 40
trial on violent crime, 43
Military Justice Act of 1968, 35, 36
convening authority, 43
racial conflict issues, 55
U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, 53
U. S. v. Convertino, 242
UMW (United Mineworkers), 123, 127
University of Texas, 27
UVA (University of Virginia) Charlottesville, 31
VECO Corporation, 203-207, 209, 214, 218, 221-223
purchase by CH2M Hill, 210
Vietnam, 20, 39, 49, 50, 54, 55
DMZ (De-Militarized Zone), 37, 38, 41, 46, 49
fragging, 54
Huey helicopters, 50
OH23 helicopters, 49
Tet Offensive, 29
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 148
Wall Street Journal, The, 145, 266, 268-269, 270
Walton, U. S. District Judge Reggie, 271, 273, 274
Washington, D.C., 59
16th Street Northwest, the Gold Coast, 73
charged racial environment in the city, 107
Washington, George, 3
Washington, Walter, 102
Watergate, 65, 169, 171, 173, 174
WCP/HD (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr)
merger, 280
Weiss, Paul, 152
Welch, William (Bill), 225, 237, 239
Chief of the Justice Department Public Integrity Section, 214
Weschler, Larry, 92-93, 140, 147, 149, 318
White House, 62, 65, 85, 113, 120-121, 124, 130, 142, 157-159, 174, 182, 199, 304
Whitelaw Hotel, 124, 128
Whitewater, 121, 199, 305
Williams & Connolly, 120, 213, 216, 220, 229, 306, 309
Williams, Edward Bennett, 103, 107-108, 111, 113, 117-118, 120
See also Antonelli case
Washington Redskins President, 116
Williams, Rocky, 205, 214, 219, 226
See also Stevens case
Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, 151, 191
Wolfe, Paul, 310
X, Malcolm, 78
Yablonski murders, 123
Yeldell, Joseph, 77. 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 111, 112, 119, 120, 122, 143
African American, 107
first, 114
second, 118
White House fellowship, 113
“race card,” 107
Young, William (great-grandfather), 1
Oral History of Henry F. Schuelke, III
Table of Cases and Statutes
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), 70, 87, 211-212, 217-218, 222-223, 236, 237, 240, 241,
Carpenter et al. v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (1987), 266-268
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), 217-219, 236, 240
Halleck v. Berliner, 427 F.Supp. 1225 (D.D.C.1977), 182, 185, 186
In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Shareholders Litigation, 02 Civ. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), 288
In re Enron Corp. Sec. & ERISA Litigation, 284 F. Supp. 2d 511, 555 (S.D. Tex. 2003), 257,
In re United States of America, Petitioner, 598 F.2d 233 194 194 U.S.App.D.C. 314 (2011), 77,
106, 111-112, 115, 120-122, 143
Khaalis v. United States, 408 A.2d 313 (D.C. Cir. 1979), 70-71, 75- 81, 86, 94-99, 122, 139
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), 198, 265, 267
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), 212
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Halliburton Company and KBR, Inc., 4:09-CV-399,
(S.D. Tex. 2009), 152, 284-285, 289-290, 294-296
United States v. Gupta, 11 Cr. 00907 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), 271, 274-275, 277
United States v. Kevin Ring, 08 Cr. 274 (D.D.C. 2011), 301-303
United States v. Poindexter, 727 F.Supp. 1470, 1477 (D.D.C.1989), 241
United States v. Peter Kott and Bruce Weyrhauch, 07 Cr. 00056 (D. Alaska 2007), 204, 231-235
United States v. Rajaratnam, 09 Cr. 01184 (S.D.N.Y. 2011),, 274, 275-276, 277, 278
United States v. Roger Clemens, 10 Cr. 00223, (D.D.C. 2012), 271-272
United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 38 (D.D.C. 2006), 241
United States v. Theodore Stevens, 08 Cr. 231 (D.D.C. 2009), 203-204, 209-211 222-225, 246,
250, 253
United States v. Victor Kohring, 07 Cr. 00055, (D. Alaska 2007), 204, 231-235
District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Pub. L. 93-198, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 774, 179
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Pub. L. 95-213, title I, Dec. 19, 1977, 91 Stat. 1494, 287, 289
(amended 1988), 291, 295
Jencks Act, Pub. L. 85-269, Sept. 2, 1957, 71 Stat. 595 (18 U.S.C. 3500)
119, 239
Military Justice Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-632, 82 Stat. 1335, 35-36
Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2085, 1042, 307