Contractor Allegedly Tried To Bribe An Extra $52 Million Out Of Amtrak With A Purebred Puppy And Luxury Watches
The value of the gifts provided to Amtrak's project manager exceeded $325,000, according to the Engineering News-Record. The list of claimed bribes from Snedden and three Mark 1 vice presidents includes classics like over $7,000 in cash, cash, jewelry and expensive dinners, as well as a $4,700 purebred German Shepherd puppy and all-expenses-paid vacations to Ecuador and India. The filing claims that the Amtrak employee was able to upgrade a few of the gifts. After being given a $5,600 Tourneau watch, the project manager wanted a different timepiece and returned the Tourneau for an $11,000 watch.
Read more: These Should Be The Next Mail Trucks When The Post Office Gets Privatized
Snedden is slated to be arraigned on federal bribery and false claims charges at the end of the month. The three Mark 1 vice presidents have already pleaded guilty to a single count of federal bribery each and are awaiting sentencing. Although the Amtrak project manager isn't named in the lawsuit, the project manager was identified as Ajith Bhaskaran. He was charged with wire fraud in September 2020 for allegedly defrauding the Social Security Administration but died of a heart attack a month later at home while negotiating a plea deal.
While the Trump administration continues to let Elon Musk and his unqualified DOGE lackeys run rampant through the federal government, they should be tackling cases of real government waste like this. The 30th Street Station restoration was 90% funded by federal taxpayers. Contractors, like SpaceX, are willing to do anything to milk the federal budget. Last year, the Pentagon discovered that Boeing overcharged the Air Force by nearly 8,000% on spare soap dispensers on the C-17 Globemaster.
Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox...
Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
11 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Florida's attorney general appeals judge's contempt finding in immigration case
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has appealed a federal judge's ruling that found him in civil contempt because of a letter he sent in April after she ordered a halt to enforcement of a new state immigration law. Uthmeier's lawyers last week filed a notice of appealing U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams' ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As is common, the notice does not detail arguments that Uthmeier will make at the Atlanta-based appeals court. But the appeal is the latest move in an unusual dispute between Uthmeier and the Miami-based judge. The issue stems from a law, passed during a February special legislative session, that created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida. The Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida and two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on April 2, contending, in part, that the law violates what is known as the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Williams on April 4 issued a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the law. She extended the temporary restraining order April 18 and directed Uthmeier to send a letter notifying police agencies that they could not enforce the law. The directive came after reports of arrests. Uthmeier sent such a letter April 18 but followed with an April 23 letter that spurred the contempt issue. Uthmeier has argued that the temporary restraining order — and a longer-lasting preliminary injunction issued later — should only apply to him and local state attorneys because they were the named defendants in the underlying legal challenge to the law (SB 4-C). In the April 23 letter to police agencies, Uthmeier reiterated that position and said he could not prevent police from enforcing the law 'where there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from doing so,' according to Williams' June 17 contempt ruling. Williams said that statement and other wording in the letter violated her order, writing that in a 'variety of ways, Uthmeier's April 23rd letter conveyed to law enforcement that they could and should disregard the April 18th letter's message that they were required by court order to cease enforcement of SB 4-C.' 'Uthmeier's role endows him with a unique capacity to uphold or undermine the rule of law, and when he does the latter by violating a court order, the integrity of the legal system depends on his conduct being within the court's remedial reach,' Williams wrote in the 27-page contempt ruling. In a court filing in May, Uthmeier's lawyers said he complied with the temporary restraining order by not enforcing the law and notifying law-enforcement agencies about the temporary restraining order. The filing said Uthmeier was free to express his disagreement with Williams' decision in the April 23 letter. 'The attorney general has consistently abided by the court's order to cease enforcing (the law),' the document said. 'Nowhere does the TRO (expressly or impliedly) require the attorney general to refrain from sharing his views about the order with law enforcement.' The filing also said Williams' reading of the April 23 letter 'relies on one portion of one sentence, rather than reading (the) letter as a whole and in the context of what preceded it: the April 18 letter' and a legal brief that also was filed April 23. To carry out the contempt finding, Williams ordered Uthmeier to file bi-weekly reports about whether any arrests, detentions or other law-enforcement actions had occurred under the blocked law — filings he has submitted. Williams on April 29 issued a preliminary injunction to continue blocking the law, saying it likely was preempted by federal immigration-enforcement authority. In part, she pointed to the law requiring that violators go to jail and indicated that could conflict with federal authority. Uthmeier also has appealed the preliminary-injunction ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He asked the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction but was turned down. Such a stay would have allowed enforcement of the law while the legal battle plays out.
Business Journals
13 hours ago
- Business Journals
Wanted: Nominations for DBJ's C-Suite Leaders Awards
Nominations for DBJ's C-Suite Leaders Awards are due Aug. 1. Learn more about the program, including who's eligible, in this story.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fueling Up: Was Seven & i ever interested in Couche-Tard's buyout offer?
This story was originally published on C-Store Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily C-Store Dive newsletter. Fueling Up is a column from C-Store Dive offering a fresh perspective on the top news and trends in the convenience store industry. The hype surrounding what would've been one of the most monumental c-store mergers in history died last week when Alimentation Couche-Tard withdrew its nearly $50 billion buyout offer of Seven & i Holdings. Nearly a year after it made its bid, Circle K's parent company said a lack of engagement from Seven & i was a major roadblock to the deal, which would've included over 80,000 7-Eleven c-stores globally. To say the Canadian retailer is bitter about this ending would be an understatement. In a letter to Seven & i late Wednesday evening, Couche-Tard's President and CEO Alex Miller and Chairman of the Board Alain Bouchard said Seven & i's due diligence over the past year was negligible. The executives added that Seven & i displayed a 'persistent lack of good faith and judgement' during the process and 'engaged in a calculated campaign of obfuscation and delay.' But this apparent negligence is nothing but a 'mischaracterization,' according to Seven & i, which released its own letter Thursday morning in response to Miller's and Bouchard's onslaught. The Japanese company said it's disappointed but not surprised by Couche-Tard's withdrawal, adding that Couche-Tard faced significant challenges in economic and financial markets over the past year. Despite Couche-Tard's accusations of a premeditated rejection, Seven & i emphasized that it 'consistently engaged in good faith and constructively' in exploring a deal with Couche-Tard. This is obviously contradictory. Couche-Tard said Seven & i wasn't willing to play ball, while Seven & i claims it was suited up and ready to swing at the right pitch. Who and what are we supposed to believe? All we can do is break down the facts. Pressure buildups and cultural dissonance Seven & i had been under shareholder pressure long before Couche-Tard entered the picture. Investors have been urging the company to spin off its c-store business into a separate entity for years. That pressure intensified as Seven & i's earnings dropped in the years following, reaching a climax when more investors called for the removal of several directors as well as former CEO Ryuichi Isaka. When Couche-Tard came along, some shareholders were adamant that Seven & i pursue the deal to boost its corporate value. So even if Seven & i was never interested in selling to Couche-Tard and yielding its claim as the world's largest c-store retailer, passively engaging with the Canadian company may have been in its best interest. 'The blunt truth is that Seven & i was never really in the market for a deal. It saw the overtures as hostile and contrary to its interests,' Neil Saunders, managing director of retail research agency GlobalData Retail, said in a LinkedIn post on Thursday. 'However, there were a string of other reservations that the group raised, all designed to delay and reduce the possibility of an agreement. This attrition eventually wore Couche-Tard down.' Even if Seven & i was legitimately interested in being acquired, a difference in cultures may have also halted progress. This was top of mind from the start, with Couche-Tard saying back in September that although it had no presence in Japan, it would do its best to empower Seven & i's leaders and operators in the nation to carry on as usual. But the 'very different working styles' between Japan and Canada may have ultimately been too much for Seven & i, Jarred Neubronner, senior analyst with the Institute for Grocery Distribution, said in a LinkedIn post on Thursday. 'After having built up 7-Eleven in the past decades to become the world's largest convenient brand, Seven & i's management would not have wanted a takeover that would lead to a drastic change in ways of working,' Neubronner said. 'The blunt truth is that Seven & i was never really in the market for a deal. It saw the overtures as hostile and contrary to its interests." Neil Saunders Managing director of GlobalData Retail Despite the sour ending to what was the most anticipated storyline I've covered as a c-store journalist, not all may be lost. When I posted the news to LinkedIn on Thursday, Michael Infranco, assistant vice president of retail analytics firm RetailStat, commented that given Seven & i's IPO plans for 7-Eleven, a deal for the thousands of North America stores could still be on the table. Whether that happens remains to be seen. I won't count on it. But c-store operators have proven that even in an industry this reliable and consistent, they'll throw a nasty changeup every once in a while. Recommended Reading Couche-Tard ends takeover bid for Seven & i
