FACTS
During the late 1980s, Wayne Kwiat was accused of making false statements on a federal form. A jury of his peers found him guilty and convicted him. This is his most recent comments about the conviction:
"This story was a non-issue before, and has been a non-issue since 1987. The Court of Appeals reversed the jury's decision. I relied on the law and was completely vindicated by the reversal. Thus, my record is clear. I stand by the decision of the Appellate Court."
[source: The Brook Report]
Kwiat's statement is at best a half-truth. At worst, Kwiat is trying to cover for one lie with another.
As he says, he did indeed rely on the law, rather than on the facts of the case. But he was far from "completely vindicated".
Here is what happened
Kwiat was accused of making a false statement on a federal loan form from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. To convict him, prosecutors had to prove two things:1. That Kwiat made the false statement.
Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the jury's finding that Kwiat made the false statement. However, it ruled that prosecutors had failed sufficiently to establish that Kwiat's lie on the federal form was responsible for any eventual decision about the loan.
Here's what the Court of Appeals said about Kwiat and the loan form:
Kwiat's convictions under Sec. 1001 were based on statements that Kwiat, as a lawyer, made in forms delivered at the closings on the loans. These HUD-1 forms, required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq., inform both seller and buyer about the costs of each settlement service provided and the application of the funds of the sale. The form contains a blank for the broker's commission. At Elliott’s direction, Kwiat recorded a commission of $7,500 on each sale, although the full commission was $15,000. The lie about the amount of the commission is the “false statement” of which Kwiat was convicted.
Note that the Court of Appeals itself describes Kwiat's actions as a “lie.” The form was processed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Here is why the court said it reversed Kwiat's conviction
The prosecutor sought to establish materiality through the testimony of an employee of the FDIC, who stated that the FDIC sometimes looks at HUD-1 forms in banks' files to obtain information concerning real estate loan transactions.
This witness did not testify, however, that the FDIC's examiners had looked at any of the HUD-1 forms that Kwiat completed or that the difference between the $7,500 commission reported on the forms and the actual $15,000 commission would or could have influenced any action of the FDIC.
Nowhere in the court record is there any suggestion that Kwiat didn’t lie on the loan form. Instead, the appeals court affirms that he did lie on the form. Complete vindication? Hardly.
The record suggests two obvious questions, both of which can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". The first question needs to be asked of Kwiat:
Based on the appeals court's ruling, the only honest answer would be "Yes".
A denial would be a second lie to cover the first, and any sort of "yes, but …" would simply be an attempt to cloud the record.
And that leads to the second question, which Will County voters need to ask of themselves.
In lying on the federal form, did Kwiat demonstrate the degree of ethical conduct we have a right to expect from our judges?
Click here to read more of the story in The Brook Report