Lon Monk plea agreement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA))No. 08 CR 888-3vs. ) Judge James B. Zagel)ALONZO MONK)

PLEA AGREEMENT

1.This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, and defendant ALONZO MONK, and hisattorney, MICHAEL SHEPARD, is made pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule 11(c)(1)(C), as more fully set forthbelow. The parties to this Agreement have agreed upon the following:

Charge in This Case

2.The superseding indictment in this case charges Defendant with wire fraud, inviolation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346 (Count 11).3.Defendant has read the charge against him contained in the supersedingindictment, and that charge has been fully explained to him by his attorney.4.Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crime with whichhe has been charged.

Charge to Which Defendant is Pleading Guilty

5.By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of guilty tothe superseding indictment. Count Eleven charges Defendant with participating in a scheme

2

to commit wire fraud, including through the deprivation of honest services, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.

Factual Basis

6.Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge containedin the superseding indictment. In pleading guilty, Defendant admits the following facts andthat those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:In the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Defendant, together with co-defendant Rod Blagojevich and others, participated in a scheme to deprive the people of theState of Illinois of their intangible right to the honest services of Rod Blagojevich(“Blagojevich”) in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346.It was part of the scheme that beginning by at least November 2008, and continuinguntil on or about December 9, 2008, Rod Blagojevich, with the assistance of Defendant andothers, sought to obtain financial benefits for Blagojevich in the form of campaigncontributions to Friends of Blagojevich (“FOB”) from an executive who owned and managedIllinois horse racing tracks (“Racetrack Executive”) in return for the exercise of Blagojevich’sduty under Illinois law to enact legislation that related to the Illinois horse racing industry.At times, Defendant assisted Blagojevich’s efforts to carry out this aspect of the scheme, asDefendant understood Blagojevich wanted him to do, by attempting to extort Racetrack Executive to make contributions to FOB and by discussing that attempted extortion withBlagojevich. At other times, Defendant attempted to get Blagojevich to take actions that

3

would have had the effect of reducing the pressure on Racetrack Executive to make acontribution to FOB, but Blagojevich refused to take them.Specifically, Defendant had a longstanding personal and professional relationship withBlagojevich, which included Defendant working as Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff from January2003 through approximately the end of 2005, and serving as campaign manager forBlagojevich’s 2006 run for governor. After Blagojevich’s re-election as governor in 2006,Defendant became a lobbyist for entities working with the Illinois state government.Defendant continued to be actively involved in fundraising for Blagojevich even afterbecoming a lobbyist.Defendant was hired by Racetrack Executive in about 2006 as a lobbyist on behalf of horse racetracks owned and managed by Racetrack Executive. At the time, Defendant knewthat Racetrack Executive had arranged for significant contributions to FOB in the past andthat Christopher Kelly had been the FOB liaison with Racetrack Executive. After Kellystopped doing significant fundraising for FOB, and at Blagojevich’s request, Defendant beganto solicit contributions from Racetrack Executive for FOB.In about May of 2006, legislation was enacted in Illinois that gave a percentage of revenues collected by Illinois casinos to the Illinois horse racing industry for two years. Thelegislation expired in about May 2008, but Defendant knew that Racetrack Executive wantedthe Illinois legislature to pass legislation that would continue the revenue collection from thecasinos. During the November 2008 Illinois legislative session, legislation was introducedthat would require Illinois casinos to provide a percentage of their revenues to the Illinois