Why Did The FBI Raid The Martin And Seibert Law Firm?

On November 17^th federal agents conducted an extraordinary raid on the prominent Martinsburg law firm of Martin and Seibert.  Because the feds aren't talking, people are asking "why" and the only information released so far has been by Martin and Seibert themselves through an almost laughable press release that claims Martin and Seibert was the victim of a smear campaign by former employees and/or insiders and THAT'S the reason the feds raided them.  Sorry, not buying it.

Because of the potential disruption to dozens of pending cases and even more cases on appeal federal judges do not issue search and seizure warrants for law firms recklessly.  The evidence of criminal behavior normally has to be strong enough to earn a conviction before the FBI is allowed to confiscate client files.

So, what does all of that mean?  It means that that the FBI did not raid Martin and Seibert’s offices because the FBI was trying to protect Martin and Seibert, it means that the FBI almost certainly had incriminating evidence against them.

OK, what KIND of incriminating evidence?  Well, let’s look at which federal agencies attended the FBI’s November 17^th party.  The press reports do not mention the Postal Inspectors.  Often, they are involved if a law firm sends padded (fraudulent) bills (invoices) to their clients in the mail.  Mail fraud - 18 U.S. Code § 1341 - can get you 20 years and, with special circumstances, as much as 30 years.  Sending a padded bill by email is essentially the same crime.  If you are a willing participant in the crime you’re subject to the same penalties.

So, if a lawyer knowingly sent a padded bill they would be in serious trouble, and any administrative employee that knew the bill was fraudulent would be facing the same charges.  Again; however, there has been no reports that the postal inspectors are involved.

OK, what about tax fraud?  If Martin and Seibert were being investigated for tax fraud the IRS should have been part of the raid.  There was no mention of the IRS in the published reports.

So, what’s left?  Terrorism?  I seriously doubt it.  Counterfeiting?  I don’t think so.  That’s the domain of the Secret Service and they’re not reported as being part of the raid.  Drugs?  Martin and Seibert may not have the most luxurious offices in the world but they don’t remind me of a meth lab.

That leaves just the FBI and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is normally the lead investigative agency for public corruption cases.  That covers fixing public contracts and bids, and bribing public officials.  That covers state, county, and city officials and employees, which means anyone holding an elected or appointed office.

Yeah, but if the FBI is after a councilman or judge why did they raid Martin and Seibert?  Well, the FBI probably obtained incriminating evidence that implicated someone like that; however, the FBI (normally) takes pride in being absolutely certain they can convict a public official before they arrest them, and the most common method of getting indictable evidence against a public official is normally to convince a co-conspirator to testify against them.

Which leads us back to Martin and Seibert.  Will the FBI find incriminating files against a public official on Martin and Seibert’s computers or in their filing cabinets?  Probably not; however, if a former Martin and Seibert employee or insider has provided the FBI inside information then the investigation can focus on illegal activity other than public corruption.  Once the investigators have a thread to begin pulling then they might find enough to indict someone on a different matter, which they can use as leverage to convince that person to assist in an investigation of a public official for some consideration on the other charges.  You might remember that Martin and Seibert has admitted that their problems started with former employees.

Another tool the FBI uses to persuade individuals to cooperate is the law - 18 U.S. Code § 1001- that says that lying to a federal investigator during an investigation is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.  Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Dennis Hastert just pled guilty to that.  This means that if anyone being asked a question during an interview that’s part of an investigation lies about what they did, why they did it, or who told them to do it LIES about ANYTHING they are probably going to jail.  The law does not excuse someone for being scared they might lose their job or that someone else ordered them to say what they’re telling the investigator; if someone lies in the course of the investigation they are in serious trouble.  So, if someone at Martin and Seibert lies to a federal agent during the investigation they are facing the choice of incarceration or cooperation.

People can be expected to act in their self-interest so it normally doesn’t take long for the feds to get the evidence they need to move on to the next step.  Where will that be?  Wait for the next raid and don’t be surprised if it’s at a public building.  Then the federal investigators will begin asking new questions and if any of those individuals are foolish enough to lie then they will face the decision of incarceration or cooperation.

Eventually, there will be justice.