Patricia Driscoll wants probation but Washington DC prosecutors seek prison term

By Jerry Jordan, Editor

The woman who wrongly accused NASCAR driver Kurt Busch of domestic violence and was later found to have stolen money from the charity she ran is now asking a Washington DC federal judge to be lenient in his sentencing of her.

Patricia Pauline Driscoll, former executive director of the Armed Forces Foundation, was found guilty of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the organization that helped military members and their families and is now facing between 70 months and 87 months in federal prison, according to documents filed in a Washington DC federal court.

Prosecutors with the United State District Attorney for the District of Columbia laid out their plight to bring Driscoll to justice for her crimes and want to see her behind bars, as well as, paying just under $473,000 in restitution – pointing out that her acts of embezzlement caused the charity to close its doors. Driscoll, however, is seeking probation or even to be enrolled in a more lenient drug rehabilitation program – even though drug use was never a defense used in court when jurors found her guilty of her crimes.

“Based on the advisory sentencing guidelines set forth by the United States Sentencing Commission and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the government recommends a sentence of incarceration within the advisory sentencing guideline range of 70 to 87 months, an order for restitution, a forfeiture money judgment, and special assessments in the amounts listed below,” states the prosecution’s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing document. “A petit jury found the defendant Patricia Driscoll (“defendant”) guilty of two counts of Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343); one count of First Degree Fraud (22 D.C. Code §§ 3221(a) and 3222(a)(1)); and two counts of Tax Evasion for tax years 2012 and 2013 (26 U.S.C. § 7201).”

Unlike state courts, where there is more latitude for giving leniency in sentencing, the federal system involved a complex chart of accumulated charts and risk rankings based on criminal history and the crimes committed. In Driscoll’s case, the government concludes that she has a cumulative point-ranking of 27. That puts her in the 70-month to 84-month incarceration bracket. However, Driscoll’s attorneys have objected to the government’s recommendations and want a more lenient sentence. They are also seeking an appeal of the jury’s guilty verdict and want the judge to allow Driscoll to remain free until that appeal plays out.

The federal sentencing guidelines chart is broken up into Zones and Criminal History. Driscoll has a criminal history of “1” and falls into Zone D of the chart based on the 27 points listed in court documents. That puts her out of the realm of probation unless U.S. Judge Richard Leon somehow reduces the points assessed in the pre-sentence report and support memorandum. Federal judges are allowed some leeway in their ability to grant what is known as an “upward departure” or a “downward departure.”

“If the court departs from the otherwise applicable criminal history category, it is required to specify in writing the reasons as described below,” states the Departure and Variance Primer by prepared by the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission. “(1) For an upward departure: the specific reasons why the applicable criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. (2) For a downward departure: the specific reasons why the applicable criminal history category substantially over-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.”

In their memorandum, prosecutors pointed out that Driscoll:

• Misrepresented that “defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable organization”
• Abused her position of trust as the president/executive director
• Devised a “scheme to defraud and obtain money and property from AFF’s donors by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises by making and causing to be made false statements to the public, charity watch groups, the IRS and others”
• Knew the “falsity” of the representations and promises she made about the AFF’s fundraising and overhead
• Driscoll intentionally created the “false façade that 95-percent of every dollar receiver went straight to support military members and their families.”
• Driscoll “embezzled money from the AFF to pay for personal expenses.”

In fact, evidence presented at trial revealed to jurors that Driscoll paid her personal attorney Robert Erdman and Carolyn McNeice a total of $102,513.89. Erdman was the attorney Driscoll used in her ongoing child custody case against her ex-husband. McNeice was the attorney she hired to represent her after claiming that Busch had choked her after she illegally used his personal access code to enter his motorcoach at Dover International Speedway after he had ended their relationship. Busch was cleared of wrongdoing after prosecutors in Delaware found there was no evidence to support Driscoll’s claim. Driscoll also used $112,195.62 to pay her for-profit business – Frontline Defense Systems – expenses charged to an American Express card, as well as, the partial salary of one of that company’s employees. Another $8,304.45 was used from the charity’s coffers to pay for Driscoll’s personal property taxes and as the property owner, she increased the rent for a dwelling being used by the AFF and FDS as office space by forging a lease agreement. That forgery cost the AFF another $122,100.

In order to raise funds for the AFF, Driscoll manipulated numerous industry executives, drivers and team owners into donating their time and money. It helped that she had a relationship with Busch to use as leverage for support and Busch would routinely meet with military members and their families at the track. She used the majority of money raised for fundraising and salaries, in addition to the “money she took for herself.”

“The Court saw the tremendous harm that the defendant’s conduct caused: not only did the defendant’s embezzlement from AFF deprive countless veterans of benefits that AFF would have otherwise provided to them, but the defendant’s lies and misrepresentations so disillusioned donors and volunteers that AFF was unable to continue its mission,” states its sentencing memorandum. “This is not a case where the defendant’s lack of education, resources, or training contributed to the offense; rather, this is a case where the defendant perpetrated a fraud to support her ego and lavish lifestyle. As noted by AFF Board of Directors in the Foundation’s Victim Impact Statement, ‘Calculating the financial harm to AFF is a simple math problem. Quantifying the benefits that Ms. Driscoll deprived those who served our country and the families that sacrificed to for their service is a far more difficult exercise but one which we hope the court will consider in rendering an appropriate sentence here.’

“The government echoes that sentiment and urges the Court to fashion a sentence that appropriately reflects the magnitude of harm caused by the defendant and seeks to deter others from exploiting charitable causes for their own personal gain.”

Driscoll’s attorney Brian Stolarz also filed a memorandum to aid in sentencing for his client. He states the court is required by federal law to “consider the following in determining a sentence:

• Nature and circumstance of the offense
• The history and character of the defendant
• The need for the sentence imposed
• The kinds of sentences available
• The applicable advisory guideline range and policy statements therein
• The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct
• The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense

“The court is required to consider these factors and fashion a sentence ‘sufficient but not greater than necessary’ to comply with traditional sentencing purposes. In considering these factors, 18 U.S.C. §3661 states that ‘no limitation shall be placed on the concerning the background, character and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”

Stolarz states that Driscoll continues to maintain her innocence and “believes that this case is a demonstration of governmental overreach and misconduct that needs to be remedied.”

“The myopic, overzealous tunnel vision that permeated this case is disheartening and sad, and will, unfortunately, continue in the future because the government secured a conviction despite their conduct in this case and therefore the verdict appears to justify their behavior.

“The trial contained outrageous conduct including Agent (Robert) Valdini’s lies to Ms. Driscoll and the Maryland Court about who he was while he was witnessing a child custody hearing so he would notice she was being investigated.”

Stolarz maintains that Valdini’s presence at the custody hearing was improper and had Driscoll known he was an IRS investigator, she may have testified differently while under oath on the witness stand. Judge Leon took note of the matter but declined further action during Driscoll’s trial.

It is the policy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to not comment on ongoing or pending litigation and Stolarz did not respond to a text sent to him seeking further comment for this article, specifically on how and why his client is now filing a request for drug treatment. There are also two documents filed “under seal” regarding Driscoll’s request for a more lenient sentence.

“Ms. Driscoll respectfully requests that the court consider a non-incarceration sentence,” Stolarz memorandum stated. “Ms. Driscoll also respectfully requests that the Court waive any fine in this case because of the impact on this case on her financial situation. Finally, if the court orders any term of incarceration, Ms. Driscoll respectfully requests that it is limited in scope, and the court permit Ms. Driscoll to be released pending appeal. If the court denies that relief, it is respectfully requested that the court recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that Ms. Driscoll be incarcerated at a facility in the Mid-Atlantic region to be close to his family members and that the court consider recommending an RDAP referral based on the information provided in the sealed supplement.”

Both sides will be in court Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at 3 p.m. to argue their sides regarding Driscoll’s sentence. At the conclusion of those arguments, Judge Leon is expected to rule and impose his sentence based on the guidelines and any agreements made between prosecutors and the defense.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: