O'Malley, R. Emmet

Displaying 1 - 12 of 110

The Decline and Fall of the Pendergast Machine

When it comes to assessing the trajectory of a political machine such as the one cobbled together over time by first Jim Pendergast, and then by his younger brother “Boss” Tom Pendergast, it is always best to follow the advice of the later Watergate journalists – that is, to “follow the money.” Under Jim, the Pendergast machine seems to have dealt more in dispensing jobs and small favors, with Jim taking a rather small cut of the proceeds. Jim, however, could meet his relatively small personal needs, which included taking care of his bride Mary Doerr (married in 1886) and her young son by a previous marriage. He chose never to live “high on the hog.” Tom, on the other hand, always seemed to need more money, especially after his own marriage to Carolyn Elizabeth Dunn in 1910.

U.S. vs. Thomas J. Pendergast: Memorandum for Publication

Memorandum for Criminal Cases No. 14567: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Defendant, and No. 14,459: United States vs. Robert Emmet O'Malley, Defendant. In this memorandum, Judge Merrill E. Otis provides insightful, detailed documentation for both cases "for the express purpose of submitting it for publication in the Federal Supplement" as these cases attracted an overwhelming amount of publicity and attracted outrage from machine supporters and from proponents who thought the sentence too lenient.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Separate Plea in Abatement of Defendant, T. J. Pendergast

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, T. J. Pendergast for Criminal Case No. 14937: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Separate Plea in Abatement of Defendant, T. J. Pendergast

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, T. J. Pendergast for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Separate Plea in Abatement of Defendant, R. E. O'Malley

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, R. E. O'Malley for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for O'Malley ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Separate Plea in Abatement of Defendant, A. L. McCormack

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, A. L. McCormack for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for McCormack ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Separate Plea in Abatement of Defendant, A. L. McCormack

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, A. L. McCormack for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for McCormack ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Recognizances for Appearance

Two recognizances for appearance in court for Criminal Case No. 14937: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In these two documents, Thomas J. Pendergast and Robert Emmet O'Malley assert that he will appear before court to answer for charges of "interferring with the orderly and lawful functioning of the Judiciary Department."

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Recognizances for Appearance

Two Recognizances for appearance in court for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In these documents, Thomas J. Pendergast and Robert Emmet O'Malley assert that he will appear before court to answer for charges of "corruptly obstructing the due administration of justice in the case of the American Insurance Company vs. the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of Missouri."

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Plea in Bar, Plea in Abatement, and Motion to Quash the Indictment, et al.

Plea in bar to the indictment, plea in abatement of the indictment, and motion to quash the indictment, and to dismiss the prosecution, on behalf of defendant T. J. Pendergast in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the above actions be taken for seven reasons as outlined within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Plea in Bar of Defendant, T. J. Pendergast

Plea in bar of defendant, T. J. Pendergast for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast state that all alleged overt acts included in the indictment occurred more than three years before the return of the indictment. Thus, Pendergast requests "that prosecution under said indictment be barred and that he be, therefore, discharged."

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Plea in Abatement, Plea in Bar, and Motion to Dismiss

Plea in abatement, plea in bar, and motion to dismiss in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the above actions be taken for two reasons as outlined within.