Ravenel's lawyers ask for probation on coke charge
Former state treasurer cooperated, attorneys say
Attorneys for Thomas Ravenel have asked for probation for the former state treasurer's admitted cocaine use, saying he cooperated fully with the government and "despite his lapse in judgment he is a good man working to restore himself."
In a court filing Monday, Ravenel's legal team said he has been cooperative from the start, and that jail time would do more harm than good for a nonviolent, first-time offender who is seeking professional treatment for the hurdles in his life.
"The quantity involved was modest," court papers said. "In addition, there is a wrinkle that places Ravenel's situation outside of the heartland of typical drug conspiracies. Ravenel was no drug profiteer. By contrast he was, at his own expense, sharing with a limited number of friends in various social settings."
The documents, signed by Charleston attorneys Bart Daniel and Gedney Howe, list the government's advisory sentencing guideline for the crime at 10 to 16 months, before any departures or variances are included. Federal prosecutors have agreed to support a downward departure from the guidelines if Ravenel cooperates fully, which the documents contend he has.
Ravenel in September pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to one count of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine. After the scandal broke in June, he resigned his treasurer's post after just a few months on the job.
The court papers describe Ravenel's rise as a construction businessman, education at The Citadel, effectiveness during his brief time as the state's elected Republican treasurer and even his family pedigree.
"Ravenel comes from a strong and distinguished family," the papers said. "Despite his current mistakes, the family has imparted to him good core values and stands willing to assist his recovery. More important than the life he was born into is what he has achieved on his own."
His father is Arthur Ravenel Jr., who served as a state senator, congressman and is a current member of the Charleston County School Board.
In arguing for probation — with appropriate conditions to cover his rehabilitation and other issues — the attorneys say jail time would undermine his progress and recovery, and potentially force him "to spend time around the very type of people with whom he has cut ties."
"Ravenel has shown remarkable mettle in the aftermath of this experience," the documents say, and "in short, this is the beginning of a new chapter in his life."
Ravenel's sentencing date has not been set. It is likely to be in January.
Mount Pleasant deejay Michael L. Miller, who has admitted to supplying Ravenel with the drug, pleaded guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. A third suspect, Pasquale Pellicoro, a Ravenel friend and one-time local wine expert charged with conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine, is still at large. His last public contact was in September when he said he was in Switzerland.
Reach Schuyler Kropf at 937-5551 or skropf@postand courier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Tulane75 (anonymous) says...
Two recent (12.10.07) United States Supreme Court decisions would support a judge who, in his or her discretion, imposes a sentence below the specified range and still have such punishment regarded as "reasonable."
December 11, 2007 at 1:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orpheus (anonymous) says...
..
December 11, 2007 at 3:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orpheus (anonymous) says...
I say go with jail time. At least a good 30 days. Who gives a rat's ass about his pedigree or his good upbringing. He not only willingly participated in criminal activity(and this is the only time he has been caught, so who knows what all else he has been doing.),but also betrayed the trust of The People of The Great State of South Carolina. He is nothing more than a common criminal and his family backgroung should play no role. I am sure the good old boy network will kick in somewhere down the line and he will get off with a slap on the wrist. A sad reflection of the values and morals of the folks who run things.
December 11, 2007 at 3:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
I am not disagreeing with the statement: 'Two recent (12.10.07) United States Supreme Court decisions would support a judge who, in his or her discretion, imposes a sentence below the specified range and still have such punishment regarded as "reasonable."'
However, it appears that the facts in Brian Gall's case would not apply to Ravenel. See, GALL v. UNITED STATES,
": In fact, the Defendant's post-offense conduct was not motivated by a desire to please the Court or any other governmental agency, but was the -- pre-Indictment product -- of the Defendant's own desire to lead a better life."
December 11, 2007 at 4:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
"In addition : Ravenel was no drug profiteer. By contrast he was, at his own expense, sharing with a limited number of friends in various social settings."
WOW! So recreational drug use is okay as long as one doesn't turn a profit?
Excuse me; if one's grandmother shares prescription medication with a peer, who has been prescribed the same meds but cannot afford them, wouldn't granny face charges and time?
December 11, 2007 at 5:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
msplacedinsc (anonymous) says...
So his last name, his pedigree, his daddy, his construction co., his family ties to "ole boy network in SC" should not get him off. Make him spend 30, 60, or 90 days in jail away from his plush home and he can truly see what us common folks would have to endur. Just another example on why our whole justice system is messed-up. JohnQ is correct, while the hippocrite is praying in church, he should thank God he's not poor and a minority in this country cause if he was his a$$ would be in the county lock-up right now.
December 11, 2007 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
Yeah...so what if he wasn't selling it....so what if he comes from a good family. Hell, Marion Barry got 6 months for a misdemeanor crack possession. Ravenel had a felony intent to distribute charge. Are we assuming he wasn't selling it just because he had plenty of money? There are lots of drug dealers that don't "need" the money.
If he doesn't do jail time what time would you guys like to start the protest?
December 11, 2007 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
I tell you what...maybe this is a good tie to start the drug legalization debate. If the state wants to let him go because he "didn't sell it," then how about everyone gets the same treatment.
Legalize all personal amounts of all drugs. Prosecute and jail anyone caught selling or in posession of over a certain amount. (even though Ravenel would still need jail time by this standard--somewhere between 100 and 500 grams is not personal use.)
December 11, 2007 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
Put him in jail like all the other drug users and dealers. Why should he be treated differently? He'll be out in like a day when they have a loiterer that needs a bed.
December 11, 2007 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
locallady (anonymous) says...
Pedigree? What is he, a dog? Charleston is so gross about the "who my daddy is" crap. Most of those with the so called family pedigree, are scrounging around under the couch cushions to find enough money to pay the taxes for that big family home on the Battery. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!!!
December 11, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whatelseisthere (anonymous) says...
No surprise here. He will beat the rap b/c of who he is. It's never been WHAT you know, but WHO you know in Charleston. I think he should go to jail. He was in a position of public trust. Let's see if there is a judge out there with any moxie. I doubt it. But I bet there would be if they were elected and not appointed.
December 11, 2007 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MHA (anonymous) says...
In my opinion, cocaine possesion with intent to distribute is worse than killing dogs in a dog fighting organization. I think Michael Vick's sentence was fair. I wonder how this one will compare.
December 11, 2007 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
You anti-drug people are just blind aren't you? So he used coke...he also graduate college, ran a business, was elected to state office...most of you people who are calling for jail time because he snorted a little coke with his friends once in a while haven't achieved half of what he has in your sober lives. Most of you probably have a few beers with buddies now and again too...there was a day when you would have gone to jail for that as well...but people realized all that did was create crime kingpins who hurt people and turn people who were hurting no one into de-facto criminals.
How about growing up?
December 11, 2007 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whatelseisthere (anonymous) says...
So personal use and possession of illegal drugs are ok in your book majorjohnson?
December 11, 2007 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
MajorJohnson: You think those of us calling for jail time are JEALOUS of him for what he's accomplished? You, my friend, need help. What's there to be jealous about? Why are you soooooo ok with the use of cocaine and other drugs? These drugs are illegal for a reason. I bet you support prostitution too, huh?!
And BTW, not everyone drinks.
December 11, 2007 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
If anyone has ever had a loved one fall victim to drug abuse, then maybe some people would understand why this guy needs to be locked up.
Drugs destroy families and cause more pain than one can imagine. It all starts with the casual use thing, but rarely does it ever stay that way. Most "casual" users tend to become full blown addicts, and then the hell begins for all involved with this person.
December 11, 2007 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
Sadly, I must agree with JohnQ as well as others.
Ravenel is an extremely lucky person to have the entitlements he/his family enjoy, and he just thumbed his nose at the laws of the land until he was finally caught. His action wasn't a one-time occurrence obviously--it was a way of life socially. He knew that he would be protected by many of his/his family's entitlements, whether financial or social. He is to be commended for entering rehabilitation certainly, but I'll just bet he didn't go to a facility where the average person off the street went.
So Ravenel, count your blessings and stand up like a man. Don't let 'these compassionatel people/friends' who list all your advantages take away your dignity. You did the wrong thing and wrong things equal consequences equal accepting punishment.
December 11, 2007 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
Alcohol does far more damage than illegal drugs to families...so lets go back to prohibition. By you're reckoning there should be federal prohibition of alcohol too...real bright folks. Do you also keep sticking your hand in fire and hope it won't hurt this time?
As far as "most" casual users becoming full blown addicts, I'm a working professional with a college degree, own my home, have savings accounts and pay taxes, my friends tend to be the same, and many of us still smoke a joint on occasion. I know a few who still take a toot of coke on occasion too...the only problem coke caused Thomas Ravenel was because extremely stupid people found out he had used it years ago. You either have to make a lot of money because of the war on drugs or be brainwashed by the ridiculous crap spewed out by the ONDPC to think making drugs illegal is solving more problems than it's creating.
December 11, 2007 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
OK, let's make all drugs legal. Since soooo many people are already using them on a daily basis, we might as well legalize them. Who would be held responsible if "Bobby" or "Jane" lost their lives by snorting coke or taking ecstasy?? Who would produce the vast amount of these drugs to sell to the public??? Would we hire out to third world countries to manufacture our drugs? How would we sell them? What would the commercials and billboards say? What warnings would have to be listed on the packaging? What would be the age requirement for the purchase of these drugs? WHAT WOULD THE BENEFIT BE???
December 11, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...
Treat him like the drug abuser that he is and send him to jail. I don't care if he's related to the president of the U.S. send him to jail like you would any other offender. If anything his offense is even greater because he was a person in a position of public trust.If the lawmakers aren't going to respect the law and be punished when they break it how can you expect the rest of society to do so?
December 11, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
I don't believe that we should leaglize these illicit drugs just to make it more convenient for the current users/abusers. According to some we should just slap a tax and age requirement on them and call it a day.
December 11, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
legalize not leaglize
December 11, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MinoritySouth (anonymous) says...
I speculate that one sharing cocaine with one's well to do peers helps significantly with greasing business negotiations resulting in profitable arrangements and alliances. Of course, there is no way to prove this or disprove this so I think all distribution instances should be treated the same. If you or I were found on a street corner doling out that amount of drugs without exchanging money, chances are our circumstances would be quite a bit different whether or not you just wanted to make merriment with your buddies or you were collecting at a later date with favors.
December 11, 2007 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
My_50Cents_Worth (anonymous) says...
CHRISJIII and MinoritySouth,
I agree with you both.
There should be a reasonable degree of accountability for his actions and Mr. Ravenel should be treated the same as any "no name."
Actually, because he had "won the public's trust," he should be penalized more for the deception...
December 11, 2007 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
"Who would produce the vast amount of these drugs to sell to the public??? Would we hire out to third world countries to manufacture our drugs? How would we sell them? What would the commercials and billboards say? What warnings would have to be listed on the packaging? What would be the age requirement for the purchase of these drugs? WHAT WOULD THE BENEFIT BE???"
*tons of drugs (maryj, coke, heroin, etc.) are imported into this country every year. so manufacturing wouldn't be an issue not would it?
*third world countries are already manufacturing hundreds of thousands of drugs each year for distribution throughout the world. how do you think Al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations get their funding? Bakesales?
*would be sold like its done in europe in agencies/stores overseen and taxed by the govt.
*there are untold millions using drugs now and i don't see a billboard anywhere. i highly doubt any ad agencies on madison avenue would need to get involved.
*there are already warnings on alcohol, cigarettes and prescription meds
*what is the age requirement for alcohol? cigarettes?
*what is the benefit gained by criminalization? decriminalize it could be regulated, taxed and the allure of illegality would immediately cease. criminal kingpins could no longer utilize violence to traffic in a legal product. remember prohibition, alcoholism and violence skyrocketed during prohibition. afer the amendment was repealed bootleggers, the mafia and other criminal organizations were forced to go to other items such as drugs.
honestly how many of you would go out and buy coke if it was legal? probably not a lot of you. just because its legal doesn't mean more people would do it.
with all of that said, i will tell you that i don't do drugs, neither would i want my children to do so.
but i also don't want to fear going into my old neighborhood because the drug dealers are slinging on the corner. no one is going to buy from junebug in the dark if they could go buy during the day at somewhere safe.
December 11, 2007 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
ravenel should do some jail time. drugs are currently illegal and he broke the law. avoiding jail because he's a 'good ravenel' is sending the absolute worst message.
apparently being affluent enough to buy powder cocaine IS better than being less affluent and having to settle for crack or meth.
December 11, 2007 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MinoritySouth (anonymous) says...
Personally, I think we should litmus test the drug policy of the Netherlands in various American cities with the one exception of defining soft drugs as "those that do not create a significant physical dependence over a wide range of the population" and making them completely legal while being taxed like alcohol. Of course this would present a caveat given alcohol is generally physically addictive to most members of the population... Hum???, the irony: So, alcohol would be illegal but decriminalize like hard drugs... Ha ha, just joking alcohol should still be a soft drug but the irony is truly there given the destructive potential of alcohol.
Even more ironic is our current drug policy in the disguise of the pharmaceutical industry. There are many pharmaceuticals that mimic the effects of illicit drugs for example ADHD drugs and cocaine give similar effects and there are some like oxycontin that are direct derivatives of illicit drugs. So what is the difference is what I ask my self? The difference is drug lobbyist have lined the pockets of lawmakers and have promised many lawmakers jobs after their terms are over as well as these "legal" drugs are taxed bringing in huge revenue which perpetuates the current status quo.
And don't come with the obvious, "but you must get a prescription". That is not true if you look at the amount of prescription drugs sold on the internet.
We could do ourselves a huge favor if we legalized, produced and taxed (taxes could go to treatment centers) our own drugs. Just look at the statistics of the Netherlands.
December 11, 2007 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MinoritySouth (anonymous) says...
Citizen Eyfigueroa, the Netherlands model would answer a good many of your questions. Though, I think this should be litmus tested and not simply rolled out nationally on January 1, 2008 for many of the reasons you have stated.
Change does not always mean anarchy. For example, legislatures stepped up to the plate nationally twice regarding alcohol in this country and we still survived...
December 11, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whatelseisthere (anonymous) says...
The word on the street is that he will get about a year in jail. Hope he has nice roommates.
December 11, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LowcountryLady (anonymous) says...
Welcome to the Good Ole Boys System...do you really expect anything more?
December 11, 2007 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
Then why is it when people die of smoking, others blame the tobacco industry?!
December 11, 2007 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MinoritySouth (anonymous) says...
They've known the deadly effects of smoking and tobacco for decades but chose to ignore the health risks of their products and deceive the public and continue to target our youth and those historical events impact the present contrary to popular opinion.
December 11, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
That's a flat out crock of crap minority. I started smoking 35 years ago, and it was commonly known then that smoking was bad for you. 35 years later, with warnings on the packs, public service announcements on TV and radio, brochures in the school and fewer people smoking or condoning smoking than ever you still blame the commercials from the 40's where doctors recommended brand X because it was safer?
They used to say the world was flat too...I guess that historical event impacts the present contrary to popular opinion as well. I know one historical thing that still affects peoples thinking...that stupid commercial that shows an egg and says here's your brain, then they fry it and say here's your brain on drugs...apparently a lot of people bought that hoax and never grew past it.
This is the kind of stupid crap people come up with to justify keeping drugs illegal. Here are people claiming that drugs turn everyone into addicts stealing your goods and murdering and etc...and ignoring the fact that the very person in question has done none of the above. Like I said before, you people need to grow the hell up.
December 11, 2007 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
Has anyone ever heard of a cocaine coronary? For those people that think that you can snort on occasion and not die, you are wrong! Cocaine can kill you the first time you try it. It is not a pleasant site to behold. People have also been known to become addicted after their first time.
When Dave Chappell said, "Cocaine is one helluva drug", I'm not so sure he was really making a joke.
Sure, plenty of people use drugs and are sucessful in their lives, but look at how many go downhill or die.
I don't want creeps like Ravenel sharing his drugs with somebody's child. Lock him up for awhile and let him have plenty of time to think.
December 11, 2007 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justme2 (anonymous) says...
Panel Allows Easing of Crack Sentences
Published: 12/11/07, 5:46 PM EDT
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to allow some 19,500 federal prison inmates, most of them black, to seek reductions in their crack cocaine sentences.
The commission, which sets guidelines for federal prison sentences, decided to make retroactive its recent easing of recommended sentences for crack offenses.
Roughly 3,800 inmates could be eligible for release from prison within a year after the March 3 effective date of Tuesday's decision. Federal judges will have the final say whether to reduce sentences.
The commissioners said the delay would give judges and prison officials time to deal with public safety and other issues.
Inmate family representatives and other advocates had said a Supreme Court decision on Monday could only improve chances the commission would address the long-criticized disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses. Crack is predominantly used by blacks; powder cocaine, predominantly by whites
Readthe whole story at:
http://www.att.net/s/editorial.dll?fr...
December 11, 2007 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justme2 (anonymous) says...
Oh,
Seventy percent of crack defendants get the mandatory minimum.
Neither the court's decision nor the commission's guidelines affect the minimum sentences, which only Congress can alter.
In previous years, the sentencing commission reduced penalties for crimes involving marijuana, LSD and OxyContin, which are primarily committed by whites, and made those decisions retroactive.
___
On The Net:
Sentencing Commission - http://www.ussc.gov/index.html
December 11, 2007 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rockey (anonymous) says...
Well First of all Thomas is a person just like any other person who is sitting in the overcrowded county jail sleeping all on the floor and what some people don't understand is how could he be walking around getting the special treatment like he didn't do anything wrong. Thomas should be punished just like any other drug dealer. I know people personally that are in the county jail with drug charges and they could of lied just like Thomas about being a social user and I bet they would not be treated like him. When I see him on the news he has this look on his face like if he already knows he will not ever see a cell and that's not right especially for other people sitting in jail for things like driving with no liscence. So don't give him special treatment because he was suppose to be a leader of SC and was just a USER and a DEALER. Stop LIEING THOMAS.
December 11, 2007 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
"Sure, plenty of people use drugs and are successful in their lives, but look at how many go downhill or die.
I don't want creeps like Ravenel sharing his drugs with somebody's child. "
Anyone see how totally ridiculous this statement is? A successful businessman is found to have used drugs 2 years ago and RTC has turned it into he's a creep and sharing drugs with children. Great logic there, bet he's banging little boys in the rectory because of his drug use too. You sure you haven't been snorting something yourself RTC? You can't be sober and actually post something that freaking stupid. A pleasant site to behold? Try learning to spell before you start calling people creeps. And cocaine coronary? How about jogging coronaries? sex coronaries? It only takes one poke guys, and next thing you know you're laying on her gasping your last breath...best to just take care of it yourself...but then you could have a masturbatory coronary. RTC says we need federal legislation to stop that kind of thing, so take that sock out from under your pillow...and don't cheat by playing in the shower! RTC and the federal government are there to insure you don't hurt yourself.
December 11, 2007 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
And you jerks that keep saying he should get what everyone else gets are ignoring the fact that those people shouldn't have gotten it either.
Why the heck should someone who does a drug or shares it with someone go to jail...did they hurt you? Did their using a drug take your property, injure you, hurt you? Why the hell should you care if they want to get high on a weekend with friends while they party? You don't give a rats ass if your attorney or accountant or boss or friend or senator gets takes a drink as long as it doesn't affect you, but let him take a puff of weed or a snort of coke and suddenly he's an evil child molesting puppie eating drug addict who should be thrown into prison to protect the populace.
You people are freaking sick.
December 11, 2007 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillMan (anonymous) says...
majorjohnson For President! He would have my vote for sure!
December 11, 2007 at 11:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillMan (anonymous) says...
You can't mess with mj... You can't mess with mj!!! That's my doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg!
December 11, 2007 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.