Attorney: Williams doesn’t owe Riverview Gardens as much as court ordered him to pay
Henry Williams doesn’t owe the Riverview Gardens School District money, his lawyer said this week.
Or at least not as much as prosecutors say, said attorney Thomas J. Carter, in the first public statement to be released on Williams’ behalf since he was convicted of stealing more than $100,000 from his former school district.
Williams pleaded guilty and agreed to pay back the money simply for “expediency,” Carter said in an e-mail the Post-Dispatch received Monday, “although he believed that the amount of the restitution was overstated.”
“Dr. Williams did not admit the specific amount of stealing charge as correct,” Carter continued in the note.
Prosecutors chuckled at that.
“Whether he agrees with it, or not, it doesn’t matter,” said Bart Calhoun, a county prosecutor.
Williams, 67, was driven out of the north St. Louis County district almost two years ago after being accused of funneling school money into a personal life insurance fund, understating his income and double-dipping on district travel reimbursement.
Williams was supposed to pay $1,700 — his first monthly court-ordered restitution payment — by the middle of last week.
But prosecutors said he sent only $800.
Until they filed a motion to revoke Williams’ probation and send him to prison, that is.
Soon thereafter, Calhoun said, Williams paid the rest of the money.
Here is the full text of Carter’s e-mail:
As the attorney for Dr. Henry Williams, I have been asked to offer a statement as to the ability of Dr. Williams to repay the restitution as agreed by his Alford plea.
It should first be noted that Dr. Williams agreed to the restitution because of expediency although he believed that the amount of the restitution was overstated. When his trial was scheduled Dr. Williams was faced with the dilemma of trying the case claiming that the funds allegedly stolen were overstated or accept the amount of the restitution as dictated by the prosecution and as a result negotiated for less jail time. Dr. Williams chose the latter.
It should also be noted that Dr. Williams plead guilty in the form of an “Alford” plea where he admitted he was pleading guilty because the evidence against him was enough that a jury of his peers could find him guilty. However, Dr. Williams did not admit the specific amount of stealing charge as correct.
Returning to the subject of the amount of the restitution, Dr. Williams’ contract of employment with the school district required that the school district pay for his life insurance policy. The amount of the restitution does include these amounts which Dr. Williams legally were entitled.
Williams should be in jail! He is a slime and deserves severe punishment. Perhaps Bubba could straighten him out!
You got that one right Superdave. The system gave this slime-ball the opportunity to pay a nominal sum to stay out of jail and he was going to try to under report that the same way he (apparently) under reported his income–part of what wound him up in
these straights.
What I’d like to know is how this got into a ‘blog whose subject is suppsed to be education or schools. This is an issue of crime and punishment. Evidently Williams wasn’t even capable of learning from the experience. It’s too bad the prosticutors weren’t more hard-nosed and didn’t get him tossed in the hoosgow without informing everyone that he’d come up short. The first we all should have heard of this is the story about Williams being hauled off and why.
Courts and court-orders are not to be trifled with. If you have one, you are under obligation upon pain of imprisonment to comply with it to the full extent of your ability.
I wonder how Thomas J. Carter would have reacted had Williams had second thoughts about paying his fees for services rendered. Would he have thought that a valid point of view?
Like as not the good Counselor insisted on full payment up-front before-the-fact.
You two need to understand our society holdup theses types as some kind of hero. Just for the sake of conversation. Michael Vick, if you will kill an innocent dog, the next leap is killing your mother.
The question really should be how did he acquire a PhD, and what was his thesis?
(This comment was edited to remove inappropriate content.)