Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-TX  4:18-cr-00087
Case Name:   USA v. Jordan et al
  Press Releases:
               SHERMAN, Texas –The former mayor of Richardson, Texas and a land developer who she eventually married, have been convicted of federal conspiracy violations in the Eastern District of Texas, announced U.S. Attorney Joseph D. Brown today.

Laura Jordan, also known as Laura Maczka, 54, and Mark Jordan, 52, both of Plano, Texas were found guilty by a jury of following a trial before U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant that lasted over three weeks.  Maczka was found guilty of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, honest services wire fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds and bribery concerning program receiving federal funds.  Jordan was found guilty of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, honest services wire fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds and bribery concerning program receiving federal funds.   

According to information presented in court, from May 2013 through April 2015, Maczka was the mayor of Richardson, Texas, and Jordan was a land developer.   Maczka and Jordan conspired to devise and execute a scheme to defraud and deprive City of Richardson residents of the honest services of the Mayor through bribery. Maczka, contrary to her campaign promises, supported and repeatedly voted for controversial zoning changes sought by Jordan ultimately allowing for the construction of over 1,000 new apartments in Richardson near Richardson neighborhoods. The indictment alleges that, in exchange, Jordan paid Maczka over $18,000 in cash and $40,000 by check, paid for over $24,000 in renovations to Maczka’s home, paid for Maczka’s luxury hotel stays and airfare upgrades, and provided Maczka lucrative employment at one of Jordan’s companies. According to court testimony, Maczka and Jordan failed to disclose to the public that they had coordinated to effect the zoning changes Jordan wanted and that Jordan had provided a stream of benefits to Maczka.

“This kind of corrupt relationship undermines the public’s confidence in government,”   said Eastern District of Texas U.S. Attorney Joseph D. Brown.  “This was more than an ethical violation, this was absolutely criminal.  We need juries that recognize public corruption for what it is, and support prosecutions that attempt to hold accountable those that cheat.  This jury certainly did that.”

Mark Jordan was taken into custody following the verdict and will appear for a detention hearing on Mar. 8, 2019.

               Under federal statutes, Maczka and Jordan each face up to 20 years in federal prison at sentencing.  The maximum statutory sentence prescribed by Congress is provided here for information purposes, as the sentencing will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.  A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the U.S. Probation Office.    

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher A. Eason, Maureen Smith, Glenn Roque-Jackson, and Bradley Visosky. 

PLANO, Texas –The former mayor of Richardson, Texas and a land developer who she eventually married, have been indicted on federal conspiracy violations in the Eastern District of Texas, announced U.S. Attorney Joseph D. Brown today.

Laura Jordan, also known as Laura Maczka, 53, and Mark Jordan, 51, both of Plano, Texas were named in a seven-count indictment charging them with conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, honest services wire fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery, and bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds.  A federal grand jury returned the indictment on May 10, 2018.  Maczka and Jordan made initial appearances before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly Priest Johnson today. 

According to the indictment, from May 2013 through April 2015, Maczka was the mayor of Richardson, Texas, and Jordan was a land developer.  The indictment alleges that Maczka and Jordan conspired to devise and execute a scheme to defraud and deprive City of Richardson residents of the honest services of the Mayor through bribery. Maczka, contrary to her campaign promises, supported and repeatedly voted for controversial zoning changes sought by Jordan ultimately allowing for the construction of over 1,000 new apartments in Richardson near Richardson neighborhoods. The indictment alleges that, in exchange, Jordan paid Maczka over $18,000 in cash and $40,000 by check, paid for over $24,000 in renovations to Maczka’s home, paid for Maczka’s luxury hotel stays and airfare upgrades, and provided Maczka lucrative employment at one of Jordan’s companies. According to the indictment, Maczka and Jordan failed to disclose to the public that they had coordinated to effect the zoning changes Jordan wanted and that Jordan had provided a stream of benefits to Maczka.

“These are the kinds of things that make the public distrust government officials,” said U.S. Attorney Joseph D. Brown.  “Public servants should not be for sale, and this indictment clearly indicates that that Ms. Maczka’s vote was for sale, and Mr. Jordan certainly was willing to buy it.”

"With the indictment and arrest of Maczka and Jordan, the FBI will continue its efforts to identify and bring to justice those public servants who use their positions of trust to benefit themselves personally and conspire with others to violate federal corruption laws," said Erick K. Jackson, FBI Dallas Special Agent-In-Charge.

            If convicted, both Maczka and Jordan face up to 20 years in federal prison.

This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

A grand jury indictment is not evidence of guilt.  All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cV2HvqNsFnjVZZps61KVLYPMXeYEORUps1ZHS_q6ZLU
  Last Updated: 2024-04-08 15:21:00 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E