Score:   1
Docket Number:   MD-AL  2:18-cr-00116
Case Name:   USA v. Gilbert et al
  Press Releases:
            Montgomery, Alabama – On Wednesday, July 25, 2018, another Alabama legislator was arrested in a pending public corruption case involving the owner of a chain of diabetes treatment clinics, announced United States Attorney Louis V. Franklin, Sr.

            State Representative Randall M. “Randy” Davis, 66, of Daphne, Alabama is the new defendant in this case and was charged in a superseding indictment along with co-defendants G. Ford Gilbert, 70, of Carmichael, California, and Martin J. “Marty” Connors, 61, of Alabaster.

            The case began in April of 2018 when a federal grand jury returned an indictment against G. Ford Gilbert, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Trina Health, LLC (Trina Health)—a California-based company that operates diabetes treatment clinics all over the United States and in some foreign countries.

            The original indictment alleged that in 2014 and 2015, Trina Health opened three clinics in Alabama. Soon thereafter, the state’s largest health insurer informed Trina Health that it would not cover the treatments provided by Trina Health. Gilbert then schemed to force the insurer to change its position.

            Gilbert came up with a plan to push a bill through the Alabama Legislature’s 2016 session that would require the insurer to cover the treatments. Gilbert then made payments and gave things of value to a legislator, former House of Representatives Majority Leader Micky Ray Hammon, in exchange for Hammon working behind the scenes to push the bill. Gilbert also hired co-defendant Martin Connors to act as a lobbyist on behalf of the bill. Connors knew of Gilbert’s payments to the legislator.

            The new charges contained in the superseding indictment alleges that Davis also stood to gain from Trina Health’s successes. According to the indictment, during 2014 and 2015, Davis tried to recruit investors to Trina Health and, as a result of doing so, he received finder’s fees. After Trina Health encountered difficulties with the health insurance companies, Davis attempted to lobby the insurance company to change its position. When that failed, Davis took steps to advance the bill. For example, Davis helped to recruit a sponsor, arranged for the public hearing to be video recorded, and then spoke in favor of the bill at a public hearing.

            Based on these events, the superseding indictment charges Davis, Gilbert, and Connors with conspiracy to commit bribery related to federal programs. Additionally, the superseding indictment alleges that Gilbert committed various acts of bribery related to federal programs. Gilbert and Davis are also charged with interstate travel and communications in aid of racketeering. The last count in the superseding indictment charges Connors with making a false statement to a federal agent.

            An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed. Each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

            If convicted of the most serious offenses, each defendant in this case faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, significant monetary penalties, asset forfeiture, and restitution.

            The United States Postal Inspection Service investigated the case with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorneys Jonathan S. Ross, Joshua J. Wendell, and Stephanie Billingslea are prosecuting the case.

       Montgomery, Ala. –    On Friday, January 4, 2019, G. Ford Gilbert, 71, of Carmichael, California, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit bribery of a state official, announced United States Attorney Louis V. Franklin, Sr., Postal Inspector in Charge of the Houston Division Adrian Gonzalez, and Special Agent in Charge James Jewell of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Mobile Division. 

       According to court documents, when he committed his offense, Gilbert was the owner of a California-based company, Trina Health, LLC (Trina Health).  At outpatient clinics, Trina Health provided a form of diabetes treatment known as the “Artificial Pancreas Treatment.”  In 2014 and 2015, Trina Health and associated business entities opened three clinics in Alabama—one in Foley, one in Fairhope, and one in Hoover.  Micky Ray Hammon, who, at the time, was the majority leader of the Alabama House of Representatives, was a part-owner of the Hoover clinic. 

       Shortly after the Foley and Fairhope clinics opened and just before the Hoover clinic began operations, the state’s largest health insurer informed Trina Health that it would not cover the treatments provided at these clinics.  Throughout 2015 Gilbert tried unsuccessfully to persuade the health insurance company to reconsider.  In early 2016, Gilbert developed a scheme to force the insurer to change its position. 

       Specifically, he came up with a plan to push a bill through the Alabama Legislature’s 2016 session, which, had it passed, would have required the health insurer to cover Trina Health’s Artificial Pancreas Treatments.  Gilbert looked to Hammon to assist in the passage of the bill.  Hammon, who by this point had sold his ownership interest in the Hoover clinic, informed Gilbert that it would create an appearance of impropriety for him to publicly support the legislation.  However, Hammon was willing to use his influence in the House of Representatives to quietly generate support for Gilbert’s bill.  To persuade Hammon to do this, in April 2016, Gilbert paid Hammon $2,000.  Thereafter, Hammon arranged for various other legislators to speak in support of the Trina Health-supported legislation at a public hearing.  Despite Hammon’s efforts, the bill did not advance out of committee. 

       Gilbert’s sentencing will be scheduled at some point in the coming months before United States District Judge Myron H. Thompson.  At sentencing, he faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine of not more than $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. 

       “Mr. Gilbert thought that it would take only a small payment to turn the Alabama House of Representatives into a tool for solving his own business problems,” stated United States Attorney Franklin.  “Fortunately, Gilbert was not successful in persuading the legislature to pass this tainted bill.  Nevertheless, it is my hope that this case sends a strong message to business owners and special interest groups who might seek to obtain legislative assistance through improper means.  My office will do whatever it takes to ensure that the citizens of this state are served by the state legislature they deserve—one committed to doing only the people’s work.”

       Mr. Franklin added, “I wish to express my tremendous gratitude to the United States Postal Inspection Service for the superior work the postal inspectors put into this prosecution.  This case would not have been possible without the Postal Inspection Service’s dogged investigation and steadfast commitment to ensuring that this conduct did not go unpunished. Thanks is also owed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI’s special agents provided crucial assistance in the investigation of this case.”

       “Public trust in government is essential to our democracy,” stated Postal Inspector in Charge of the Houston Division Adrian Gonzalez.  “The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has an extensive history of protecting the integrity of government and will vigorously investigate those attempting to undermine that trust and hold them accountable. This investigation was complex and multifaceted, and it underscores the reason we are committed to working to dismantle any and all public corruption schemes.”

       “The FBI will continue to aggressively assist our state, local, and federal partners in the public corruption arena,” stated FBI Special Agent in Charge James Jewell. “This type of behavior will not be tolerated.”

       As noted, the United States Postal Inspection Service investigated the case with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Assistant United States Attorneys Jonathan S. Ross, Joshua Wendell, and Stephanie C. Billingslea are prosecuting the case.

            Montgomery, Alabama – On Tuesday, May 28, 2019, G. Ford Gilbert, 71, of Carmichael, California received a 12-month sentence for conspiring to commit bribery of a state official, announced United States Attorney Louis V. Franklin, Sr. The judge ordered that the 12-month sentence be served by completing six months of incarceration in federal prison, to be followed by six months of home detention.

            Gilbert’s sentencing follows his guilty plea that occurred back in January of this year. Court documents show that Gilbert was the owner of a California-based company that provided a form of diabetes treatment that would not be covered by the state’s largest health care insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBS-AL). After his attempts to persuade BCBS-AL to cover the treatments were unsuccessful, he developed another plan.

            During the 2016 Alabama Legislature session, he conspired with the majority leader of the Alabama House of Representatives at the time, Mickey Ray Hammon, to pass a bill that would have required BCBS-AL to cover the treatments offered by his clinics. Court documents indicate that Hammon used his influence in the House of Representatives to generate support for Gilbert’s bill and was paid $2000.00 by Gilbert to do so. However, the bill failed when it did not advance out of committee.

            This case was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorneys Jonathan S. Ross, Joshua Wendell, and Stephanie C. Billingslea prosecuted the case.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XGaZXFic3KTv6dEph1caRQISbt9oynzKM20923fFQrw
  Last Updated: 2024-03-27 01:46:35 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