Richard Convertino Deposition

Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-8 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 32
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD G. CONVERTINO

CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
---------------------------------x
RICHARD CONVERTINO, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et ) No.04-00236
al., ) (RCL)
Defendants. )
---------------------------------x
Videotaped Deposition of RICHARD G. CONVERTINO
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
9:24 a.m.
Job No.: 1-154367
Pages: 1 - 269
Reported By: Lee A. Bursten, RPR
L.A.D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000030
Page 6 Page 8
08:59:52 1 PROCEEDINGS 09:26:26 1 testimony for that case?
09:24:36 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins tape 09:26:26 2 A Yes. Yes, sir.
09:24:38 3 number 1 in the deposition of Richard G. 09:26:28 3 Q And you understand that you're under
09:24:44 4 Convertino, in the matter of Richard Convertino 09:26:30 4 oath?
09:24:46 5 versus U.S. Department of Justice et al., pending 09:26:30 5 A Yes, sir.
09:24:50 6 in the U.S. District Court for the District of 09:26:32 6 Q Have you ever been deposed in a civil
09:24:52 7 Columbia, case number 04-236. Today's date is 09:26:32 7 case before?
09:24:56 8 April 30th, 2009. The time is 9:24 a.m. The video 09:26:34 8 A I have not.
09:25:02 9 operator is Scott Forman of L.A.D. Reporting. 09:26:34 9 Q Have you ever taken a civil deposition?
09:25:06 10 This deposition is taking place at the 09:26:36 10 I know you're an attorney. As an attorney have you
09:25:08 11 U.S. Department of Justice, 20 Massachusetts Avenue 09:26:40 11 ever taken a civil deposition?
09:25:12 12 Northwest, Washington, D.C. Would counsel identify 09:26:42 12 A Yes, I have. Yes.
09:25:14 13 themselves and state whom they represent. 09:26:44 13 Q How many?
09:25:16 14 MR. SMITH: Jeffrey Smith for the United 09:26:44 14 A One.
09:25:18 15 States Department of Justice. 09:26:46 15 Q Was that in Mr. Morningstar's case?
09:25:22 16 MR. RISNER: Scott Risner for the 09:26:48 16 A It was, yes.
09:25:24 17 Department of Justice. 09:26:48 17 Q So you have a general familiarity with
09:25:26 18 MR. KOHN: Stephen M. Kohn, K-O-H-N, for 09:26:50 18 how depositions are conducted?
09:25:30 19 Mr. Convertino. 09:26:52 19 A Generally.
09:25:32 20 MS. FERBER: Lenore M. Ferber for 09:26:54 20 Q And you also attended some depositions
09:25:34 21 Mr. Convertino. 09:26:56 21 last week in this case?
09:25:36 22 MR. KOHN: The law clerks should identify 09:26:56 22 A I have, yes.
Page 7 Page 9
09:25:38 1 themselves for the record, from my firm. 09:26:58 1 Q So you understand that there's a court
09:25:40 2 MS. GELB: Rachel Gelb for 09:27:02 2 reporter, he'll be taking down your answers.
09:25:44 3 Mr. Convertino. 09:27:04 3 A Yes, sir.
09:25:44 4 MS. LIM: Katbora Lim for Mr. Convertino 09:27:04 4 Q And even though we have a videographer,
09:25:48 5 too. 09:27:06 5 we still need to have oral communication between
09:25:48 6 MR. SMITH: We have a paralegal, Peter 09:27:10 6 the two of us, not a shake of the head or something
09:25:52 7 Fu, from the Department of Justice. 09:27:12 7 like that.
09:25:52 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The reporter is Lee 09:27:12 8 A I understand.
09:25:54 9 Bursten of L.A.D. Reporting. I will now swear in 09:27:16 9 Q And I'm going to ask that you wait until
09:25:56 10 the witness. 09:27:18 10 I finish my questions, and I will do my best to
09:25:58 11 RICHARD G. CONVERTINO 09:27:22 11 wait until you finish your answers, so that we
09:26:06 12 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 09:27:24 12 don't talk over each other and we have a clean
09:26:06 13 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 09:27:26 13 record.
14 BY MR. SMITH: 09:27:26 14 A Yes.
09:26:06 15 Q Good morning, Mr. Convertino. 09:27:26 15 Q Is that okay?
09:26:08 16 A Good morning, sir. 09:27:28 16 A Yes, sir.
09:26:10 17 Q Do you understand that you're here today 09:27:30 17 Q Do you know of any reason why you might
09:26:12 18 to testify for discovery in the lawsuit of 09:27:32 18 not be able to testify fully and truthfully today?
09:26:14 19 Convertino versus the United States Department of 09:27:34 19 A No, sir.
09:26:20 20 Justice? 09:27:34 20 Q Are you taking any medication that could
09:26:20 21 A Yes. Yes. For discovery... 09:27:38 21 affect your ability to testify truthfully or to
09:26:24 22 Q You understand you're here to give 09:27:40 22 affect your memory?
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000031
Page 18 Page 20
09:37:30 1 assigned to work cases in the field. 09:40:12 1 the one I felt I knew best, because I was traveling
09:37:34 2 Q So those are criminal prosecutions 09:40:16 2 for -- I think it was a number of years I was going
09:37:36 3 against people who are accused of being part of an 09:40:18 3 out there before I moved out there.
09:37:38 4 organized crime group? 09:40:18 4 Q Why were you going out there before you
09:37:40 5 A Not necessarily. But it's -- they're 09:40:22 5 moved out there?
09:37:44 6 criminal cases, criminal investigations that may 09:40:22 6 A I was working cases assigned from
09:37:48 7 evolve into prosecutions. But not always an 09:40:26 7 Washington to Detroit. That was one of the places
09:37:52 8 organized crime group. A separate component of it 09:40:28 8 that I went.
09:38:00 9 was labor racketeering. So if somebody might have 09:40:28 9 Q When you joined the office in Detroit,
09:38:02 10 been charged with a labor racketeering defense but 09:40:32 10 were you part of the Strike Force?
09:38:06 11 not be a member of an organized crime group. 09:40:34 11 A When I first came on?
09:38:10 12 Q And how long did you work in this 09:40:36 12 Q Yes.
09:38:12 13 section? 09:40:36 13 A No.
09:38:12 14 A In the Organized Crime and Racketeering 09:40:36 14 Q You were just -- or what section were you
09:38:14 15 Section? 09:40:40 15 in?
09:38:14 16 Q Yes. 09:40:40 16 A I was in the narcotics drug section, drug
09:38:18 17 A I left in 19 -- officially I think I took 09:40:48 17 unit.
09:38:26 18 a job offer in Detroit in December or November, 09:40:48 18 Q How long were you in the drug unit?
09:38:32 19 somewhere around there, of 1994. And my family 09:40:52 19 A Not long. The reason that -- I went to
09:38:40 20 moved to Detroit, and before I made the transition, 09:40:58 20 the drug unit, but I was told that I was going to
09:38:46 21 there was an attorney who was assigned to a case in 09:41:02 21 be absorbed into the organized crime unit once an
09:38:50 22 D.C., which was rare for our section to be assigned 09:41:04 22 attorney was moved out. So I knew I was going into
Page 19 Page 21
09:38:54 1 to a case in D.C. And he left the department. And 09:41:08 1 the Organized Crime Strike Force, which was also
09:38:58 2 so my chief asked if I would fill in, and thought 09:41:12 2 appealing to me. So I can't recall how long I was
09:39:04 3 it would be a plea, and it ended up being a 09:41:16 3 in the drug unit. But it doesn't seem like it was
09:39:06 4 six-month trial. 09:41:18 4 very long.
09:39:06 5 Q Your chief here in Washington? 09:41:20 5 Q So you don't remember exactly when you
09:39:08 6 A Yes, Paul Coffey. 09:41:24 6 joined the Strike Force?
09:39:10 7 Q So you went to Detroit but then you were 09:41:24 7 A I don't, no.
09:39:14 8 detailed back? 09:41:24 8 Q Can you explain what the Strike Force is,
09:39:14 9 A I believe it was -- I didn't leave D.C. 09:41:28 9 or was at the time you were a member?
09:39:20 10 I lived in a hotel. But I think the pay, that I 09:41:34 10 A It used to be an independent unit or
09:39:26 11 was being paid by -- I was detailed by the U.S. 09:41:38 11 section that was separate and apart from the U.S.
09:39:30 12 Attorney, I think officially, even though I left to 09:41:42 12 Attorney's Office. And it was under the aegis of
09:39:32 13 go to Detroit in July or August of '95. 09:41:46 13 the Criminal Division. So attorneys in Strike
09:39:40 14 Q So that's when you started working 09:41:52 14 Forces were paid different, they had different
09:39:42 15 physically at the U.S. Attorney's Office in 09:41:54 15 amenities. They had cars assigned to the attorneys
09:39:44 16 Detroit? 09:41:58 16 in the Strike Forces. I think it was in 1988
09:39:44 17 A Yes. Summer of '95. 09:42:02 17 then-Attorney General Thornburgh merged the Strike
09:39:48 18 Q Was there any particular reason why you 09:42:06 18 Forces into the U.S. Attorney's Offices.
09:39:50 19 wanted to work in that U.S. Attorney's Office? 09:42:10 19 But they were still -- Strike Force
09:39:54 20 A I applied to several. And I wanted to -- 09:42:14 20 mentality was still that it was not part of the
09:40:00 21 my first choice was Alexandria, but I didn't get in 09:42:18 21 U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it was somewhat of
09:40:04 22 there. And three or four offices in Detroit was 09:42:24 22 a -- you know, a rivalry, if you will, between the
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000032
Page 22 Page 24
09:42:26 1 attorneys in the Strike Force and the attorneys in 09:44:08 1 A As a part of the formal -- probably I was
09:42:30 2 the office. 09:44:14 2 a part of it.
09:42:30 3 Q Who was the head of the Strike Force when 09:44:14 3 Q Do you remember who signed your reviews,
09:42:32 4 you joined it? 09:44:20 4 as --
09:42:36 5 A Keith Corbett. 09:44:20 5 A I think Walter would have signed them. I
09:42:38 6 Q And do you know how long Keith Corbett 09:44:22 6 know Keith and Alan Gershel.
09:42:40 7 remained as the head of the Strike Force? 09:44:28 7 Q And what was Mr. Gershel's position?
09:42:44 8 A When you say "remained" -- 09:44:30 8 A He had different positions when I was
09:42:46 9 Q He's now retired? 09:44:30 9 there. I think when I came he was the -- I think
09:42:48 10 A Yes, I think he is retired. 09:44:36 10 Alan was the acting U.S. Attorney, I think. I
09:42:50 11 Q Do you know how long -- when he stopped 09:44:44 11 think Alan hired me. I think he was always the
09:42:52 12 being the chief of the Strike Force? 09:44:48 12 first Assistant U.S. Attorney. And Criminal
09:42:54 13 A No. 09:44:52 13 Division chief. He had both roles until September
09:42:54 14 Q Was he the chief of the Strike Force for 09:44:58 14 of 2003, and then he became the Criminal Division
09:42:56 15 the entire time you were a member of the Strike 09:45:02 15 chief.
09:42:58 16 Force? 09:45:12 16 Q While you were at the Strike Force, did
09:42:58 17 A Yes. 09:45:14 17 the Strike Force have any reporting requirements to
09:43:00 18 Q Was he your immediate supervisor during 09:45:18 18 Washington that were different than the U.S.
09:43:02 19 that period? 09:45:20 19 Attorney's Office in general?
09:43:02 20 A No. 09:45:20 20 A Yes.
09:43:04 21 Q Was he ever your immediate supervisor? 09:45:22 21 Q What were those requirements?
09:43:08 22 A No. 09:45:24 22 A The Strike Force attorneys, depending on
Page 23 Page 25
09:43:08 1 Q Who was your immediate supervisor when 09:45:30 1 the type of case, if it were a labor case, would
09:43:10 2 you joined the Strike Force? 09:45:34 2 submit proposed indictments to the labor
09:43:12 3 A Walter Kozar was the deputy chief. And 09:45:36 3 racketeering section. If it were a RICO, it would
09:43:18 4 Keith was the chief. 09:45:40 4 go to the RICO section. And they would always
09:43:20 5 Q And was Mr. Kozar the deputy chief for 09:45:46 5 review indictments. I can't even -- I don't know
09:43:24 6 the entire time that you were a member of the 09:45:50 6 if the U.S. attorneys, if the Strike Force
09:43:26 7 Strike Force? 09:45:52 7 attorneys would even give or have the U.S.
09:43:26 8 A Yes. 09:45:56 8 attorneys review their proposed indictments.
09:43:28 9 Q Was he your immediate supervisor during 09:46:06 9 When I was traveling out there, I don't
09:43:30 10 this period? 09:46:08 10 recall that they were doing that.
09:43:32 11 A I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. 09:46:08 11 Q In your experience did the people in
09:43:34 12 He was the deputy chief, so he would have been in 09:46:10 12 Washington who reviewed the indictments sometimes
09:43:36 13 the hierarchal set of the Strike Force. He was 09:46:12 13 give comments that were incorporated?
09:43:44 14 technically my immediate supervisor. But Keith was 09:46:16 14 A Yes.
09:43:48 15 the chief and was a hands-on person. 09:46:18 15 Q Did they ever in your experience tell the
09:43:50 16 Q Okay. Did you receive oral reviews in 09:46:20 16 Strike Force that they couldn't bring an indictment
09:43:56 17 addition to written reviews, or was it only written 09:46:24 17 or they didn't think they should?
09:43:56 18 reviews? 09:46:26 18 A No. Not in my experience.
09:44:00 19 A I don't recall oral reviews. I mean, if 09:46:42 19 Q Did you personally ever have any problems
09:44:04 20 it was a part of the formal review process, is that 09:46:44 20 with the reporting requirements to Washington?
09:44:08 21 what you mean? 09:46:46 21 A What do you mean, problems with the
09:44:08 22 Q Yes. 09:46:48 22 reporting requirements?
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000033
Page 26 Page 28
09:46:48 1 Q I mean was there any concern or tension 09:49:36 1 Detroit?
09:46:52 2 with regard to an indictment that you sent over 09:49:36 2 Q Yes.
09:46:52 3 there? Strike that. Did you ever have -- just 09:49:38 3 A Was that Rule 11 plea agreements were
09:47:02 4 strike that. When you were at the U.S. Attorney's 09:49:44 4 subject to approval by the chief of the section or
09:47:12 5 Office, did you have a general understanding of the 09:49:48 5 the unit.
09:47:14 6 office policies and procedures? 09:49:50 6 Q And in your case that would have been
09:47:18 7 A In Detroit? 09:49:54 7 Mr. Corbett?
09:47:20 8 Q Yes. 09:49:54 8 A Mr. Corbett.
09:47:20 9 A The office policies and procedures were 09:49:58 9 Q Can you explain briefly your
09:47:22 10 never -- I don't recall ever having a manual or 09:50:00 10 understanding of a 5K1.1 motion?
09:47:30 11 given any copies of any information or attending 09:50:04 11 A It's a downward departure based upon
09:47:34 12 any briefings or seminars or anything like that. 09:50:12 12 cooperation that's incorporated into the Rule 11
09:47:38 13 So I guess the -- what I came to know as the office 09:50:14 13 plea agreement. It's a presentencing downward
09:47:44 14 policies and procedures were what the working 09:50:18 14 departure as opposed to a post sentencing Rule 35
09:47:46 15 policies and procedures were. 09:50:22 15 downward departure.
09:47:48 16 Q And that was based on -- and what you 09:50:24 16 Q As a downward departure on the sentencing
09:47:50 17 came to know was based on your practice and 09:50:26 17 guidelines chart, is that what you mean by a
09:47:54 18 experience there? 09:50:30 18 downward departure?
09:47:58 19 A Yes, there, yes, including the time that 09:50:30 19 A It doesn't have to be on the sentencing
09:48:02 20 I was not a member of the office but traveling to 09:50:32 20 guidelines chart. But a downward departure in the
09:48:04 21 the office. 09:50:36 21 agreed-upon sentence or the max or the range.
09:48:10 22 Q Can you tell me briefly your 09:50:40 22 Q And what was your understanding on the
Page 27 Page 29
09:48:12 1 understanding of what a Rule 11 plea is? 09:50:44 1 policy of who needed to approve 5K1.1 motions?
09:48:14 2 A A Rule 11 plea is an agreement between 09:50:50 2 A You're asking me about my understanding
09:48:20 3 the defendant, putative defendant and the 09:50:52 3 of the policy. I can tell you I've never seen a
09:48:22 4 government pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal 09:50:58 4 policy on the procedures. And I'm not aware to
09:48:26 5 Procedure Rule 11, which calls for certain -- it's 09:51:04 5 this day if there is a written policy in the
09:48:30 6 a contract, is what it is. It calls for the 09:51:08 6 Detroit office on the procedures. But typically
09:48:36 7 defendant to do certain things and the government 09:51:10 7 what would happen is the Rule 11s and whatever
09:48:38 8 to do certain things. 09:51:16 8 downward departure would go to the unit chief,
09:48:38 9 Q And what normally -- what types of things 09:51:18 9 which would then be disseminated to Alan Gershel.
09:48:40 10 would a defendant be called upon to do in a Rule 11 09:51:24 10 Q In his role as criminal chief?
09:48:42 11 plea? Cooperate in other cases, or -- 09:51:26 11 A Criminal chief or first assistant. I'm
09:48:46 12 A It depends. If it's a cooperation 09:51:30 12 not sure.
09:48:48 13 agreement, then yes, cooperate is certainly one of 09:51:30 13 Q Were you ever aware of a time that
09:48:50 14 them. The Rule 11s from the office were -- had 09:51:34 14 Mr. Gershel declined to approve or rejected a
09:48:56 15 things like requirement for a polygraph. It would 09:51:38 15 proposed 5K1.1 motion?
09:49:02 16 say what the sentencing guidelines were. It would 09:51:42 16 A At any period of time?
09:49:06 17 say what the -- it would have the factual basis for 09:51:44 17 Q Any period of time while you were there.
09:49:12 18 the plea. It would be detailed in the Rule 11 plea 09:51:46 18 A No.
09:49:18 19 agreement. 09:51:50 19 Q Was it --
09:49:22 20 Q What was your understanding of the policy 09:51:52 20 A You're asking me if I'm personally aware
09:49:26 21 for who needed to approve a rule 11 plea agreement? 09:51:54 21 of that?
09:49:32 22 A My understanding of the policy in 09:51:54 22 Q Yes.
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000034
Page 30 Page 32
09:51:54 1 A No, I'm not. 09:54:10 1 Q You never heard that?
09:51:56 2 Q Are you aware of it through hearsay? 09:54:12 2 A I have not. I know several instances
09:51:58 3 A I'm not. 09:54:16 3 where that's not true.
09:52:02 4 Q Are you aware of any policy that would 09:54:20 4 Q Could you give me those instances that
09:52:04 5 have required that such motions be made in writing 09:54:22 5 you're aware of?
09:52:06 6 as opposed to orally before the Court? 09:54:26 6 A Well, Sammy Gravano was -- pled to the 19
09:52:08 7 A No. 09:54:38 7 homicides and got a five-year sentence in return
09:52:08 8 Q How would one get Mr. Gershel's approval 09:54:46 8 for his cooperation, as an example.
09:52:12 9 if one were going to do an oral motion as opposed 09:54:48 9 Q Do you know what office prosecuted
09:52:16 10 to a written motion? 09:54:50 10 Mr. Gravano?
09:52:16 11 A Ask him. 09:54:52 11 A Southern District of New York, I think it
09:52:20 12 Q Are you telling me to ask him? 09:54:54 12 was.
09:52:20 13 A No. 09:54:54 13 Q Is that the person known as Sammy the
09:52:22 14 Q You would ask him orally? 09:54:58 14 Bull?
09:52:24 15 A Yes. 09:54:58 15 A Sammy the Bull.
09:52:24 16 Q One would ask him orally. 09:55:00 16 Q When you were at the U.S. Attorney's
09:52:28 17 A You could ask him orally. You could 09:55:02 17 Office, were you aware of a component of Justice
09:52:30 18 propose it in an e-mail. It was very informal. 09:55:06 18 called the Office of Professional Responsibility?
09:52:40 19 Q Did you, aside from Marwan Farhat, did 09:55:08 19 A Yes.
09:52:46 20 you ever make oral 5K1.1 motions while you were a 09:55:12 20 Q And were you aware that an attorney's
09:52:50 21 prosecutor? 09:55:20 21 conduct could be referred to that office for
09:52:52 22 A Well, you're always making an oral motion 09:55:22 22 investigation?
Page 31 Page 33
09:52:56 1 for a downward departure. 09:55:24 1 A Yes.
09:52:58 2 Q But wouldn't you submit something in 09:55:26 2 Q Did you ever make such a referral?
09:53:00 3 writing most of the time? 09:55:30 3 A Did I ever refer another attorney to OPR?
09:53:02 4 A Oh, separate and apart from that? 09:55:34 4 Q Yes.
09:53:04 5 Q Yes. 09:55:34 5 A No, I did not.
09:53:08 6 A I can't recall. I don't know. 09:55:36 6 Q Aside from the referral that's at issue
09:53:10 7 Q Okay. Was there a rule of thumb or 09:55:40 7 in this case, did you ever know of any OPR
09:53:18 8 policy regarding how much of a departure a 09:55:44 8 referrals that were made while you were at the U.S.
09:53:22 9 defendant would get for cooperation? 09:55:46 9 Attorney's Office? Did you ever know, like "I know
09:53:26 10 A I'm not aware of any policy. 09:55:48 10 that there was a referral on him"?
09:53:28 11 Q What about a rule of thumb? 09:55:54 11 A Any attorney at the U.S. Attorney's
09:53:30 12 A Rule of thumb, generally speaking, I 09:55:56 12 Office getting referred to OPR?
09:53:38 13 think a three-level downward departure was as a 09:55:58 13 Q Yes.
09:53:42 14 rule of thumb the typical downward departure, it 09:56:04 14 A I don't recall any.
09:53:50 15 was three levels. 09:56:06 15 Q Were you ever the subject of an OPR
09:53:50 16 Q Have you ever heard -- 09:56:08 16 referral to your knowledge prior to the one that
09:53:52 17 A I'm sorry. And we were talking about a 09:56:12 17 Mr. Collins sent?
09:53:54 18 5K1.1 downward departure as opposed to -- 09:56:14 18 A Yes.
09:53:58 19 Q Yes. Have you ever heard anyone say that 09:56:14 19 Q And what was that?
09:54:06 20 as a general rule the most a departure someone 09:56:16 20 A It was when I was in main Justice, in the
09:54:10 21 should get is 50 percent? 09:56:22 21 Organized Crime Section. I was working a case
09:54:10 22 A No. 09:56:26 22 along with -- in conjunction with Dick DeLonis,
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000035
Page 34 Page 36
09:56:28 1 Richard DeLonis, who was an AUSA, I think is still 09:59:04 1 A Yes.
09:56:34 2 in AUSA. And we were referred to OPR I think in 09:59:06 2 Q In your experience, is it common for
09:56:40 3 1993. I think. 09:59:10 3 defense attorneys to make claims that prosecutors
09:56:42 4 Q And who made the referral, if you know? 09:59:14 4 acted improperly in order to gain tactical
09:56:44 5 A John Dowd. 09:59:20 5 advantage in the case?
09:56:46 6 Q And who is he? 09:59:22 6 A Yes, it is.
09:56:48 7 A An attorney. He was with a big law firm 09:59:26 7 Q Not for that reason, but as a defense
09:56:54 8 here in D.C., I think Akin Gump, I think, at the 09:59:28 8 attorney, have you ever made claims that a
09:56:58 9 time. 09:59:30 9 prosecutor has acted improperly?
09:56:58 10 Q And did he represent a defendant in a 09:59:36 10 A I would have liked to, but have not. As
09:57:00 11 case? 09:59:46 11 a result of this, as a result of this leak, and
09:57:00 12 A Yes. 09:59:48 12 what it's done to my career, every time I go into
09:57:00 13 Q And what did he claim that you had done 09:59:52 13 court, every time I face a prosecutor, I get
09:57:02 14 that was unprofessional? 09:59:56 14 allegations of impropriety or misconduct.
09:57:04 15 A As I recall he claimed we shredded 10:00:00 15 Prosecutors tell me, "I know about you." I'm
09:57:06 16 documents. That's the only one that I can recall 10:00:04 16 treated differently in courts by the judges. So
09:57:12 17 right now. But it was -- he withdrew it. 10:00:06 17 those are kind of freebies for them.
09:57:20 18 Q Did you ever find out why he withdrew it? 10:00:12 18 And it's difficult for me to respond
09:57:24 19 A Yes. I found out why he withdrew it. 10:00:14 19 because of what was going on with all this.
09:57:32 20 He -- there were several counts that were dismissed 10:00:18 20 Q Okay. I do want to ask you about that,
09:57:34 21 by the judge, it was tried in Port Huron, Michigan, 10:00:20 21 but I want to get to it a little later, if that's
09:57:40 22 and the defendant was charged with money 10:00:24 22 okay. Did you have any problems with the way the
Page 35 Page 37
09:57:44 1 laundering. I think it was ITAR wire fraud, I 10:00:30 1 OPR handled that earlier complaint, the one that
09:57:52 2 think. But the main component of the indictment 10:00:34 2 was eventually withdrawn?
09:57:56 3 was the money laundering, which were dismissed 10:00:34 3 A No.
09:57:58 4 prior to trial. 10:00:40 4 Q When you were at the Department of
09:58:00 5 As I recall, the judge, Judge DeMazio, 10:00:42 5 Justice, were you aware of what the standard was
09:58:04 6 didn't think money laundering was appropriate, 10:00:44 6 for conduct to be referred to OPR?
09:58:06 7 because it wasn't a drug case. So they were 10:00:48 7 A No.
09:58:08 8 dismissed, and after -- Asher Shapiro was 10:00:50 8 Q Were you familiar with the United States
09:58:16 9 acquitted, but the money laundering count still 10:00:54 9 Attorney's Manual when you were an Assistant United
09:58:18 10 remained viable for appeal. And so I wanted to 10:00:56 10 States Attorney?
09:58:20 11 appeal. And John Dowd, then he filed the OPR. 10:00:56 11 A I'm familiar with what it is, and I'm
09:58:26 12 I wasn't allowed to pursue the appeal on 10:00:58 12 familiar with portions -- or was familiar with
09:58:30 13 the dismissed counts. OPR began an investigation, 10:01:00 13 portions of it. I think it was nine volumes, you
09:58:34 14 found it to be meritless, and prior to the 10:01:06 14 know, each volume was fairly thick.
09:58:36 15 conclusion of it, he withdrew it. And then I 10:01:10 15 Q Did you consider it to be a resource that
09:58:40 16 sought to have -- grieve Mr. Dowd. 10:01:12 16 one could look at if he needed the answer to a
09:58:48 17 Q To whom? 10:01:14 17 question about DOJ policies?
09:58:50 18 A For a meritless -- the D.C. bar. But I 10:01:22 18 A No.
09:58:54 19 wasn't allowed to do that. 10:01:24 19 Q Why not?
09:58:56 20 Q Who did not allow you to do that? 10:01:26 20 A I was not aware, I'm still not aware, if
09:58:58 21 A Paul Coffey was the chief, said no. 10:01:32 21 DOJ policies are included in the U.S. Attorney's
09:59:02 22 Q He was your boss? 10:01:36 22 Manual.
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000036
Page 38 Page 40
10:01:36 1 Q Okay. 10:04:02 1 question, I should refer to the U.S. Attorney's
10:01:36 2 A I think the only portion of that manual 10:04:06 2 Manual. I never did that. I never was told to do
10:01:40 3 that I'm familiar with, that I've looked at, is 10:04:10 3 that, I never was suggested to do that. And I
10:01:46 4 chapter 9, which encompasses the Criminal Division 10:04:12 4 didn't know of any other AUSA or trial attorney in
10:01:54 5 procedures or general guidelines, I think. But not 10:04:16 5 the department who did that.
10:01:58 6 the policies of the department. If they're -- they 10:04:18 6 Q If you were unclear about how to handle
10:02:02 7 may be in the U.S. Attorney's Manual. I'm not 10:04:22 7 something related to your job, would you have asked
10:02:02 8 aware if they are or aren't. 10:04:26 8 another AUSA, or how would you have gone about
10:02:06 9 Q Did you have an understanding of what the 10:04:28 9 clarifying that?
10:02:08 10 general purpose of the manual was? 10:04:34 10 A That's such a broad question. If I were
10:02:18 11 A I had a general understanding of what the 10:04:38 11 unclear about how to handle the leave issue, I
10:02:18 12 purpose of the portion of the manual that I was 10:04:40 12 would ask my secretary. If I were unclear about
10:02:22 13 concerned with was. 10:04:44 13 how to handle -- how to charge a case, I would --
10:02:24 14 Q Okay. What was -- 10:04:50 14 the person I would talk to would be Walter Kozar.
10:02:26 15 A Which was the chapter I referred to. 10:04:52 15 If I weren't clear -- so it depends on what the
10:02:26 16 Q What was the general purpose of that 10:04:54 16 issue or the particular matter is.
10:02:30 17 chapter? 10:04:58 17 Q How many AUSAs were in the Strike Force
10:02:30 18 A It had general -- it had case law, it had 10:05:02 18 when you were a member?
10:02:38 19 descriptive guidelines regarding how to proceed, 10:05:10 19 A Keith Corbett was the chief. Walter
10:02:46 20 for instance if a witness asserts a fifth amendment 10:05:12 20 Kozar was the deputy chief. Jim Wozena, whose name
10:02:48 21 privilege prior to going to the grand jury, or the 10:05:18 21 I can't begin to spell. Dave Morris. Straus, Eric
10:02:50 22 general guidelines for Brady, it had a section on 10:05:26 22 Straus. Richard DeLonis was there for a short time
Page 39 Page 41
10:02:56 1 that. It had a section on everything from witness 10:05:32 1 after I came to the U.S. Attorney's Office. And
10:03:00 2 interviews to I think Rule 11. 10:05:36 2 me. And I don't think that I was a member of the
10:03:04 3 Q Did you consider it to be authoritative 10:05:40 3 Strike Force at any time when Richard DeLonis was.
10:03:08 4 on the topics that you just discussed? 10:05:44 4 So I think that's the -- what would that be, four,
10:03:10 5 A No. 10:05:48 5 five, six attorneys.
10:03:10 6 Q Why not? 10:05:52 6 Q Going back to OPR referrals for a second,
10:03:18 7 A Authoritative how? Legally 10:05:56 7 were you aware, at the time that you worked in main
10:03:20 8 authoritative? Legally binding? 10:06:00 8 Justice and at the time you worked at the U.S.
10:03:22 9 Q Binding as a matter of DOJ policy, not 10:06:02 9 Attorney's Office, that OPR referrals were supposed
10:03:24 10 necessarily in court. 10:06:06 10 to remain confidential?
10:03:30 11 A Because I know it wasn't in court, 10:06:06 11 A Yes.
10:03:30 12 because many times a defense attorney would raise 10:06:06 12 Q What was the source of your awareness of
10:03:34 13 issues from the U.S. Attorney's Manual, and it 10:06:08 13 that?
10:03:36 14 would be discounted by a judge. And that would be 10:06:08 14 A Common sense.
10:03:40 15 the response. It's just a general guideline. It's 10:06:16 15 Q Were you aware of any policies or
10:03:44 16 not a directive. So I assume the same. That's how 10:06:18 16 practices regarding line prosecutors dealing with
10:03:46 17 I viewed it. 10:06:24 17 Congress or congressional staffs?
10:03:48 18 Q You viewed it as a general guideline but 10:06:26 18 A No. You're talking about when I was a
10:03:50 19 not a directive? 10:06:30 19 member of the -- when I was in the Department of
10:03:52 20 A Well, I mean, I never referred to it as 10:06:34 20 Justice?
10:03:58 21 dispositive. I never had to. I never felt, I 10:06:34 21 Q Yes.
10:04:00 22 needed to know the answer to this particular 10:06:36 22 A No.
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000037
Page 58 Page 60
10:24:18 1 A The quotations, it was my voice. 10:26:54 1 authority, that they abused, concocted a series of
10:24:20 2 Q Right. 10:27:00 2 allegations in an attempt to discredit me and hurt
10:24:22 3 A Whether it was taken out of context or 10:27:06 3 me, and then, instead of allowing me the process,
10:24:24 4 not, I would have to listen to it again. I think I 10:27:12 4 like as you cited, the first OPR referral that was
10:24:32 5 listened to it, portions of it, when it came out, a 10:27:18 5 raised earlier by an attorney, I was able to sit
10:24:38 6 week or so after it came out. But I didn't listen 10:27:22 6 down with investigators and be interviewed, I was
10:24:44 7 to it to determine whether it was or wasn't out of 10:27:26 7 able to refer witnesses to those investigators,
10:24:46 8 context. I know some of the things I heard were 10:27:30 8 those investigators were responsible, followed up,
10:24:48 9 out of context. But I don't recall specifically my 10:27:32 9 interviewed several people, everyone who had any
10:24:52 10 voice. 10:27:38 10 ability to be involved in the case. And they
10:24:52 11 Q Can you tell me what you remember being 10:27:40 11 determined that it was meritless.
10:24:56 12 out of context? 10:27:42 12 In this case, I didn't have that
10:25:00 13 A Well, I recall that one of the defense 10:27:44 13 opportunity because the people who gathered the
10:25:04 14 attorneys was quoted in a very unfavorable 10:27:50 14 information were reckless in gathering it,
10:25:12 15 statement about me, negative statement that I 10:27:54 15 purposeful in what they gathered, didn't check the
10:25:16 16 thought was not true at all. And so maybe that's 10:27:56 16 facts, didn't have any means to go to a credible
10:25:22 17 what I'm referring to when I say "out of context." 10:28:02 17 third disinterested party and present the facts,
10:25:24 18 It didn't have the whole picture. 10:28:06 18 because they leaked it to a reporter who put it on
10:25:26 19 Q Do you remember the name of that defense 10:28:08 19 the front page of a newspaper, giving me absolutely
10:25:28 20 attorney? 10:28:12 20 no ability to respond fairly.
10:25:28 21 A I think it was Thomas. 10:28:20 21 From that point on, those allegations
10:25:30 22 Q Do you remember his first name? 10:28:22 22 became facts. Much in the same way that you heard
Page 59 Page 61
10:25:32 1 A Jim Thomas. 10:28:26 1 Jonathan Tukel testify that perception is reality
10:25:34 2 Q Do you remember what individual Jim 10:28:32 2 last week, and which was memorialized in a memo by
10:25:38 3 Thomas might have represented against you, if any? 10:28:36 3 Keith Corbett. So once they did that, purposefully
10:25:44 4 A I think he represented Ahmed Hannan. 10:28:40 4 did that, then they achieved their goal, which was
10:25:52 5 Q Could you very generally give me your 10:28:44 5 to prevent me from any further career at the
10:25:58 6 understanding of what the wrongdoing is that you've 10:28:52 6 department, ruined my reputation, and destroyed any
10:26:04 7 alleged in your complaint, what is it you believe 10:28:54 7 credibility I had.
10:26:06 8 the Department of Justice did to you that was 10:28:54 8 BY MR. SMITH:
10:26:08 9 wrong? 10:28:54 9 Q Thank you. Do you have any understanding
10:26:10 10 MR. KOHN: And I'm just going to object, 10:28:56 10 of who the individuals were that did this?
10:26:12 11 as much as it calls for a legal conclusion. The 10:29:02 11 A Do I have any understanding of it?
10:26:14 12 witness can answer. 10:29:04 12 Q Yes.
10:26:16 13 THE WITNESS: I don't think that the 10:29:06 13 A I certainly have an opinion about who did
10:26:18 14 Department of Justice did anything to me that was 10:29:08 14 it.
10:26:20 15 wrong. I think that the Department of Justice is 10:29:08 15 Q Okay. What is your opinion about who did
10:26:26 16 one of the finest institutions in the world, whose 10:29:12 16 it?
10:26:32 17 principles and ideals are to be lauded and 10:29:12 17 A I believe that based upon the
10:26:38 18 followed. And it's the greatest place an attorney 10:29:16 18 circumstantial inferences, which are pretty strong,
10:26:40 19 can work. So I don't think anyone -- or the 10:29:20 19 that there were a series of people who were
10:26:44 20 Department of Justice did anything to me. 10:29:24 20 involved in seeing the confidential referral which
10:26:48 21 I think that the people within the 10:29:32 21 should not have been. There was no need for that
10:26:48 22 Department of Justice who were in positions of 10:29:34 22 many people to review it. But I think that
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000038
Page 62 Page 64
10:29:38 1 Jonathan Tukel, Eric Straus, William Sauget, and 10:32:14 1 And I think in Tukel's -- I don't know
10:29:46 2 Jeffrey Collins all had a hand in the dissemination 10:32:18 2 what document it was, I think it was one of the --
10:29:52 3 of that confidential information. 10:32:22 3 I think it might have been the November referral or
10:29:54 4 And I think that the person who actually 10:32:24 4 the November draft, said that he had a conversation
10:30:02 5 had the control and did it was Jonathan Tukel, 10:32:28 5 with Corbett where Corbett had some doubts about my
10:30:04 6 based upon information he shared with me in a 10:32:34 6 trustworthiness, and that in fact Corbett sent him
10:30:08 7 meeting and what was placed in the article. 10:32:36 7 a memo to that effect. And as I recall, there was
10:30:16 8 Q I'm going to ask you about that, but not 10:32:42 8 some doubt in Tukel's mind based upon his
10:30:20 9 right this second. 10:32:44 9 recollection of whether Corbett actually gave me
10:30:22 10 A All right. 10:32:46 10 that. I think that's what he put in his memo.
10:30:22 11 Q What about Alan Gershel, do you have any 10:32:50 11 And Keith Corbett never gave me that.
10:30:24 12 reason to believe Mr. Gershel acted improperly with 10:32:52 12 Q Did he ever orally give you instructions
10:30:28 13 regards to any of these events? 10:32:56 13 to that effect?
10:30:30 14 A What events? 10:32:56 14 A No. Nor did he ever, nor do I believe
10:30:32 15 Q The events you just talked about, your 10:33:04 15 would ever doubt my trustworthiness or ability to
10:30:36 16 description of what you believe the wrongdoing was 10:33:08 16 pursue an investigation honestly and with
10:30:38 17 in this case. Do you believe Mr. Gershel was part 10:33:12 17 integrity.
10:30:42 18 of any of that wrongdoing? 10:33:20 18 Q Switching gears, to your knowledge when
10:30:44 19 A I think that Alan Gershel is a longtime 10:33:24 19 did Marwan Farhat come to the attention of Federal
10:30:48 20 bureaucrat who has had many positions effectively, 10:33:28 20 law enforcement?
10:30:54 21 and was not going to get in anyone's way. I don't 10:33:30 21 A I don't know.
10:31:00 22 think he was actively a part of it. I don't think 10:33:30 22 Q When did he come to your attention?
Page 63 Page 65
10:31:02 1 he did anything proactive. But I certainly think 10:33:40 1 A I don't know specifically. I remember it
10:31:08 2 that he allowed things to occur that he knew were 10:33:44 2 was around October or November of 2001. But I
10:31:12 3 improper. I don't think he leaked it. I think 10:33:56 3 believe he was incarcerated in I believe May of
10:31:14 4 when he says he didn't do it, knowing Alan Gershel, 10:34:06 4 that year. I think.
10:31:18 5 I don't think he would do it. But I think he knows 10:34:06 5 Q Do you have an understanding as to why he
10:31:22 6 who did it. 10:34:08 6 was incarcerated at that time?
10:31:24 7 Q What about Keith Corbett, do you believe 10:34:12 7 A I have an understanding, yes.
10:31:26 8 that he had any role in these events where he acted 10:34:14 8 Q What is it?
10:31:30 9 improperly? 10:34:14 9 A A narcotics case.
10:31:30 10 A You're talking about leaking the 10:34:18 10 Q And do you have an understanding of what
10:31:32 11 information? 10:34:20 11 he did regarding the narcotics? Was he a drug
10:31:32 12 Q About anything to do with compiling the 10:34:24 12 dealer? Was he something else?
10:31:36 13 OPR, any of the things that you just testified 10:34:26 13 A I don't know. I mean, I didn't --
10:31:40 14 about. 10:34:30 14 haven't reviewed those documents in years.
10:31:42 15 A There is a memo that I saw last week 10:34:34 15 Q When you first became aware of him, was
10:31:52 16 that -- where Tukel indicated that my 10:34:38 16 he already a source for the government?
10:31:56 17 trustworthiness was called into question by Keith 10:34:46 17 A I don't know. I don't know if he was
10:31:58 18 Corbett and that Corbett gave me a written 10:34:48 18 opened up at the time. I became aware of him. He
10:32:04 19 directive not to take action without his specific 10:34:52 19 came to my attention from an FBI agent who told me
10:32:06 20 approval, words to that effect. And I had never 10:34:56 20 that there was a witness who was incarcerated, I
10:32:10 21 received that. Keith Corbett certainly didn't give 10:35:00 21 believe it was at MILAN, FCI MILAN, and had
10:32:14 22 that to me. 10:35:06 22 information regarding terrorism or
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000039
Page 70 Page 72
10:40:32 1 was an open source. And I know he was promised 10:43:24 1 aside, is that accurate? Or are you talking about
10:40:34 2 confidentiality. He was promised 10:43:26 2 something else?
10:40:38 3 confidentiality -- as a matter of fact he has 10:43:32 3 A We're talking about the same thing. I
10:40:42 4 family, I remember him telling us that he had 10:43:34 4 just don't know specifically what they asked for.
10:40:46 5 family in Lebanon, and that he was worried about 10:43:36 5 Q Okay. That's fine.
10:40:50 6 information that he gave or would give, prior to 10:43:36 6 A But it was in I think September of 2004.
10:40:52 7 giving it, regarding Hezbollah, because he worried 10:43:46 7 A 60-page filing.
10:40:56 8 and was concerned for his family. 10:43:52 8 Q I've seen it. Other than what you talked
10:40:58 9 And I remember a specific promise being 10:43:56 9 about, the meetings that you had -- not you, that
10:41:00 10 given to him by both the FBI agent and then me 10:44:00 10 the government had with Marwan Farhat, are you
10:41:06 11 regarding the necessity to maintain his 10:44:04 11 aware of other assistance that Farhat provided to
10:41:08 12 confidentiality out of fear for his life and his 10:44:06 12 the government?
10:41:12 13 family in Lebanon. 10:44:08 13 A Yes.
10:41:14 14 Q Do you know whether he was himself 10:44:10 14 Q What else did he do?
10:41:16 15 affiliated with Hezbollah in any way? 10:44:12 15 A I can't tell you all that he did, because
10:41:20 16 A Do I know? I have no -- I don't believe 10:44:16 16 he did it for -- he was giving information to
10:41:22 17 so. I think that -- I don't think there's any 10:44:20 17 several different people. But I know that Kevin
10:41:26 18 evidence whatever that he was affiliated with 10:44:24 18 Tyus -- I know Farhat complained to me and to Kevin
10:41:28 19 Hezbollah. I've seen it written; when it was, I 10:44:30 19 Tyus and to Bob Pertuso about repeated -- he had
10:41:36 20 thought it was another specious, unsupported 10:44:36 20 repeated complaints, and they were that Bob Pertuso
10:41:40 21 allegation for improper purposes. There's no good 10:44:40 21 would task Marwan Farhat to do something, Kevin
10:41:46 22 reason, even if he were, which I don't believe he 10:44:46 22 Tyus would task Marwan Farhat to do something, and
Page 71 Page 73
10:41:48 1 was, to put that in any public document. 10:44:48 1 he was being -- you know, according to him, he was
10:41:54 2 I heard an explanation, I think somebody 10:44:52 2 working 24 hours a day.
10:42:02 3 told me, when I pressed the issue, how do you -- 10:44:54 3 Kevin Tyus's interest was
10:42:06 4 how can you make this assertion that he's an 10:44:58 4 narcotics-related, gang-related, street crime. And
10:42:08 5 associate or affiliate of Hezbollah, I was told by 10:45:02 5 he would tell Farhat to go to bars or go wherever
10:42:14 6 maybe Tukel or Straus that he had -- that there was 10:45:08 6 that information could be rooted out. And Bob
10:42:18 7 a flag in his apartment when they conducted a 10:45:12 7 Pertuso was interested in pursuing
10:42:22 8 search warrant, therefore he's Hezbollah. 10:45:16 8 terrorism-related incidents or information, and he
10:42:28 9 Q A Hezbollah flag? 10:45:20 9 was seeking information in particular about -- at
10:42:28 10 A I think so. That's my recollection. 10:45:24 10 one point about a case that developed and became --
10:42:30 11 Q Did he ever discuss it with you, did he 10:45:28 11 culminated in the return of an indictment of a
10:42:34 12 ever deny being affiliated with Hezbollah to you? 10:45:32 12 number of people that Farhat gave information on.
10:42:36 13 A Yes. Specifically. Specifically after 10:45:36 13 Q Do you have any knowledge as to how
10:42:46 14 the Morford memorandum was filed. He specifically 10:45:38 14 Farhat was being compensated by the government
10:42:58 15 was most upset, of everything after his name was 10:45:40 15 monetarily? As opposed to through, you know,
10:43:02 16 leaked, that he was affiliated with Hezbollah, 10:45:44 16 consideration and other matters.
10:43:06 17 because he assumed that that was a very dangerous 10:45:44 17 A He was paid money.
10:43:08 18 thing to put out in the public. 10:45:46 18 Q Do you know how much?
10:43:12 19 Q When you say the Morford memorandum, just 10:45:48 19 A I don't know how much. Those are
10:43:14 20 for clarification, you're talking about a brief 10:45:52 20 certainly recorded, and there's a long paper trail.
10:43:18 21 that was filed in the Koubriti case in which the 10:46:00 21 So if you have documents that I can review, I can
10:43:22 22 government asked for the convictions to be set 10:46:02 22 tell you.
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000040
Page 74 Page 76
10:46:04 1 Q No, that's okay. I just want to know 10:48:36 1 case?
10:46:06 2 your understanding. 10:48:36 2 A Yes, he wanted to use him as -- wanted
10:46:08 3 A My understanding is he was paid. 10:48:38 3 him to testify.
10:46:10 4 Q Is it your understanding that he was paid 10:48:40 4 Q And do you have a general understanding
10:46:14 5 in the same way that, you know, other confidential 10:48:42 5 of what he would have testified about?
10:46:18 6 sources and informants are paid, or was he given a 10:48:44 6 A No. I think there is a series of e-mails
10:46:22 7 better or worse deal? Do you have any 10:48:48 7 that memorialize this. And if you have them, it
10:46:24 8 understanding of that? 10:48:54 8 would certainly clarify the issue. But it was very
10:46:24 9 A No. Better or worse deal? I mean, when 10:48:58 9 generally put. RICO, I think, a RICO
10:46:28 10 you're talking about something like that, there's 10:49:02 10 investigation, and we want him to testify.
10:46:34 11 so many variables, so many -- I don't know how to 10:49:06 11 Q Do you recall informing Cares that Marwan
10:46:36 12 answer that question. I don't know if his -- how 10:49:10 12 Farhat had a deal in which he would not be required
10:46:40 13 you would say better or worse. I don't have any 10:49:12 13 to testify?
10:46:42 14 way to determine that. 10:49:12 14 A Yes. No, would not be required to have
10:46:44 15 Q To your knowledge was Farhat ever 10:49:18 15 his identity divulged.
10:46:48 16 terminated by the FBI as a confidential informant? 10:49:20 16 Q Which testimony necessarily would.
10:46:54 17 A He wanted to be. We had a meeting about 10:49:22 17 A It does not.
10:47:00 18 it with -- Salem Salmey was his attorney, I think 10:49:24 18 Q Sorry?
10:47:06 19 that's how his name is pronounced. Farhat had 10:49:24 19 A No. That's not accurate.
10:47:10 20 concerns about Pertuso, and what Pertuso was asking 10:49:26 20 Q Okay. Can you explain how I was
10:47:16 21 him to do, and the amount of work he was asking him 10:49:28 21 inaccurate?
10:47:18 22 to do, and the promises that he believed were not 10:49:28 22 A For instance, grand jury testimony
Page 75 Page 77
10:47:22 1 being kept by Bob Pertuso. 10:49:30 1 wouldn't necessarily divulge the identity of a
10:47:24 2 So we had a meeting. Keith Corbett, 10:49:32 2 witness. So that's not what he wanted. He was
10:47:30 3 Salem Salmey, Marwan Farhat, Bob Cares, and me, I 10:49:38 3 asking -- my understanding is he was asking for
10:47:36 4 think that was all who was there. And Farhat said 10:49:42 4 testimony regarding information that he had already
10:47:40 5 he did not want to be an active source for Bob 10:49:44 5 provided that led to a point in time where he would
10:47:46 6 Pertuso. My recollection is Cares said okay, and 10:49:48 6 have to be used publicly as a witness. That was my
10:47:54 7 he was closed. Then my understanding is he was 10:49:56 7 understanding.
10:47:56 8 reopened. 10:49:56 8 Q It was also your understanding that this
10:47:58 9 Q Do you have an understanding as to why he 10:49:58 9 was not consistent with the agreement the
10:47:58 10 was reopened? 10:50:00 10 government had with Marwan Farhat?
10:48:00 11 A To be utilized. 10:50:02 11 A Yes.
10:48:04 12 Q Was there anything specific that he knew 10:50:04 12 Q And you informed Bob Cares of that?
10:48:06 13 or could do that required him to be reopened? 10:50:04 13 A I did.
10:48:10 14 A I don't know. I don't know the answer to 10:50:06 14 Q Who had made this agreement with Farhat,
10:48:12 15 that. 10:50:08 15 if you know?
10:48:18 16 Q Was this meeting that you just described 10:50:08 16 A What agreement?
10:48:20 17 that included Bob Cares as well as other people, 10:50:10 17 Q The agreement -- well, I believe you just
10:48:24 18 was it related at all to Bob Cares's desire to use 10:50:14 18 said that having him testify publicly was
10:48:28 19 Marwan Farhat as a witness in a case? 10:50:16 19 inconsistent with his agreement with the
10:48:30 20 A No. 10:50:18 20 government. Is that fair to say?
10:48:30 21 Q Was there ever a time when Bob Cares 10:50:20 21 A Yes.
10:48:32 22 desired to use Marwan Farhat as a witness in a 10:50:20 22 Q Who made that agreement with which the
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000041
Page 78 Page 80
10:50:22 1 testimony would be inconsistent? Was it the FBI? 10:52:28 1 A Before he asked me in the e-mail?
10:50:26 2 A Yes. It was the FBI. And it was me. 10:52:32 2 Q Yes.
10:50:28 3 And it was during the time when I -- I think I 10:52:36 3 A Yes. Yes, he was aware of it. As I
10:50:32 4 reflected that earlier, when we were in one of the 10:52:38 4 recall, there's an e-mail that indicates the
10:50:36 5 debriefings, and he was about to give information 10:52:44 5 conversation we had about Farhat prior to that
10:50:40 6 or hesitated in giving information because he 10:52:50 6 e-mail, that he said, we want him to testify, is he
10:50:42 7 wasn't -- he was concerned about his safety. And 10:52:54 7 still cooperating, or words to that effect.
10:50:48 8 it was at that point in time that Bob Pertuso said, 10:52:58 8 Q You're talking about he said this orally?
10:50:52 9 you'll not testify, your name will not be 10:53:00 9 A Yes.
10:50:54 10 disclosed, your identity will not be disclosed. 10:53:00 10 Q And he said this to you?
10:50:58 11 And I seconded that. I made that promise 10:53:02 11 A He asked me.
10:51:00 12 as well to him. 10:53:04 12 Q And how did you respond?
10:51:02 13 Q Was anyone else in the U.S. Attorney's 10:53:04 13 A What I just told you, that the agreement
10:51:04 14 Office aware of this promise contemporaneously or 10:53:08 14 with Marwan Farhat is that his identity would not
10:51:08 15 shortly thereafter, the promise that Pertuso made 10:53:12 15 be disclosed. It's not an uncommon thing, when
10:51:10 16 that you seconded? 10:53:18 16 that kind of commitment is made, it's honored,
10:51:16 17 A I don't know anyone who dealt with Farhat 10:53:22 17 unless there's a specific reason not to honor it,
10:51:18 18 who wasn't aware of that. I know that there's been 10:53:26 18 and if there is, it's immediately brought up and
10:51:20 19 some people now or there have been people who say 10:53:34 19 aired out.
10:51:24 20 that they weren't aware of that, that they weren't 10:53:34 20 As you can see from the e-mails, the
10:51:26 21 aware he was an informant or a confidential 10:53:36 21 e-mail traffic, it was clear, at least it was clear
10:51:30 22 informant. That is patently untrue. Keith Corbett 10:53:40 22 to me, and I made clear to everyone else who was
Page 79 Page 81
10:51:36 1 knew he was a confidential informant. And we had a 10:53:44 1 involved, that he was a confidential informant and
10:51:40 2 commitment, therefore the government had a 10:53:46 2 that his identity was not to be disclosed. And no
10:51:40 3 commitment, that he would not be publicly 10:53:50 3 one took issue with it, said we want to talk about
10:51:44 4 disclosed. 10:53:54 4 it, asked any of the questions that you are asking.
10:51:44 5 I'm assuming that the FBI supervisors had 10:54:00 5 It was -- that representation was made and it was
10:51:48 6 the same understanding. I'm assuming that Pertuso 10:54:06 6 accepted as it should have been.
10:51:52 7 reiterated that. But it was my understanding that 10:54:08 7 Q Okay.
10:51:56 8 offer, if you will, was made to him prior to the 10:54:10 8 MR. KOHN: If this is a place we could
10:52:00 9 time that I met him. 10:54:12 9 take a quick break, a 10-minute break.
10:52:02 10 Q By the FBI? 10:54:14 10 MR. SMITH: That's fine.
10:52:02 11 A That's what I assumed. 10:54:16 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of
10:52:04 12 Q Okay. Do you know whether Alan Gershel 10:54:16 12 tape 1 in the deposition of Mr. Convertino. We're
10:52:08 13 was aware, prior to Bob Cares asking about it, do 10:54:20 13 going off the record. The time is 10:54 a.m.
10:52:14 14 you know whether Alan Gershel was aware of Farhat's 10:54:24 14 (Recess.)
10:52:16 15 agreement in which his identity would remain 11:18:30 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the
10:52:18 16 completely confidential? 11:18:36 16 beginning of tape 2 in the deposition of
10:52:20 17 A I don't know. I don't know what he was 11:18:38 17 Mr. Convertino. We're back on the record. The
10:52:20 18 aware of. 11:18:40 18 time is 11:18 a.m.
10:52:22 19 Q Do you know whether Bob Cares was aware 11:18:46 19 BY MR. SMITH:
10:52:24 20 of it before he asked you about him testifying? 11:18:46 20 Q To your knowledge, when did Mr. Farhat
10:52:26 21 A Yes. 11:18:50 21 begin receiving payments from the Federal
10:52:28 22 Q He was aware? 11:18:52 22 government? Do you know?
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000042
Page 82 Page 84
11:18:52 1 A No. 11:21:54 1 outside of the office. I sat him in there, I gave
11:18:52 2 Q Do you know when he stopped receiving 11:21:58 2 him a tape, I pulled a tape out of the box
11:18:54 3 payments from the Federal government? 11:22:06 3 randomly, had the muffs there and the recorder,
11:18:58 4 A No, I don't. 11:22:14 4 told him that if he needed to leave or whatever,
11:19:06 5 Q What kind of assistance did Mr. Farhat 11:22:18 5 needed something, that he could call Ms. Bruni's
11:19:08 6 provide to the Koubriti prosecution team? 11:22:18 6 extension, she was down the hall, or knock on the
11:19:26 7 A None. 11:22:22 7 door, I was across the hall.
11:19:26 8 Q He didn't provide any assistance to the 11:22:24 8 In 10 or 15 minutes when he was in there,
11:19:28 9 Koubriti team? 11:22:26 9 he banged on the door. I went across the hall,
11:19:30 10 A When you say "Koubriti team," you mean 11:22:32 10 opened up the door, and he had a concerned look on
11:19:32 11 did he provide information that was used in the 11:22:36 11 his face, and he said, "These are bad." "What's
11:19:34 12 trial, or that assisted in the trial? 11:22:42 12 bad?" "These tapes." So what I had him do was, in
11:19:36 13 Q Did he assist you in your trial 11:22:48 13 order to get the FBI to dedicate a translator so we
11:19:38 14 preparation in any way? 11:22:52 14 could translate -- so we could first transcribe,
11:19:38 15 A Yes. 11:22:56 15 then translate the tapes, Farhat gave a summary of
11:19:38 16 Q How did he assist you? 11:23:04 16 what he heard on the tapes.
11:19:40 17 A He was -- we had an enormous problem 11:23:08 17 And he would spot the tapes. The
11:19:46 18 getting translators. We had, during the course of 11:23:10 18 summaries that he gave were given, a copy was given
11:19:52 19 the search warrant in the Koubriti case -- to refer 11:23:14 19 at one point to Mike Thomas. And it was -- and the
11:20:04 20 to the trial as that, "Koubriti case" -- there was 11:23:22 20 names were, I was told, entered into the FBI
11:20:10 21 a series of tapes, 105 tapes, that were 11:23:28 21 indices. And we maintained a copy. Once we had --
11:20:12 22 encapsulated in or incorporated in a box. And then 11:23:36 22 Marwan would write in English the -- what he was
Page 83 Page 85
11:20:20 1 there were two loose tapes. And there were -- and 11:23:40 1 hearing in summary fashion. And the purpose of
11:20:26 2 they were cassette tapes. And we could not get 11:23:44 2 doing that was so I could get a translator. And we
11:20:30 3 anyone to translate those tapes. 11:23:50 3 did, we got Alex Dagastani.
11:20:32 4 So we didn't know if they were children's 11:23:56 4 And he was detailed full time to the
11:20:36 5 songs, or informational, or useful or not useful. 11:23:58 5 Koubriti case, fairly close to the trial. At some
11:20:44 6 And there came a time, I think we went through, I 11:24:04 6 point in time, there was an expert in terrorism and
11:20:48 7 don't know, there was a translator who was from the 11:24:10 7 counterterrorism who out of the goodness of his
11:20:50 8 Air Force who was -- came for a day. There were 11:24:16 8 heart was assisting us in the case. He saw some of
11:20:58 9 two FBI translators, three FBI translators who 11:24:22 9 the Farhat summaries, and wanted to get a copy of
11:21:00 10 either wouldn't or couldn't commit the time to 11:24:30 10 those. We couldn't type out the summaries because
11:21:02 11 translating the tapes. 11:24:32 11 we didn't have the resources.
11:21:04 12 And so we had these tapes. They were 11:24:34 12 So he said he would take the summaries,
11:21:08 13 sent to Washington. And they sat there for months 11:24:38 13 give them to his secretary, who was in either
11:21:12 14 and months. No one knew what was on them. So 11:24:42 14 Northern Virginia or California, he had two
11:21:16 15 during the course of one of Farhat's debriefings, 11:24:46 15 offices, and that they would -- she, his secretary,
11:21:22 16 he was -- I think he was being debriefed, I think 11:24:50 16 would type out the English summaries of what Farhat
11:21:26 17 by Pertuso down the hall. I went in when I saw he 11:24:56 17 interpreted the tapes to be. So to me personally,
11:21:30 18 was there, and I said, when you're through, come 11:25:02 18 on the case, it was an enormous help, because we
11:21:32 19 down and see me. And he did. Across from my 11:25:06 19 couldn't get government translators to do what had
11:21:38 20 office was a very small locked room that required a 11:25:12 20 been sitting there and needed to be done for months
11:21:44 21 keypunch to get into the U.S. Attorney's Office. 11:25:16 21 and months and months.
11:21:50 22 The other door led to the elevator area, 11:25:18 22 The information that I gleaned from the
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000043
Page 90 Page 92
11:30:40 1 Q That's okay. 11:33:50 1 worked for Emerson. And they met Farhat at that
11:30:40 2 A If you're asking me -- yes, I do. 11:33:54 2 point in time and wanted Farhat to work in some
11:30:44 3 Q And is that a group that was headed by 11:34:00 3 capacity for the Investigative Project.
11:30:46 4 Steve Emerson at the time? 11:34:04 4 Q And did you act as a liaison between the
11:30:48 5 A Yes. 11:34:08 5 Investigative Project and Farhat?
11:30:48 6 Q And do you know how Farhat came to be 11:34:10 6 A Yes.
11:30:52 7 employed by the Investigative Project? 11:34:12 7 Q And were you compensated for this work?
11:30:54 8 A Yes. 11:34:14 8 A No.
11:30:56 9 Q Can you tell me how? 11:34:14 9 Q Have you ever been compensated by the
11:30:58 10 A He -- I was contacted by someone from the 11:34:16 10 Investigative Project for anything?
11:31:02 11 Investigative Project, Denny, Steven Denny, I don't 11:34:18 11 A No.
11:31:14 12 know the spelling, who was a -- either a retired or 11:34:22 12 Q Did you ever get money from Farhat for
11:31:22 13 former FBI agent, I believe out of the New Jersey 11:34:24 13 anything?
11:31:26 14 district, FBI office in Newark. And he came to 11:34:24 14 A No.
11:31:30 15 work for Emerson as someone who -- my understanding 11:34:26 15 Q Did you ever seek a job with the
11:31:40 16 was at the time he was someone who handled 11:34:28 16 Investigative Project?
11:31:42 17 informants for Stephen Emerson's Investigative 11:34:28 17 A Yes.
11:31:44 18 Project. 11:34:28 18 Q What was the circumstances of that? What
11:31:44 19 And Emerson used informants when he 11:34:30 19 type of job were you looking for?
11:31:50 20 produced a documentary called "Jihad in America," 11:34:32 20 A Any job. Any job just about anywhere at
11:31:56 21 and then wrote a book where he would have 11:34:38 21 the time. I was under siege by my former office,
11:31:58 22 individuals go into various places and attend 11:34:42 22 who was -- who indicated that they were going to
Page 91 Page 93
11:32:02 1 lectures and film them or record them. And at some 11:34:52 1 cause me serious damage somehow or another,
11:32:08 2 point in time, Steven Emerson was providing -- oh, 11:34:56 2 reputational, professional. It was clear to me
11:32:12 3 I know, it was when I came to D.C. originally to 11:35:00 3 that I had no future in that office. And I had
11:32:18 4 talk to someone in the then Terrorism and Violent 11:35:04 4 nowhere to go. So I was actively looking for a
11:32:26 5 Crime Section. And it was Jeffrey Breinholt who 11:35:08 5 job.
11:32:30 6 was I think the acting chief at the time. That 11:35:08 6 Q When was this? You said "at that time,"
11:32:34 7 would have been I think probably 2002, sometime 11:35:14 7 but I don't think you said when.
11:32:40 8 maybe in February or March, somewhere around there. 11:35:16 8 A I think it was in October of 2003.
11:32:44 9 I came here to meet with Breinholt. 11:35:18 9 Q So in October of 2003, you were actively
11:32:48 10 Breinholt introduced me to Steven Emerson. And 11:35:22 10 looking for a job, and one of the places you looked
11:32:52 11 Breinholt had in his office a whole stack of 11:35:24 11 was the Investigative Project, is that correct?
11:32:56 12 Emerson's books, and Emerson, you know -- Breinholt 11:35:26 12 A Well, yes, in sum and substance. Emerson
11:33:02 13 gave me a book and introduced me to Emerson. 11:35:32 13 asked me. Emerson was aware of the circumstances
11:33:04 14 Emerson then was providing background assistance, 11:35:36 14 surrounding the Department of Justice, because what
11:33:08 15 he would e-mail me things about different terrorist 11:35:40 15 the Investigative Project does is they work
11:33:16 16 groups like Wahabis or Salafist or whatever it may 11:35:42 16 closely, or did, they worked closely with the
11:33:20 17 be. He had information about particular cells that 11:35:46 17 Department of Justice. In particular at the time
11:33:24 18 might be in Detroit or Windsor, Ontario. 11:35:52 18 they were providing information to the Terrorism
11:33:30 19 That's how I became aware of the 11:35:54 19 and Violent Crime Section in the FBI.
11:33:32 20 Investigative Project. At some point Steve Denny 11:35:56 20 So when Farhat, when they approached
11:33:34 21 came to Detroit with Evan Kohlman, who was a law 11:36:00 21 Farhat about working for them or providing
11:33:46 22 student at the University of Pennsylvania, and 11:36:02 22 information for them in an undercover capacity,
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000044
Page 94 Page 96
11:36:10 1 what I asked was that Farhat, whatever notes Farhat 11:38:34 1 A He was working and providing information
11:36:14 2 prepares, whatever -- if there was a recording 11:38:36 2 to the United States Department of Justice
11:36:18 3 where -- I recall him going out to a university 11:38:40 3 regarding intel and information that he derived
11:36:22 4 setting in California, southern California, to 11:38:44 4 through the use of his private sources, and they
11:36:24 5 attend what Emerson described as a radical 11:38:48 5 would share information. And hiring me was not
11:36:30 6 fundamentalist meeting where there were individuals 11:38:54 6 something that would be conducive to that, since
11:36:34 7 who were giving speeches to college age students. 11:38:56 7 the people who were most opposed to me and were
11:36:40 8 Farhat participated, Farhat was provided a 11:39:04 8 coming at me were the same people that he had a
11:36:42 9 recording device by Emerson or Emerson's -- the 11:39:08 9 professional relationship with.
11:36:46 10 Investigative Project. 11:39:08 10 Q So he never explained -- or he never
11:36:48 11 Farhat, I think he was there two nights 11:39:12 11 represented that there were issues with his funding
11:36:50 12 or three nights. He would go back to the hotel 11:39:16 12 or anything like that that would have precluded you
11:36:52 13 room. He would write his impressions of the 11:39:18 13 from working there, it was only because of your
11:36:58 14 meeting. He would transcribe his recollections. 11:39:20 14 relationship with other people in the government?
11:37:00 15 And then he would take a copy of that and the 11:39:24 15 A He told me he had issues with funding.
11:37:02 16 recording device and -- the original and the 11:39:30 16 He did say that. My understanding is that he says
11:37:06 17 recording device, give it to Emerson, and we would 11:39:40 17 that all the time. He may have had issues with
11:37:12 18 get a copy, which went to the FBI. 11:39:44 18 funding that dealt with whether or not to hire
11:37:14 19 Q Do you have any knowledge of how much 11:39:46 19 someone, that could very well be.
11:37:14 20 Farhat was being paid by the Investigative Project? 11:39:50 20 Q Now, you handled Marwan Farhat's plea and
11:37:16 21 A No. But again, that information is 11:39:54 21 sentencing, is that correct?
11:37:24 22 available. They didn't just pay him cash. They 11:39:56 22 A Yes.
Page 95 Page 97
11:37:28 1 paid him -- I remember that they were -- they 11:39:56 1 Q And why was it handled by you, a Strike
11:37:32 2 wanted his information, social security number, 11:40:00 2 Force attorney, when his plea was for drug
11:37:34 3 whatever identifying information, so he was paid by 11:40:02 3 offenses?
11:37:38 4 check. 11:40:04 4 A Because the case was transferred to me.
11:37:38 5 Q Did they ever send the check to you and 11:40:06 5 Q And why was it transferred to you?
11:37:42 6 ask you to give it to him? 11:40:10 6 A Because Farhat, the information that Bob
11:37:44 7 A They would send the check to the U.S. 11:40:12 7 Pertuso said Farhat would provide prior to Farhat
11:37:46 8 Attorney's Office on occasion, because he didn't 11:40:16 8 being talked to by me -- I don't know about by
11:37:48 9 want it coming to his house, and Ms. Bruni would 11:40:22 9 Pertuso, when was the first time he spoke to him --
11:37:52 10 give it to him. 11:40:26 10 was that he had information regarding organizations
11:37:56 11 Q Did you ever get a job offer from the 11:40:30 11 in or around Dearborn and Detroit that had
11:37:58 12 Investigative Project? 11:40:34 12 affiliations and connections with Hamas and
11:38:02 13 A I was talking, negotiating, talking to 11:40:36 13 Hezbollah.
11:38:06 14 them, talking to Mr. Emerson, and I don't know if I 11:40:38 14 Now, this was in -- before 9/11. We were
11:38:14 15 ever received an offer from him. He told me at one 11:40:48 15 working a case, I had an investigation of
11:38:20 16 point that it was wasn't viable, wasn't feasible 11:40:52 16 individuals in Dearborn that was a terrorism case.
11:38:26 17 because of his relationship with the Department of 11:40:58 17 It was Hezbollah, I believe was the organization.
11:38:30 18 Justice. 11:41:02 18 And at some point, what the case was, was segmented
11:38:30 19 Q Did you have an understanding what he 11:41:10 19 out throughout the office. And for instance there
11:38:32 20 meant by that? 11:41:14 20 was a tobacco, allegations about tobacco smuggling,
11:38:32 21 A Yes. 11:41:26 21 or tax fraud, tax stamp fraud on cigarettes in the
11:38:34 22 Q Could you explain it, please? 11:41:30 22 general crimes unit. There was a financial
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000045
Page 98 Page 100
11:41:32 1 component in the economic crimes unit. And there 11:44:08 1 that they're getting from the AUSA or the trial
11:41:34 2 were a couple of more different allegations in 11:44:12 2 attorney, that's very common. And so if an
11:41:38 3 different units that were disparate. 11:44:14 3 attorney or if an agent believes that a case is a
11:41:40 4 And so what Corbett wanted to do was 11:44:20 4 viable case but an attorney or a particular
11:41:42 5 bring them in, into the Organized Crime Strike 11:44:22 5 attorney isn't going to pursue it, then it's
11:41:46 6 Force, and look at the case as a traditional RICO 11:44:26 6 certainly not unheard of that they go to another
11:41:50 7 case. That was what was being done by some of the 11:44:30 7 attorney, another AUSA.
11:41:54 8 bigger offices, more sophisticated offices like the 11:44:34 8 Q So you accepted the case that Mr. Straus
11:41:58 9 Southern District of New York, I think around that 11:44:36 9 had declined?
11:42:00 10 time in July they formed a new -- well, I don't 11:44:36 10 A Yes. Mr. Corbett accepted the case. But
11:42:08 11 know if it was a new unit, but it was called the 11:44:40 11 I certainly went to him and said I think this is --
11:42:10 12 Organized Crime Strike Force and Terrorism Unit. 11:44:46 12 has good potential.
11:42:14 13 So that's what -- I think what Corbett 11:44:50 13 Q Do you know if the procedure that you
11:42:18 14 wanted to do. And that's what I wanted them to do. 11:44:50 14 just discussed about agents sometimes being unhappy
11:42:22 15 I thought that was a good idea. That was in July 11:44:54 15 and talking to another AUSA, was that -- is that
11:42:24 16 and August of 2001. So that was the purpose of 11:44:58 16 standard throughout the department in the U.S.
11:42:30 17 bringing that informant, if you will, under the 11:45:00 17 Attorney's Offices, or is that how it operates
11:42:36 18 umbrella of the Strike Force, of the Strike Force 11:45:02 18 specifically in Detroit?
11:42:38 19 case. It was called Bathwater. 11:45:02 19 A I have no idea. I mean, I have no idea
11:42:40 20 Q And were you the lead attorney on the 11:45:06 20 how it happens, not only in other offices, but I
11:42:42 21 Bathwater case, the case that was called Bathwater? 11:45:12 21 don't have any idea how it happens outside the
11:42:48 22 A Tell me what you mean by "lead attorney." 11:45:14 22 Strike Force. I know it happens, I've been told
Page 99 Page 101

11:42:54 1 Because Keith Corbett was on the case. He was the 11:45:22 1 that, it angers a lot of AUSAs when it happens. So
11:42:58 2 attorney who was most senior. 11:45:26 2 I know it happens.
11:43:04 3 Q Who did -- if you can say, who did the 11:45:30 3 Q So did you prepare the plea agreement for
11:43:08 4 most work? 11:45:36 4 Marwan Farhat?
11:43:08 5 A Me. 11:45:40 5 A You mean the Rule 11?
11:43:08 6 Q And what other attorneys were on the case 11:45:42 6 Q Yes.
11:43:10 7 for the government, if any? 11:45:42 7 A No, I didn't.
11:43:12 8 A Keith. 11:45:44 8 Q Who did?
11:43:12 9 Q Just the two of you? 11:45:44 9 A Ana Bruni.
11:43:14 10 A Well, initially the case came in to Eric 11:45:46 10 Q Was she working under your supervision --
11:43:24 11 Straus. I remember Straus declined the case. And 11:45:48 11 A Yes.
11:43:28 12 the agents came into my office and asked me if I 11:45:48 12 Q -- in that project?
11:43:32 13 would take a look the case. They thought it was a 11:45:50 13 A In --
11:43:34 14 good case, and they said Straus didn't want it. 11:45:52 14 Q In the project of putting together this
11:43:38 15 Q Is it common for agents to go to another 11:45:54 15 Rule 11.
11:43:42 16 AUSA if one AUSA declines the case, in your 11:45:56 16 A In all projects I had to deal with, she
11:43:46 17 experience? 11:46:00 17 was under my supervision.
11:43:46 18 A Yes, it's common for agents who believe 11:46:00 18 Q Was it your understanding that you were
11:43:52 19 they have a good case to think that the attorneys 11:46:02 19 responsible for what was filed in court over your
11:43:54 20 who are assigned to the case are not diligently 11:46:04 20 name, even if it was prepared by a paralegal or
11:43:56 21 working their case. And to be unhappy with the 11:46:06 21 secretary?
11:44:04 22 progress of the case or the resources and services 11:46:06 22 A Yes, no question about that. I didn't
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000046
Page 102 Page 104
11:46:10 1 mean to intimate anything but that when I said -- 11:48:08 1 Q What do you remember?
11:46:12 2 you asked me who prepared it. 11:48:10 2 A I don't remember what it was
11:46:14 3 Q I understand. To your knowledge now, 11:48:10 3 specifically. But if you have it, it's -- you
11:46:28 4 were there any errors on the Rule 11 plea agreement 11:48:18 4 know, it is what it is. I'll take your word for
11:46:30 5 that she prepared and you signed? 11:48:22 5 it.
11:46:32 6 A I don't know. 11:48:22 6 Q Okay. Do you remember if you were
11:46:32 7 Q At that time, were you aware of the 11:48:26 7 surprised at the hearing to learn of the difference
11:46:38 8 general crimes which Mr. Farhat had been charged 11:48:30 8 between what the presentencing report was
11:46:40 9 with? 11:48:32 9 calculating and what the Rule 11 agreement was
11:46:40 10 A Yes. 11:48:34 10 asking for?
11:46:40 11 Q And do you remember now what he was 11:48:40 11 A I don't remember, you know, if I was
11:46:42 12 charged with? 11:48:42 12 surprised by it. I remember that I didn't -- I
11:46:44 13 A No, I don't. 11:48:50 13 don't want to say I didn't know what it was,
11:46:46 14 Q But they were drug crimes? 11:48:52 14 because it was probably something that I had in my
11:46:46 15 A Yes. They were -- drug crimes, I don't 11:48:56 15 possession prior to that. I didn't focus on it
11:46:54 16 know if they were 21 USC 841, something -- I don't 11:49:02 16 until that particular time. So it's information
11:47:02 17 recall specifically what it was. So when you say 11:49:10 17 that I had, so if -- I can't say that it was new
11:47:04 18 "drug crime," is that what you're referring to, a 11:49:14 18 information.
11:47:06 19 Title 21 offense? 11:49:16 19 But it was information that I didn't
11:47:08 20 Q I was really referring more generally to 11:49:20 20 focus or concentrate on as I should have done prior
11:47:10 21 any crime concerning illegal drugs such as cocaine 11:49:24 21 to going into that sentencing hearing. So I don't
11:47:14 22 or other -- 11:49:28 22 know if that clarifies.
Page 103 Page 105

11:47:14 1 A Yes, that's what he was -- that's what he 11:49:32 1 Q To your knowledge, was the Rule 11
11:47:18 2 was charged with. 11:49:36 2 agreement approved by Mr. Corbett before it was
11:47:22 3 Q Now, at the sentencing hearing, do you 11:49:42 3 filed?
11:47:26 4 recall -- you did the sentencing hearing on behalf 11:49:44 4 A I don't know. I don't know what
11:47:28 5 of the government, is that correct? 11:49:50 5 Corbett's recollection is, if he approved it or
11:47:28 6 A I did. 11:49:52 6 not.
11:47:34 7 Q Do you recall the judge remarking on the 11:49:54 7 Q Do you remember if he signed it?
11:47:38 8 difference between the sentence that was being 11:49:58 8 A I remember the issue being raised in
11:47:40 9 recommended in the plea agreement and the 11:50:04 9 my -- not the OPR referral, but in some question
11:47:42 10 guidelines range as calculated in the presentence 11:50:06 10 that came up, that he did not sign it. And that
11:47:46 11 report? 11:50:10 11 was the -- I remember the first time realizing that
11:47:46 12 A No, I don't. I'm sure he did. But I 11:50:14 12 there was another signature on it other than mine,
11:47:50 13 don't recall that. 11:50:18 13 was at that point.
11:47:50 14 Q Do you remember that there was a 11:50:20 14 Q Do you know whether Mr. Gershel approved
11:47:52 15 difference between those two? 11:50:22 15 the Rule 11 plea agreement for Marwan Farhat?
11:47:54 16 A The PSI and the -- 11:50:26 16 A Yes.
11:47:56 17 Q And the Rule 11. 11:50:26 17 Q Yes, you know?
11:47:58 18 A And the Rule 11? I do. 11:50:28 18 A I do.
11:48:00 19 Q Do you remember that the presentence 11:50:28 19 Q And did he?
11:48:02 20 report calculated the guidelines range of being at 11:50:28 20 A Yes.
11:48:06 21 108 to 135 months? 11:50:30 21 Q And can you give me the circumstances of
11:48:08 22 A No. 11:50:32 22 his approval for it?
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000047
Page 134 Page 136
12:27:08 1 plea after the fact, or the level of departure? 12:30:10 1 another person who was arrested and was bound over
12:27:14 2 A You know, I'm sure he did give me his 12:30:16 2 for trial after a preliminary examination in the
12:27:16 3 opinion on it. He thought it was -- when I told 12:30:20 3 Third Circuit District Court -- Third Circuit Court
12:27:18 4 him what happened regarding the plea, he said you 12:30:24 4 in Wayne County for -- I think it was assault with
12:27:26 5 should have made sure that you had the thing, you 12:30:28 5 intent to do great bodily harm.
12:27:28 6 read it, you read the presentence report, you 12:30:32 6 The doctor had identified the person who
12:27:32 7 should have been more careful. He did tell me 12:30:34 7 was in custody. Farhat said that person who is in
12:27:34 8 that. And I told him, you're absolutely right. 12:30:38 8 custody did not participate, wasn't a part of, and
12:27:36 9 Q Did you mean it when you said "you're 12:30:42 9 is wrongfully charged with that offense. On
12:27:40 10 absolutely right," or were you just saying that 12:30:48 10 December 18th, I think, Farhat took a polygraph on
12:27:42 11 just because he was your boss? 12:30:52 11 the issue and passed. And so that person was
12:27:44 12 A I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it. I 12:30:56 12 released, and the information about the doctor
12:27:48 13 meant it when I told him, and I mean it when I say 12:31:00 13 beating was solely from Marwan Farhat, which was
12:27:50 14 it now. 12:31:06 14 under the Kastigar agreement.
12:27:50 15 Q Okay. Is it correct? 12:31:10 15 The other person, Nageeb al-Harari, fled
12:27:52 16 A I'm sorry to interrupt you. 12:31:14 16 the country. And the third person also fled the
12:27:54 17 Q Go ahead. 12:31:16 17 country. So Farhat was the witness, testified or
12:27:54 18 A There was something else that was -- that 12:31:22 18 gave information about himself. So I told Tukel
12:27:58 19 I just remembered about that meeting, one of the 12:31:26 19 and I told Cares, if you have information
12:28:02 20 two, maybe in both meetings, when Farhat's name 12:31:28 20 independent, charge him. You know where he lives.
12:28:06 21 came up. John Tukel mentioned Farhat being the 12:31:32 21 He's being paid by the FBI. Arrest him and charge
12:28:16 22 person who perpetrated a crime against a doctor, 12:31:36 22 him. I told Cares that -- I'm sorry, Tukel that on
Page 135 Page 137

12:28:22 1 Dr. Fayad, a Dearborn physician who was indicted in 12:31:40 1 more than one occasion.
12:28:26 2 the Eastern District of Michigan for health care, 12:31:46 2 Q Okay. Did you in fact send a letter to
12:28:32 3 Medicare fraud. Farhat participated in a beating 12:31:54 3 the Dearborn police on this issue, telling them
12:28:36 4 of the doctor that resulted from a conflict the 12:32:00 4 anything about what Farhat had told you, on the
12:28:44 5 doctor had with a local pharmacist. I can't recall 12:32:02 5 doctor beating issue?
12:28:48 6 specifically what the dust-up was about. 12:32:04 6 A I don't recall doing that. I've seen a
12:28:52 7 But Farhat was tasked to beat the doctor. 12:32:10 7 letter to the Dearborn police that was written by
12:28:56 8 Farhat did. Farhat, Nageeb Harari, and a third 12:32:16 8 Bob Pertuso and typed by Ana Bruni, she testified
12:29:04 9 person whose name I can't recall right now, beat 12:32:24 9 to after a meeting.
12:29:06 10 the doctor. Tukel told me that Farhat -- used the 12:32:24 10 Q Right.
12:29:18 11 word again, "thug," and he can't be prosecuted. 12:32:26 11 A I don't recall that. And the information
12:29:22 12 And I asked him why not. And he said that I wrote 12:32:30 12 that was testified about by Mr. Tukel was that he
12:29:26 13 a letter that said Farhat can't be prosecuted or 12:32:34 13 spoke to an officer by the name of Keifer, and
12:29:30 14 words to that effect. And I have seen what he's 12:32:40 14 Keifer told him information, never spoke to the
12:29:32 15 referring to or has referred to as a letter, which 12:32:44 15 officer who was the recipient of that letter, who
12:29:38 16 doesn't apply to Marwan Farhat. 12:32:48 16 was the officer in charge of the case.
12:29:40 17 But Farhat, the person who gave the 12:32:48 17 Q Do you know this Officer Keifer?
12:29:44 18 information about the doctor beating was Marwan 12:32:50 18 A I do.
12:29:48 19 Farhat. Marwan Farhat gave the information to us 12:32:56 19 Q How do you know him?
12:29:54 20 in a proffer protected by Kastigar in July -- I'm 12:32:58 20 A I know him through -- he was detailed to
12:29:58 21 sorry, in I think November of 2001. The 12:33:04 21 the Joint Terrorism Task Force from Dearborn
12:30:06 22 information that was given was that there was 12:33:10 22 Police. I found him to be dishonest and lacking
35 (Pages 134 to 137)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000048
Page 162 Page 164
14:10:32 1 things we were getting. 14:13:06 1 When he came on the case, then he was the
14:10:34 2 Q Did you ever hear that Washington -- that 14:13:10 2 person who was dealing with them, and he was more
14:10:36 3 the people in Washington were frustrated with 14:13:12 3 frustrated than I was. And that's reflected in a
14:10:38 4 you -- 14:13:16 4 whole series of e-mails and documents that followed
14:10:38 5 A I did. 14:13:20 5 up after the trial. So there was no assistance, no
14:10:38 6 Q And what did you hear about that? 14:13:26 6 meaningful assistance. There was -- time after
14:10:42 7 A I heard that, and I saw that reflected in 14:13:30 7 time, when we asked for things, we didn't get, and
14:10:44 8 communications through -- mostly through Alan 14:13:32 8 we got things we didn't want or need. The
14:10:52 9 Gershel. 14:13:34 9 resources were woefully lacking. We were doing our
14:10:52 10 Q And what did Mr. Gershel tell you about 14:13:40 10 closing argument, and we couldn't get a computer to
14:10:56 11 the complaints from D.C.? 14:13:44 11 use to put together a PowerPoint presentation.
14:10:58 12 A Well, there were several, and they were 14:13:46 12 So we went out and bought one at Costco,
14:11:00 13 different. And they seemed to be never-ending. At 14:13:50 13 and then after the closing, returned it. Mike
14:11:06 14 one point in time I remember Barry Sabin, when he 14:13:56 14 Thomas I think bought a scanner for the closing so
14:11:12 15 became the chief of the section, he said that we 14:13:58 15 we could put that together, because we couldn't get
14:11:18 16 weren't giving them -- weren't giving them enough 14:14:00 16 one. It was a time when -- I know Ana Bruni
14:11:22 17 deference, we weren't giving them the documents 14:14:04 17 purchased her own copying paper because the machine
14:11:24 18 they needed, like the indictments, with enough time 14:14:08 18 kept jamming on the office paper and she couldn't
14:11:28 19 for them to reflect and give their -- have their 14:14:10 19 get the right paper. So she went out and bought
14:11:34 20 corrections or input. 14:14:14 20 it. She was working almost round the clock without
14:11:34 21 But that was not accurate. There were 14:14:18 21 being compensated or given comp time or overtime.
14:11:38 22 times when they just made plain mistakes or 14:14:22 22 Q She was not given comp time or overtime?
Page 163 Page 165

14:11:40 1 misinterpreted. For instance, one time there was 14:14:24 1 A She was, and then they cut it off. But
14:11:44 2 an attorney there, Martha Rubio, sent me a series 14:14:26 2 she continued to do it. So we were working, you
14:11:50 3 of questions in an e-mail, seriatim, 1 through 14:14:30 3 know, seemed like 20-hour days, seven days a week.
14:11:54 4 whatever, 10. I answered the questions in her 14:14:36 4 Everybody was trying to get it done. There was a
14:11:56 5 original e-mail and resubmitted the e-mail with the 14:14:38 5 ton of -- discovery was coming in, copies were
14:12:02 6 answers. She thought I just re-sent her her 14:14:42 6 requested by -- defense attorneys wanted to come in
14:12:06 7 original e-mail, she didn't read the answers in the 14:14:48 7 and view and copy things. It was very difficult to
14:12:10 8 e-mail. 14:14:52 8 manage.
14:12:12 9 And that became a blowup, that I didn't 14:14:52 9 I mean, if you look at -- if you look at
14:12:16 10 answer her e-mail, I just sent it back. Those were 14:14:54 10 these e-mails on the people that were cc'd and
14:12:18 11 the types of petty internecine nonsense that would 14:15:00 11 brought into this OPR referral, and you compare
14:12:24 12 go up to very high levels and come back down to my 14:15:04 12 that, all those people devoting time and effort and
14:12:28 13 level with very stern directives. 14:15:06 13 resources to that as compared with the people we
14:12:36 14 Q And who did the stern directives come 14:15:08 14 had to work on this case, I mean, it's incredible,
14:12:38 15 from? 14:15:14 15 or even the resources that went into the criminal
14:12:38 16 A Well, I mean, the -- I can think of an 14:15:16 16 case and investigation against me as compared to
14:12:44 17 e-mail, for instance, when Alan Gershel said 14:15:18 17 the case or even the investigation of the case by
14:12:46 18 basically, I'm sick of this, Barry Sabin thinks -- 14:15:24 18 Straus and Morford, the agents and the resources
14:12:52 19 I think it was to me and Keith. It was the primary 14:15:28 19 they had to do that were triple what we had.
14:12:54 20 reason that I really pressed Keith Corbett to come 14:15:32 20 Q Did Jeffrey Collins ever reprimand or
14:12:58 21 on the case, to help me with dealing with the 14:15:36 21 otherwise criticize you to your face for allegedly
14:13:04 22 people in D.C. 14:15:40 22 not keeping Washington informed?
42 (Pages 162 to 165)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000049
Page 166 Page 168
14:15:42 1 A He reprimanded me. I don't know -- I 14:18:28 1 And he sent us Joe Capone, sent to me and
14:15:46 2 don't think those were his words. He called me 14:18:32 2 Keith an e-mail saying he was going to be assigned
14:15:48 3 into his office, and Keith Corbett into his office, 14:18:36 3 to the case and he was coming to Detroit. He
14:15:52 4 after the terrorism trial, and Keith thought we 14:18:38 4 didn't. From the first e-mail to the time he came
14:15:56 5 were going to get an award or something. Keith 14:18:40 5 to Detroit, as I recall, was a few weeks. So he
14:16:00 6 came out -- he went in first, he came out, and his 14:18:44 6 didn't come in and dig in, nor did he have any
14:16:02 7 face was red, and he looked very upset. 14:18:48 7 intention to do -- of doing that.
14:16:06 8 And I said, what happened? And he said, 14:18:50 8 When he first came out with Barry Sabin,
14:16:08 9 he's getting rid of the Strike Force. And then I 14:18:56 9 we had a meeting in the U.S. Attorney's Office that
14:16:12 10 went in, and Jeffrey Collins told me that he was 14:19:00 10 was called by Barry Sabin. And prior to going into
14:16:18 11 ordered to reprimand me. And I asked him, by who? 14:19:04 11 the meeting, Keith Corbett and I talked to Alan
14:16:22 12 And he said, Washington. I said, for what? And he 14:19:08 12 Gershel. Alan pulled us into his office and Alan
14:16:26 13 said, not playing well with others or words to that 14:19:10 13 said -- I asked Alan, what is this about? And Alan
14:16:30 14 effect, something like that, some comment that got 14:19:16 14 said, a frank and open airing of the issues, or
14:16:38 15 his point across but I didn't take very seriously. 14:19:22 15 words to that effect. I remember him saying it's
14:16:40 16 And he said, I can reprimand you any way 14:19:26 16 going to be, you know, kind of a no-holds-barred,
14:16:44 17 I want, I can do it in writing, I can do it 14:19:32 17 that everybody was there to get -- air out all of
14:16:46 18 verbally. And he said, I'm just doing it verbally. 14:19:36 18 the difficulties and miscommunications and the
14:16:50 19 I said, okay, thank you. And that was it. But 14:19:38 19 problems that had occurred up to that point.
14:16:54 20 see, at that point in time, Mr. Smith, when the 14:19:44 20 In the meeting, one of the issues that we
14:16:58 21 case was done on June 4th, when the jury came back, 14:19:46 21 had was -- that I had was, I was having difficulty
14:17:02 22 or June 3rd, on June 4th I was preparing for the 14:19:52 22 in getting anyone from the appellate section to --
Page 167 Page 169

14:17:08 1 next trial, which was the Chris Webber case, pro 14:19:58 1 I wanted an appellate attorney assigned to the
14:17:14 2 basketball player. I wasn't thinking about that 14:20:02 2 case. And Alan Gershel asked Dave DeBold, who was
14:17:16 3 case anymore. I was thinking about the next case. 14:20:08 3 an attorney in the office, to work on the case. He
14:17:18 4 And the agents on the next case came in, 14:20:10 4 was not interested in working on the case. It was
14:17:20 5 and we were putting that case together. So it was 14:20:14 5 hard to get him to help us get done what we wanted
14:17:26 6 a hectic time. That was during the time we were 14:20:20 6 him to help us get done with.
14:17:28 7 preparing for Webber, was the Farhat sentencing. I 14:20:22 7 He drafted a part of the conspiracy or --
14:17:34 8 was done with one, solely focused on the next case. 14:20:26 8 I can't remember exactly what it was that Dave
14:17:38 9 Q Okay. Did you ever use a phrase similar 14:20:30 9 DeBold did to assist us.
14:17:44 10 to "blew it out of his ass" in a meeting with Barry 14:20:32 10 Q In the indictment?
14:17:50 11 Sabin? 14:20:34 11 A Yes. But it was something related to the
14:17:52 12 A Yes. 14:20:36 12 indictment and something that he assured Keith and
14:17:52 13 Q Can you explain the context of that? 14:20:42 13 me that, you know, was well researched and was a
14:17:54 14 A Yes. There was a meeting that occurred, 14:20:44 14 viable position. In the meeting, Barry Sabin was
14:17:56 15 I don't remember when, I think it was right up to 14:20:54 15 asking me directly, in a very challenging way,
14:17:58 16 the -- I think it was very close to the beginning 14:21:00 16 where did you get this, whatever the issue was, I
14:18:00 17 of the trial, December of '02 or right around 14:21:04 17 can't recall, where did you get this theory from or
14:18:12 18 there. Barry Sabin came in with Joe Capone, and we 14:21:06 18 how did you develop this theory regarding the
14:18:16 19 had information through the U.S. Attorney who said 14:21:10 19 charging of one of the conspiracies.
14:18:18 20 that they were going to assign -- Washington was 14:21:12 20 And I told him David DeBold, an attorney
14:18:24 21 going to assign an attorney to play an equal part 14:21:16 21 here in the appellate section, he drafted it. And
14:18:26 22 in the case. 14:21:18 22 he kept pressing the issue, how did he get it, why
43 (Pages 166 to 169)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000050
Page 170 Page 172
14:21:24 1 didn't he pass it through me. He was -- he made 14:24:10 1 keep working on the case if no one in your office
14:21:28 2 his point that he didn't have an opportunity to 14:24:12 2 told you you weren't on the case? I don't really
14:21:34 3 sign off on it. It was strictly a territorial 14:24:16 3 understand. You just heard a rumor you were off
14:21:40 4 infighting, not a substantive battle that was going 14:24:18 4 the case. How did you know you really were off the
14:21:46 5 on, again. 14:24:20 5 case?
14:21:48 6 And finally at the time, at the point in 14:24:20 6 A Keith Corbett told me.
14:21:52 7 time when he kept pressing me, well, where did he 14:24:22 7 Q Okay.
14:21:54 8 get it from, how did he get it, what did he rely 14:24:24 8 A It would have been I think Thursday, the
14:21:58 9 on, what did he do, I said that to him. It was 14:24:30 9 following Labor Day, Keith told me that "you and I
14:22:02 10 intemperate, it was inappropriate, I apologized for 14:24:34 10 are off the case."
14:22:06 11 doing it, I regretted doing it. I was frustrated. 14:24:36 11 Q Did he tell you who had made the
14:22:10 12 And that -- and the U.S. Attorney, I told him 14:24:38 12 decision?
14:22:14 13 separately that I apologized as a member of his 14:24:46 13 A I can't recall if he told me that or not.
14:22:18 14 staff for doing that. And then I later apologized 14:24:48 14 I think -- I can't recall if he -- I think he said
14:22:22 15 to Barry Sabin separately for doing that. 14:24:50 15 they took us off the case.
14:22:26 16 Q Did Mr. Collins at any point express his 14:24:52 16 Q Did he tell you the reason why whoever it
14:22:28 17 dissatisfaction with your making that comment? To 14:24:58 17 was made the decision to take you and Mr. Corbett
14:22:34 18 you. 14:25:00 18 off the case?
14:22:34 19 A Well, Barry Sabin was unsure how to 14:25:02 19 A Yes, he said contact with the Senate was
14:22:44 20 respond. He didn't say anything. He looked at 14:25:06 20 the -- Gershel said was the last straw.
14:22:46 21 Mr. Collins, Mr. Collins -- and then he kind of 14:25:10 21 Q So just to make sure I understand what
14:22:48 22 looked at him again, and then Mr. Collins said to 14:25:12 22 you're saying, he told you that Alan Gershel told
Page 171 Page 173

14:22:52 1 me that was inappropriate or something like that. 14:25:14 1 him that the contact with the Grassley staffers was
14:22:56 2 And I acknowledged, there was no question it was 14:25:18 2 the last straw?
14:23:00 3 inappropriate and unprofessional. 14:25:18 3 A Someone said that. I thought that
14:23:04 4 Q How were you informed formally that you 14:25:24 4 Gershel said that's the last straw.
14:23:08 5 were being removed as trial counsel on the Koubriti 14:25:26 5 Q Did -- again, I just want to be clear.
14:23:14 6 case for purposes of sentencing or whatever? 14:25:30 6 Did Mr. Gershel say that to you, or you heard that
14:23:16 7 A I don't know that I was informed 14:25:32 7 Mr. Gershel said it?
14:23:18 8 formally. 14:25:34 8 A No. Mr. Gershel -- Mr. Gershel would not
14:23:18 9 Q Were you ever told by someone in the 14:25:36 9 talk to me. I heard that was said. I also was
14:23:20 10 chain of command such as Mr. Gershel, Mr. Tukel, or 14:25:40 10 told by Keith specifically that Alan Gershel said
14:23:24 11 Mr. Collins? 14:25:46 11 "you" -- me, Convertino -- was off the reservation.
14:23:24 12 A That I was removed? 14:25:52 12 And he made that clear, that the opinion was -- and
14:23:26 13 Q Yes. 14:25:56 13 what that clearly meant to me was that I was
14:23:26 14 A I eventually was told by -- I believe it 14:26:04 14 either -- well, I thought that meant that I was
14:23:34 15 was Mr. Collins sent me an e-mail after I pressed 14:26:06 15 giving information, that's how I took it, that was
14:23:40 16 him as to why. Nobody told me. This would have 14:26:10 16 harmful to the Department of Justice, to Senate
14:23:46 17 been weeks after, I think, a couple of weeks after 14:26:14 17 staffers.
14:23:48 18 I was removed. I was told I was removed by -- I 14:26:16 18 Q Do you recall the first time that you
14:23:56 19 think I was told I was removed by Jim Brennan, who 14:26:20 19 were contacted by Senate staffers?
14:24:00 20 told me he had heard that, that was why Gershel and 14:26:22 20 A Yes.
14:24:04 21 Collins went to the FBI. 14:26:22 21 Q Can you tell me when that was?
14:24:06 22 Q But, I mean, how would you know not to 14:26:26 22 A No. I can tell you it was the Friday --
44 (Pages 170 to 173)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000051
Page 174 Page 176
14:26:32 1 I think the Friday before Labor Day. I don't 14:28:46 1 Secret Service. So the Secret Service agents,
14:26:34 2 remember what -- I think it was August 28th. 14:28:52 2 agent in this case, Charlie Bopp, was dealing with
14:26:42 3 Q That's specific enough, certainly. Is 14:28:54 3 his counterpart in Detroit, whoever that was,
14:26:42 4 that in 2003? 14:28:58 4 Secret Service agent.
14:26:44 5 A Yes. 14:29:00 5 That Secret Service agent in Detroit was
14:26:44 6 Q And were you expected to hear from them? 14:29:02 6 dealing with the FBI agents in Detroit. So Charlie
14:26:48 7 A No. 14:29:08 7 Bopp I don't believe ever directly called Jim
14:26:50 8 Q Did they tell you why they were 14:29:12 8 Brennan. But the local agent in Detroit called on
14:26:52 9 contacting you? 14:29:16 9 behalf of Charlie Bopp. They set up the interview
14:26:52 10 A Yes. 14:29:22 10 with Hmimssa. And I don't know when that was or
14:26:52 11 Q What did they tell you? 14:29:26 11 where that was. But it was not in Detroit. I know
14:26:56 12 A The first time I received a call was from 14:29:28 12 Hmimssa was far from here.
14:27:00 13 the -- the person identified himself as a Secret 14:29:30 13 Q Did anyone from Grassley's staff come to
14:27:06 14 Service agent. He said, I'm Charlie Bopp with the 14:29:32 14 the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit, to your
14:27:10 15 Secret Service. And so that was -- that's an 14:29:36 15 knowledge?
14:27:14 16 important representation to me. A sentence or two 14:29:36 16 A Yes.
14:27:18 17 later he said he was detailed to Grassley's staff, 14:29:38 17 Q Why did they come to Detroit?
14:27:22 18 the Senate Finance Committee, which meant 14:29:40 18 A To talk to us, to talk to the agents, and
14:27:24 19 absolutely nothing to me. 14:29:46 19 to look at evidence, or I'm sorry, exhibits.
14:27:26 20 And he told me they were doing a hearing 14:29:50 20 Q To your knowledge, what AUSAs knew they
14:27:28 21 or putting information together for a hearing, 14:29:54 21 were coming beforehand? Was it just you and
14:27:32 22 upcoming hearing, regarding identity fraud and -- 14:29:56 22 Mr. Corbett?
Page 175 Page 177

14:27:36 1 or identity theft and terrorism and how the two 14:30:00 1 A Yes. I don't know if anyone else new
14:27:40 2 relate. He said they found our case and it was a 14:30:02 2 they were coming or not. Ana Bruni, she took care
14:27:46 3 paradigm of how that works. And he wanted to know 14:30:08 3 of the details. Jim Brennan, Mike Thomas.
14:27:50 4 if they could come out, or they were coming out or 14:30:12 4 Q I was just asking about AUSAs.
14:27:54 5 something, they were in the area or whatever he 14:30:16 5 A Oh, pardon me.
14:27:56 6 said, and they wanted to sit down and talk to us 14:30:16 6 Q It's okay. At that point when you had
14:28:00 7 and see some of the evidence. 14:30:26 7 that meeting, did the idea of either you or Hmimssa
14:28:04 8 Q Did the staffers then come to the U.S. 14:30:32 8 testifying before Congress come up?
14:28:08 9 Attorney's Office in Detroit to meet with Hmimssa? 14:30:34 9 A No.
14:28:12 10 A No. They didn't. 14:30:34 10 Q Did you have any idea that they would
14:28:16 11 Q Did they ever meet with Hmimssa in 14:30:36 11 want you to testify?
14:28:18 12 Detroit to your knowledge? 14:30:38 12 A No.
14:28:18 13 A They met with Hmimssa, I was told, but it 14:30:38 13 Q When did you first have an idea they
14:28:20 14 wasn't in Detroit. I don't know where Hmimssa was 14:30:40 14 would want you to testify?
14:28:24 15 being housed. 14:30:48 15 A Tuesday after Labor Day. I'm using that
14:28:24 16 Q Do you know who set up that interview 14:30:52 16 as an anchor on the dates. I don't remember the
14:28:28 17 or -- presumably the staffers didn't find Hmimssa 14:30:56 17 day.
14:28:30 18 on their own. Do you know who put the two 14:30:56 18 Q Okay. And did somebody inform you that
14:28:34 19 together? 14:30:58 19 day that they would want you to testify?
14:28:34 20 A Jim Brennan. I didn't mean to answer 14:31:00 20 A I received a call from Charlie Bopp. He
14:28:36 21 before you were through. Jim Brennan was the 14:31:04 21 told me Hmimssa was fantastic, he was, you know,
14:28:38 22 person who -- see, Senator Grassley's detailees are 14:31:08 22 very informative, well spoken, and detailed, and
45 (Pages 174 to 177)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000052
Page 186 Page 188
14:41:14 1 Q I'm sorry, did or didn't? 14:43:02 1 call?
14:41:16 2 A Absolutely did. 14:43:02 2 A Three-way call. He was in an office at
14:41:20 3 Q When did you first learn that David 14:43:04 3 Winston & Strawn.
14:41:24 4 Ashenfelter was working on an article regarding OPR 14:43:04 4 Q At that time was Mr. Sullivan retained as
14:41:28 5 allegations made against you? 14:43:08 5 your attorney at the time of that call?
14:41:32 6 A January 16th. I'd like to go back and 14:43:08 6 A Yes.
14:41:36 7 explain an answer on Butch Jones. 14:43:08 7 Q And did you pay him for the time he
14:41:40 8 MR. KOHN: No. 14:43:10 8 spent? On that day, I'm only asking. Not whatever
14:41:40 9 THE WITNESS: I want to explain something 14:43:14 9 he's done since.
14:41:42 10 regarding Butch Jones. 14:43:18 10 A I don't know if I did or didn't. You
14:41:42 11 MR. KOHN: Why don't we just take a 14:43:22 11 mean pay him for his -- the hours that he put in
14:41:44 12 break. I'll say if we need to clarify the record. 14:43:26 12 that particular day?
14:41:46 13 We'll just take -- 14:43:26 13 Q Yes.
14:41:48 14 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to drive on and 14:43:28 14 A No. I didn't pay him for that.
14:41:50 15 deal with it later if that's easiest. 14:43:30 15 Q Okay. Do you owe him money for that? In
14:41:52 16 MR. KOHN: Okay. 14:43:32 16 your understanding.
14:41:54 17 BY MR. SMITH: 14:43:32 17 A My understanding is that I do owe him --
14:41:54 18 Q So January 16th, 2004, you learned for 14:43:38 18 well, I don't owe him money. The firm of Winston &
14:41:58 19 the first time that David Ashenfelter was working 14:43:44 19 Strawn.
14:42:00 20 on this article? 14:43:44 20 Q You owe money for something that happened
14:42:00 21 A I did. 14:43:46 21 on the 16th of January, or you owe money for
14:42:02 22 Q And how did you learn that? 14:43:48 22 something else?
Page 187 Page 189

14:42:04 1 A He called. 14:43:48 1 A Oh, I think it's included in the 16th of
14:42:04 2 Q Did he speak with you? 14:43:52 2 January. I mean, I don't know how to break it out.
14:42:06 3 A Not the first time. He left a voicemail. 14:43:54 3 They might be able to do that.
14:42:08 4 Q Do you still have the recording? 14:43:56 4 Q Okay.
14:42:12 5 A I personally have the recording? I gave 14:43:56 5 A For expenses or, you know, disbursements.
14:42:18 6 copy -- I don't think I have it. I'm not sure. I 14:44:02 6 Q I'd like to know about the content of
14:42:22 7 gave a copy to Mr. Kohn and Mr. Sullivan. 14:44:06 7 your call with David Ashenfelter. How did it
14:42:30 8 Q So the first time he called he left a 14:44:10 8 begin? It was the three of you, right, you and
14:42:32 9 message. Did he call a second time? 14:44:12 9 Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Ashenfelter on the phone
14:42:34 10 A Yes. 14:44:14 10 together, correct?
14:42:34 11 Q Or did you call him back? 14:44:16 11 A At some point.
14:42:36 12 A Oh. I think we called him back. I 14:44:16 12 Q What do you remember about that call?
14:42:40 13 called Bill Sullivan and I think we called -- I 14:44:20 13 A I remember the purpose of the call was to
14:42:46 14 think we called him back. But I talked to him 14:44:24 14 get clarification about whether or not he was going
14:42:50 15 again. 14:44:30 15 to run a story, what the story was going to be
14:42:50 16 Q Were you in Washington at the time, or 14:44:34 16 about. I think his message said I'm going to
14:42:52 17 were you -- 14:44:38 17 run -- I'm doing a story about your OPR or words to
14:42:52 18 A Yes. 14:44:42 18 that effect, the message. I recall that I -- the
14:42:52 19 Q -- in Detroit? You were in Washington. 14:44:48 19 complaint has the specific verbiage that he used in
14:42:56 20 A Yes. 14:44:54 20 the recorded message, but that he intimated he was
14:42:56 21 Q And were you and Mr. Sullivan together 14:45:00 21 doing a story about me, about the OPR referral, and
14:42:58 22 when you talked to him? Or were you in a three-way 14:45:06 22 about the informant, Iran informant, and that was
48 (Pages 186 to 189)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000053
Page 190 Page 192
14:45:16 1 he was going to publish a story the next day. 14:48:18 1 referral Collins says this," as opposed to "I
14:45:18 2 Q And what did you say to him, if anything? 14:48:20 2 talked to Collins and Collins said that"?
14:45:22 3 A I mean -- in the three-way conversation? 14:48:22 3 A I suppose you can interpret it however
14:45:24 4 Q Yes. 14:48:28 4 you want. I'm telling you how I interpreted it. I
14:45:24 5 A I tried to persuade him not to run the 14:48:30 5 was on the other end of the phone. He either
14:45:30 6 name of the source in the story. I also -- so that 14:48:34 6 wanted me to think that or said it in a way that
14:45:34 7 was the first thrust that both Bill Sullivan and I 14:48:38 7 certainly led me to believe that he had -- that
14:45:40 8 tried to persuade him to consider. And he told us 14:48:42 8 Collins had talked with him.
14:45:46 9 that he would -- he had to check with his editor or 14:48:44 9 Q Okay. Do you recall Mr. Sullivan saying
14:45:50 10 words to that effect, and would recontact us with 14:48:46 10 anything on the call to Mr. Ashenfelter?
14:45:52 11 an answer on that. 14:48:50 11 A I do. He was upset. And he made it
14:45:56 12 I told him that if he were to publish any 14:48:58 12 clear that -- he repeated the same things I was
14:46:02 13 information about the OPR referral or any 14:49:02 13 saying in a more eloquent way. And he also was
14:46:06 14 information like that that he had, that without 14:49:06 14 forceful in his request that the source's name not
14:46:10 15 giving me a fair opportunity to sit down with him 14:49:10 15 be used.
14:46:14 16 and go through the allegations and disprove them to 14:49:12 16 Q Did you ever come to know why Ashenfelter
14:46:16 17 him, if he prints that, it will be devastating to 14:49:18 17 and/or his editor made an editorial decision to use
14:46:22 18 my personal and professional reputation. I made 14:49:22 18 the name of the source?
14:46:28 19 that point as strongly as I could. 14:49:24 19 A Did I ever come to know...
14:46:30 20 Q And how did he respond? 14:49:26 20 Q Do you have any idea why they would print
14:46:32 21 A He told me when he -- when we talked on 14:49:28 21 the name of the source? I mean, couldn't they have
14:46:40 22 the phone, he told me that -- he certainly gave me 14:49:32 22 written the same article that just said Convertino
Page 191 Page 193

14:46:46 1 the impression he had the OPR referral, the 14:49:36 1 gave a great deal to a guy, without saying Marwan
14:46:50 2 document, and that he referred to "Collins said," 14:49:38 2 Farhat?
14:46:56 3 or intimating to me that Collins, he had 14:49:40 3 A That's what I was saying earlier today.
14:47:00 4 conversations with Jeffrey Collins. That's how I 14:49:42 4 Q And -- go ahead.
14:47:02 5 took the conversation. 14:49:44 5 A I saw no justifiable editorial,
14:47:04 6 I was absolutely furious that he even 14:49:56 6 journalistic reason other than something that was
14:47:12 7 would consider printing something like that without 14:49:58 7 meant to cause harm specifically.
14:47:18 8 giving me a fair opportunity at least to sit down 14:50:00 8 Q Do you think that anything you said in
14:47:20 9 and go through each and every accusation or 14:50:02 9 the call with David Ashenfelter could have
14:47:26 10 allegation in a deliberative way and try and show 14:50:04 10 confirmed to him that you were indeed under an OPR
14:47:30 11 him that those were false, misleading, regardless, 14:50:08 11 investigation?
14:47:36 12 that by printing that, that it was going to be 14:50:10 12 A No.
14:47:40 13 absolutely devastating to me personally, my 14:50:14 13 Q Okay.
14:47:44 14 reputation as a lawyer, to my family, that once he 14:50:14 14 A He told me he had an OPR referral. He
14:47:52 15 prints it, I'm done. 14:50:16 15 told me he had it. He told me what was -- what the
14:47:54 16 And he did not give that consideration. 14:50:22 16 specific allegations were. He told me that on the
14:48:00 17 Q Did he respond in any way? I mean, to 14:50:26 17 telephone. I told him in response that I can
14:48:04 18 your saying that. 14:50:30 18 answer those allegations, you have to give me an
14:48:06 19 A He told me that he would get back to me 14:50:34 19 opportunity, as a human being, you have to give me
14:48:08 20 regarding the informant. 14:50:40 20 a fair opportunity to respond to this prior to you
14:48:12 21 Q Is it possible when he said Collins says 14:50:44 21 going out and disseminating it, and there will be
14:48:14 22 this, Collins says this, that he was saying "in the 14:50:48 22 absolutely no opportunity to respond, and it's
49 (Pages 190 to 193)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000054
Page 194 Page 196
14:50:54 1 over, it's done. 14:53:32 1 you?
14:50:56 2 Once he prints that story, whether it's 14:53:34 2 A I don't know why he called me. He called
14:50:58 3 true, whether it's false, whether it's accurate, it 14:53:36 3 me and told me that specific thing.
14:51:00 4 doesn't matter, it's over. My reputation, my whole 14:53:38 4 Q I assume he didn't tell you where he got
14:51:06 5 career as an attorney, my whole life, everything 14:53:40 5 it from?
14:51:12 6 that I tried to build for me and my family was done 14:53:40 6 A I didn't --
14:51:16 7 when he printed that story. 14:53:42 7 Q The information.
14:51:24 8 Q Did you contact Marwan Farhat at any time 14:53:42 8 A I didn't -- I mean, to me it was clear
14:51:30 9 after you talked to Ashenfelter but before the 14:53:46 9 where he got it from. It was clear where he got it
14:51:32 10 story ran? 14:53:50 10 from, it was clear where Ashenfelter got it from.
14:51:32 11 A Yes. 14:53:52 11 It was such a small universe of individuals who had
14:51:34 12 Q And what did you tell him? 14:53:54 12 that specific information, that there was no
14:51:40 13 A I talked to Mike Thomas first, told Mike 14:53:58 13 question in my mind, talking about the end of
14:51:46 14 Thomas to try and get ahold of him, talked to 14:54:02 14 January 2003, so it's the culmination --
14:51:50 15 Marwan Farhat at some point, and I told him what 14:54:06 15 Q Do you mean the end of December 2003?
14:51:54 16 was going to happen. And he was beside himself. 14:54:08 16 A Pardon me, that's what I meant to say,
14:52:02 17 Q Prior to first hearing from David 14:54:10 17 thank you. The picture was clear what was going
14:52:06 18 Ashenfelter, had you ever spoken to any other 14:54:14 18 on. There was -- there were a series of events
14:52:08 19 reporter about the subject of your OPR referral? 14:54:18 19 that I never thought representatives of the Justice
14:52:16 20 Had any other reporter said, oh, I know about an 14:54:22 20 Department would do, and they did. And it would
14:52:20 21 OPR referral too? Not "too," but -- 14:54:26 21 shock me. And then another -- they would do
14:52:22 22 A Yes. 14:54:28 22 something else that I never thought they would do
Page 195 Page 197

14:52:24 1 Q Who did you speak with? 14:54:30 1 that shocked me. And this kept occurring.
14:52:24 2 A David Shepardson called me. 14:54:34 2 So that was another notch, when
14:52:30 3 Q When was this? 14:54:36 3 Shepardson told me "I have this OPR," it shocked
14:52:32 4 A I don't remember. I remember exactly 14:54:42 4 the hell out of me.
14:52:34 5 where I was, I was on an entrance ramp on Sheldon 14:54:44 5 Q Prior to speaking with Mr. Shepardson,
14:52:36 6 Road going off the highway to my house, and he 14:54:46 6 had anyone outside of -- or had anyone given you a
14:52:40 7 called me. And so I remember it very clearly, 14:54:50 7 reason to believe that there was knowledge of the
14:52:42 8 because it was pretty shocking. He emphasized that 14:54:54 8 OPR referral outside of DOJ?
14:52:48 9 he was not going to write anything. I didn't 14:54:58 9 A That's outside of DOJ.
14:52:50 10 acknowledge anything to him in return. He told me 14:55:00 10 Q I mean prior to Mr. Shepardson, that
14:52:54 11 what he had. And his words were, it was sleazy. 14:55:06 11 clearly is, I mean an agent, defense attorney, or
14:53:00 12 Q Sleazy meaning that the person who gave 14:55:08 12 anything like that.
14:53:04 13 it to him was sleazy, or meaning something else? 14:55:10 13 A I did -- Curtis Brunson, who was an agent
14:53:08 14 A That reporting that kind of story in his 14:55:16 14 I worked closely with over the years, respected,
14:53:10 15 mind or in his -- you know, I mean, it was -- I 14:55:18 15 told me that he had heard that there was -- this
14:53:16 16 don't think he was serious. I think he was trying 14:55:24 16 would have been I guess October or -- I think
14:53:18 17 to curry favor. But that's what he said. 14:55:32 17 October of -- it was 2003, that he heard from a
14:53:22 18 Q Did you give him any information about 14:55:34 18 defense attorney that I was going to be OPR'd.
14:53:24 19 anything else on that call that was unrelated? 14:55:42 19 Q Did he tell you which defense attorney?
14:53:26 20 A No. 14:55:44 20 A Jim Thomas. I think he said to me, Jim
14:53:28 21 Q Do you have any understanding as to why 14:55:48 21 Thomas said "your boy is going to get OPR'd."
14:53:30 22 he called you? Was he trying to get something from 14:55:54 22 That's how Curtis shared it with me, meaning me.
50 (Pages 194 to 197)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000055
Page 202 Page 204
15:15:44 1 Q Mr. Convertino, do you remember an 15:18:08 1 MR. KOHN: I think he can look at the
15:15:46 2 attorney named William Swor? 15:18:08 2 whole thing first.
15:15:50 3 A Yes, I know Mr. Swor. 15:18:10 3 BY MR. SMITH:
15:15:52 4 Q He was an attorney in the Koubriti case? 15:18:10 4 Q You certainly can look at the whole
15:15:54 5 A Yes. 15:18:12 5 thing.
15:15:54 6 Q Do you recall a post-trial brief that was 15:18:14 6 MR. KOHN: And if you want to tell us
15:15:56 7 filed that has as an attachment a declaration by 15:18:16 7 right now which ones you want him to focus on.
15:16:00 8 Mr. Swor? 15:18:18 8 BY MR. SMITH:
15:16:00 9 A No. 15:18:18 9 Q It's basically paragraphs 13 through 18.
15:16:04 10 Q Do you recall him making any allegations 15:18:20 10 A This is Convertino Exhibit 2.
15:16:08 11 that you had made an improper threat against him? 15:18:28 11 (Witness complies.)
15:16:12 12 A Yes. I recall being told that. 15:20:38 12 A Yes, sir.
15:16:18 13 Q Who told you that? 15:20:40 13 Q Have you had a chance to read it, the
15:16:18 14 A I think Keith Corbett told me that. 15:20:42 14 document?
15:16:24 15 Q When the post-trial brief came in in 15:20:42 15 A I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention to
15:16:26 16 Koubriti, when the defendants were asking for a new 15:20:44 16 the particular paragraphs you wanted me to look at.
15:16:28 17 trial, did you read that brief, or were you already 15:20:46 17 Q The paragraphs were 13 through 18.
15:16:30 18 off the case? 15:20:48 18 A Okay.
15:16:32 19 A I was off the case. 15:20:54 19 Q Do you recall -- in paragraph 18 it says
15:16:32 20 Q Did you read the brief anyway? 15:20:56 20 "I reported Mr. Convertino's threat to the other
15:16:34 21 A No, I did not. 15:20:58 21 defense counsel immediately."
15:16:38 22 MR. SMITH: I would like to mark another 15:21:02 22 A Paragraph 18?
Page 203 Page 205

15:16:40 1 exhibit. 15:21:04 1 Q Yes. Did you ever make a threat to
15:16:42 2 (Convertino Exhibit Number 2 was marked 15:21:08 2 Mr. Swor?
3 for identification and attached to the deposition 15:21:08 3 A No.
15:17:16 4 transcript.) 15:21:08 4 Q Do you know at all what he's referring to
15:17:16 5 BY MR. SMITH: 15:21:10 5 when he talks about this conversation?
15:17:16 6 Q Before you look at that, do you know 15:21:16 6 A The conversation in paragraph 17?
15:17:18 7 whether the briefs that were filed in the Koubriti 15:21:20 7 Q Yes.
15:17:20 8 case were generally available to the public? 15:21:20 8 A Or the statements that he alleges?
15:17:24 9 A No, I don't. I don't know if they were 15:21:22 9 Q Yes.
15:17:28 10 handled in the usual manner or not. 15:21:26 10 A I mean, absolute unmitigated nonsense.
15:17:30 11 Q What is the usual manner? They would be 15:21:36 11 No truth whatever to this.
15:17:32 12 available? Or... 15:21:38 12 Q When you say "nonsense," you mean it's
15:17:34 13 A I don't even -- I can't recall if in 15:21:40 13 false, not that it's unintelligible?
15:17:40 14 2003, 2004, if PACER was up. I don't -- now you 15:21:44 14 A It is intelligible, sort of, but it is
15:17:48 15 can review documents on PACER. 15:21:48 15 categorically false.
15:17:50 16 Q Okay. 15:21:50 16 Q If a prosecutor had done what was alleged
15:17:52 17 A I don't recall whether you could or 15:21:56 17 here, would that be serious misconduct? If.
15:17:54 18 couldn't then. But I didn't. 15:21:58 18 MR. KOHN: Objection as to form.
15:18:02 19 MR. KOHN: Would you like the witness to 15:22:02 19 BY MR. SMITH:
15:18:04 20 examine the document? 15:22:02 20 Q If your opinion.
15:18:04 21 MR. SMITH: I was going to ask him to 15:22:04 21 MR. KOHN: You can answer.
15:18:06 22 read certain paragraphs. 15:22:04 22 THE WITNESS: If a prosecutor did what,
52 (Pages 202 to 205)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000056
Page 206 Page 208
15:22:08 1 sir? 15:24:12 1 Q Anything that struck you that you can
15:22:08 2 BY MR. SMITH: 15:24:14 2 think of now as false.
15:22:08 3 Q Had made a threat as Mr. Swor alleges, 15:24:14 3 A There were many things that struck me as
15:22:12 4 you say falsely, that you did, would you consider 15:24:16 4 false in his statements that he made under oath,
15:22:14 5 that to be serious misconduct? 15:24:20 5 yes.
15:22:18 6 MR. KOHN: First, objection to form. And 15:24:22 6 Q Okay. Understanding that you may not be
15:22:20 7 second, I think your question is presupposing that 15:24:24 7 able to come up with an exhaustive list, can you
15:22:28 8 the person who wrote this affidavit has somehow 15:24:26 8 tell me some of the things that you can think of
15:22:32 9 come in and made an allegation. I mean, I know 15:24:28 9 that you believe he said that were false?
15:22:36 10 it's in the affidavit, but -- okay, form. 15:24:34 10 A Well, his recounting of the events and
15:22:40 11 MR. SMITH: Okay. 15:24:40 11 how they occurred regarding Abed Makalda were at
15:22:40 12 MR. KOHN: Objection as to form. You can 15:24:46 12 best misleading throughout, and are uncorroborated.
15:22:42 13 answer. 15:24:56 13 His statement that he was not a participant in some
15:22:44 14 THE WITNESS: If someone were to make 15:25:02 14 manner in the leak of the OPR information and
15:22:46 15 this accusation, if this accusation were true -- 15:25:06 15 referral is false. The statement that he made that
15:22:50 16 BY MR. SMITH: 15:25:16 16 the information or the number of times and when he
15:22:50 17 Q Would it be serious misconduct, in your 15:25:20 17 spoke to David Ashenfelter is false.
15:22:52 18 opinion? 15:25:24 18 The information that he met David
15:22:52 19 A It would certainly be the type of actions 15:25:26 19 Ashenfelter or that he spoke to David Ashenfelter I
15:23:00 20 that would spur an investigation. So if it were 15:25:34 20 think it was on Friday may be true. But I believe
15:23:06 21 investigated thoroughly, if evidence supported that 15:25:40 21 he had subsequent conversations and conversations
15:23:10 22 the statement was made, then it would be actionable 15:25:42 22 that preceded that. The statement that David
Page 207 Page 209

15:23:14 1 at some level. 15:25:44 1 Ashenfelter as a reporter would call a line
15:23:16 2 Q Okay. Thank you. Do you recall an 15:25:50 2 Assistant United States Attorney and give him
15:23:20 3 individual named Abed Makalda? 15:25:54 3 information such as the OPR referral as a, quote,
15:23:22 4 A Yes. 15:25:58 4 heads up, is false.
15:23:24 5 Q Do you recall Mr. Sauget's deposition of 15:26:02 5 Q And what is your basis for believing that
15:23:26 6 last week? 15:26:08 6 his testimony regarding the leak and regarding
15:23:28 7 A I was -- yes, I was present for his 15:26:10 7 Mr. Ashenfelter is false?
15:23:30 8 deposition. I mean, I was in the same room. 15:26:16 8 A Common sense regarding -- certainly
15:23:34 9 Q Do you remember him testifying about Abed 15:26:18 9 regarding the last issue that I raised, that being
15:23:36 10 Makalda? 15:26:22 10 that a reporter would call Bill Sauget, who was not
15:23:38 11 A I do. 15:26:26 11 in a supervisory position, in no position other
15:23:38 12 Q As you sit here today, and I realize you 15:26:32 12 than a line AUSA, to give him a heads up about a
15:23:40 13 don't have a transcript in front of you, and you 15:26:34 13 story that had to do with me, defies logic.
15:23:42 14 don't have a perfect memory, is there anything that 15:26:40 14 Q Okay.
15:23:44 15 you can think of today where you think Mr. Sauget 15:26:40 15 A I know Bill Sauget has had contact with
15:23:48 16 said something that was incorrect? 15:26:46 16 the media. And I believe that Bill Sauget and Eric
15:23:50 17 MR. KOHN: Objection as to form, and 15:26:52 17 Straus were responsible for a press leak that
15:23:56 18 other objections that I would raise. But the 15:26:54 18 occurred during the trial regarding Abed Makalda.
15:24:00 19 witness can answer if he can. 15:26:58 19 And I raised that issue with Mr. Gershel. That
15:24:02 20 THE WITNESS: If there was anything that 15:27:06 20 Bill Sauget came into my office at 5:00 p.m. and
15:24:04 21 he said in his four-hour deposition that was false? 15:27:08 21 told me whatever he purported to have said about
15:24:10 22 BY MR. SMITH: 15:27:16 22 Abed Makalda and then asked me -- or -- and then I
53 (Pages 206 to 209)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000057
Page 218 Page 220
15:37:50 1 at any time, under any circumstances, that I can do 15:40:40 1 staff that they made a gross miscalculation in
15:37:54 2 anything to retrieve what was lost by the 15:40:44 2 their assessment of me as someone who is worthy of
15:38:00 3 publication of that article. There's no way that I 15:40:46 3 support.
15:38:02 4 can regain my professional reputation, which was 15:40:54 4 I was going to D.C., leaving my family on
15:38:08 5 called into question. My professional competence, 15:40:56 5 a weekly basis, to a place I wasn't wanted and
15:38:10 6 my personal integrity, my character, all of that is 15:41:00 6 surrounded by people who didn't want me there
15:38:16 7 gone, because it is -- it was published and 15:41:02 7 because they saw me as a political liability and an
15:38:24 8 therefore is fact. 15:41:06 8 excessive burden. I had no meaningful work to do.
15:38:26 9 I can't get anyone to listen. No one 15:41:10 9 I wasn't able to practice my profession. I was in
15:38:30 10 will accept an alternative position or explanation. 15:41:14 10 a holding pattern of hell. What it did to me prior
15:38:38 11 It is so far removed from reality that that is what 15:41:20 11 to that time, what led up to that point in time,
15:38:44 12 I now have become. When I go in court now, I am 15:41:24 12 ended my legal career as I knew it and as I wanted
15:38:48 13 that leak. When I go in front of -- when a client 15:41:30 13 to continue.
15:38:52 14 comes in, I am that leak. My children have 15:41:32 14 All of that, I couldn't respond to. I
15:38:58 15 suffered from that. My oldest daughter was a 15:41:36 15 had no meaningful way to address any of those
15:39:00 16 senior in high school during that period of time, 15:41:38 16 allegations that were in that article, because I
15:39:02 17 and my younger daughter was a freshman in high 15:41:42 17 wasn't given a fair opportunity. They weren't
15:39:06 18 school. Their teachers made comments. Their 15:41:44 18 fairly comprised. They were comprised with bad
15:39:10 19 friends made comments. 15:41:50 19 intent and recklessly put in an article that
15:39:10 20 I couldn't go to the store. It 15:41:54 20 absolutely crushed everything that I had and worked
15:39:12 21 devastated me. It destroyed what I had and what I 15:41:58 21 for. The first time that I had an opportunity to
15:39:18 22 worked for for almost 20 years up to that point. 15:42:04 22 respond was when I was charged.
Page 219 Page 221

15:39:22 1 Any mistakes I made as a prosecutor, any stumbles 15:42:06 1 From the time that that article came out
15:39:26 2 that I made, any miscalculations that I made were 15:42:08 2 to the time that I was charged with felonies, I
15:39:32 3 honest and with all the right intentions as a 15:42:16 3 wanted one thing, to be charged, so I could
15:39:36 4 Department of Justice attorney. 15:42:18 4 respond, because it was a fair fight then. And at
15:39:38 5 I wanted nothing more than to retire from 15:42:22 5 that point in time, all of the allegations that
15:39:40 6 the United States Department of Justice. It was 15:42:26 6 were brought out by the Justice Department were
15:39:44 7 gone. There is no way that I can possibly explain 15:42:30 7 shown to be what they were, bogus. Up to that
15:39:48 8 to you how devastating that article was. 15:42:34 8 point in time, I was that article. I wore it
15:39:54 9 BY MR. SMITH: 15:42:36 9 everywhere. I was confronted by that article.
15:39:54 10 Q How would you compare the effect of the 15:42:40 10 I had a closing argument, I did a closing
15:40:00 11 article which you've just described, at least to 15:42:44 11 argument in a case in 2007. It was an assault with
15:40:02 12 some extent, with the effect of the publicity 15:42:56 12 intent to do great bodily harm. And my client was
15:40:04 13 surrounding your indictment? Are you able to do 15:42:58 13 accused of seriously cutting a man in a fight.
15:40:08 14 that? 15:43:04 14 Prior to me getting up and doing my closing, the
15:40:10 15 A Easily. 15:43:08 15 prosecutor had a series of papers that he brought
15:40:10 16 Q Okay. 15:43:10 16 out after he did his closing, there was a break,
15:40:14 17 A When the article came out January 17th, 15:43:12 17 and I did mine.
15:40:20 18 2004, what it did to me at the point in time and 15:43:14 18 He put my article, the article that I'm
15:40:26 19 where I was personally and professionally, which 15:43:16 19 associated with, the Ashenfelter article, he had it
15:40:28 20 was personally I was in Washington, D.C., the 15:43:22 20 placed on the table in an effort to try and shock
15:40:32 21 significance of that was to send a clear and 15:43:26 21 me, to try and get me off my game, whatever it may
15:40:36 22 convincing message to Senator Grassley and his 15:43:34 22 be. That is what I've become. When I face judges,
56 (Pages 218 to 221)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000058
Page 222 Page 224
15:43:38 1 when I go to court, I don't get a benefit of the 15:46:40 1 record. The time is 3:46 p.m.
15:43:40 2 doubt, I don't get a break. 15:46:52 2 (Discussion off the record.)
15:43:42 3 When you people are questioning me, you 15:47:00 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
15:43:46 4 look at me and ask me and filter my answers a 15:47:06 4 record. The time is 3:47 p.m.
15:43:48 5 certain way because you're convinced that there's 15:47:08 5 BY MR. SMITH:
15:43:52 6 something untoward, must be, because it's in an 15:47:08 6 Q Was there anything you wanted to add
15:43:54 7 article like that and it was put in the paper, and 15:47:10 7 after consulting with your counsel?
15:43:58 8 the Department of Justice wouldn't gather this 15:47:14 8 A I can't recall where I was.
15:44:00 9 information and disseminate it otherwise, because 15:47:18 9 MR. KOHN: If you can just repeat the
15:44:04 10 you're certainly aware that the leaker was a 15:47:18 10 question. I think he may have been going on a
15:44:06 11 departmental official. And you're certainly aware 15:47:20 11 narrative.
15:44:08 12 that the elements of the Privacy Act violation are 15:47:22 12 MR. SMITH: Could you read back the
15:44:12 13 met. 15:47:24 13 question?
15:44:12 14 But you continue to fight. You continue, 15:47:24 14 THE WITNESS: I didn't mean to do that.
15:44:16 15 you continue to allow that to become a prominent 15:47:26 15 I apologize.
15:44:20 16 part of the life that I want to put behind me. 15:47:26 16 BY MR. SMITH:
15:44:26 17 Q Okay. I'm sure this will pale in 15:47:26 17 Q It's okay.
15:44:48 18 comparison to the last answer, but are there 15:47:50 18 MR. KOHN: Just to clarify, I think he
15:44:50 19 pecuniary costs that you're seeking remuneration 15:47:52 19 was going off on a tangent. I think you're looking
15:44:54 20 for, as opposed to nonpecuniary things such as 15:47:54 20 for not the reputational, the big picture stuff,
15:44:58 21 emotional and reputational damage? 15:47:58 21 you're talking about little picture stuff, like
15:45:06 22 A I can't enumerate them for you now. I 15:48:00 22 parking meter fees or something.
Page 223 Page 225

15:45:10 1 mean, there are expenses that were incurred. 15:48:02 1 MR. SMITH: Sure.
15:45:14 2 There's a tremendous loss of income and potential 15:48:02 2 MR. KOHN: Whatever. Do you understand
15:45:20 3 income that I'll never regain. There's economic 15:48:02 3 the distinction in the question that he asked? So
15:45:28 4 costs that I haven't thought about or tabulated 15:48:06 4 you can answer.
15:45:32 5 because I don't know what they might be. But I can 15:48:08 5 BY MR. SMITH:
15:45:40 6 tell you that if I came out of the United States 15:48:08 6 Q Are you able to answer it?
15:45:44 7 Attorney's Office with my level of experience and 15:48:08 7 A I think I've answered to some extent.
15:45:46 8 background prior to this article, that I would be 15:48:12 8 I'll just -- would like to add that I haven't
15:45:54 9 probably making ten times as much as I've made in 15:48:20 9 received one client since I've been in private
15:46:00 10 private practice. 15:48:22 10 practice since May of 2005 that was referred to me
15:46:02 11 I can certainly tell you that there are a 15:48:24 11 by another lawyer, which is very uncommon for
15:46:06 12 plethora of people I'm sure that wouldn't consider 15:48:32 12 criminal defense attorneys. So I don't believe
15:46:08 13 coming to me. There is a judge who contacted me 15:48:36 13 that -- I believe that's a direct result of this.
15:46:14 14 about representing him in a case where he's the 15:48:42 14 Q It's impossible for me to be certain of
15:46:18 15 target of an FBI investigation in Detroit, and he 15:48:44 15 this, but it seems from public information that you
15:46:22 16 told me that -- 15:48:46 16 have a very good record in your trials since you've
15:46:24 17 MR. KOHN: I just want to raise an 15:48:50 17 left. I mean, you seem to have won a lot of
15:46:26 18 objection to that, the answer. And the question 15:48:52 18 acquittals. Is that a fair statement?
15:46:32 19 calls for a narrative. If we can just go off the 15:48:54 19 A Thank you. Yes.
15:46:36 20 record and let me talk to my client. 15:48:58 20 Q And you've managed to attract a number of
15:46:38 21 MR. SMITH: Okay. 15:49:02 21 clients particularly from the law enforcement
15:46:38 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the 15:49:04 22 community, is that a fair statement?
57 (Pages 222 to 225)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000059
Page 230 Page 232
15:53:56 1 were going, and following the article, this type of 15:57:10 1 to be provided through a hearing, much like it is
15:54:04 2 nonsense, this type of bold unsupported allegation 15:57:12 2 done in every other case that I'm familiar with.
15:54:08 3 was considered. 15:57:18 3 There was no hearing. We were not
15:54:12 4 There were people who -- every defendant 15:57:20 4 allowed the opportunity to respond to that motion.
15:54:16 5 I've convicted had a story that was investigated 15:57:30 5 Q Thank you. Are you claiming damages for
15:54:20 6 now, when otherwise they wouldn't be. Everything 15:57:32 6 any specific emotional condition caused by the
15:54:24 7 that -- people were jumping on the bandwagon in 15:57:38 7 article? I understand you're very upset about it.
15:54:30 8 order to get cases reviewed and overturned. All of 15:57:44 8 But is there any specific diagnosable emotional
15:54:34 9 the evidence, all of the evidence in the Koubriti 15:57:46 9 condition you're claiming?
15:54:38 10 case was re-reviewed and given an applied -- a 15:57:48 10 MR. KOHN: I'm just going to object,
15:54:48 11 different standard of law was applied. 15:57:48 11 foundation and form. He is not an expert on this
15:54:52 12 None of that would have happened had this 15:57:52 12 matter. But he can answer.
15:54:54 13 article not given -- not been published and allowed 15:57:56 13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Can you ask
15:54:56 14 for people to use it as they desired. 15:57:58 14 again, please?
15:55:04 15 Q Do you have an opinion about Craig 15:57:58 15 BY MR. SMITH:
15:55:06 16 Morford? 15:58:00 16 Q Yes. Are you claiming damages for any
15:55:08 17 A I have an opinion. I mean, about Craig 15:58:02 17 diagnosable emotional condition as a result of this
15:55:12 18 Morford as a person, Craig Morford as a lawyer? 15:58:06 18 article?
15:55:16 19 Q Both. Either. Do you have an opinion 15:58:08 19 A I have no idea what diagnosable emotional
15:55:18 20 about either of those? 15:58:14 20 harm may have been done.
15:55:18 21 A Well, can you be more specific? 15:58:16 21 Q Have you seen a mental health
15:55:26 22 Q Do you have an opinion about Craig 15:58:18 22 professional since January 17th of 2004 for the
Page 231 Page 233

15:55:28 1 Morford's work while he was in Detroit, both as an 15:58:22 1 purpose of diagnosis, or for the purpose of
15:55:34 2 AUSA, as an acting U.S. Attorney? 15:58:26 2 diagnosis or treatment?
15:55:40 3 A I wasn't there at the time Craig Morford 15:58:28 3 A No. I have not.
15:55:42 4 was in Detroit. I have a specific direct opinion 15:58:30 4 Q Why not?
15:55:50 5 about the way Craig Morford and Eric Straus went 15:58:38 5 A Because I chose to handle the stress, the
15:55:54 6 about handling the review that they were tasked to 15:58:56 6 anxiety, the emotional turmoil, without seeking the
15:55:58 7 do which culminated in the motion that they filed. 15:59:04 7 assistance of an outside professional,
15:56:04 8 Q Would you tell me the specific and direct 15:59:10 8 purposefully.
15:56:06 9 opinion that you just referenced? 15:59:12 9 Q Why? You say "purposefully." Why?
15:56:08 10 A I think that the application of the law 15:59:14 10 A Because I didn't want to -- I'd like to
15:56:16 11 that they applied and the way that the review was 15:59:24 11 take a break if I might, I would like to speak to
15:56:18 12 handled and the way that the reviewers, Mr. Straus 15:59:28 12 Mr. Kohn briefly.
15:56:24 13 and Mr. Morford, interacted with the judge and the 15:59:28 13 Q That's fine.
15:56:26 14 witnesses, I think is highly suspect at best. 15:59:30 14 A Thank you.
15:56:32 15 I think that at the time that they 15:59:30 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the
15:56:34 16 completed their review, that a fair and proper 15:59:32 16 record. The time is 3:59 p.m.
15:56:40 17 assessment of the material that they purportedly 16:07:12 17 (Recess.)
15:56:44 18 came up with should have been made through a 16:07:48 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
15:56:48 19 hearing in court so that the target of their 16:07:56 19 record. The time is 4:10 p.m.
15:56:56 20 motion, specifically the FBI agent and me, could 16:07:58 20 BY MR. SMITH:
15:57:00 21 have responded, could have questioned witnesses, 16:07:58 21 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Convertino. Are you
15:57:04 22 and could have asked for documents and information 16:08:02 22 able to answer the last question?
59 (Pages 230 to 233)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000060
Page 234 Page 236
16:08:04 1 A I'm sorry, can you ask me again? 16:12:18 1 A Am I unable to perform any tasks?
16:08:06 2 MR. SMITH: Could you read back his last 16:12:22 2 Q Anything you can think of.
16:08:08 3 answer, and then the question. 16:12:28 3 A I mean, nothing comes to mind right now.
16:08:10 4 (Requested portion of record read.) 16:12:30 4 Q Okay. Have there been any physical
16:08:42 5 BY MR. SMITH: 16:12:32 5 manifestations of your emotional feelings such as
16:08:42 6 Q Are you able to answer that, sir? 16:12:36 6 headaches, loss of sleep, or anything like that?
16:08:44 7 A Yes. 16:12:44 7 A I haven't slept, I don't think, since --
16:08:44 8 Q Would you please. 16:12:50 8 I haven't slept through the night since, not once.
16:08:48 9 A I did not want to give the satisfaction 16:12:54 9 Q Did you have sleeping problems before the
16:09:00 10 of having to seek the assistance of a medical 16:12:56 10 article?
16:09:06 11 professional for the damage that was done. It was 16:12:58 11 A No.
16:09:16 12 a personal decision not to do that. 16:12:58 12 Q Your testimony is that you have not had a
16:09:22 13 Q Are there any ways in which your 16:13:00 13 full night's sleep since January 17th of 2004?
16:09:28 14 personality -- to your knowledge, are there any 16:13:04 14 A I have not.
16:09:32 15 ways in which your personality has changed since 16:13:04 15 Q How many hours do you normally sleep?
16:09:34 16 the article in a permanent or semi-permanent way? 16:13:12 16 A At most at any one period of time, four
16:09:38 17 MR. KOHN: Again, I'm just going to 16:13:20 17 hours.
16:09:40 18 object to form, because he's not a medical 16:13:22 18 Q And in a given night in total, I mean,
16:09:48 19 professional. But he can answer. 16:13:26 19 can you put together a couple, four hours, get up,
16:09:50 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16:13:30 20 then another two hours, or is it just four hours
16:09:50 21 BY MR. SMITH: 16:13:32 21 and then you're done for the night?
16:09:50 22 Q And can you explain how, what the changes 16:13:34 22 A I usually come home at 7, 8:00 at night,
Page 235 Page 237

16:09:56 1 are? 16:13:42 1 lay down, maybe for an hour, get up, go to bed at
16:09:56 2 A I am angry. What -- the institutions 16:13:50 2 1, get back up at 3 or 4, go into the office.
16:10:10 3 that I once held sacred seemed devoid of what they 16:14:04 3 Q How many hours a night did you sleep
16:10:22 4 held or stood for prior. I have a hard time seeing 16:14:06 4 prior to the article?
16:10:34 5 that people who are in positions of authority, who 16:14:08 5 A Slept normally.
16:10:40 6 I believe egregiously abused their positions, are 16:14:08 6 Q But normal is sometimes different for
16:10:44 7 not only still in those positions but have been 16:14:10 7 different people. What was it for you? If you
16:10:46 8 elevated because of what they did and promoted, 16:14:14 8 recall.
16:10:52 9 people who were so reckless and cavalier in 16:14:14 9 A I would say six to eight hours.
16:10:56 10 disregarding what was so important to another 16:14:16 10 Q Sounds normal. Are you claiming any
16:11:00 11 person. 16:14:24 11 damages for damage to your marriage? Not to
16:11:04 12 Whether I'm -- whether it's actual or 16:14:28 12 suggest that there is any. I'm just asking if
16:11:10 13 perceived by me, I feel as though clients, other 16:14:30 13 you're claiming damages in this case for that.
16:11:20 14 attorneys, others in my profession, have a 16:14:34 14 MR. KOHN: I just wanted to interpose,
16:11:26 15 particular view or opinion of me that is 16:14:36 15 I'm not sure, the question that you had asked
16:11:34 16 undeserved. Those are things that markedly changed 16:14:38 16 before this was very broad, it was physical
16:11:40 17 after the article. I don't have any -- actually I 16:14:40 17 manifestations. I know he touched on sleep. I'm
16:11:44 18 used to think that reporters sought the truth. I 16:14:42 18 not sure if he's answered the question fully yet.
16:11:52 19 have no faith in that whatever. 16:14:46 19 BY MR. SMITH:
16:11:54 20 So it's changed me I think in many ways. 16:14:48 20 Q Did you have an opportunity to answer the
16:12:04 21 Q Are you unable to perform any tasks that 16:14:50 21 prior question fully, as Mr. Kohn suggested you
16:12:12 22 you could perform before? 16:14:52 22 might not have, or do you want to go back to that?
60 (Pages 234 to 237)

(202)861-3410 (800)292-4789 (301)762-8282 (703)288-0026 (410)539-3664
DA000061

Richard Convertino Deposition

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Richard Convertino Deposition

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-8 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 32

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD G. CONVERTINO

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et ) No.04-00236

Videotaped Deposition of RICHARD G. CONVERTINO

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Job No.: 1-154367

Reported By: Lee A. Bursten, RPR

L.A.D. REPORTING & DIGITAL VIDEOGRAPHY

Page 99 Page 101

Page 103 Page 105

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 135 Page 137

35 (Pages 134 to 137)

Page 163 Page 165

42 (Pages 162 to 165)

Page 167 Page 169

43 (Pages 166 to 169)

Page 171 Page 173

44 (Pages 170 to 173)

Page 175 Page 177

45 (Pages 174 to 177)

Page 187 Page 189

48 (Pages 186 to 189)

Page 191 Page 193

49 (Pages 190 to 193)

Page 195 Page 197

50 (Pages 194 to 197)

Page 203 Page 205

52 (Pages 202 to 205)

Page 207 Page 209

53 (Pages 206 to 209)

Page 219 Page 221

56 (Pages 218 to 221)

Page 223 Page 225

57 (Pages 222 to 225)

Page 231 Page 233

59 (Pages 230 to 233)

Page 235 Page 237

60 (Pages 234 to 237)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai