t111609 Us V Bruno Am

64
UNITED STATES v BRUNO 09-CR-29
1 (Court reconvened at 10:40 AM.)
2 THE COURT: What's the problem?
3 MR. PERICAK: Your Honor, yesterday the
4 defense provided the Government with a CD of documents and
5 this morning provided, I guess -- I don't know if they were
6 marked yesterday as exhibits on the CD, but, in any event,
7 provided us with hard copies this morning of documents
8 marked as defense exhibits which are pertinent to the
9 examination of this witness. And had I had these documents
10 in advance, I would have examined the witness with respect
11 to them as part of my direct examination. And I still plan
12 to do that, but I would request an opportunity to review the
13 documents and get myself slightly better prepared to do
14 that, and I would request that we reconvene after the lunch
15 hour. That would be sufficient time to go -- for me to go
16 through them.
17 THE COURT: What are you asking me to do,
18 adjourn the proceeding from now until after lunch?
19 MR. PERICAK: Yes, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: What are the exhibits? Give me
21 the numbers.
22 MR. PERICAK: They are defense exhibits C 16,
23 C 27 and C 30. And there are -- actually, there probably
24 are more, but we didn't have a chance to look at the other
25 ones now. These are the annual statements of financial

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY
65
1 disclosure, I'll call them the marked up drafts. And you
2 heard the witness testify that, in fact, she would take the
3 prior year and use that as the go-by for the subsequent
4 year. And that would have been part of my examination to
5 elicit that testimony from her, but I didn't have the
6 documents. I now have the documents, and I would propose to
7 show her the documents and to go through it in more detail.
8 THE COURT: So what they are are marked up
9 copies of the financial disclosure forms that are what?
10 MR. PERICAK: I believe we'll ask the witness
11 that, if it's the '92 form, her notes on it are for '93, how
12 she's going to change it to make the '93 form and different
13 notes and different items on there and presumably with
14 directions from various people as to what changes to make
15 and how to make them.
16 THE COURT: Are these documents that the
17 Government has not seen?
18 MR. PERICAK: Had not seen prior to -- well,
19 had not seen prior to this morning and did not have access
20 to prior to yesterday. And for the Court's edification,
21 Mr. Lewis had produced certain documents, copies of certain
22 documents to us. It's my understanding that these documents
23 were within the documents that he had in his control, that
24 he chose not to make --
25 THE COURT: Who's Mr. Lewis?

66
1 MR. PERICAK: Mr. Lewis represents the
2 witness, Miss Stackrow, and he had taken control of these
3 items in connection with his representation of her. It's my
4 understanding that, subsequently, when Miss Stackrow retired
5 from the Senate, that Senator Bruno's people came and took
6 these documents, and they've been in his possession custody
7 and control since then.
8 THE COURT: So the view is that these
9 documents were in the possession of the defendant?
10 MR. PERICAK: Yes.
11 THE COURT: Were they produced to the
12 Government by reciprocal discovery required by the Court's
13 order entered at the outset of this case?
14 MR. PERICAK: It is my belief that they were
15 not. And I could be corrected on that.
16 THE COURT: Let me hear from the defendant as
17 to whether or not they were in possession of documents that
18 they did not disclose pursuant to the Court's order.
19 MR. LOWELL: Not like that, your Honor. It
20 goes like this, from my perspective, since I wasn't here
21 prior to February of '09. My understanding was that these
22 documents were accessible to both the defense and the
23 prosecutors. And the reason I say that, I got some of what
24 we have seen from the Government from the same set of
25 documents. In other words, some of the financial disclosure

67
1 forms that the Government has produced, some of the memos
2 from the staff, came from these boxes that were in a storage
3 facility that I fully understood the Government had through
4 whatever happened between Mr. Lewis and them how ever many
5 months ago. As to whether I gave it to them again, I didn't
6 give it to them again because they were clearly going to be,
7 if anything, once they established who their witnesses were,
8 in cross-examination, not our case-in-chief. So pursuant to
9 the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure about providing them,
10 we've given them what was in our case-in-chief, and then
11 over the weekend when they and we spoke about what documents
12 they were going to use for the next five witnesses, and
13 which ones we were, we said we'll give you all of our
14 exhibits, and we gave them a CD with every exhibit from A to
15 Z. But the premise was they already had this information
16 because it was in a third party's possession. I guess
17 they're all in a storage facility now. But that was only
18 after, I understood, that Miss Stackrow's lawyer and her met
19 with the Government and made those arrangements, which was
20 many, many, many months ago. So I don't know why they're
21 saying they didn't see it. Indeed, yesterday, Mr. Pericak
22 and one of his agents said they wanted to get the originals
23 of various documents, and they were again provided these
24 same boxes. I understood they spent an hour and a half in
25 them and looked in all of these boxes. In fact, one of the

68
1 two of the exhibits he's shown me that he's going to use
2 today comes from the box that he's talking about, I think.
3 I don't know. And so I have -- I'm a little confused,
4 frankly. I'm just a little confused.
5 THE COURT: I just want to -- I'm just going
6 to walk my way through this a step at a time to make sure I
7 fully understand what everybody is telling me.
8 I'm not interested in what the defense has
9 supplied to the Government by way of examination material in
10 light of whatever examination they may engage in. I'm
11 focused exclusively right now on the discovery issue. And
12 as I understand what you've just told me, it is your belief
13 that these materials were generated from a third party where
14 the materials were equally accessible by both sides. This
15 is not material that was exclusively in the defense
16 possession, that was -- where there was a failure to
17 disclose.
18 In other words, I'm back at the outset of
19 these proceedings before your involvement, Mr. Lowell. I
20 issue an order which includes things about discovery
21 material. And once the Government complies with its
22 discovery obligations under that order, then the defense is
23 subject to a reciprocal discovery obligation, so that there
24 should be a full and fair exchange of all information in the
25 possession of both sides, once the Government has satisfied

69
1 the predicate of making its disclosures under Rule 16.
2 So on that issue, what Mr. Lowell is
3 indicating to me is that these materials are generated from
4 a source of materials that were equally accessible to both
5 sides. Is he right?
6 MR. PERICAK: He's not, your Honor. And I
7 want to say one thing, and I -- then I want to invite
8 Mr. Lewis, who is here, who represents the witness, and who
9 had whatever documents there were, to make representations
10 to the Court.
11 It is my understanding -- first of all, these
12 are Senator Bruno's records. They happened to be maintained
13 by Miss Stackrow as his employee, as his person who held
14 them for him. And Mr. Lewis made copies of certain things
15 for us. And I would ask the Court to allow Mr. Lewis to
16 speak as to what he did, what he made available, and whether
17 or not these particular items were in what he made
18 available, if that's okay with the Court.
19 THE COURT: Did you seek all items that were
20 in Mr. Lewis' possession?
21 MR. PERICAK: Your Honor, I believe that our
22 subpoena was sufficiently broad to clearly encompass this
23 stuff. It remains, your Honor, Mr. -- these are Senator
24 Bruno's materials. They simply happen to be maintained by
25 his agent holding onto them for him. So that my view is

70
1 that our request to Senator Bruno encompassed everything
2 that --
3 THE COURT: That's precisely what I'm
4 missing. I mean between the two of you, I need a foundation
5 as to -- I don't know from what you have given me what was
6 subpoenaed, what was asked for, what wasn't. Give me a
7 definitive history about these documents.
8 MR. PERICAK: Your Honor, I'll first say
9 we're going to get the subpoena to Senator Bruno, which is
10 downstairs.
11 THE COURT: Were these documents retrieved
12 pursuant to a subpoena issued on Mr. Bruno?
13 MR. PERICAK: I don't -- I believe that they
14 were not retrieved by Senator Bruno.
15 THE COURT: I'm not asking that. Who did you
16 direct the subpoena to? You subpoenaed who to produce what?
17 MR. PERICAK: We subpoenaed both Senator
18 Bruno and Miss Stackrow and -- both Senator Bruno generally
19 and Miss Stackrow, as his agent. As his agent, Miss
20 Stackrow, through her attorney, produced certain documents
21 to us.
22 THE COURT: All right.
23 MR. PERICAK: And Mr. Lewis is here. And I,
24 I -- the reason I don't want to get down into the weeds so
25 much is because Mr. Lewis knows what he had and what he did.
71
1 I would prefer to hear from him, and I'll accept his
2 representation on what he had and what he did. But it's my
3 understanding that these particular documents were not
4 produced to us.
5 THE COURT: Was the subpoena also served on
6 Senator Bruno?
7 MR. PERICAK: A different subpoena was served
8 on Senator Bruno, which we're getting, which I believe is a
9 very broad subpoena, as your Honor could imagine, which
10 would certainly cover such records as these.
11 THE COURT: All right. Now -- I'll give you
12 an opportunity, Mr. Lowell. What is it you are asking me to
13 do? The bottom line here, once you ferret out who, what,
14 where, when, the bottom line here is whether or not,
15 ultimately, these records will be admissible, given their
16 history and what prejudice would enure to the Government and
17 what curative things you are asking me to do to cure any
18 prejudice that might occur.
19 Here's what I understand you to be saying.
20 What I understand you to be saying is, is that you need an
21 opportunity to review that which you have not yet seen in
22 order to complete your examination of this witness. That's
23 what I hear you saying.
24 MR. PERICAK: That's correct, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: All right. It is ten minutes of

72
1 11. Do we have another witness that we can go to if I
2 interrupt the testimony of this witness to accommodate what
3 it is you seek?
4 MR. PERICAK: We had lined up some witnesses,
5 anticipating that Miss Stackrow and then Mr. Riddett would
6 take up the bulk of the day today, so I don't even know if
7 we have any other witnesses here.
8 MS. COOMBE: I would have to check with my
9 office, your Honor, to see who would be available.
10 THE COURT: It's nobody that's going to come
11 within the next two minutes I take it.
12 MS. COOMBE: Right, your Honor. I'm sure
13 everyone was set up for after lunch because...
14 THE COURT: All right. All right. Let me
15 hear from Mr. Lewis.
16 MR. LEWIS: Good morning, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Good morning. You represent who?
18 MR. LEWIS: I represent Miss Stackrow.
19 THE COURT: All right. You are individually
20 retained by her?
21 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
22 THE COURT: All right.
23 MR. LEWIS: I'm going to go a little further
24 back than representing Miss Stackrow. There was a turnover
25 of Bruno documents pursuant to a Bruno subpoena that I was

73
1 not involved in that Mr. Dreyer did that I knew of. At the
2 time that Miss Stackrow got her subpoena, I asked if I could
3 see what was turned over so we don't duplicate everything.
4 Mr. Dryer said I would have to speak with Miss Coombe. Miss
5 Coombe said that she did not want that turned over to us.
6 In our subsequent conversation, after the
7 subpoena was delivered, we as -- I ascertained that they
8 wanted from Pat Stackrow her individual documents, meaning
9 things she herself maintained. We then put together those
10 documents, which included her tax books and the tax
11 notebooks that you've seen, a huge Rolodex that was Senator
12 Bruno's master Rolodex; Miss Stackrow's what we call
13 telephone book with other additional information. We turned
14 that over to the Government.
15 The Government then made a number of other
16 requests for particularized documents, which we turned over.
17 We found additional papers at the time of the packing of the
18 Bruno office when he resigned his office, and we turned
19 those over to the Government.
20 I do not know what the Government has not
21 seen because I have not seen anything except what was turned
22 over. It was my recollection that we did not turn over
23 financial disclosure documents because they weren't Miss
24 Stackrow's personal documents maintained by her. And also
25 it's my understanding that the first turnover included

74
1 financial documents. We ascertained -- or I tried to
2 ascertain, because I raised the issue, that, in effect, Miss
3 Stackrow -- the subpoena was so broad because it asked for
4 everything with Senator Bruno's name on it, that it would
5 require every piece of paper in the office. The conclusion
6 was her personal things, not her Senate things would be
7 turned over. And what we did was turn over her personal
8 things.
9 THE COURT: The conclusion was drawn by whom,
10 that you would comply with the subpoena by turning over her
11 personal papers?
12 MR. LEWIS: Based upon representations made
13 by the Government, by Miss Coombe of the requested
14 information.
15 THE COURT: That's the way you understood the
16 subpoenaed request, based upon your conversations with Miss
17 Coombe?
18 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
19 THE COURT: What conversations did you have
20 with Mr. Bruno's lawyers about what you would or would not
21 turn over?
22 MR. LEWIS: None. I didn't think, frankly,
23 it was appropriate, given it was a grand jury subpoena...
24 I'm just explaining.
25 THE COURT: I'm not suggesting it wouldn't

75
1 have been. Don't misunderstand me.
2 MR. LEWIS: Well, sorry, I'm a lawyer, so I
3 have to be told to stop. (laughter)
4 THE COURT: That's all right.
5 MR. LOWELL: I know that.
6 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I have the subpoena
7 for Miss Stackrow in my hand. If the Court wants to see it,
8 I'll hand it up.
9 THE COURT: It's not relevant to the decision
10 I'm making. Thank you.
11 Let me hear from the defense about the
12 proposal of the Government.
13 MR. LOWELL: Well, first of all, I mean we do
14 have a level of collegiality, as you see. And I'm
15 surprised, frankly, for a lot of reasons, including that
16 Mr. Pericak and an agent spent over an hour and a half in
17 these boxes yesterday. And this is the first I'm hearing
18 about this issue.
19 Having said that, Judge, I, I don't have a
20 problem if what he means is give him the time to look
21 through this. I'm surprised, however. So to answer your
22 question directly, my let me confer with these gentlemen,
23 but...
24 THE COURT: Please do.
25 MR. LOWELL: I don't think that we can't find

76
1 a way to accommodate them, I just don't understand so ...
2 (Pause...)
3 MR. LOWELL: I mean -- one second please.
4 (Pause...)
5 MR. LOWELL: Your Honor, I think Mr. Pericak
6 is saying under all these circumstances that he would like,
7 if it's okay with the Court, and we're going to put the jury
8 out, I have no problems with him taking the time until 1:00
9 and then starting.
10 THE COURT: I appreciate the collegiality.
11 It's not okay with me, but that having been said, it's not
12 okay with me for reasons that have nothing to do with what's
13 equitable on the issue. I'm going to excuse the jury until
14 1:00. I don't see any alternative to rectify without making
15 any findings of prejudice, which I can't, based upon the
16 representations that have been made to me. Nonetheless, in
17 fairness to the examination, I think that's warranted. And,
18 therefore, I'm going to bring the jury in, tell them not to
19 concern themselves with the reasons why, but we're going to
20 adjourn at this point until 1:00.
21 Mr. Pericak, if that means you've got to run
22 out and leave everything to Miss Coombe for a while, go
23 right ahead.
24 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, can I ...
25 THE COURT: You're all set.

77
1 (Jury present at 11:00 AM.)
2 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, as I know
3 is obvious to you, sometimes we talk behind your back.
4 While you're in there, sometimes we're out here. Sometimes
5 things happen that just cause delays. It's that simple.
6 And one of those things has arisen. It's not anything for
7 you to be concerned about whatsoever. But there's a bottom
8 line to it, and the bottom line is you're going to get two
9 hours for lunch today. I'm going to excuse you at this
10 point, to return at 1:00. We will resume the witness'
11 testimony at that point. Do not concern yourselves about
12 any of this, it's of no moment to you, other than it's
13 causing a delay, for which I apologize to you. It's
14 inefficient with your time, but it's unavoidable in this
15 circumstance. So you're free to go until 1:00.
16 (Jury excused at 11:00 AM.)
17 THE COURT: You may step down, Miss Stackrow.
18 Anything further?
19 MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, in light of the
20 fact that we have a gap in time, should we do the hearsay
21 issues document by document before 1:00? I just throw that
22 out there as a suggestion.
23 MR. PERICAK: We're kind of tied up.
24 THE COURT: As I think Mr. Thompson knew.
25 Nice try, Mr. Thompson.

78
STACKROW - DIRECT - PERICAK
1 MR. THOMPSON: It was worth a try, your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: Yes, it was.
4 (Lunch recess at 11:00 AM.)
5 (Court reconvened at 1:00 PM.)
6 (Jury present.)
7 THE COURT: Thank you for your patience,
8 folks. Mr. Pericak.
9 MR. PERICAK: Thank you, your Honor.
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PERICAK (cont'd):
11 Q. Good afternoon, Miss Stackrow. I'm going to show
12 you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit GY-1. Do you
13 recognize Exhibit GY-1?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. PERICAK: My man is not here. (laughter)
16 Have I offered Exhibit GY-1?
17 THE CLERK: It's been admitted.
18 MR. PERICAK: I did good. I didn't need him
19 then.
20 THE COURT: Yes, you did. (laughter)
21 BY MR. PERICAK:
22 Q. Do you recognize Exhibit GY-1?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. What is that?
25 A. It is the financial disclosure form from the

79
1 calendar year 1993.
2 Q. And probably took back from you ... Did you type
3 that form?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. All right. Would you please turn to question --
6 the second page, question number four, and do you see that
7 there are two entries there, consultant for Mitel Systems
8 Integrators Inc.? Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And consultant for Business consultants?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. And now I would like you to take a
13 look at attachment A, which I believe is the fourth page.
14 And do you see for Mitel, it, again, indicates -- do you see
15 that? It's attachment A?
16 THE COURT: She's looking. Hang on.
17 A. I'm looking. Attachment A for question five?
18 Q. Correct.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. And the first entry reads consultant, 9/92 to
21 4/93, Mitel Systems Int. Inc.?
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. And the description says: Telecommunications
24 sales and services, paren, bids and does business with
25 state/local agencies, slash -- dash, not a significant

80
1 percentage of business, close paren.
2 Now, I take it that you typed in the description
3 that was there, is that right?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. Who originally provided you with the information
6 for that description?
7 A. One of the attorneys would have.
8 Q. The attorneys knew enough about Senator Bruno's
9 work for Mitel that they could provide that detailed
10 description?
11 A. They would have talked with him about it.
12 Q. So in order to get the description, they would
13 have talked to Senator Bruno?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And I would like you to -- I want to put GD-5
16 side-by-side with GD-5-1. If you look at the fourth page,
17 which I took back, and I'm going to give it back to you
18 right now, now do you see on the fourth page at the bottom,
19 the four entries that we were looking at earlier, you show
20 Sage, ten times 4,000, 40,000. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. But I want you to go back to attachment A, and do
23 you note that Sage does not appear on attachment A?
24 A. No, it does not.
25 Q. Okay. And I now would like to show you what's

81
1 been marked as Government's Exhibit GT-1 and GT-2. Now,
2 Exhibit GT-1, do you see that that's on the letterhead of
3 Sage Alerting Systems Inc.?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And do you see it's addressed to Senator Bruno,
6 Mr. Joseph Bruno?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And if you look at the second page, do you see
9 that it's signed both by Senator Bruno and Mr. Fassler?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. Now, did you maintain a copy of this
12 agreement in your files?
13 A. I don't remember.
14 Q. All right. Well, do you remember senator -- I
15 think you told is this morning that Senator Bruno had an
16 agreement with Mr. Fassler and some of his companies, is
17 that right?
18 A. Mm-hmm.
19 Q. Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you remember that Sage Alerting is one of the
22 companies?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you remember from time to time Senator
25 Bruno entering into written agreements with Mr. Fassler on

82
1 behalf of various of his companies?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And do you recall that, as part of your job, you
4 would keep those files?
5 A. Yes. But you're asking me specifically if I
6 remember this document. I can't tell you specifically that
7 I remember this document.
8 Q. All right. But in the ordinary course of
9 business, this is the type of document that you would have
10 maintained in your file?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. Now, I would also like you to look at
13 GT-2, which I believe I already brought up to you. And do
14 you see the first page is a 1099 from Sage Technologies?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And who's the recipient listed on there?
17 A. Joseph Bruno.
18 Q. It doesn't say Business Consultants, does it?
19 A. No, it does not.
20 Q. Would you look at the second page of GT-2? Who is
21 that from?
22 A. AmeriData Technologies.
23 Q. Who did you understand AmeriData Technologies to
24 be?
25 A. Len Fassler.
83
1 Q. And who's the recipient of this 1099?
2 A. Joseph Bruno.
3 Q. There's no Business Consultants there, is there?
4 A. No, there isn't.
5 Q. All right. Would you look at the third page? And
6 that's a 1099 for 1995, is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And, again, that's from AmeriData?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who's the recipient?
11 A. Joseph Bruno.
12 Q. And, finally, would you look at the last page?
13 That's a 1099 for 1996, is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. From AmeriData?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the recipient is?
18 A. Joseph Bruno.
19 Q. No Business Consultants?
20 A. No.
21 Q. All right. Again, let's go back to GT-1, and
22 that's a two-page letter, but I would like you to look at it
23 and confirm to us that Business Consultants is not mentioned
24 in that letter.
25 A. No, it is not.
84
1 Q. All right. Now, who made the decision not to list
2 Sage Alerting or Sage Technologies or whatever the name of
3 Mr. Fassler's company happened to be at the time on the 1993
4 annual statement of financial disclosure?
5 A. It would have been one of the attorneys who made
6 the decision.
7 Q. All right. Why do you say it would have been one
8 of the attorneys?
9 A. Well, it wasn't me.
10 Q. It wasn't you?
11 A. No.
12 Q. All right. And were you present when anybody
13 discussed it or made the decision?
14 A. I don't remember that.
15 Q. All right. And do you know if the attorneys had
16 access to the agreement between Senator Bruno and Sage
17 Alerting?
18 A. I don't know that.
19 Q. All right. Did you show it to them?
21 Q. Did you show them the 1099?
23 Q. All right. In your ordinary practice, can you
24 explain to us at what point in the process did you go over
25 your draft form with the attorneys?

85
1 A. After I would put all of my information in the tax
2 records, then I would go over the information for the
3 financial disclosure forms with the attorneys.
4 Q. So, if I understand you, you would prepare a draft
5 based on your tax records and you would show it to the
6 attorneys?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I'm sorry. I think if you either sit forward or
9 pull the mic back.
10 A. Okay.
11 THE COURT: You can pull that mic towards you
12 if you need to.
13 THE WITNESS: Okay.
14 BY MR. PERICAK:
15 Q. Was it your habit or practice to show the
16 attorneys any of your underlying documents or information?
17 A. No.
18 Q. All right. Did you ever show them any underlying
19 agreement?
21 Q. Do you remember any of them ever asking to see the
22 agreement?
24 Q. Miss Stackrow, I'm going to show you --
25 MR. PERICAK: Your Honor, at this time ...

86
1 (Pause...) Your Honor, at this time the Government moves
2 the admission of Government's Exhibits GY-1-A and GY-1-B.
3 THE COURT: Objections?
4 MR. LOWELL: No, your Honor. I'm just trying
5 to make sure we know which of his is which of ours.
6 THE COURT: All right. (Pause.) GY-1-A and
7 GY-1 B are admitted.
8 MR. PERICAK: Thank you.
9 BY MR. PERICAK:
10 Q. Miss Stackrow, first showing you Government's
11 Exhibit GY-1-A, and I would like you to page through that
12 first and then tell us whether or not that's a working copy
13 that you used to prepare the 1993 annual statement of
14 financial disclosure. I will particularly focus you on the
15 fourth page which is headed attachment A.
16 A. This is my working copy.
17 Q. And could you describe for the jurors, the actual
18 document would indicate that it was 1992 financial
19 disclosure, but that was your file copy, is that right, and
20 then you made some notations on it for 1993?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. So let's look first at attachment A.
23 MR. PERICAK: If we can make that a little
24 larger, Ron.
25 Q. What were you indicating here with these edits

87
1 that you were putting in?
2 A. Um, by crossing off the chairman of the board
3 position? I would assume that that was the time that he was
4 no longer chairman of the board.
5 Q. So he was no longer an employee of that company?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. And then the second entry, does that
8 say date? To the left of consultant?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And, of course, because you're in 1993 ...
11 A. I was changing the date.
12 Q. Changing the date. What does the little arrow
13 mean to the right?
15 Q. Well, if you look back at GY-1, if we can go
16 side-by-side, please ... fourth page each. Maybe it's the
17 third page. And comparing it, do you now recall what your
18 arrow signified?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Were you trying to indicate that the same
21 description that applied to his employee relationship also
22 applied to his consulting relationship?
24 Q. All right. Would you please turn to attachment B,
25 which is about six pages further along in GY-1-A? That's

88
1 it.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. All right. My first question for you is, is
4 everything that's in handwriting there your handwriting?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. All right. And including, let's go down to the --
7 where it says Business Consultants --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- the figure 98,000.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the three entries that says Sage, 44,000,
12 Web -- can you read that?
13 A. Converting.
14 Q. Converting, 14,000. And what's the third entry?
15 A. McGinn Smith.
16 Q. And what were you indicating by making those
17 notations under Business Consultants?
18 A. I was putting the dollar amount that he received
19 for -- from those three companies in a lump sum under
20 Business Consultants.
21 Q. Because on the far right-hand side, what did those
22 letters stand for?
23 A. The various categories that were listed on the
24 front of the financial disclosure statement.
25 Q. Zero to 50,000, or whatever it was? So you had to

89
1 add up what came underneath that and then put it in the
2 correct category?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did you get input from anybody else, or did
5 you do that all on your own?
6 A. No, I did that on my own.
7 Q. Now, if you would look back to GD-5, the fourth
8 page, do you see your entry for Mitel, 13,000, down there?
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And on the prior page, under the heading
12 Business Consultants income, you have four entries for
13 Mitel. If you look at the top.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. The very first entry.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. January 5th, '93, Mitel.
18 A. Mm-hmm.
19 Q. January 28th, '93, Mitel.
20 A. Mm-hmm.
21 Q. March 2nd, '93, Mitel.
22 MR. PERICAK: And I believe there's one more,
23 Ron.
24 A. March 30th.
25 Q. March 30th, there you go, Mitel. And do you

90
1 recall on the prior document we looked at, I won't get it
2 out, that the furniture that was purchased and the moving
3 van that was for Mitel? Do you remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On the '92? Okay. What -- who made the decision
6 not to list Mitel under Business Consultants on the '93
7 financial disclosure statement? Did you?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Who made that decision?
10 A. I don't remember who, but it would have been one
11 of the attorneys.
12 Q. Well, you say it would have been one of the
13 attorneys. Why do you keep saying the attorneys? Have you
14 talked to the defense team about this matter?
15 A. About this?
16 Q. About this case. About, about these documents.
17 A. No. Not about these documents, no.
18 Q. Have you talked to them about your testimony in
19 this case?
20 A. Generally.
21 Q. All right. And you keep saying you talked to the
22 attorneys. What attorneys are you referring to?
23 A. It would have either been Tim Collins, Ken Riddett
24 or Frank Gluchowski. Probably at this time frame it was
25 either Tim Collins or Ken Riddett.

91
1 Q. Okay. Well, what I'm trying to understand is, do
2 you have a memory of who told you not to include Mitel?
3 A. No.
4 Q. But you're saying that it would have been the
5 attorneys because, why, you didn't talk about to Senator
6 Bruno about this stuff?
7 A. Did not talk to the senator until, you know, a
8 question arose. If something -- if the attorneys were
9 uncomfortable or unclear about something, then they would
10 talk to the Senator about it.
11 Q. Oh, so when the attorneys told you, you're saying
12 that they would talk to the senator first? Is that your
13 understanding?
14 A. That's my recollection.
15 Q. All right. Now, what did you do after you made --
16 let's go back to GY-1-A.
17 MR. PERICAK: The ninth page or so, Ron.
18 Q. What did you do after you made all these edits,
19 all these markups?
20 A. I would retype or type the form again and again I
21 would talk to the attorneys about it.
22 Q. So you would have two consultations with the
23 attorneys?
24 A. At least two. Usually more.
25 Q. So you would talk to -- you would talk to

92
1 Mr. Collins two or three times for each annual statement of
2 financial disclosure prepared?
3 MR. LOWELL: Objection. She identified
4 Collins, Riddett...
5 MR. PERICAK: I'm talking about Mr. Collins
6 now.
7 THE COURT: Hold on. Don't argue with one
8 another, please. The objection is overruled.
9 If you don't understand the question, ask him
10 to clarify it.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 BY MR. PERICAK
13 Q. Do you understand the question?
14 A. Could you ask it again, please?
15 Q. Sure. So did you talk to Mr. Collins two or three
16 times each year that he participated in the annual -- the
17 preparation of the annual statement of financial disclosure?
18 A. I would talk to either he or Ken Riddett two or
19 three times. I can't remember who exactly I talked to about
20 each question. Or the whole thing. But --
21 Q. All right. Did, did you --
22 A. -- it was never -- I never submitted this form
23 until the attorneys had completely cleared it.
24 Q. I'm just trying to clarify, when you say the
25 attorneys, I'm trying to get a name out of it. That's my

93
1 point.
2 Miss Stackrow, is it your memory that Mr. Riddett
3 first started reviewing these -- Senator Bruno's annual
4 statements of financial disclosure after Senator Bruno
5 became Senate Majority Leader?
6 A. I don't remember when he started to review them.
7 Q. Okay. I now want to show you what's marked as
8 Government's Exhibit GY-1-B. And do you see at the top
9 right, it says working copy?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. And if you turn to the inside,
12 attachment A, the fourth page, does it appear that the edits
13 that you made on the prior document were all made here?
14 A. Yes. I don't have any changes on this page.
15 Q. All right. And please turn to attachment B, which
16 is nine pages in.
17 A. Mm-hmm.
18 Q. Ron found it before I did. Now, do you see
19 something that's crossed out there?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What is it that's crossed out?
22 A. My list of the Senator's income, Sage, McGinn
23 Smith and Web Converting.
24 Q. And the handwriting to the right, whose
25 handwriting is that?
94
1 A. That's my handwriting.
2 Q. And what does your handwriting say?
3 A. It says don't show.
4 Q. Why did you initially write the information about
5 Sage, McGinn Smith, and Web Converting?
6 A. This is my working copy. I would have discussed
7 my working copy with one of the attorneys. I don't know
8 which one. They would have told me. This would have been
9 included under Business Consultants.
10 Q. After consulting -- after they consulted with
11 Senator Bruno?
12 A. I would assume so, yes.
13 Q. All right. Now, I want you to take a look again
14 at Exhibit GT-1. That's the Sage Alerting agreement. Are
15 you aware of anyone at the Senate, putting aside yourself
16 and Senator Bruno, who had seen that agreement with Sage
17 Alerting prior to the filing of your -- of Senator Bruno's
18 annual statement of financial disclosure?
19 A. I don't remember any.
20 Q. And are you aware of anyone at the Senate besides
21 yourself and Senator Bruno who had seen the 1099 from Sage
22 Technologies prior to the filing of the annual statement of
23 financial disclosure?
25 Q. Okay. Other than Senator Bruno and perhaps

95
1 yourself, do you know anyone at the Senate who knew that
2 GT-1 does not mention Business Consultants?
3 A. I don't know.
4 Q. All right. Are you aware of anyone at the Senate,
5 again, besides Senator Bruno, who knew what Senator Bruno
6 did for Sage Alerting Systems?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Miss Stackrow, I would like to show you what's
9 been marked as Government's Exhibit GY-2. GY-2 is a
10 two-page document, and in applicable part it indicates:
11 Question 5 A, amendment form for calendar year 1993, on the
12 first page. And the second page says question 13, amendment
13 form for calendar year 1993. Did you type these documents?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Now, the first document is dated March 8th, 1995
16 at the bottom, do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And is that Senator Bruno's signature?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. And it's indicated, received on March 10, 1995, up
21 at the top, at the Legislative Ethics Committee?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And do you see that that form has some
24 information pertaining to McGinn Smith?
25 A. Yes, it does.
96
1 Q. It reads: Position, part-time consultant, McGinn
2 Smith & Company Incorporated. Description, investments.
3 And it has an explanation: When I filed my original
4 disclosure statement, I was not aware that McGinn Smith was
5 treating me as a part-time employee. At that time, I
6 considered McGinn Smith to be a client of my consulting firm
7 Business Consultants and reported accordingly.
8 Do you recall what event triggered the filing of
9 this amendment?
10 A. No, I don't.
11 Q. Now, let's look at Government's Exhibit GY-3,
12 which is the 1994 statement of financial disclosure. Do you
13 recognize that as a -- your file copy of the copy that was
14 submitted to the committee?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if you would turn to attachment A again, which
17 is the fourth page of this exhibit, the last entry. Do you
18 see essentially it repeats the same entry we looked at from
19 the amendment? Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And the description here, again, is investments,
22 do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know whether at the time that these items
25 were filed -- and, by the way, I'm sorry, this document was
97
1 filed two months later; correct? If you look at the first
2 page, right up at the top.
3 A. Yeah. On May 15th, 1995.
4 Q. And the amendments were filed?
5 A. March 1995.
6 Q. So about two months later. Do you know whether
7 the term investments, under description, whether that
8 accurately described what Senator Bruno did for McGinn
9 Smith?
10 A. I don't remember. I don't know.
11 Q. All right. Do you know, do you know of anyone at
12 the Senate who knew what Senator Bruno was doing for McGinn
13 Smith in this time period?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Miss Stackrow, I'm going to show you Government's
16 Exhibit GB-6. Do you recognize GB-6?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is that?
19 A. It's a copy of the Business Consultants' income
20 from my financial notebook.
21 Q. For what year?
22 A. 1994.
23 Q. So this is the next year. We've done '92, '93,
24 and this is '94?
25 A. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
98
1 Q. All right. Now, the first page is headed Business
2 Consultants Income, do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And who are all the entries from on that?
5 A. Um ... Sage Alerting and McGinn Smith.
6 Q. And there's an entry three from the bottom. Can
7 you make out what that says?
8 A. Three from the bottom. Transfer from JLB personal
9 account.
10 Q. So that's not really income, that's just ...
11 A. No.
12 Q. And now, let's look at the second page of the
13 exhibit. And, again, all the entries are the same? McGinn
14 and Sage?
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. Okay. Now, do you see down at the bottom, there's
17 some handwriting?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Whose handwriting is all that?
20 A. My handwriting.
21 Q. Is that -- is every piece of it yours?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you see Sage is crossed out?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Why was that crossed out?

99
1 A. If I remember correctly, about that point in time,
2 Sage became AmeriData.
3 Q. So it was simply a name change?
4 A. To my knowledge.
5 Q. To -- that's what you understood?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So whatever was listed under Sage in your records,
8 you carried that over to AmeriData?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, there's an indication for McGinn, and can you
11 read what's crossed out?
12 A. The numbers that are crossed out?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. $17,244.59.
15 Q. Okay. And below that, what did you write?
16 A. W-2 for 24,500.
17 Q. What happened with McGinn Smith in 1994?
19 Q. Do you recall receiving a W-2 from McGinn Smith in
20 1994?
21 A. If I wrote it there, then I must have received it.
22 Q. Okay. And if you would look down a little bit
23 further, the entry says Wright Investors Services finder's
24 fee, 3151. Do you see that?
25 A. Yes.
100
1 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as GB-20.
2 It's a two-page document, unstapled.
3 MR. LOWELL: Could you repeat the number,
4 please?
5 MR. PERICAK: GB-20.
6 MR. LOWELL: B?
7 MR. PERICAK: B as in boy.
8 BY MR. PERICAK:
9 Q. There's some handwriting on the second page that
10 I'm going to ask you about. But, first of all, do you
11 recognize that document?
12 A. I don't remember these documents.
13 Q. All right. Let's start with the first one, and
14 let's zoom in on GB-20 at the top.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. It's a very light copy. They used carbon paper in
17 those days, didn't they?
18 A. Yes, we did.
19 Q. And it appears to say Albany Area Trucking 294,
20 number 294?
21 A. Number 294.
22 Q. Do you know what Albany Area Trucking number 294
23 was?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Do you know if that was a union?

101
1 A. I have no idea.
2 Q. Okay. And there's some figures on this. And
3 let's now look at the second page.
4 MR. PERICAK: And, again, let's look at the
5 top entry, Ron. Blow that up as big as possible for my poor
6 eyes.
7 Q. Does that say, and it's abbreviated, Capital
8 District Motel -- Hotel, Motel, 471?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Attention Wolfgang Hammer?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you know who Wolfgang Hammer was?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who was Wolfgang Hammer?
15 A. He was the head of the hotel bartenders union out
16 of Saratoga Springs.
17 Q. Was that Local 471?
18 A. I don't know the number.
19 Q. Can you look at the bottom right-hand corner where
20 there's a note?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Whose is it?
25 A. Senator Bruno's.
102
1 Q. What does it say?
2 A. Pat find out difference. With a question mark.
3 Q. Did you -- do you have a present recollection of
4 what difference he was asking about?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. Was there a difference between what he had
7 been paid by Wright and what these invoices showed?
8 A. I don't know. I don't remember.
9 Q. And would you look at the top. There's some
10 handwriting at the very, very top. What does that say?
11 A. It says Business Consulting.
12 Q. Whose handwriting is that?
13 A. That is Lou DeChantz' handwriting.
14 Q. And Mr. DeChantz was the accountant?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I take it you don't remember what you found out
17 about the difference.
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. All right. Let me now show you what's marked as
20 Government's Exhibit GY-3. Oops, it's 3-A. Did I already
21 give you 3? I'm sorry. I'm going to go back to 3 then.
22 Let's look at attachment A.
23 Now, just to orient all of us, including me, this
24 is the ... I'm going to have to go with what's on the
25 screen. This is the statement for 1994, is that correct?

103
1 A. You're reading a -- what are you reading?
2 Q. I'm --
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. The front of GY-3.
5 A. Okay. All right. Yes.
6 Q. This is 1994?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the documents that we just looked at where Lou
9 DeChantz wrote business consulting for 471, that's from
10 1994; is that right?
11 A. Those are the dates on these papers, yes.
12 Q. All right. And I would like you to look at
13 attachment A. And the documents from Lou DeChantz, those
14 were from Wright Investors, is that right?
15 A. These two that you --
16 Q. Yup.
17 A. GB-20?
18 Q. GB-20.
19 A. Okay. Those are from Wright Investors.
20 Q. Is Wright Investors listed on attachment A?
21 A. No, it's not.
22 Q. All right. I'm going to show you what's been
23 marked as Government's Exhibit GC-3 and GC-4. GC-3 is a
24 letter from Senator Bruno to Mr. Robert T. Smith of Wright
25 Investors Services, dated February 15, 1994; do you see

104
1 that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you see the typed initials of JLB:P?
4 A. Mm-hmm.
5 Q. Does that indicate that you typed it?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. All right. And the letter reads: Dear Bob: I am
8 enclosing the revised draft of the finder's fee agreement.
9 As you can see, my counsel suggested a few minor changes.
10 And it goes on to ask him what he thinks. And if you turn
11 to the inside page, do you recognize the handwriting on
12 that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Whose handwriting do you recognize?
15 A. That is Tim Collins' handwriting.
16 Q. How about at the top where it says to Joe Bruno?
17 A. I don't know whose handwriting that is.
18 Q. But, in any event, did you forward this letter to
19 Mr. Smith in about February of '94?
20 A. I would assume that I did.
21 Q. All right. And GC-4, if you would just take a
22 look at that. If you look at the second page, is that a
23 signed agreement?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Signed by Senator Bruno?

105
1 A. Mm-hmm.
2 Q. I take it you recognize his signature?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And Mr. Meric -- I, I'm not going to ask you if
5 you recognize that signature, but did you keep a copy of
6 this signed agreement in your files?
7 A. I don't remember if I had this specific -- looking
8 at it, I don't remember the document.
9 Q. All right. Well, how about the draft? Did you
10 keep a copy of the draft in your files? Or was it your
11 practice to keep a draft such as this if you sent a letter
12 to someone?
13 A. I would have, yes.
14 Q. All right. And do you notice that in both the
15 draft and in the final agreement there's no mention of
16 Business Consultants?
17 A. Which letter are we talking about now?
18 Q. GC-3 and GC-4.
19 A. No, there isn't.
20 Q. All right. Other than yourself and Mr. Collins
21 and Senator Bruno, was there anyone at the Senate that knew
22 that these agreements did not mention Business Consultants?
23 A. I don't believe so.
24 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Government's
25 Exhibit GY-3-A. And why don't you just page through that
106
1 briefly, and I'll ask you if you recognize that document.
2 MR. PERICAK: Oh, it's not in evidence.
3 Abbe, I move the admission of Exhibit GY-3 A into evidence.
4 MR. LOWELL: No objection, Judge.
5 THE COURT: Admitted. Better later than
6 never.
7 BY MR. PERICAK:
8 Q. When you're done paging through that, Miss
9 Stackrow, I'm going to direct your attention to two entries
10 at the top of the first page.
11 A. All right.
12 Q. Now, do you see there are two handwritten entries
13 on the first page? The one on the left says 1995 working
14 copy, and the one on the right says working copy for 1994?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Are those both your handwriting?
17 A. Yes, they are.
18 Q. Can you explain to us what that means?
19 A. No. I don't remember why I did that.
20 Q. Did you, perhaps, reuse your working copy that you
21 had used for 1994 again in 1995?
22 A. I could have. I don't remember.
23 Q. All right. Please turn to attachment A of this
24 exhibit, which is -- should be the fourth page.
25 A. Yes.
107
1 Q. And if you look at the handwriting down at the
2 bottom.
3 A. Yes.
5 A. My handwriting.
6 Q. Everything?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Do you see the first part reads: Part
9 time consultant, and below that it says add amendment, and
10 then it says McGinn Sm. I take it that's McGinn Smith.
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. And then it says investments?
13 A. Mm-hmm.
14 Q. And none?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Where did you get the information from to write
17 this down on this form?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Did you get a call from anybody at McGinn Smith?
21 Q. Do you ever remember talking to anybody from
22 McGinn Smith?
23 A. Of course. I talked to Tim McGinn and to Dave
24 Smith.
25 Q. They would call for Senator Bruno?

108
1 A. Mm-hmm.
2 Q. Did you ever speak to anybody, either Mr. McGinn
3 or Mr. Smith or any of their staff people about Senator
4 Bruno's -- payments to Senator Bruno from McGinn Smith?
5 A. If they were late. If the checks were late, then
6 I would call and ask was it in the mail. That was all.
7 Q. How often did that happen?
8 A. I couldn't tell you. Periodically. Not very
9 often.
10 Q. Did you call Mr. Fassler's company when his checks
11 were late?
12 A. I'm sure I did.
13 Q. And how about Wright? Did you ever have to call
14 Wright when their checks were late?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Now, the next entry below that reads: Is this
17 needed for '95? And then the word "no" appears. Do you see
18 that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are both of those in your handwriting, the
21 question and the answer?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who gave you that answer, "no"?
24 A. It would have been one of the attorneys. And who,
25 I don't remember which one.

109
1 Q. And below that it says 67,000 pd, paid, to Bus
2 Consultants goes under Bus Consultants total; do you see
3 that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that is all your handwriting?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. And does it appear to you that the -- what you
8 wrote at the top, the part time consultant at McGinn Smith
9 investments, none, that that's what appears on the
10 amendments that you filed?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. Was it the case that you typed the
13 amendment from this information that you had written down
14 here?
15 A. I don't remember that. I don't...
16 Q. Would you have typed it first and then have
17 written it down?
18 A. I probably would have written it first before I
19 typed it so ...
20 Q. Okay. Now I want to show you Government's Exhibit
21 GY-4. This is the 1995 annual financial disclosure
22 statement. We have '92, '93, '94, and now this is 1995. Do
23 you recognize that document?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. By the way, is that your handwriting at the top

110
1 that says final copy filed 5/15/96?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Would you please turn to attachment A? Did
4 Senator Bruno continue to receive checks from McGinn Smith
5 in 1995?
7 Q. All right. Do you have up there your 1995
8 notebook?
9 A. I have 1994.
10 Q. Oh. Well, let me show you what has been marked as
11 Government's Exhibit GB-22.
12 A. (Inaudible) filing system.
13 Q. Oh, I know. I could use your services.
14 THE COURT: You said marked. Is it in
15 evidence?
16 MR. PERICAK: I believe I offered 1 through
17 22 this morning.
18 THE COURT: Thank you. I get lost sometimes
19 when the lawyers use the word "marked" as opposed to
20 "admitted". Go ahead.
21 MR. LOWELL: Judge, to be clear, if he
22 hasn't, I have no objection.
23 THE COURT: All right. That takes care of
24 the entire thing then. Thank you.
25 BY MR. PERICAK
111
1 Q. Is that your handwriting?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. And what does it say?
4 A. 1995, $67,000 paid to Business Consultants, 89
5 Bulson Road, Troy, New York, by McGinn Smith. With McGinn
6 Smith's phone number. Business to business consulting fee.
7 No deductions taken out. No 1099 or W-2 issued.
8 Q. Now -- so, in fact, does that refresh your
9 recollection that McGinn Smith paid money to Senator Bruno
10 in 1995?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. But that information does not appear -- well,
13 withdrawn.
14 McGinn Smith does not appear on the 1995 annual
15 statement, does it?
16 A. No, it doesn't.
17 Q. And it says on GB-22, no 1099 or W-2 issued. Did
18 you instruct McGinn Smith to stop sending a W-2 to Senator
19 Bruno?
20 A. Absolutely not.
21 Q. Do you know why they stopped sending a 10 -- a
22 W-2?
23 A. No, I do not.
24 Q. Were you involved with any decisions about whether
25 or not they should continue to send a W-2?

112
1 A. No.
3 Exhibit GB-10. What is GB-10?
4 A. It is a page out of my financial notebook from
5 1998.
6 Q. All right. Is everything on that page in your
7 handwriting?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. And, again, in 1998, McGinn Smith paid Senator
10 Bruno some money; do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Sage continued to pay Senator Bruno, is that
13 right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what's the next entry read?
16 A. Wright/Winthrop.
17 Q. And it says ten times... And I'm trying to figure
18 out what that indicates there.
19 A. It looks to me like it says ten times $6500.
20 Q. All right. And below that, what's the entry read?
21 A. 11/10 first check with deductions. And the net
22 amount of the check would have been 4502.65.
23 Q. Did Senator Bruno work with anyone in particular
24 from Wright?
25 A. Ken Singer.
113
1 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Singer?
2 A. Numerous times.
3 Q. All right. On what subject matters did -- other
4 than social, did you speak to Ken Singer?
5 A. Ken would leave me messages to pass on to the
6 Senator.
7 Q. What types of messages?
8 A. Um, asking him about contracts with various
9 unions, hospitals, colleges; if the Senator knew someone at
10 the particular institution.
11 Q. Did you relay those messages?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did Senator Bruno respond to you?
14 A. Sometimes he responded to me to return Ken's phone
15 call. Sometimes he called Ken himself.
16 Q. Now, are there any specific labor officials you
17 remember Senator Bruno arranging to meet Mr. Singer?
18 A. You're asking me for specific names, right?
19 Q. Just the ones you remember.
20 A. No, I can't, I can't put the two together with any
21 certainty.
22 Q. All right. Do you remember that he did arrange
23 for Senator Bruno -- excuse me -- that Senator Bruno did
24 arrange for Mr. Singer to meet with union officials?
25 A. Yes.
114
2 Exhibit GY-7.
3 A. Are we going to go back to any one of these?
4 Q. We might.
5 A. Okay.
6 MR. PERICAK: Oh, I'm sorry. The Government
7 offers Exhibit GY-7.
8 MR. LOWELL: No objection, your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Admitted.
10 BY MR. PERICAK
11 Q. Do you recognize that document, Miss Stackrow?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is that your handwriting that says filed 5/17/99?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Now, I take it because you were arranging the
16 contacts with Mr. Singer, that you were aware that Senator
17 Bruno was contacting union officials on behalf of Wright, is
18 that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. Do you know whether anyone else at the
21 Senate was aware that Senator Bruno was contacting union
22 officials on behalf of Wright?
24 Q. All right. If you would look at attachment A to
25 Exhibit GY-7. Do you see the last entry? It reads

115
1 consultant, the Winthrop Corporation.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it says consulting?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you participate or review any documents
6 relating to Senator Bruno's employment by the Winthrop
7 Corporation or Wright Investors?
9 Q. All right. Let me show you what's been marked as
10 Government's Exhibit GC-18. And I would like to focus you
11 on the -- the date is August 5, 1998. It's to Mr. Kenneth
12 Riddett. And I would like to focus you on the first
13 paragraph.
14 I am delighted that your client, Joseph L. Bruno,
15 has agreed to become a part-time employee of Wright
16 Investors Services Inc., quote, Wright. This letter
17 explains some of the preliminary paperwork ...
18 And I would like to you scroll down a little bit
19 to taxes. And do you see the first sentence under taxes
20 says: For payroll purposes, Wright's parent, the Winthrop
21 Corporation, TWC, employs all of Wright's representatives.
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And, finally, if you would take a look at the
25 fourth page of the exhibit, it's a letter from Peter

116
1 Donovan, or Donovan as my cousins would say, to Joseph
2 Bruno, dated August 7, 1998.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you remember Mr. Donovan?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You spoke to him on the phone from time to time?
7 A. Very limited.
8 Q. All right. That letter reads: I enjoyed meeting
9 with you in Albany last month and I'm glad that it has
10 worked out that you will be able to join our firm. So let
11 me welcome you as a new employee of Wright Investors
12 Services. As our newest client service officer, you will be
13 responsible for the following... And it goes on.
14 Referring back, Miss Stackrow, to the financial
15 disclosure statement where it lists the position as
16 consultant and the name of the organization as the Winthrop
17 Corporation, did you discuss with anyone whether or not
18 Wright Investors Services ought to be included in that
19 description?
20 A. I don't remember whether I did or not.
21 Q. But in your records, don't you refer to them as
22 Wright/Winthrop?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the letter from Mr. Donovan says that Senator
25 Bruno is a client service officer. Do you see that?

117
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you discuss with anyone whether or not the
3 position description should be client service officer
4 instead of consultant that was listed down there?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And if you would go to the -- withdrawn.
7 Let me show you what's been marked as Government's
8 Exhibit GY-7-A.
9 MR. PERICAK: The Government offers Exhibit
10 GY-7-A.
11 MR. LOWELL: GY-7-A. No objection, your
12 Honor.
14 BY MR. PERICAK
15 Q. Miss Stackrow, what is Exhibit GY-7-A?
16 A. It is my working copy for the 1998 financial
17 disclosure filing.
18 Q. All right. Whose handwriting is that up at the
19 top?
20 A. Mine.
21 Q. Would you turn to the fourth page of the exhibit?
22 Do you see the single handwritten word "Winthrop" there?
23 A. Yes.
25 A. I don't know if it is my handwriting. I don't

118
1 know. I don't know if that's my handwriting or not. I
2 don't know.
3 Q. Does it look like anybody else's handwriting?
4 A. No.
5 Q. That you could think of anyway. And would you
6 turn to the attachment B, which is about nine pages in. Do
7 you see some handwriting there?
8 A. Yes.
10 A. That is all mine.
11 Q. And if you scroll down a little bit, on the
12 right-hand side, it says Wright 65,000. What does that
13 refer to? Do you see it on the right-hand side?
14 A. I do. It looks like I was writing two months
15 times 6500, but I don't know for sure.
16 Q. Oh, you're below where I am. I was up a little
17 bit higher where it says Wright 65,000.
18 A. Okay. All right.
19 Q. What does Wright 65,000 refer to?
20 A. That would have been, um, the amount of the checks
21 that I received -- the Senator received during the year.
22 Q. And then the part that you were reading says, you
23 think it says Wright salary two months times 6500?
24 A. I think so.
25 Q. What does that refer to?

119
2 Q. Was that after he became an employee?
3 A. It could have been.
4 Q. And then over to the left, you have written
5 Winthrop salary started. Is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, did you discuss with either Senator Bruno or
8 the lawyers, in light of these entries, whether that entry
9 should include Wright, in addition to Winthrop?
11 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
12 Government's Exhibit GY-7-B.
13 MR. PERICAK: And the Government offers that
14 exhibit at this time, your Honor.
15 MR. LOWELL: No objection, Judge.
17 BY MR. PERICAK:
18 Q. Starting at the second page, is that a draft of
19 the 1998 financial disclosure statement?
20 A. There are none of my handwritten notes on this, so
21 I'm assuming that it's a copy of the final.
22 Q. But not signed yet?
23 A. No, it was not signed yet.
24 Q. All right. So let's go back to the first page.
25 A. Mm-hmm.
120
1 Q. And did you type that cover note?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Whose handwriting is at the bottom?
4 A. Mine. Oh, I'm sorry. The handwriting?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Is Senator Bruno's.
7 Q. All right. And your note to JLB reads: This is
8 your financial disclosure. There are only a few minor
9 changes this year. Thirteen, quotation, B, close quotation,
10 added. And it says Winthrope.
11 A. Mm-hmm.
12 Q. What was Winthrope?
13 A. Winthrop.
14 Q. Okay. Was that -- is that the correct spelling of
15 Winthrop?
16 A. I don't think it is.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. I do make mistakes.
19 Q. All right. Did Senator Bruno notice the mistake?
21 Q. All right.
22 A. It would be unusual that the attorneys didn't
23 notice the mistake.
24 Q. I'm going to change topics for a moment here. Do
25 you know Mr. Edward Bartholomew?

121
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Who was he?
3 A. Former Mayor of Glens Falls, worked on the Senate,
4 on Senator Bruno's staff many years ago, then worked for the
5 Senate program counsel office after that. And I believe
6 he's still employed there.
7 Q. All right. Do you know whether Mr. Singer ever
8 met Mr. Bartholomew?
9 A. Yes, they did.
10 Q. And how do you know that?
11 A. Um ... I arranged a meeting for them at the Fort
12 Orange Club. At least it's in my handwriting in one of
13 these exhibits. So I'm assuming that I arranged it.
14 Q. All right. Now, why did you arrange a meeting
15 between Mr. Singer and Mr. Bartholomew?
16 A. I would have been asked to do that.
17 Q. By whom?
18 A. Either Senator Bruno or Ken Singer would have
19 asked me after a conversation he had with Senator Bruno.
20 Q. So it would have been only after Senator Bruno had
21 approved it, is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Why did Mr. Singer want to talk -- or why did
24 Mr. Singer tell you he wanted to talk to Mr. Bartholomew?
25 A. I'm not sure Ken Singer told me why he wanted to

122
1 meet with him.
2 Q. Well, did Senator Bruno or Mr. Riddett or someone
3 at the Senate tell you why?
4 A. It's possible, but I don't remember.
5 Q. If you don't remember who told you, do you
6 remember what your understanding was why they were going to
7 get together?
8 A. I wouldn't necessarily have had to know why.
9 Q. But I'm -- whether or not you had to know, I'm
10 asking you if you did know.
12 Q. Miss Stackrow, do you remember testifying in the
13 grand jury in this case?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity to review
16 your grand jury transcript prior to coming here to testify?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you please turn to page 70. And I'll ask
19 you, on page 70, to read to yourself, from line 21 to 25.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Did you have a chance to review that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in your grand jury appearance, did Miss Coombe
24 ask you this question and did you give this answer:
25 Why did Mr. Singer want to talk to

123
1 Mr. Bartholomew?
2 Answer: Mr. Bartholomew would have knowledge of
3 names of various unions and officials in unions that would
4 help Mr. Singer in his business contact people.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. I'm going to return to your notebooks
7 because you did them every year.
8 A. Are we going to go through every year?
9 Q. We're going to skip a couple. We're going to 2001
10 right now. This is Government's Exhibit GB-13.
11 MR. LOWELL: G?
12 MR. PERICAK: GB.
13 BY MR. PERICAK:
14 Q. What is GB-13?
15 A. It is a copy of my financial -- from my financial
16 notebook listing Capital Business Consultants' income.
17 Q. And page two lists Capital Business expenses?
18 A. Yes, it does.
19 Q. I haven't asked you about this on prior sheets,
20 but you had expenses listed every year for Capital Business
21 Consultants, didn't you?
22 A. I, I don't remember exactly, but I would assume
23 that there were.
24 Q. All right. Well, let's just look at this one.
25 A. Okay.
124
1 Q. It indicates expenses for Verizon?
2 A. Mm-hmm.
3 Q. And a fairly steady number of 42 -- well, maybe
4 it's not so steady -- 99, 97. What was Verizon? What was
5 that expense?
6 A. Telephone --
7 Q. What telephone?
8 A. -- expense. The Senator had a cell phone and at
9 one -- I'm -- no. I don't, I don't remember.
10 Q. Did you ever take his expense -- some of his phone
11 bills from his house?
13 Q. You do recall at some point in time he did get a
14 cell phone, is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you think it was as early as 2001?
17 A. I don't remember now.
18 Q. Do you remember who his provider was when he got
19 the cell phone?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Was it Verizon?
22 A. It could have been.
23 Q. So that's why you're hesitating as to whether or
24 not this was his cell phone?
25 A. Yes.
125
1 Q. All right. Well, let me continue back then with
2 looking at page three of GB-13. You've listed Capital
3 Business Consultants.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, that's a name change, is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. At some point in time, what happened to change the
8 name?
9 A. Um, Tom Collura, who was an attorney in Albany,
10 called me and told me that a discussion had taken place
11 between I think the Senator himself, Len Fassler, possibly
12 Joan Kemagno (phonetic), and that I should open a new
13 checking account in the name Capital Business Consultants.
14 Q. Do you know whether a formal paperwork was
15 prepared forming such an organization, Capital Business
16 Consultants?
17 A. I believe so.
18 Q. Do you remember why that occurred?
19 A. I don't. I don't know why.
20 Q. Who formed Capital Business Consultants?
21 A. Who formed -- I don't understand your question.
22 Q. Was there a lawyer who did the paperwork?
23 A. Ah ... um ... I would assume yes, that it was.
24 And I think it was Tom Collura who did it, but ...
25 Q. All right. And do your records of expenses for

126
1 Capital Business Consultants reflect whether or not he
2 actually got paid to do that?
3 A. Whether Tom Collura got paid to do that?
4 Q. Yeah. Or at least got paid by Capital Business
5 Consultants.
6 A. Yes. At one point, I did write a check or
7 possibly two checks to Tom Collura.
8 Q. Do you remember how much?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Now, going back to GB-13, and let's look at the
11 first page. There's an indication of Interliant. What was
12 Interliant?
13 A. Interliant was another one of the Len Fassler's
14 companies.
15 Q. And Interliant paid Senator Bruno $48,000 in 2001,
16 is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And then there's a company called VyTek Wireless.
19 What was VyTek Wireless?
20 A. That was another one of Mr. Fassler's companies.
21 Q. And VyTek Wireless paid Senator Bruno $36,000 in
22 2001?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Both companies paid him at the same time?
25 A. Yes.
127
1 Q. Do you know why both companies were paying him at
2 the same time if they both were Mr. Fassler's companies?
3 A. No, I don't.
4 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for Interliant?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for VyTek Wireless?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. And do you see here there's an entry for McGinn
9 Smith, $72,000?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for McGinn Smith?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
14 Government's Exhibit GB-16. What is GB-16?
15 A. This is a copy of a piece of paper that I kept in,
16 inside one of the checkbooks so that I can keep track of his
17 income.
18 Q. All right. That's the first page. What about the
19 second, third page of GB-16?
20 A. It's the record of his income for Capital Business
21 Consultants from 2004 from my financial notebook.
22 Q. All right. So let's look back at the first page.
23 A. Mm-hmm.
24 Q. And we see McGinn on the left.
25 A. Mm-hmm.
128
1 Q. The next column is VyTek. Do you see that?
2 A. Mm-hmm.
3 Q. Social security.
4 A. Mm-hmm.
5 Q. Taylor Corp., do you see that?
6 A. Mm-hmm.
7 Q. Now, drop down in that same column as Taylor
8 Corp., do you see an entry that begins BB?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you read that?
11 A. BB Gardner Management Corporation, due 15th.
12 Q. What was BB Gardner Management Corporation?
13 A. That is Russ Ball's corporation.
14 Q. What is due 15?
15 A. That I should receive the checks about the 15th
16 of the month.
17 Q. What did the Senator do for BB Gardner?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. If you look at the top right, do you see two more
20 columns?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. They're abbreviated. Comm Tech Adviser?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. That's C-O-M-M.
25 A. Mm-hmm.
129
1 Q. Does -- the other one says Capital Tech Adviser.
2 A. Yes, it does.
3 Q. And there are twin entries. Are all the entries
4 the same, basically the same date, that each company paid
5 $10,000?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So that was a total of $20,000 that was coming
8 from that group?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who was Senator Bruno's contact -- I take it these
11 two companies were related.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Who was his contact at these two companies?
14 A. Jared Abbruzzese.
15 Q. And what did Senator Bruno do for Communication
16 Technology Advisers?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. What did he do for Capital Technology Advisers?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Showing you what's been marked as GB-17. What is
21 GB-17?
22 A. GB-17 is the list of income for the Mountain View
23 Farm thoroughbred horse business.
24 Q. All right. If you turn to the second page. Do
25 you recognize that page?

130
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What is that?
3 A. That would have been the 2005 memo basically to
4 myself that I kept in the checkbook for income.
5 Q. All right. And how about the last three pages of
6 the exhibit? What are they?
7 A. The last ...
8 Q. Well, it says Capital Business Consultants LLC at
9 the top.
10 A. Mm-hmm.
11 Q. Are those in your notebook?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Let's go back to the first -- I'm sorry -- the
14 second page of the exhibit. And the first entry says
15 McGinn?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that's McGinn Smith we've talked about?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. The next entry says Motient. What is Motient?
20 A. That is a Jared Abbruzzese company.
21 Q. I'm going to skip over the next three, and the far
22 right, does that say Terrestar?
23 A. Yes it does.
24 Q. What was Terrestar?
25 A. A Jared Abbruzzese company.

131
1 Q. Was Senator Bruno paid $20,000, one, two, three,
2 four, six times by Motient?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That's $120,000?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. What did Senator Bruno do for Motient?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. And if you look at the far right, it says 8/25
9 July-August 40,000. What did July-August mean?
10 A. It was probably -- it was -- I'm assuming that my
11 notes mean that he was paid $20,000 for each of those
12 months. And it was probably in one check.
13 Q. So $40,000 for two months?
14 A. Mm-hmm.
15 Q. From Terrestar?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What did Senator Bruno do for Terrestar?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Now, if can look at page three of GB-17. It says
20 Capital Business Consultants LLC expenses. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And the entry below that says Catherine Hynes 1099
23 issued for 26,000.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Why was a 1099 issued to Miss Hynes for $26,000?

132
1 A. She did some work for Capital Business
2 Consultants, and the accountant made the decision to issue a
3 1099.
4 Q. Well, who was Miss Hynes?
5 A. Senator Bruno's daughter.
6 Q. And what, what work did she do for Capital
8 A. She was going to field Ken Singer's phone calls.
9 And, hmmm, I think that was pretty much it. I don't know
10 really.
11 Q. Well, when you were told that she was going to
12 take Ken Singer's phone calls, was that going to be a relief
13 for you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were you, in fact, relieved?
16 A. Yes. But I missed him.
17 Q. Well, for how long did she field Ken Singer's
18 phone calls?
19 A. A couple of months.
20 Q. Okay. And what happened after a couple of months?
21 A. He started calling me back.
22 Q. What did he tell you was the reason?
23 A. He missed me. No. He didn't feel that his
24 messages were getting answered quick enough and he thought I
25 could do better.
133
1 Q. And, in fact, during the time, the couple of
2 months when Miss Hynes was answering Ken Singer's calls, did
3 she call you to relay the messages?
5 Q. Well, do you remember her calling you to tell you
6 about Ken Singer calling?
7 A. She could have. I don't remember.
8 Q. All right. Other than the couple of months that
9 Catherine Hynes answered the phone, did she provide any
10 relief from your responsibilities for Capital Business
11 Consultants?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And, in fact, did you continue to do all the
14 bookkeeping and prepare for the taxes and etcetera,
15 etcetera?
16 A. Mm-hmm. I did.
17 Q. Now, other than Catherine Hynes, did Senator Bruno
18 pay any employees to work at Business Consultants or Capital
20 A. Not to my knowledge.
21 Q. Did Senator Bruno use any senate staff in addition
22 to yourself to assist him from time to time in his private
23 business?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Well, do you know whether he had some of the

134
1 lawyers look at his private agreements with companies?
2 A. Yes, they did that.
3 Q. Now, do you remember Senator Bruno ever preparing
4 any written work product for any of these jobs that he had?
6 MR. PERICAK: At this time the Government
7 offers Government's Exhibit GE-13.
8 MR. LOWELL: No objection.
10 BY MR. PERICAK
11 Q. Miss Stackrow, I'm showing you Government's
12 Exhibit GE-13. Can you tell us what that is?
13 A. It's a letter to Senator Bruno dated July 1997
14 from Mario Scarceletta.
15 Q. What is the handwriting down at the bottom right?
16 A. That is the Senator's handwriting.
17 Q. Including the date?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Whose handwriting is the date?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Is it yours?
22 A. No, it's not.
23 Q. And are you familiar with this type of note on a
24 letter or piece of correspondence?
25 A. Yes.
135
1 Q. And can you tell us what the Senator's practice
2 was and what your practice was when you received a note like
3 this?
4 A. When -- as I told you earlier, we prepared a
5 packet for him at night and he would write notes on
6 documents that needed followup with various staff, and then
7 I would see to it that that particular staff person got that
8 paper so that they could then do what was necessary.
9 Q. Now, did you simply distribute a copy of a letter
10 such as this with a handwritten note on it?
11 A. Um...
12 Q. Typically?
13 A. Typically, yes.
14 Q. Did you ever type up a little note yourself to
15 interpret the Senator's handwriting?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was it a frequent complaint that it was hard to
18 read?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And this particular note says Dave D. FYI.
21 A. Yes, it does.
22 Q. Who was Dave D.?
23 A. David Dudley.
24 Q. And who was David Dudley?
25 A. David was a counsel on the Senate staff.

136
1 Q. And how did you go about -- when you got a letter
2 like this with a note on it, how did you go about
3 distributing it to somebody like Mr. Dudley?
4 A. Normally, in the normal course of a day, it would
5 go in an interoffice envelope and be distributed that way.
6 Q. So that you had a mailroom and some runners that
7 would --
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. -- bring the mail around?
10 A. Mm-hmm.
11 THE COURT: How much more do you have,
12 Mr. Pericak?
13 MR. PERICAK: I have a bit more, I would say
14 20 minutes more, maybe 25.
15 THE COURT: All right. Let's take a recess,
16 ladies and gentlemen. Twenty-two minutes, until 10 of, if
17 you would, please. The jury may step aside.
18 (Brief recess at 2:28 PM.)
19 * * * * *
20
21
22
23
24
25

t111609 Us V Bruno Am

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

t111609 Us V Bruno Am

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

64

UNITED STATES v BRUNO 09-CR-29

1 (Court reconvened at 10:40 AM.)

2 THE COURT: What's the problem?

3 MR. PERICAK: Your Honor, yesterday the

4 defense provided the Government with a CD of documents and

5 this morning provided, I guess -- I don't know if they were

6 marked yesterday as exhibits on the CD, but, in any event,

7 provided us with hard copies this morning of documents

8 marked as defense exhibits which are pertinent to the

9 examination of this witness. And had I had these documents

10 in advance, I would have examined the witness with respect

11 to them as part of my direct examination. And I still plan

12 to do that, but I would request an opportunity to review the

13 documents and get myself slightly better prepared to do

14 that, and I would request that we reconvene after the lunch

15 hour. That would be sufficient time to go -- for me to go

17 THE COURT: What are you asking me to do,

18 adjourn the proceeding from now until after lunch?

19 MR. PERICAK: Yes, your Honor.

20 THE COURT: What are the exhibits? Give me

22 MR. PERICAK: They are defense exhibits C 16,

23 C 27 and C 30. And there are -- actually, there probably

24 are more, but we didn't have a chance to look at the other

25 ones now. These are the annual statements of financial

1 disclosure, I'll call them the marked up drafts. And you

4 year. And that would have been part of my examination to

5 elicit that testimony from her, but I didn't have the

6 documents. I now have the documents, and I would propose to

7 show her the documents and to go through it in more detail.

8 THE COURT: So what they are are marked up

9 copies of the financial disclosure forms that are what?

10 MR. PERICAK: I believe we'll ask the witness

12 she's going to change it to make the '93 form and different

13 notes and different items on there and presumably with

14 directions from various people as to what changes to make

15 and how to make them.

16 THE COURT: Are these documents that the

17 Government has not seen?

18 MR. PERICAK: Had not seen prior to -- well,

20 to prior to yesterday. And for the Court's edification,

21 Mr. Lewis had produced certain documents, copies of certain

22 documents to us. It's my understanding that these documents

23 were within the documents that he had in his control, that

24 he chose not to make --

25 THE COURT: Who's Mr. Lewis?

1 MR. PERICAK: Mr. Lewis represents the

2 witness, Miss Stackrow, and he had taken control of these

3 items in connection with his representation of her. It's my

4 understanding that, subsequently, when Miss Stackrow retired

6 these documents, and they've been in his possession custody

7 and control since then.

8 THE COURT: So the view is that these

9 documents were in the possession of the defendant?

10 MR. PERICAK: Yes.

11 THE COURT: Were they produced to the

12 Government by reciprocal discovery required by the Court's

13 order entered at the outset of this case?

14 MR. PERICAK: It is my belief that they were

15 not. And I could be corrected on that.

16 THE COURT: Let me hear from the defendant as

17 to whether or not they were in possession of documents that