T111809 US V Bruno PM Gluchowski

230
GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE
1 FRANCIS J. GLUCHOWSKI,
2 having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was
3 examined and testified as follows:
4 THE CLERK: Thank you. Please take a seat in
5 the witness stand and we just ask that you speak into the
6 microphone.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay.
8 THE COURT: You can adjust that microphone,
9 Mr. Gluchowski.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay. Am I audible?
11 THE COURT: You are.
12 MS. COOMBE: You are.
13 THE COURT: If you're more comfortable
14 sitting back, you can pull that microphone towards you.
15 Whatever you want.
16 Miss Coombe.
17 MS. COOMBE: Thank you, your Honor.
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOMBE:
19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gluchowski.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. Could you please introduce yourself to the ladies
22 and gentlemen of the jury?
23 A. Hello. I'm Frank Gluchowski, and I formerly
24 worked as the legislative counsel to the Senate majority
25 from 1997 until I retired in on December 30th of 2008.

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY
231
1 Q. I want to get something straight. How do you
2 pronounce your last name? Because there's been very
3 different pronunciations.
4 A. Phonetic. Gluchowski.
5 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Gluchowski, can you tell
6 us about your educational background?
7 A. Yes. I attended law school at St. Johns
8 University and was graduated in 1983. Before that, I
9 studied at New York Institute of Technology, where I got a
10 Bachelor's degree.
11 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier that you had worked for
12 the New York State Legislature.
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. When did you begin working for the New York State
15 Legislature?
16 A. That would have been in -- on April 10th of
17 1989.
18 Q. What was your title when you started?
19 A. Well, I was the counsel to the legislative ethics
20 committee.
21 Q. Did your title change while you worked for the
22 legislative ethics committee?
23 A. Yes. At some point after a few years, I don't
24 remember the exact time, I became the counsel and director
25 of the legislative ethics committee.

232
1 Q. Can you tell us what the legislative ethics
2 committee was?
3 A. Yes. It was a bipartisan joint assembly of eight
4 members of the Legislature, meaning there were four
5 Democrats and four Republicans, four from the Assembly and
6 four from the Senate, and they were established under the
7 Ethics in Government Act of 1987, when it came into being in
8 1988 at some point, but I didn't get there until 1989. And
9 the function of the committee was to administer financial
10 disclosure for legislators and employees and candidates for
11 the Legislature and to render advisory opinions on questions
12 asked by the people subject to the committee's jurisdiction
13 and, finally, to investigate complaints made to the
14 committee.
15 Q. You mentioned written advisory opinions. Who
16 drafted those opinions while you were at the committee?
17 A. Well, for the first few years, the initial draft
18 was by subordinate employee named Barry Weinstein, but I
19 don't think Barry stayed more than a couple of years. And
20 then I drafted the opinions and the opinions that Barry
21 drafted initially, I approved and reworked. They were
22 ultimately my responsibility to present to the committee.
23 And then at committee meetings, the committee would
24 sometimes change the advice or sometimes they approved it
25 just as it was presented.

233
1 Q. Were those opinions available to the public?
2 A. No, they were not.
3 Q. Were they available to other senators?
4 A. No, they're not.
5 Q. How did the committee obtain the facts necessary
6 to issue a written advisory opinion?
7 A. The committee would only accept written requests
8 for advice, and the facts that were in the letter were
9 incorporated in the part of the opinion that dealt with the
10 facts.
11 Q. Did the committee take formal votes on the
12 advisory opinions?
13 A. Yes, they did.
14 Q. Did you eventually leave the legislative ethics
15 committee?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. When did you leave the legislative ethics
18 committee?
19 A. Ah, my last day was December 31st of 1996. And
20 I started working for the Senate majority program counsel
21 staff on January 1, 1997.
22 Q. What was your new position there?
23 A. Title was legislative counsel.
24 Q. Who did you report to?
25 A. I reported to Ken Riddett. And at the time there

234
1 were two co-counsel, so it was Ken Riddett and David -- no,
2 actually, I reported to Ken -- well, Ken was above me, but
3 the two co-counsel at the time were Tim Collins and David
4 Dudley.
5 Q. Did they leave shortly after you arrived?
6 A. Not shortly. Tim, Tim did. Tim left, I believe,
7 in April. And David left some number of years later. Maybe
8 two or three years later.
9 Q. What were your duties and responsibilities working
10 as a legislative counsel for the Senate majority? And can I
11 ask, were you the legislative counsel --
12 A. Right.
13 Q. There's just one?
14 A. Right. There's one legislative counsel. I
15 supervised a staff of 20 to 24 professionals and about 20
16 lawyers for or sometimes up to six counsel. Not counsel --
17 program analysts. And I would review legislation that was
18 on the calendar, that means legislation that had been put
19 through committee, and made recommendations as to what bills
20 would be acted on a particular day. And Ken Riddett would
21 review those recommendations with me and we could lay out an
22 agenda for the next day. I was responsible for floor
23 operations on the Senate floor. I was responsible for
24 ethics matter for the subject matter areas of legislative
25 law, Public Officer's Law, and both federal and New York
235
1 State constitutional issues. I dealt with confirmations. I
2 coordinated confirmations. And I was a liaison with the
3 minority and communicated with them as to what they were
4 doing on a given day, so they had some idea. Probably other
5 things I'm just not remembering right now.
6 Q. What do you mean by floor operations?
7 A. Floor operations, every day we would prepare an
8 agenda and a script that would lay out how we expected the
9 day to proceed. So we would start with the pledge and the
10 prayer or a moment of silence and proceed through the orders
11 of business on a given legislative day until such time as we
12 got to resolutions when we would pass any resolutions that
13 were pending or bills that were to be brought up that day.
14 Q. While you were working for the Senate, how did you
15 normally -- well, let me start first, when you were working
16 for the legislative ethics committee, did you have any
17 direct communications with Senator Bruno?
18 A. Ah, there were times when I did. It may have only
19 been once actually that I talked directly to him, but I did
20 have at least one communication with him directly.
21 Q. What was that in connection with?
22 A. It was, I believe it was in connection with --
23 well, with one of the opinions. Right now I can't remember
24 if it was First Grafton or if it was McGinn Smith, but I
25 recall that Senator Breslin authorized me, authorized me to

236
1 speak with or senator Saland, I can't remember which one the
2 co-chair was at this time, authorized me to call Senator
3 Bruno to get more information for that opinion.
4 Q. Do you remember if that was with respect to First
5 Grafton?
6 A. If you say it is. It could have been. I don't --
7 if there is a document that would reflect my recollection.
8 Is this water from the last person?
9 THE COURT: Probably. (Laughter.) Take your
10 time. Pour yourself another cup.
11 MR. PERICAK: He might have spit some tobacco
12 in it. (Laughter.)
13 THE WITNESS: That's right.
14 A. I'm sorry.
15 Q. Oh, that's okay.
16 MS. COOMBE: May I approach, your Honor?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, do you remember testifying in the
19 grand jury?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. I'm giving you a copy of your grand jury
22 transcript, directing your attention to the following
23 portion to see if it helps you remember what you talked to
24 Senator Bruno about. Page 13, line 23, through page 14,
25 line 2.
237
1 A. Okay. All right. So that would have been First
2 Grafton.
3 Q. Does that help you remember?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that's the only time you talked to Senator
6 Bruno directly while you were at the legislative ethics
7 committee?
8 A. You know, I can't be sure of that, but that's the
9 only time I remember, because there was, there was a note in
10 the file of the Ethics Committee that I had been authorized
11 to speak to him.
12 Q. Okay. And then after you became the legislative
13 counsel for the Senate majority --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- how did you communicate with Senator Bruno
16 after 1997?
17 A. Typically through one of his administrative aides.
18 That being either Pat Stackrow or Amy Leitch. And there
19 were occasions when I spoke to him directly.
20 Q. Did that change at all around the time of 2004?
21 A. Yes. Around 2004, I spoke with him more regularly
22 because that was a time when he had a number of questions
23 that involved ethics issues.
24 Q. And how about the period between 1997 and 2004?
25 How often did you speak directly with Senator Bruno?

238
1 A. Gee, not, not very often. I don't know if it
2 would have been, you know, once a year, twice a year.
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 BY MS. COOMBE:
6 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you Government's
7 Exhibit G A 9.
8 A. Thank you.
9 Q. Your welcome. Do you recognize that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you let's look at it on the screen. The first
12 page is a letter from then Senator Pataki?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And then Thomas, how do you pronounce his last
15 name?
16 A. DiNapoli.
17 Q. And it states hand delivered?
18 A. Mm-hmm.
19 Q. Confidential. March 9, 1993. Regarding an
20 advisory opinion request 93-03. Was that some sort of
21 tracking number for the committee?
22 A. Yes. The numbers were the year and the second
23 numeral represented the order in which the question came in.
24 Q. So this was the third request in 1993?
25 A. Correct.
239
1 Q. It says Dear Senator Bruno: Enclosed is the
2 advisory opinion which you requested on January 14 of 1993.
3 Could we look at page two, please?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What is this, Mr. Gluchowski?
6 A. This is the actual advice that the committee voted
7 on and passed.
8 Q. Were you involved in preparing this advisory
9 opinion?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What was your role?
12 A. Well, I was ultimately responsible for its
13 contents. By this time I think I wrote the opinion from
14 scratch. I don't think I had a subordinate attorney on
15 staff at the committee at the time, so I drafted the
16 opinion.
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 BY MS. COOMBE:
20 Q. I'm handing you Government's Exhibit G A 6.
21 A. Thank you.
22 Q. Your welcome. Do you recognize that?
23 A. Yes. This would be the letter that Senator Bruno
24 sent requesting the opinion.
25 Q. And this was an opinion regarding McGinn Smith &

240
1 Company Incorporated?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. What was your understanding about what Senator
4 Bruno would do for McGinn Smith?
5 A. My understanding was, as stated in the facts, that
6 he would assist in all area of McGinn Smith's banking
7 activities, advise corporate clients on issues relating to
8 marketing, finance and corporate structure, participate in
9 the engagement of asset management of relationships with
10 institutional investors and provide advice and counsel to
11 senior members of the firm.
12 Q. Was it your understanding that he would somehow be
13 involved in selling securities or marketing securities to
14 clients?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What was your understanding based upon?
17 A. It was based on the letter that I received.
18 Q. In drafting the opinion, which is G A 9, did you
19 rely on the representations in this letter in G A 6?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Could we look at G A 9 again, please? Could we
22 look at the second page please? I would like to direct your
23 attention to the facts section. Where did the information
24 come from that is in this facts section?
25 A. It came from the letter dated January 14, 1993,

241
1 which is G A 6.
2 Q. Did the committee have any practice regarding what
3 information would be included in the facts section of an
4 advisory opinion?
5 A. Yes. Generally, the facts were taken right from
6 the letter. Or if additional facts were deemed necessary by
7 the committee, I typically would call the person who
8 requested the opinion and ascertain what the additional
9 facts that the committee wanted to know were. And then I
10 either wrote a followup letter delineating my understanding
11 of those facts and asked the recipient of that letter to let
12 me know if anything that I wrote was incorrect in any way,
13 or the person had the option just sending in a subsequent
14 letter with the additional facts.
15 Q. So there would be some written record?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, in connection with this opinion regarding
18 Senator Bruno, did you have any other source of information
19 about what Senator Bruno anticipated his responsibilities
20 would be at McGinn Smith other than the letter that he
21 submitted to the committee?
22 A. No, I did not. I do recall conversing with my
23 supe -- with not my -- my later supervisor, but at the time
24 one of the counsel in Senator Bruno's office, Ken Riddett,
25 about, you know, what was, what was anticipated, what did he
242
1 know. And he didn't seem to know much else. And so
2 basically the letter was the sum and substance of what I
3 knew.
4 Q. Did the committee have any other sources of
5 information other than the letter regarding what Senator
6 Bruno's activities would be for McGinn Smith?
7 A. No.
8 MS. COOMBE: Your Honor, the Government moves
9 the admission of Government's Exhibit G A 8 and G A 7.
10 MR. LOWELL: Without objection.
11 THE COURT: Admitted.
13 THE COURT: Please.
14 BY MS. COOMBE:
16 Exhibit G A 8 and G A 7.
17 A. Okay. Thank you.
18 Q. Your welcome. I would like to direct your
19 attention first to G A 8.
20 A. All right.
21 Q. Can you tell us what this is?
22 A. Yes. This is a page out of Black's Law Dictionary
23 which contains the definition of investment banking.
24 Q. Did you consult with Black's Law Dictionary in
25 connection with preparing the advisory opinion?

243
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Why did you consult Black's Law Dictionary?
3 A. Well, I didn't have a clear understanding of what
4 investment banking entailed at the time and I thought the
5 dictionary would be helpful to give me a better
6 understanding of what was contemplated.
7 Q. Okay. And it mentions there investment banker,
8 and there's a description, as well as investment banking?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. For investment banking it says underwriting and
11 selling primarily new issues of stocks and bonds to
12 investors. Did you rely on that in drafting the opinion?
13 A. Yes. I thought that was one of the activities
14 contemplated.
15 Q. At the time of this opinion did you know that
16 McGinn Smith business was not limited to investment banking,
17 but also included brokerage business?
18 A. No, I didn't.
19 Q. If you could look now please at G A 7. Can you
20 tell us what that is, please?
21 A. Yes. These are my notes from research that I did
22 in the legislative library as to what McGinn Smith did.
23 Q. Can you read those notes?
24 A. Yes. It said that -- it says 1992 Standard and
25 Poors index. McGinn Smith Company Incorporated New York

244
1 corporation 1981. Twenty-five employees. 3 million annual
2 business. Investment service. Brokerage.
3 So I stand corrected. They -- I knew that they
4 did brokerage activity.
5 June 25, 1990, Capital District Business Review,
6 joint project in Plattsburgh, New York.
7 Q. Now, is the brokerage reflected at all in the
8 advisory opinion in the facts?
9 A. I have to look.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. I think it could be alluded to by asset
12 management, but the term "brokerage" is not specifically
13 mentioned.
14 Q. Is the term "brokerage" mentioned in the letter
15 from Senator Bruno to the committee, which is G A 6?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So the only reference to brokerage is in your
18 handwritten notes which you prepared based on some
19 independent research that you did?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But you did not understand that Senator Bruno's
22 activities for McGinn Smith would include any brokerage
23 activities, is that correct?
24 A. I don't, I don't remember what I remembered at
25 that time or what I knew at that time.

245
1 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, do you have your grand jury
2 transcript up there?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I would like to refer to you page 22.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Lines 3 to 9.
7 MR. LOWELL: I'm sorry, Judge, which one?
8 MS. COOMBE: The first one.
9 MR. LOWELL: Date?
10 MS. COOMBE: July 17, 2008.
11 A. Page what?
12 Q. Twenty-two.
13 A. Twenty-two?
14 Q. Yup. Lines 3 to 9.
15 A. Okay. Yes. I do recall.
16 Q. Did I ask you this question and did you give this
17 answer. Question --
18 A. Yes, I did so.
19 Q. I have to read it though for the --
20 A. Oh, okay.
21 Q. -- for the record. Question: If you could look
22 at the first page of that document. Actually before we move
23 on from that, you relied on that in understanding what
24 Senator Bruno was going to do at McGinn Smith?
25 Answer: Yes. My understanding was he would be

246
1 somehow involved in selling securities or marketing
2 securities to client.
3 Did I ask you that question and did you give that
4 answer?
5 A. Yes, you did. And yes, I did.
6 Q. And can we look please again at the opinion itself
7 which is G A 9 at the second page?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you see that you referred to Black's Law
10 Dictionary in this opinion. Investment banking involves
11 selling securities to investors.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you didn't refer at all to brokerage, is that
14 correct?
15 A. No. But isn't that all the same thing?
16 Q. Did you have any understanding of that at the
17 time?
18 A. Yes. But brokerage involves selling securities to
19 investors.
20 Q. What was your understanding based upon?
21 A. Well, it was based upon my life experience up to
22 that point.
23 Q. All right. And if we look back at the facts,
24 there's no reference there to brokerage, is there?
25 A. No.
247
1 Q. And, in fact, there's no reference to brokerage in
2 the opinion, is there?
3 A. No, I don't think we used that term.
4 Q. Have you ever heard of Wright Investors Services?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you ever prepare a written advisory opinion
7 regarding Senator Bruno's employment at Wright Investors
8 Services?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever provide you or the Ethics
11 Committee with a letter describing his duties for Wright
12 Investors Services?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you ever discuss the subject of an advisory
15 opinion with anyone?
16 A. Yes. I discussed it with Ken Riddett.
17 Q. When did you discuss this issue with Mr. Riddett?
18 A. While I was still working for the legislative
19 ethics committee and Ken Riddett called me and asked me
20 about Senator Bruno joining this company Wright Investors
21 Services in some capacity. And we were exploring the notion
22 of whether or not it was necessary to ask the committee for
23 an opinion. And he suggested that since the facts seem to
24 be identical to the facts in the McGinn Smith opinion, that
25 it wasn't necessary. And I agreed.

248
1 Q. I would like to direct your attention back to G A
2 9, the McGinn Smith opinion.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Which is on the second page of G A 9.
5 A. Mm-hmm.
6 Q. The first sentence of the facts states: A member
7 of the Legislature has been offered a part-time position
8 with an investment banking firm.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. When you spoke to Mr. Riddett, did he tell you
11 that Wright Investors was an investment adviser, not an
12 investment banking firm?
13 A. No, I don't believe he did. I don't recall that
14 he did.
15 Q. And if you would look at the second sentence
16 please, it says: The member states that compensation will
17 be paid in the form of a straight salary.
18 When Mr. Riddett told you that he did not believe
19 that a new advisory opinion was necessary for Wright
20 Investors Services, did you know that Senator Bruno would be
21 paid commissions instead of a straight salary?
22 A. No, I didn't know that.
23 Q. And it continues: He adds, my responsibilities,
24 as currently envisioned, would be to assist in all areas of
25 the firm's investment banking activities, advise corporate

249
1 clients on issues relating to marketing, finance and
2 corporate structure, participate in the engagement of asset
3 management of relationships with institutional investors and
4 provide advice and counsel to senior members of the firm.
5 At the time that Mr. Riddett suggested to you that
6 an advisory opinion for Wright Investors was not necessary
7 because the facts were similar to McGinn Smith, did you know
8 that Senator Bruno would not be selling securities?
9 A. No, I did not. In fact, I think the conversation
10 did not get into that kind of detail about what was expected
11 of Senator Bruno by way of this engagement. I believe all
12 that was represented was that this is another investment
13 banking firm and it would be similar activities to Wright
14 Investors he was doing for McGinn Smith. That was my
15 understanding.
16 Q. Other than what was in Senator Bruno's letter to
17 the committee requesting an advisory opinion, did you know
18 what Senator Bruno was doing for McGinn Smith?
19 A. No, I did not.
20 Q. At the time that Mr. Riddett suggested to you that
21 an advisory opinion for Wright Investors Services was not
22 necessary because the facts were similar to McGinn Smith,
23 did you know what Senator Bruno was doing for Wright
25 A. No, I did not.

250
1 Q. At the time that Mr. Riddett suggested to you that
2 an advisory opinion for Wright Investors Services was not
3 necessary because the facts were similar to McGinn Smith,
4 did you know that Senator Bruno would be soliciting business
5 from labor officials?
6 A. No, I did not.
7 Q. Did there come a point in time when you became
8 aware that Senator Bruno was contacting union officials for
9 Wright Investors Services?
10 A. There was a point in time, yes.
11 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever consult with you regarding
12 whether he could contact a particular union official?
13 A. Yes.
15 THE COURT: You may. I think we're going to
16 need another break this afternoon too. So you tell me.
17 MS. COOMBE: Would you like to take it now,
18 your Honor?
19 THE COURT: If it's convenient where you are
20 in your questioning.
21 MS. COOMBE: That's fine, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: All right. Let's take 15
23 minutes. Until 25 after.
24 (Brief recess at 4:10 PM.)
25 (Court reconvened at 4:25 PM.)

251
1 (Jury present.)
2 THE COURT: Miss Coombe.
3 MS. COOMBE: Thank you, your Honor. your
4 Honor, may I approach?
6 BY MS. COOMBE:
8 Exhibit G S 10.
9 A. Thank you.
10 Q. Here, I'll take some of this out of your way.
11 THE COURT: Thank you.
12 MS. COOMBE: Might I have a moment, your
13 Honor.
14 THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate it.
15 MS. COOMBE: Quite a few glasses up here.
16 THE COURT: I'll have a conversation with
17 Mr. Law about that.
18 MS. COOMBE: Oh, dear. That wouldn't very
19 good for me so next time I'll just leave them there.
20 (Laughter)
21 BY MS. COOMBE:
22 Q. Could we please look at G S 10. Mr. Gluchowski,
23 do you recognize this?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What is it?
252
1 A. This is a memo to the file that I made on
2 May 5th of 2006.
3 Q. Did you type this note yourself?
4 A. Yes, I believe I did.
5 Q. Was it unusual for you to type a document
6 yourself?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, you prepared this document on May 5th,
9 2006, at 4:25 PM.
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Why did you prepare this document?
12 A. Well, because it was significant that Senator
13 Bruno called me to ask a question if he should make a
14 request to Jerry Comer, the regional representative of the
15 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I told him
16 that I would not recommend that he contact them. And I
17 thought that it was significant in that by this time --
18 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just
19 want to go slowly through this, so if I could just pose
20 another question. Was it unusual for Senator Bruno to
21 contact you directly himself?
22 A. Not, not by 2006, no, not so -- not, not at that
23 point it wasn't that unusual.
24 Q. Was it unusual for him to actually pick up the
25 phone instead of having one of his staff people?

253
1 A. Well, you know, typically one of the staff people
2 would be the point of contact, but since about 2004, I had
3 regular -- more regular conversations with Senator Bruno.
4 Q. Do you still have your grand jury transcript up
5 there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I would like to direct you to page 27.
8 MR. LOWELL: Can you tell me which one?
9 MS. COOMBE: Yes, the first one.
10 BY MS. COOMBE:
11 Q. Page 27, lines 21.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Through page 28, line 8.
14 A. Right.
15 Q. If you can read that to yourself and let me know
16 when you're done please.
17 A. Page what -- page 27?
18 Q. Yup. Line 21.
19 A. Twenty-one, yup.
20 Q. Through 28, line 8.
21 A. Right. Yes. I see what I said.
22 Q. Did you have a chance to read that yourself,
23 Mr. Gluchowski?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did I ask you these questions and did you give

254
1 these answers.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I still have to read them for the record,
4 Mr. Gluchowski.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Question: Was it unusual for Senator Bruno to
7 call you directly himself? Answer: Yes. Question: He
8 normally used his staff to place a call? Answer: Well, was
9 it unusual in 2004? We had a series of phone calls back and
10 forth over contracts that I wanted to have drafted, and so
11 it was not unheard of that he would call me, but it was
12 unusual. I would say, you know, like maybe once every two,
13 three months we would have a conversation. And so this was
14 not a frequent occurrence, but the reason I wrote the note
15 wasn't just because he called.
16 Did I ask you those questions?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you give those answers?
19 A. That's very accurate.
20 Q. What did Senator Bruno say to you when he called
21 you?
22 A. He asked me if -- well, what he said was that
23 Wright Investors Services or someone from Wright Investors
24 Services asked him to call Jerry Comer of the IBEW because
25 the -- Wright was making its final presentation to the IBEW

255
1 he dealt with.
2 Q. Was Wright Investors asking Senator Bruno to put
3 in a good word for Wright with Mr. Comer?
4 A. That was my understanding.
5 Q. Did the IBEW have any interest in legislation
6 pending before the New York State Legislature at this time?
7 A. Yes. At that time they had a very particular
8 legislation. And that's why I thought it was significant to
9 advise him against making that contact.
10 Q. What was that legislation?
11 A. Well, it was something generically referred to as
12 pilot light bill, and it's a bill that had to do with
13 whether or not licensed plumbers and electricians would be
14 required to go on a call, when a utility got word from a
15 customer that there was some malfunction with the heating
16 system or electrical system, that it was not the utility's
17 responsibility to fix. So the unions -- the bottom line was
18 the unions would benefit from the bill.
19 Q. How did you learn that IBEW had an interest in the
20 pilot light bill?
21 A. Through my role as counsel to the rules committee,
22 I reviewed bills in June, typically last -- well, from about
23 June 1st to the end of session, which was usually around
24 June 21st, I would review bills and present them to
25 members of the rules committee, who would then weigh in on

256
1 the staff analysis. So I would present the staff analysis
2 position with respect to the bill, and members of the rules
3 committee would either agree or disagree, and the bill would
4 pass or not pass depending on the results of that meeting.
5 And we used a document which we called the annotated
6 calendar to summarize what the bill did. And on the
7 annotated calendar is a field for support and opposition.
8 And I recall that the IBEW was listed in one or the other, I
9 can't remember if they opposed it or they supported it, but
10 they were active in whatever side they were on, all the
11 utilities were against. So through that experience, this
12 bill coming before the Legislature for a number of years,
13 probably at least five years in a row. I, I was familiar
14 with the bill and with IBEW's position on the bill.
15 Q. What did you tell Senator Bruno?
16 A. I told him I didn't think it was a good idea for
17 him to make that contact.
18 Q. Did you tell Senator Bruno that IBEW had an
19 interest in the pilot light legislation pending before the
20 New York State Legislature?
21 A. I believe I did.
22 Q. After you prepared this memorandum -- is that how
23 you described it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Where did you place it?

257
1 A. I placed it in the file draw in my desk.
2 Q. What else did you keep in that draw in your desk?
3 A. I kept other similar memos, material that I was
4 holding in the event that an issue ever came from the
5 transaction.
6 Q. Did you have a special name for that file?
7 A. Yes. You'll love this. CYA. CYA file.
8 (Laughter.)
9 Q. What does that stand for, Mr. Gluchowski?
10 MR. LOWELL: Oh, don't.
11 THE COURT: We all know.
12 BY MS. COOMBE:
13 Q. Why did you put this document in your CYA drawer?
14 A. Well, I didn't, I didn't have a file for IBEW or
15 Senator Bruno calls, so it was a logical place to put it
16 because I wanted to have a record in the event that this
17 ever came -- if this ever became an issue. I mean at this
18 time there was, if not actual notice of investigations going
19 on, then at least a rumor of investigations being
20 considered. So I thought it would be a good idea to make a
21 record of that call. I was glad he called me.
22 Q. Other than this telephone call from Senator Bruno
23 that you've just talked about, did Senator Bruno ever
24 consult with you regarding whether he could contact a
25 particular union official?

258
1 A. No, I don't recall that he ever did.
2 Q. Do you know Ed Bartholomew?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Have you ever heard Mr. Bartholomew talk about
5 Wright Investors Services?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What were the circumstances?
8 A. I was in Ken Riddett's office, not for the purpose
9 of a meeting with Ed Bartholomew and Ken Riddett, but I was
10 doing something else when Ed came into the office and had a
11 conversation with Ken Riddett about some union issue. Ed
12 Bartholomew worked on union issues and labor issues for the
13 Senate majority counsel and program staff. And he and Ken
14 were having a conversation that involved some union business
15 and Wright. But beyond that, I really don't know much about
16 what transpired.
17 Q. Did Mr. Bartholomew express any concern to
18 Mr. Riddett?
19 A. Right, yes, he did. He was, he was concerned over
20 something, but I'm not sure what.
21 Q. Is your grand jury transcript still up there?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I would like to direct your attention to page 35.
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. Lines 14.
259
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Through 25.
3 A. Right.
4 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did I ask you these questions and did you give
7 these answers: Question: What did Mr. Bartholomew say?
8 Answer: I don't remember specifically but he was concerned
9 about the relationship with the unions and with Wright
10 having and being selling products for unions. Question:
11 What was his concern? Answer: Well, I think his concern
12 was that he not be put in the position of trying to get the
13 unions to listen to Wright's presentation. Question: By
14 he, you mean Senator Bruno or Mr. Bartholomew?
15 No. Mr. Bartholomew.
16 Did I ask you those questions?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you give those answers?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What was Mr. Riddett's response to
21 Mr. Bartholomew?
22 A. I, I'm -- I don't know.
23 Q. I'm going to direct your attention to page 36.
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. Lines 15 -- lines 14 through 17.

260
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Did I ask you this question and did you give this
3 answer. Question: What was Mr. Riddett's response to Mr.
4 Bartholomew? Answer: That he cannot lean on the unions to
5 get business for Senator Bruno from him.
6 And actually I would ask you to read on. There
7 was a clarification that Mr. Bartholomew could not do it.
8 Answer: Right. Right.
9 Did I ask you those questions and did you give
10 those answers?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And just to clarify that for the record, it was
13 actually lines 15 through 19.
14 MS. COOMBE: Your Honor, may I retrieve the
15 grand jury transcript?
16 THE COURT: You may.
17 BY MS. COOMBE:
18 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Riddett about Senator
19 Bruno's contacts with labor officials on behalf of Wright
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you put the following events in order for us
23 chronologically: Your conversation with Mr. Riddett, the
24 conversation that you overheard between Mr. Riddett and
25 Mr. Bartholomew, and the call from Senator Bruno regarding

261
1 the IBEW contact?
2 A. It's difficult. I believe the first matter was
3 the IBEW call. Then I believe I had conversations with
4 Mr. Riddett, both about that call and the fact that Wright
5 was doing business with unions. And I think the last thing
6 was the Ed Bartholomew meeting with Ken Riddett.
7 Q. Were they all about the same time?
8 A. I -- yeah, I, I think there were within months,
9 within a month or two. That's, that's what I remember.
10 Q. Before Mr. Riddett spoke to you about the fact
11 that Senator Bruno was contacting labor unions, did you know
12 that Senator Bruno was contacting unions on behalf of Wright
14 A. Well, either I knew then, if that was the first in
15 that chronology, or I knew when Senator Bruno asked me about
16 IBEW.
18 THE COURT: You may.
19 BY MS. COOMBE:
20 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm going to give you your grand
21 jury transcript again. I would like to direct your
22 attention please to page 37, lines 8 through 38, line 5, and
23 after you have a chance to read that, just let me know.
24 A. Okay. To what line on 38?
25 Q. Line 5.
262
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. All right? Did I ask you these questions ask did
3 you give these answer: Question: What is your recollection
4 of about what order those events occurred? Answer: Well, I
5 think, I think that the document, the note I made from
6 May 5th of 2006 was -- that was around the same time as
7 the Ed Bartholomew slash Ken Riddett conversation, but I
8 can't recall which came first. And the other conversation
9 that I had with Ken Riddett about Wright was earlier.
10 Question: You can't remember exactly? Answer: No.
11 Question: When they occurred now? Answer: No. Question:
12 Do you remember how much earlier the conversation with
13 Mr. Riddett was? Answer: No. Probably not, probably not
14 too much earlier because my recollection was that this
15 became news worthy, and that's how I found out about it, or
16 it was just like everything was happening at the same time,
17 you know what I mean by that. That's not a good answer, but
18 what I mean is that the, the significance of Wright and the
19 unions bubbled to the surface around the same time, so I
20 think that they were all pretty problematic.
21 Did I ask you those questions? Did you give those
22 answers?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Does that help you remember that the conversation
25 with Mr. Riddett was the first thing in that chain of

263
1 events?
2 A. Well, it -- you know, that's what I said, but I
3 don't really remember the exact order at this time.
4 Q. When Mr. Riddett spoke to you about the fact that
5 Mr. Senator Bruno was contacting labor unions, did you know
6 that Senator Bruno was contacting unions on behalf of Wright
8 A. No.
9 Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Riddett tell you he had
10 concluded about the propriety of Senator Bruno's contacts
11 with union officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services?
12 A. Well, the sense was that, with respect to public
13 unions, it was problematic, but with respect to unions that
14 were not public unions, it was less problematic.
15 Q. All right. What is a public union?
16 A. Well, I always thought a public union referred to
17 a union like the -- was it professional employees
18 federation, PEF, or CSEA. Represented public employees.
19 Q. And what is a private, a nonpublic union then?
20 A. Ah, that would be like the plumbers, the
21 electrical workers, or unions that were not, were not
22 getting public money.
23 Q. What was the issue you said it was problematic for
24 Mr. -- for Senator Bruno to contact -- let me rephrase my
25 question. You said that it was -- Mr. Riddett had expressed

264
1 to you that it was his opinion that it was problematic for
2 Senator Bruno to contact public unions. Do you have an
3 understanding of why that was problematic?
4 A. Well, I don't think that it's Ken Riddett saying
5 that he thought this was problematic. I think those were my
6 words.
7 Q. Was that based on a conversation you had with
8 Mr. Riddett?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. All right. And if you could explain to us,
11 please, how -- why it was that contact with public unions
12 could be problematic?
13 A. Well, it was my belief at the time that public
14 unions presented more issues to be resolved, in that they
15 typically, in my experience, had more matters before the
16 Legislature.
17 Q. All right. And you said that nonpublic unions
18 were less problematic. What was an issue for a nonpublic
19 union?
20 A. If they had specific legislation before the
21 Legislature that would benefit that union in a way that
22 wasn't proportional to the benefit of all of the members of
23 that group or business. But the same test would be held for
24 public unions too. I mean it would have to be some specific
25 concern that arose from specific legislation.

265
1 Q. Did Mr. Riddett express to you that if unions were
2 public unions, it would be inappropriate because they had so
3 much legislation pending before the Legislature?
4 A. Yeah. We, we -- that was part of the sense of
5 that conversation, yes.
6 Q. Is that what Mr. Riddett said to you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And did Mr. Riddett also say to you but if they
9 were nonpublic unions, then the question would be whether
10 the union had a particular legislation that they have an
11 interest in? Is that what he said?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you ever talk to Senator Bruno about these
14 issues?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did Mr. Riddett talk to Senator Bruno about
17 these --
18 A. Well, let me qualify that. Other than the
19 conversation with Senator Bruno about Jerry Comer.
20 Q. Right. Other than that?
21 A. Right. No.
22 Q. Are you aware of if Mr. Riddett talked to Senator
23 Bruno about this distinction between public and nonpublic
24 unions?
25 A. I don't, I don't know if he did or he didn't.

266
1 Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to page
2 33, please.
3 A. Mm-hmm.
4 Q. Line 16 through 21. I'm sorry, just lines 22
5 through page 34, line 15.
6 A. Mm-hmm.
7 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, did I ask you these questions and
8 did you give these answers: Question: To your knowledge
9 did Mr. Riddett ever talk to Senator Bruno about these
10 restrictions? Answer: I believe he did. Question: Why do
11 you believe that? Answer: From conversations that I had
12 with Ken Riddett, I believe that he had conversations with
13 Senator Bruno about the, the issue of labor unions having an
14 interest in legislation and his private business
15 relationship that might involve union activity. Question:
16 Did Mr. Riddett also talk to Senator Bruno about public
17 unions? Answer: I think so. I assume so, but I really
18 don't know this because I wasn't at those conversations.
19 Question: But you do believe they occurred? Answer: I
20 believe though occurred from conversations I had with Ken
21 Riddett. So it was my impression that Ken had talked to
22 Senator Bruno about the union issue.
23 Did I ask you those questions and did you give
24 those answers?
25 A. Yes.
267
1 Q. Do you know if Mr. Senator Bruno ever received any
2 credit from Wright Investors Services for referring union
3 clients?
4 A. No, I don't.
5 Q. Do you know that Senator Bruno's compensation at
6 Wright Investors Services was linked to his success in
7 referring unions to Wright Investors Services?
8 A. No, I didn't know that.
9 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever give you any details about
10 what he did for Wright Investors Services?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did he ever give you a list of union officials he
13 had contacted on behalf of Wright Investors Services?
14 A. No. But I wouldn't expect him to.
15 Q. Other than the conversation with Senator Bruno
16 about IBEW, did Senator Bruno either directly or indirectly
17 ever ask you to determine whether a union had business
18 before the New York State Legislature or New York State?
19 A. I don't recall that he ever did.
20 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever ask you whether he should
21 recuse himself from voting on legislation beneficial to a
22 union whose pension or annuity fund was a client of Wright
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever ask you whether he should

268
1 refrain from taking direct or indirect action on matters
2 benefiting a union whose pension or annuity fund was a
3 client of Wright Investors Services?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you ever tell the ethics committee, the
6 legislative ethics committee that Senator Bruno was
7 contacting union officials on behalf of Wright Investors
8 Services?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did Senator Bruno ever tell the legislative ethics
11 committee that he was contacting union officials on behalf
12 of Wright Investors Services?
13 A. I never heard that he did.
14 Q. Did anyone on Senator Bruno's staff every tell the
15 legislative ethics committee that he was contacting union
16 officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services?
17 A. Not to my knowledge.
18 Q. Did Senator Bruno or anyone on his staff ever tell
19 other senators that he was contacting union officials on
20 behalf of Wright Investors Services?
21 A. I, I really don't have any way of knowing that.
22 Q. Are you aware of that?
23 A. No, I'm not.
25 THE COURT: Yes.

269
1 BY MS. COOMBE:
3 Exhibit GT 1 --
4 A. Mm-hmm.
5 Q. -- GT 12, GT 13, GT 14, GT 17, GT 21, and GT 25.
6 Mr. Gluchowski, have you ever seen any of these agreements
7 before? And I should clarify, have you ever seen any of
8 these agreements before the investigation began?
9 A. I have not seen GT 1 before the investigation
10 began, nor have I seen GT 12. And I've seen GT 13 before,
11 but I can't remember if it was before the investigation or
12 after. GT 14 looks similar. I don't recall seeing GT 17
13 before the investigation. And GT 21 is another letter
14 extending an agreement that, I know I've seen it before, but
15 I can't remember if I saw it prior to the investigation or
16 not.
17 Q. Which one was that, Mr. Gluchowski?
18 A. Twenty-one. Which is one of the extenders. And
19 GT 25, I would say the same. I have seen it before, but I
20 can't recall at what point.
21 Q. Mr. Gluchowski, do you remember seeing any of
22 those documents before the investigation began?
23 A. I, I don't specifically remember seeing any. I
24 know I've seen some of them before, but I don't know at what
25 point.
270
1 Q. Do you remember seeing -- do you recognize these
2 as all documents regarding companies affiliated with Leonard
3 Fassler?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you remember seeing any agreements between
6 Senator Bruno and any company affiliated with Mr. Fassler
7 before the investigation began?
8 A. Well, when I was asked that question in the grand
9 jury, my answer was no. And I had heard that I wrote a memo
10 about, about some of these documents, but I've never seen
11 that memo. So I don't know if I had or I hadn't.
12 Q. Who did you hear you wrote a memo from?
13 A. I don't remember.
14 Q. Was it someone on the defense team?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you testify in the grand jury that you did not
17 remember seeing any of these documents before the
18 investigation --
19 A. Well, no.
20 Q. -- began?
21 A. It was, it was somebody on the defense team. Yes.
22 That I, that I had done a memo about some of these Fassler
23 agreements. And I did not recall that at the time I met
24 with the grand jury. So I don't, you know, I don't want to
25 say now that I never knew anything about that because,

271
1 apparently, I did, if there is such a memo.
2 Q. When you testified in the grand jury, you
3 testified that you did not remember seeing any of these
4 documents except potentially in connection with the
5 investigation.
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And what's this memo is that you're referring to?
8 Have you seen it?
9 A. I don't -- it was -- no, I haven't seen it. I've
10 never seen it, but I'm told that it has to do with some
11 analysis of some of the Fassler businesses, and it
12 references a conversation that I had with Joe Magno, which I
13 didn't recall, but now I do. And that's all I know.
14 Q. Was that in connection with preparing for your
15 testimony that someone on the defense team brought this to
16 your attention?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was this brought to your attention recently?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. This week?
21 A. Ah, yes.
22 Q. Other than that particular document, do you know
23 what document -- what company that document is referring to?
24 A. I thought it was Sage, but I'm not sure.
25 Q. Do you remember whether it was Microknowledge?

272
1 A. It -- well, I think it was more than one. I think
2 it was probably Brunswick Equity, Brunswick Knowledge and
3 Microknowledge.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And I know Sage was involved at some point, but
6 maybe Sage was earlier.
7 Q. All right. But Brunswick Equities and
8 Microknowledge, that's what you -- that's what those
9 memoranda are about?
10 A. I believe so.
11 Q. All right. And none of these documents talk about
12 Microknowledge?
13 A. No.
14 Q. They don't talk about Brunswick Equities?
15 A. No.
16 Q. You don't know what relationship, if any, Sage has
17 to the memoranda that the defense team informed you of this
18 week?
19 A. Right. Yeah. You know, if I could see the
20 document, it would probably refresh my recollection and I
21 would better know what I'm talking about. But I, I, I don't
22 recall seeing these before the investigation now that I
23 recall that it was Microknowledge, Brunswick Knowledge and
24 Brunswick Equities.
25 MS. COOMBE: Your Honor, I'm about to start a

273
1 new area of questioning. Would you like me to continue?
2 THE COURT: No.
3 MS. COOMBE: I have no idea what time it is
4 so...
5 THE COURT: It's two minutes of 5. So two
6 minutes is okay. We'll adjourn until 9:00 tomorrow morning,
7 ladies and gentlemen.
8 (Jury excused at 4:58 PM.)
9 THE COURT: The parties will remain for
10 moment please.
11 MR. PERICAK: Is the witness excused, your
12 Honor?
13 THE COURT: Yes. The witness is excused. At
14 some point at the convenience of counsel, I would like to
15 see the original of Defendant's Exhibits C 12 A, C 12 A, C
16 14 A, and C -- what have I got? A redacted and an
17 unredacted C 12 A? Is that what you were telling me about
18 yesterday.
19 MR. LOWELL: This morning Mr. Law asked me to
20 give you something. I gave you the complete C 12 A, I gave
21 you a suggestion how you just get the form out of it, and
22 the complete C 14 A. They're copies because that's all we
23 have.
24 THE COURT: So then your original is going to
25 look no different than the copy?

274
1 MR. LOWELL: Correct. Although I believe the
2 originals may be in the boxes that FBI has. The boxes
3 boxes.
4 MS. COOMBE: Yeah, the FBI took custody of
5 those boxes. Was it Monday?
6 MR. PERICAK: Monday.
7 MS. COOMBE: When we became aware of them for
8 the first time.
9 MR. LOWELL: So -- but I can tell you that
10 yes C 14 -- sorry -- C 12 A you have the complete version
11 of. As well as a suggestion. And C 14 A you have the
12 complete version of.
13 THE COURT: All right. Well, I have two
14 points. It's highly unlikely I would admit these documents
15 in their entirety, but I might consider the admission of
16 some portion of them. But I need to see -- I can't tell
17 from the Xerox copy what it is I'm looking at. And then I
18 would want the parties to consult with one another over this
19 issue, and don't hold me to the facts, we're up to 64, so
20 I'm not bad with them, but don't hold me with precision. At
21 some point with start of the passage of the Ethics Reform
22 Act with the financial disclosure forms, up through whatever
23 ending year will be the ultimate packet of disclosure forms
24 that are in evidence in this case. So whatever the starting
25 date is, then whatever the ending date is, it's the period
275
1 within which those exhibits pertain. Obviously, each
2 year -- I'm familiar with financial disclosure reports and I
3 know what I'm looking at, and the requirements are similar
4 to those that I'm familiar with. So that each May 15th is
5 the filing date for the preceding calendar year. I'm not
6 sure at what point I have the statute and I'm not sure at
7 what point I have the financial disclosure form and I'm not
8 sure that there are variables in that process, so I would
9 like the parties to consult over that. If I have a sample
10 form that the parties are happy represents the sample form,
11 though I know I have one probably some that are in evidence,
12 though I don't have much of anything consistent with the
13 pretrial order. But that's okay, that's another matter for
14 another trial on another day. I've given up. Everybody is
15 trying to help me I understand.
16 MR. LOWELL: Judge, can I -- the C 14 A, just
17 to help. I hope it helps.
18 THE COURT: Go ahead.
19 MR. LOWELL: My understanding every year
20 after the law was passed every member received a copy of the
21 Public Officer's Law. We have 20 of them, or however many,
22 but we didn't introduce them because who wants 20 of them.
23 And every year they sent out an instruction form. So we
24 gave you the first that we had in the first category. So
25 you're right that that's what happened. We can give you a

276
1 better copy or we can go search out the original, but the
2 original of 12 A is every page that you presently have and
3 the original of 14 A is every page that you presently have.
4 THE COURT: Here's all I'm saying to you.
5 While they may have -- in other words, I'm not sure what use
6 anybody intends to make of them. As you already know, I'm
7 not submitting the law to the jury. I'm not submitting a
8 copy of the Public Officer's Law to the jury unless, of
9 course, because we've already heard from Mr. Riddett, and
10 I'm not sure he ever read did, we're now hearing from
11 Mr. Gluchowski, I do not know what he's going to say about
12 it, though I expect we're going to get into that area of
13 inquiry with him. I have no idea whether Mr. Bruno intends
14 to testify and whether he's going to tell us. It might
15 alter my view depending on what the testimony is as to what
16 I would admit and what I would not in that regard. I
17 certainly have no intention at this juncture on the basis of
18 the testimony that I've heard of admitting the Public
19 Officer's Law, but it is something the parties are going to
20 have to think about at some point as to what it is you want
21 me to instruct the jury on the issue of the Public Officer's
22 Law. Because, ultimately, I am responsible for their
23 understanding of what the requirements of that law are.
24 Which I recognize is a very different issue than what
25 somebody else's understanding of that law may have been

277
1 which might have generated advice to one person or another.
2 So I understand the variables that are associated with this
3 issue, but everybody needs to understand we're going to have
4 to come up with some suggestion. To me, ultimately, it will
5 be my decision as to what I'm going to instruct the jury on.
6 Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. And
7 this is all premature, so I mean I'm not looking for an
8 answer at this point.
9 I see a raging debate, in particular with
10 Mr. Riddett, as to what a particular subject matter covers
11 and doesn't cover in terms of the questions that were asked.
12 I've looked at the financial disclosure form, which is
13 similar to those I've seen in the past, and there's no doubt
14 in my mind Mr. Riddett can't read or there's no doubt in my
15 mind Mr. Riddett doesn't understand the instructions based
16 upon the answers he gave during the testimony, as I would
17 understand it. Which I'm not sure is relevant to any issue
18 that ultimately is going to be decided. In other words, I
19 understand the parameters of a good faith defense and what
20 the jury will be instructed on that. That's why I'm telling
21 you it's going to take some care. But I can't be in a
22 situation where the jury comes back because the parties have
23 argued and the jury is then asking for some legal
24 instruction in that regard as to precisely what's required
25 or what's not. I understand the care that's going to have

278
1 to be crafted with that because that's not necessarily the
2 issue that's in front of them. It's precisely the same
3 issues that are at play with the SEC, the Public Officer's
4 Law, and any other law that may come up. I'm not sure any
5 have. There was a statement earlier by -- about a FCC
6 regulation, but I know he meant to say SEC. And I hope
7 we're not going to get into FCC regulations. But I have
8 some concern. And that's all I'm doing is expressing it to
9 you at this point so that everybody can deal with it in the
10 time you have available to you as I'm suggesting now these
11 issues may come up. They will have a bearing, by the way,
12 as to what I admit. I don't have a problem, I don't
13 believe, with admitting a set of instructions and a form to
14 the jury so they have something in front of them as to what
15 it is that everybody was dealing with on this issue. Though
16 I am terribly reluctant, although all sides agree. And even
17 then I'm not -- I concur with you, even if you agree, that I
18 submit a copy of a statute to them without some foundation
19 from a witness to do that. I'm not sure I would do that.
20 That's why I limit it to carefully. I wasn't concerned with
21 your questions. I was more concerned with the way the
22 answers were parsed with Mr. Riddett than I was -- you were
23 intending in my view to establish his understanding of the
24 law and to find out from him what he told people based on
25 his understanding. And I'm just clarifying for the record,

279
1 I would permit that. I have no difficulty with that at all.
2 But by the same token, as I sit here and listen to his
3 testimony, and he holds himself out as an expert as to what
4 that form requires or not, that's precisely why I wouldn't
5 let him tell anybody what that law says.
6 MR. LOWELL: I understand. Can I respond to
7 you?
9 MR. LOWELL: The four points you made? As to
10 Exhibit 12 A what I elicited as testimony was the fact that
11 every year the committee sent out the copy of the law and
12 the instruction book.
13 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. LOWELL: And through the colloquy we had,
15 I asked whether the form, the actual form was part of the
16 law. What's odd, your Honor, is that the form is actually
17 in the law itself. As opposed to commanding the committee
18 to write the form, the form was part of the law.
19 Mr. Riddett testified it was the subject of a great deal of
20 negotiation. I -- my understanding is that's why they put
21 it in the law. 12 A that I gave you --
22 THE COURT: Can I just stop you on each
23 point?
24 MR. LOWELL: Of course.
25 THE COURT: I understand exactly what you

280
1 just told me. What I'm saying about that is that that form
2 could differ each year.
3 MR. LOWELL: Yes.
4 THE COURT: I don't know if it does.
5 MR. LOWELL: I was going to tell you that
6 that every year it was exactly the same in the period of
7 time that we're talking, literally.
8 THE COURT: As long as everybody concurs with
9 that observation as a foundational basis, I'm not going to
10 have any problem with a copy of the form.
11 MR. LOWELL: And, interestingly, the reason
12 it didn't change from year to year was because the actual
13 form was part of the law. So for somebody to change the
14 form, they would have had to change the law. And that was
15 something I guess they didn't want to get into one way or
16 the other. Except for this year, by the way, they're
17 discussing what's called the Bruno law because it's now
18 going to make changes in what it is that's supposed to have
19 happened. And it didn't pass yet.
20 THE COURT: You can't help but see my
21 amazement. Yesterday I had to wonder whether they're
22 mailing that to one another.
23 MR. LOWELL: As to 12 A, the part that I did
24 redact -- and, you know, I'll talk to the Government to make
25 sure it's right. And then you decide of course. It's just
281
1 the form, that's 12 A.
2 THE COURT: It's just the form 12 A.
3 MR. LOWELL: Just the form. The cover says
4 Public Officer's Law but because it includes the actual
5 form, and all we've given you is the actual form. Fourteen
6 A is the instruction book which we moved, there was no
7 objection, and it's in evidence. It's the instruction that
8 was the same every year. Now, that's as to the two
9 exhibits.
10 THE COURT: Is the Government satisfied that
11 the instructions are the same as were there every year?
12 MR. PERICAK: I haven't looked at the
13 instructions every year, so I don't know the answer to that,
14 but I would say with respect to the form, your Honor, the
15 actual filled out forms are in evidence, so there's no need
16 for an extra form, I would say.
17 MR. LOWELL: I thought it was important to
18 make the point in response to Mr. Pericak that it just
19 didn't come about that this form was pulled out of thin air.
20 It's part of the law.
21 THE COURT: I have no qualms with that point.
22 MR. LOWELL: So that's as to 12 A. And as to
23 14 A --
24 THE COURT: We've covered the form and the
25 instructions. It's the statute that causes me --

282
1 MR. LOWELL: Now move to the second point. I
2 know you won't be surprised, I agree with what you say a
3 good deal of the time, maybe a vast majority of the time,
4 but as discovered not on one of the time. As to Mr. Riddett
5 as to negotiating on the law, I mean here's what's going to
6 press into the next issue you have when we get into our
7 case. That's this. We already in preliminary battles
8 raised the issue that how laws that are complicated or
9 confusing, or whatever, whatever the testimony is, is filled
10 out is relevant. It's relevant. It's relevant for the two
11 reasons put in our papers. I'm not going to argue it here.
12 But Mr. Riddett, as Mr. Gluchowski gave the same advice to
13 not just Mr. Bruno but to everybody, everybody who asked at
14 the conference you saw the --
15 THE COURT: I permitted you to ask that.
16 MR. LOWELL: There was a reason, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: I didn't permit you to get into
18 individual financial forms or any other issue by any other
19 senator.
20 MR. LOWELL: That's where we're at.
21 THE COURT: But the extent to which you asked
22 whether the advice was given was consistent from that given
23 by Mr. Riddett, I permitted that question.
24 MR. LOWELL: And then Mr. Pericak asked
25 Mr. Riddett, among other questions, look at the column

283
1 called description of the services. Consulting. Does that
2 adequately express what the law says -- not the law -- what
3 the manual requires? Right? That was the whole line of
4 questions. Judge, that's why we believe it is relevant,
5 that if you look at all the other forms and pick any year,
6 doesn't matter, we picked 2004 in our proffer to the
7 government and the Court, if you look at every other form,
8 question 4, question 5, and question 13, and look at what
9 every member of the Assembly and every member of the Senate
10 who are advised by the same lawyers are putting down for
11 question 4, question 5, question 13, you will not be
12 surprised. And that's the proffer we've made in our papers,
13 because this issue is, is Mr. Bruno in an intent to defraud,
14 i.e. an intent to deceive based on for a category called
15 description where he puts down consultant as opposed to
16 investment adviser or investment adviser as opposed to
17 investment broker or Winthrop as opposed to Winthrope with
18 an e or any of what the government has raised, then there's
19 a lot of things that inform that. One of the things that
20 informs that, his understanding, as Mr. Riddett will say,
21 this is what I advised. Another thing that will inform is
22 to show what Mr. Bruno did is consistent with the practice
23 of every other legislator. And we've given you the case law
24 on that.
25 THE COURT: Yes, you have. And I'm telling

284
1 you, as long as there is a foundation for that, perhaps,
2 perhaps not. Depends on what the foundation is.
3 MR. LOWELL: I understand. Just wanted to
4 get to the second issue. You asked about the law itself.
5 THE COURT: We both are on the same -- I can
6 see the telepathy. And we both know what I'm talking
7 about --
8 MR. LOWELL: I think I've learned.
9 THE COURT: -- about foundation. All right.
10 MR. PERICAK: May I respond just as long as
11 we're on that second point? My question was not what the
12 form requires. I asked, it says description, was that an
13 accurate description? That goes to intent, in my view.
14 Whatever somebody thinks the law and the form requires. So
15 I didn't ask what the form -- what the law requires.
16 MR. LOWELL: No, he did not. I agree. But,
17 look, this is a very, very difficult issue, and especially
18 after 5:00. So all I would say on that issue, Judge, is.
19 As to intent, this is an odd case, because it's sort of a
20 derivative. Intent. Intent in part. Nobody has testified
21 that Mr. Bruno was the one who made certain decisions. We
22 are putting Mr. Bruno on trial in part by whatever
23 Mr. Riddett did, Mr. Gluchowski did, and all the other
24 people who have --
25 THE COURT: Many of them. Pat Stackrow is

285
1 responsible for.
2 MR. LOWELL: Right. A number of others. So,
3 okay, I have to understand we have to defend that
4 proposition. And we're trying our best. But in doing so,
5 again, we'll refer back to our papers, I think the issue is
6 that if these people are giving advice, etcetera, and you
7 have Mr. Bruno on trial in November of '09 on an issue of
8 intent to deceive, based on the form, then if I can, I I'll
9 lay the foundation, or try hard, if he's writing consultant,
10 somebody is else is writing consultant and doesn't list
11 their client, that is germane. If he's writing the name of
12 a company and isn't saying 14 lines about the company and
13 you look at some of these forms and you see that they put
14 less. You saw all those attachments A, B, C, D, and E.
15 Maybe it will surprise you, maybe it won't. He's got to be
16 one of three legislators who do that in such detail. So I
17 think that's apparent. But we'll have to explain that to
18 you at the right tame. That's the third issue raised. It's
19 in our papers.
20 THE COURT: I read the papers.
21 MR. LOWELL: I know you did. I know you did.
22 But now you see why we made the proffer. At least now it
23 makes more sense perhaps.
24 THE COURT: No. I understood the proffer.
25 MR. LOWELL: And then as to --

286
1 THE COURT: Isn't anything happening in this
2 trial I don't understand. Not one. Regardless of what
3 everybody thinks.
4 MR. LOWELL: For me the issue of broodmare
5 and foal, that's just more that -- it's a lot for me.
6 MR. PERICAK: Do I get to chime in on point
7 three. The foundation is just a small point, another reason
8 for exclusion. Have to show that they are in the same
9 position.
10 THE COURT: That's not the foundation I'm
11 talking about.
12 MR. PERICAK: I understand. But I --
13 THE COURT: I understand what a foundation
14 is. And we're going to argue this until the cows come home.
15 And there's no need for me to address it right now. It's up
16 to all of you to figure out what I believe the foundation
17 is. I know what it is. And when I hear it, I may permit
18 it. And I may not. The other side of that coin is, he who
19 jumps off the bridge doesn't justify the other 49 or 99 who
20 elect to do so. It depends on who did what based on what
21 knowledge. That's the foundation. Who did what based on
22 what knowledge. If -- let me just give you a what if. If
23 you were to view the evidence to say these forms were
24 prepared by Pat Stackrow with no input by the Senator
25 whatsoever other than his signature, somebody stuck under

287
1 his nose one or two days before the filing deadline, and any
2 information that Pat Stackrow relied upon in terms of how to
3 fill the form out came from Ken Riddett, who doesn't
4 understand what paragraph a particular set of instructions
5 may pertain to, and if both of those people are the ones who
6 provided the guidance to the Senator upon which he relied,
7 then there is one foundation. If, on the other hand,
8 somebody were to say, I attended a training seminar, I sat
9 down with every legislator in the Legislature, and I had a
10 discussion with them about how to fill out paragraph four,
11 and I relied upon what they told me. I know I'm not going
12 to hear that. I know I'm not going to hear it. I would be
13 surprised if I do. But that's why I can't rule until
14 somebody lays whatever foundation they believe is
15 appropriate and then moves on the basis of that foundation.
16 All I'm saying to you is that I don't have any problem over
17 a form and over instructions. Because I fully expect, given
18 the way the testimony has gone thus far from both sides,
19 that that may or may not cause some confusion with the jury.
20 And, obviously, I'm responsible for taking care of any
21 confusion they've got. And as I think we all recognize,
22 regardless of our view about what the subject of the proof
23 must ultimately be, in light of the definition of mail and
24 wire fraud, regardless of what one or another of us think is
25 relevant in that regard, I think it's crystal clear, because

288
1 I wouldn't have allowed it in otherwise, that those things
2 constitute evidence of whether or not there was an intent to
3 engage in a scheme to defraud. Therefore, it clearly leads
4 to a collateral argument. Let's forget the financial
5 disclosure form. That's too sensitive an issue in light of
6 where we're at in the trial. Let's deal with one that's
7 easier. Wright's responsibility is the SEC disclosure
8 requirements. The same issue is there. It's not what the
9 disclosure requirements are or are not. It's did somebody
10 do something to subvert them. And if so, is that any
11 evidence of an intent to defraud. That's the only basis
12 upon which the evidence could be admitted. Which is what I
13 meant by limiting instruction. I mean I'm certainly going
14 to tell that jury I think, though I'm not going to prejudge
15 that either until I hear from the parties, because I'm not
16 clear what everybody thinks is at play in this indictment
17 and what isn't, but it's my current belief that it's
18 irrelevant whether somebody violated the SEC or not, but it
19 is relevant to what somebody might have done by way of
20 conduct, statements, or otherwise in that regard as it
21 constitutes evidence of an intent to defraud. Now, how are
22 you going to communicate that to the jury unless they have
23 some fundamental understanding of what you're talking about
24 with the SEC issue? You see? So I'm going to have to be
25 the one to explain it to them. But I'm going to have to

289
1 explain that with a good deal of care. Which is probably
2 going to include an instruction similar to Mr. Bruno is not
3 on trial for having violated any SEC regulation. And that's
4 not the issue you, the jury, are being called upon to
5 decide. I would think that would be part of the instruction
6 I would give them, I would think. I don't want to prejudge
7 it without hearing from the parties. But I am saying
8 there's some sensitivity with all of this. Because you are
9 right, Mr. Lowell, that this trial wraps all those issues
10 very closely. And you got to walk a very fine line. Again,
11 I want to tell you, I was not trying to foreclose your
12 examination yesterday. I was more listening to the witness
13 as he was responding to your question. And it's in this
14 context as I've just described it that I'm walking that very
15 fine line.
16 MR. LOWELL: I understood the last point at
17 the minute that it happened, and I still understand it.
18 THE COURT: Yeah.
19 MR. LOWELL: And, you know, as you've said to
20 all of us, you can control the questions and sometimes you
21 can't control the answers.
22 THE COURT: Precisely. Well, sometimes we
23 don't want to, as Cody Bryant's brother said.
24 MR. LOWELL: Cody Bryant's brother. And then
25 as to the last point, we'll have to have lots of

290
1 conversations about the integration, as you just said, you
2 used your fists on the hands and showed how they were
3 interlocking, which is a very good symbol. It's very hard
4 to figure out on the state ethics disclosure form issue,
5 which is clearly stated in the indictment that's what it's
6 wrapped around, question 4, question 5, question 9, question
7 13, blah, blah, blah. This is what is alleged to, be this
8 is how, you know, Mr. Bruno had both the intent and scheme
9 to defraud. I'm not going to -- last point. Again,
10 Mr. Riddett was there.
11 THE COURT: Never seen -- this case is just
12 marvelous. It really is. 99 times I have the defense
13 arguing there's no way they can -- it's prejudicial to allow
14 them to offer any evidence of some underlying violation.
15 Here, I have exactly the reverse. The defense is saying
16 it's in the indictment, they got to prove it.
17 MR. LOWELL: Well, as you know, Judge, this
18 is -- it's one out of 99 who knows what the Supreme Court
19 will do. But I mean that isn't very much the issue being
20 debated.
21 THE COURT: No because in this case I am the
22 Supreme Court.
23 MR. LOWELL: But don't you think this is the
24 reason why this is being discussed so rapidly? Because, you
25 know, we put forward the proposition that when you are a

291
1 federal official -- I'm sorry -- when you are a state
2 official being charged with a federal crime of honest
3 services, that it has to have an underlying violation of a
4 state law. Plus the mail or the wire.
5 THE COURT: I know. I understand that's your
6 position, and I know you want to re-litigate it, but I've
7 already ruled on it three times, Rybicki, which is the law
8 of this Court, because I am bound as to what that court says
9 in Manhattan because they adopt the majority of the courts
10 in the country which are contrary in your view that you
11 don't have to allege and prove an underlying law and
12 violation.
13 MR. LOWELL: Yes. You have to find the duty
14 exists somewhere in the corners of the State of New York or
15 else we're inventing the obligation of the whole cloth.
16 Let's please not forget that you're thinking whether or not
17 in a perfect world the prosecutors needed to charge this
18 case the way they did. They went to the grand jury with a
19 particular document, they presented that document. If we
20 give credence to the grand jury process, that document meant
21 what it said, and it said you violated the duty of honest
22 services in the following ways. And they not only quoted
23 the Public Officer's Law, they set it out. They didn't just
24 set it out --
25 THE COURT: Can I cut you short?

292
1 MR. LOWELL: -- they put out 4, 5, and 13 --
2 THE COURT: Can I cut you short? You're all
3 beating on a guy who understands the arguments of the
4 parties. No need. As I have said before. And in the end,
5 I'm not ruling on this. In the end, you may win this
6 argument. But not because it's in the indictment. But
7 because the Government opened the door to that in their
8 proof. Which is why I have permitted the breadth and scope
9 of the response I have. That is precisely my point. That
10 barn door is wide open. And so I'm sitting here
11 fundamentally understanding my obligation, which is despite
12 the disputes and the views of the parties, which differ
13 here, ultimately, I think you would all recognize, you won't
14 agree as to what I'm going to say, but you all recognize
15 it's my obligation to say it, which is to tell the jury what
16 the law is. So while you are all free to argue, I got to do
17 it.
18 MR. LOWELL: And the last point.
19 THE COURT: And I know that I've got to do it
20 very carefully here, so far, based upon the evidence I have
21 heard, so that I can very carefully explain to them what
22 relevance it has and what relevance it does not have.
23 Clearly, I accept and understand your view that the
24 Government has alleged that Mr. Bruno violated the honest
25 services statute by engaging in a scheme to defraud, and

293
1 they have alleged that he has done that in the following
2 way, one two, three, four, five.
3 MR. LOWELL: Right.
4 THE COURT: And then they have admitted
5 evidence in their case to establish one, two, three, four,
6 five. I have permitted you to respond. It is inevitable
7 that, to one degree or another, for instance, the New York
8 State Public Officer's Law and the SEC is going to have to
9 be the recipient of some instruction I give this jury. And
10 that's what I'm talking about how it's going to be my
11 obligation to craft that very carefully to put it in
12 perspective for them. Because I happen to believe that
13 their lost on the basis of what they argued. I happen to
14 believe their lost.
15 MR. LOWELL: The one last one for me, your
16 Honor, on this subject, and I'm not trying to re-litigate
17 our motion, but as you well pointed out, now it's going to
18 come to how we carefully structure all the arguments we put
19 forward on the motion. You ruled. I get it. We'll see.
20 We have to figure out, they did it one, two, three, four,
21 five, and they've introduced one, two, three, four, five.
22 THE COURT: Sure.
23 MR. LOWELL: And, lastly, because we are
24 getting close to we're going to have to have your decision,
25 with whatever foundation we can lay, we have provided the

294
1 Government with the underlying material to show how other
2 legislators are doing what Mr. Bruno in questions 4, 5 and
3 13 are doing. We've provided a summary chart, because it's
4 voluminous, under Rule 1006. And they know it. We've been
5 talking about. They object to the relevance. That's not a
6 surprise to me. I --
7 THE COURT: Is this another exhibit I've not
8 yet seen that's going to --
9 MR. LOWELL: Well, we just finished compiling
10 it. And I was going to say you have enough homework, but
11 wouldn't it be a good time to give you the summary chart.
12 THE COURT: Go ahead, give me the summary
13 chart. It's better then at 5 of 9 when you're seeking to
14 admit it at 9.
15 MR. LOWELL: We have cleaned up our act. And
16 Mr. Law has the exhibit list.
17 THE COURT: You haven't cleaned up your
18 exhibit act. Because I asked you for 12 A B and C and I
19 didn't get it and I didn't have it.
20 MR. LOWELL: You didn't have it.
21 THE COURT: So revisit your act. But...
22 MR. LOWELL: We will do that.
23 THE COURT: Let me ask with your permission,
24 let me turn to Mr. Thompson. Have you given any thought --
25 I know you don't have the ultimate control over this

295
1 decision, though I can see what gets delegated to where.
2 Have you given any thought to whether you wish to pursue
3 your double hearsay objections in light of what I have said?
4 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. We do want to pursue
5 that just as to the documents that we had identified.
6 THE COURT: I knew you were going to tell me
7 that. Let me tell you why you've preserved that, to
8 preserve any and all error that may be apparent on the
9 record which is apparent. It's all ludicrous in light of
10 the testimony that's come in and you, yourself, have
11 admitted triple, quadruple and five times hearsay, but not
12 over objection. But that having been said, I'll do it. You
13 want me to do it, I'll do it. In that regard, you have
14 enough to do. So at some appropriate time, let me share
15 with the Government what I'm going to want in order to make
16 my final rulings on those exhibits.
17 I'm happy with the rule of completeness. I'm
18 happy with rules with vicarious admissions in furtherance of
19 801(d)(2)(D). I'm happy with a full and fair understanding
20 of the continued application of the business records
21 exception. I'm happy with non-hearsay, though I'm going to
22 want to hear you about non-hearsay. Seems to me that
23 99 percent of what they object to is not hearsay in the
24 first place. And it also duplicates, as I said, 62 other
25 incidents in the record where the same testimony has come

296
1 in, so -- a lot by them.
2 That having been said, there is one thing I
3 want from the Government, and I don't need it until you've
4 rested your case, and that is I would like to know what your
5 view of the conspiratorial agreement is under 801(d)(2)(E),
6 which at least as to one of the offers, you offered
7 alternatively under that basis. So what I will be prepared
8 to do when we reach this issue is to revisit those exhibits,
9 give you my ruling under 801, a pure business record ruling.
10 And then I'll be prepared to tell you under what alternative
11 basis I would have admitted those so that had I permitted
12 the parties to reach those alternatives bases -- basically
13 what I did is I cut you all off after the first one and
14 continued to accept them under that guise, without giving
15 you a fair opportunity to explain to me what alternative
16 bases you might have had for them. All I can share with you
17 is I'll be prepared to give you those rulings. Because I've
18 gone back and looked at the exhibits, I've gone back and
19 looked at the testimony, and I've looked the document that
20 was referenced and what other evidence is on the record
21 related to that. But I'm looking for a recitation under
22 801(d)(2)(E) as to what the scope of the -- or object and
23 scope of the conspiracy is that might -- and it's only
24 related to those documents which are principally related to
25 Wright Investors Services generated materials. It's

297
1 materials generated out of Senator Bruno's operation, and/or
2 union references.
3 Anything further?
4 MR. LOWELL: Just one. I think we would like
5 to discuss some timing issues with you, but I would like to
6 not do it on the record just so that we can, before you
7 leave, get a sense of where things at. You'll understand
8 when -- if you'll give us the minute.
9 THE COURT: So we're done?
10 MR. LOWELL: We're done.
11 THE COURT: Thank you.
12 (Sidebar off the record at 5:32 PM.)
13 (Court adjourned.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

T111809 US V Bruno PM Gluchowski

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T111809 US V Bruno PM Gluchowski

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

230

GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE

2 having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was

3 examined and testified as follows:

4 THE CLERK: Thank you. Please take a seat in

7 THE WITNESS: Okay.

8 THE COURT: You can adjust that microphone,

10 THE WITNESS: Okay. Am I audible?

11 THE COURT: You are.

12 MS. COOMBE: You are.

13 THE COURT: If you're more comfortable

14 sitting back, you can pull that microphone towards you.

15 Whatever you want.

17 MS. COOMBE: Thank you, your Honor.

18 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOMBE:

19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gluchowski.

21 Q. Could you please introduce yourself to the ladies

22 and gentlemen of the jury?

23 A. Hello. I'm Frank Gluchowski, and I formerly

24 worked as the legislative counsel to the Senate majority

25 from 1997 until I retired in on December 30th of 2008.

1 Q. I want to get something straight. How do you

2 pronounce your last name? Because there's been very

5 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Gluchowski, can you tell

6 us about your educational background?

7 A. Yes. I attended law school at St. Johns

8 University and was graduated in 1983. Before that, I

9 studied at New York Institute of Technology, where I got a

11 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier that you had worked for

12 the New York State Legislature.

16 A. That would have been in -- on April 10th of

18 Q. What was your title when you started?

19 A. Well, I was the counsel to the legislative ethics

21 Q. Did your title change while you worked for the

22 legislative ethics committee?

23 A. Yes. At some point after a few years, I don't

24 remember the exact time, I became the counsel and director

25 of the legislative ethics committee.

1 Q. Can you tell us what the legislative ethics

3 A. Yes. It was a bipartisan joint assembly of eight

4 members of the Legislature, meaning there were four

5 Democrats and four Republicans, four from the Assembly and

7 Ethics in Government Act of 1987, when it came into being in

9 the function of the committee was to administer financial

10 disclosure for legislators and employees and candidates for

11 the Legislature and to render advisory opinions on questions

12 asked by the people subject to the committee's jurisdiction

13 and, finally, to investigate complaints made to the

15 Q. You mentioned written advisory opinions. Who

16 drafted those opinions while you were at the committee?

17 A. Well, for the first few years, the initial draft

18 was by subordinate employee named Barry Weinstein, but I

19 don't think Barry stayed more than a couple of years. And

20 then I drafted the opinions and the opinions that Barry

21 drafted initially, I approved and reworked. They were

22 ultimately my responsibility to present to the committee.

23 And then at committee meetings, the committee would

24 sometimes change the advice or sometimes they approved it

25 just as it was presented.

1 Q. Were those opinions available to the public?

2 A. No, they were not.

3 Q. Were they available to other senators?